ML20247G759
| ML20247G759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1989 |
| From: | Trout J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-A-067, OL-A-67, NUDOCS 8905310064 | |
| Download: ML20247G759 (75) | |
Text
w w,
hb f.
X, w
&- </f8fG bb f2Dl29 i
'89 MY' 23 P 1 :48 January 3, 1989 l
UNITEDSkTESOFAMERICA NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COC4ISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1
)
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
)
)
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES APPLICANTS.
BY MASS AG TO APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES AND-REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-OF DOCUMENTS I
THE MOTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(f), Applicants hereby move that the Attorney General for the Commonwealth,of Massachusetts (" Mass AG") be compelled to answer certain interrogatories and produce responsive documents called for in Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to All Interveners and Participating Local Governments Concerning Joint Intervenor Contentions 1-26 (October 11, 1988) [ hereinafter "First Set"] and in Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to All Interveners and Participating Local I
8905310064 890420'M PDR ADOCK 05000443 Q
PDR 3
O-_-_--_=____
p.
l 4-F 1
-S t
Governments Concerning Joint:Intervenor' Contentions 6 and 27-63 (October 14,,1988)-[ hereinafter "Second Set"].
j 1
BACKGROUND
' Applicants' filed the First Set on October 11, 1988 and the Second Set on October 14, 1988.
'By agreement of the j
parties, as. memorialized by the Board on November 9,1 Mass AG
.j was given an extension until December.19 to file his answers.
On December 20, 1988 Mass AG-filed responses to the two sets of interrogatories.2 Nearly one quarter.of the responses finally filed by.
Mass AG were 32 defective as to necessitate a motion to compel.3 Specifically, the following defects exist in Maso AG's responses:
I' 1
Memorandum (Memorializing Rulina of the Prehearina Conference on Discovery Matters Held November 3. 1988) at 2
{
(November.9, 1988).
2. Mass AG neither acknowledged nor explained missing the deadline.
'3.In addition,-Mass AG claimed-that he needed still more time to answer twenty-six of the questions:
4-6, 16, 19-20, 27, 29, 31,.36, and 52 in the First Set; and 75, 78, and 80-92 in the Second Set.
Mass AG has represented to ApplicantsLthat answers will be forthcoming in a " reasonable" amount of time, certainly "no more-than a few weeks."
In reliance on those representations, Applicants do not move to compel responses to those twenty-six questions at this time, but reserve their right to take future action should it prove necessary.
V r k=---___--___-
l L:.
1 3."
' f _:
I seventy-five (75) responses state, on their face, ec, that they do not contain all the information requested by Applicants which isnknown to Mass AG;4 another twenty-one (21) responses fail to address one or more parts of the question posed;5 7
another six (6) responses raise improper claims of work product privilege;6 another six (6) responses fail to provide quantitative definitions for quantitative terms used by the Interveners in their contentions;7 another eleven (11) responses are so' evasive as to be:non-responsive.8 Applicants move that further,. full responses to these
'119 interrogatories be compelled.
4 The following responses on their fage are incomplete:
First Set -- 12, 21, 35,'37, 40, 54, 78-79, 90, 92,94-118, 120, 128, 130, 132, 158-160, 177; Second Set -- 9, 12, 16-17, 23-24, 30, 44-46, 48,.53, 87, 100, 124, 130, 133-134, 147, 188, 230-231, 234, 236-237, 242, 244, 248-249, 251, 272, 277.
5 The responses that omit part(s) of the interrogatory are:
First Set -- 3, 127, 168-170, 172, 181; Second Set --
3, 6,
35, 66, 75, 94,.97, 101, 145, 163-164, 166, 180, 203.
L 6
The work product objections are raised to the following questions in the Second Set -- 139, 141-142, 146, 187, 191.
7 The responses that fail to define Intervenor terms j
are, in the Second Set -- 98, 126, 128-129, 202, 250.
l 8
l The evasive responses are:
First Set -- 119, 133, k
l 135, 173; Second Set -- 8, 90, 119, 148, 162, 169, 181.
l (
i L1--_ -- -__ - - =--
j
i 1
ARGUMFliT Mass AG was given four times the normal response period in which to answer Applicants' interrogatories.9 Despite that extraordinary extension, Mass AG's responses are
)
substantially defective..There simply can be no excuse for Mass AG to have failed to provide complete answers -- in most cases, brazenly admitting that he held information back -- to nearly a hundred interrogatories.
Nor is there any excuse for making claims of privilege that border upon the l
frivolous.
Applicants therefore do not lightly bring this motion to compel before the Board.
To have failed to respond to Mass AG's stonewalling would have jeopardized Applicants' right to due process.
In many cases, Applicants have acquiesced to arguably unsatisfactory or incomplete answers, in order to reduce the issues in dispute to the minimum number necessary.
Applicants have organized the argument which follows by
}
the category of defective answer in question.
Since the defects, in all cases except for evasive answers, are uniform and generic, the text of the questions and responses are collected into Attachments A-D.
The five categories of defects are addressed in turn below.
9 Moreover, Mass AG argued to the Board (and repeatedly represented to Applicants) that these interrogatories were not the reason why he purportedly needed the extension.
Tr. at 14773. - _ _ _ _ _ -
P A.
ANSWERS THAT ON THEIR FACE ARE NOT COMPLETE.
Seventy-five of Mass AG's interrogatory responses state, on their face, that they do not contain all the responsive information possessed by Mass AG.10 In most cases, Mass AG has responded to Applicants' request, for "all the facts" known to Mass AG concerning a particular Intervenor assertion, by stating that the facts " include" those stated in the answer.
Attachment A lists each such interrogatory and response, with italics used to highlight Mass AG's statement that he has n21 Provided a full response.
Mass AG offers no excuse for holding back responsive information, possessed by him, concerning the very assertions made by Interveners in their contentions.
Applicants are entitled to all the facts, not just those that Mass AG chooses to reveal.
Full and prompt responses to these interrogatories should be compelled.
B.
INCOMPLETE ANSWERS.
Twenty-one of Mass AG's interrogatory responses simply fail to address one or more portions of the question asked.ll Attachment B lists each such interrogatory, using italics to highlight the portion (s) of the interrogatory that Mass AG 10 See suora note 4 for a list of the seventy-five.
See also Attachment A for the text of each question and i
{
response.
i 11 See suora note 5 for a list of the twenty-one.
See algo Attachment B for the text of each question and response. -
ui n
o t.
u h
y
~
- ( -'
i l'.
D E
4 I
' failed to address.12 Here again, no excuse is offered for the' omissions, and full responses should be compelled.
C.
IMPROPFF OBJECTIONS.
Mass AG responded to six interrogatories'in the Second Set --'139, 141, 142, 146, 187, 191 -- by refusing to answer i
on asserted grounds of. privilege.13 More specifically, he claims that the facts sought -- the number of students attending a school, the name and location of a battered women's shelter, and the like -- were " gathered 11n the course of. preparing for litigation" and therefore " constitutes
-l attorney's work product" that is "not discoverable."
Mass AG is just plain wrong.
Facts, whether gathered by.
an: attorney or not, are not attorney work product.
Had Mass
'AG bothered to consult the black-letter law on the subject,.
he would have learned that:
The courts have consistently held that the work product concept furnishes no shield against discovery, by interrogatories or by deposition, of the facts that the adverse party's lawyer has learned, or the persons from 12 Interrogatories 3 in the First and Second Sets i
called for Mass AG to " identify" certain persons in accordance with Instruction 3.
Mass AG named the persons, but did not provide the other requested identifying information.
Similarly, Interrogatories 163 and 164 in the Second Set
]
asked Mass AG to " state all the facts" underlying'certain i
assertions, including identifying the source (s) of these
(
facts.
Mass AG failed to identify any sources whatsoever.
i
(
13 See Attachment C for the text of each of these i
questions and responses.
] 1 4
i
l 1
whom he has learned such facts, or the existence or nonexistence of documents, even though the documents themselves may not be subject te discovery.
Wright.and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 5 2023 at 194 (1970).14 j
Mass AG's baseless claim of privilege should be rejected by the Board.
Answers containing the requested facts, and their sources, should be compelled.
D.
INCOMPLETE / UNRESPONSIVE DEFIi4ITIONS.
Throughout their contentions, Interveners use a number of vague quantity terms -
"many" persons, " extremely long" i
f-l periods of time, and the like.
Applicants sought to find out what Interveners meant by these terms, by asking the Interveners to define them "with quantification".
In most cases Mass AG and the other Interveners either provided such quantification or admitted that they did not know what their own terms meant.
However, Mass AG responded to six requests for quantification in the Second Set -- 98, 126-129, 202, and 250
-- with more vague terms instead of with the requested 14
- See, e.a.,
In re Davco Coro. Derivative Sec. Litic.,
99 F.R.D. 616, 624 (S.D. Ohio 1983) ("The information requested in'the interrogatories is simply not work product Defendants may discover the facts upon which
.Plaintiffs, and/or their counsel, base their allegations.");
Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 608 (D.C. App. 1982)
(" Facts learned during preparation for trial are not themselves work product, even if the documents containing the same facts are.")..
__c_
quantification.15 For example,. Mass AG claims that Applicants' EBS messages are defective because they could
.become " extremely long".
When asked to quantify " extremely long", Mass AG replied, "quite lengthy".
This and similar responses _are frivolous, and do not even measure up to the standard of Mass AG's other answers.
Responses containing the requested quantification should be compelled.
E.-
EVASIVE AND NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWERS.
j Eleven of Mass AG's responses are so incomplete or evasive that they do not respond to Applicants' interrogatories.
Each of twelve questions and responses is reproduced'and discussed in turn below.
.First Set 119.
Do Interveners know or have reason to believe that the training developed for the DAT position would not
" qualify" an inexperienced computer user for this position or that the level of proficiency of a qualified DAT would in any way be-inadequate?
If so, please state all the facts that form the basis of that knowledge or belief.
RESPONSE
The Massachusetts Attorney General has only recently (December 13, 1988) received the current SPMC training modules and has not yet completed its assessment of them.
But based on the Applicants' response to Interrogatory No. 46 in the Massachusetts Attorney General's First Set of Interrogatories, in which the Applicants stated that the Dose / Accident Assessment training module is approximately a 4-hour course, the Massachusetts Attorney General has reason to believe that this training would not adequately qualify an
. inexperienced computer user for this position.
15 Ege Attachment D for the text of each question and
' response. E_
l Mass AG states that he "has reason to believe" the assertion contained in this interrogatory.
However, Mass AG fails to " state all the facts that form the basis of that knowledge or belief", as requested.
The sole fact to which l
Mass AG alludes is the length of the Dose / Accident Assessment training module.
A full response, containing all other facts I
and their sources, should be compelled.
133.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " maps referenced at Plan 3.3-4 are not adequately explained," and define " adequately".
RESPONSE
See the text of the Plan at 3.3-4.
" Adequately" is defined elsewhere in these responses in [ sic:
interrogatories.
Applicants asked why Mass AG asserts that the explanation at 3.3-4 is inadequate.
Mass AG's response, a bare citation to that same section, is completely unresponsive.
Mass AG's assertion of inadequacy does not
" speak for itself."
A full response should be compelled, or the assertion should be deemed withdrawn from JI Contention 16 Basis D.
135.
Please state all the facts, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Interveners' assertion that "the SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency are in use or could be used."
RESPONSE
See the answers to all the above and the facts set forth in the contentions and basis.
Also see the deposition of the radiological health coordinator.
. l'
Mass AG's bald reference to "the deposition of the radiological health coordinator" is unresponsive.
Applicants are entitled to know which facts contained in that deposition underlie Mass AG's assertions.
A full response, identifying the specific facts as requested, should be compelled.
i 173. Please list all of the " appropriate officials and agencies at both the state and local levels" whom Interveners assert should receive " prompt notification" concerning "the need for protective measures for the ingestion pathway EPZ,"
define "prampt", and state all the facts underlying that assertion.
Please also list the business telephone numbers of all officials and agencies listed in your answer.
RESPONSE: Since the Office of the Attorney General is not in the business of drafting plans for radiological emergencies, it is not in possession of a list of all the appropriate state and local officials who should be notified in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
The SPMC makes not (sic] provision for the notification of any officials.
It should make provision for the notification of all appropriate officials because 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, IV, D.1 requires it.
Mass AG's excuse for the extraordinary extension in discovery response time that he requested was to enable him to " engage in extensive and exhaustive documents searches and consultations with dozens of state agencies" in order to obtain the information needed "to provide responses to these interrogatories and requests for production.n16 Having taken the benefit of that extension, Mass AG now blandly refuses to disclose the information that he gained as a result.
Such contumacy should not be tolerated by the Board.
