ML20206J770
| ML20206J770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1988 |
| From: | Trout J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206J775 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7536 OL, NUDOCS 8811290118 | |
| Download: ML20206J770 (85) | |
Text
y 9
i
+i ,...i' pgn contw.st3LNPWA O
'89 cc 21 P5 :35 November 15, 1988 t f r# y at i d Vif.[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAA REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency
) Planning Isoues)
)
APPLICANTS' MESPONSE TO MASSACHUSETFS ATFORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S IKYrION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST CERTAIN DISCOVERY REQUESTS CONCERNING JOINT INTERVENOR CONTENTIONS .1.-63 On October 31, 1983, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massac.nusetts ("Mass AG") filed a document styled as "Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Objections to Applicants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Concerning Joint Intervenor Contentions 1-63 and Motion for Protective Order" (the "Motion"). The Motion contains two general and 81 specific objections to Applicants' discovery requests, and asks this Board to enter a protective order pursuant to each of these 8911290110 801115 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O PDit
i J
83 objections. For the reasons stated below, Applicants respectfully urge the Board to ding Mass AG's motion in all its four-score respects.1 I. GENERAL OIL 7ECTIONS General Obiection it The Mass AG objects to any interrogatories and the production of any documents to the extent that they call for the exposure of attorney-client communications or work-product as described by 10 C.F.R. I 2.740.
Aeolicants' Resconser Mass AG does not describe what documents or comuunications he asserts are privileged. Indeed, he does not even indicate what interrogatories fall within the scope of the privileges asserted. With regards to work product, since Mass AG fails to identify the material he seeks to protect, he summarily denies Applicants the opportunity accorded to them, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.740(b) (2) , to show a "substantial need" for the material that outweighs the claim of privilege.
In effect, Mass AG asks the Board for a "blank check" protective order that would permit Mass AG to withhold any 1 However, Mass AG also seems to seek, in the Motion, to withdraw the following contention bases as being too vague to litigate JI Contention 27 Bases C and F; JI Contention 35 Basis Dr JI Contention 45 Basis O. (Each of these bases was originally submitted by Mass AG.) To the extent that the Motion seeks to withdraw these bases, Applicants concur with it, and urge that that relief be granted Mass AG.
e J
and all information that he later deems, in his own unreviewed discretion, to be privileged. Such a request is wholly inconsistent with the requirement of 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(c) that "good cause" be shown before a protective order be entered. Accordingly, Mass AG's demand for a blank check should be denied.
General Obiection 2:
The Mass AG objects to production of the requested documents at the location requested and instead will make them available for inspection at the office of the Mass AG and/or at the locations at which the documents are normally kept and in the manner in which they are retained in the usual course of business.
Aeolicants' Reznonse Applicants frankly are perplexed as to what Mass AG seeks in h,ts second "General objection". Applicants have engaged in extensivo negotiations with Mass AG, both before and after the filing of the Motion, concerning the mechanics of document production. Applicants believed that they had reached an agreement with Mass AG to the effect that:
(1) Applicants would inspect the documents in the office of the Mass AG, beginning no later than December 191 (2) Mass AG would organize and produce the documents by request numbert and (3) for certain extremely large documents, such as the emergency plans for the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants, Applicants would inspect the documetats at the state civil defense headquarters in J
Framingham. If Mass AG merely seeks a Board order enforcing that agreement, Applicants would nnt object.
On its face, however, Mass AG's objection seems to seek much more. Despite the extraordinary extension of time which Mass AG has been given, expressly so that he could collect and organize these documents, he paw seems to ask that Applicants be forced to go from office to office throughout the state, reviewing at each location a disorganized mass of documents. Mass AG makes no showing whatsoever that the imposition of this enormous burden on Applicants is necessary or reasonable. Nor does he even attempt to reconcile his '
demand with the various represcu?ations that he made to the Board during the November 2, 1988 status conference. To the extent that Mass AG seeks more than the concessions that he has already wrung from Applicants, therefore, his request should be denied.
II. OELTECTIONS TO INTERROGATOkIES ON JI CONTENTIONS 1-26
&policants' Interrocatory 13 please produce all training curricula and training manuals used to provide traffic control training to "State / local professionals" working within the Massachusette, EPZ within the last five years.
obiection to Interroostory 13:
The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on tne grounds that the five-year time period is overly broad,
_4
0 W
unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the dis:overy of admissible evidence.
Aeolicants' Responset Mass AG does not object to producing the requested training curricula and manuals, but only the doing so for the full period of the last five years. He does not substantiate in any way, however, his claim that the time period is "overly broad" and "unduly burdensome". We are not told, for example, how often training courses are offered, how frequently the manuals are changed, or even how many documents fall within the terms of the request. In short, Mass AG's bald assertion of burden does not comply with this Board's requirement that a motion for a protective order be i
pled "with specificity" and "based on factual and legal l
l grounds specifically set forth". Memorandum (Discoverv l
Motions) at 3 (October 16, 1988).
Mass AG's claim that the time period is "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" is similarly defective. Mass AG offers no factual basis whatsoever that would indicate that a request covering a shorter time period would reach all or most of the relevant documents. Moreover, some extended time period clearly la necessary to teveal changes in training, thereby highlighting areas of difficulty and improvement that could be relevant to Intervenors' SPMC traf fic control contentions. Indeed, for comparative purposes, a five-year period would seem somewhat short rather than too long. Given the reasonableness and relevance of Applicants' request, and Mass AG's failure to make any factual showing of good cause for limitation, this facet of the protective order request should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 43 Please define the following terms used in CON Contention 6 (a) "staging of TCP equipment";
(b) "readily available";
(c) the time period covered by "the advent of a radiological emergency";
(d) "other transports".
Obiection to Interrocatory 43 The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 43 on the grounds that it seeks the definition of terns used in CON Contention 6 which contention has been superceded by the language of JI 4.
Aeolicants' Responset
' Mass AG objects to defining certain terms used by Intervenors in their original contentions. However, since Mass AG has not yet filed his answers to Applicants' interrogatories, or produced the requested documents, we cannot know whether Mass AG will use some or all of those terms in his answers, or will produce documents using those te rms . Accordingly, Mass AG's request for a protective order as to this interrogatory is at best premature, and should be denied at this time.
Acolicants' Interroaatory 137 Do Intervenors assert that there are circumstances for which, following beach closure at the Site Area Emergency classification, greater dose savings would be achieved by an instruction to the transient beach population to shelter rather than evacuate? If so, please describe in detail all such circumstances, and state all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interroaatory 137t This interrogaton is overly broad and without more parameters "111 such circumstances" cannot be described in detail.
Aeolicants' Resnonset Interrogatory 137 asks two questions. The first calls for Mass AG to state whether or not Intervenors make a certain assertion. The question, by its very terms, encompasses any parameters that the Intervenors may wish to contemplate. The second question then asks Mass AG for the facts underlying the answer to the first question. Again, it is for Mass AG to choose his own parameters, since the question covers any "circumstances" envisioned by Intervanors.
Mass AG's objection is disingenuous at best. Clearly Intervenors had some "parameters" in mind when they made the assertions contained in their SPMC contentions. Applicants, however, do not know what those "parameters" are, which is why Applicants asked this question (and others like it). For e'
Mass AG to demand that Applicants supply the parameters contemplated by Intervenors is tantamount to demanding that Applicants read Mass AG's mind and then answer the interrogatory for him. The Board should reject Mass AG's absu.d demand.
Applicants' Interroaatorv 141 Please state all the facts, and describe in detail the regulatory basis (if any), underlying Intervenors' assertion that "skin and car deposition" and groundshine must be considered in protective action decision making. Please also describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to, how these factors are considered (if at all) in protective action decision making at the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants.
Obiection to Interroaatory 141:
Mass AG objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and therefore cannot reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Mass Ag objects on grounds of relevance to that portion of the interrogatory that seeks information regarding protective action decision-making at the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe and Vermont nuclear power plants.
Acolicants' Rennonsul Mass AG fails to indicate what aspect of the interrogatory is purportedly objectionable as seeking "a legal conclusion". Agein he fails to comply with the Board's requirewent that a motion for protective order be pled "with specificity". Kemorandum (Discovery Motionw) at 3 (October 26, 1988). Moreover, an interrogatory which merely seeks the basis for an intervanor's contention is by definition unobjectionable. Pennsylvania Power & Licht.C,omDany I
~
l t
(Susquehana Steas Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 JRC 317, 339 ("A litigant may not make serious allegations against another party and then refuse to reveal whether those allegations have any basis."),
i-Mssa AG's relevance objeciten, although marginally more specific, is likewise unsupported by uny facts or explanation, and thus fails to comply sith the Board's f
requirements for discovery motions. Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A cowparison of how the factors cited by Intervanors are used to formulate PARS for other emergency -
planning zones in Massachusetts (i.e. the Pilgrim, Yankee L
~
Rowe, and Vermont Yankee EPZs) clearly is relevant to whether and how these factors should be used for Seabrook Station.
Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to f other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI contention 10.2 Such comparisons, if (
t relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when [
made by Applicants. Accordingly, this facet of Mass AG's l l request for a protective order should be denied.
l l Aeolicants' Interroaatory 142 i Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the SPMC's decision criteria for calculating 2 Moreover, Mass AG does not object to the televancy l
of numerous other interrogatories about Pilgrim, Rowe, and l
i Ve rmont . Thus, even if the objection were proper, Mass AG seems to have waived it.
9
thyroid shelter assumes an air exchange rate that is too high." Please also state what Intervenors assert vould be the appropriate air exchange rate to use, and state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying that assertion.
Obiection to Interrocatory 142:
See General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resconses Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. Itowever, he does not provide evea
- the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks sumnarily
. to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' InterE2gatorv 143 Please specify by category each type of structure considered by Intervenors in determining the appropriate air exchange rate for Massachusetts EPZ protective action decision making, state the percentage of the total number of permanent structuros in the Massachusetts EPZ vithin each category, and state all the f acts, estimates, and observations underlying your answer.
I
Qhig,etion to Intarroaatory 1(13 f see General objection 1.
Annlicants e Rannonaat Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what pr tilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covet ed by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadinge thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery notions, and his request for a protective ceder as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Annlicants' Interroaatory 144 Do InterY sors assert that PAR decision criteria should take intu accer'nt exposures other than whole body and thyroid exposure? ? ,o, please state all the facts, and describe in detail the regulatory basis (if any), underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interrogatorv 144:
Mass AG objects to this interrogatory to the extent it aalls for a legal conclusion and therefore cannot reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and also on the grounds set forth in General objection 1.
Annlicants' Reanonset Mass AG's claim of some unspecified privilege once again is far too general to be accepted. Likewise, he again fails
to indicate what aspect of the interrogatory is purportedly objectionable as seeking "a legal cont u ion". An interrogatory which merely seexs the basa -
an intervenor's contention is by definition u > actionable.
Feansylvania Po'<or & Licht Comoany (Susquehana Steam Electric
> Station, Urt!.ts 1 and 2) , ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317,. 339 ("A litigant may not make serious allegaticis against another party and then refuse to reveal whether those allegations have any basis."). This prong of the request for a protective order should ba denied.
Acolicants' Int 6rroaat7ry 145 Please state all the f acts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the entrapment phenomenon described by NUREG 1210, V.4 at 19-20 . . . will occur at the Seabrook site during times of high beach population, and define "times of high beach population."
Obiection to Interrocatory 145:
See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resconse l
l Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even l
the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.74 0 (b) (2) , to attempt to ovarcome the privilege if it is
rc shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicant.5' Interroaatory 151 Please describe in detail the dose assessment programs and protective action decision procedure (s) utilized by the Massachusetts Depat;uent 4 of Public Health for the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants. Such description should include, but not be limited to:
- a. the results of the most recent FEMA graded exercise evaluation of these procedures for each plant;
- b. a description of how the procedures consider impediments to evacuation;
- c. a description of how the dose assessment program (s) estimate doses from iodine and other groundshine, skin and vehicle depositions
- d. a description of how the procedures consider shelter first, rapid identification of hot spots, and relocation later as a PAR;
- e. a description of how meteorological data is considered;
- f. a description of the specific meteorological assumptions made for each site; and
- g. a description of how and when meteorological data is input and updated into the dose assessment program (s).
Please state all the facts underlying your description.
Obiection to Interroaatory 151:
Mass AG objects to this interrogatory seeking information regarding protective action decision procedures for the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants on grounds of relevance.
Aeolicants' Resoonse:
Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by an-facts or explanation, and thus fails to comply with the
Board's requirements for discovery motions. Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the programs and proceduren used by the Commorwwalth for Pilgrim, Yankso Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand, and those used by Applicants for Seabrook Stas'on, on the other, clearly is relevant to Mass AG's assertion that the Applicants' programs and procedures are inadequate. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI Contention 10.3 Such comparison, if relevant when made by Interveners, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this iriter rogatory.
Aeolicents' Interroaatory 152 Please state all the facts, cther than those discussed in responce to the preceding interrogatories, underlying
' Intervenors' assertion that "the SPMC's decision-making criteria.for selecting a sheltering as opposed to an evacuation PAR is (sic) inadequate and inaccurate."
I. Please state all the i: acto, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the SPMC dees not establish or describe coherent decision criteria to be used by emergency decision-makers in formulating an appropriate PAR and i otherwise fails to provide guidelines for the choice of protective actions consistent with federal policy," and define "coherent" and "federal policy."
l I
i 3 Ega supra note 2.
l ,
l l
i J
I l
4 Obiection to Interroaatory 152:
See response to Interrogatory No. 144.
Abolicants' Response Mass AG's objection makes no sense. Interrogatory 152 asks for-the facts underlying a particular assertion in JI contention 18. Facts are not, by definition, "a legal conclusion." Nor are facts "attorney-cif. ant communications or work product." This facet of Mass AG's request for a protective order should therefore be rejected as unfounded as well as fatally unspecific.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 163 Please identify the person (s) who gave "local officials" to "understand that the ETEs in the SPMC were calculated using incorrect assumptions about notification times, beach population, times to staff traffic posts, an 'early beach closing', and traffic orderliness." Describo in detail every communication in which this understanding was conveyed to "local officials", identify the "local officials" involved in each communication, and produce every document that reflects or refers to any and/or all of those comaunications.
Obiection to Interroaatory 163:
See General Objection 1. In addition, Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Acolicants' Resoonset f
In JI Contention 22, Intervenors assert that
! "Massachusetts state and local decision makers will always reject any immediate implementation of ORO's protective s _ _ _ _ - _ - ,,_
action recummendations" because those officials have been given to understand that ".he ETEs in the SPMC were calculated using incorrect assumptions." Interrogatory 163 merely asks Mass AG to substantiate that assertion by describing and documenting the communications which produced this alleged decision. Fat from being "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence",
the interrogatory directly seeks what is probably the most probative possible independent evidence of the truth or falsehood of the assertion.
Nor can Mass AG hide this evidence under the cloak of some unspecified and unsubstantiated privilege. Intervenors themselves put into issue the question of these officials' "understanding". Any privilege that might otherwise have existed was waived by the filing of t'..a contention. In short, Mass AG has a choico -- answer the interrogatory and produce the documents, or withdraw the contention which is based squarely on these facts and documents. In either caso, no protective order should issue as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 17P Please define "timely" and "effaccive" as used in JI Contention 26, Basis D, and describe in detail the regulatory basis (if any) for those definitions.
Obiection to Interroaatory 178:
Mass AG objects to this interrogatory to the ext 3nt it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
1.
Aeolicants' Resoonse:
It surpasses belief that an interrogatory asking an intervenor to define the key terms used by that intervenor in its contention should be deemed objectionable, cf.
Egnpsvivania Power 6 Licht comoany (Susquehana Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 339-340. This prong of the request for a protective order should be denied.
III. OlkTECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES ON JI CONTENTIONS 6, 27-63 Aeolicants' Interrocatory 1 Please produce all analyses, studies, and reports bearing on any and/or all of the factual issues raised in Joint Intervenor Contentions 27-63.
Obiection to Interrocatory 1:
See General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.7 40 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's 'equirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
62plicants' Interroaatory 2 In each case where one of the following interrogatories asks for "all the facts" or "all the facts, estimates, and obrarvations," please also identify the person (s) and/or documents that are the source (s) of those facts, estimates, and/or observations, and produce all documents that reflect, concern, refer or pertain to any and/or all of those facts, ectimates, and observations.
Obiection to Interrocatory 2 See General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resconse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 0. 740 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass A3's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Acolicants' Interroaatorv 3 Please identify the person (s) answering or substantially contributing to the answer to each of the following interrogatories. Please also identify all persons consulted, and identify and produce all communications and documents I consulted and/or relied upon, in answering each i interrogatory, j l
1 ghiection to Interroaatory 3:
See General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonse Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
la.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is
(
shown to apply. Mass AG's barcat of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 6 Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the liaisons fail to establish any organizational or communicational link between the ORO and the local organization (sic) which are relied upon to pertorm
(
certain emergency activities," and list all of those "certain emergency activities."
