ML20206T837
| ML20206T837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1987 |
| From: | Selleck K PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3181 OL, NUDOCS 8704230256 | |
| Download: ML20206T837 (29) | |
Text
-_-
!4 sirl 4
03CKETED USNRC Dated: A 1 3 1 7, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFICE OF SECRiiMY 00CnEiiNG & SEPVK.E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SRANCH 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
) Off-site _ Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues
)
)
s j APPLICANTS' ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
" MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES AND ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER" The Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (" Mass. AG") by motion dated March 30, 1987 requests that this Board order Applicants to provide answers or further answers to interrogatories 2, 3, 7-18, 22, 28, 29, 36, 47, 72, 74, 76-81, 86-88, 91-93,96-110, 112-117, 119, 131, 132, 136, and 137 propounded by Mass. AG.
Applicants respond in opposition herewith.
Interrogatory 2 seeks an identification and production of all documents on which past, present or future reliance is or is to be had to support Applicants' position on each 8704230256 870413 3 gDR ADOCK 05000 .
])
4 intervenor contention intended to be litigated by Mass. AG and to correlate the-information within each document to each contention's subparts. Applicants answered as in the .
, case of each intervenor whose contentions Mass. AG intends to litigate that Applicants will produce all those documente which have not already been served on the parties or specifically included with responses to other interrogatories.
Mass. AG seeks Board intercession to compel Applicants to pair each document (and presumably each aspect of the-document) with each contention (and presumably with each of its subparts). Otherwise, Mass. AG contends, he will not I
know how Applicants intend to use the documents. Reliance is had on Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2) LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579 (1975).
4 Not content with being informed of what documents i
~
Applicants expect to use, Mass. AG calls upon the Board to l order Applicants to relate how they intend to use the documents. Mass. AG's demands invade the province of I
counsel. Legal theories have been universally held in all jurisdictions to be beyond discovery. What Mass. AG seeks here is a far cry from discovery efforts to learn of the specification of facts upon which a claim or contention is i based as in Boston Edison, supra. Nothing in Boston Edison i
Company, supra, calls for discovery toward the result Mass.
AG seeks. Nothing here stands in the way of insuring that t
. q l
l Mass. AG have access to relevant information and documents prior to hearings. Nothing here is being withheld. Nothing suggests production of a great mass of material unfathomable to the uninitiated. What has been offered for production has been fully indexed and the index supplied to the Mass.
AG at the time of the document production. Applicants' response stands sufficient.
Interrogatory 3 asks whether any study, calculation or anelysis has or will be relied upon to support Applicants' position on each contention and, if so, subparagraphs (a) to (c) ask its identity, description and source (the same information as called for in Interrogatory 2);
subparagraphs (d) and (e) ask what each study studied and the results, and subparagraph (f) asks how the study helps the Applicants position. Applicants responded that any studies, calculations or analyses on which they rely are identified in Applicants' response to subsequent interrogatories.
Mass. AG takes no issue with the representation that any -
studies relied upon are identified in subsequent interrogatory responses but again, as in connection with Interrogatory 2, Mass. AG calls upon the Board to compel Applicants to state how they intend to use the studies. But what is more Mass. AG wants the Board to compel the Applicants to explain "how (underscored in original) such study, calculation, or analysis support [s] Applicants' l
1 y ,-, y- w---. .,y - ,, ,m--< -
--,,+--*--w - . - . . - - - y ---...--------r------w--w---- -- --
l l
position on each of these contentions." (Mass. AG Motion to Compel . . . at 4.) What was said in connection with Mass.
AG motion as Interrogatory 2 is equally applicable here and incorporated herein by reference.
