ML19343D391

Response to Porter County Chapter Intervenors' Third Request for Production of Documents.Some Document Requests Objectionable.Other Documents Made Available.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML19343D391
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	04/24/1981
From:	Eichhorn W EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK, NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
To:	PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS
References
NUDOCS 8105040399
Download: ML19343D391 (11)

Text

, @ t,q

• ~e%

-p# 7 9

• nn= ccmnconcz ,co,

1. $c.

~

D mg ,

t _

~

?'1 0 $) [ cf~

• 4

- . .,.. 0 j, ;g3 > 72

...a -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $ bh C 9

1. "@j*wou,f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\/Nf i *\7 EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i\

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-367

)

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

)

(Bailly Generating Station, ) April 24, 1981 Nuclear-1) )

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS' THIRD REQUEST TO NIPSCO FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) herewith files its response to Porter County Chapter Intervenors' (PCCI)

Third Request to NIPSCO for Production of Documents.

Many of the documents requested in PCCI's Third Request deal with subject matters which are beyond the scope of any admitted contention and for that reason are objectionable.

However, in an effort to reduce the level of haggling over discovery requests heretofore experienced in this proceeding, NIPSCO has attempted to fully comply with PCCI's third document request except in the few instances where the request is overly broad or the requested documents are confidential.

We note also that many of the documents requested in the Third Request have previously been produced in response 9 S03 S ']

810504O M a

o to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.* /

Each numbered paragraph of PCCI's Third Request is individually addressed below. All documents produced in response to the Third Request have been assembled and placed with the documents pro-duced in response to PCCI's Second Request at the NIPSCO Nuclear Staff Offices and are available for inspection and copying at that location.

1. This request is objectionable in that NIPSCO's 1981 energy sales are not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding- NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents.

2. This request is objectionable in that the projections of annual aak demand, energy sales, capacity at time of peak, firm and non-firm sales and purchases and the reserve margin for the years 1981 until five (5) years after Bailly N-1 is scheduled to come on line are not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents except for certain computer input and output data, worksheets, correspondence, tables and charts, all of which relate only to the future electrical demands of individual large industrial customers.

• / Documents produced in response to PCCI's second document request have been available for inspection and copying at the offices of NIPSCO's Nuclear Staff since October 23, 1980, and have now been updated to March 31, 1981. The continued segregation of such documents and files from-the remaining files of NIPSCO's Nuclear Staff has created an additional burden upon the Nuclear Staff in carrying out its normal duties. For that reason, NIPSCO urges PCCI to complete promptly its examination of those documents or advise counsel for NIPSCO that PCCI no longer desires to review them.

NIPSCO is withholding this information and objects to its production first because it is not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. Additionally, information gained.

from individual large industrial customers reflects the fore-casts of those customers regarding their future production and sales and future plant additions anticipated by these customers.

Public dissemination of this information could be detrimental to the individual customers in that knowledge of plant additions not yet announced and company forecasts regarding future produc-tion and sales would be useful to competitors of these individual customers and may place them at an economic disadvantage.

Moreover, NIPSCO's release of such information could cause the individual industrial customers to be reluctant to furnish NIPSCO information regarding their future plants. It is essential that NIPSCO be able to obtain such information in order to plan additional capacity to meet future demand on its system. Any deterrent to obtaining such information would be detrimental to NIPSCO's future planning.

Three (3) documents produced in response to this Request No. 2 (i.e., Corporate Planning Department Electric Forecast Case 001, Case 002 and Case 003) are used as planning tools by NIPSCO's Corporate Planning Department. As such, they are constantly changing and are not publicly distributed. The last five (5) pages of each document contains specific forecasts for individual large industrial customers; they have been removed from the copies produced for the reasons stated above.

)

~4-Many documents requested by this Request No. 2 have been produced in response to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.

3. This request is objectionable in that proposed planned capacity changes on NIPSCO's system from 1980 until five (5)

I years after Bailly N-1 is due to come on line are not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents. Some of the documents requested by this Request No. 3 were produced in response to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.

4. This request is objectionable in that NIPSCO's current and projected reserve margin requirements are not relevant to any f

contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents. Some of the documents requested by this Request No. 4 were produced in response to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.

5. This request is objectionable in that the need for the Bailly facility in the time frame proposed in the requested extension is not relevant to any contention admitted in this i proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents.

Some of the documents requested by this Request No. 5 were pro-duced in response to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.

6. Subparagraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this request are objectionable in that the total expenditures to date for Bailly N-1, those elements of the total cost that would or would not l

L- ..

be recovered by NIPSCO if construction of Bailly N-1 is permanently halted and the fuel, operations, and maintenance costs.for the first year of operation are not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents. Some of the documents requested by this Request No. 6 were produced in response to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.

7. NIPSCO has produced the requested documents. Some of the documents requested by this Request No. 7 were produced in respense to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.

Additional documents which are being produced in response to this request include approximately 11 inches of computer print-out documents which cannot be readily reproduced. Computer print-1 l

outs for years prior to 1972 and support documents for the years prior to 1975 have been destroyed.

8. This request is objectionable in that NIPSCO's projected sales of electrical energy for each major class of customer for the years 1985 and 1990 are not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents except as noted in response to paragraph 2 above.

9. This request is objectionable in that the size of the construction work force required to complete construction of Bailly N-1 is not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents.

10. This request is objectionable in that NIPSCO's estimate of the origin and expected availability of the construction work force to complete Bailly N-1 is not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents,

11. This request is objectionable in that NIPSCO's estimate of the fraction of the work force expected to commute from permanent residences is not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents.

12. This request is objectionable in that the anticipated vehicular traffic impacts during the time period of the requested construction permit extension are not relevant to any contention-admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents.

13. NIPSCO has produced the requested documents.

14. This request is objectionable in that the request is overly broad. Clearly, the request for minutes of all meetings of NIPSCO's Board of Directors at which Bailly N-1 was discussed goes beyond the scope of the contentions admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced certified copies of all portions of the minutes of meetings of NIPSCO's Board of Directors in which Bailly N-1 has been discussed.

15. This request is objectionable in that it is overly broad. Clearly, any discussions between NIPSCO employees

L and persons under NIPSCO's control with Commissioners, Staff or employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning Bailly goes beyond the scope of the contentions admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced all summaries or notes of telephone conversations pertaining to any admitted contention in this proceeding which have not previously been produced.

16. This request is objectionable to the extent that it refers to future energy and peak load forecasts in that those matters are not relevant to any contention admitted in this proceeding. NIPSCO has, however, produced the requested documents except as stated in response to paragraph 2 above.

Some of the documents requested by this Request No.16 were produced in response to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents.

17. This request is objectionable in that it is vague, overly broad and does not identify any document but rather refers to an unidentified " file" from which a memorandum of a telephone conversation was earlier produced. The request does not attempt to identify any subject matter or specific type of document for which discovery is sought. NIPSCO has responded to this request by producing all memoranda of telephone conversations between NIPSCO personnel and NRC personnel which pertain to any contention admitted in this proceeding. Some of these documents

were previously produced in response to PCCI's First and Second Request for Documents.

Respectfully submitted, EICHHORN, EICHHORN.& LINK 5243 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320 By:

William H. Eic hhorn Attorneys for Northern Indiana Public Service Company LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS

& AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

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 ) Extension)

)

(Bailly Generating Station, ) April 24, 1981 Nuclear-1) )

. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Northern Indiana Public Service Company's Response to Porter County Chapter Inter-venors' Third Request to NIPSCO for Production of Documents were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 24th day of April, 1981:

Herbert Grossman, Esquire, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Robert L. Holton Administ' ative Judge School of Oceanography Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331

! Dr. J. Venn Leeds Administrative Judge 10807 Atwell Houston, Texas 77096 l

Docketing and Service Section l

' 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 . Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.3hington, D.C. 20555 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 Edward W. Osann, Jr., Esquire One IBM Plaza suite 4600 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 Mr. George Grabowski Ms. Anna Grabowski 7413 W. 136th Lane Cedar Lake, Indiana 46303 WILLIAM H. EICHHORN Eichhorn, Eichhorn & Link 5243 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320 Attorneys for Northern Indiana Public Service Company

_ _ _ - - - . -