Obiection to Interrocatorv 6:
See General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Renconse: ,.
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is 2sserted, what the L
grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny' Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b).(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is j shown to apply.* Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings
- thus fails.to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Acolicants' Interrocatorv 7 i.
Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "other EPZ towns will not be able to provide such assistance."
Obiection to Interroaatorv 7:
See General objection 1.
Acolicants' Resoonse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even ,
the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the ;
I grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
+
5 2. 74 0 (L) (2 ) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is snown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 8 Please describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to, all mutual aid and all Hazmat Division agreements which exist to support law enforcement, fire and rescue, and/or snow removal capabilities in Amesbury, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury, and West '
Newbury, including (but not limited to) any agreements under which support is available from any other municipal, county, state, and/or federal source.
Obiection to Interrocatorv 8:
See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resconses Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory sceks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.74 0 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for
-?l-
discovery motions, and his requent for a protect 4 order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 12 Please describe in detail all of the "particular established routines existing in these (Massachusetts EPZ) communities for response to emergencies" that Intervenors assert the SPMC "totally ignores", and state, for each such routine, whether the routine would be followed in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station. Please also state all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interrocatory 12:
What routines "would be followed" depends to a great extent on the nature and extent of the emergency. As worded, the interrogatory is too vague and cannot be answered.
Aeolicants' Resoonse:
Mass AG claims that the word "emergencies", as used in the intorrogatory, is "too vague and cannot be answered."
However, that word is taken verbatim from JI contention 27 4 asis C, and is expressly defined to have the same meaning as Intervenors assigned it in that contention. ERA "Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to All Intervenors and Participating Local Governments Concerning Joint Intervenor Contentions 6 and 27-63" at 5
("In case of doubt as to the intended scope of an interrogatory or request, it should be assumed that the request or interrogatory encompasses all information and material within the scope of the referenced contention.")
J
l
. l In effect, Mass AG is arguing that Basis c of JI Contention 27 is too vague to litigate. Applicants welcome this admission by Mass AG, and concur in his seeming attempt to strike one of his own bases. If the Board too agrees that the quoted portion of the contention is too vague to litigate, it should moot the problem by accepting Mass AG's seeming withdrawal of Basis C. If, on the other hand, the language is not too vague to litigate, it is not too vague for Mass AG to answer concerning it. The "nature and extent of the emergency" would be no more -- and no less -- than contemplated in the contention. In either case, Mass AG's request for a protective order as to this interrogatory is baseless and should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 14 Please describe in detail how, why, and in accordance with what criteria the Commonwealth would withhold authorization as to some but not other "emergency response activities" by ORO, as asserted by Intervenors in JI Contention 27 ~, asis F. Please also state all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interroaatory 14:
This question is too vague and does not pcovide a
, sufficient situational context to be answered.
Aoulicanta' Resoonse:
Interrogatory 14 expressly asks Mass AG to answer in light of the "situational context" envisioned by Intervenors in JI Contention 27 Basis F. If that "situational context" l
is "too vague", then the Basis is too vague to litigate.
Once again Mass AG seems to be asking the Board to strike one of his own bases, and once again Applicants would concur in that result. If, however, the Board finds that the Basis is not "too vague", Mass AG must answer the interrogatory. No protective order as to this interrogatory should issue.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 23 Please describe in detail all the specific purpcses for which Intervenor; assert that ORO "emergency field personnel" need a "lateral network of communications directly linking" them to each other, and identify all "emergency field personnel" whom Intervenors assert have that need. Please e also state all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to ,Interrocatory 23:
See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resconse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even t.e slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
- 12. 74 0 (b) (2 ) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus falls to comply with the Board's requirements for l
discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 25 Were Massachusetts state and/or local government officials contacted by the FCC concerning any NHY-ORO application for use of the State and local government emergency radio frequencies referred to in JI Contention 32?
If so, please describe in detail, and produce c11 documents that reflect or refer to, any and/or all such contacts. This description should 4.nclude, but not be limited to:
(a) the identity and title of all state and local officials contacted; and (b) the statements made by each state and local official to the FCC in response to the FCC's inquiry.
Qbipction to Interrocatory 25 See General objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. Houever, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, wnat the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegtdly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilegc if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
r Aeolicants' Interroaatory 26 Please describe in detail how the following would normally communicate emergency information to Massachusetts state and/or local government entities:
(a) Massachusetts businesses and private citizens; (b) other Massachusetts state or local government entities; (c) government entities of other states; (d) businesses and private citizens of other states; (e) the federal government, and all agencies thereof.
If Intervenors assert that the answer varies depending upon the nature of the omergency, then each type of emergency should be described separately. Please also state all the facts underlying your answer. If a communications network is used, produce all documents that describe, reflect, or refer to that network.
Obiection to Interroaatory 26:
See General Objection 1.
Applicants' Resconse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 7 4 0 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Masc AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request ,for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
e l'
4 J
)
Aeolicants' Interr2gatory 29 Please describe in detail the factual and regalatory basis (if any) for Intervenors' assertior,that "insufficient i provisions exist for verification of the Massachusetts l Governor's authorization of ORO to activatePlease and broadcast also state over the EBS, and define "insufficient".
all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interroaatory 29:
See General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' ResceJ13.g:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.7 4 0 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is ,
shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
ADD 11 cants' Interrocatory 31 Please describe in detail all instances in which any Massachusetts EBS stati.in was activated by a non-governmental entity. This description should include, but not be limited to (a) the date of each instance; (b) the identity, business addcass, and business
~ _ _ _ _ . - . . _ __ _ _ _ _ __
y r) telephone ' number of each EBS station activated in each instance; (c) the identity of the non-governmental entity that raquested EBS activation in each instance; (d) a detailed description of all procedures (if any) used to "verify authorization", for each station in each instance; and (e) the reason (s) for activation in each instance.
Please also produce all documents that reflect or refer to any and/or all such instances. l l
Obiection to Interroaatorv 31:
The Mass AG objects tc this interrogatory because it seeks information which is not relevant to this contention.
Annlicants' Resnonset JI contention 33 asserts that only federal or state officials may activate the EBS network in Massachusetts.
Interrogatory 31 asks for instances when non-governmental entities have activated that network. Clearly the interrogatory seeks information that is relevant to 9.he contention. Ir. deed , evidence that entities other than state or federal agencies have activated the system would seem to be the most probative possible factual evidence going to the contention. Mass AG's request for a protective order l accordingly is without a basis (as well as being wholly l unspecific and unsubstantiated), and should be denied.
I hpgjicants' Interroaatory 32 Please state all the facts, other than those discussed in the response to the preceding interrogatories, and i
describe in detail the regulatory basis (if any), underlying Intervenors' assertion that "federal EBS regulations . . .
makes (sic) no provision for third party -etivation as envisicned by the drafters of the SPMC."
Obiection to Interroaatory 32:
See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resoonse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv SA Please identify all "state and local governments" whom Intervenors assert fall in the category of "non-participating." Explain in detail exactly why and how Intervenors assert that Applicants are supposed to "coordinat(e) emergency messages" with each such government.
Please also state all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interrocatorv 50:
See General objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resconsgi Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covared by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 74 0 (b) (2 ) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
ADolicants' Interrocatorv 52 Please describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to (including but not limited tc mil FEMA, RAC, and/or internal reviews and/or critiques), all EP3 messages relied upon by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for use in a radiological emergency at the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankt e nuclear power plants.
obiection to Interroaatory 52:
Irrelevant. See also Genersi objection 1.
hD211 cants' Resconse Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provida even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly
s covered by the privilege. At the same time, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions.
Likewise, Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or explanation, and so fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions. Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the EBS messages relied on by the commonwealth for Pilgrim, Ynnkee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand, and those used by Applicants for Saabrook Station, on the other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that Applicants' ET;S messages are inadequate. Indeed, Mass AG himself sceks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI contention 10.4 Such t
comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should bn denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interrocatorv 53 f l
Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that the "SPMC provides no adequate procedures for insuring that the emergency messages broa6 cast to the public 4 Sit 3.upI_a note 2.