A full 16 Massachusetts Attorney General's Motion for Extension of Discovery Schedule at 2-3 (October 26, 1988). a_____
response, containing all the information possessed by those
" dozens of state agencies" with which Mass AG " engage (d) in extensive and exhaustive document searches and consultations," should be compelled.
Second Set 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.
RESPONSE: No Hazmat mutual aid agreements exist as far l
as MCDA is aware.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a Hazmat Division.
The question asks for "all mutual aid" 4Dd "all Hazmat Division" agreements.
Mass AG's answer addresses caly "Hazmat mutual aid agreements", thus evading the request for all other mutual aid agreements.
A full response, and production of the documents, should be compelled.
90.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' 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" Interveners assert would be appropriate, and state all the facts underlying those assertions.
RESPONSE: See response to Interrogatory No. 87.
Since this office is not in the businc.ss-of drafting radiological emergency plans for the Seabrock EPZ, it does not have within its possession plans containing details as to what channels or methodologies would be appropriate for effectively conveying pre-emergency information to specific handicap groups.
To speculate about what would be appropriate would be irrelevant. _ __-__
,l In JI Contention 39 Basis D (formerly MAG 53D), Mass AG asserts that Applicants' pre-emergency materials "have not-been designed using channels or methodologies which are appropriate to specific handicap-types."
When asked what such " appropriate... channels or methodologies" would be, however, Mass AG responds that the answer would be
" irrelevant."
Mass AG cannot have it both ways. If the
" appropriate... channels or methodologies" are relevant, Mass AG must answer the question, using the information gained in his " extensive and exhaustive... consultation with dozens of state agencies."17 If it is not relevant, then Basis D of JI Contention 39 is likewise irrelevant, and should be deemed to be withdrawn.
119..Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Interveners' assertion that "there are more students than have been estimated, especially in day care and nurseries, but also in the schools."
RESPONSE:.The plan makes no provision for those situations in which child care is provided in a private residence that it not licensed by the State Office for Children.
Furthermore, in more than one instance even where a facility has been listed in the Plan, investigation has revealed that there are more students present that the Plan
.provides for.
Mass AG claims to know of facilities which have more students than are listed in the SPMC, but fails to identify those facilities.
There can be no excuse for Mass AG's 17 Egg suora note 16 and accompanying text..
' " " ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _. - _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a-f l
failure'to disclose this information.
A response containing l
all the facts requested, including the names of the facilities and the number of students reported at each (as well as the sources of those facts), should be compelled.
I I
148. Do Interveners 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.
RESPONSE: The assertion that was made under Basis D of JI Contention 46 was that the plan does not provide reasonable assurance that Amesbury and Anna Jaques Hospitals are suitable as shelters in a radiological emergency.
That Basis did not address the issue as to whether the hospitals could shelter some portion of their patient population.
Applicants asked whether Interveners assert that the two hospitals are not suitable as shelters.
Mass AG attempts to sidestep the question.
He should not be allowed to do so.
A full response should be compelled.
162. Describe in detail all communications, concerning the special needs survey, which Interveners and/or any official 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.
RESPONSE: A staff member in this office received one phone call that informed him of such activities.
No notes were taken of that conversation.
Mass AG's answer is woefully inadequate.
Based principally upon this single telephone call, Mass AG seeks to discredit Applicants' special needs survey.
At a minimum, and Mass AG should be compelled to state who the caller was, (in detail) what the caller said was being done..
i I
4 Mass AG'also evaded the question of whether any docum'ents: reflecting that call exist.
He states only that "no notes'were taken."
Subsequently-generated documents describing the conversation would also be responsive to Applicants' request, however.
Mass AG has claimed no work product' privilege for such documents, but even if he had, Applicants have a substantial need for those documents.that, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b) (2), would outweigh the privilege.
Applicants have no means, other than these documents,=of'leerning how Seabrook opponents beyond the jurisdiction of.this Board have attempted to interfere.with Applicants' special needs survey.
Production of all responsive documents should therefore also be compelled.
169. Please identify all "special needs resident (s)"
whom Interveners assert are not." identified" in the SPMC.
RESPONSE: 'The information-sought by this interrogatory is not within the domain and control of the Office of the Attorney General.
Nor, is the Office of the Attorney General engaged in the-process of planning for the evacuation or other protective action for that population in-the event of a radiological emergency.
The Office of the Attorney General has not asserted that it is in possession of all the names and addresses of special needs residents within the Massachusetts EPZ, it has merely asserted that the SPMC is r-deficient'because ic has not identified all or even most of that population and has not adequate procedures for gathering such data.
Since the only information provided to this i' '
officeJis a redacted list of Special Needs persons, it is
- impossible to'tell who is on and who is off the list.
Again Mass AG refuses to share the information available from his " extensive and exhaustive... consultations with L
l-l 9
dozens of state agencies."18 Again he shall not be allowed to hide responsive information with so blatant a shell game.
In JI Contention 48 (formerly MAG 50), Mass AG asserts that the SFMC "has not identified all or even most of the f
special needs resident population."
Now, however, Mass AG refuses to identify any omitted special needs person, saying that "it is impossible to tell who is on and who is off the list."
Here again, Mass AG cannot have it both ways.
Either he must state the factual basis for his contention, or it should be deemed withdrawn.
181. Please state all the facts underlying Intervanors' assertion that " responsible staff should remain with each mentally or emotionally impaired homebound person throughout the reception and recovery / reentry phases."
RESPONSE: To be adequate an emergency plan must make provisions for all sectors of the population.
It cannot exclude from its planning provisions any given sector of the population.
Since emotionally or mentally impaired persons will need responsible staff to assist them throughout the reception, recovery and reentry phases, the plan must make provisions for such staff.
In response to Applicant's request for "all the facts" underlying his assertion, Mass AG simply repeats the assertion.
A full response, containing all the facts (and their sources), should be compellec.
18 See suora note 16 and accompanying text.
.J I
l CONOLUSION For the reasons stated above,. responses to the 119 interrogatories in' question, and production of all related responsive.' documents, should be compelled.
By their' attorneys, e
7
- 62.. k.y w $..
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey-P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Roper & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110' (617) 423-6100 l
l i.
1 l
i.
l l' (
n 4:!q,
T p*4
- 7 y
4.
i ATTACHMENT A':
RESPONSES THAT ON THEIR FACE ARE NOT COMPLETE.
First Set i.
Please state in detail all the facts underlying, 12 '.
Interveners', assertion that "ORO traf fic guides will [not) b3 n_
able'to move.the traffic in Massachusetts just as. fast as
. State / local professionals would," and define " State / local
-professionals."-
The Massachusetts Attorney General is still in
RESPONSE
-the process of gathering,information'and expert opinion to support;this.ussertion.
State and local police- (not cadets) are.the professionals referred to.
The primary underlying facts are:
'(1) L that.the ORO traffic guides are non-professional traffic handle +m, most of whom are full-time and (3) utility workers, (2),that tney will be non-uniformed, that they have had little or no actual experience in directing real traffic under congested conditions.
~21'.
Please. describe in detail the types and causes of
- " delays"lIntervenors assert "will result from the confusion among the-public' caused by hearing different emergency messages.from different sources,". identify all.of'the "different sources," and quantify each delay.
Please'also
- state all the facts underlying your answers.
RESPONSE: -The "different sources" of public messages we have identified to date include:
1.-
ORO-originated EBS messages; 2.
The State of New Hampshire EBS messages; 3.
'The emergency messages and EBS broadcasts from Massachusetts state officials; Emergency messages from local officials; 4.
5.
Emergency messages originating from FEMA (perhaps pursuant to the Executive Order);
Emergency messages from the NRC;
-6.
Emergency messages from the President or his 7.
spokesperson; Media broadcasts chd news reports of all 8.
sorts.
l The delays will be of significant length but are not They will be caused by confusion generated quantifiable.
from hearing different emergency messages from different sources.
l l
t ;
1 fu-c f
- 35. 'Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that1" traffic and access control guides will show j
intermittently in groups of twos, threes, and fours q
up.
over a long period of time," and define "long period of 1
time."
j
RESPONSE
The primary facts are the design of the SPMC l
itself,'with its call-up and asignment (sic) system for traffic guides and its TCP staffing priorities in Appendix J.
Egg also the deposition of (name revealed in Response], an ORO Evacuation Support Coordinator.
37.
Please describe in detail the "real-time, computer-based system to monitor the size of the beach population" l
envisioned in JI Contention 3.
The description should include, but not be limited to:
(a) a description of all components of the system, their locations (including the locations of all roadway. traffic counters), and how they would be connected and would interact; (b) a list of. every similar system known to Interveners which presently is operational, along with its manufacturer and application, and all computer hardware and software presently available to support such a system; (c) the cost and time to acquire or develop such a system'and the cost of maintaining it; (d) the actual or projected reliability of such a system, the name(s) and business address (es) of all qualified installation and maintenance personnel, and a description of the backup to the system; (e) the frequency with which such a system would report its findings; (f) whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts presently
^
uses or intends to use such system for radiological or non-radiological emergency planning and, if not, why not.
Please state in detail all the facts underlying this description.
RESPONSE
(a-e)
The information available to the Mass AG at this time includeds (sic):
l i w--
--..l.A_----_
c7c a
l
^'
e I
H Dr. Adler's testimony in the NHRERP hearings.
_)
A written overview of a remote sensing real
[
time traffic counting systen (sic) for use f.n the Seabrook
~
EPZ recently prepared by Dr. Adler.
This overview is attached hereto as Attachment A.
j i
(f) - Documents regarding the Commonwealth's plans for Pilgrim and. Yankee Rowe have been provided to the Applicants.
40.
Please state all the facts, other than those stated in response to the preceding interrogatory, underlying Interveners' assertion that "the traffic control diagrams contained in the SPMC are not sufficiently clear to allow the SPMC's traffic management plan to be implemented."
RESPONSE:.See Answei to Interrogatory 14.
The " facts" available to the Mass AG at th!= time include:
(a) the diagrams themselves; (b) the actual configuration of each intersection depicted in the diagrams; and (c) the fact that
. Applicants have admitted in answering Interrogatory 11 of the Massachusetts' Attorney General's First Set of Interrogatories that they now have no plans to use barricades at ACPs and
-TCPs.
54.
Please state all the facts, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Interveners' assertion'that "the evacuation plan contained in the SPMC is so poorly designed and so inadequately staffed that, even'if state and local officials are assumed to make a best efforts response, there is no reasonable.cssurance that either the permanent residents or the transients can or will be evacuated as efficiently as
);
possible."
RESPONSE:~ Facts regarding " state and local officials" and their "best efforts response" have not been discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories.
These facts include; If the state and local police were to take responsibility for traffic control (Mode I), they f
do not have the SPMC's traffic management plan I
("TMP") (Appendix J) and could not implement it f
until copies were dilivered_(sic) to them.
By that time, in fast-breaking accident scenario-, traffic would be out of control and the police would have L
great difficulty (a) driving counter to evacuating L
1
=
, I l;
~ = _ - _ _ _ _ -
. ;M n;p,
Ti / ~
r.
[h 4,i I;
i I
traffic to get to points where^TCPs and ACPs'need to be established'and (b) unsnarling traffic to
. establish.the SPMC's recommended-traffic flow.
State and local police have no current plan for.
.Seabrook to determine who wold (sic) go where; so upon-their receipt of.the SPMC this allocation of m:
. assignments would have to occur during the emergency.. This would-cause further delay.
. Local police do not have ready access.to the number F,<
of traffic cones called for in the TMP, and state
[-
police could not provide these cones in a timely
(
-fashion.
Thus, even if local' police were to rush directly to.a local'TCP intersection, it could be hours before the ORO or others arrive with traffic Cones.
State and. local police have had no training on implementing the SPMC's TMP.
State and local police would have.the same problems m
with the ambiguities in the diagrame as ORO's-Traffic Guides would.
See answer to interrogatory No. 14.
Even'if state and local police were able to. staff the-TCPs and ACPs as called for in the TMP, there are still too many other locations which need traffic control personnel to ensure that traffic i
will not become an uncontrolled massiversnarl in between TCPs.
, 7 18. _Please state, for each bus route in Salisbury and West Newbury, how long Interveners assert that the average transit dependent person would be waiting outdoors, and what:
" radiation dose" and " exposure to the elements" that. person would. receive during the wait.
If Interveners assert that "the' times,' doses, and/or exposures would vary depending on
. the accident' scenario, answer separately for each such scenario.
Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying your answers.
RESPONSE
It appears to the Massachusetts AttJrney General whenever a beachelosing (sic] recommendation that is made in Salisbury in the summertime, the ORO's traffic control measures will not be in place before traffic flowing from the beach areas becomes seriously snarled.
In such circumstances, no TDP buses will be able to enter Salisbury, i
Y-------______L_
- m. ;_
g p
b',
14 as two-way flow on most key roads will have been lost.
Transit dependent persons will be waiting outdoors for buses for many hours.
