ML20009D044

Response Opposing Util Second Motion to Compel Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20009D044
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	07/15/1981
From:	Fahner T ILLINOIS, STATE OF
To:	NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
References
NUDOCS 8107230012
Download: ML20009D044 (9)

Text

-

s

,/ ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9'"

NUCLEAR REGULATOM COMMISSION <;/' -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO RD,

?\ 3 t-

.In the Matter of )

b?'

)

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

)

)-

Docket No. 5 (Construction P 47gg{"D' /,

(Bailly ' Generating ) Extension) J '

Station,-Nuclear-1) ) C e.

2 sea e-PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS' RESPONSE h 30g 2 W$#w TO NIPSCO'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL op o### /

ANSWERS'1m ITS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES ' . C'

% r. x

~ /,pS) ,l- g ;'-

The People of the State of Illinois (" Illinois"), by it's attorney, Tyrone C. - Fahner, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,-respo' 1 to NIPSCO's Second Motion To Compel Answers To Its Second Set'Gt interrogatories as follows:

I. Illinois' Objections to Interrogatories

. 1. " Extended period of construction."

Illinois objected to several interrogatories because they

' contained the vague-and undefined phrase " extended period of con-struction". NIPSCO asserts-that in the context of this proceeding

- "itlis clear" that such phrase refers to the period September 1, 1979

- to December 1, 1989. Illinois denies that the meaning of such phrase is " clear"; the period September 1, 1979 to December 1, 1999 is

" clearly" only the1 period of the extension for the construction per-mit' sought by NIPSCO. Moreover, in defining the time period meant lar the phrase " extended period of construction" NIPSCO concedes the

-validity of Illinois' vagueness objection.

Illinois notes that NIPSCO's accusation that Illinois has po3

'8'10723001'2810715 '.

/

PDR ADOCK 05000367' G PDR s

4 used "similar terminology" is ill-founded. By the use of such t

phrases as " increased period of construction", " extended construc-tion", " additional. length of construction time", and~" longer per-iod of construction time", Illinois was referring tc gnv further

- construction time beyond that allowed in the construction permit, not to a specific period of further construction such as NIPSCO

- apparently had in mind.

NIPSCO's motion to compel should be denied; if it so chooses ~NIPSCO can propound proper interrogatories.

2. " Assessed."

-Illinois objected to several interrogatories because they: contained lthe word " assessed" which was not defined, nor was it stated by.whom an assessment was made. NIPSCO responds by offering.a specific definition of " assess" and by stating that the assessment referred to is that made by "the Staff, Licensing Board, and Appeal Board, performed in~accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and AEC's implementing regulations." In defining the intended meaning of the term " assessed and in stating by whom an assessment was made, NIPSCO concedes the validity of

- Illinois' vagueness-objection.

NIPSCO's motion to compel should be denied; if it so

. chooses NIPSCO can propound proper interrogatories.

3. " Environmental assessment."

Illinois objected to several interrogatories on the ground that they contained the term " environmental assessment" with-out stating whose environmental assessment was being referred to.

NIPSCO responds by stating that the environmental assessment in ques-tion was made by.the Staff, Licensing Board and Appeal Board. In Epecifying whose environmental assessment the interrogatory referred

'LO, NIPSCO concedes the validity of Illinois' vagueness objection.

NIPSCO's motion to-compel should be denied; if it so chooses NIPSCO can propound proper interrogatories.

4. " Incremental environmental impact."

Illinois objected to several interrogatorios because they contained the vague, undefined phrase " incremental environ-mental-impact". In' response NIPSCO states that the interrogatories

- ask "whether Illinois contends that there will be an additional (in quantity or character) environmental impact resulting from the enumerated or other causes." In thus explaining the meaning of

the interrogatory, NIPSCO concedes the validity of Illinois' vagueness objection.

NIPSCO's motion to compel should be denied; if it so chooses NIPSCO can propound proper-interrogatories.

5. " Extra period of dewatering."

Illinois objected to several interrogatories because they. contained the vague, undefined phrase " extra period of de-watering." NIPSCO responds that "it is clear . . . that the in-terrogatories refer to.the period of dewatering during the re-

~ quested extended construction period." This, however, ir not il-luminating. Assuming that the " requested extended construction period" runs from September 1, 1979 to December 1, 1989, the

" period of dewatering during" such time period may not be identical

)

~

thereto.* In a footnote on page 6 of its motion, NIPSCO goes on to say that Illinois "may assume" that dewatering will continue throughout the requested extended construction period, i.e., from September 1,.1979 to December 1, 1989. In thus defining the phrase

" extended period of dewatering" (or, more accurately, in specifying an assumption on which interrogatory answers are to be based),

NIPSCO' concedes the validity of Illinois' vagueness objection.

NIPSCO's motion to compel should therefore he denied;

it it so chooses, NIPSCO can propound proper interrogatories.

6. In item (6) of its motion to compel, NIPSCO offers

" elaborations" of several interrogatories to which Illinois ob-

.jected because they were incomprehensible. In thus attempting t'o elaborate the meaning of interrogatories, NIPSCO concedes the

. validity of Illinois' objection.

.With respect to Interrogatory #19(a), NIPSCO's elabor-ation does not make the interrogatcry an-f more comprehensible.

Is NIPSCO asking whether dewatering after September 1, 1979 will cause incremental environmental effects other than those specific changes in groundwater parameters mentioned in Interrogatory #18?

Or.is NIPSCO asking whether there will be incremental environmental effects ~from the additional period of dewatering other than incre-mental effects resulting from the changes in those groundwater parameters?

• Nor is it clear from the objectionable interrogatories that the

" period of dewatering" will not extend, either indefinitely or for a fixed length of time, beyond the date of completion of construc-tion.

4.-

_ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m

'With respect to Interrogatories #23 and #24, NIPSCO's elaboration is curious at best and disingenuous and improper at worst.. NIPSCO states that these interrogatories first " remind" Illinois that the Licensing Board in 1974 concluded that dewatering would~not continue during operation of Bailly and then go on to ask specific questions. Such interrogatories are curious because

--there is not necessarily any connection between the reminder and

-the specific questions. Such interrogatories are disingenuous and improper.because they_ appear to imply an assumption or to require,

without'explicity so stating, that Illinois should make an assump-tion--such assumption being that dewatering will end with the com-pletion of construction. If NIPSCO knows that dewatering will end with constructit?n it should plainly say so. If UIPSCO does not know whether dewatering will end with construction but wants

~

Illinois to assume that it will for the purpose of answering in-

.terrogatories, then-NIPSCO should plainly instruct Illinois to

~ make.that assumption. 'NIPSCO should not evade the important issue of the true extent of dewatering by giving " reminders" of earlier and possibly outdated Board findings.

NIPSCO's motion to compel should therefore be denied; if

~

it so' chooses NIPSCO can propound proper interrogatories.

7. . Illinois objected to Interrogatory #24 (e) on vague-ness grounds because it referred to NRC regulations without speci-fying which particular regulations NIPSCO had in mind. NIPSCO re-sponds by stating that the interrogatory refers to any of the NRC's regulations.. By giving this explanation, NIPSCO concedes the C

-validity of. Illinois'. vagueness objection.

~

NIPSCO's motion-to compel should be denied; if it so

~

-chooses NIPSCO can-propound proper interrogatories.

. 8. NIPSCO argues that Illinois " misunderstood" Inter-

.rogatory? #20 (a) . . While NIPSCO's remarks do indicate that the in-terrogatory.was ambiguous, Illinois will file an amended answer.

'II. Other Deficient Answers y> < 11. Interrogatory 20(c).

NIPSCO' argues that Illinois inadequately answered In-

terrogatoryl#20(c), which requested the basis for the contention 47'that" rare species.will^be caused to disappear, by referring to .

~ literature cited-in the February 1973 Bailly Environmental Impact

, . Statement and in the November 1980 Final. Panel Report. NIPSCO

contends that Illinois must specify which particular items listed

.inithoseidocuments are bases-"since, clearly,-not all can be."