1-l J correlate with the messages and information provided to the i
, media by the NHY ORO and other officials," and define i- "adequate", "insuring", and "correlate". Please also list ,
all "other officials" within the meaning of JI contention 35 i Basis D, and describe in detail what "messages and l information" each such official would "provide to the media." ;
Ie obiection to Interroaaterv 53:
That part of the interrogatory which seeks a description "in detail" of what messages and information officials would provide to the media is speculative in the absence of the details of a specific radiological event, and it is therefore ,
objected to as being impossible to answer and calling for speculation.
l Acolicants' Resnonse:
Interrogatory 53 calls upon Mass AG to identify the l "officials" and describe the "messages and information" that [
Intervenors allude to JI Contention 35 Basis D. The terms e are Intervenors' , not Applicants', and thus it makes no sense ,
for Applicants to try to read Intervenors' minds and supply [
"the details of a specific radiological event" contemplated by Intervenors when they draf ted the contention. [
t By arguing that the interrogatory is "speculative" and ;
"impossible to answer", Mass AG seems to be admitting that !
f Basis D is too vague to litigate. Applicants would agree to this seeming attempt by Mass AG to withdraw Basis D, and would be content if the Board accepts that withdrawal as a way to moot the problem. If, on the other hand, the Board finds that Basis D is sufficiently specific to litigate, then Mass AG should answer, using whatever "details of a specific ,
t l
i P
tr--w-w*+, --w-Cywwvvyw -
y ww n -y,w-
radiological event" Intervenors include in their contention.
In either case, no protective order should issue.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 54 Please describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to (including, but not limited to all FEMA, RAC, and/or internal reviews and/or critiques), all procedures for public information coordination to be used in connection with a radiological emergency at the Pilgrim, vermont Yankee, and Yankee Rowe nuclear power plants.
Obiection to r.icerroaatory 54:
Sec General objection 1.
Aonlicantu' Response Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 74 0 (b) (2 ) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interrocatorv 55 Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "no guidance or training is provided this individual on the essential components of an effective emergency message." Please state what Intervenors assert are i
all of the "essential components of an effective emergency message", define "effective", and state all the facts
, underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interrocatory 551 Sec General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonset Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 74 0 (b) (2 ) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 56 please describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to, the "guidance or training . . .
provided . . . on the essential components of an effective emergency message" relied upon by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants.
Obiection to Interroaatorv 56:
See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Response!
Apparcntly Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome che privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings chus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 60 P) ease describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to, the "procedures for coordination with the news media" relied upon by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the event of radiological emergencies at the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants.
Obiection to Interrocaterv 60:
See General objection 1.
Aeolicants' Response:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilegs. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b) (2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied. f Acoligants' Interrocatory (1 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Intervenors' assertion that media briefings "should involve full use of experts and visual and graphic ,
aids to convey technical information in an understandable manner," and define "should" and "full."
Obiection to Interroaatorv 67:
See General Objection 1, especially with respect tc "estimates, and observations."
Acolicants' Resoonset Mass AG obviously intends to rely on the requested "facts, estimates, and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would I i be fundamentally unfair to Applicants for Mass AG to be '
allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it j I
in some unspecified and unsubstantiated "privilege". For i that reason, as well as for Mass AG's failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this prong of the f protective order request should be denied.
1
Acolicants' Interroaatorv 69 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Intervenors' assertion that "information can not (sic) be effectively communicated to the public unless public information staff are (sic) fully informed of developments and have access to technical experts capable of addressing areas of uncertainty," and define "effectively" and "access."
Obiection to Interrocatorv 69:
As
- o estimates and observations," see General objectics 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonse Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified i
"estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
Aeolicants' Interrocatorv 70 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Intervanors' assertion that "any plan which does not recognize the public's extraordinary appetite for i information, and does not specifically assign a role in information preparation and dissemination to technicians and experts in (sic) inadequate," and define "recognize", l "specifically assign," "technicians", "experts", and "inadequate."
Obiection to Interrocatory ",Q :
As to "estimates and observations," see General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resconse:
Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to appl.' cants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroca'ip. G Please describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to, the "procedures for rumor control during an emergency" relied upon by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Pilgrim, Yankt e Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nucleare pcwer plante.
Obiection to Interroaatorv 71:
See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Rescotise Apparently Mass AG claims that this inte:.;gatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is ,11egedly
.. i
. I t
covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily l to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$2.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is f
- shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings ,
i' thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for !
discovery motions, and his request for a protectivs order as ;
j to this interrogatory thould be denied.
I i
Anolicants' Interroaatorv 73 Please state how many "thousands of transients who !
frequent the Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook EPZ" (
. Intervenors assert will not have "available to them either '
l' prior to or at the time of an emergency any information [
concerning the methods and times required for notification, :
the protective actf.ons planned, the nature and effects of l radiation or a list of sources of additional information," !
j and define "available." PleLue also state all the facts, l j estimates, and observations underlying your answer. ,
I
)
Obiection to Interroaatorv 73: l
! As to "estimates and observations," see General !
) Objection 1. ;
1 !
l Aeolicants' Resnonset f.
l Mass AG obviously intends to rely on thesa unidentified j "a ,.2- . 95 and observations" in order to make his case as to ti.!: . v. - ntion. In light of that fact, Jt would be f 1
i I
fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed {
to immunizo his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some f L
unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his !
3.
' i failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, f I i 5 ,
l h j l
- i 1
I
- , , - - - ~ _ - , . - , - . - , . , . , - . - _ _ .,,--,---.---,r
. )
this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
Aeolicants' Interrocatorv J1 l
Please describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to (including but not limited to all FEMA, RAC, and/or internal reviews and/or critiques), the "pre-emergency information" relied upon by the Commonwealth for the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants, including (but not limited to) the pre-emergency information" disseminated to the "special needs population" in the EPZ of each of those plants.
Obiection to Interrocatorv 76:
This interrogatory is objected to because it seeks informa;. ion which is not relevant. Also see General Objection 1.
Aonlicants' Resoonse:
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. At the same time, Macs AG seeks summarily to deny Ipplicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 3.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bonen pleadings thus fails to comply with tae Beard's requirements for discovery motions.
P.
Likewise, Mass AG's releva' ace objection unsupported
(
M,q,, by any facts or explanation, and so rails to comply with the p:,v *,
W Board's requirements for discovery motions. Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the "pre-emergency information" relied upon by the Commonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hanf., and that ,
used by Applicants for Seabrook Station, on the other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that Applicants' "pre-ecargency ir.f 7rmation" is inadequate.
Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in J: Contention 10.5 Such comparisons, if !
relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory. l Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 79 Please state whether Intervenors assert that Applicants should include in the "pre-emergency information" a discussion of the fact that "the State and local governments" ;
have refused to protect the health and safety of the public through emergency planning, and that Applicants have had to fill the void left by that abdication of responsibility by ,
"the State and local governments." If not, please describe r in detail what sort of discussion of "the lack of participation in energency planning by the State and local governments" Intervenors assert that Applicants should include. State all the facts, and describe in detail the regulatory basis (if any) underlying your answers.
l I
- 5 EgA supIA note 2.
~41-I
o 4 .
Obiection to Interrottatorv 70:
See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resoonset Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he doas not provida even the slightest clue as to what privilege in asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG reeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pur9uant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privileg3 if it 8.s shown to apply Mass AG's barest of bhre-bones plcadings thus fails to comply with the Board's coquirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory hould be denied.
Acolicants' Interrocatorv 80 please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "no adequate discussion is presented concerning the ORO and the nature of the SPMC as a otility 4
plan, and the relationship (s) during an emergency between the ORO and State and local governments," and dstine "adequate".
- Please also describe in detail what Intervenors assert to be :
"the relationship (s) during an emergency between the ORO and State and local governments" which Intervenars a7 sert that Applicants should describe, and state all the facts underlying your anawer.
l Obiection to Interroaatorv 80 !
See General Objection 1. 6 r
i r
Aeolicants' Resoonset Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what priviluge is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass 'AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 74 0 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 84 i
Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Intervenors' assertion that "most pet owners would be unwilling to leave their pets at home in the event of a radiological emergency and tr.arefore might be discouraged from reporting to reception centers," and define "might" and "discouraged".
Obiection to Interrocatorv 84:
- As to "estimates and observations," see General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resnonses Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to l, this contention. In light of that fact, it would be j
fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed 1 <
to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order requist should also be d nied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 47 Please describe in detail, and quantify, the "many special needs persons" whom Intervenors assart that "the types of [public education) materials to be utilized will not be effective in reaching", define "effective", and state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying your answer. For each type of "materials" and each group of "special needs persons", state all the factu underlying Int e rvenors ' assertion that that type of material "will not be effective in reaching" that group of people, obiection to Interrocatory...S2:
As to "estimates and observations," see General objection 1. The Mass AG also objects to "quantify (ing)"
data for the Applicants or doing any counts er calculations not otherwise in our possession or control.
