ML20214T055

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Joint Response by Atty General Jm Shannon,Seacoast Anti-Pollution League & Town of Hampton to Applicant Offsite Emergency Planning Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents....* Related Correspondence
ML20214T055
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/04/1987
From: Fierce A
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Shared Package
ML20214T057 List:
References
CON-#287-3672 OL, NUDOCS 8706100104
Download: ML20214T055 (13)
v • d • e


Text

,

- c..

S/g 7 L e m cr m w n s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

?? JN -5 P2 :06 Before Administrative Judges:

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

[0 blii6 N BPANC" I

Dr. Jerry Harbour

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos.

HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-Site EP)

) June 4, 1987

)

JOINT RESPONSE BY ATIORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, AND TOWN OF HAMPTON TO APPLICANTS' OFF-SITE EP INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, AND TOWN OF HAMPTON Attorney General James M. Snannon, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), and the Town of Hampton hereDy jointly respond to " Applicants' Off-Site EP Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents to Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, and Town of Hampton," filed May 20, 1987.

INTERROGATORIES In reference to the Affidavit of Albert E. Luloff dated April 14, 1987 sponsored and incorporated in " Opposition of Attorney General James M. Shannon to Applicants' Motions for 0706100104 870604 PDH ADOCK 05000443 O PDR JS6

+

't.

s Summary Disposition on SAPL Contentions 34 (SAPL 34) and Town of Hampton Revised Contention IV (TOH IV)", " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of SAPL Contention No. 18", " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of SAPL No. 34", " Town of Hampton Answer Opposing Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition (TOH IV)",

and " Town of Hampton Answer Opposing Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition (TOH VI)":

1. Identify the data source (s) referred to in Luloff-Aff, at 1 as "one of the first, and largest, integrated data banks on minor civil divisions in the state, which provides me a base of knowledge from which to do much of my work on community and population trends within New Hampshire." Explain now the data cank can be relevant to any issue in Town of dampton Revised Contention IV or SAPL Contention 34.

RESPONSE

This information is not known to the Attorney General, SAPL, or the Town of Hampton. Dr. Albert E. Luloff is a person whom the Attorney General has retained in anticipation of litigation and whom one or more of the intervenors may call as an expert witness at trial. He is doing an assessment, inter alta, of the size and growth rate of various populations and other items in the EPZ, and his work is not complete. Apart from what is contained in Dr. Luloff's affidavit of April 14, 1987, intervenors cannot yet state the substance of the facts and opinions on which he may testify. Cf. 10 C.F.R. 52.740(e)(1). Intervenors have not reviewed any documents from this witness except a signed contract and the aforementioned affidavit. Intervenors simply do not have or know tnis expert's background data sources, documents, facts or information, and they assert that this interrogatory seeks tnis information inappropriately from them.

OBJECTION Discovery from expert witnesses cannot be had in tnis way.

At an earlier stage in this proceeding, this Board elected to follow Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to discovery from experts. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490, 495-497 (1983). Other ASLB's have subsequently adopted Rule 26(b)(4) as well. See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-86-7, 23 NRC 177, 178-179 (1936); Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility and Kress Creek Decontamination),

LBP-85-38, 22 NRC 604, 609-610 (1985); carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1 and 2),

LBP-83-27A, 17 NRC 971, 976-79 (1983). With respect to these decisions, we agree with the following statement made oy Applicants in Applicants' Motion For A Protective' Order, dated May 20, 1987, on p. 2, n. 1:

These decisions concerned discovery of non-testifying experts under Rule 26(o)(4)(B) out are equally applicaole to discovery of testifying experts under Rule 26(b)(4)(A).

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i), a party may througn interrogatories obtain only limited information aoout persons

t.

who are expected to be called as expert witnesses at trial: tne subject matter upon which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to wnich the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. This interrogatory seeks information which goes well beyond the scope permitted by Rule 26(o)(4)(A)(i).

At this time, however, discovery regarding Dr. Luloff's work is even more limited than that permitted oy Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i), as none of the intervenors have determined tnat i

they expect to call him as an expert witness at trial.