Interrogatories 7-18. Interrogatories 7-12 call for the compilation of or extractions from reports on data for areas within 2, 5 and 10 mile radii of the Seabrook and other nuclear plants located in the United States to enable and to present observations of comparative analyses between Seabrook and the other nuclear plants as to: peak summer day evacuation-time estimates (Interrogatory 7); evacuation time estimates (Interrogatory 8); population densities (Interrogatories 9 and 10); summer transient population (Interrogatory 11); shelter provisions, dose reduction factors used for shelters and shelter sufficiency percentages (Interrogatory 12). Interrogatories 13-18 seek comparative data and comparisons between Seabrook and other United States plants for their respective 10-mile Emergency Protection Zones in regard to: dose reduction (Interrogatory 13); summer transient beach population dose reductions (Interrogatory 14); average' dose reduction factors of homes (Interrogatories 17 and 18).
Interrogatories 16 and 18 seek the bases and documentation for answers to Interrogatories 13 and 14, and Interrogatories 17 and 18 respectively.
Applicants objected to Interrogatories 7-18 for reason that the information sought and the comparisons to be presented have no relevancy to Seabrook hearings and further because the interrogatories are not reasonably designed to seek information which in turn would be relevant to any contention admitted in the proceeding, citing the Commission's statement of its Emergency Planning Regulation, Proposed Rule, Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and/or Local Governments Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning, Fed. Reg. 52 FR 6980 (March 6, 1987),
Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986); Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2)-, CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 533 (1983); and also, as to undue burden in that Applicants have not made any of the analyses called for, Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 334 (1980).
Mass. AG does not directly challenge the relevancy grounds of the Applicants' objection, but argues that the interrogatories should be answered if they may lead to admissible evidence. In his instant motion at 8-10 he has seized on the " total irrelevancy grounds" advanced by the Applicants and as if to salvage something first suggests that if a Seabrook were licensed elsewhere in the United i
States the circumstances of its license surely would be l
i e
v .-,,--v, v .. .,,,-,,..-,,-,e - - - n-, ,---,,-.,r,mn,mm,,,-.ce.---.-n-.n,---. en__,e, .---w- - -- n... , ,
relevant here. Further, the very fact that the Commission has established no absolute standard against which the adequacy of a particular response plan may be measured, he contends, makes especially rele;; int the findings of adequacy or inadequacy, and the bases therefor, at other plants. As an example of where a comparison of Seabrook to other plants in the country can be relevant to this Board's findings, Mass. AG points to the Seabrook on-site Licensing Board's inquiry of an NRC Staff witness as to the state of the art in implementation of safety parameter display systems as found in other plants.
A more inapposite example would be hard to find. Mass.
AG's Interrogatories 7-18 do not deal with plant equipment but with Radiological Emergency Response Plans. And as to the latter, as the decisions first cited in support of Applicants' objection teach, plain and simple, that the licensing criteria established in Commission regulations do not require that the plans of any plant meet any set standard, equate or be better than those at any other plant.
No purpose can be served in a licensing hearing context in further entertaining Mass. AG Interrogatories 7-18 in any respect.
Interrogatory 22 asks for details concerning each specific communication between Applicants and KLD and it also asks for "the content of the communication as disclosed in any corporate or internal record." Applicants responded:
" Corporate records do not exist documenting the oral communications between the Applicants or their agents and KLD. While Applicants do acknowledge that such communications did occur they are unable,.for each communication, to respond in the detail requested by paragraphs (a) - (e)."
Mass. AG now' complains that this answer is " incomplete, ambiguous, and possibly evasive." The answer is complete and straightforward, even if it is not to Mass. AG's liking.
- Applicents do not have the details requested and Applicants do not possess " corporate or internal records" disclosing contents of communications. There is nothing to compel.
Interrogatories 28 and 29. Interrogatory 28 begins by postulating'an accident at a time beaches are at or near capacity and some NHRERP Revision 2 protective action is underway. Mass A.G. then asks in the interrogatory, presumably against the backdrop hypothesized, whether Applicants contend KLD's ETE study demonstrates that evaculation times are short enough to prevent all fatalities among members of the beach population under all accident sequences. If the Applicants do not so contend, the
- interrogatory next inquires how many early fatalities would occur and following this it asks Applicants to specify as to each, the accident sequence nexus. Interrogatory 29, as an I intended follow-up to Interrogatory 28, first asks whether i
Applicants contend that the number of early fatalities likely to be caused by a serious accident is not a relevant
factor in determining whether there is " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency?" It then asks, if there is a limit to the number of likely early fatalities beyond which Applicants would agree that an evacuation plan does not offer reasonable assurance, that the limit be stated.
Applicants objected to both interrogatories. As grounds for their objection, Applicants pointed out again that as noted in their objections to Interrogatory 7 that the Commission has made clear that:
"There are no bright-line, mandatory minimum projected dose savings on evacuation time limits which could be reviewed as performance standards for emergency plans in existing regulations . . ..
[T]here are simply as a matter of law no mandatory minimum dose savings to be achieved. Thus as a matter of law, there is no basis for inquiring as to what level of radiological dose or ccrsequence of the dose must be exceeded before the plans would be deemed inadequate for a given event.
Applicants also observed in respect of their objection that the interrogatories were impossible to answer as put.
Perhaps Applicants' reference in this regard to the absence of parameters was not well articulated. Additional parameters would most likely make the interrogatories more intelligible but the interrogatories would nevertheless continue to suffer from the basic flaw as noted.
8 As Interrogatory 28 now stands it makes no sense except as an ill-shaped argument. The interrogatory is premised on an assumed 1 accident and that some NHRERP Rev. 2 protective action is being implemented. Yet without identifying the prctective action or classifying the event the interrogatory looks to KLD's ETE as either demonstrating or failing to demonstrate that the ETEs can prevent all fatalities under any accident sequence. So anxious is the interrogatory to interject fatalities, that they are presented as conclusions rather than introduced as assumptions as the context would require. Then seemingly without a pause for the possibility of an affirmative answer,.the interrogatory asks Applicants to state how many "early" fatalities would occur.
Apparently realizing that Applicants have not been clued into fatalities "from what", the interrogatory bails itself out by adding, "and specify under which accident sequences these fatalities would occur." (underscoring added)
Interrogatory 29 drops all pretense of discovery and sets out to establish through cross examination what Mass AG believes the standards should be for determining that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. It attempts to goad or shame the Applicants in an acquiescense of a suggested quantitative standard for determining the adequacy of an emergency response plan.
I t
But even assuming Applicants would play the game, it would avail Mass. A.G. of nothing. The Commission establishes licensing criteria not the Applicants. What others suggest is of no present moment. The Commission has stated what is meant by " adequate protective measures" as follows:
Our emergency planning regulations are an important part of the regulatory framework for protecting the public health and safety.
But they differ in character from most of our siting and engineering design requirements which are directed at achieving or maintaining a minimum level of public safety protection. See e.g., 10 CFR 100.11. Our emergency planning requirements do not require that an adequate plan achieve a preset minimum radiation dose saving or a minimum evacuation time for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone in the event of a serious accident. Rather, they attempt to achieve reasonable and feasible dose reduction under the circumstances; what may be reasonable or feasible for one plant site may not be for another.
Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1). CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986) 2 Nuclear Reg. Rep.
(CCH) 1 30,975 at 32,011-32,012.
Mass. AG's motion to compel further answers to Interrogatories 28 and 29 in an attempt to force applicants to state something different furthere no valid purpose in this licensing proceeding.
l Interrogatories 36 and 47. Interrogatory 36 seeks the name, address, employer, job or position, and place of work of each traffic guide, bus driver or other emergency worker l
l
l I
which the State of New Hampshire intends to mobilize for an emergency response compensatory plan assignment and the travel time from each person's home and place of work to his or her assigned emergency response post. Interrogatory 47
. seeks the same information as Interrogatory 36 with regard to'"New Hampshire traffic control personnel" except as to travel times.
' Applicants' objection to these interrogatories rested on the ground that the interrogatories look to a level of detail not required by regulations or NUREG-0654 and hence inquire in non-litigious matters. Mass. AG argues that Commission regulations and regulatory guides notwithstanding, he is entitled to the information requested so that he may interview the workers which may lead to admissible evidence. What Mass. AG fails to recognize is that his claim of right rests on the unfounded premise that levels of detail not called for by Commission emergency planning regulations and guides, nevertheless somehow exist
! in the NHRERP Revision 2. Applicants do not and need not have the detail requested.
l l
Interrogatory 72. Mass A.G. 's motion to compel further answers to Interrogatory 72 is directed solely to the second part of the interrogatory. " Indicate by name, address and
! employment position, the personnel designated to set out l
L [ traffic] cones, signs and barricades."
1 11 -
e' I
Applicants responded that the request for names, I
addresses and employment positions for these tasks seeks a
. level of detail not required by regulations or NUREG 0654.
As in the case of Interrogatories 39 and 47 Applicants do *
,not and need not have_the detail requested.
Notwithstanding a full response to interrogatory 72 Applicants additionally advised of the procedures for fulfilling the assignments. Apparently this has caused some confusion to Mass. A.G. Applicants try again.
l As stipulated in NHRERP Volume 2, Appendix G, Section 8.10, the Department of Transportation (DOT) provides the i
New Hampshire State Police (NHSP) with traffic control l i equipment and coordinates the removal of traffic impediments
- reported by NHSP. In the Town Plans, the responsibility for-the emergency maintenance of evacuation routes is given in f Section III of NHRERP Volumes 16 through 32. This is generally assigned to the Public Works Director or the Road Agent.
The manner in which the DOT sets implementation of this responsibility in motion is set forth in NHRERP Volume 4B, Appendix C (see Emergency Response Procedures); the DOT I
staff personnel on the Emergency Response Call List who are ,
i i - directly responsible for implementation are shown in
' A listing Appendix A to the Emergency Response Procedure.
i of specific individuals within DOT to carry out these tasks is beyond the requirements of the regulations or NUREG-0654.
1 1
l
] i
.. - -. - -. - . - -.- - -.~.-,.---,-.- - _.- - __-_- - . - . -
The resource pools used by the Town's department of agency assigned this responsibility are listed in NHRERP Volumes 16 through 32, Appendix C.
Interrogatories 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 88, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 108. Mass. AG has asked this series of interrogatories about whether and why Applicants take the position that sheltering of the transient summer beach population can, will, or should be a protective action response in the event of a radiological emergency. Mass. AG with subtle changes repeats essentially the same sequence of questions time and again. In their answers, Applicants cite the relevant, responsive portions of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2, such as Volume 1, Section 2.6, which contain the criteria for various protective actions, including sheltering. That portion of NHRERP Revision 2 spells out the specific bases for recommending sheltering.
By citing the relevant portions of the NHRERP - Revision 2 Applicants have made full and complete answers to this category of questions. It would be idle to require Applicants to repeat verbatim portions of the Plan; the citations incorporating text and materials are more than sufficient.
Mass. AG complains:
Applicants cite to provision in the NHRERP which expressly provide that sheltering will not be recommended for
the transient summer beach _ population.
If Applicants have any basis for their assertion that sheltering may be recommended for the transient summer beach population, they should be-compelled to provide the basis therefore and to state, as asked by the interrogatories, under what types of circumstances that' protective response may be recommended for the summer beach population, and how such response will be implemented."
Mass. AG is simply incorrect. The provisions of NHRERP Rev. 2 cited by the Applicants in their responses to the above interrogatories are responsive and complete. At Volume 1, Section 2.6, it is noted that "[s]heltering may not be considered a feasible protective action on the seacoast beaches during the summer". (However, this is not to be read as a command but for what it is, an observation.)
Nowhere does the Plan " expressly provide that sheltering will not be recommended," as Mass. AG claims. As Applicants pointed out, Volume 6, Section 2.6, spells out the specific bases for recommendation of various protective actions, including sheltering. The answers are complete.1 Interrogatories 86 and 87 and their responses read as follows:
1 It should also be noted that Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 states: " Procedures for application of these [ protective i action decision] criteria are contained in Protective Action Decision Criteria for the State of New Hampshire. See NHRERP Volume 4, NHCDA Procedures, Appendix F."
I "86. Is it your position that sheltering should never be relied upon as a protective response action for the transient summer beach population located within ten miles of the Seabrook plant, or for any portion of that population?"
" Response: No."
"87. Unless your answer to interrogatory 86 is an unqualified yes, describe under what circumstances, and for what portion of the population, sheltering should be used as a protective response for the transient summer beach population."
" Response: Refer to the response to Interrogatory 75." cit
, Mass. AG contends that this response is non-responsive.
The response to Interrogatory 75 as a result answers both interrogatories 75 and 87 in pointing out that the Plan does not provide for different protective action recommendations with regard to shelter for a portion of the beach population. However Interrogatories 75 and 87 are both in a series of seemingly identical questions.
Interrogatories 91, 92 and 93. Interrogatory 91 asks:
"Is it your position that sheltering of the summer beach population is feasible at all beach areas located within ten miles of the plant?" Applicants responded: "The question I
as phrased, is not susceptible of an answer given the lack of several critical paramters including, but not limited to, the number of persons assumed to be on the beaches, the time of day, and the season, etc." Interrogatory 92 assumed a I
l
. l 1
l negative answer to Interrogatory 91 and asked for the identity of those areas for which sheltering would not be a feasible response. Applicants referred Mass. AG to their previous answer. Interrogatory 93 asked for the basis of Applicants' determination that sheltering is or is not feasible. Applicants referred Mass. AG to the portions of the plan which spell out the criteria for whether or not to recommend sheltering.
Mass. AG now seeks an order from this Board which would compel Applicants to both ask themselves and respond to a sequence of interrogatories which Mass. AG did not elect to ask initially:
"If it is Applicants position that the feasibility of sheltering the summer beach population is dependent on the numbers of persons on the beaches and the time of day, then they should so respond and state for hou many people and at what time of day (or state any other limiting conditions) sheltering would or would not be feasible."
Mass. AG first asked a yes-or-no question that was not answerable. He cannot now demand that Applicants subdivide the issue in the question into narrower parts and proceed to ask and answer questions regarding each part. Applicants have explained why they cannot answer yes or no to Interrogatory 91 and that this response is equally applicable to Interrogatory 92. Interrogatory 93 is answerable in that NHRERP- Revision 2 decision criteria 16 -
. V referenced by Applicants properly address the bases for a determination that sheltering is or is not feasible. No other response to these interrogatories is required.
Interrogatories 96, 97, 98 and 99. Interrogatories 96-99 ask for the Applicants' position (and basis for their -
position and relevant documents) concerning the adequacy of physical facilities for sheltering the peak summer transient beach population. Applicants' responses reference portions of NHRERP Rev. 2 which discuss the adequacy of physical facilities in terms of the shielding factor of 'such facilities. Mass. AG complains that Applicants have not responded as to the adequacy of the physical facilities in terms of the number of such facilities. Applicants' position is, that question was not asked.
Interrogatory 100 and its answer follow:
"100. Please identify all facilities that could be used to shelter the transient summer beach population and provide the dose reduction factor for each, identifying for each the basis for your determination of the dose reduction factor and providing all computations, materials, photographs, notes and other materials relied upon or reviewed in 4 determining the dose reduction factor of each building or facility."
" Response: The Applicants do not have the information requested regarding all facilities. However, some facilities that could be used to shelter the beach population are identified in a report entitled "A Study to Identify Potential Shelters in the Beach Areas near
. l.
i E
j
^
Seabrook Station", which was performed by. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation for New Hampshire Yankee in March 1986. This study also evaluated ,
.the facility to determine the dose
, reduction factor."
Mass. AG now complains:
" Applicants' response is incomplete as it provides only the study that evaluated dose reduction factors of sheltering facilities in the beach areas, but does not provide as requested i
'all computations, materials,
- photographs, notes and other materials l' relied.upon or reviewed in determining
.the dose reduction factor of each building or facility." Applicants have not objected to this interrogatory
- request or responded.that the requested material is unavailable. Applicants should therefore be compelled to produce this material."
Applicants have only recently discovered that a set of worksheets developed by Stone & Webster for its report are in Applicants' files and will be made available to Mass. AG.
. Interrogatories 109, 110, 112, 112a, 113 and their
+
answers read as follows:
l
- "109. Is it your position that with j respect to the transient summer beach l population the protective response of
- evacuation will in all cases provide an j adequate level of protection?"
" Response: Not necessarily. In some j cases evacuation may not be necessary, and in other cases evacuation in I combination with other measures may be the most desirable course of action to
- take."
! "110. Is it your position that for the transient summer beach population the protective response of evacuation will i
I in all cases be an adequate protective measure?"
" Response: Not necessarily. In some cases evacuation may not be necessary, and in other cases evacuation in combination with other measures may be the most desirable course of action to take."
"111. Please define your use of the terms ' adequate' and ' adequate level of protection' with respect to your response to interrogatory 109 and define your use of the term ' adequate protective measure' with respect to your response to interrogatory 110?"
" Response: ' Adequate': lawfully and reasonably sufficient; ' adequate level of protection': that level of dose reduction reasonably achievable in the circumstances, given the resources available; ' adequate protective measure': that measure which will best achieve the maximum reasonably achievable dose reduction in the circumstances given the resources available."
"112. Please provide the bases for your response to interrogatories 109 and 110, including all documents you rely upon in support of those responses."
" Response: The responses are supported by those documents identified in the response to Interrogatory 76."
"112a. If your answer to either l interrogatory 109 or 110 is anything but l an unqualified yes, please identify and describe those situations for which the response of evacuation will not be
" adequate" or achieve an " adequate level l
of protection" and the manner in which the response will not be adequate?"
" Response: As described in NHRERP Volume 1, Sections 2.6.5 and 2.6.7, the preferred course of action (i.e.,
sheltering and/or evacuation) is based 19 -
l l
l
g .
. I upon minimizing the dose to the general public."
"113. If your answers to interrogatories 109 and 110 are anything but an unqualified yes, please describe what, if any, other or additional actions will be taken to protect the population in those situations where the protective response of evacuation is not deemed by you to be an adequate
/./ protective measure or expected to achieve an adequate level of protection.
" Response: Refer to the response to Interrogatory 112a."
Mass. AG complains yet again: "[W] hen asked to explain the. basis for this response they cite two documents which do not indicate that any measures other than evacuation will be recommended for the summer beach population." Mass. AG has clearly misread the Plan: the portions of the Plan referenced by ApplicantJs spell out the possible recommendations and the reasons therefor. As requested by Interrogatory 112a, the referenced portions of the Plan identify and describe the situations in which evacuation alone will not " achieve an adequate level of protection";
that is, will not "best achieve the maximum reasonably achievable dose reduction i the circumstances, given the resources available." The referenced portions of the Plan also " describe what, if any, other or additional actions will be taken to protect the population" as requested by i
Interrogatory 113. The answers as they stand are complete.
Interrogatories 114-117. Interrogatories 114-117 make varietal inquiry into "the numbers of possible early t
fatalities that could result from an accident at Seabrook . . ." Motion to Compel at 34.
Applicant has objected to these interrogatories for reason that the licensing criteria established in Commission regulations for radiological emergency response plans do not deal in numbers of fatalities hence the inquiry has no relevance to licensing hearings. Mass. A.G. again has argued their relevency and somewhat recasting his earlier arguments relating to interrogatories 7-18 and 28-29 contends that "they certainly could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence whether the recommended protective actions would achieve the goal of maximum dose reduction."
Id. at 34-35.
Notwithstanding a new form of words the result is the same as before. Mass. A.G. seeks to measure Emergency Response Plan adequacy against standards not established by the Commission. No valid purpose can be served in further entertaining Mass. A.G.'s Interrogatories 114-117 in any respect.
Interrogatory 119. Applicants explain the references in their answer to Interrogatory 119 as follows: As stated m
in responses to other Mass. AG interrogatories, the selection of a protective action, whether it be sheltering, evacuation or a combination of both, is based on obtaining the maximum reasonably achievable dose reduction in the circumstances given the resources available. The variables
l P
that must be taken into account in reaching a protective action decision are generally described in NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 (Criteria for Selecting Protective Actions for Direct Exposure Within the Plume' Exposure EPZ). These variables include projected doses, meteorological conditions affecting plume travel, and.the timing of notification and implementation of a protective action as well as offsite i
constraints on evacuation. Specific guidance and criteria which incorporate these variables is then presented in the 4
NHRERP Volume 4A, Appendix U (PROTECTIVE ACTION DECISION f ' CRITERIA). Appendix U includes a Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet For General Population which n
j -facilitates a comparison of projected' doses under a shelter
_or evacuation decision. This appendix also presents special
- considerations in the, decision making process for i
recommending protective actions for the seasonal beach I population and precautionary and protective actions that may be implemented with this population. The appropriate
! decision making criteria is described and in place in the Plan and will provide maximum reasonably achievable dose i
savings for the summer beach population under a broad spectrum of scenarios.
Interrogatories 131 and 132. Interrogatory 131 inquires .
t as to Applicants' position on whether the transient beach population can in all cases be evacuated in time to avoid i
the incurrence of radiation exposures in excess of 200 rem 1
i 1
i
by the entire evacuating population. Interrogatory 132 seeks the basis for Applicants' response to 131. Applicants objected to the interrogatories for reasons that NRC regulations do not require any particular level of protection to be achieved in any particular circumstance.
Hence, the Applicants' position requested is irrelevant.
Reference was made to Applicants' answer to Interrogatory 7.
Applicants' objection is well taken for the reasons as set forth here in connection with Interrogatories 7-18, 28-29, 114-117, all of which are incorporated by reference.
No purpose would be served by entertaining Interrogatories 131 and 132 further in these licensing hearings.
Interrogatory 136. Interrogatory 136 and its response read as follows:
"136. Please identify and provide copies of all photographs, including aerial photographs, of the beach area within ten miles of the Seabrook plant that are in your possession or that have been provided by you to, or used by, or are in the possession of any entity, agency, person, firm, or business, including KLD Associates, that has at any time been retained, contracted with, or paid for by you to perform any activity relative to emergency planning."
" Response: Aerial photographs of the Seabrook Station EPZ beach area, which were taken in July and August, 1979, are in the possession of the Applicants and are available for inspection.
Additional photographs are in the possession of KLD Associates and can be inspected at its office.
Mass. AG makes an unusual complaint about Applicants' response:
" Applicants state that they will make the. requested photographs available for inspection at Seabrook Station and at the offices of KLD in Huntington, New York. They do not state that they will provide copies of such photographs, as requested.
These photographs are relied on extensively by Applicants in deriving and to support population figures and other statistics set forth in NHRERP, Rev. 2, which the Attorney General contests. In light of the reliance placed on these photographs to support Applicants population estimates, it is necessary that the Attorney General obtain copies of these photographs (at the Attorney General's expense) so that the experts he has retained may study them. Such analysis of the photographs as may be required will involve many hours and it is not reasonable, therefore, for Applicants to fail to produce copies. Moreover, since Applicants do not object in their response to the request for copies of these photographs, or state that they would be unable to provide such copies, this Board should compel Applicants to produce such copies of photographs as the Attorney General requests.
Mass. AG has taken a difterent position on this issue when it has suited him. In his " Motion to Extend the Deadline Within Which to Respond to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition," dated April 2, 1987, at 5, Mass. AG complained:
"The Applicants have produced over 11,500 slides in response to the Attorney General's interrogatories regarding the beach population. The
4~
Applicants made no arrangement for duplication of these aerial photos. Due to the prohibitive expense of duplication, it is necessary for the Attorney General's consultants to review-the slides before a decision can be made as to which should be copied."
Mass. AG has clearly rushed in complaining about Applicants' failure to promise and deliver copies before learning the quantity of the order. Mass. AG has informed Applicants that it will at some point advise Applicants which copies it would like made. Applicants will at that time arange to have such copies made. There is nothing to compel.
Interrogatory 137. Interrogatory 137 and its answer read as follows:
"137. Please identify, by indicating on maps or otherwise, each and every possible parking space in the beach area within ten miles of the Seabrook plant that KLD Associates identified or counted in determining the peak numbers of vehicles, or other figures relevant to the number of persons, in the EPZ beach areas.
" Response: These can be identified by viewing the aerial photographs which will be available for your inspection at the KLD office (see response to Interrogatory No. 2).
Mass. AG requests an order from this Board compelling a ,
response "to the extent that the aerial photographs available for inspection (which the Attorney General has not yet inspected) do not identify by indicated marks or
- , . , - - - - , . - ~- .-
otherwise, each and every parking space identified or counted by KLD."
Applicants provided the slides of all areas of parking which were used to count parking spaces. Applicants did not understand Interrogatory 137 to ask Applicants to create maps for Mass. AG with lines drawn on them where lines do not in reality exist. And indeed the rules do not require the Applicants to create such items for Mass. AG's benefit. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 334 (1980). KLD counted parking spaces in areas without lines by counting the cars themselves, or if there were no cars, by measuring the length of unoccupied space and expressing it in terms of cars. See NHRERP Rev. 2, Volume 6, Appendix E at E-4-5. Mass. AG's motion to compel Applicants to create new maps for Mass. AG should be denied.
CONCLUSION The motion of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should be denied in all respects.
Respectfully submitted, ML2e Thom&s G. Dignan, Jr.
George H. Lewald.
Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100
I DOCKETED
! USNRC
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
$7 AM 7 P3 43 I, Kathryn A. Selleck, one of the attorneys for the
- Applicants herein, hereby-certify that on April $$ ret 9S7 9.tI-Ag y made service of the within document by depositirafC6Eprek SE8vlCL thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery f$AT8r, .
where indicated, by depositing in-the United States mail,
, first class postage paid, addressed to):
- Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt, Robert Carrigg, Chairman Chairperson, Atomic Safety and Board of Selectmen Licensing Board Panel Town Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue Commission North Hampton, NH 03862 i 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 Towers Building Washington, DC 20009
- 4350 East West Highway 4
Bethesda, MD- 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Buildir7 25 Capitol Street -
, 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814
{'
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director
- Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *
- Washington, DC 20555 Tenth Floor l 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire
, Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 516 4
Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 i
i i
,,m,-.< - . , .,, ,~y ---_,--,,,,_._,..,,,,_,_-.-~r,_,,._-.,.,...m_-_v-.e.,_y...., _, _%,_.- y , . , , , ..._,.y_ _,~
i Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department 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 General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 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 Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 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 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RED Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 i Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 r-o-
Q Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, 442 John W. McCormack Post Fine, Good & Mizner Office and Court House 88 Broad Street Post Office Square Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02109 Charles P. Graham, Esquire McKay, Murphy and Graham 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913
/Kaphryn A. Selleck
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail.)