Acolicants' Resoonset Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundarentally unfair to Applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified and unsubstantiated "privilege".
Intervenors themselves assert that "many" special needs persons will not be r= ached effectively. Having used the term "many" in his contention, Mass AG cannot be heard now to complain when he is asked to quantify what he meant by the term. For that reason too, no protective order should losue as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 89 Please describe in detail in what ways (if any)
Intervenors assert that pre-emergency "preparedness for those who have disabilities" for a radiological emergency would differ from "preparedness" for other types of emergencies such as fires, hurricanes, chemical spills, and blizzards, and state til the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interrocatorv 89:
See General Object!.on 1.
Apolicants' Resconset Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seekn summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.P.. ;
$ 2. 74 0 (b) (2 ) , to attempt to overcome tha privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings I
thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for (
t discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
i i
Aeolicants' Interroaatorv 90 Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the materials have not been designed using channels or methodologies which are appropriate to specific handicap-type (sic)," and define "appropriate". For each "specific handicap" type, describe in detail what "channels or methodologies" Intervenors assert would be appropriate, atid state all the facts underlying those assertions.
Obiection to Interroaatorv 90t See General Objection 1.
Acolicants' Resoonset Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even tho slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grourias for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.7to(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Acolicanys' Interroaatorv 92 please state all the facts, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the information to be made available to the public pursuant to the SPMC prjor to an emergency does not meet the regulatory standards .s set forth at 50.47(b) (7), NUAEG 0654 II.G. and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV. D.2."
Obiection to Interroaatorv 92:
See General objection 1.
Aeolicants' Responset Apparently Mass AG c?. sins that this interrogatory seeks e privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asecrted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what s?terial is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 74 0 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
Acolicants' Interroaatorv 93 Please describe in detail, and produce every document that reflects or refers to (including but not limited to all FEMA, RAC, and/or internal reviews and/or critiques) the I procedures and methods relied upon by the commonwealth of Massachusetts to identify and notify "residents who have special notification needs" in the plume EPZ for the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Varmont Yankwe nuclear power plants.
Obiection to Interrocatorv 93:
Irrelevant. See also General Objection 1.
A2n dcants' Resconse!
Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly cove"lsd oy the privilege. At the same time, Mads AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Roard's requirements for discovery motions.
Likewise, Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any fe. cts or explanation, ar.d so fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions. Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the notification procedures and methods relied upon by the Commonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand, and those used by Applicants for Seabrook Station, on the other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that Applicants' procedures and methods are inadequate. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to coupare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI Contention 10.6 Such comparisons, if relevant i
6 Ett suora note 2.
2 k
when made by Intervanors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
i Acolicants' Interroaatory 101 Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "special equipment should be provided to each household in the Massachusetts EPZ with a deaf or nearly deaf 1 member." Describe this "special equipment" in detail, and list the name(s) and business address (es) of the ,
manufacturer (s) of it. Does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ensure that such "special equipment" is "provided to each household . . . with a deaf or nearly deaf member" in the Massachusetts plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants? If not, explain in detail why not, and state all the facts I
underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interroaatory 101:
As to such special equipment provided in other EPZs, the ,
interrogatory is irrelevant and is therefore objected to.
See also General objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resconser Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks
- privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. At the same time, Mass AG seeks summarily te deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b) (2), to attempt to overcome the privilegs if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones plehdings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions.
Likewise, Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or explanation, and so fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions. Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. It was Intervanors' assertion, after all, that this "special equipment" must be provided.
clearly Intervenors have opened the door, therefore, to the question of whether the commonwealth requires such "special equipment" for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee.
Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massa.:husetts, for example in JI Contention 10.7 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when acde by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Acolicants' Interroaatory 103 Please list all emergency response actions, other than those listed in Basis A.2 and footnote 25 of JI Contention j
44A, which Intervenors assert that NHY-CEO could not legally implement without prior government authorization. For each response action listed in your answer, and for each response l action listed in Basis A.2 and footnote 25, state what government official (s) or entity (ies) could grant such authorization tot (a) NHY-ORO; (b, a foreign corporation; 7
Esa suora note 2.
4
(c) private individuals not residents of Massachusetts; (d) private individuals who are residents of -
Massachusetts; (e) a Massachusetts corporation; (f) a Massachusetts regulated utility, j Please state all the facts underlying your answers. -
Obiection to Interroaatory 102: ,
The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 103 on the ground that it concerns legal contentions which do not
, support discoven. Moreover, the Applicants have sought summary disposition on these matters and the Mass AG will file its response shortly.
Aeolicants8 Resoonse
! Mass AG's objection is baseless, and his request for a protective order should thus be denied. As Mass AG himself has subsequently conceded, discovery la allowed as to JI Contentions 44A and B. Esa Telefax of John Traficonte to tho l Board (hovember 9, 1988), attached hereto as Attachment A.
Nor does Mass AG's response, filed on November 7, to ;
Applicants' summary disposition motion contain any answer to the interrogatory. Having failed to raise any valid objection, Mass AG aust now answer in full, as requested. ,
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 104 i
Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "to the extent New Haspshire Yankee is [
functioning cnly as a ' managing agent' for the Seabrook >
owners then its pledge of itn own resources is suspect," and !
define "suspect".
, , -. -.,..._...---.,_w.-- , ,, . . - - - ,- ,,
Obiection to Interrocatory 104:
The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 104 on the ground that it concerns legal contentions which do not support discovery. Moreover, the Applicants have sought summary disposition on these matt 9rs and the Mass AG will file its response shortly.
Aeolicants' Resoonsg:
Mass AG's objection is baseless, and his requndt for a protective order should thus be denied. Aa Mass AG himself i has subsequently conceded, discovery la allowed as to JI Contentions 44A and B. Egg Telefax of John Traficonte to the Board (November 9, 1988), attached hereto as Attachment A.
l Nor does Mass AG's response, filed on November 7, to Applicants' summary disposition motion contain any answer to the interrogatory. Havii.g failed to raise any valid ;
objection, Mass AG must now answer in full, as requested.
App 11gants' Interroaatory 105 i
Please describe in detail, and produce all documents '
l that reflect or refer to, eve n delegation of emergency response authority to private individuals or entities that has occurred within the last fifty yours pursuant to any and/or all of the following Massachusetts statutes (and/or :
their predecessor statutes):
(a) Special Laws ch. 31, 54; (b) General Laws ch. 48, 510; (c) " "
ch. 4 8, 544At f (d) " "
ch. 90B, 525; j (a) ch. 22, 56; ;
(f) " " ch. 85, ist and (g) " " ch. 31, 548. l I
i I
I' f
l
u Obiection to Interrocatory IQ1 The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 100 on the ground that it concerns legal contentions which do not support discovery. Moreover, the Applicants have sought summary disposition on these matters and the Mass AG will file its response shortly.
Acolicants' Resoonset Mass AG's objection is baseless, and his request for a protective order should thus be denied. As Mass AG himself has subsequently concoded, discovery la allowed as to JI contentions 441. and B. ERA Telefax of eshn Traficonte to the Board (November 9, 1988), attached hereto as Attachment A.
Nor does Mass AG's response, filed on November 7, to Applicants' summary disposition motion contain any answer to the interrogatory. Having failed to raise any valid objection, Mass AG must now answer in full, as requested.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 112 Does every "school" in the Massachusetts portions of the pluta EPTs for the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants have a "echool-specific plan" for radiological emergencies? If so, please produce all such plias. If not, please explain in detail why not, state all the facts underlying your answer, and product copier of all
' generic" or "school-specific" plans that do exist.
Obiection to Interrocatory 112 Irrelevant.
ADolicants' Resoonset Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or explanation whatsoever, and thus fails to comply n - -
7 r
s i i
. i l
with the Board's requirements for discovery motions. . .
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded.- A comparison of the school plans relied on by the Commonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand, and those l i
used by Applicants for seabrook station, on the other, j clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that
{
Applicants' plans are inadequate. Indeed, Mass AG himself !
seeks to compare seabrook Station to other nuclear power l plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI Contention 10.8 such comparisons, if relevant when made by l Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. ,
t Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Applicants' Interroaatory 119 l t
Please state all the facts, estimates, and observatf.cns underlying Intervenors' assertion that "there are more !
students than have been estimated, especially in day care and t nurseries, but also in the schools."
Obiection to Interroaatory litt As to estimates and observations, see General Objection 1.
