ML20081J910

Answer Opposing Atty General Bellotti Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories & Requests for Documents Re Emergency Planning for State of Nh.Applicants Will Suppl Answers to Interrogatories 3,8 & 9.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20081J910
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/03/1983
From:	Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20081J890	List: ML20081J887 ML20081J910
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311090166
Download: ML20081J910 (9)

Text

n; i Filsd

November 3, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444 OL

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) )

)

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO " ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO ' ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO APPLICANTS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'"

Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.730, the Applicants hereby answer the " Attorney General Bellotti's Motion to Compel Answers to ' Attorney General Bellotti's Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to Applicants on Emergency Planning for the State of New Hampshire.'"

B311090166 831103 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR

. J Interrogatory No. 2 The Massachusetts Attorney General ("MassAG")

concedes that the "first part of this interrogatory requesting all documents which refer to the State's emergency response needs or resources may place an unnecessary burden on (the Applicants] . . . ."

" Attorney General Bellotti's Motion to Compel Answers to ' Attorney General Bellotti's Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to Applicants on Emergency Planning for the State of New Hampshire'" at 3

.(hereinafter " Motion"). As a result, the interrogatory red'uces itself to a complete duplication of the documents called for by Interrogatory No. 3 (which incorporates by reference the enumeration of specific topics from Interrogatory No. 2); presumably there is no point in making the same request twice, and Interrogatory No. 3 is a more logical and workable place. The motion should be denied as to Interrogatory No. 2.

Interrogatory No. 3 MassAG points out that one of the several questions intertwined in this compound interrogatory was overlooked by the Applicants. The Applicants hereby

'--------' ' ~ ~ " " ' " ' '

- r------=-*m,- * --"-----e'--v'=-'--~ ~ - * - ' " - - - - ^ - ~

e:

undertake to supplement their answer to this Interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 7 The Applicants stand on their objection. As MassAG views things, each and every place where the State of New Hampshire's emergency plans contemplate the taking of action by human beings, MassAG is free to require the State to prove the negative of the proposition that some people will ignore their responsibilities. This is not what we believe the Commission's regulations mean by the phrase " adequate staffing," nor, we respectfully submit, is that how the phrase is generally understood.

Moreover, the unworkability of any such a litigation requirement makes it unlikely that such is what the Commission intended to require. While from time to time a staff allocation in the plans may refer to identified or identifiable persons (who can be asked to state under oath whether or not they will do their duties, and who can be replaced if the answer is in the negative), for the most part the " staffing" referred to is to a group of unidentifiable people, whose composition will change from time to time. There is no way to ask all the people involved if they will do their duty; there is no way to determine now who will fill those posts when the plant opens, or two or five years thereafter. We submit that if, to select an example, the New Hampshire plan calls for ten state troopers to perform a given function, and if the existing compliment of New Hampshire State Police includes enough people to make the ten available, then this is the end of the " staffing" inquiry. To require that each of the 300 or 500 presently commissioned troopers be called to the stand to state their intentions is simply not what the Commission had in mind.

Interrogatory No. 8 The Applicants hereby undertake to supplement their answer to this interrogatory to specify the literature that the draftsman of this answer had in mind, pointing out, however, that the Applicants do not regard it to be their burden to do, and do not intend to do, an exhaustive search of the literature on the topic.

Interrogatory No. 9 The Applicants hereby undertake to supplement their answer to this interrogatory.

_4 4

- , , - -..,- , . - - - - . - - - - . . .e,.. -

.' )

Interrogatory No. 15 The Applicants stand on their objection to this interrogatory. The use of sheltering as a protective measure is not an absolute proposition, but rather is a comparative assessment that depends upon a number of factors, including the nature of the accident scenario.

It is assumed that emergency action decisionmakers will always attempt to select the "best" alternative available in the specific circumstances presented, and the " feasibility" of any alternative turns on whether it might be perceived to be the best of the alternatives available to the decisionmakers. Thus the dichotomy erected by MassAG in the second sentence of its response is false, and the question cannot be answered in the absence of further specification.

(In defense of this interrogatory, MassAG urges that in fact it asked two questions very different from what it asked in fact, namely for an inventory of existing shelters and a matrix of shelters by sheltering efficiency for existing structures. These may be what MassAG had in mind (or now believes it should then have had in mind) but they are not the questions that MassAG asked.)

_. ~

Interrogatory No. 16 No further answer is called for. MassAG asked for the indentity of "each person who Applicants expect to call as a' witness . . " und for certain additional information regarding the persons expected to be called. The Applicants responded, correctly, that they have not selected any witnesses with respect to the admitted contentions yet. This answer is complete; no further information is called for; and the gratuitous enumeration of some of the persons who may be called is hereby withdrawn.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, including and subject to the Applicants' undertaking to supplement its answers to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 8 and 9, the Motion should be denied.

,R espectfully submitted,

' - - ' Y M' '

--] M(

i

( //{ (',L w s% _ _ _ .

Thomas G. pignan, JE."'

R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street l

Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone: 423-6100 Dated: November 3, 1983 I

1

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on November 3, 1983, I mada service of the within " APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO

' ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO

" ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO APPLICANTS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE"'" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, zo:

Halen Hoyt, Chairperson Diana P. Randall Atomic Safety and Licensing 70 Collins Street Board Panel Seabrook, NH 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 506 Commission Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour G. Dana Bisbee, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 208 State House Annex Commission Concord, NH 03301 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Wachington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555

d..

Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Anne Verge, Chairperson Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Department of the Attorney Town Hall General. South Hampton, NH Augusta, ME 04333 David R. Lewis, Esquire Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Department of the Attorney General Commission One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Rm. E/W-439 Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20555 ,

Charles Cross, Esquire Ms. Olive L. Tash Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern Designated Representative of 25 Maplewood Avenue the Town of Brentwood P. O. Box 366 R.F.D. 1, Dalton Road Portsmouth, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Mr. Patrick J. McKeon Designated Representative of Selectmen's Office the Town of Hampton Falls 10 Central Road Drinkwater Road Rye, NH 03870 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Designated Representative of City Manager the Town of Kensington City Hall RED 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Washington, D.C. 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Richard E. Sullivan 1 Pillsbury Street Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick Town Manager's Office Town Manager Town Hall Town of Exeter Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 Brian P. Cassidy, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Regional Counsel RED Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency - Region I 442 POCH Boston, MA 02109 r

~

yghm Robert K. GpdIII

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .