ML19338G470

Response in Opposition to Porter County Chapter 800918 Second Request for Production of Documents.Moves for Protective Order Re Requests 9,10 or 11.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML19338G470
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	10/23/1980
From:	Eichhorn W EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK, NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8010290401
Download: ML19338G470 (6)

Text

_ - __

3 RELATED COBRFENDUN / h uu 9

/ UONRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

2 7 %) k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

% C% hktiegcf& kW%

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 5*4

% 4 In the Matter of ) Dockcc. No. 50-367

)

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC ) (Construction Permit SERVICE COMPANY ) Extension)

)

(Bailly Generating Station, ) October 23, 1980 Nuclear-1) )

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS' SECOND REQUEST TO NIPSCO FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER On September 18, 1980, Porter County Chapter Intervenors filed their "Second Request to NIPSCO for Production of Docu-ments" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.741. Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) herewith files this " Response and Objections" to that Second Request and Motion for a Protective

• /

Order.-

As Porter County Chaptor Intervenors requested, the documents described in each category specified will be produced for inspec-tion and copying beginning on October 23, 1980, except as herein-af ter objected to, at the offices of NIPSCO's Nuclear Staff, R.R. 3, P.O. Box 501, Chesterton, Indiana 46304.

'-*/ NIPSCO does not repeat its objection to the definition of "NIPSCO" to include its " consultants, contractors, and sub-contractors" in light of PCCI's clarification of their request.

(PCCI Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Answer to NIPSCO's Motion for Protective Order, pp. 2-3 (October 14, 1980).) We understand that PCCI has not requested documents in the possession, custody, or control of such consultants,  ;

contractors, and subcontractors.

~

@3Y {

ess-8010290fg C

, 1 l

Objections NIPSCO objects to requests numbered 9, 10, and 11 which are unrelated to any contentions admitted to this proceeding and beyond the permissible scope of the proceeding. Generally parties may obtain discovery on matters which are relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding. However, disco'Jery is limited in that it "shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearing order entered at the conclu-sion of . . . [the] prehearing conference." 10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (b) (1) .

Request No. 9 seeks (a]ll documents which tend to show, prove or disprove the competence, study, preparation, technical knowledge, and design ability of NIPSCO and its cor. tractors and subcontractors to construct the Bailly plant.

The Licensing Board specifically denied a contention which required that NIPSCO and its contractors prove that they are technically competent in order to receive the extension. Order Following Special Prehearing Conference, p. 50 (August 7, 1980).

The Licensing Board did admit Porter County Chapter Intervenors contention 7 regarding the ' technical competence of NIPSCO, its contractors and its subcontractors but speci?ically restricted the scope of the contention. For example, as admitted, the contention does not encompass "any alleged lack of technical ability not actually manifested in the delay in construction" nor any question of present or future technical competence. Id. l l

l

t However, the discovery request in effect seeks any and all docu-ments concerning " competence," " ability," etc. Such a request goes beyond matters in controversy and includes matters which were specifically eliminated from the controversy by the Board's Order Following Special Prehearing Conference. NIPSCO therefore objects to the request.

Request No. 10 seeks (alli documents which tend to show, prove or disprove NIPSCO's financial capability to couplete construction of the Bailly plant.

The Licensing Board expressly excluded " financial capability" as an issue in the proceeding. Order Following Special Prehearing Conference, p. 59 (August 7, 1980). NIPSCO therefore objects to the request.

Request No. 11 seeks (a]11 documents which tend to show, prove or disprove NIPSCO's ability to comply with all NRC regulations and other requirements which have come into effect since the issuance of the B& illy construction permit.

This discovery request does not relate to any admitted issue. In particular, it does not relate to "the actual reasons for delay or the reasonableness of the requested extension." Order Denying Objection to Orders Following Special Prehearing Conference, p. 2 (October 2, 1980). NIPSCO therefore objects to the request. l 1

Requests numbered 9, 10, and 11 are additionally objection-able to the extent that they seek documents "which tend to prove I

I I 1 I -

s or disprove" the alleged assertions or conclusions. These requests call for legal conclusions. As such, they call for the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of NIPSCO's attorneys. Moreover, the vagueness of such requests imposes an undue burden on NIPSCO.

Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (c) , NIPSCO requests the Board issue a protective order with respect to Porter County Chapter Intervenors' Second Request dated September 18, 1980, which relieves NIPSCO of any obligations to produce documents in response to requests numbered 9, 10, or 11.

Respectfully submitted, William H. Eichhorn EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK 5243 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320 By: //

William H. Eichhorn Attorneys for Northern Indiana Public Service Company LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

- -r - , , , _ ,

s 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-367

)

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC ) (Construction Permit SERVICE COMPANY ) Exwension)

)

(Bailly Generating Station, ) October 23, 1980 Nuclear-1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Northern Indiana Public Service Company's Response and Objections to Porter County Chapter i Intervenors' Second Request to NIPSCO for Production of Documents and Motion for Protective Order was served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 23rd day of October, 1980.

Herbert Grossman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Glenn O. Bright U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard K. Shapar, Esquire Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Steven Goldberg, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20535

,. ? .

Susan Sekuler, Esquire Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Robert J. Vollen, Esquire c/o BPI 109 North Dearborn Street Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 s

Edward W. Osann, Jr., Esquire One IBM Plaza Suite 4500 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Robert L. Graham, Esquire One IBM Plaza 44th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60611 Mr. Mike Olszanski Mr. Clifford Mezo United Steelworkers of America 3703 Euclid Avenue East Chicago, Indiana 46312 Diane B. Cohn, Esquire William B. Schultz, Esquire Suite 700 2000 P Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Richard L. Robbins, Esquire 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Mr. George Grabowski Ms. Anna Grabowski 7413 W. 136th Lane Cedar Lake, Indiana 46303 Dr. George Schultz 807 East Cool Spring Michigan City, Indiana 46360 Y h _n WILLIAM H. EICHHORN Eichhorn, Eichhorn & Link 5243 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320

- . .