Annlicants' mannonnes Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as te l this contention. In light of that fact, it would be i
k s las supra note 2.
j l
+ ,
l 1
i 2,---.,--,-,..- _ - . - . . . . , . . . . , . , - , . , , , . . , , . - - , _ . - - . . .,
fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG.to be allowed to immunire his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
Annlicants' Interroaatory 121 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the average capacity of the be.ses has been overestimated."
obiection to Interroaatory 121:
As to estimates and observations, see General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Remnonset Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention, In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evilence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be g denied.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 122 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Intervenors' assertion that the !
"4PMC underestimates the number of school buses that will be neeoad."
Obiwetion to Interroaatory 122t As to estimates and observations, see General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Responset t
Mass AG obvious'.; intends to rely on these unidentified '
"estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some l unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his !
failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, thin facet of the protective order request should also be l 1 denied.
l Aeolicants' Interroaatory 131 Please identify all "schools" in the Massachusetts EPZ .
which Intervenors assert "have no sheltering plan", explain !
in 6etail why they lack such plans, and state all the facts t j underlying your answers.
Obiection to Interrocatory 131: {
j Objection as to "why" schools lack such plans --
irrelevant. l f
-ss- ,
l
Aeolicants' Rehnonset An interrogatory is proper if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the diacovery of admissible evidence.
When judged by that standard, the "why" question clearly is relevant. It may be that these school officials have ,
concluded that they always could and should make a timely evacuation of their school. Alcornatively, or in addition, the school officials may have concluded that sheltering is 4
impossible it. their particular school, for some reason. i Until the question is answered, we simply cannot judge whether the answer will be relevant and admissible.
Accordingly, no protective order should issue as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 137 Please describe in detail the "Ad has transportation scheme (s)" that Intervenors assert "prudent school of ficials
. . . will seek to implement," and state all the facts underlying your answers, i
Obiection to Interroaatory 1373 Any answer would be totally speculative without describing the specific radiological emergency and the situation at the schools, t
ApDlicants' Resoonset Interrogatory 137 asks Mass AG to describe the ,
r "scheme (s)" that Intervenors assert, in JI contention 45 .
Basis o, school officials will implement. The "specifin 1 radiological emergency and the situation at the schools" is whatever Intervenors contemplated them to be in the context of their contention. Applicants cannot read the Intervenors' minds, and so do not know what the "rpec' fic radiological emergency sad the situation at the schools" contemplated by Intervenors would be -- that is why Applicants asked the question. ;
By arguing that the interrogatory calls for an answer that is "totally speculative," Mass AG seems to be admitting that Basis O is too vague to litigate. Applicants would agree to this seeming attempt by Mass AG to withdraw Basis 0, and would be content if the Board accepts that hithdrawal as a way to moot the problem. If, on the other hand, the Beard finds that Basis O is sufficiently specific to litigate, then Mass AG should answer, using whatever "specific radiological emergency and the situation at the schools" Intervenors include in their contention. In either case, no protective order should Jusue.
Apolicants' Interroaatory 138 Please state whether "institution-by-institution evacuation time estimates" exist for the "schools" in Massachusetts portions of the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants. If so, please produce all documents that reflect or refer to any and/or all of those ETEs, and all documents that reflect or refer to the procedures used to calculate them. If not, explain in detail why not.
t
s Obiection to Interroaatory W 1:
Irrelevant.
Aonlicants' Resoonse Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or explanation whatsoever, and thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions. ,
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. It was Intervenors I themselves, after all, who asserted that "institution-by- ;
institution evacuation time estimates" agat be prepared. !
Having made that assertion, Intervenors opened the door to the question of whether the Commonwealth relies on such "institution-by-institution evacuation time estimates for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compara Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI Contention 10.9 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interros 3, Aeolicants' Interroaatory 139 Please provide the following information for all "schools" in the Massachusetts EPZ (d) copies of all documents that reflect or refer to procedures for early dismissal, sr.ow dtys, an<4 school cancellations i Ega supra note 2.
l ..
Obiection to Interroaatory 139fd):
See General Objection 1. >
&RRlicants' Reseensa Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly
? covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily l to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
j 52.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings 2 thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for l 1 L discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as
- to this interrogatory should be denied. !
I t
Anolicants' Interroaatory 142 i
Please state all the facts underlying each of the l following as sertions by Intervenors: ;
(a) "tospital A . . . would be able to provide only .
) five beds at best"; I I
' (b) altospital B has no intention of treating i raidiologically contaminated individuals"; i (c) "Hospital C would only be able to accommodate l approximately ten very severely injured patients", l and define "very severely injured";
(d) "Hospital E has . . 20 (beds] usually available" l and "does not have the facilitLes to handle i radiologically contaminated individuals"; -
(a) ' Hospital F (has] a capacity for 108 beds of which
- are usually f:,lled"; ;
(f) ospital G could accommodate approximately forty i tienta in the evene of an emergency"; .
i
-<-w,- ,-vv, ---rr- - ,
(g) "Hospital H . . . might have approximately ten beds available in the event of an emergency"; and (h) "Hospital I. . . could provide approximately thirty beds."
Obiection to Interrocatory 142:
See General Objection 1.
Aeolicanth' Resconset Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 74 0 (b) (2) , to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thee fails to comply with the Board's requirements for dist:overy motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
ADolicants' Interrocatory 143 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations, other than those discussed in response to the preceding ,
interrogatories, underlying Intervencrs' assertion tt "in the event of an evacuation, the two hotpitals locat within the EPZ have more patients than :an be accommodated by the hospitals with which NHY has reached agreements."
Obiection to Interrocatory 143:
As to estimates and observations, see General objection 1.
Apolicants' Resoonset
~
Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". Por that reason, as well as for his
- failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 144 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Intervenors' assertion that the SPMC "fails to ensure that adequate accommodations will be available for the 4 radiologically injured in the event of an emergency," and define "ensure" and "adequate". Please also describe in detail, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to, the qualifications required fcr Massachusetts host hospitals that are to receive, monitor, and decontaminate patients e transferred from hospitals within the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants.
Obiection to Interroaatory 1441 See General Objection 1. As to qualifications for hospitals whom may receive patients from other EPZs, this interrogatory is objected to on grounds of relevance.
Aeolicants' Resoonser Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even
O O
the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. At the same time, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.T.R. I 2.740(b) (2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if i
it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, t
Likewise, Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or explanation, and so fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions. Moreover, the i objec'. ion is ill-founded. A comparison of the qualifications of the hospitals relied upon by the Commonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the ane hand, and of those relied upen by Applicants for Seabrook Station, on the other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that Applicants' hospitals are not qualified. Indeed, Mass AG ;
himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI ContentioG 10.10 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
10 113 supra note 2.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 145 Plecsa state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that evacuation of the Amesbur; and Anna Jaques Hospitals would take "many hours", and define (with quantification) "many".
Obiection to Interrocatory 145:
objection as to "why not" -- irrelevant.
Aeolicants' Responset Mass AG's objection is a complete nQD A.tggitng. No protective order should issue.
Acolicants' Ynterroaatory 147 Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that the "SPMC has arrangements for an inadequate number of ambulances to evacuate all those who may reasonably need such transportation." Please also state how many people Intervanors assert "may rersonably need such transportation" and what would be an adoq.. e "number of ambulancas," and state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying your answers.
h etion to Intert:ocatory 147 See General Objection 1.
Applicants' Resoonset Apparently Mass AG claims that this intstrogatory seeks privileged information. However, ha does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summsrily to deny Applicants their right, purs' tant to 10 C.F.R.
52.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery actions, and his request for s protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
i i
Acelicants' interroaatory.',LR I
Do Intervenors assert that the Amesbury and Anna Jaques hospitals are not "suitable as shelter in a radiological emergency"? If so, please explain in detail why they assertedly are not "suitable", and state all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interroaatory ligt See General objection 1.
- Aeolicants' Resconse
- Apparently Mass AG claims that this interrogatory seeks privileged information. However, he does not provide even the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the 3
grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily j to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 12.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is l
- shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings ;
thus fails to cosply with the Board's requirements for I
discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as i to this interrogatory should be denied.
I
[
I h
t
Acollcants' Interrocatory 113, Please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the sheltering instructions provided to hospitals by ORO are wholly inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that adequate sheltering measures can and will be taken by hospit31s," and define "adequate". Please also produce copies of the "sheltering instructions" provided to hospitals in the Massachusetts portions of the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants.
Qbiection to Interrocatory 149 Objection on grounds of relevance as to instructions provided to hospitals in other EPZs.
Aeolicants' Resnonset Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or explanation whatsoever, and thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions.
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the sheltering instructions relied upon by the Csamonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand, j and those used by Applicants for Seabrook Station, on the
- other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that 1
Applicants' instructions are inadequate. Having made that assertion, Intervenors opened the door to the question of whether the commonwealth relies on such plans for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power 2 plants located far from Massachusetts, for example in JI i
46-1
L Contention 10.11 Such comparisons, if relevLnt when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant wtw n made by Applicants.
Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protectivo order as ,
to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 152 Please state whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relies upon "site-specific EPZ hospital plans . . . backed up '
with a staff trained in appropriate emergency response actions" for all hospitals within the Massachusetts portions of the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont t Yankee nuclear power plants. If ro, please produce all documents that reflect or refer to such plans. If not,
- explain in detail why not.
Obiection to Interrocatory 1521 Irrelevant.
Aeolicants' Resoonse Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any i
{ facts or explanation whatsoever, and thus fails to comply 4
with tho Board's requirements for discovery motions.
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. It was Intervenors i
themselves, after all, who asserted that "site-specific EPZ ,
hospital plans" anal be used. Having made that assertion, l
i Intervanors opened the door to the question of whether the commonwealth relies on such plans for Pilgria, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to othar nuclear power plants located far i I l 11 ERA supra note 2.
I I
l i
l irom Massachusetts, for example in JI Contention 10.12 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenore, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should he denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interrocatcry 153 Please state all the facts unuerlying Intervenors' assertion that "the SPMC provisions are inadequate with respect to the provisjon of KI to persons in hospitals whose immediare evacuation may be infeasible or very difficult."
Please also produce copies of all procedures for "the provision of KI to persons in hospitals whose immediate evacuation may be infeasible or very difficult" relied upon by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants.
Obiection to Intprrogatory 153 Insofar as this interrogatory seeks copies of such procedures for hospitals in other EPZs it is objected to on grounds of relevance.
Aeolicants' Re spr,u113 3 Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any
",0cs or axplanation whatsoever, and thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions.
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the KI procedures relied upon by the commonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand, and those used by Applicants for Seabrook Station, on the other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion th6t 12 Egg supra note 2.
Applicants' procedures are inadequate. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far fror Massachusetts, for example in JI Contention 10.13 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 154 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations, ott.er than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented for all those persons who are patients in the two hospitals within the Massachusetts EPZ and for those who become injured during the emergency, from radiation contamination / exposure."
obiection te Interrocatory 154:
As to estimates and observations, see General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonsg!
Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, 13 Egg supra note 2, c_
this fac3t of the protective order request should also be denied.
Acolicants' Interroaatory 157 Does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts rely on dtockpiles of KI at the hospitals within the Massachusetts portions of the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants in order to "provide reasonable assurance that KI can and will be distributed and >
administered to patients prior to plume arrival"? If so, '
please produce all documents that reflect or refer t) such stockpiling procedures. If not, explain in detail why not, 1 and produce all documents that reflect or refer to the Commonwealth's policies on the distribution of KI. '
obiection to Interroaatory 157:
Irrelevant.
Aeolicants' Renconse Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or estplanation whatsoever, and thina fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions.
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the stockpiling / distribution procedures relied upon by the Commonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand, and those used by Applicants for Seabrook
, Station, on the other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertior. that Applicants' procedures are inadequate.
Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compara Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants located far from Massachusetts,
for example in JI Contention 10.14 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interreaatory 162 Describe in detail all communications, concerning the special needs survey, which Intervenors and/or any of ficial of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has had with any of the persons and groups identified in response to the preceding three interrogatories, and produce all documents that reflect or refer to any and/or all such communications.
Obiection to Interrocatory 162:
See General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonset Apparently Mass AG claims that this intertogatory seeks privileged information. Howsver, he aves not provide even
, the slightest clue as to what privilege is asserted, what the grounds for the assertion are, or what material is allegedly covered by the privilege. Likewise, Mass AG seeks summarily to deny Applicants their right, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$2.740(b)(2), to attempt to overcome the privilege if it is
, shown to apply. Mass AG's barest of bare-bones pleadings thus fails to comply with the Board's requirements for discovery motions, and his request for a protective order as to this interrogatory should be denied.
, 14 Egg supra note 2.
Aeolicants' Interroaatory 168 Please provide the following information concerning "special needs resident population" data for the Massachusetts portions of the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yanket nuclear power plants:
(a) all procedures used "to identify persons with special needs";
(b) all procedures for protecting the confidentiality of special needs data collected; (c) all "individualized determinations of functional characteristics of special needs persons necessary to cope with a radiological emergency";
(d) all "individuals and organizations", other than "transpcrters during evacuation", identified in advance as "capable of assisting handicapped persons"; and (e) all procedures used to ensure that "the information collected will be validated, updated, or maintained."
Please also produce copies of all procedures requested about, and state all the facts underlying your answers.
Obiection to Interrocatory 168:
Irrelevant.
Aeolicants' Resoonset Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by anj facts or explanation whatsoever, and thus fails to comply I
with the Board's requirements for discovery motions.
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. A comparison of the special needs procedures relied upon by the commonwealth for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Verment Yankee, on the one hand, and those used by Applicants Seabrook Station, on the other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that Applicants' procedures are inadequate. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compare Seabrook Station to other nuclear
i power plants located far from Massachusette, for example in JI Contention 10.15 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 170 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Intervenors' assertion that "the SPMC . . . has not identified all or even most of the special needs resident population, has not sufficiently assured the security of acquired lnformation about special needs individuals, has not a.dequately determined the specific assistance needed by identified individuals to cope with a radiological emergency, has not identifit.d other individuals and organizations capaale of assisting and the type of assistance required, and has no adequate procedures for assuring that this date is periodically validated," and define "most", "sufficiently", "adequately", "adequate",
"periodically", and "validated."
Obiection to Interrocaterv 170:
As to estimates and observations, see General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonse Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his 15 Egg supra note 2.
b failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 175 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Intervenors' assertion that "there are an inadequate number of ambulances and wheelchair vans to transport (home-bound mobility-impaired persons) in a timely fashion," and define "timely".
Qhiection to Interrocatory 175:
As to estimates and observations, see General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resconset Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immuniae his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his fnilure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 183 With regards to the Massachusetts portions of the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants, please provide (rnd oroduce all documents that reflect or refer to) the following fnformations (a) whether "separate protective plans" have been "developed for each of the main categories of
\
,(*
handicapped individuals present in the EP2," and, if not, why nots (b) writher "each handicapped individual who needs assistance Vith preparing to shelter, sheltering, evacuation preparation, travel processing through a reception center, living in a relocation (congregate care) facility, or recovery / reentry" has a "responsible and knowledgeable contact person", "identified in advance", to "provide communication and physical assistance," and, if not, why nots (c) whether "the non-functional and emotionally disturbed" would have, during an evacuation, "the assistance of trained staff on a one-to-one or other appropriate ratio," and, if not, why nots (d) whether "a special area" is set aside "for registering, monitoring, and decontamination of the mentally and emotionally disturbed," and, if not, why nott (e) whether "responsible otaff" would "remain with each mentally or eactionally impaired homebound person throughout the reception and recovery / reentry phases," and, if not, why not; and (f) what provisions have been made for "offering of KI" to "mentally and emotionally impaired homebound persons."
Obiection to Interroaatory 183t Irrelevant.
Annlicants' Rannonnat Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any facts or explaration whatsoever, and thus fails to comply with the BoaEd's requirements for discovery actions.
Moreover, the objection is ill founded. A comparison of the protective action plans relied upon by the Commonwealth for Pilgria, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee, on the one hand,
) and those used by Applicants for Seabrook Station, on the
! other, clearly is relevant to Intervenors' assertion that 4
7 Applicants' plans are inadequ,.te. Indeed, Mass AG himself seeks to compara Seabrook Station to otuer nuclear power plants, for example in JI Contention 10.16 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be denied a protective order as to this interrogatory.
Aeolicants' Interrocaterv 187 Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlyir.: Tntervenors' assertion that "not all the special facilities have been identified or listed in the SPMC."
Please also list the name and address of all "special facilities" which Intervanors assert "have (not) been identified or listed in the SPMC."
Obiectier to Interrocatory 187:
As to estimates and observations, see General Objection 1.
Aeolicants' Resoonset Mass AG obviously intends to rely on these unidentified "estimates and observations" in order to make his case as to this contention. In light of that fact, it would be fundamentally unfair to applicants for Mass AG to be allowed to immunize his evidence from scrutiny by cloaking it in some unspecified "privilege". For that reason, as well as for his failure to plead with the specificity required by the Board, this facet of the protective order request should also be denied.
