ML20010B290

Showing of General Relevance Supporting Subpoena Applications.Persons to Be Deposed Have Knowledge Directly & Immediately Relevant to Proceeding Issues.Related Correspondence

ML20010B290
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	08/10/1981
From:	Whicher J PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS, VOLLEN, R.J. & WHICHER, J.M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8108140326
Download: ML20010B290 (6)

Text

.-

e ilELATED CORRESPONDENch gfk

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D

4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFOREThEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARIffl-g0 121981, m

"E CNe e,93 [k U"D b i

In the Matter of

)

)

h"4 G

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC

)

Dock'et No. 50-367 b

a SERVICE COMPANY

)

(Construction 9

(Bailly Generating Station,

)

Permit ExtensionOp Nuclear-1)

)

2 N IS8I h PORTER COUNTY CllAPTER INTERVENORS' S110 WING OF GENERAL RELEVANCE IN A6 8d*g* fymn i

SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS FOR SUBPOENAS 3

C' In a telephone conference call on August 3, 1981, Chairman of the Licensing Board directed counsel for Porter County Chapter Intervenors ("PCCI") to notice the depositions of those persons for which subpoenas had been applied, and to make a showing of general relevance of the evidence sought, by August 10, 1981.

By a separate document, "PCCI's Notice of Depositions for Which Application Has Been Made for Subpoenas,"

dated August 10, 1981 (" Notice"), PCCI have complied with the direction to notice these depositions. /

By this document PCCI make the required showing of general relevance.

The Commission's regulations with regard to subpoenas, 10 CFR S2.720(a), in pertinent part provides:

1

• / The Notice has not been serve'd upon the-persons to be deposed

_ as yet.

Inasmuch as all of those persons are non-parties to this proceeding, the Notice would be ineffectual to require their attendance and might cause confusion and inconvenience.

Accordingly, it is our intention to serve the Notice on those persons simultaneously with the service of the. subpoenas for which we have applied.

d 99 8108140326 810810 M{

PDR ADOCK 05000367 C

ppg

On application by any party, the designated presiding officer or, if he is not available, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, the Chief Administrative Law Judge or other designated officer will issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of evidence.

The officer to whom application is made may require a showing of general relevance of the testimony or evidence sought, and may withhold the subpoena if such a

-showing is not made, but he shall not attempt to determine the admissibility of evidence.

r I.

PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS' FIRST APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENAS, DATED JUNE 19, 1981 1.

D.L. Leone.

Mr. Leone is the Bailly project director at Sargent & Lundy Engineccs which has been the architect-engineer e

for Bailly since the inception of the project.

As such Mr. Leone can be expected to have knowledge of the facts related to NIPSCO's application for a construction permit extension, the reasons why NIPSCO did not complete construction of the Bailly' nuclear plan.

by September 1, 1979, the estimated cost of building Bailly, NIPSCO's and Sargent & Lundy's competence'to design.and build a nuclear power plant, the reasonableness of the requested extension and virtually all other matters at issue in this proceeding.

His testimony would be directly relevant to the matters in controversy.

2.

G.A. Chauvin.

Mr. Chauvin is an employee.of Sargent;&

Lundy Engineers and has been personally and directly involved in.

its work on the Bailly-plant since at least 1972.

His testimony and knowledge of the facts would be directly relevant in the'same way as that of Mr. Leone.

2

3.

Richard F. Brissette.

Mr. Brissette 19 the co-author I

of two reports, identified following his name in the Notice.

Those reports deal with the impact of construction dewatering at Bailly on the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, an issue in.

this proceeding.

Mr. Brissette's testimony concerning the basis a

and support for statements in those reports, their implications and significance and their justifi.ation and correctness, is directly relevant to the subject of this proceeding.

NIPSCO has relied on the November 1980 report in stating its position that dewatering would have no effect on the Lakeshore.

See NIPSCO's response to the People of the State of Illinois' First Set of Interrogatories to NIPSCO, dated July 8, 1981, in response to Interrogatories 10 and 16.

4.

Stevo Dobrijevic.

Mr. Dobrijevic is the co-author with Mr. Brissette of the two reports on-dewatering.

His testimony therefore is directly relevant in the same way as

. that of Mr. Brissette.

5.

Eugene'E. Barnett.

Mr. Barnett is the person in charge of the. Bailly proj ect for C.F. Braun & Co., which is the construction manager for Bailly.

As such, Mr. Barnett can be expected to have knowledge of the facts concerning the reasona why NIPSCO did not complete construction of Bailly by September 1,

~ 1979, and the reasonableness of.a latest completion date of 2

. December 1, 1989, for the Bailly plant.

Those~ issues are directly at issue in this proceeding.

k m

i 4.

m.a m.

m.---

m -

m-.

L____.__-_2._..--_,__.m_m

.m.

m.

2..-

2.

i. -m m.

6.

Thomas J. Wysocky is the person at Thatcher Engineering Corporation responsible for the Bailly project.

Thatcher Engi-f neering.is the company which had a contract to do pile driving on the Bailly plant.

Because the inability to install a workable and safe foundation of long pilings is a major' cause of delay, Mr. Wysocky can-be expected to have direct knowledge of the reasons way NIPSCO did not complete construction of Bailly by September 1, 1979, an issue in controversy in this proceeding.

II.

PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS' SECOND 2

APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENAS DATED JULY 31~, 1981 1.

Superintendent, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and 2.

Chief Scientist, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

Both the Superi6tendent and the Chief Scientist of the National Lakeshore have ongoing responsibilities for and con-cerns about the preservation, use,-protection and enjoyment of the National Lakeshore.

They can be expected to have knowledge of the potential impacts of NIPS;0's construction of Bailly, particularly the impacts of co.s.caction dewatering and of the

~

sealing of-the ash ponds on the Bailly site, on the Indiana D2nen National Lakeshore.

These matters are in' controversy in this proceeding'and the testimony of the Superintendent and, Chief

' Scientist would be directly relevant to them.

3.

William Meyer, sm

4.

Patrick Tucci, i

5.

Daniel Gilles, 6.

Mark A. Hardy, 7.

Wayne W. Lapham, and 8.

James Marie.

i Each of these six people is the author or co-author of a U.S. Geological Survey report on an aspect of the impact of NIPSCO's activities in conjunction with Bailly on the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

Those reports are identifidd following the names of each of these persons in the Notice.

The tectimony of these persons on the subject matter of those reports will be directly relevant to issues in this proceeding.

I 9.

The person'or persons at Ground / Water Technology, Inc.

responsible for or having input into " Supplementary Information, Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Construction' Dewatering," dated October 27, 1979.

That report is another which deals with the impact of construction dewatering at Bailly upon the Indiana i

Dunes National Lakeshore and the person (s) with knowledge of.

the materi.11 within it can be expected to have information.

relevant to that issue.in this proceeding.

10.

Daniel Willard. ' D',

'w2.llard -is the chairman 'of a panel which issued a report, identified.in the Notice following i'

Dr. Willard's name, on the effects of dewatering on.the Indiana x --

s.

-6

~

Dunes National Lakeshore.

That report, and the testimony of Dr. Willard concerning the information in it, relate to the impact on the ecology of the Lakeshore of drawdown due to dewatering and thus an, relevant to this proceeding.

CONCLUSION The Commisston's regulations authorize the Board to require a showing of " general relevance" of the evidence sought by way of subpoena.

There is no room for serious doubt that the persons whom PCCI seek to depose have knowledge that isdirec$lyand immediately relevant to the issues in this proceeding.

The standard of a showing of general relevance has been met and the subpoenas sought should be issued.

DATED:

August 10, 1981 Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Vollen Jane M. Whicher by:

s %- -

\\bk-Jane M. Whicher\\

Attorneys for Porter County Chapter Intervenors Robert J. Vollen Jane M. Whicher c/o BPI 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570

_