Even without a. beach closing, the same.
result-will' occur in;fastbreaking~ accident scenarios which escalate:from an SAE to a GE.with a recommendation to evacuate 11n less' time than it weill [ sic] take for the'ORO to implement traffic control,Ea time estimated to be at least 2
.to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
Radiation doses could-well cause early illness and worse. 'In West Newbury, TDPs could wait outdoors for
. buses for many hours, as West Newbury would likely not be the priority destination of the first-hundred or so. responding
, buses.f The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General'at this time include:
The SPMC's plans and procedures for TDP's and buses..
The location of each of the bus companies.
The NHRERP. testimony of Drs. Thompson, Beyea, and Leaning.
Dr. Adler's NHRERP testimony about incoming buses.
79.
Please identify all emergency personnel'whose availability Interveners. assert would be affected in the event of a strike or. other form of job' action.
State all the facts underlying your-answer..
RESPONSE
Those ORO personnel whose availability would be af fected in the event of a strike or other form of job
~ action include:
All those who work for New Hampshire Yankee or any other utility company, including the Yankee Atomic employees; y
All those'who work for bus, van, tow, helicopter,
.and ambulance companies; All those who work for companies who own facilities to be used as congregate care facilities and who are to assist in setting up or running those facilities.
l The facts supporting this contention are simply that the SPMC contains no provisions for staffing the ORO in the event of such strikes or job actions.
See Lena Island Lichting comoany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 21 NRC 644, 888 (1985).
t 90.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "[t]he SPMC does not provide for the capability of continuous operations for.a protracted period of time."
RESPONSE:. The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
x Section 2.1-1 of the SPMC, which indicates that for several evacuation support-related positions, the SPMC will not plan for two alternate shifta plus backup staff.
Instead the plan calls for "one compliment only with additional personnel, at least 20%, available as back up" as noted on Figure 2.1-1 of the SPMC.
While Figure 2.1-1 (Amendment 6) indicates that only Dosimetry Recordkeepers and Route Guides are
" evacuation-specific positions," it. appears from SPMC 5 2.1-1 that Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel and Reception Center Staff are as well.
And Appendix H (Amendment 6) indicates that Traffic Guides have no second shift staffing'either.
Other positions for which the SPMC's H (Amendment 6)' indicates that there are not two shifts staffed, with some backup, include the West Newbury Liaison (0-Red Team, 1-White, 1-Blue), and the Reception Center Leader in North Aadover (0-Red Team, 1-White, 0-Blue).
The fact that vehicles (buses, vans, ambulances, tow trucks, etc.) being relied upon by the SPMC have no second shift drivers.
The fact that evacuations under various scenarios will take as long as 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes, using the SPMC's ETEs, and much longer than this according to the testimony of Dr. Adler at the NHRERP h9arings.
l _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ -.. _ - - _
F
.S' The fact that these personnel noted above may well be mobilized 1for many hours before an evacuation recommendation is issued.
The facts contained in the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistant Plan coupled with the failure of the SPMC to identify'the mechanism by which Yankee Atomic will be able to supply personnel in a timely fashion.
The answer given by the Applicants to Interrogatory No. 27 of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Second Set of Interrogatories.
See facts contained in the original MAG 77B, 77D.
The facts regarding 2nd shift and backup personnel contained in the depositions taken in November 1988 by the Massachusetts Attorney General of Applicant witnesses.
l The fact that the American Red Cross has not identified anyone, for either the first or second shift, to staff the Congregate Care Centers.
j 92.
Please identify each position where Interveners assert "there are fewer staff available for some positions than will be reasonable necessary on a 24-hour basis during protracted emergency."
For each such position, please state all the facts' underlying that assertion.
RESPONSE
See answer provided to Interrogatory No. 90.
In addition, there are certain other positions for which the number of staff the SPMC' plans to use on each shift are too few to constitute the number which "will be reasonably necessary."
See Figure 2.1-1.
These include Field Monitoring Team personnel, Reception Center staff (including Monitoring /Decon personnel), Traffic Guides, Bus drivers, Ambulance / Van drivers, Route Guides, and Dosimetry Recordkeepers.
94.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "there is no reasonable assurance that an evacuation could be completed within one shift."
RESPONSE
The facts available at this time include:
The facts set forth in original MAG Contention 78.
1 L-_--____
p
-4 I
.s.
See the. facts set forth above in answer to Interrogatory 90.
Even if an evacuation were to begin at the moment
.the first shift cars on duty, that evacuation could take longer than a 12-hour period to complete.
See testimony of Dr. Adler in the NHRERP hearings.
If,the first shift were on duty for, say 6, 8,
or 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> before an evacuation PA were to issue, and that evacuation were to take 7 or 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, as even the SPMC's'ETEs assert, the' evacuation may not be completed for 13-18 hours after the first shift e
workers started working.
95.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "there is no reasonable assurance.
that during'a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station which is serious enough to warrant a second shift for these evacuation-specific positions, enough volunteers can be recruited by Yankee Atomic to fill all such positions."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
The SPMC fails to provide this assurance.
The Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Agteements fail to provide this assurance.
96.
please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that Yankee Atomic employees "will not volunteer in sufficient numbers or in a timely fashion during a radiological emergency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts j
Attorney General at this time include:
Neither the Yankee Atomic Mutual Assistance Agreement _nor the SPMC provides reasonable i
assurance that enough Yankee Atomic can and will volunteer during a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station to fill all those evacuation specific positions (see answer to Interrogatory No.
- 90) for which no second shift is provided by the plans.
1 I
[ i 1
4 f
J.. ;
+-
The fact'that it would take Yankee Atomic'a period of time to recruit.and mobilize this many volunteers, assuming that it-could be done at all.
The fact that Yankee. Atomic. workers' typically work-L and/ reside at least 40. miles from the EPZ.
c
.97.
Please state all the facts underlying. Interveners' assertion that "first-shift-workers-[will) want to minimize-dose consequences by'getting.out of the EPZ as quickly as possible."- '
1; :
EEEEQESI:. The facts ~available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:_
First, the' assertion-is not.that.All first shift
-workers will want to minimize, dose consequences in this fashion.
Many first shift workers inside the EPZ will know,_from their own dosimetry and j
l otherwise,-that the radiation' plume was and is nowhere nrar them.
But.for those first shift workers who know, from their dosimetry or
.otherwise, that they are working in the plume, or.
-that they are working in. areas contaminated by'the prior passage.of'the_ plume, there_will be concerns-p about minimizing their does-(sic] consequences.
The higher a' worker's' dosimetry reading, the
'greaterfhis/her concern will likely be.
a The.only methods the SPMC provides for protecting
- L workers from'the' effects of. radiation are-1) the
. ingestion of KI; 2) removal'from the area before exposure is too'high; and.3) decontamination.
of
.these, workers'know that distancing themselves from the dangerous area is the only way to avoid the y
exposure in:the first place.
Protective clothing is not provided'.
Human nature suggests that when a'second shift hy worker. arrives to replace a first shift worker in a radiation plume, or in a contaminated-area, that first shift worker will have heightened concerns about his or her own' exposure levels and will want to leave the area as quickly as possible.
1 l m
am
_.__.____________m
x l
,, y r
I6v j
%3;i -
b"',
j s
.9 8.
Please state'all the facts underlying" Interveners' assertion' that "on-the-job training during an emergency, offered by'first-shift workers who want to minimize dose consequences by.getting_out of the EPZ-as quickly as-
- J possible, is very likely to be inadequate."
RESPONSE
The facts we have available at this1 time
- include:-
-Any on-the-job training ("0JT") of any sort L
conducted during a real' radiological emergency for y
emergency responders is not-likely to be adequate.
When offered during a real emergency "by first-F shift workers.who want'to minimize dose
-consequences" by getting'out of the EPZ as quickly asLpossible" it is likely to be woefully
,inade quate.
LThose first-shift workers who are Traffic
- Guides are-instructed in. Appendix J at J-3 to provide replacement' personnel.
c L
_A.-
A discussion of traffic ~and access control.
W
'B.
The status of the emergency.
C.
Methods of controlling traffic, reporting,-
setting up the' control point and the control e,:
flow: pattern.
D.~
A detailed discussion of this (Traffice [ sic)
Guide): procedure.
Then the. procedure states:
" Prior to departing, ensure the' relief. personnel are'sufficiently trained, to'your satisfaction, and that-they'are capable of performing their assigned' duties'."
Appendix J at J-3.
L,
The' SPMC's. pre-emergency training. for Traffic Guides ldoes not instruct the guides on the E
methodology to be used in instructing one's replacement while directing congested flow traffic during a real emergency.
In fact,~no methodology would be adequate under those circumstances. y
-i-_-__ _ _ _ _
______1____z________.
r E
?
". c I:-
riT The SPMC's pre-emergency classroom training given to-Traffic Guides takes 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
Then there are
. tabletops, walk throughs, drills and exercises.
Second-shift guides cannot be provided with anywhere near this much training during a'real emergency.
After 12 or more hours of duty, an emergency responder is likely to be' tired and lacking the patience needed to adequately train his/her second shift replacement.
99.
Please state all the facts, other than those
- discussed'in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Interveners' assertion that "there is no reasonable assurance that there will'be adequate second-shift manpower capability for certain evacuation-specific positions," and list'all of the "cortain evacuation specific positions."-
RESPONSE
The additional facts, other than those discussed in-response to the preceding interrogatories, L
- include the following:
The minimal instructions given in IP 2.9 to Monitoring /Decon personnel regarding the training
~
they are to provide their-second-shift' replacements:
" Prior to'being relieved, thoroughly brief and train your replacement on your duties'and operations."
IP 2.9, 55.5.9..
" Prior to departing, ensure that your relief is sufficiently trained, to
.your satisfaction, to perform assigned duties."
'14., $5.5.10.
The pre-emergency training for Monitoring-Decon personnel does not instruct them on the methodology to be used to provide this'OJT;to their replacements.
In fact, no method of training such Personnel during a real radiological emergency (when the monitoring trailers may be besieged with People seeking monitoring) would be adequate under
-those circumstances.
The SPMC fails to instruct Dosimetry Recordkeepers j
what to do, if anything, when they are to be replaced during a shift change, and their pre-1 emergency' training does not do so either.
See response to Interrogatory No. 90.
- L_
=
vs' I
,f' 100. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "[t]he' position of senior manager of a business. office does not provide the training skills or experience required to make prudent emergency management
- decisions," ' and stateL all' the facts underlying Interveners '
1 further" assertion-that'"[t3he' training.provided by the SPMC
,i
(
is not adequate to. compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
We presume that'this interrogatory pertains to JI 13 (A),.which concerns the ORO E Director.
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
- The fact that for many types of business offices the skills required:to-be a senior manager are extremely narrow and limited and have no relationship to the. skills necessary to run the ORS in'a real radiological emergency.
The fact.-that the SPMC does not-require that'the person selected as the ORO Director be a "Vice President" or " Director" at New. Hampshire Yankee.-
It appears from the plans that anyone.with the title of " Director" or "Vice President" will fqualify.
Thus, a. person'who is or has been the
" director" of pla'far personnel for the Boston Celtics would have the " prerequisite' experience" the SPMC requires to direct-the ORO, as would a person who is or has been_the "Vice President" of the.Newburyport Yacht Club.- Merely having held-
'eitherLposition,.however, offers'no assurance that one:has the background, experience, or leadership c'.
skills for the job of ORO Director.
The fact that one's job titles alone tells little or nothing about one's background, experience, qualifications, communication skills, or leadership skills.
The SPMC's plans, procedures, and responsibilities for this position.
The methodology which was used and is currently being used by-NHY to recruit. personnel and fill vacant positions in the ORO.
Egg deposition of (name revealed in Response).
Appendix K of the SPMC.
- l I
i 1
i n'
L J
The SPMC's training modules (including instructor guides,-handout, and. tests) for each of the classroom training courses to be given to' persons who are being trained to hold this ORO position, Ego SPMC Table 6.3-1, and the approximate number of hours each module takes to administer.
ERA Applicants Answer to Interrogatory No. 46 in the I
' Massachusetts Attorney General's First Set of Interrogatories.
The description of, and comments regarding, training which has been and will be provided to OFO l
. members contained in the deposition of [name i
revealed in Response).
The description of, and comments regarding, drills which have been and will be provided tc ORO members contained in the deposition of (name revealed in i
Response).
Facts regarding the job titles, background, experience, and knowledge of the ORO member (s) who have been deposed by the Massachusetts Attorney General, and the comments those individuals made
-regarding the ORO training and drills.
Facts contained in documents regarding ORO's classroom training and drills received from the Applicants during discovery.
101. Please state all the facts underlying Intervenorc' assertion that "(s)ince the Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel are dealing directly with the public, it is imperative that they have past experience and training in Health Physics and methods used for the monitoring of and the removal of contamination from personnel and vehicles," and please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC.
is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
'The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
See the facts set forthin (sic) JI 13(B).
