ML20003J378

Discusses Concerns Re Util Answers to Porter County Chapter Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories.Prefers Settling Differences W/O ASLB Ruling

ML20003J378
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	04/28/1981
From:	Eichhorn W EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK
To:	Whicher J VOLLEN, R.J. & WHICHER, J.M.
References
NUDOCS 8105110331
Download: ML20003J378 (3)

Text

!

DOCKET NUMBER poo.umt.ac.R3kl e

EXCHHORN, EXCHHORN & LINK retotes.a , Es.Maomm,sa. /.TTORNCYS AT LAW witu.as ee. Es.wmoam sa43 Monee Aas AvCmut H Aw w ow o, IN DI AN A ttLEmmont 2*,*,"j,*,".,

. ... ... ."g,""" .. n o -

.. ...o c, . ... _ ... #1 '

Z',*",5^;'*" April 28, 1981 -

T

/ Doextras _ 3 _

4 - esunc

APR 3-0-198L

• I

(

~

Ms. Jane M. Whicher Offee cf ne Se:tetty -

c/o BPI Megi& Sace em 109 North Dearborn Street g f. .

Suite 1300 A~ ,'

Chicago, Illinois 60602 ,

,-d, ,. . . ' * [s .

In the Matter of Northern Indiana Public Service - L ,' / /l'.*

Re: .i Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear if i Docket No. 50-367 ;( c"01

, 537 L 4 (Construction Permit Extension) i\ C y,gd. c $gtm.,

Dear Ms. Whicher:

N gy-On April 20, 1981, you filed on behalf of Porter County Chapter-Intervenors (PCCI) a " Motion to Compel Answers to First Set of Interrogatories to NIPSCO." The purpose of this letter is to attempt to resolve your expressed concerns regarding NIPSCO's Answers to PCCI's First Set of Interrogatories without the neces-sity of a Board ruling. .

With respect to the response to Interrogatory No. 19 NIPSCO attempted to demonstrate that the traffic attributable to the c Bailly N-1 construction work force represents only a small per-l centage increase in the traffic currently being handled by U.S.

Highway 12 which is the public roadway closest to the Bailly site. The logical conclusion from this fact would be that no additional plans are required for r2-routing of traffic, upgrading roadway capacity or otherwise providing for anticipated increases in traffic. However, NIPSCO recognized that additional traffic congestion at the plant entrance may occur at shift change times if the construction work force shift changes coincide with those of Bethlehem Steel employees who use the same entrance to U.S.

Highway 12. Shift times for the Bailly N-1 construction work i force have not yet been established and will not be until the yo3 l various contracts for construction are executed. If at that time it appears that traffic congestion will occur, those shift $

change times can be staggered.

[

Beyond this possibility NIPSCO has no other plans called for l in PCCI's Interrogatory No. 19, nor are any such plans n'ecessary under the' circumstances. ---

i P105110 W G

EICHHORN, ElCHHORN & LINK Ms. Jane M. Whicher Page 2 April 28, 1981 Interrogatory No. 20 seeks the "date by which NIPSCO expects

[the] latest cost estimate to be completed." As you may know, preparation of a cost estimate for a nuclear plant is a long and detailed process requiring input from many disciplines.

l_ .

~

Discussions between the various disciplines are required through-out the estimating process; preliminary results are reviewed -

and amended following such discussions. The results are pr51ished -

in a book approximately 1 1/2 inches thick and more than 2s0 -

pages which is ggain reviewed and amended before the estimate

is " completed."J That process is presently on going and the _ , . ,

exact completion date is dependent upon the availability of the-people involved in the process and the number of amendments that are made, neither of which can be precisely predicted at this time. Under these circumstances, NIPSCO is simply unable to give you a more definitive answer than "the spring of 1981".

You were also dissatisfied with NIPSCO's response to Interrogatory No. 20 (c) which sought the name, job title and employer of each person other than NIPSCO employees who is or will be participating in preparation of the cost estimate. NIPSCO's response gave you the nemes and job titles of each S & L Department Manager who is responsible for the work being done by S & L on the cost estimate. That is the only information available to NIPSCO.

NIPSCO is, of course, obligated under the rules of discovery to provide requested relevant information which is available to it, but is not required to conduct investigations, surveys or analyses in order to respond to discovery requests. We have furnished all information available to NIPSCO in response to your inquiry and simply are unable to provide additional infor-nation without conducting a time-consuming and burdensome survey of the various involved Departments of S & L to determine the name and title of each individual who is or will be participating in preparation of the Bailly cost estimate.

• / Several examples of such estimates have been produced for

. your inspection and review in response to PCCI's Second Request for Production of Documents and have been available to you since October 23, 1980, at the office of NIPSCO's Nuclear Staff.

ElCHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK Ms. Jane M. Whicher Page 3 April 28, 1981 Under the circumstances, I believe NIPSCO has been fully responsive to your inquiries. Should we obtain additional-information which would make the present answers incorrect or misleading, we will, of course, amend those answers. , _

Please advise us whether this letter resolves you.r concerns or ~ .

T whether you still desire to pursue the April 20 Motion to Compel. .

In the latter event, we will file our formal response with the -

W.

Board. M

, _s.:

- Yours very truly,

:; ~ -

., EICHBORN, EICHBORN & LINK By: / ~~

William H. Eldhhorn WHE/dgg cc: Herbert Grossman, Esquire Dr. Robert L. Holton Dr. J. Venn Leeds

'?- Docketing and Service Section Howard K. Shapar, Esquire

~

Steven Goldberg, Esquire Susan Sekuler, Esquire Edward W. Osann, Jr., Esquire Robert L. Graham, Esquire Mr. Mike Olszanski & Mr. Clifford Mezo Mr. George Grabowski & Ms. Anna Grabowski m.

- , . , _ *