Discovery regarding his work, the facts he knows and tne opinions he holds, is governed oy Rule 26(o)(4)(B), wnica prohibits all such discovery unless there has oeen a " snowing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticaole for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same suoject by other means". Rule 26(o)(4)(B) of tne Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No such snowing has Deen made here whatsoever.

In either event, wnether under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) or Rule 26(b)(4)(B), the intervenors simply do not have the information sought by this interrogatory.

2. Identify the informational source document (s) on wnich the following conclusions or estimates are cased:

(a) the growth rates for the period 1950-1980 of Rockingham County, the nation, and the region as

.g _

- 1 .

s cited on page 2 of the Affidavit of Albert E.

Luloff (hereinafter "Luloff Aff.");

(b) "Rockingham County alone accounted for more-than 10% of the total New England population growth (51,400 of 501,000)" as stated in Luloff Aff, at 3;

(c) tne method (s) or model(s) by which the "more realistic" population estimates of tne communities in the " aggregate" for 1990, 1995, and 2000 were derived, Luloff Aff. at 4; (d) 1985 population sizes of seventeen seacoast communities as stated at Luloff Aff. at 5; (e) the growth in housing units between 1970 and 1985 at Luloff Aff. at 7; and RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the oojection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

3. Identify the source (s) of information; (a) referred to as "readily available" in the phrase "other data for a longer time series is readily available" at Luloff Aff. at 3; (b) referred to as published New Hampshire Department of Transportation information at Luloff Aff. at 6.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the oojection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

I ci .

o 9

4. Identify the informational source document (s) on wnicn is based the conclusion that'19,000 ouilding permits

'were issued statewide in 1985 and tnat this was an 11,000 increase over 1983 as stated in Luloff Aff at

7. State the.numoer of building permits:

(a) for.the seacoast towns; (b) for the-seventeen EPZ communities; (c) for new construction in seacoast towns; (d) for new construction in the seventeen EPZ communities; (e) which resulted in completed housing units in the seacoast EPZ communities; (f) which resulted in completed housing units in the seventeen EPZ communities; (g) which resulted in completed housing units designed for permanent housing populations in the seacoast towns; (h) which resulted in completed housing units designed for permanent housing populations in the seventeen EPZ communities.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the oojection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

5. At Luloff Aff, at 14, it is stated: "I am currently engaged in research whicn will provide me with a much note reliable basis that (sicj tnat used oy KLD for estimating the size of the special needs and transit dependent population within the EPZ." Describe tne nature of this research, and identify all sources of information, both documents and persons. Describe the "early indications" that give figures twice as large as the NHCDA survey.

8 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the on]ection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

6. At Luloff Aff, at 15, it is stated: "Our research in 1987 has identified 39 institutions (puolic and private) with a total of 12,077 students." oescrioe the nature of this research, and the sources of information, both documents and persons. Identify and produce the research results and identify the persons and organiztions which participated in the research.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert-the response and the objection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

7. At Luloff Aff. at 15 it is stated that "there are many more facilities whicn were apparently overlooxed oy Kaltman in the initial report . . . . " Identify these facilities and the source or sources of this information.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the oojection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

8. Identify the source (s) document (s) used in arriving at the figures of the 24 total institutions with a total of 1,062 beds, cited at Luloff Aff, at 15-16.

Identify and produce the method (s) of model(s) oy which these figures were determined.

g.

s-RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The' Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the oDjection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

9. Identify the sources of information supporting the assertion that "a major undercount of needed transportation resources nas occurred."

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The' Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the oojection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

10. At Luloff Aff. at 17, it is stated: "[dlata exist which documents an increase of over 1,100 condominium units in the Town of Hampton alone oetween 1980 and 1985. . . . " Identify this data and all sources of information regarding such data.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the objection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

11. Identify the informational source document (s) and method (s) or model(s) used in estimating average annual rates of growth for the years 1990, 1995 and 2000.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and tne Town of Hampton reassert the response and the objection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

v

12. Identify the sources of information used for tne l assertion that many of the seventeen EPZ communities

" continue to experience rapid growth, far exceeding l

national, regional, and state averages". Identify '

each such town, the percentage of growtn in excess of j each such average, and tne corresponding year for each i such percentage. Identify whicn " national planning l organizations" have " targeted tnis area as one which l will continue to experience growtn, largely as a result of its valued residential ambience, proximity to large metropolitan centers, and good highway access (especially Routes 95 and 495)."

