ML19346A053

Poses Addl Questions Re Const Permit Extension to Obtain Info Omitted from First Set of Interrogatories.First Set of Answers Were Not Sufficiently Detailed.Related Correspondence

ML19346A053
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	05/28/1981
From:	Eichhorn W EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK
To:	Olszanski M UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
References
NUDOCS 8106040471
Download: ML19346A053 (3)

Text

-

-4 o

. j  ?

ElCHHORN, ElCHHORN & Lin(

rato::ssca r. cicamonu.sm.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW weLUAM so. EtCMMOmm 3243 MOMM AN AV ENU C "a', " "

's." ', ,,* ,"j *m" H AM M o N D, IN DI AN A TELEPnowc caveo c.stnsam 46320 ese-osso ocwano u. scwumacaca antA coot ase

• cTr e L, seaTTOM rauta.mant aie-a o .. a .wa May 28' 1981 #g gvi / .g s '

waunct=sowasomeumen g E!h'  ; :M~~a 7 . - ,  ;

w ,-

Mr. Mike Olszanski i b.

• N 1 * #

Chair, Environmental Committee '\3 C; -

C United Steelworkers of America \d --

C, Local 1010 '

N 3 ef.~-

3703 Euclid Avenue East Chicago, Indiana 46312 s4 jII D)..Q d? R N 4 Re: In the Matter of Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1)

Docket No. 50-367 Q

.d (

v Q [ h 4

(Construction Permit Extension) \

M b ,

.h o." Q

Dear Mr. Olszanski:

I am in receipt of " United Steelworkers of America, Local 1010's Response to Northern Indiana Public Service Company's First Set of Interrogatories" dated April 29, 1981.

Among the purposes of " discovery" is to enable one party to understand clearly what another party is alleging and the facts upon which the allegations are based. With such knowledge, issues can be narrowed and preparation for hearing is facilitated.

In order to accomplish these goals, we posed NIPSCO's First Set of Interrogatories to Local 1010. The answers which were fur-nished over your signature as Local 1010's representative are, in our view, not sufficiently detailed and explicit to satisfy the purposes of discovery. We therefore pose these additional questions in order to obtain information which should have been furnished in response to the First Set.

For example, we asked whether Local 1010 contends that dewatering which has occurred since 1974 has affected the Lakeshore. (Inter-rogatory I.l.) We asked Local 1010 to " identify and describe in detail the specific effects" if it contends that dewatering since 1974 has affected the Lakeshore. (Interrogatory I.2.)

The April 29 Response replies that dewatering since 1974 has had a negative effect on the Lakeshore. However, in our view, the answer to Interrogatory I.2. fails to identify and describe in detail the specific effects" caused by dewatering. For g example, the answer does not specify the dimensions of the o O

T10604DfN' &. - - -

. -~

ElCHHORN, ElCHHORN & LINK ,

Mr. Mike Olszanski Page 2 May 28, 1981

" lowering of the water table" which it alleges nave occurred.

l How much lower is the water table? Where has the lowering occurred? When did it occur? Nor does the response specify the details of the " consequent changes in average soil moisture content" to which it refers. What is " average soil moisture content"? How has it been changed by dewatering since 1974?

The same answer alleges that dewatering "affects many species of plant, animal and marine life." Please name the species of plant life, animal life, and marine life which have been affected and describe the effects which Local 1010 alleges have occurred.

The answer states that " subtle changes in the total ecology of the Dunes, especially wetlands can already be noted by observa-tion." Please identify the " subtle changes" to which the answer refers. Please provide details regarding the " observation"--

who has observed what, where, and when.

We also asked Local 1010 to identify and describe in detail any incremental effects which it contends will occur as a result of dewatering during an extended period of construction.

(Interrogatory I.3.) The answer appears to be non-responsive.

We note first that the question does not ask Local 1010'"to predict future effects with a high degree of accuracy." To what " kind of animal . . . life" does the answer refer? To what " kin of . . . plant . . . life" does the answer refer?

To what " kind of . . . marine life" does the answer refer?

Please identify and describe in detail the " change" which will occur in each form of " life." Please define the word " irreversibly" as used in the Response to Interrogatory I.3. Please define the term " total ecological system of the Dunes" as used in the Response to Interrogatory I.3.

Interrogatory I.4. asked Local 1010 to specify the geographical area within which it alleges the effects will occur. We request greater specificity than is provided in the Response of April 29.

That is, will the effects occur at every part of the Lakeshore?

If not, in which parts, and at what distance from the excavation for Bailly N-l? Please specify the location of the " adjoining natural areas" to which the answer refers.

Local 1010's answer to Interrogatory I.S. is apparently not responsive. The interrogatory asked, in effect, that Local 1010 state how long it contends will be needed for each effect to appear. Is it your position that those time periods are coterminous with the length of time allegedly required "to ruin the ecology of the Dunes wetlands or adjoining areas"?

Speculation as to the length of time periods is not required

. ~, _ _

. s ElCHHORN, EXCHHORN & LINK -

Mr. Mike Olszanski Page 3 May 28, 1981 and, if Local 1010's representatives do not know the answer to the Intarrogatory, they may, of course, respond accordingly.

Please note that Interrogatories III.l. and 2. inquire about all consultations, whether " formal" (as that term is used in the response to Interrogatory III.2.) or otherwise.

I would remind you as representative of Local 1010 that there is a continuing obligation to supplement Local 1010's responses to questions regarding the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters and the identity of persons expected to be called as witnesses. (10 C.F.R.

S 2. 740 (e) (1) . ) NRC regulations also require amendment of a prior response as specified in 10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (e) (2) if additional information is obtained.

Finally, the Response which you signed and served on April 29 does not comply with the requirement of NRC regulations that answers to interrogatories be filed "under oath or affirmation."

(10 C.F.R. S 2. 740b (b) . ) Would you please refile the answers to NIPSCO's First Set of Interrogatories under oath or affirma-tion. Would you also respond to the additional interrogatories posed in this letter in writing under oath,or affirmation.

Yours very truly, EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK l

By:

William H. Eidhhorn WHE/dgg cc: Herbert Grossman, Esquire, Chairman Dr. Robert L. Holton Dr. J. Venn Leeds Docketing and Service Section l Howard K. Shapar, Esquire i Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire l Susan Sekuler, Esquire Robert J. Vollen, Esquire Edward W. Osann, Jr., Esquire Robert L. Graham, Esquire Mr. George Grabowski & Ms. Anna Grabowski l

l

- ~ - - - - - - + - - -3 m ._s--, , . -, , , . _ . , . _ , _ _ , , _ _ _ , , _