See the last nine (9) points set forth in respnse (sic) to Interrogatory No. 100.
l l
i 102. Please state a'll'the facts underlying Interveners' assertion,that1"[t]he position of senior manager of a-business office does not provide the training skills or
~
experience required to direct.the mobilization of' emergency offsite personnel and the logistics therewith (i.e.,-bus.
coordination,-traffic. control,l traffic guides, access control,.etc.)," and please' state all the facts underlying.
Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided
'by the SPMC.
is not adequate to compensate for this
' deficiency."
RESPONSE
This question pertains to the SPMC's Assi<stant-Offsite Response Directors.
The fact.available to
.the MassachusettsLAttorney General at this time include:
See'the last.nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No.' 100.
LSee theLfacts set forth in JI 13(C).
103. Please. state'all the facts underlying Interveners' assertionLthat the SPMC's not enumerating the
" qualifications" listed by Interveners for Technical Advisor amounts to a." deficiency," and please state all the' facts
. underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training.provided by the-SPMC is not-adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts-Attorney General at: this time include:
See'the facts set forth'in JI 13(D).
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
104. Please state all the facts-underlying Interveners' assertion that the SPMC's not enumerating.the
" qualifications" listed by Interveners for Radiological Health Advisor amounts.to a " deficiency," and please state-all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that L
"[t]he training provided by the SPMC.
is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
See the facts set forth in JI 13(E).
! l L
l j
h
~
[.
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
105. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the qualification requirements identified in the SPMC for Accident Assessment Coordinator are
" insufficient" and that the " qualifications" listed by Interveners for that position are necessary in order to avoid a " deficiency," and please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC.
is not adequate to compensate for this daficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
See the facts set forth in JI 13(F).
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
106. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training needed to perform the tasks required of Field Monitoring Teams is a " deficiency" and that the skills listed by Interveners for that position are necessary in order to avoid such a " deficiency," and please state in detail all the facts underlying Interveners' further is assertion that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE: The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
See the facts set forth in JI 13(G).
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
107. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training needed to perform the tasks required of Reception Center Coordinator is a " deficiency," describe what qualifications are needed to accomplish adequately the duties listed by Interveners for Reception Center Coordinator and state in detail all the facts underlying that assertion, and please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further is assertion that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC not adequate to compensate for this deficiency." - - _ - _ _ _.
'I
)
RESPONSE: The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney. General at this time include:
{
l See the 'ects set forth in JI 13(H).
The Masse _mnetts Attorney General does not have a q
description of the background qualifications needed to perform adequately the duties of a Reception-Center Coordinator.
Our position at this time is that the combination of (1) the SPMC's failure to list any background qualifications whatsoever other than " prerequisite experience as a Supervisor" plus I
(2) the training provided for this position is inadequate to ensure that job performance will be adequate in a real radiological emergency.-
It is this combination which is the key, and the two components are inversely related:
tha greater the prerequisite experience, the less extensive the training needs to be, and vice versa.
Regarding the training provided by the SPMC for this position, see the last nine (9) points set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
108. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training needed to perform the-tasks required of Reception Center Leader is a " deficiency," describe what qualifications are needed to accomplish adequately the duties listed by Interveners' for Reception Center' Leader and state in detail all the facts underlying that assertion, and please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that
"[t]he' training provided by the SPMC
. is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts l
Attorney General at this time include:
f See the facts set forth in JI 13(I).
The Massachusetts Attorney General does not have a l
description of the background qualifications needed to perform adequately the duties of this position.
a See the reasoning set forth above in print two (2) i of the Answer to Interrogatory No. 1C7, I
l' 1
a The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding the training provided by the SPMC j
for persons assigned to this position are set forth j
in the last nine (9) points made in response to j
/
Interrogatory 100.
109. Please state all the facts underlying Inter
' ors'
{
assertion that " qualifications" listed by Interveners. r l
Public Notification Coordinator are necessary in order to l
avoid a " deficiency," and please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
See the facts set forth in JI 13(J).
}
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
110. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the requirements listed by Interveners for NHY Offsite Response EOC Contract are necessary in order to avoid i
a " deficiency," and please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."-
RESPONSE: The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
See the facts set forth in JI 13(K).
See the last nine (9) points listcd in response to Interrogatory Nos. 100.
111. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' ansertion that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training needed to perform the tasks required of Communication Coordinator is a " deficiency," describe what qualifications are needed to accomplish adequately the duties listed by Interveners for Reception Center Leader and state in detail all the facts underlying that assertion, and please state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertica is not that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC.
adequate to compensate for this deficiency." !
2
~'
C.
i e
- RESPONSE
- ' The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General'at thisitime include:
- See the f acts set forth in JI 13 (L).
s The Massachusetts Attorney General does not have's
-description of the' background qualifications'needed to accomplish adequately the duties of this position.
See the reasoning set forth above in the second point made in answer to Interrogatory-No.
107.
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding the training provided by the SPMC~
for persons assigned to this position are set forth inithe last nine (9) points made in response to Interrogatory 100.
L112..Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion:.that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training-needed to' perform the tasks required of telephone operator is a." deficiency," and that the. requirements listed by' Interveners' for' that pos; tion are necessary in order to avoid such a " deficiency," and please state all the facts-underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided by.the SPMC...
..is not adequate to l
compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:.
See the facts set forth in JI 13(M).
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory do. 100.
Because there 'iU only one (1) Telephone Operator at.
j the ORO EOC,'and because this person will l
potentially have to answer. hundreds of calls per I
hour _an'[ sic) take many important messages when l
calls to ORO nembers individual phones cannot go j
through due to (a) a staff " briefing" session is in j
progress or (b) the calls go unanswered or the line j
is busy, it is inconceivable that a person who is.
not experienced as a telephone operator can perform this job adequately.
- _- :-_= __
113. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training needed to perform the tasks required of the Administrative Staff is a " deficiency," describe what qualifications are needed to accomplish adequately the duties listed by Interveners for the Administrative Staff and state all the facts underlying that assertion, and state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
~
See the facts set forth in JI 13(N).
The Massachusetts Attorney General does not have a description of the background qualifications needed to accomplish adequately the duties of the Administrative Staff.
See the reasoning set forth above in the second point made in answer to Interrogatory 107.
However, in any description of the qualifications for this position, the ability to type accurately and quickly should be included.
The facts avcilable to the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding the training provided in the SPMC for persons assigned to this position are set forth L
in the last nine (9) points made in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
114. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training needed to perform the tasks required of Special Population Coordinator is a " deficiency," and that the requirements listed by Interveners for that position are necessary in order to avoid such a " deficiency," and state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that
. is not adequate to
"[t]he training provided by the SPMC compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts l
Attorney General at this time include:
l l
l See the facts set forth in JI 13(N).
i l
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
i 1 i.
115. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the SPMC's not quantifying the experience and training needed to perform the tasks required of Bus Driver is a " deficiency," and that the requirements listed by Interveners for that position are necessary in order to avoid such a " deficiency," and state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that '?(t]he training provided by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
See the f acts set forth in JI 13 (P).
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to j
Interrogatory No. 100.
Not all bus drivers have experience with children and' handicapped passengers.
Some of the bus drivers being relied upon by the bus companies are not their regular day-to-day drivers.
Some are part-time drivers.
Some drive only occasionally.
116. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' l
assertion that "[i]t is inconceivable that Traffic Guides would not be required to have some substantial prior experience directing congested traffic," define " substantial prior experience," and state all the facts underlying Interveners' further assertion that "[t]he training provided l
by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate for this l
deficiency."
l'
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts j
Attorney General at this time include:
See the facts set forth in JI 13(Q).
See the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
l i
The fact the ORO traffic guides wil (sic] not be in uniform and will not be perceived to be police is such a handicap in their efforts to direct traffic that only substantially experienced traffic guides have any chance at all of controlling traffic under congested conditions.
Substantial prior experience f L_--_ __ _ -
+.
]
l 1
l means sufficient. experience directing real
]
congested traf fic at -intersections, work' j
construction zones, accidents, and special events, in. good weather and bad, day and night, such that one has demonstrated the ability, under all conditions, to move congested traffic as efficiently as is possible.without causing accidents.
117. Please state all the facts. underlying Interveners' assertion that."[t]he ORO personnel to be used for radiological monitoring and dose. assessment are inexperienced in the field of radiation and inadequately. trained."
Please also describe in detail, and produce all documents that-reflect or' refer to, the training and experience of the personnel relied'upon.by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for " radiological monitoring and dose sssessment" in the event of radiological emergencies at the Pilgrim, Yhnkee Rowe, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants.
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts Attorney General at this time include:
l
.See the facts set forth in JI 13(R).
l
.The first sentence in JI 13(R) that ORO personnel to.be used for " radiological monitoring and dose assessment" are inexperienced in'the field of radiation" is incorrect'to the extent that it refers to the Dose Assessment Technician for whom the SPMC requires experience "as a. worker in Radiation Protection."
As to radiological
. monitoring personnel, see the answer provided to Interrogatory No. 101.
The SPMC lists no prerequisite experience for monitoring personnel.
'SPMC at p. 2.1-11.
With respect to training, see the last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
Pursuant to agreement, documents have been produced in response to this Interrogatory.
118. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertions that "[t]he Dose Assessment Technician ("DAT") is not sufficiently experienced in computer-based dosed projections" and that the experience requirements are not adequate.
l l
9+
w se x
. RESPONSE:
The facts available to the Massachusetts.
Attorney General'at this time include:
- See the-facts set forth in JI 13(R).
.AD"worket'in radiation. protection" does not
'M necessarily have sufficient experience in computer-
-based dose projections.
See the last'nine'(9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
120. Please state all the ' facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the: Accident Assessment Coordinator who directs dosefassessment and' field radiological monitoring has neither' sufficient experience in the field nor adequate
. training."'
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Massachusetts
' Attorney General at this time include:
-The.only prerequisite experience listed-in the SPMC for:this position is " experience:as a Supervisor or U_
worker in Radiation' Protection.".SPMC at p.
2.1-7.
See the.last nine (9) points listed in response to Interrogatory No. 100.
128.
Please describe every consequence that
~ Interveners assert would arise if "ORO emergency workers" were " liable for damages resulting from their actions," and state allithe facts underlying your answers.'
RESPONSE
The. consequences of ORO workers being-personally liable include that their response to an emergency will: be unpredictable.
130. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the procedures developed to direct and control these field monitoring teams are inadequate."
RESPONSE
Such facts include:
the lack of provisions, guidance and/or instruction in the plan.to make sure that
. field monitoring teams are dispatched on a phased basis to insure measurements'are obtained at approximately the same o
time, or at particular desited time sequences; the lack of preselected monitoring points; the lack of a timetable for j
i monitoring teams to arrive at the assigned location and to prepare for and conduct monitory activities, j )
t 132. Please describe in detail all of the " specific l
local conditions" for which Interveners assert the SPMC's
" planning for the locations of effective radiological monitoring" does not account, and state all the facts underlying your answer.
RESPONSE
The specific local conditions include the presence of the Merrimac River and the dispersion of population centers.
Those local conditions necessitate more teams than the plan provides for, preselected monitoring locations, and the proximate origin of the monitoring personnel.
158.
Please describe in detail all the " conditions" that Interveners assert would be so at variance from "those assumed in the ETE study" as to require that "the ETEs used by protective action decision-makers" be " adjusted," and define " adequately adjusted."
Please also state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying your answer.
RESPONSE
There are an extremely large number of conditions that could affect ETEs at the time ORO's PAR decisionmakers are deliberating.
The Mass AG does not have a complete list of these conditions.
We can offer the following examples, however.
The SPMC's ETEs are set forth for ten described scenarios.
Egg IP 2.5, Attachment 4, p.20.
One of them is for a summer weekend at "mid-day" with good weather and the " beach area population at capacity."
Another is for the same day and time circumstances but with bad weather -- a " sudden rain occurs with beach population at capacity."
Because the beach population is known to fluctuate dramatically over the course of a single summer day as the day-trippers travel in and out of the area, and because the ETEs are known to be directly sensitive to the size of the total beach population (see NHRERP testimony of Dr. Adler), the "mid-day good weather ETE is hours longer than the ETE for 6 p.m. that same day, after thousands of beachgoers have left the area.
If PAR decisionmakers meet at 6 p.m. on a summer day with good weather, they need to adjust the ETE in the chart downward by some unknown amount or they will be using an unrealistically long ETE in their calculations.
Likewise, on a summer weekend with poor weather, not a sudden rainstorm but simply a cool overcast day when few day-trippers travel to the beaches, the "mid-day" bad weather ETE given in the chart is again going to be much too long.
An adjustment to the time set forth in the chart needs to be made.
Besides adjustments for time of day and weather, and the size of the beach area population, - _ _ _ - _
f l
i adjustments to'the ETE given in the SPMC will need to be made for temporary road blockages on critical evacuation routes (those which are longest to clear during evacuations), for delays'in' staffing-TCPs (especially capacity-enhancing ones),
and for the impact of an early beach closing advisory which was issued hours before an evecuation PAR is ever considered.
" Adequately adjusted" means adjusted to the degree necessary to bring the ETE into a time range which is realistic enough to ensure that adequate protective decisionmaking can and will occur.
159.
Please state all facts, estimates, and observations underlying Interveners' assertion that "the -
figures listed for the permanent residents are incorrect for F
the current time period," and define " current time period."
RESPONSE The facts available to the Mass AG at this time include:
The testimony of Dr. Luloff in the NHRERP hearings.
The answers given by the local communities to interrogatoreis [ sic] about the size of their permanent resident population.
" Current time period" means that period of time which runs from the present moment forward for approximately 1 year.
160.
Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Interveners' assertion that "the
' peak' population totals for both ' summer midweek' and
' summer weekend' are significantly too low," and define (with quantification) "significantly."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG at this time include:
The testimony of Drs. Befort, High and Adler in the NHRERP proceedings.
The testimony of Dr. Luloff in the NHRERP proceedings.
The answers given by the local communities to interrogatories about the size of their populations, including their estimates of crowds on special event days. l l
"Significantly" low means that the number is low enough below the realistic figure to preclude a finding that PARS made using that low number provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
177.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " field samples will not be adequately gathered, recorded or tested," and define " adequately."
RESPONSE
The facts include:
1)
The plans provisions for the selection of sampling personnel are deficient.
l 2)
The plans for how to go about selecting sampling sites are deficient.
3)
The plans provisions for training sampling personnel are inadequate.
4)
The total available number of sampling personnel is insufficient to ensure that sampling is conducted in a thorough [ sic) and systematic manner.
Second Set 9.
Please describe in detail all the "particular problems of security, public health, timely evacuation and emergency-specific rescue needs" that Interveners assert differ from those met by " normal emergency functions," and define " normal emergency functions."
Please also state all the facts underlying your answer.
RESPONSE
The SPMC asserts that " law enforcement, fire and rescue needs and snow removal agencies are expected to be within local capabilities supported by mutual aid agreements and it is assumed that in an emergency, these agencies will continue to carry out their normal emergency functions".
A Seabrook radiological emergency requiring Plan 2.4-3,-4.
the implementation of protective actions for entire communities would present particular problems of security, public health, timely evacuation and emergency-specific rescue needs which differ from the problems usually addressed by " normal emergency functions."
" Normal emergency functions" as used in Contentier. JI 27 Basis B.2. is intended to have the same meaning as those words have in the SPMC at f
Plan 2.4-4.
The particular problems are as follows:
v:0Mm,
z a...
1 L
jy H
~
Security and law enforcement: -Large scale evacuation presents' security issues completely.unlike'" normal"
- conditions.-: Protecting against looting'and enforcing:an evacuation order against those'not inclined to leave
- voluntarily;are two-examples of security issues not faced during'" normal" conditions.
Public Health:
Under " normal" conditions, those local D
- agencies responsible for law enforcement and fire and rescue needs areJnot confronted with issues of public health'and the risksiof radiation.. During a Seabrook radiological emergency.
the public would' turn for information and assistance on such
~
matters lto those lLn the local communities responsible for-
" normal' emergency functions."
. Timely. evacuation:.The manpower demands on local law enforcement agencies if an evacuation is to be carried out as effectively as possible would-be enormous.
Suchian immediate and. extensive demand on traffic management personnel across the extent.of the Massachusetts EPZ would bear no resemblance to " normal emergency functions".
Emergency-Specific Rescue Needs:
A variety'of
. circumstances resulting from a Seabrook radiological Lemergency;could result in rescue'needs'that are. markedly different in kind and scope from " normal emergency
~
functions."- For. example, local rescue agencies may be
' requested to, evacuate individuals from a variety of different institutions.
A ful'l-scale' evacuation could well result in emergencies-within-the-emergency that themselves call for rescue services...None of these circumstances are "normally" faced.by rescue. agencies.'
^
.12.
-Please" describe'in detail all of the "particular O
^
established routines existing in these [ Massachusetts EPZ) communities for.rcsponse to emergencies" that Interveners-assert the SPMC " totally ignores," and state, for each such 3
routine, whether the routine would be followed in'the event ofLal radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
Please also state all the' facts underlying your answer.
RESPONSE
The Mass AG is in the ' process of gathering information responsive to this interrogatory.
16.
Please list all "necessary New Hampshire personnel," within the meaning of JI Contention 27 Basis G, and state:all the facts underlying your answer.
i.
9
__m__m._______m.
)
The "necessary New Hampshire personnel" are
RESPONSE
those personnel involved in the emergency response pursuant to the NHRERP on behalf of New Hampshire whose actions could or should be coordinated with the actions of ORO eid the local and state governments in Massachusetts to ensure an They include personnel involved in PAR adequate response.
decision-making, evacuation and traffic control, public notification and information, and media relations.
17.
Please state all the facts, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Interveners' assertion that "at an organizational level, the SPMC fails to adequately establish and define the relationship between the ORO and other organizations which are expected and relied upon to perform emergency response activities," define " adequately," and list all "other organizations" which Interveners assert are " relied upon to perform emergency response activities."
RESPONSE
The Massachusetts Attorney General has no other facts at this time but further expert review of the The Massachusetts Attorney General will SPMC is underway.
" Adequately" is the supplement his answer if necessary.
adverbial form of " adequate" understood as it is used in 10 CFR 50.47 (a) (1) and in other relevant regulatory materials.
"other organizations" are listed, in part, at SPMC Table 2.0-These organizations include those personnel responding 1.pursuant to the Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency Plan.
Please describe in detail all the specific purposes 23.
for which Interveners 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 Interveners assert have taat r,eed.
Please also state all the faces underlying your answer.
RESPONSE
Emergency field personnel need a lateral network of communications linking them to each other to respond effectively to a range of evacuation-related problems including traffic jams, traffic accidents, loss of required and need for communication as to configuration of roadways, Field monitoring teams also need lateral alternative routes.
communication to insure that monitoring is being conducted Emergency field personnel include Transfer effectively.
Point Dispatchers, Route Guides, Traffic Guides, Road Crews, Field monitoring teams, VANS Operators, bus and ambulance drivers and Sample Collection teams. --- - _ __ _ _ ____ _ _
24.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the failure to provide a lateral communications system" will result in " delay, miscommunication and gaps in the communications network."
EETPONSE:
An example of the delays and miscommunications that will result in light of the vertical communication chains set forth in the SPMC is the process by which an accident observed by a Traffic Guide is communicated to the relevant personnel.
The Traffic Guide communicates his observation or knowledge to the Evacuation Support Dispatch.e who in turn communicates the information to the Staging Area leader who then notifies the Transfer Point Dispatcher who then directs the appropriate road crew.
If an evacuation route is impeded, the Staging Area leader communicates this fact to the EOC which then considers a re-routing of traffic.
This communication will result in delay and miscommunications.
30.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' l
assertion that "in the event of a radiological incident, NHY l
has an interest in minimizing the public perception that the i
plant is a source of danger."
RESPONSE
The facts underlying this assertion include the statement made in the Report of the President's Commission on Three Mile Island concerning the " mind set" of certain nuclear utility employees with regard to their perception of the level of risk presented by a commercial nuclear plant and their understanding of the impact on the l
future operations of a nuclear plant if a radiological j
emergency necessitating public notification were to occur.
The communication of emergency information to the public through the EBS system, the news media and other sources by l
such personnel will be affected by this mind-set.
This is l
particularly true in circumstances in which the plan calls for precautionary public notification and protective action l
recommendations like an early beach closing at an Alert or Site Area Emergency ECL which would not otherwise mandate any PAR and which would not necessarily progress to an ECL that would mandate a PAR to the public.
44.
Please identify every EBS message "prepsred by the l
ORO" which Interveners assert is " misleading," and for each such message state all the facts underlying the assertion that it is " misleading." - _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
1 1
RESPONSE
A complete analysis of every EBS message has not been done.
As an example of the defects in the prepared messages, the Massachusetts Attorney General states as follows:
The " Alert Message" (IP 2.13, page 20, Amendment 4) states that there is "no danger to public health and safety" but then immediately adds that "any releases of radioactive material would be limited".
The public will believe that if a release of radiation occurs there will be a " danger" of some kind.
The message continues that "any releases of radiation.
. would be limited to levels well below those set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency."
The message does not indicate what these PAGs mean and planners should not assume public familiarity with them.
the message, after stating that any release "would be
- Next, limited," declares that "a limited release of radiation into the air did occur".
The juxtaposition of the statement that a release 11 it were to occur would be limited with the statement that such a release did already occur is confusing.
Next, the message states that the release "does not present a
danger to the people near the plant."
This is vgry The qualifier "near the plant" could be misleading.
understood to mean that those within the site boundary arg in danger.
If this was assumed by the public they would conclude that because the radiation was released "into the air" then at some point in the future those "near the plant" may be in danger.
Finally, the message does not contain the necessary information concerning:
- 1) the substance of what the " Alert" stage represents; 2) the prognosis regarding plant conditions; 3) the timing or speed of any change in conditions and 4) the possible range of actions that might be recommended to the public at different points in the future.
45.
Please identify every EBS message " prepared by the ORO" which Interveners assert is " confusing," and for each such ressage state all the facts underlying the assertion that it is " confusing."
RESPONSE
See response to Interrogatory No. 44.
46.
Please identify every EBS message " prepared by the ORO" which interveners assert is "self-contradictory," and for each such message state all the facts underlying the assertion that it is "self-contradictory."
RESPONSE
See response to Interrogatory No. 44.
i I
l i - _ _ _ _ _
[
l:'
i l:
L
- 48.. Please identify every EBS message " prepared by the ORO" which Interveners assert " ignore (s) important characteristics of the recipient public in Massachusetts and its response to a radiological emergency at Seabrook."
For each such message, describe in detail the "important characteristics of the recipient public in Massachusetts and its' response to a radiological emergency at Seabrook" that Interveners assert the message ignores.
Describe in detail the role that state and/or local officials have played in fostering those alleged "important characteristics."
Egg Memorandum and Order (Rulina on Contentions on the Seabrook Plan For Massachusetts Communities) at 107 (July 22, 1988)
(role of Commonwealth officials in fostering "an anticipatory disaster subculture").
Please also state all the facts underlying your answers.
RESPCNSE:
The.important characteristics of the recipient public include the fact that the local governments in the 6 Massachusetts EPZ towns are not participating in emergency planning in Seabrook.
As a result, as the news releases in the SPMC ind!cate, a non-governmental response organization is planning to control the emergency response.
None of the emergency 165 message make this clear.
53.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the "SPMC provides no adequate procedures for insuring that the emergency messages broadcast to the public correlate with the messages and information provided to the media by the NHY ORO and other officials," and define
" adequate," " insuring," and " correlate".
Please also list all "other officials" within the meaning of JI Contention 35 Basis D, and describe in detail what " messages and information" each such official would " provide to the media."
RESPONSE
Egg Response to Interrogatory 51.
In addition to the substantive differences that appear in the proposed EBS messages as compared with the proposed news releases, the procedures set forth in the SPMC for the coordination of news releases with emergency messages are not adequate.
Egg IP 2.12.
The emergency messages are formulated by the Public Notification Coordinator ("PNC") at the EOC.
The news releasts are made public by the Public Information Coordinator ("PIC") located at the Media Center at a different location then (sic) the EOC.
The link between the PNC and the PIC is the Public Information Advisor (" PIA")
who is located, like the PNC, at the EOC.
After the PNC has broadcast an EBS message he gives a copy to the PIA, who in turn gets it approved as a new release by the Offsite Response Director.
It is then telecopied to the PIC..
4 However, ORO as well as "other officials" including spokespersons from the Seabrook Station will be communicating with the media.
In fact, the Public Information Staff at the EOC is to dcvelop news releases which are to include current ECLs, PARS and a description of the current actions being taken by the ORO and the Commonwealth.
This information may well be formulated and broadcast as a news release prior to j
the same information being broadcast as an EBS message.
Thus, because there is no coordination of functions between the PNC, the PIA, the Seabrook Station medfa personnel and the Public Information Staff public emergency information made available will not be adequate.
" Adequate" is defined as in response to interrogatory No. 10.
" Insuring" is defined as "mak[ing) sure or certain."
Webster's at 466.
" Correlate" is defined as "to bring (a thing) into mutual relation (with another thing)."
Webster's at 319.
07.
Please describe in detail, and quantify, th6 "many special needs persons" whom Interveners assert 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 facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the type of material "will not be effective in reaching" that group of people.
RESPONSE
See response to Interrogatory No. 78.
There is no assurance under the plan that special needs persons who i
are residents of various institutions including special facilities, will receive the public education materials.
Furthermore, the particular type of public education materials cmpleyed are not suitable to be effective in conveying information to various classes of special needs Such classes include the visually impaired, the persons.
mentally impaired, and those with emotional impairments that interfere with their learning abilities.
In some instances, even individuals who are mobility impaired, will not be effectively instructed by the means that have been chosen.
Obviously, for the shut-ins, institutionalized, residents of l
special facilities, the visually impaired, the learning impaired, the mentally / emotionally impaired, and the mobility l
impaired, written materials distributed to the public that require visual and mental interpretation are not ef fective means of conveying information. lu_ _
j.
j 100.
Please state'all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the Route Guide's procedures.
are inadequate, ambiguous, and confusing," and define
" inadequate," " ambiguous," and " confusing".
i I
EESPONSE:.The Route Guides procedures are inadequate
[ sic), ambigucus and confusing because they do not give suf ficient instruction.to the Route Guides on how to carry out their functional roles.
For example, the procedures do not give instructions on how to contact hearing impaired persons upon arrival at their houses.
Further, the instructions do not give any guidance [ sic) as to what a Route Guide is to do if a hearing impaired person asks for assistance.
124.. Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the phone conversations with each Superintendent could be quite lengthy," and define (with quantification) "could" and "quite lengthy."
RESPONSE
Such facts include: (1) The superintendents i
will have had no prior training to respond to the radiological emergency.
(2) The superintendents will not i
know a great deal about such emergencies.
(3) The School Liaison will have to provide the superintendents with a
.significant amount of information about the emergency so that the superintendents will be in a position to evaluate the situation and make decisions as to how to react.
(4) The superintendents mayhave [ sic) input into EBS messages.
"Could" means having the inherent potential to be:
I "quite-lengthy" (sic) means a fairly long period of time ranging upwards from several minutes.
130.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' l
assertion that, "for those facilities which have no sheltering plan, the message simply affords inadequate guidance on how to implement a timely, safe and effective
' sheltering response," and define " inadequate," " guidance,"
" timely," " safe," and " effective".
RESPONSE
The facts include:
- 1) The message is a I
L prescripted, generic statement that is too rigid and useless f
to be followed in implementing the timely, safe and effective sheltering response.
- 2) It is not tailored to the needs of the individual institutions.
- 3) It provides no guidance if there is no basement in the building in question or if all available rocoms [ sic) have an equal number of windows. L- -_- -
j
^
l
)
" Guidance" means the act of guiding.
" Timely"has [ sic) been
]
previously defined.
" Safe" means affording safety from danger.
" Effective" means effectual.
133.
Please identify all schools in the Massachusetts EPZ that Interveners assert "would be totally inappropriate for sheltering school children."
For each such school, state all.the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that it "would be totally inappropriate for sheltering school children," and define " totally inappropriate."
RESPONSE
Such schools include:
All the schools in Merrimac, all public schools in Newburyport, Governor Dummer Academy, Amesbury High School, Amesbury Elementary School, and the Cashman School would all be inappropriate for sheltering school children.
All those schools would be inappropriate because the facilities at those schools are such that school children could not be effectively sheltered from radiation for the period of time that would be necessary in the event of a radiological emergency.
" Totally inappropriate" means completely unsuitable.
134.
Please identify all schcols in the Massachusetts EPZ that Interveners assert have " climate control systems that are totally reliant on outside air."
RESPONSE
Such schot1s include:
the Cashman School, Pentucket Senior High School, Pentucket Junior High School, Dr. John C. Page School.
147.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' 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 Interveners assert "may reasonably need such transportation" and what would be an adequate " number of ambulances," and state all the factc, estimates, and observations underlying your answers.
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG at this time include:
The Resource Needs Summary in Appendix M, which continues to change with each amendment to the SPMC.
Amendment 5 indicated that 67 ambulances were needed, just for transporting those in the two Massachusetts EPZ hospitals, the special facilities, the EPZ residents with - - _ _ _ _ - -
"d
(
mobili+y impairments, and +h-m at receptica catnters who may need to be transported by ambulance to hospitals.
Amendment 6 has reduced this mumber to 59.
.3 3 3 p. 1E.1 8.
he Amenarant 6 ltasaurce Meads B=mrry also lists a need for 62 wheal chair vans.
As to resources 1rvailable,% 2pplicanta have Widad -the Sams 35 with the mamma irf-the companies being relied upon-to provide ambulances.. Egg Applicants' answers to Mass AG Interrugatewy Ep. 35.
Nine companies are listed.
Two of them are new, i.e., they were not listed in the. plans previously tro LOA), and Amendment 4 montains no IZE for them althar.. Two companima s.rh4r h were listed preVIously have dropped out.
Of-the seven (7) companies Tor which the Mass o
'AG does-have LOA's, the ambulances'the LDA's. support as.
aveilable a-tutal. Only -to 45 plus 4 ambulutts.
Investigations-conducted in March 1988 by the Mass AG indicated that the campany with a.IAA to -"T,1y 10 ambulance:
subsequently contracted to supply only 9.
Another company
'l vhich : had an IDA -fer 3 ambuisnoes 1 subsequently contracted to supply only.2.
Thus only 43 ambulances are potentially available to support the SPMC from these seven (7) companies.
- The 2 4. ambuletts which have been offered are not licensable in Massachusetts and cannot lawfully be used.in an emergency in Massachusetts.
.here are reasons to believe that all 43 of thase ambulanr== will mot be avm41=hle 1ehan needed in a real energency.. The company which agreed to supply 1 ambulance b
indicated that "an extended response time was anticipated."
L
'the company with an Inn for <==hutances was told it would I'
.not have to drive to armas close to the nur lear plant: does not have all the drivers it needs to supply 4 ambulances on duty.at all times,== -4=11y after midnight; and would not be able to send an ambulance which was out on another call.
The Director.of Operm+4a== of the company which ' bad tentatively agreed to supply 22 ambulances (actually listed possibly in error. on the IAA as 12 ambulances) had not yet
(*
lined up.the drivers as of March 1988 and did not understand that.his==hnla nt *= and Arivers 2'rmld.go into.the_EP2..The General Manager of the campany with a IAA to supply 10 ambulances, 5 wheelchair vans, and 2 rr4+4rm1 care units was told by representatives from NHY that they did not believe an accident at Saabrook will happen and that the ICA was needed
{
fjust to have the ambulanr=. numbers.needed.to get Seahrook's j
evacuation plans approved.
He was also told that if he were ever called to respond his ambulancas would go to Haverhill.
He says that is as far north as his== Mlances and.. drivers l:.
)
pq
would go.
He also says his first obligation would always be to the residents in the area where his company is located, and that he 5ould only send the ambulances that were available at the time, but he does not believe his drivers would be volunteer in a real emergency.
The two new ambulance companies listed by the Applicants in their answer to Interrogatory 35 are both located to the north of the EPZ an in a fast-breaking accident, would have to take a lengthy roundabout route to the ORO Staging Area, avoiding travel through the EPZ on j
Interstate 95.
Initial Mass AG investigations have indicated that the Applicants have underestimated the number of ambulances needed for the hospitals, sepcial [ sic) facilities, and mobility-impaired population.
No quantitative estimates have been made to date on the actual number that would be needed.
l LOA's only support the availability of only 59 L
wheelchair vans.
The SPMC's Resource and Needs Summary do not indicate any attempt to estimate how many ambulances will be needed to transport contaminated injured individuals.
One ambulance is assigned to each reception center.
Information available to the Mass AG at this time which supports a need for muen larger number of ambulances to transport contaminated injured persons include; (a) the testimony of Dr. Ceder in the NHRERP regarding rates of traffic accidents, (b) the testimony of Sholly, Beyea, Thompson and Leaning offered it. the NHRERP proceedings, (c) the SPMC's plans not l
to impler v*- traffic control immediately if a beach closing occurs at oi coon after the declaration of SAE.
188.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' f
assertion that "without adequate facility-specific plans for l
each special facility, there is no reasonably assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken for those in special facilities," and define " adequate."
RESPONSE
Without specific plans tailored to the needs and circumstances of the individual special facilities, there can be no assurance that in the event of a radiological l
emergency., effective sheltering or evacuation will be able to be undertaken by the facility.
For instance, since there has been no assessment as to whether the special facilities are l
suitable for sheltering, there is no assurance that in the 1 l L-__-__-_
i.
event that sheltering is recommended, an effective sheltering action will be able to be undertaken.
Merely given j
instructions at the time of radiological emergency as to how l
to shelter to the staff of a special facility, is not effective planning because it leaves to the judgment of an untrained nonprofessional the responsibility for assessing the sheltering capacity of the facility.
1 Please state all the facts underlying Interveners'
)
230.
assertion that "[ajt least eight of the 16 companies have sither confirmed that they will not participate or that they will offer only the buscs, vans and drivers that might be available, if any, at the time of the emergency."
j REUPONSE:
The facts underlying that statement include:
Mass AG investigators interviewed The Mass representatives of the bus companies in March 1988.
AG objects to the production of the written reports of its own investigators because those reports constitute work product.
The Mass AG has previously informed the Applicants of the names of the four (4) companies which indicated that they would not participate and the names of the four companies which indicated that they would offer only the buses, vans, and drivers that might be available, [ sic) if any, at the time of the emergency.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' 231.
assertion that "[t]he remaining companier. do not have sufficient drivers, buses and vans to evacuate the transport-i dependent / mobility-impaired population and all those in special facilities, and schools, and hospitals, daycare/ nurseries who need bus / van transportation" and that
"[t]his number is larger than the SPMC estimates."
i
RESPONSE
The facts underlying that initial statement JDclude:
The number of buses the SPMC indicates are needed to evacuate all these persons and facilities.
See Resource Needs and Summary in Appendix M.
l The number of buses and drivers indicated on LOAs for these remaining companies.
l -_-_
l I
f i
Statements made to Mass AG investigators by the president-of the company which has a LOA to provide 104 buses.
See answer to Interrogatory 118, above.
The Mass AG
~i objects to the production of the written reports of its own investigators because those reports constitute work product.
As to the second statement, the facts underlying it at this time are:
the methe logy the Applicants have used to estimate the transit-. pendent / mobility impaired population.
Mass As staff estimates of the actual size of this population.
234.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the SPMC's procedures in Pro. 2.10 for notifying bus companies, determining the availability of buses and drivers, assigning particular buses to particular bus needs, assigning Bos Dispatchers, Route Guides, and Dosimetry Recordkeepers, and sending these ORO staffers off to the assigned bus yards is designed for a slow-breaking l
radiological emergency" and define " slow-breaking radiological emergency."
I
RESPONSE
The facts avaiable (cic] to the Mass AG at l
this time include:
The SPMC's procedures in IP 2.10.
The locations of the participating bus companies' yards.
Mass AG estimates of the time 3t will take the Bus Company contacts to seek to contact each participating driver to " determine the number of qualified drivers and vehicles () which would be available and thier (sic]
mobilization times."
IP 2.10, 5 5.1.3(B).
A slow breaking radiological emergency is one for which the time between the onset of accident conditions and the start of a major release exceeds several hours, i.e.,
it is outside the planning basis described on p. 13 of NUREG-0654.
236.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " convoys of buses always travel more slowly than individual buses do, and convoys will have a much more difficult time traveling into the EPZ against evacuating L
traffic than single buses would."
i 1 l
mi__
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG at this time include:
Initial observations of Dr. Adler, and his testimony in the NHRERP hearings.
The SPMC's traffic management plan.
237.
Please state all facts underlying Interveners' assertions that'"[ijn seeking to. enlist.the participation of these ambulance companies and their driver, NHY led at least some of the companies and their drivers to believe that they would not be driving into areas close to Seabrook Station which were radiologically contaminated" and that'"[t]his was done through a combination of active misrepresentation and critical omission of facts regarding what kinds of individuals might need ambulance services and where they would be located."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG at this time include:
See the facts set forth in answer +n Interrogatory No. 147 regarding the companies wiwn a LOA's for 4, 22, and-10 ambulances respectively.
These facts were gathered by Mass AG investigators interviews with representatives-from these companies.
We object to the production of these investigators' reports because they constitute work product.
242.-
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "[a] third company will not renew its l
agreement to participate after the first year, and even now i
cannot provide reasonable assurance that its drivers will show up in the event of a radiological emergency."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG at this time include:
The Office Manager of the tow company with a LOA for 15 manned vehicles informed the Mass AG's investigators in March 1988 that he did not intend to renew his agreement with NHY for another year and that he did not know *.0w many of his drivers would in fact show up to drive l
in tne event of an actual emergency at seabrook.
The Mass AG objects to the production of the written reports of its own investigators [ sic) because they constitute work product.
l 3g_
l:
1
9 244.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' a:sertion that "[the number of tow trucks deployed by the SPMC) is far short of the number needed to clear the evacuation routes of all reasonable anticipated blockages in a timely fashion," and define " timely."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG at this time include:
See the answer provided to Interrogatory No. 238.
l 248.
Please state all the f acts underlying Interveners '
assertion that "the SPMC fails to demonstrate that those individuals deemed 'available' to perform emergency services have in fact been asked, and agreed, to provide these services in an actual emergency, or that these individuals, many employed far from the EPZ, could promptly be located, notified, and deployed to respond to a nuclear accident," and define (with quantification) "many," "far," and "promptly."
RESPONSE
The facts that Mass AG has at this time include:
The SPMC's LOAs.
Nothing else in the SPMC demonstrates that (1) these individuals have been asked, and have agreed, to provide these services in an actual emergency, especially in a radiation plume or in a contaminated area, or (2) that they can be promptly located, notified, and deployed to respond.
The Mass AG defers to the Town of Amesbury for the definition l '.
of these words, contained originally in a TOA contention.
249.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " traffic accidents or additional delay will occur."
Please also state how many " traffic accidents" and what (and how long) " additional delays" Interveners assert will occur, and state also the facts, estimates, and observations underlying your answers.
RESPOWSE:
This language comes from TOA 1B.
The facts available to the Mass AG Include:
The testimony of Dr. Adler in the NHRERP proceedings.
The testimony of Dr. Ceder in the NHRERP proceedings. - _ _ _ _ - _ _..
I I
r The SPMC's traffic management plan.
The fact that ORO's traffic guides are not in uniform.
The SPMC's plans and procedures for discouraging all be certain categories of drivers from passing through ACPs into the EPZ and for advising persons who do intend to pass through them about radiation exposure and EBS messages.
See Appendix 0 at J-5.
The Mass AG has not data regarding how many traffic accidents will occur or how long the delays will be.
251.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "there is no reasonable assurance that the bus drivers who.
. have agreed to respond to an emergency at Seabrook in fact have sufficient experience or training to perform this function," and define " sufficient."
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG at this l
time includc:
l See the Mass AG's answers to interrogatories regarding tcaining.
See the facts set forth in JI 55(K).
All bus drivers do not necessarily have experience with handicapped persons or young children.
" Sufficient" means enough to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
272.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the Utility plan fails to provide for an adequate equipment inventory, in particular blinking light cones, to be maintained at the staging area."
i
RESPONSE
The facts available to the Mass AG include:
The Staging Area inventory lists do not include blinking light cones.
l l
i l L_-__ _ _.
~
h.
j i
~
8 l
277..
Please state-all'the facts underlying Intervenor's assertion'..that "[t]he mere provision of resources to support an unplanned emergency response does not adequately
' compensate for the state and local governments' lack'of preparedness to respond to an accident at Seabrook."
RESPONSE
A lack of emergency preparedness and prior planning is not compensated for with additional resources made'available at'the time of an emergency.
Facts include all those facts about the accident at TMI and.the need for.
- detailed planning and preparedness known to the NRC'when it adopted 10 CFR 50;47.
t li l l'
"-h-
--m--E_--_____m
p a
ATTACHMENT B:
INCOMPLETE ANSWERS l
First Set 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 consulted,and/or relied upon, in answering each interrogatory.
RESPONSE
Names of Individuals Interrogatories to consulted in answerina which they contributed Dr. Thomas Adler 4,
5, 11, 14, 22, 23 24, 28, 37, 158 Dr. Robert Goble 137-157 127.
Please describe all types of " damages resulting from [ORO emergency workers'] actions" that Interveners assert would be likely to arise during an actual radiological emergency, and state all the facts underlying your answer.
RESPONEE:
The types of damages that are likely to result ars tort damages including damages for personal injuries, property damages, damages for emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
AS TO JI CONTENTION 23 168.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the possibility exists for delayed and conflicting PARS being formulated, transmitted and recommended to the relevant state governments."
Please also quantify that " possibility" and the asserted delays, describe in detail the consequences of the asserted conflicts, and state all the facts underlying your answer.
RESPONSE
Responsibility for formulating a PAR for Massachusetts is allocated to the Radiological Health Advisor
("PHA") located at the ORO EOC.
The PHA is to rely on technical information from the ORO technical advisor who in turn obtains this information from the EOF Coordinator who in turn obtains thic information from the Seabrook Station Technical Staff at the EOF.
Egg IP 1.7 at 6.
This informational flow is too cumbersome.
The PHA should have
I 4
direct access to the Technical Staff performing their duties pursuant to the Seabrook Station Radiological Plan.
Because the technical information flows out from this Staff to 2 different additional technical advisors (one from ORO and one from New Hampshire) who then in turn consult with individuals who formulate the PARS, there is no assurance that consistent PAR decisions will be reached.
ORO decides upon a PAR without any direct coordination with the State of New Hampshire or the Seabrook Station EOF personnel.
See IP 2.5 5
5.1.3, 4 and 5.
AS TO JI CONTENTION 2_i 169.
Please list, describe in detail, and quantify every delay that Interveners assert would occur in the delegation of " authority.
to perform governmental emergency response functions" in an actual radiological emergency at Seabrook State (as per master), and define
" governmental emergency response functions."
If Interveners assert that tne delay (s) would differ for different types of emergencies, answer separately for each type.
Please also state all the facts underlying your answers.
RESPONSE
The delays are described in JI 24 and involve the time taken to perform actions described at IP 2.14 5 5.2.3.
" Governmental emergency response functions" are defined as set forth in JI 44A Basis A.2.
170.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that these alleged delays "would preclude plompt public notification or a timely public emergency response,"
and define " prompt," " timely," and "public emergency response."
RESPONSE
The ORO would ' describe the capabilities" of the ORO to the Governor or to the Director MCDA/OEP, the Director's senior duty officer of the duty officer at the Massachusetts State EOC.
Then ORO would brief this individual on the emergency.
Then ORO would " request authorization to implement" the SPMC.
At this point, ORO would wait until the Commonwealth decided whether to delegate authority or not.
This procedure will simply take too long and delay public notification.
172.
Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Interveners' assertions that the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ - _.
l I
" arrival [of the RHAs) will be delayed because the RHAs live and work too far from EOC," and define (with quantification)
" delayed" and "too far."
RESPONSE
One RHA lives in Holliston, Massachusetts and works in Boston.
181.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " persons should be sought who reside within 20 miles; of the plant, are familiar with the local areas and are already experienced in sampling procedures," and define
" familiar" and " experienced."
RESPONSE
The sample collection teams should be comprised of personnel with the background indicated in Basis F because only such personnel are proximate enough to be mobilized on a timely basis and are knowledgeable enough about local conditions and sampling techniques to be adequately trained to perform sampling activities properly.
Second Set 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 consulted and/or relied upon, in answering each interrogatory.
RESPONSE
Names of Individuals Interrogatories to consulted in answerino which they contributed Dr. T. Michael Carter 43-46, 48-51, 53, 55, 57-61, 64-70, 72 Jeffrey Hausner 8,
25, 26, 31, 291, 292 Dr. John Petterson 255-262 Dr. Robert Goble 255-262 The Massachusetts Attorney General has objected to the production of work product documents. -
e 6.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the lieinons fail to establish any organizational or communicational link between the ORO and the local organization [ sic] which are relied upon to perform certain emergency activities," and list all of those "certain emergency activities."
RESPONSE
NUREG 0654, Supp.
1, II.
c.
5 requires that a utility plan provide various liaison personnel who are capable of "advis[ing) and assist (ing) state and local officials in implementing" portions of the utility plan.
However, the basic design of the SPMC is that the ORO will obtain the requisite legal authority from the Commonwealth to conduct all of the necessary and essential emergency response functions itself.
As such, the role of liaison although nominally created in the SPMC to superficially meet the regulatory requirement of Supp.
1, is not well-defined because the SPMC does not assume that any key or essential planning functions will be or will need to be implemented by state and local officials.
Because of this overall planning strategy -- to substitute the ORO in the place of local and state responders -- the liaison will not be effectively deployed either to provide guidance to the governments so that an overall pian or structure would be superimposed by the liaisons over the various ad hac responses of the relevant governmental responders or to monitor what the state I
and local response is so that ORO responders can coordinate their activities with the ad hoc responses of the governments.
In either case, the information flows would be extremely complex, requiring the various liaisons to be completely versed not only in all the details of the SPMC, L
but also versed in the capabilities of the governments.
These liaisons would essentially constitute the working interface between the utility responders and the governments.
However, the SPMC does not adequately describe the actual functions of these liaison personnel.
No adequate communication links are described that would permit the l
various liaisons to communicate quickly and directly with each other to share information about the emerging response of the various state and local agencies to which these liaisons are dicpatched.
Communications are all vertically channeled back to the EOC to the Assistant Offsite Response l
Director, Support Liaisons.
This individual's role and l
implementing procedures are also insufficiently described to permit the liaison structure to function as an effective interface.
Moreover, the SPMC does not provide any guidance or instructions for local and state responders such that the liaisons could by simply providing copies of brief, concise _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _
y l
and simplified procedures guide the state and local responders.
35.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " key ORO personnel.
. have no car phones or other means of communication during their mobilization
)
period."
Please also list alt such " key ORO personnel,"
j explain in detail why Intervences assert that each one is j
" key," and state all the facts underlying your answer.
\\
RESPONSE
Certain key ORO personnel testified during their depositions that they had no car phones.
The SPMC l
provides that ORO officials do not begin to manage the
]
response until after they have reported to the EOC.
" Key ORO personnel" are all those performing functions necessary to ensure that there exists reasonable assurance pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47 (a) (1).
66.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that the "ORO itself will be unable to provide coordinated rumor contro1," and define " coordinated."
Please also define " develop a strategy" as used in MAG Contention 23 Basis B.
RESPONSE
The ORO individual in charge of rumor control is the Public Information Advisor (" PIA") who is located at the EOC.
The primary responsibility of this individual is the development of news releases.
In fact, the SPMC at 2.1-12 does not even mention that this individual is also in charge of rumor control.
At the time of an emergency, the PIA is to designate a rumor control staff.
No guidance is provided in the SPMC to the PIA as to what pool of individuals he or she is supposed to pick from.
No guidance is provided as to what level of training, experience, and skills would constitute a good pick.
For example, a requirement for any person who would be effective on a rumor control staff would involve a solid understanding of radiation, the plant, and geography and demographics of the EPZ and the outlying areas, and a grasp of the basic protective actions that could be recommended for different portions of the EPZ.
Another requirement would involve the capacity to mobilize this understanding quickly and accurately and communicate it persuasively to the public.
The PIA is to designate a rumor control staff from an unidentified pool of individuals, the specific abilities of which he or she would have no way of assessing on an impromptu basis. ___
l
l-t Further, the PIA is at the EOC.
The Joint Telephone Information Center ("JTIC") is in Newington, New Hampshire.
Yet, it is at the JTIC that the rumor control staff is to perform a significant portion of its task -- i.e., deal with rumors.
Logistically, it is unclear how the PIA is to even designate a rumor control staff at or from the EOC which is to function at the JTIC and Media Center.
75.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " inadequate provisions have been made to insure that the special needs population receive necessary pre-emergency information," and define " inadequate," "special needs population," and "necessary."
The definition of "special needs population" should include,'but not be limited to, a list of all groups whom Interveners assert are part of the "special needs population."
RESPOESE:
See response to Interrogatory No. 78 below.
94.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the list of hearing-impaired individuals in Appendix M does not contain the names of many hearing-impaired residents," define " hearing-impaired," define (with quantification) "many," and list the names and addresses of all " hearing-impaired resident's" known to Interveners who are not listed in Appendix M.
RESPONSE
Please see the answers to Interrogatories No.
163 and 164.
Since Appendix M does not list the names and addresses of those hearing impaired residents, it is impossible to know who is included and who is not.
97.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' asserticn that "many hearing-impaired individuals will simply not hear their banging or shouts at the door, or an apartment
' buzzer,'" and define (with quantification) "many."
Please also state all the facts underlying Interveners' implied assertion that the only means available to the Route Guides to alert those hearing-impaired individuals would be banging, shouting, or buzzing.
RESPONSE
By definition, hearing impaired individuals are hard of hearing and, therefore, will not hear audio signals such as somebody tapping or shouting at the door.
To the extent that there is an implied assumption in Basis A, it _ _ _ _ --_
L, is based upon the fact that the plan and procedures do not' specify any other means ror alerting hearing impaired r
Lindivdiuals~(sic).
L
.101.
.Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "special equipment should be provided to.each household in the Massachusetts EPZ with a deaf or nearly deaf 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 underlying your answer.