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and tne oo3ection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

13. Identify the informational source document (s) regarding " traffic counto and housing patterns" which you hold supports Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contention No. 31. Indicate the date, time and location of each survey or information-gathering  ;

activity which resulted in the traffic counts and housing patterns referenced in Luloff Aff.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and tne ob]ection made in response to  ;

1 Interrogatory No. 1.

14. Identify the source (s) of quot'a tion for all data attributed to PSNH regarding population growth rate l (Luloff Aff. at d) and non-agricultural employment growth rate (Id. at 9).

1 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the objection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

~-

?

15. Identify all source (s) document (s) for industry and employee growth figures for the years 1980 and 1985 cited in Luloff Aff. and state if any of the figures include agricultural employment. Identify the percentage of the industries / employers are located within the seventeen EPZ communities, by community, and the percentage of full versus part time or seasonal employment figures.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the objection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

16. Identify the sources of information regarding employment and industry figures developed by the New Hampshire Department of Employment Security referenced in Luloff Aff, at 10.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the ob]ection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

17. Identify tne U.S.D.A. aerial pnotograpns taken in 1974 and 1982 referenced at Luloff Aff, at 20 and any and all reports based upon sucn photos as may nave Deen provided by the " geographical information system."

Identify the sources of information regarding specific

" developed rates" for each of the EPZ towns for tne years 1974 and 1982.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the ob]ection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

t- .

s

18. Identify the data, sources, and equations used in arriving at the Luloff Aff. statement that "in Hampton only 2% responded" to the NHCDA Special Help Survey.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and tne Town of Hampton reassert the response and the ob]ection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

19. Identify those documents regarding research in which Mr. Luloff is or has been engaged concerning estimate of special needs and transit dependent populations within the EPZ.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and tne oo]ection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

20. Identify those documents regarding research efforts in 1987 which indicate the names of institutions and numbers of students /oeds/ sites for eacn EPZ community; provide the address, lead contact name, and pnone for each sucn institution, day care, preschool, healtn care facility, and campground.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the ob]ection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

21. Identify the report Dy the New Hampshire Office of State Planning, Hampton Beach Cnamoer of Commerce, Arthur D. Little, Inc., and Kimoall Chase Company, referenced in Luloff Aff. at 17.

11 -

t L

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and tne oojection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

22. Identify the source or sources of information within the Hampton Chamoer of Commerce used to estimate 6,000 seasonal units / rooms in 1987 in Hampton. If the information was conveyed in a written report, identify that report. If the information was verbally transmitted, identify the transmitter and date of transmission.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and tne Town of Hampton reassert the response and the objection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

23. Provide the basis for the assertion at Luloff Aff, at 12 that KLD's telephone survey was Diased. Indicate any qualitative effect the asserted Dias would have on the ETE.

RESPONSE AND OBJECTION The Attorney General, SAPL, and the Town of Hampton reassert the response and the objection made in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

DOCUMENT REjUEST Applicants request tnat Mass. AG, SAPL and TOH, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.741, provide copies of or make available for inspection and copying at a designated time and place the documents identified in response to the foregoing Part II Interrogatories.

12 -

1 *

RESPONSE

'As no documents have Deen identified in response to the foregoing interrogatories, no documents will oe provided or made available for inspection and/or copying in response to this document request.

Respectfully submitted, James M. Shannon, Attorney General By: . (/A M Allan R. Fierce Carol S. Sneider Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorneys General One Asnourton Place, Room 1902 Boston, MA 02108 (617) ,727-2220 The undersigned further says that he is authorized on behalf of the named intervenors to suomit tnis Joint response to Applicants' off-site EP interrogatories.

Respectfully submitted, All tne named Intervenors s

By: A M Authorized Reprbsentative Dated: June 4, 1987 7146E

. . . . . ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214T055&oldid=3242337"