ML19220C466
| ML19220C466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1975 |
| From: | Trowbridge G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905100160 | |
| Download: ML19220C466 (13) | |
Text
_.
9 tober 15, 1975 U:1ITr0 STATE 3 Ol' AMEltICA IJUCLEAlt ItEGU LATO:li COM'11 L S 10!!
Before the Atomic Safety and Licennino Board In the Matter of
)
)
I1E T ItO P O L I T A:! E D I S C : CC:'.i A:4Y,
)
Docket ::o. 50-320
)
(Three Mile Island liuclear
)
Station, Unit 2)
)
APPLICA::TO' MCTIO:: TO CC: PEL II TERV!": ORS TO RESPO::D TO APPLICA::TS '
SET I II:TERROGATORIES 1.
Parsuant to 10 CFR $2.7 '03 of the Co=u n sion 's regulations and in accordance with an agreement among the parties as to a schedule for discovery, Applicants on August 18, 1975, served interrogatories on Intervonors Frederick and Gertrude Ilullrich, et al.*
Cn October 3, 1975, Intervonors IIellr ich, et al. tiled their Answers to Applican* ' Sct I Interrogatories.
Iss discussed generally in paragraphs 2 and 3 and more particularly in paragraphs 4 through 12 hereinafter,
- Frederick and Gertrude !!ellrich, et al. petitioned for leave to intervene on Au'just 14, 1971.
Following the filing of answeta to that p.; t i *_ i o n, a prehearing conference was held Any 22, 1975, to conoictr, intc' alia, th disponition of their petition.
Appti-ant,,
the ':RC S t a :. :
.w J iiellt.ch, et al. reached m:re; :e n t..
concernin the !!ellrich inh'rvantion. h ich 'cere d mer t;,ed to the nm rd at L;.e preh aring and later Wuly 16, 1975) suimi t tt a to the Board.', a sti.pulation of parties.
The Board has not yet for: :lly admi t ted llellrich, et al. as partieG intervanor to t n l., pre n ding.
Di s
however, is beinq conducted in accordance rtth an a u rou:' :n t r e a c h ai bet'ienn counsel for Applicants, the !il:C S ta r t, and Intervenota lle l lr ich, et al. Subject to the Boa rd ' ', adnti t ting In te rveno r t, and approv'ng the aqreed-ul'en discovery c.che d u l u.
Tr. 53-55, 61 (Prehearing Coni.erence, May 22, 1975).
9 3}
t.
' 90510 0 lfoo
~
Applicants view most of Intervenors' Answers as inadequate.
Accordingly, I.pplicants move the Board, pursuant to section
- 2. 74 0 ( f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, to compel Intervenors to respond to Applicants' Interrogatories fully, in writing and unc'er oath.
2.
i+plicants' first general complaint with Inter-venors' answers to the intarrogatoriou is that the ans ers are signed by counsel only and have as an attachment a general affidavit signed by " Fred liell' rich. "
Intervenors IIellri ch, et al. are a group of twelve individuals each o f '. hom appa ren tl y havc interests in various parcels of land 2n Dei.:s County, Pennsylvania.
Some of Intervenors' land to transversed by stretches of the final seven-mile segment of Applicants' trans-mission line which runs about 87 miles frem the Three Mile Island facility in Dauphin County to Applit. ants' Hosensack substation in Berks County.
Several portions of Intervenors' contention relate to the impacts of the transmission line on these indi-vidual parcels of land.
Intervenors have alleged, for e:: ample,
in subpart (h) of their contention that "the costs relating to the loss of producti"ity [and] values of land [resulting frcm this segment of the tranumission line] have not been properly considered and reviewed."
Any such losses in productivity of land and losses in value of land presumably are best known to the individual'landounurs whose land is atfected.
To discovet infor: nation peculiarly best knoun to the individual landowner.,
who are intc rvening, Applicants in the Set I Interrogatories, as a general instruction, requested that the interrogatories he answered by those individuals among Intervanors who have peraonal 7 e.
07, a
L. U U ~l
knowledge tScreof or who are the closest to having personal knowledge thereof, and to identify any personn, other than those who aver to the responses, who are responsible for the answers or portions thereof.
Referring to Intervenors' claims regarding losses in productivity and ef fects on values of land in 0
- rt (h) of the contention, Applicants in Interrogatories I-16 ar.d I-17 asccd Intervenors to describe in detail the productivity losses and to identify and quantify the effects on " values of land."
Intervenors in their responses to these two interrcgetcries did not address at all the losses or effects which they contend are associated with the individual parcels of land.
Nor did Intervonors address the particular effects on their individual parcels of land in the answers to Intc rogatories I-12, I-13, or I-15,'thich also deal with impacts on individual properties associated with the transmission line.
Applicants suggest that our request, that those persons among Intervenors who are the closest to having personal information concerning the questions asked should answer the interrogatories, should be honored, particularly, as in Interrogatories I-12, I-13, I-15, I-16 and I-17, where the interrocatories relate to alleged impacts on parcels of real property which belong to individuals among Intervenors.
3.
Applicants' other general complaint with Intervonors' answers to our Interrogatorica is that Intervonors ignorad our request to provide detailed answers with n basis therefor, and to identify related witnesset. and exhibits in the case of all of the interrogatories.
In our Set I Interrogatories, we expressly acquested that Intervenors answer the questione in 7C 9e i J LU
_a_
four parts--(l) direct, detailed answer; (2) basis for the answer; (3) identification of related witnesses; an (4) identi-a fication of related exhibits.
Applicants suggested this format as a vehicle for obtaining complete answers to their questions, Intervenors' underlying reasons, or the basic, for ansvers, and an identification of Intervenors' intended witnences and exhibits at the hearing, if now known.
The suggestion as to format was disregarded.
More importantly, Intervenors did not supply the sought information in any format; our requests were by in large ignored.
Regardless of the format used, Applicants novo the Board to compel Intervonors to provide in addition to direct, detailed answers, the basis for the answers, and the related witness and exhioit information requested.
4.
In Interrogatory I-3, Applicants noted that Inter-venors have used the terms " service area," " area of service" and " area" in subparts (a), (c) and (d) of their contention.
Bc-2se there are three companies involved in this proceeding as joint Applicants, we asked that Intervenors in each instance state whether the contentions referred to the service areas of all three companies and, if not, why the service areas of any of the ccmpanies had been excluded.
Intervenors' answer, that the terms are used " interchangeably," does not make sense.
Without olarification, Applicants' ability to prepare adequately to meet Intervenors' contention at the hearing is impaired.
Applicante, therefore, rave the Board to require Intervenors to co OT6 o'
to each of the three ansuer fully Interrogatory I-3 with respect subparts of their contention uhore the terms " service area,"
" area of service" and " area" have been used by Intervenors.
5.
In rer snse to Applicants' Interrogatory I-5, which ashcd Intervenors to identify the " alternate routes" to which subpart (b) of their contention refers and to detail cn a cost / benefit basis the impacts of those alternate routes, Intervenors answered:
"Bechtclsville to Scuderton.
Intercon-nection of the Three Mile Island line near the facility with the proposed PE lines."
While Applicants understand the crfptic "Bechtelsville to Scuderton" portion of Intervenors' answer to mean that Intervei.. ors contend that a 500 KV transmission line from the abandoned substation site near Bechtelsville to another substation at Scuderton should be considered as an alternative to the present 500 KV transmission line between the same Bech-telsville site and the Hosensack substation, we are unable to give a similar identification to the remainder of Intervenors' response.
Without a more definite description of this alterna-ti ve line, it will be difficult if not impossible for Applicants to evaluate it as an alternative to the transmission lincs already constructed.
Finally,.Intervonors have not addressed at all their view of the costs and benefits associated with alternative transmission lines to which they refer, Applica:ts request that the Board direct Intervonors to provide responses detailed enough to allo'. Applicants to prepare to meet Intervenors' 7'
O., /
LO U-contention in the course of an evidentiary hearing; specifically, Applicants move tc7t Interv s
compelled to answer Inter-rogatory I-5.
6.
In rrspons a Interrogatory I-8 asking for a des-cription of ". Land une patterns" to which Intervenors refer in subpart (d) of their contnation, Inte rvono rs vaguely reference land uce patterns identified by loc.1 commissions and zoning ordinances.
It is this very type of indefinite response (and the subsequent need for motions to ccupel, additional interroga-tories, depositions, etc.) which Applican".s by suggesting a format for responses sought to avoid (see paragraph 3 of this Motion, supra).
Had Intervenors followed our suggestions as to format, presumably the answer would have included a detailed description of the land use patterns" alluded to, as well as identification of the basis for the direct answer in the form of specific references to local planning commission documents and citations to local ordinances, and possibly identification of related witnesses and exhibits upon 'Thich Intervenors intend to rely at hearing.
Applicants request that the Board require Intervenors to answer fully Interrogatory I-8, including a detailed description of the " land use patterns" and the banis for Intervenors answer by specific reference to the documents and ordinances mentioned by Intervenors in their aaswers.
7.
With respect to Intervonors' response to Interroga-tory I-10, Applicants understand that by " future proposed lines, 70 7f LU u
s
_ other than the one in question," Intervonors had in mind only one " future proposed line" -a transmiccion line between the that abandoned Bechtelsville substation cite and Souderton--but Intervonors are precently studying other alternative lines.
Applicanta request the Board to compel Intervenors nov to identify these "other alternative lines" preaantly being studied and to require Intervenors to supplement their response by providing the results of the studico precently underway when such results are available.
8.
In Interrogatory I-12, Applicants asked Intervenors to describe in detail the "needed agricultu 21 lands" which Intervene,rs in cubpart (g) of their contention have alleged will be "taken away."
In response, Intervonors state:
"134 acres of cultivated land that will be adversely affected by the construction."
Intervenors' ancwor is not responsive to our question.
First of all, as Intervenors undoubtedly are aware, the appro:simately seven miles of co-called " proposed transmission line" which is in question here is virtually completed.
- Thuc, as a practical matter, any future effect on crops reculting from this line will be due to the aperation and maintenance of the line.
Although appro:.:imately 134 acres of agricultural land may have boca temporarily disrupted by conctruction of this line, uhat Applicants now see as important and, indeed, what Applicantc' question addressed, uas the long-term ef fect on uce of the agricultural land along the transmiccion lina right of way and Intervenors' view of the annual crop locces 9'
OEQ LG U"-
_g_
which might occur as a result of the line.
As we stated in our responses of July 15, 19/5, to Inte: venors' interrogatories, it is our view that the effect on continued use of agricultural land due to operation and maintenance of transmission lines is minimal.
Uc sougitt in Interrogatory I-12 to gain Intervanors' view of the future impact on crops from opacation and 1:intenanC2 of the line in question.
Intervenors did not answer the question.
Accordingly, ve no. move the Board to ccmpel Intervonors to respond to Interrcgatory I-12.
9.
In subpart (h) of their contoneion, Intervonors contend that.
"[c)he impact of the prop" Led line will adversely affect the land use, directly and indirectly...."
In Interroga-tory I-15, Applicants asked Intervenors:
(a) to identify the
" land use" to which reference is made and; (b) to describe precisely how the proposed line "will adversely affect" such
" land use, directly and indirectly."
By way of response, Inter-venors vaguely answered (a) by stating " Agricultural, residential and timber lands," but did not answer (b) at all.
Applicants move the Board to compel Intervenors to identify the " land use" referred to in their contention and to describe precisely how each such " land use" will be adversely impacted by the proposed line.
10.
In response to Interrogatory I-lG concerning " cost related to the loss of productivity," Intervonors have given an esti. ate of $100,000 an the total cost they attribute to o Ob q'
u
losses in agricultural and timber productivity on 155 acres cf land aficcted by "the proposed line."
Intervenors have also roterred to $500,000 "for severance damages" as an associated cost.
Applicants in paragraph 2 of this Motion have noted Intervenors' response to Interrogatory I-16 as an example of Intervenors' general failure to adequately answer the interroga-tories by indicating Fred Hallrich as the sole individual among Intervenors with personal knowledge of, or the closest to having person _ knowledge of, or responsible for responses concerning, thc information reauested in Applicants' Interrogatories.
The answer to this Interrogatory serves as well as an example of Intervenors' failure to provide the information requested by Applicants when they instructed Intervanors to employ an answer /
basis /related 'zitness/related exhibits format in all of their responses.
Thus, in response to our request to provide a
" detailed description" and a basis therefor, we have only a suggestion of the answer and no basis at all.
What portion of the costs do Intervencrs attribute to agricultural productivity losses?
Convercely, what portion do they attribute to timber productivity losses?
What is the basis for the estimate?
Is the $100,000 a yearly loss in productivity or a total loss anticipated over the expected life of the plant under consideration?
What is the basis for the claim of $500,000 "for severance damages"?
It is t.his type of detail which we sought and continu to seek in order to fMli understand a contencrun we will have C
9' L
LV to meet in the evidentiary hearing.
We request the Board, full and accordingly, to compel Intervonors to provide a detailed answer to Interrogatory I-16.
11.
Intervenors in cubpart (h) of their contention allege inter _ a lla that "the cotto relating to... values of been properly considered and revie'. led."
To land...have not better understand that Intervonors mean by this aspect of their asked in Interrogatory I-17 that Intervenors contention, te identify the land to ::hich the contention refcrs and to explain and quantify the adverse e f fect on the values of such land.
In the case of this interrogatory, we also specifically (in addition for all answers) to our general instruction to provide bases requested Intervonors to provid2 a basis for the quantification offered.
We do not understand Intervonors' Answer to Interroga-tory 1:o. 17.
Intervonors first stato "See previous ans*.:ers";
but no previous answer identifics the land in question or refers to " values of land."
Furthermore, no quantification is expressed and no adequate basis therefor is provided.
We urge the Board Intervenors to ans'.:or Interrogatory I-17 which seeks to require no more than an explanation of terms employed by Intervonors in their cortention, and to provide a basis for that explanation.
12.
In Interrogatory I-18 Applicants ached Intervenors to provide a detailed description of the " natural resources" whose loss they allege in subpart (h) of their contention hW not been properly considered and revic'.cd.
Applicant also q/
Q b-J asked in I-18 that Intervenors provide, in the case of each
" natural resource" so described, the precise loss 'Ilich Inter-venors attribute to "the propcsed line."
In response, Inter-venors state on]y:
"See previous answers."
Our review of all of Intervonors answers reveals referencet. only to " wildlife" (Answer to Interrogatory No. 7), " wood lots, and other wooded areas" (Answer to Interrogater; !;o. 13) and " timber" (Answers to Interrogatory ;os. 15, 16 and 17) as candidates for " natural resources."
Intervenors have not identificC the resourcoc in detail nor described for each resource the associated loss.
Applicanus request the Board to compel Intervenors to provide the precise loss which Intervenors attribute to the lina, for each identified natural resource.
Respectfully submitted, S II A'.i, ' I,T T:17.N. DOTTF,O TRC'43 RIDGE v-
, kA ?.,s' C, or ge/ ?. T r o.s o r ld g e
--*/>,,/
"/
/3
October 15, 1975 U IITED STATES OF MIERICA IJUCLCAR IU:GULATOR'l CC SIISSIOI Before the Atomic Safety and Lice n n inct Board In tho :'.atter of
)
)
I.iETROPOLITP:: EDISO:: CC:G A:;'i,
)
)
Dochet ::o. 50-320
)
(Throu ":ile Island IIuclear
)
Station, Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "A,rplicants' d:otion to Compel Intervenors to Respond to Applicants' Set I Interrogatories,"
the dated October 15, 1975, icre served upon those percons on attached Service List, by deposit in the United States raail, postage prepaid, this 15th day of October, 1975.
- ',
- wdYkm6 M,
Ernest L.
ulanc, Jr.
Q. h t
20
UNITT:D STATI:S OP IWCRTC/s l'UCLUAh R;GULI. TORY CO:CIISSION Be.To re the Ittonic Safety and Licennina Ponrd In the Ilatter of
)
)
L,r,._n O w. n. c..,
1 D 1.s v..-,
C O..> n.., y
)
2 m.
a.
ET I,L.
)
Docket No._ 50.-320
)
(Three ::ile Island ::uclear
)
Station, Unit 2)
)
SERVICE LIFT Eduard Luton, Esquire IIon ry J.
I.:cGu ran, Esq.:.re Chair:.an Office of the E::ecut tre L gal Atomic Safety a.d Licensing.M a rd Director U.S.
- uclea r Ragulator', Ccrission U.S.
Suc2 car negulato:.,*
Washi:.gton, D.C.
20555 Contais sion Washington, D.C.
20555 fir. Gustave A.
Linenberger
. Atomic Safety and Licensing 130ard Karin W.
Carter, An~'stant U.S.
"ucle ar Pa g t'la to ry Cor"
.;cion Attor.cy General Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of Environ:mt Depa r tracn t o f En vi rc:r..a.. c al Dr. Prnest O.
Salo Resources Profcccer, P i s '.c :. e 3 Research 709 Health and Welfar; Buildi.
Institute, W:I-10 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 171?
College of Picneries University of.-lashincton Atomic Sa fety and Licensi'g s
Seattle, Washington 98195 Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory fir. Chauncey R.
Kcpford Cor. uni s s io n Citizens for a Safe Environment Washington, D.C.
20555 108 N.
Pershing.wanua York, Pennsylvania 17403 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Lawrence Sage", Pcquire U.S.
Nuclear negulato:y Sager F. Sager Associates Commission 45 Hig!' Street Wa s hi ng to n,
D.C.
20555 Pottstcwn, Pennsylvania 19464 Docketing and Service Section Office of t !' a Secrera:"
U.S.
N u c l e a :. liagulato j Cor..mi s s ion Washingten, D.C.
20555
/
rz5 yi 7,
L. O e
b