ML20236V732
| ML20236V732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1987 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Oleskey S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4962 OL, NUDOCS 8712070034 | |
| Download: ML20236V732 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ - _.
AW-RELATEO CORRESPONDENCE %
pa asog UNITED STATES
,o'g DOLX[I[O
[(
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNPC O
1 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,,,. #[
'87 DEC -3 41 :48 November 30, 1987 0FFICE 0; SELRtW f i
00CKEimG & SEiiVICf.
I BRANCH I
I Stephen H. Oleskey, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts John W. McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning O L,
Dear Stephen:
This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1987, concerning the NRC Staff's development of a position as to the protection afforded by the New Hampshire Radiolopleal Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) for beach populations within the Seabrook EPZ, in which you also informally requested document production discovery from the Staff.
l First, the NRC Staff shares your view that FEMA should be permitted to express its views as to the adequacy of the NHRERP with respect to issues in contention in the Seabrook proceeding, including the beach shelter contentions.
As you know, the Staff supported the admission of FEMA's beach shelter testimony, despite my perception at the time that the testimony was based upon an erroneous legal standard and accordingly was irrelevant (see Tr. 5148-55). As i stated on the record, given the significance of FEMA's role in the proceeding, the Staff considers it appropriate that the relevance and merits of FEMA's testimony should be explored on cross-examination.
Second, I wish to assure you that the NRC Staff has acted and will continue to act in a manner consistent with its statutory role in protecting the public health and safety in connection with the Seabrook operating license application.
With respect to the beach shelter issue, on October 5, 1987, I forwarded to the Board and parties a draft outline of areas which the Staff "may wish to address in its rebuttal testimony, in the event the Staff determines following cross-examination that such rebuttal testimony is appropriate." As of this date, the Staff has not yet determined whether and to what extent it disagrees with FEMA's position on the beach shelter issue.
In this regard, i note the discussion at Tr. 5153-54 (Nov. 4, 1987), in which FEMA Counsel Flynn provided a partial explanation of FEMA's
- position, indicating that my prior understanding of that position was in error.
inasmuch as FEMA's position is ambiguous and is unlikely to be fully elucidated until its testimony is presented and subjected to cross-examination, a determination as to
)bb) 8712070034 871130 PDR ADDCK 05000443 G
PDR J
\\ whether and to what extent the Staff disagrees with FEMA's position and whether the Staff will submit rebuttal testimony on the beach shelter issue must await the conclusion of cross-examination of FEMA's witness on I
this issue.
Your letter refers to an earlier discovery request made by your office to FEMA, which you request be ' updated at this time.
I presume this is a reference to " Attorney General James M. Shannon's Off-Site EP Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Set No.1)",
dated March 5,
1987, to which FEMA responded on March 18, 1987.
I wish to reiterate (see Tr. 5140) that the NRC Staff has no control over FEMA's document files and that if you seek to have documents produced by FEMA, you must make that request directly to FEMA.
I also note that Mr. Flynn has informed me that, to his knowledge, you have not yet made any such.
request to FEMA.
Please advise me if such a request has been made to FEMA directed to persons other than Mr. Flynn.
With respect to your informal request for documents to be produced by the Staff, I wish to reiterate (see Tr. 5135) that this is the first discovery request made by your office against the Staff concerning offsite emergency planning issues.
I note that your discovery request is untimely in the extreme and is barred by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(b)(1).
Further, I note that you have failed to follow the clear procedural rules governing requests for document production to be made by the Staff.
See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.744.
Nonetheless, without walving any of its objections,
the Staff is prepared to make the requested document production.
As I indicated in our telephone conversation earlier this week, the Staff has undertaken a document review and has assembled a group of documents responsive to your request, which I am prepared to produce at such time as a review for privilege has been completed.
As I subsequently advised you on November 25, the review for privilege has not yet been completed, and the document p(pduction necessarily will be delayed until the week of December 7,1987.
Finally, I wish to confirm that at the same time that I indicated the Staff is prepared to produce documents responsive to your request, I requested that you produce and make available for inspection and copying by the Staff, those documents in the possession of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the Massachusetts Attorney General's O ffice, whose description corresponds generally to the documents you have requested, as modified to include documentation of communications involving the 1/
Your letter requests that the Sta ff's document production include
}
" documentation on the development of the NRC's own position through Mr. Bores that the containment at Seabrook is so superior that FEMA could relax its normal standards for reviewing off-site l
Your apparent belief that any such position has been adopted or advanced by the NRC Staff is in error, o---
-a; h 1 i.
Commonwealth or the Attorney General's Office, including documents which address' the Commonwealth's position on beach shelter issues, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, you are requested to produce at the earliest ~ opportunity, but ' no later than December 7, 1987, the
- following :
Any documentation of any and all communications for the period' September 1, 1986 to date involving the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, FEMA, the P,A C, the NRC Staff or the Commission, or other agencies or individuals in the federal government or the government of the State of New Hampshire or the government of the i
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and/or New Hampshire Yankee, or any of its agents or co-owners or their agents, dealing with the issue of FEMA's position on sheltering or its role in this case, the Commonwealth's position on sheltering or its role in this case, or the NRC Staff's position on sheltering or its role in this case.
included in this request are notations and i
memoranda about telephone conversations,
- meetings, staff or agency recommendations and the like.
All participants in any such meetings or conversations should also be identified.
To whatever extent you object to making this production based upon an assertion of privilege, you are requested to describe the nature of the privilege asserted and identify the documents as to which the privilege is asserted, by author, recipient, copy recipients, date, and subject matter, in sufficient detail to permit identification of the affected document (s).
As i indicated to you, the -Staff's voluntary production of documents responsive to your informal discovery request is expressly conditioned upon your agreement to make the document production which I have requested, as recited herein.
Should you object to making this production in whole or in part, you are requested to so advise me before the Staff's production is commenced.
Very truly yours, Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney cc: Service List i
E________--_--__
l