16 Egg supra note 2.
i Acelicants' Interroaatory lag, Please state whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts '
relies upon "facility-specific plans for each special '
facility" in the Massachusetts' portions of the plume EPZs of the Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power ,
plants. If so, produce copies of all such plans. If not, !
explain in detail why not.
Obiection to Interroaatory 1898 i
Irrelevant. -
Aeolicants' Raseense Mass AG's relevance objection is unsupported by any I
\
facts or explanation whatsoever, and thus fails to comply ;
with the Board's requirements for discovery motions. l l
Moreover, the objection is ill-founded. It was Intervenors themselves who have asserted that "facility-specific plans l i
for each special facility" must be prepared. By making that assertion, Intervencru opened the door to the question of .
whether the CoLaonwealth relies on such plans for Pilgrim, Yankee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee. Moreover, Mass AG himself L
seeks to compara Seabrook Station to other nuclear power plants, for example in JI contention 10.17 Such comparisons, if relevant when made by Intervenors, must also be relevant ,
when made by Applicants. Accordingly, Mass AG should be danied a protective order as to this interrogatory. (
{
17 Egg suora note 2. I f
i i c I
t i
h
r Acolicants' Interroaatory 225 Please identify all assistants, employees, or agents of the Mass AG who communicated with the Mayor of Haverhill or any member of the Zoning Baard of Appeals of Haverhill concerning use of the Water Street property as a staging area. Please also describe in detail (including the date and manner of communication), and produce all documents that reflect or refer to, all such communications.
Obiection to Interrocatory 225:
The Masr AG objects to this interrogatory on the grounds of relevant.. The requested information may be of relevance to a pending lawsuit between Applicants and the Town of Haverhill but is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this licensing proceeding. Without waiving this objection, the Mass AG states that it is the policy of this office to respond to infermation requests from city and town officials, but not to advocate, instruct or advise city or town officials regarding any action they should take.
Applicants' Responset Contention 53 turns upon Intervenors' assertion that Applicants' are barred, by a cease-and-desist order issued by the Haverhill Building Inspector, from using the Haverhill Staging Area. It is a mat,ter of black letter Massachusetts law, however, that if Mass AG interfered in the process of issuing or administratively adjudicatina that cease-and-desist order, the order is null and void. Exgi, Quallette v.
Buildina Insoector of Quincy, 367 Mass. 272 (1972); Castelli
- v. Board of Selectmen of Seekonk, 15 Mass. App. 711 (198i)
Tisei v. Buildina Inspector of Marlborou2h, 5 Mass. App. 328 (1977). Applicants have information, including the sworn testimony of Haverhill city officials, to the effect that
Mass AG did so interfere. Interrogatory 225 seeks material critical to substantiate or refute that information. The interrogatory thus goes straight to the heart of JI contention 53, and clearly is relevant. No protective order should issue.
Aeolicants' Interrocatory 264 ror each organization or resource provider identified in the previous Interrogatory, do Intervenors contend that a letter of agreement is necessary? If so, please state all the facts underlying Intervenors' assertion. If not, please state what type of agreement Intervenors consider to be nece ssa ry.
Obiection to Interrocatory 264:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and is, therefore, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Aeolicants' Resoonset This interrogatory merely awks Mass AG to explain what I it is that Intervenors are asserting. Applicantn cannot fairly be asked to respond to contentions that the Intervenors refuse to explain. No protective order should issue.
Apolicants' Interroaatory 266 Do Intervenots assert that contracts that run between private suppliers and NHY are executory? If so, please state all the facts underlying that assertion.
~79-
obiection to Inter-6:
See response to Interrogatory No. 264. y Annlicants' Ramnennat This interrogatory merely asks Mass AG to explain what it is that Intervenors are a6serting. Applicants cannot fairly be asked to respond to contentions that the Intervenors refuse to explain. No protective order should issue.
Annlicants! Intarroaatory 267 Please explain why, in the context of licensing, Intervenors consider that the need for Bankruptcy Court approval, giving the debtor-in-possession the option to assume or refect contracts, makes these contracts unreliable, and state all the facts underlying your answer.
Obiection to Interruantory 2673 see response to Interrogatory No. 264.
Applicants' maananma:
This interrogatory merely asks Mass AG to explain what it is that Intervenors are asserting. Applicants cannot j fairly be asked to respond to contentions that the Intervenors refuse to explain. No protective order should i issue.
l-CONCTUSION l
For the reasons stated above, JI contentions 27 Basis C, l
27 Basis F, 35 Basis D, and 45 Basis o should be deemed l
l l
withdrawn, and Mass AG's motion should be denied in all other respects.
Respectfully submitted, ll b ., l' N ~'n5 dhoisee G. Dignan, Jr.
George M. Imwald Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Ropes % Giay 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 counsel for Amelicants l
i I
m
- c. [s THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS o .J p OEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL j ,
w , +. ; i i
j F Jo=N W Uetcavac< s?Att c8F8CE SUILDING CNE A!*BJfCN PL ACE 80$tcN 021:4'6H ATTACHMENT A 83 e 21 PS :36
- AVESV $=ANNCN s **
- ssg. Sgsg e a,
+ int T
. .i WI :
vs. t November 9, 1988 BY "ZLEPAX Tvan W. Smith ;
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. '
Dr. Jerry Harbour :
Atomic Safety & Licersing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -
Washingtcn, DC 20555 t Res Public Service Company of New Hampshire, ej a,1,.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Dear Administrative Law Judges:
A representation set forth in the "Answer of the Massachusetts Attorney General In Opposition to Applicants' Motion for Su= ary Disposition of Joint Intervenor Contentions 44A and 44B" is incorrect i and I would like to correct it. On page 7. footnote 10, it is :
stated that "no discovery has been permitted on Joint Intervenor 44A and 44B." After review of the July 22, 1988 Memorandum and Order at page 27, I see that no limitation on discovery with regard to MAG 6 was set. My error was based en a confusion between the ,
"legal contentions" (MAG 1, 3, 4) that were admitted but on which no discovery was permitted and MAG 6. Also, I had misremembered a i discussion on August 4 on the issue of summary disposition on MAG 6.
(See Tr. at 14696 et saq.) . To eliminate any pessible confusion ;
artsing from this Tdotnote and its correction, the word and phrase to which note 10 is tagged should continue "an issue of face not ripe for determination based on the record now before the Board".
l Very truly yours, k'. -
/ ohn Traficonte i
" Assistant Attorney General '
Nuclear Safety Unit (617) 727-2200 '
JT/ds '
g cc: Service List i l~I~h
O e[{f%
'E8 IIN 21 PS :36 CERTIFICATE QF SERVICE w<
I. Jeffrey P. Trout, one of the attorneys for'thi Applicants herein, hereby certify that on November 15, 1988, I made service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smitn Robert Carrigg, Chairman Chairman, Atomic Safety and Board of Selectmen
- Licensing Board Panel Town office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue Commission North Hampton, NH 03062 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 ;
Judge Gustave A. Linenberger Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
East West Tovers Building Washington, DC 20009 ,
4350 East West Highway -
Bothesda, MD 20814 i Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 l Bethesda, MD 20814 l Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire l Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of General cotnsel i Board Fanel Docket (2 copies) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission (
East West Towers Building One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
4350 East West Highway 11555 Rockville Pike !
Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, hD 20852
- Atomic Safoty and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire I Appesi Board Panel 116 Lowell Street l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20535 i
l l
l
o o
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Dopartment of the Attorney 10 central Road General Rye, NH 03870
, Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenus General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th F1.
Portsmouth, NH 03G01 Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Clark, Mill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire (Attnt Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Leonard Kopelman, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
Concord, NH 03301 77 Franklin Street (Attnt Herb Poynton) Beston, MA 02110 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03233 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Of fice of Ger.eral Counsel Murphy and Graham Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20A72 Garf W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Asquire HeAnes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas ,
4/ Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street
.iampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301
[
9 Mr. Richard R. Donovan Judith H. Mizner, Esquiro Federal Emergency Management 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Agency Newburyport , MA 01950 Toderal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W.
Bothell, Washington 98021-6796 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 376 Main Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Robert R. Pierce, Esquire John H. Frye, III, Alternate Atomic Safety and Limensing C'..a i rma n Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory East West Towers Building Commission 4350 East West Highway East West Towers Building Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 James H. Carpenter, Alternate Technical Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Eas*. West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
.)/f. , s l', V, . hU Jefftey P. Trout ,
( *=ordina ry it.S. First Class Mail)
__ ___________________-____ - -