ML20154G592

City of Haverhill Answers to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories & First Request for Production of Documents to All Parties & Participating Local Govts Re Contentions on Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities

ML20154G592
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/16/1988
From:	Amirian A HAVERHILL, MA
To:	PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Shared Package
ML20154G582	List: ML20154G578 ML20154G592
References
OL, NUDOCS 8809210019
Download: ML20154G592 (8)

Text

.*

p September 1[{-$87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'88 SEP 19 P3 :38 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION crri c w r i before the I'CCC g, ,. , '

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Dockot Nos. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL HEW llAMPS!! IRE, et al. ) Off-site Emergency

) Planning Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

CITY OF !!AVERilILL ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO ALL PARTIES AND PARTICIPATING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REGARDING CONTENTIONS ON Tile _SEABROOK_ PLAN _FOR MASSACIIUSETTS COMMUNITIES NOW COMES the City of llaverhill ( Coll) and horoby answers APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO ALL PARTIES AND PARTICIPATING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REGARDING CONTENTIONS ON TIIE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACilUSETTS COMMUNITIES dated August 31, 1988 as follows:

OIk7ECTION_TO PROD _UCTION OF_DOCUMEILT.A COli oljocts to Applicants' request that any documents to be produced by COli must be provided at the officos of Applicants' The request .is unduly

• attorneys in llaverhill, Massachusetts.

burdensome and costly to COlf, is disruptive of recordkooping maintained by the Town, and could unreasonably compol CON to 0809210019 000916 3 ADOCK 050 gDR '

/

.[

kl transfer documents outside the EPZ. Consistent with Applicants' past practice of makAng its own documents available for inspection to Intervenors at Seabrook Station, Applicants may similarly assume the burden of coming to Coll to inspect any relevant documents of Coll , provided, however, that said inspection is conducted during the discovery period, during normal business hours, at a mutually agreeable time, following reasonable notice to ton.

INTERI!OGATORIES_

QUESTION:

1.

contributing Pleasetoidentify the the person (s) answaring or substantially answer to each of the following interrogatories.

ANSWER Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire, Assistant City Solicitor for the City of flaverhill QUESTION 2.

Please identify and produce all documents, and describe in detail all which documents, conversations reflect or not refer otherwise reflected in such to what actions any Massachusetts state or local government entity or official would, could, might, would not, could not, or might not take in the event of an actual radiological emergoney at Soabrook Station.

ANSWER:

This interrogatory is objected to on grounds of attorney-client privilege and work product. This interrogatory is further objected to on grounds that it is so overly broad and. -

vcque as to be incomprehensible. '

Whatever actions a Coll of ficial

• Colght D2h take in the event of an actual radiological omorgency ct Seabrook luncheon Station"Obviously engagement. could include a decision to the interrogatory in defeebivepost one a for inquiring into wholly irrelevant mattern. Since thin Interrogatory in so vague, however, and wholly fails to specify the nature, neope, or 2"

7 y j extent of the particular "emergency" at seabrook Station contemplated by ths question, necessarily Coll cannot respond more specifically to this question.

QUESTION:

3. Please identify and produce all documents, and describe in detail all conversations not otherwise reflected in such documents, which reflect, refer to, or relate in any way to any action by any Massachusetts state or local uovernment official or entity to block, hinder or delay the licensing of Seabrook Station.

ANSWER:

This interrogatory is objected to on grounds it is vague, overly broad, argumentative, and, even if more properly drafted, appears to seek communications and documents not subject to discovery by reason of the attorney-client privilege or work product. C0li has never unidertaken any actions with the fundamental goal moroly to "block, hinder or delay the licensing of Seabrook Station". At all times governing officials of Coil I have taken whatever actions deemed appropriato and necessary to protect the health and safety of their citizens. The intimation in the interrogatory that coll.'s motivos or enthods have boon purely obstructionist is highly objectionable.

QUESTIOH1

4. Please identify and produco all documents generated after January 1, 1980 that reflect or refer to any emergency planning (other than that engaged in by Applicants) conducted or contemplated for the Massachusettr, EPZ or any portion thereof, including but not limited to emergancy planning required pursuant to the Emergency Planning Act. Such documents should includo,

• but not be limited to, documents that reflect or refer to whether the SPMC or any other plan for dealing with a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station nas or has not been, or will or will not be, used in planning for emergency situations other than those involving Seabrook Station.

-J

. - - =

4 -

1 L - - - = ~ '

' ANSWER:

This interrogatory is objectionable to the extent it seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege or to obtain work product prepared by or on behalf of counsel for coll or coH!s o fficials for purposes of litigation. Coll- further objects to this interrogatory on grounds that, to the best of tom's knowledge and ballef, Applicants are already in poosession of all planning documents for the Seabrook EPZ, and further that Applicants "cngaged in", or were involved with, generating these documents prior to decisions by the commonwealth and Massachusetts EPZ c:mmunities that emergency planning for Seabrook is not feasible.

20% is not in possession of any planning documents, within the ocope of the request, generated since that date, ocknowledges, however, its responsibilities to the extent -

rcquired under the Emergency Planning Act, although no such planning document has been approved by the Town.

QUESTION:

5. Please list every admitted SPMC contention which you do not intend to participate in litigating, i.e., concerning which you will not take discovery, present evidence, make arguments, cenduct cross-examination, or submit proposed findings.

ANSWER As Applicants should be aware, this interrogatory is i

premature. Presently, the commonwealth, EPZ Towns in M:ssachusetts, and Applicants, are engaged in streamlining and s

consolidating the numerous admitted contentions for submission as "joint intervenor" contentions. As of the date of those answers, that process has not been completed. Identification of

I .