. Illinois. agrees that, clearly, not all the listed literature is trelevant; rather only that-literature dealing with vegetation in Cowles-Bog or similar ecosystems is' referred to in Illinois' an-

.swer. lNIPSCO also remarks that it has "some difficulty under-standing" . how the Final Panel- Report could be a basis for a pre-

-viously-filed contention; Illinois responds that the views and con-

!clusions.of'the Final ~ Panel Report demonstrate the validity of the contention.

Illinoil' answer to Interrogatory #20(c) was adequately specific, and NIPSCO's motion to request a particular form of

'answerishould be denied.

• ~

2. NIPSCO argues that portions of Illinois' answer to

. Interrogatory #21 are inadequate. Illinois will file an amended answer.

3. NIPSCO argues that Illinois' reference in response to Interrogatory #21(g) to the-construction permit record was in-sufficiently specific. Illinois will file an amended answer.

4. NIPSCO argues that Illinois' reference in response

.to- Interrogatory #22 (a) to Longwell, Flint & Saunders was insuffi-

.ciently specific. Illinois will file an amended answer.

5. . While NIPSCO " appreciate (s) receiving" Illinois' an-swers to several interrogatories (#22 (b) , (c) , (f) , (h) , and #24 (g)) ,

' it' objects to the limited nature of those answers. The answers in question were entirely proper and NIPSCO's objection is ill-founded. The interrogatories were not clear; Illinois interpreted them as requesting a more definite statement of the meaning and scope of Contention #3E.and answered accordingly. If NIPSCO had in mind some question other than the meaning and scope of Conten-tion #3E, Illinois would appreciate receiving appropriately spe-cific interrogatories.

6. NIPSCO argues that Illinois' response to Interrogatory

1. 24 (g) (2) was insufficiently specific. Illinois will file an amended' answer.

Respectfully submitted, TYRONE C. FAHNER Attorney General State of Illinois

wr ,

l BY: s

, \

ANNE RAPKIN 'N

, Assistant Attorney General

• ANNE'RAPKIN MARY JO MURRAY.

7 Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Control Division

--188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315-

. Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312);793-2491 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that I served copieslof People of the State of~ Illinois' Response-to NIPSCO's'Second Motion to Compel

' Answers to its Second Set of Interrogatories on the persons on the attached Service List by causing them to be deposited in the U.S.

mail. first class postage prepaid, on this 15th day of July 1981.

/

l l

/  ;

/i l_vG U ANNE RAPKIN N

_a_

IINI I

,- SERVICE LIST Herbert.Grossman, Esq. George & Anna Grabowski Administrative Judge 7413 N. 136th Lane Atomic Safety & Licensing Cedar Lake, Indiana 46303 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. George Schultz Commission 307 E. Coolspring Road Washington, D.C. .20555 . Michigan City, Indiana 46360 Dr. Robert-L. Holton Laurence M. Kamer Administrative Judge Lake Michigan Federation School of Oceanography 53 W. Jackson Boulevard Oregon State University Chicago, Illinois 60604 Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Mr. Mike Olszanski Dr. J. Venn Leeds Mr. Clifford Mezo Administrative Judge Local 1010 - United Steel-10807 Atwell workers of America Houston, Texas 77096 3703 Euclid Avenue East Chicago, Indiana 46312 Maurice Axelrad, Esq.

Kathleen H. Shea, Esq. Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reic, Office of the Executive Axelrad and Toll .

Legal Director 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20036 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William H. Eichhorn, Ese Eichhorn, Eichhorn & Link Robert J. Vollen 5243 Hohman Avenue Jane M. Whicher Hammond, Indiana 46320 c/o BPI 109 North Dearborn Diane L. Cohn, Esq. Suite 1300 William P. Schultz, Esq. Chicago, Illinois 60602 Suite 700 2000'P Street, N.W. Docketing & Service Section (3)

Washington, D.C. 20036 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety & Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen Laudig, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 21010 Cumberland Road Noblesville, Indiana 46060 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

_y-.., , - - - -n--.-.~--- - - --.~ - +-- e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r - - - - * * " " " ~ ~ ' ' ~ '

~ r ~ ~^~ ^