RESPONSE
Special equipment should be provided to households containing hearing impaired individuals so that there will lua adequate communication with the individuals in the event of a radiological emergency.
Special equipment might' include communications equipment such as TDD's or L
TTY's.
The latter portion of this interrogatory has previously been objected to.
145.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that evacuation of the Amesbury and Anna Jacques Hospitals would take "many hours," and define (with quantification) "many."
RESPONSE: The assertion that he evacuation of Amesbury and Anna Jacques Hospitals would take "many hours" is based upon the following facts:
1)
The transportation resources available to effectuate such an evacuation are inadequate; 4
2)
The plan does not provide for adequate personnel to effectuate the removal of patients from the hospital and loading onto transport; 3)
The hospital personnel do not have adequate knowledge or training on the evacuation of patients in the event of a radiological emergency; - _ ____--___-
r 4
I 4)
The information that the hospitals have received from NYH is inadequate to prepare the hospitals for such an emergency; 5)
The traffic conditions in such an emergency would be such as to impede any timely evacuation.
163.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the deeply-felt and widespread opposition to of [ sic] does not engender confidence on the part of special needs persons that the information they might submit will be kept confidential, thereby discouraging submission of such data," and define " discouraging."
RESPONSE
Because the applicants have persisted in their efforts to open Seabrook Station despite the opposition to it, the special needs population within the Massachusetts EPZ has come to look upon the efforts by the utility as being single-focused to the detriment of concerns about the community.
The special needs population views the utility as being in a posture in which it would stop at nothing to open Seabrook Station despite the particular needs and concerns of those within the EPZ.
Since the special needs population believes that the utility will stop at nothing to open Seabrook Station, they view the confidential communications which they might make to the utility as being expendable in l
the eyes of the utility.
The population believes that if the utility should ever view it as being in its interest to disclose those communications, the utility will have no compunction to do so.
For instance, in order to publicize the fact that it has gone to lengths to contact even the
}
special needs population, the utility might not hesitate to identify those with special needs on its lists.
" Discourages" means having a chilling effect.
164.
Please state all the facts, other than those discussed in response to the preceding interrogatories, underlying Interveners' assertion that " periodic special needs surveys by mail" are " unreliable for a number of reasons."
RESPONSE
Experts in the area of surveys and data gathering have uniformly proclaimed surveys by mail as being among the most unreliable methods of gathering information.
166.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners '
assertion that "much information on functional characteristics and needs could and should be obtained to
\\
enable appropriate and timely assistance to be provided," and define "much," " appropriate," and " timely."
{
RESPONSE
New Hampshire Yankee is subject to no laws nor effective sanctions if it releases confidential special needs information.
Therefore, the Special Needs Population is in the posture of relying upon the " good will" a*:'
beneficent intentions of New Hampshire Yankee for assurance j
that the information that is provided to New Hampshire Yankee j
will remain confidential.
In the past the good will and beneficent intentions of New Hampshire Yankee have provided cold comfort to those relying upon them.
There is no reason to believe that in the present or future New Hampshire Yankee will be more reliable.
To effectively deal with the requirements of the Special Needs Population in a radiological emergency much more information must be known.
It appears that at present the only information available to the Special Needs Population Liaison is whether the Special Needs individual requires a wheel chair, car, ambulance, or is sight, hearing or mobility impaired.
The information available to the liaison makes no mention as to whether an individual disability will prohibit effective sheltering, whether the individual's residence is suitable for sheltering, or whether the individual is even in a position to be effectively instructed on sheltering.
Similarly, if an evacuation is necessary, the Special Needs Liaison has no information as to whether a Special Needs individual will need to take medication with him/her, a personal care attendant, a seeing eye dog, or a variety of medical equipment.
Similarly, the Liaison has no information as to whether the individual has a mental impairment that will make it impossible for them to follow instructions or communicate as to appropriate courses of action.
There is also no provision for contact with a relative, friend, or personal physician who night have critical information on the requirements of the special needs individual.
In short, the information that is currently available to special needs population liaisons, special needs population coordinator, i
and the evacuation coordinator is totally inadequate for effectively dealing with the special needs population in the Massachusetts EPZ.
180.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " agreements to receive a specific number of individuals should be made with mental facilities outside the i
9_
{
L_____
e 1,
'o
)
EPZ, to accommodate non-functional severe cases," and define l
"non-functional severe cases."
RESPONSE
Planning must be conducted for all segments of the general population.
Planning cannot exclude any
.particular segment of the population who including those with non-functional severe mental or emotional disabilities.
Since-some individuals within that-category may require the occurity that care and supervision that.can only be provided within~ facilities designed and staffed for such purposes, the-plan must provide ~for agreements with mental facilities outside the EPZ.
I 203.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion'that, "for those facilities which have no sheltering plans, the message simply affords inadequate guidance on how to implement a timely, safe, and effective i
sheltering response," and define " inadequate," " guidance,"
and " timely."
Please also identify all " facilities" which Interveners assert "have no sheltering plans."
.i
RESPONSE
Because the message offers no guidance tailored to the specific physical plant of the special facility the resources of the facility or to the particular needs of the-population at the special facility, it affords no effective assistance in constructing the facilities on how to shelter.
The majority of special facilities within the
-EPZ have no sheltering plans.
l i.1
o-F ATTACHMENT C:
IMPROPER OBJECTIONS.
Second Set 139.
Please provide the following information for all
" schools" in the Massachusetts EPZ:
(a) the " school" name, address, and telephone number, unless such information is already contained in the SPMC; (b) the number of staff and of students, unless such information is correctly stated in the SPMC; (c) the source and number of " regular contracted" or school-owned buses, and the capacity of each bus; (d) copies of all documents that reflect or refer to procedures for early dismissal, snow days, and school cancellation:
(e) which " schools" are on split sessions, what the hours of those sessions are, and how many students are in each session; (f) how many students, at each " school," Walk, or drive to school; (g) how many mentally or physically handicapped students attend each " school," and how they get there each day; (h) the average percentage of absenteeism per day for each " school";
(1) the number of buses that can be simultaneously boarded by students at each " school"; and (j) how much adult supervision is provided on each
" school" bus during daily transportation and day trips, for each " school."
RE3PONSE:
The information that is requested in Interrogatory 139 is not within the domain or control of the Office of the Attorney General.
To the extent that this office is aware of such information, it has been gathered in the course of preparing for litigation and constitutes attorney's work product.
141.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "in the event of an evacuation, accommodations would be required for approximately 148 patients."
RESPONSE
Based upon an investigation conducted by an attorney, and under the direction of an attorney from this office, in the course of preparing for the instant litigation, that is how many hospital beds would be required as a result of evacuating the Amesbury and Anna Jacques
P I
l Hospitals.
The actual content of that investigation and calculation is attorney work product and it is not discoverable.
142.
Please state all the facts underlying each of the following assertions by Interveners:
(a)
" Hospital A
. would be able to provide only five beds at best";
(b)
" Hospital B has no intention of treating radiologically contaminated individuals";
(c)
" Hospital C would only be able to accommodate approximately ten very severely injured patients,"
and define "very severely injured";
(d)
" Hospital E has.
. 70 [ beds] usually available" and "does not have the facilities to handle radiologically contaminated individuals";
(e)
" Hospital F [has) a capacity for 108 beds of which 90 are usually filled";
(f)
" Hospital G could accommodate approximately forty patients in the event of an emergency";
(g)
" Hospital H
. might have approximately ten beds available in the event of an emergency"; and (h)
" Hospital I could provide approximately thirty beds."
RESPONSE
The facts underlying the assertions contained in Interrogatory 142 are the result of an investigation conducted by and under the direction of an attorney of this office and as such constitute attorney work product and are not discoverable.
146.
Do the Amesbury and Anna Jacques Hospitals possess evacuation plans for any type (s) of emergency?
If so, produce copies of all such plans.
If not, explain in detail why not.
RESPONSE
The information called for is not within the domain or control of this office.
To the extent that any information responsive to the question is known, it is the result of an investigation conducted by an attorney of this office in preparation for the instant litigation as such constitutes attorney work product.
187.
Please state all the facts, estimates, and observations underlying Interveners' 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 Interveners assert "have [not] been identified or listed in the SPMC."
(
s
RESPONSE
During the course of conducting an investigation in preparation for this litigation, an attorney from this office was informed that at least one special facility had not been identified or listed in the SPMC.
That facility.was identified as a battered wcmen's shelter.
The contents of that investigation constitute attorneys [ sic) work product and as such are not discoverable.
191.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the special facilities have not seen such a plan, and many will not keep it or rely on it even if NHY sends it'to them."
Please also identify all the "special facilities" that Interveners assert "will not keep (the plan) or rely on it."
RESPONSE
Based upon an investigation conducted by and under the direction of an attorney in this office it was ascertained that many if not most of the special facilities within the EPZ have no knowledge of any radiological emergency plan.
That investigation was. conducted preparation I
for the present litigation, and the contents of the investigation constitute attorney work product.
As such they are not discoverable.- Many facilities will not rely on the Plan since it would'be purposeless given the inadequacy of that plan.
Any'special facility that is a.public institution, as opposed to a purely private'one, will not keep or rely upon the generic plan.
With respect to the identity of any private institutions that are special facilities that'will not keep or rely upon the plan, that information is not within the domain or control of this office.
4
0 9
'1 ATTACHMENT D:
INCOMPLETE / UNRESPONSIVE DEFINITIONS.
Second Set 98.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "many hearing-impaired individuals will not let the Route Guides in," and define (with quantification)
"many".
FIREQRSI:
Hearing impaired individuals will not let in the Route Guides because they will not know who they arc.
Route Guides will be civilians, and without the trustworthiness that is inherent in a uniformed public safety official.
"Many" means a large number.
126.
Please state all the facts, other than those discussed in response to the preceding three interrogatories, underlying Interveners' assertion that "the last Superintendent may not be notified for a number of hours after an Alert is declared," and define (with quantification)
"may" and "a number of."
RESPONSE
See all of the above and the factL stated in the Contentions and Basis.
"May" means having the potential ability.
"A number of" means a significant number.
128.
" lease state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion tnat "the last [ private) school will not be notified for many hours after an alert has been declared,"
and define (with quantification) "many."
RESP 0HSI:
The various procedures for providing information and resources to private schools are so time consuming and convoluted that they will take many hours to accomplish.
But "Many" means a large number.
129.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "the EBS messages will become extremely long and drawn out," and define (with quantification) " extremely long."
PESPONSE:
If each school provides input into EBS messages, those messages could contain specific information from over 50 sources.
" Extremely long" means quite lengthy.
l 202.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that "there is no reasonable assurance that, in the event of an emergency, the ORO will be able to produce sufficient responding ambulances to evacuate those in special facilities in a timely fashion," and define (with quantification) " sufficient" and " timely."
RESPONSE
The companics listed in Appendix M cannot be relied upon in the event of an emergency to provide all or even some of the ambulances listed.
The ambulance companiee have commitments to honor pre-existing contractual responsibilities prior to responding to Seabrook Station.
Furthermore, since not all drivere of the ambulance companies have committed to participate, there will be the further complication of coalescing the schedules of the available ambulances with those of the drivers.
Also, a number of the ambulance companies are a significant distance form the EPZ, and it will take a substantial period of time for the ambulance to arrive in the EPZ.
By that point, they will encounter the traffic gridlock resulting from persons in the EPZ attempting to evacuate.
" Sufficient" means adequate.
" Timely" means in time.
250.
Please state all the facts underlying Interveners' assertion that " substantial delay in deploying emergency transportation will occur," and define (with quantification)
" substantial."
RESPONSE
See the Mass AG's answer to Interrogatory 234 above.
Substantial means longer than the amount of time which provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
l l
l - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4
I, Jeffrey P. Trout, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on January 3, 1989, 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. Smith 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 03862 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, Curran & Tousley U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 i
Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E.
Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisoee U.S.
Nuclear 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 Bethesda, MD 20814 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E.
Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of General Counsel Board Panel Docket (2 copies)
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building one White Flint North, 15th F1.
4350 East West Highway 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, MD 20852
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire l
l L_-_-___-___
i.
j Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street l
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory P.
O.
Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr.
J.
P.
Nadeau l
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 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O.
Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fl.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 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, Hill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire (Attn:
Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 l
- Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Leonard Kopelman, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
Concord, NH 03301 77 Franklin Street (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Boston, 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 0191
Exater, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Office of General Counsel Murphy and Graham Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 __
4..
.c
'. ~
l' 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 Mr. Richard'R. Donovan Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Federal Emergency Management 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street,-S.W.
Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 145 South Main Street P.O.
Box 38 Bradford, MA- 01835 Robert R.
Fierce, Esquire John H.
Frye, III, Alternate Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman l
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 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 yO
/X s-rwa; Q * 'ffly' Jeffrey P.
Trout
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail) i _ _ _ _ _ - -