(c/ _ _ . .

)/

,/

I' contentions that ~

COH pay choose to litigate is and speculative. wholly premature to COH In addition, any responses Applicants may make discovery requests may impact on 504's decision whether to proceed with further litigation of particula r contentions.

QUESTION:

6.

and do notForhereby every admitted SPMC withdraw, and for contention that you submitted contention above, that you did not list every SPMc individually for each such contentionin ,

responseother to Interrogatory pleasis 5 admitted a,

contained in the contention; State in detail all the facts c underlying ea h assertion b.

the personal person (s).

State the source knowledge of of oneeach suchperson.

or more fact If the source is s,

produce the document (s);If the source is one or more documentsidentify identify and the c.

the contention, and state the substance of thIdentify e facts concerning any expert and grounds for opinions to which the expert is expec,ted testify; opinions, t o

i

' d.

concerning the contention, and state the substanceIdentify y a to which the witness is expected to testify; and of the facts e.

rofer to any type the substance of the contentions.

of study, calculation or ng anelysis or upon beariId ANSWER:

a. See Ans: war to Interrogatory

5. By way of further i

i objection, this interrogatory is objected to as vague and unduly burdensome. Con asserts that "the facts c undorlying each ccertion contained c p;cificity in the basis in the contention" are stated e with rea for each contention proffered by tod'. w

" Ab:cnt infermation, COH a reasonably specific request by Applicants for particula i objects to Applicants' fishing expedition for 1 1

• //

I "all the facts" which may possibly pertain to any particular contention.

b. Soc answer to Interrogatory 5 and 6a.

c.

Seo answer to Interrogatory 5 and 6a. By way of further '

answer, C0li has not yet identified any experts who will testify en behalf of Coll.

d. See answer to Interrogatory 5 and 6a. By way of further answer, this interrogatory is objected to as outside the scope of permissible discovery, as premature, and as constituting a fishing - expedition intended to intrude'into the litigation otrategies, and mental impressions e C011 counsel and officials.

e. See answers to Interrogatories 5, 6t, and 6d. By way of further objection, this interrogatory, which sotka any document

• bearing upon" a contention, is so broad and vague as to be incomprehensible.

i l f DATED: September 16, 1988 BY:_bAsho

?J . .Bj n i r la n , Esquire Assistant City Solicit.or for City of flaverhill COMM0?iWEALTil OF MASSACilVSETTS ESSEX, SS.

September 16, 1988 Personally appeared the above-named Ashod ti. Amirian and swore toknowledge, personal the truthfulness of the foregoing statements based upon ir. formation and bellof.

Bef ore me,-

tiotary Public Patricia llarb My commission expires: Oct. 27, 1989

-h-

_ - . . . - . - - ~ . . _ . - .

9 1

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Ibberta Pemar '

\tanic Safety an! Licensing State Papresentative .Q$'...IhcmasDignan,

'," Ropes & Gray Esquire 3oard hn of Hanpton Falls ~

225 Pranklin Street J.S. Imc Drinkwater Road 4ashington, DC 20555 Bost llanpton Falls, NI J3% SEP 19 P3 :3$n, Fa 02110 35 1. . -

Dr. Jerry liarbour Docketing & Service SM.CM \'d $1.hane Dot >ghty Atcmic Safety and Licensing office of the Secretary SApL Doard U.S. tac l

- U.S. tsc Washington, DC 20555 5 thrket Street (

Washington, DC 20555 Portsnouth,131 03801

- ~

t office of Selectnen Gustave A. Linenberger hn of !!anpton Falls George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Atontir: Ebfoty and-Licensing Attorney General's Office llanpton Falls, MI 03844 Board i U.S. IE State of t;ew lianpshiro Concord,131 03301 ,

Washington, DC 20555 i i

I j

Joseph Flynn, Asst. Gen. Cnsl. Sandra Ca/ utis I

Fed. Dinrg. htymt. Agcy. Town of Kensington '

500 C Street SN Box 1154  ;

l Washington, DC 20472 i Fast Kensington, MI 03827  !

i f

i i '

! 'arol Sneider, Esquire Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire  ;

j \ssistant Attorney General Offico of D<oc. Ingal Dr. deyay, thrphy and Graham  !

l Jno Ashburton Placo U.S. tac 100 thin Street  !

l 19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Amesbury, Fn 01913 bston, Fn  !

3 02108 '

[

i

t. Scott !!ill-13111 ten, Esquiro Jtrlith II. Mizner, Esquiro William S. Lortl, Selectmm  ;

i'9 Stato Street 79 Stato Street 'Itwn llall hburyport, in 01950 ticstnaryport, in 01950 Frierxl Street l Amesbury, Fn 01913  :

l  !

! llyn Weiss, Esquire Taal Wiom, Esquiro Senator Gordon J. litarth roy I lanon & thiss thtthew Brock, Esquiro U.S. Semte

!0001 S Street tai 25 bbplwocd Avenuo Washington, DC 20510 i

' tuits 430 P.O. Dox 360 Attn: Janet Colt  !

hshington, DC 20009 P rtstrouth, tal 03801 I 1'

l i '

Atomic Safety and Licensing ecard U.S. tHC Fourth Fl wa Paception Area Ehst West 'Ibwers, West Bldg.

4350 Fast West liighway Bethesda, FD 20814 J. P. !bdeau Ttw1 of Rye 155 Washington Road Rfe, tal 03870 Mjudicatory File Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. hTC Washington, CC 20555 1

! Richard R. Ibnovan 1 EDn Fed ral Registry Centar 130 228th Street, SW Oothell, h% 98021-9796 l

t l Robert R. Pierce Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. ?!RC Nanhington, DC 20555

% . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _