ML20010B296

Motion to Compel NRC Answers to Porter County Chapter Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories.Nrc Answers Re Interrogatories 8(f)(ii)(iii) & 9(d) & (F) Were Deficient. Related Correspondence

ML20010B296
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 8108140332
Download: ML20010B296 (4)

Text

- ,

\ EELMED COMESPONDENCF <

9' #D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 l it liUG 121981 > $

BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAlt n;;;c:clt!:e Smetary b DdetIn & Smice g.

Erar.ch In the Matter of ) g ,a

) 0)

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC )

SERVICE COMPANY )

Docket No. 5-367 g, -

a y nerating Station. ) ~

ri n ion 7/

~~

l

• Al 31981

• t u.s. unas noutama '4 PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS' t' ** 55 "" -

MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF ANSWERS , 'g TO PCCI'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 4,/

On-May 19, 1981, Porter County Chapter Intervenors ("PCCI"),

submitted their First Set of Interrogatories-to the NRC Staff, and the staff responded on July 24, 1981. Certain of the staff's answers are deficient and PCCI hereby move the Board to order the staff to provide adequate answers, as more fully set forth below.

1. Interrogatory 8(f)(ii) and (f)(iii)

Lut.rrogatory 8(f)(ii) requests, with respect to an oral report given by L.G. Hulman,a summary of that report. The staff

-response states:

(ii) No formal summary of the oral report is available, but the contents of the oral report were subsequently contained in the final report, which is being produced in'the Staff's response to-PCCI's second document request.

The interrogatory requests a summary of an oral report.

Merely because such a summary has not previously been prepared 8108140332 810810 S FY PDR ADOCK 05000367~

P DR .,

pI G

f flJl

d o

,s for some other reason is no excuse for the staff's failure to provide such a summary. The inclusion of the " contents of the oral report" in another report is unhelpful. The staff should be ordered to provide the requested summary.

Interrogatory 8(f)(iii) asks:

State whether any notes or memoranda concerning the report have been prepared, and, if so, describe each document containing such notes or memoranda, giving the date, the author, and the custodian of such document.

The staff responded:

No notes or memoranda concerning the oral report have been prepared. At least one of the participants in the meeting (George Lear) made handwritten notes at the meeting which he has retained (uncirculated) in his files.

The staff's response to this is inconsistent. It first states that there are no notes, but then goes on to describe one set of such notes. Since at least one set of notes obviously exist, the staff should be ordered to state the date and descrip-tion of the document containing such notes as requested in the Interrogatory, and whet er any other such notes exist, in order to respond fully to Interrogatory 8(f)(iii).

2. Interrogatory 9(d)

Interrogatory 9(d) asks, with respect to documents re_ied on by the three named persons whom the staff expects to call as experts, that the staff:

(d) describe each document relied upon or examined by the expert witness in answering subparagraph 9(c) above, giving the date, author, custodian and a summary of the contents of each document; N __

.- - ~ _ . _ . _ . . _. .

As to one witness, Mr. Ilulman, the staff response 1 indicates these documents will be made available. (See staff response _

- - to Interrogatory.8(d).). As to the'two other_ witnesses,_hdwever,-

f' the response indicates that the documents relied on or examined are " identified" in the " Staff Evaluation" and~the " Environmental 5

_ Impact Appraisal." However, no documents are identified in those-reports'. 'Thus, the staff answer is incorrect and non-responsive.

It should be ordered to answer the Interrogatory by identifying j the documents as requested.

3. Interrogatory 9(f) -

Interrogatory 9(f)(1) through . 9 (f) (iii) is a question

_ parallel to Interrogatory 8 concerning oral reports by persons.

whom the staff expects to call as expert witnesses. That Inter-rogatory asks the staff to:

(f) State whether the witness has given anyone an oral report and, if so:

(i) identify each person to whom such oral report was given (ii)-give_a summary of the contents of the

! oral report; and

!L (iii) state whether any notec or memoranda 2

concerning the report-have been prepared

. and, if-so, describe each document' ' '

L containing such notes or memoranda, ,

giving the date, the_ author and the

( custodianlif each such document.

i .

l In its response'the staff merely states that:

! (f) Mr. Lynch a'nd Mr. Bykoski-have not given any i

oral reports to anyone. the. Hulman, during the time he was employed by Tetra Tech, Inc., gave~an oral report. See Answer to Interrogatory 8(f).

I e

- ~ _ . , . . . . - . .

, . . w 4- ,

PCCI assume that the reierenced oral report is the same I oral report referred to in the-answer _to~ Interrogatory-8(f).-.

In.any event, the staff has failed to answer the" interrogatory-concerning:.Mr. Hulman's oral report-and should be ordered to do so.

! For the above reasons,--the staff'should be ordered to provide further and complete responses to Interrogatories 8(f)(i) and (f)(iii), 9(d), and 9(f).

4 DATED: . August 10, 1981 Respectfully submitted,,

i Robert J. Voll'en Jane M. Whicher by: Ch. v.

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 O'

T T

__.__-.--____.____.___________._w

-