ML20032E058
| ML20032E058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1981 |
| From: | Bloom J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8111190572 | |
| Download: ML20032E058 (21) | |
Text
v RELATED CORRISFONDENCE l
DOCKETED U 3RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMM[dSIO BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD,'
1 i
IN THE MATTER OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM
)
50-330-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-329-OL.
)
50 o
(Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2)
)
<q.
6
/
st[
f, f
',"Q y
h l,
~
CONSUMERS POWER RESPONSE TO STAMIRIS g
NOVJ 8 7OOIA MOTION TO COMPEL "SUPPLFMENTATION OF 7
DISCOVERY REQUESTS REGARDING TOTAL 9
~fu.s,gNs!@'83 2y 4
SOIL SETTLEMENT COSTS" (fl
/^
N b$
Consumers Power Company
(" Consumers Power")
g; opposes Intervenor Stamiris' attempt to compel any further response to her discovery requests.
Consumers Power has completely met its responsibilities in providing and supple-meating information to Ms. Stamiris.
All further discovery is precluded by a Protective Order.
The hearings concerning the issues upon which Ms. Stamiris now seeks information are over.
The preliminary findings of fact resolving the issues are being drafted.
The motion itself provides no reasons why these discovery prohibitions should be waived.
Under such circumstances the motion is improper and Consumers Power asks that it be rejected.
I.
BACKGROUND The Motion to Compel seeks written responses to questions propounded on September 28, 1981 relating to cost documents Ms. Stamiris received from Consumers Power on 8111190572 811112 b03 PDRADOCK0500pDR 9
9 i
G
$0
July 1, 1981.
It additionally demands that Consumers Power
" explain in writing" another set of cost documents provided on October 23, 1981.
The cost documents arise, in part, from Ms. Stamiris' December 4, 1980 discovery request:
Any cost or schedule impact data or projections made since those submitted in response to 50-54 (f) questions 21 and 22 regarding soils settlement matters.
Sometime after January 16, 1981 Consumers Power provided the documents to Ms. Stamiris. 1/
On January 26, 1981 Ms. Stamiris filed a second request, based on the cost documents.
She asked for the
" total soils settlement costs... assuming current remediation (sic) proposals are acceptable," and an explanation of any 2/
estimates.
On February 27, 1981 Consumers Power provided these documents, and explained their terms and format. -3/ The Company response noted that not all costs and schedule docu-ments were available at that time.
Bechtel had initiated additional projections since the original document production.
Consumers Power committed to supply Ms. Stamiris with those
-1/
Consumers Power Response to Intervenor Requests of Consumers Power, January 16, 1981 informed Ms. Stamiris that more time was required to compile the documents; however they were supplied to her before January 26, 1981.
2/
Intervenor Response to Consumers Power Company January 19, 1981 Discovery Reply For Notice of the Board January 26, 1981.
3/
Consumers Power Response to Intervenor (St amiris) Dis-covery Request or Response of January 26, 1981. - --
additional documents "when' projections were completed." A!
In April, 1981.Ms. Stamiris filed more documen'.
requests.
She indicated that although she-had the most recent schedule projections, the promised cost projections
-had still not been made available.
On May 6, 1981 Consumers Power responded to, among
[
other things, this specific item.
It reaffirmed its' February commitment to provide the cost data projections Bechtel had been in the process of updating.
Consumers' Power also re-quested a protective order terminating all present and future discovery requests.
On May 8, 1981 the Board considered the totality of the outstanding discovery requests by Ms. Stamiris. 5/
It noted that Consumers Power had committed to providing Ms. Stamiris with the updated cost projections begun in February, 1981. 6/ It ordered Consumers Power to produce certain documents and answer specific interrogatories. 7/
4/
Id.
On April 10, 1981 Consumers Power sent Ms. Stamiris the proposed schedule for the remedial actions per-taining to soils settlement issues.
This document comprised all relevant schedule information then available.
As such it completed Consumers Power discovery obligations with respect to schedule docu-ments and the commitment made in February, 1981.
Ms.
Stamiris' present Motion to Compel does not raise any question regarding the schedule docamentation.
j_
r l
-5/
Memorandum and Order (Ruling upon Intervenor's Motions to Compel Discovery Against Applicant), May 8,1981 at
- p. 1.
6/
Id. at 3.
7/
Id. at 6.
t 1 !
_..,. _,.. _.. _. _. -. _....,. - _ _ _ _., ~. _
O On June 15, 1981 the Board concluded "that no further discovery concerning soils settlement questions is appropriate at this time." 8/ It granted Consumers Power's motion for a protective order terminating all further discovery. 2/
On July 1, 1981 Consumers Power supplied Ms.
Stamiris with the then available cost data from Bechtel's cost trending program. 1S/-These documents met the February, 1981 commitment to produce the results of Bechtel projections underway as of the time of Consumers Power's February
^
reFponSe.
On September 28, 1981 Ms. Stamiris filed a series of interrogatories concerning the July, 1981 documents and made further requests for other cost documents.
Among the items requested were several " cost' trend registers."
-8/
Memorandum and Order (Concerning Various Pending Matters)
(" Protective Order") at p. 4.
9/
Id. at 8.
--10/
See Attachment 1,_ July 1, 1981 Letter from Consumers Power attorney J. E. Brunner to Ms. Stamiris.
--11/
The letter accompanying the documents noted that the July 1981 cost data did not include information re-lating to the recent design modification of remedial measures for the service water pump structure and the auxiliary building.
The modifications, made after Consumers Power's February commitment to provide cost projections, were not part of that commitment.
- Further, the cost data on these items were not available in July 1981.
Except as preliminary estimates, they are not available now as Bechtel is currently engaged in contract negotiations'with subcontractors concerning them.
The design modifications will increase the overall cost of the remedial measures.
_4_
=~
1 o-On October 15, 1981, during the proceedings, i
Michael I. Miller, Consumers Power's counsel, stated that Consumers Power would give Ms. Stamiris documents responsive to her. September, 1981 requests. 12/ However, he noted that discovery has long since been closed in this
_ proceeding, and that by turning over these docu-ments we don't regard ourselves_as under any obligation to make any further responses to requests of this nature from Mrs. Stamiris, or to answer any written interrogatories with respect to cost, if that's the next step.
We hope we can work it out.
And if there is a further request we will certainly look at it and determine whether or not we will respond to that but we are going to turn over documents which we believe will be responsive.... 13/
On October 23, 1981 Consumers Power sent Ms.
Stamiris the cost trending registers. - /
14 In a letter accompanying thcm, Mr. James E. Brunner, Consumers Power's attorney, offered to explain the contents of the docu-ments. 15/
On October 28, 1981 Ms. Stamiris filed her Motion to Compel.
She sought not only written answers to her September, 1981 interrogatories but written explanations concerning the-documents she received in October.
Ms.
Stamiris refused to even attcapt to contact Mr. Brunner.
12/
Tr. at 4945.
--13/
Tr. at 4945-46.
The items Consumers Power would give Ms. Stamiris were not a supplementation of past discovery pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740 (e) (2).
Tr. at 4947.
14/.
5 15/_ Id.
4
!, - -_~,. -, -
II. DISCUSSION A.
Consumers Power met its discovery commitmonts and the Protective Order precludes any further discovery.
Consumers Power met its discovery ~ burden by pro-viding to Ms. Stamiris the " details of its case" concerning the costs of the remedial measures and "the source of the information" upon which it would rely " prior to hearing." In the Matter of Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-31, 10 NRC 597, 599-600 (1979).
All discovery in these proceedings has been long over.
In June the Board issued a Protective Order explicitly forbidding any further discovery, even " follow up" questions.
The sole remaining discovery item then pertained to Consumers Power's February commitment to provide the Bechtel update of cost trending.
Consumers Power met this commitment in July, 1981, before the start of the proceedings.
The July, 1981 documents were a compilation, as Ms. Stamiris' January discovery request specified, of the total settlement costs for the remedial measures. 16/ The form of the documents were similar to that presented by Consumers Power in January and February, 1981.
Consumers 16/
In October 1981 the underlying documents used in the compilation were provided.
Most of the questions posed by Ms. Stamiris in her September, 1981 request were answered by them.
But to be certain, Consumers Power further offered to discuss and clarify the documents. -
Power had already explained the terms used in the July documents in its February, 1981 responsa.
Thus, prior to hearing, Ms. Stamiris had the details of the cost of the' remedial measures and their source.
Ms. Stamiris was free to question witnesses in the hearing concerning the documents.
In fact, as opposed to extending formal discovery, the Board encouraged her to do so.
Its May, 198; Order noted:
[W]e are reluctant to permit any new discovery.
Indeed even where information requests would have been difficult to..onceptualize at an early date, we are more inclined at this stage of the proceeding to oermit greater leeway in cross examination thia to authorize new dis-covery. 17/
But, Ms. Stamiris asked no questions of any wit-ness concerning these documents.
Rather, after the hearings were over, almost three monthe from the time she received them, she filed new interrogatories and new document requests and demanded new explanations. 18/
Ms. Stamiris' September and October demands are precisely the kinds of discovery inquiries precluded by the Protective Order.
To entertain such discovery, after the proceedings on the issues are over, is not only an unproductive 17/
May, 1981 Order at p.
2.
18/
Specifically she asks whether all documents have been given (follow up); asks for all documents upon which the compilation was based (new documents) and she asks whether the costs involve legal fees, etc. (new interro-gatories).
In October, 1981 she broadly demanded that the October, 1981 documents be " explained" in writing.
l l '
L __
o 4
gesture but, offends the Protective Order as well. 19/ There 0
would literally be no end to discovery.
Ms. Stamiris' reading of the documents has apparently led to new questions and new document requests and any answers to those are just as likely to lead to more, ad inifitum, regardless of con-tent or detail.
B.
Consumers Power has no duty to supplement cost data documents by answering Ms. Stamiris' September and October 1981 Interrogatories and Requests.
Ms. Stamiris' requests for " supplementation" of the cost data documents does not fall within 10 CFR S2.740(e).
That section states there is "no duty to supplement [a]
response" that was complete when made excett under certain narrow circumstances.
Among other things, a party must i
supplement a response if ordered by the Board or if he has agreed with other parties to do so. (10 CFR S2.740(e) (3))
A party also has a duty to " seasonably" amend a response which although correct when made is no longer true and the 1
circumstances are such that a failure to amend is a " knowing concealment." (10 CFR S2.740(e) (2)).
None of Ms. Stamiris' September and October 1981 Interrogatories and Requests meet these criteria.
There is neither an outstanding Board order nor a voluntary agreement between the parties to supplement the
--19/
Even if this were not so, the failure to provide argu-ments in support of the motion to compel directly contravenes the burden placed on Ms. Stamiris by 10 CFR 52.740 (f).
This alone is sufficient reason to deny the motion. - - -
cost data documents.
Board orders only recognize Consumers Power's February commitment, which has been met.
Mr. Miller's statement concerning the information supplied in October emphasizes that there is no private understanding between Ms. Stamiris and the Company to supplement data.
Similarly, the circumstances are not such that Consumers Power has a duty to seasonably amend its response under S2.74 0 (e) (2).
Consumers Power's February commitment was to provide the update of projections it had already begun.
Ms, Stamiris received these documents by July, 1981.
Since Consumers Power provided that data, as it promised, in time for the hearings, the requirement that amendments be
" seasonable" was met.
Furthermore, Ms. Stamiris was told before the hearings started that the documents did not reflect the underpinning design modifications.
Ms. Stamiris present discovery requests neither allege that these circum-stances amount to " concealment" of fact nor seek information concerning the modificacions.
C.
Consumers Power has no continuing duty to update the cost data documents.
This Board's Protective Order ended all discovery before the hearings began.
This is in keeping with the requirements of 10 CFR S2.740(a) and the purposes of dis-covery.
Section 2.740(a) requires that discovery be "rea-sonably calculated to lead to... admissible evidence."
As the Commission indicated in its recent Policy Statement, discovery is meant to: - -
expedite hearings'by the disclosure of informa-tion in the possession of parties which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding so that issues may be narrowed, stipulated or eliminated and so that evidence to be presented at hearing can be stipulated or otherwise limited to that which is relevant. 20/
In this case, cost documentation relates solely to the issues arising from Ms. Stamiris' Contention No. 2:
managerial attitude and the effect of financial pressures upon safety considerations. 21/ The substance of these-issues was fully litigated in the summer proceedings.
Those Consumers Power management witnesses -- Messrs. Howell, Cook and Kealey -- most familiar with cost considerations testified specifically concerning them.
Thus, to further supplement the coct data would serve none of the purposes of discovery 22/
but, in fact, frustrate them.
t 2r In the Matter of Statement of Policy on Conduct of
~
Licensing Proceeding,
(" Policy Statement") May 20, 1981, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981).
21/
See Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on Contentions and On Consolidation of Proceedings (October 24, 1981),
at pp.
3-7.
22/
Ms. Stamiris outright refusal to even attempt to dis-cuss the cost documentation with Consumers Power also frustrates the " reasonableness" which is part of the hearing process.
Such defiance certainly is not in keeping with her legal obgliations'as a party to this proceeding.
See Policy Statement at pp. 454-56.
III.
CONCLUSION The issues concerning cost data have been liti-gated.
The time for any discovery -- not only that con-cerning the cost data -- has long passed.
An explicit Protective Order ends any further inquiries by Ms. Stamiris.
Consumers Power has met its commitments and there is no legal requirement at present to further supplement them.
However, in order to conserve the time, expense and energy of all involved, Consumers Power volunteered several cost documents to Ms. Stamiris and offered to discuss them.
In the face of all this, Ms. Stamiris refused to speak to Consumers Power.
She then baldly demanded, without any arguments in support of her claims, that the Company write out responses to that which she is not entitled.
As the Board held half a year ago, discovery must be terminated sometime.
Consumers Power suggests that the time after an issue has been litigated would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, N
o nne G. Bloom /
~
e of the Attdneys for Consumers Power Company Dated: November 12, 1981 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-329-OM
)
50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
)
.1 CONSUMERS POWER RESPONSE TO STAMIRIS MOTION TO COMPEL " SUPPLEMENTATION OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS REGARDING TOTAL SOIL SETTLEMENT COSTS" I,
JoAnne G. Bloom, hereby certify that a copy of Consumers-Power Response to Stamiris Motion to Compel
" Supplementation of Discovery Requests Regarding Total Soils Settlement Cocts" was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by depositing in the United States mail, first class, this 12th day of, Noven6her, 1981.
/
l Anne G.
Bloo /
l
0 c
SERVICE LIST Frank J.
Kelley, Esq.
Steve Gadler, Esq.
Attorney General of the 2120 carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection Div.
Appeal Panel 720 Law Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Lansing, Michigan 48913 Washington, D.C.
20555 Myron M.
Cherry, Esq.
Mr. C.
R.
Stephens One IBM Plaza Chief, Docketing & Services Suite 4501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Chicago, Illinois 60611 Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.
20555-Mr. Wendell H. Marshall RFD 10 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing William D.
Paton, Esq.
Board Panel Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P.
Cowan Atomic Safety & Licensing 6152 N.
Verde Trail Board Panel Apt. B-125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Washington, D.C.
20555-Admin. Judge Ralph S.
Decker Barbara Stamiris Route No.
4, Box 190D 5795 North River Road Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Route 3 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Carroll E. Mahaney Babcock & Wilcox Jerry Harbour P.O. Box 1260 Atomic Safety & Licensing Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
James E. Brunner, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Consumers Power Company 4
212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
g 1-
'N Yaist t
s~..
.e.o. ~.
o
'r
.f.. yj..%. be!!SO2iBP3
- * *-e-
~.~
O E 7_
= e. a
,f *,bilip3lly
.g t,f,,"...
n.
J..
s o..
Gasosdy E Magen o.a.,.i on.c..
- w.. u chwa Ae.no.. J.ca.on, ai 4esoi. <sm 7se osso Feense a.e e-ar J t Snsswwe Lese, Daeve Che*e O Deessa h WW Demposv w P Date, "m"F G.'e.o :
July 1 1981 8
nashe. L H eso e n omes Lessne M Meeusey WBeyne A Eartby A6. ort D hestelhem Devd A tetas.sie route H 16sas
- = * -
Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Ja. a n is.,.
De.d n nos Gregory A Sed.
Route 3
- u. D,,,,,,,s,e
- = 5=.a 8=
Freeland, MI 48623 A T Us+ys Denne L waglene Thander. J v.ses
Dear Ms. Stamtris:
4,,,.
Attached is a copy of a document reflecting the latest available cost data associated with soils remedial actions from Bechtel's cost trending program.
Information regarding the cost data supplied has been provided in the footnotes to the document.
'.sI Very truly yours, James E. Brunner h
s Attachraent 1 f
,e 1
k' The following reflects Bechtel's most recent estimates of the cost of 1
remedial actions associated with foundation soil issues:I j
)
Material Cost S 664,000 j
[f Labor Cost 2,664,000 e --
Subcontract Cost 4,391,000 3,.. subtotal 7,719,000 Direct Field Cost 4 C. -
2,737,000 Distributable Field Cost d'!
Total Field o
f 10,456,000 e
F.r Engine'ering 5,025,000 Other Home Office 2,090,000 Contingency and Rounding 69,000 Total cost 2 17,640,000 (3Ie ICosts reflect the latest available data from Bechtel's cost-trending program. Data for cost trend projections of bin vall underpinning scheme for service water pump structure are not yet available. Hence, data reflects the driven pile underpinning scheme for the service water structure. Cost assumptions for the auxiliary building underpinning scheme include caisson underpinning at electrical penetration areas and full concrete underpinning of service water valve pits.
2This cost is the total Bechtel cost of carrying out remedial actions presently proposed, excluding cost increment of bin wall design over the driven pile design for the service water pump structure.
(
n '9
,y.-
,_-..-.y m_.
~
s g
. ~. =
- 4 C'
.O O
O O
O e
e e
o e
e e
o e
o
,3 e
f
, m.
1 r
?
\\
- e.,
o!,..
1,,
- ,, -m
.. e
^
4
.1 g
. r e.
ee-e g;.
i,e Yb*.
[
-*i e.
et e l
l O
8
'j-.
og,g a f.
es i
- * *.. S 86 t
4.
eM l
I e
i I
o em h
.e e e M
I
.e,, e, de e
.se sw i
45.g-
.e i
e e(
I i=..
a l.
e.
E e.
=*
-4ee e
89
=i 8
l w
we "
j e
9 as We
- ~
4.
se 2
ea se
. e..;.-
a.
e.
e..
4 a
e e 4
e 8
dh e e (
a.m es e g b'
(. e
.,. e e.
en e.
=8 d
' ~ '
- a. * * * *
- a
~
,o.,.
gg I
~
e-
.,* /,
- . - I.* l' i
wee;en
'7 l
es.
.e e
..?
ao'.*t.
e s
i, Oea g.e l # ** +
ee
.e,
.M. e e
c
.< e.e woa
.n 8e 9
- .J e
et e
)g g.
-l
~,3 t
.%t eW e+
e e, e
p
.. =
tu, e
.= :
a; e en
- e.,'
e.
e gg J
- e%
f sq *
.a i
.e.;
e.
{
,a e f
g.
g p
.r. -
.,n *1.
..m i
gl l e. -
y
.e.
e e-
..i.
e e-e.4
~
-e e.
i e
ne-
- e.
e,.
.et We.
e s es ea e,
in.
8 e
i -
- =.
e a
s e
.e -
ee
- y**
s
(
- e. >
e g
. w es ee
.e e
'I sm e es 60
.e e
e r
-w sh n
n smi ee g.
)(...
. ~*.. e..
.a a
4 i
e2 5
l
- J.
%, s. o I
w
- s 2 s.
e" e.
...e e e 3e3
- ..s P2 1ua o
.18 a.s peu e2
.m as
- e e es' i
s au so.ees..
.i w:
e ow e.
a2 e
'q es l
- Co m o
g
,e
.#.e =
)
.~
m.
i l
e
.I,
=
e "a o
a t 3.d g
C * **
e i,
,em...
I C r. 2.*
.M#
O. m..e
.l.i e
- e. e I*
4*.
Wue..
2 70 E Me F M +3 o w.
en,s e8*.
O p.s d
2 C.sm, e
w i
4.3 hs E.s e we i
. es e l Wo.
.e g
- e: -
we og
.,3 e i
m ea
,u,e,_W are 4
e i
.t'a ga to m
a.
e.
)
<e es e
a w
i en eslw w
er 26f p
ta
.e.
39 I
,l.l l
m".,
,e=
o e
o ear e
E o
e i.
m
.i s
ie e
w.
e.=
e e.
l j
i i
b e.
e,
.=
e g.
l l
2
~.
=
s i a
I e
en e e
l eo wa o
O
.i l
d I
b s.
i e
a.d
! a=
i s
e I=
a.
uw le
.s.
se c !.s w e
"I is l:w s Il, w
.a l
I 4
i el i
q s
e or
.I g
o a
a
- e 8l e
eI l
ol 2
e.i 3'
p.,e e+
e l'
.a; 1
.sep p ga I
I is e.e e
w e z
l 6
l.
e v:
S.-
4 I
se
=
0 e4 e.
e = ei.
- a. cear I.
8 e
l e
3 e.=
- e. G l
l
.o, i
e
.e e.
.e
.e.ew.4 2 s G.~.
e.=. e.i i
se
.=.e e a. 3 0 l
e.e eO I
eg e
en.
e 00 e4 al es e
.e ew a
.w e
et e 8
.2 e. ma 8
e..o.- w I w
- m a e
e
.g
.w w l
e,s oie I
h.
.s po a
..u s e es
.s.e
,d I
w
- e m, e..
3 e
e a
- l D.
e >
.ei. a 41.p.4,:
- e..o e e. e.
6.
O
.e e.
g l
e e. e,e
=* e
- ge s 3
e.
e e
e e. e,.
e e
D e.
e
,v.e4.e e.
.I
.398 w
- eh e
r o w en.,e ed
.e e
3,s@i l
p.
e o e
-a'* e *en w sie.
o
[
we.g d e
- W l
-=o~
i e
.T wu>
J w O-e e 0
O er s e s o
n..X.e.
I i
IW *. to'e l
e y =.a..w g,
e J%s s
I
- F
- w e*C we
- a..ie d a.
g cD w u
I 2.
l we=
g.
e 3, s.r.
8
.= ee.
e s e
rew
. sea. e l l
e6e. e e.s. w
- e
=
sm e
e g,
,i
.~.e. - e a
=
e.
a s L **
e d2 8
e
- w. e** *e.& es I i
e=3
- o
.E.
. s e,~ g...e. w,g sa s
-es es l l
sie w e.p., ii. l g
e e
es a:
- *.o
- e.,,u,
-e a a s i
e
,,=, c,, a. o e
8 g
o.= = e e
.e****
e*
.)
e 4*
3 e
f a
e
- s. w e
e.anns lm. e se
.a t
a s n e
a.b J
l 0
I
. e.
e a.
et g;:
e.
.am e
i o
e e
to e
e i
a i
~~
.d e l l
l e
- =
3 l
e.
e l
1
~s
- e o.e.
o e
wa i
e e4
,e e
i e,,
o 4
t
~
,,.--r-
- * ' ' ' ' * " ' ~ ~
~...s..-.-.
.d
,(
8
{
q 4 :,.s e
1 j
i 2
-~.
e 9
i O
1 MIDL AND UNITS 1 & 2 DECelTEL JOB 7220 1i, ca MONTill Y TP.END IGVIEW TREND REPORT 6-11 i
I to 1
l
.t. -
l OEsCRIPTION I
$ a 1,000 SAANHOURS N
[-
}
l MAN.4 SCOPE OTHER MANUAL. **
SA:
NO*HAAN.
ENGAG 6ME l
MANUAt*
C".GCY OFFICE i
i m
I
'l g[
13.
setemic Deslan Analysts - Other 6.1282 1,200 )
22, 2 0 14,500 Preliminary engineering setsmates for sefsate t
I design changes due to plant fill remedial
[
measures.
{
Ref NCDs 6-291, 294, 299, 300 1
Note: Trends 6.128A and 1288 teplace j
ltes 8 on the unevaluated trend list pubitched as Attachment 2 to i
l L
RLC 10107.
I j
i l
4 sp 5
l I
i
/
i h
.n
.a....
p
")
?
e e
.=
e e
C e..e s
i I
t
- r. o-a.
i I
e s
l
- =
i
. a.
i.
e
.a.,
l 8 ;;
I l.
.w a
.c e
(
E
=
I i
t l
1 s,
W s.
i
.e l
..a e.
i l
I i
i d: "
e
....u n
..l 4
m
. s.
e.
t
- 4..
l.,e e
s.
i.
n l
\\.
g 9-w i-m a
!..c i
a.u n
os.
L
,O3=
u.
I m.W
.= 9 o.I.*3 3
0
.W W
g
/'".,-
- s *u 2 1
E..
=
.t.
.e
,..r..
. w
...r
.=w 5
l pg 3w., m.#
. hJ Q
-e si
===..
I w
w.~.
.i w
w
.o w
1.
u g
l =3 gi *.
=
==
m
.3
e a
.~.
t
.a 6
. s
- 5.,
m g
e e.u e
a g
6.n
==
=
w-
==
.im.
.3
.in 3-.
=g i.
1 -. s a.
.=~
a w :t..*
.E.'.!.
3 * =.,r::
- l. '
t.*
a i
w-
.u
= ~
.. g,
, m...-
- =...,
o.
w
.a
.f,. o.
.m- - -.s =
w
==
..o w
n g
o i
i.:.
j
=.
+.._
'c o'
o o o e
o o
o
.m g g
g c@
o o
e
e.-
.e e eo g
D s'
Lit.at Ot# AR T hel tu?
4 f
s Consumers p0Wer a = ~~
g n.m m a n
%.3 i-..
-.w.
Howeed E Qwe Beasaev E Hasan Generea OMaces 212 West Michagen Aew.we, J,etsen, MI 43201 * !S 7) 788 3650
" ~ '
- Franse M Darteno.e J E Sewane Lacey Daoue 06arten D Damman James W Deme >sey October 23, 1981 Johe P Dschs-
= = F O a.
R F Geehous Rece6md L Hm nas Cnp > Ha l
t eurono et Moreway Wayne A Kerthy Albert D A4tCathem De=af A hthedene Paule H hedas Vincent P Provenaano Jon R Roteneon Ms. Barbara Stamiris Dewas R Rood 5795 North River Road G' w '.5-*=
J.cn D a mai.
Route 3 weie se.n s, o.
.4 e ue,n Free 1and MI 48623 D.,,,, t v,,,,,,
Dear Ms. Stamiris:
Per your agreement with Mike Miller, attached hereto are excerpts from the August 28, 1981 trend register with the trends you have requested. 456, 456A, and 476 haven't been updated beyond the documents attached to your September 28, 1981 request, i.c they have not been updated since November 21, 1980.
To avoid confission in interpreting these documents, I strongly suggest that you give me a call.
I will be out 1981.
of town until Friday, October 30, Very truly yours,
/
s.
,p vy [** W ^
^
Ja os E. Brunner
<c MIMiller, IL&E
--n-4--
,-r
1, a
=
s g
1 e
~
E E E E E E E X I I RRI XW I I E E X X E R E E I IEI x X E Y E1 E E R XY ZX X F E E E IE E E 1 E E E X X X X XR X X XX j
}Y l
I e et sa Pt M
ed 9
to F*
g 3
minun 48 G8 M
M si
%y t
s.
ta @
.se
.se.
ge at g
e l
g o
G e3 Es e
e e e
w
- ==g e
==
=
I.
a 4
e fe' eq N
4 En g
g g,
e dp #
f's d
8*
am se st 9
,,g we se a.e W 89 se 4 se
@ 6" gieg Pe 8
h=,.
- pag.*
I e
- m
,g.
l 84 ame=*
fe f **
g me 9O l
ee ne f.
4 O &a b
r; L f
e* se g
ce O
'd g
U.
8" w en, omer se e
e e
8 %
W
- ==
\\4
%n i
k 99 e
=0 e
=*
V.f S
en er ao e, e
.e P
e O **
C
- g g
s.
e
- e...e en
- e.
- a i.e os g
cm e-s
- U
%e es 4.0 g
a, to a
l' as t*
s*
y a
gn g
M
- e d
ta es, g
,,e
'e' e'.
'8 E'
F8 E e',
e o e' Y
- a n
g ge 4*p-at I
L na a=
0
- en P
f*
y i
p g
q g
a 4*
l m
=
=
=
en s
j es s
C s
p l
=
4.*
en f
p e-L t*
3 b
y 9
d e
- O 8
w w g*
E e.
gM,,
E.
(
er e
n e. *-
E 0>
e*
h.d
- en L t
g e.
i e e e
n b
- s h,*=e, y3 e
ge k.L L.
d46 n,g l
i 3
- k. h 8 S
t e
W 4' p ' e. e.
6 =-
i m.=
.m.
g* y e
E
..*e e e. "g o
O E==
.e e
a me t-e e
e
- e-g gy e
.e
=c w
to a e
- 8 y
ense a=
se h,
La es to iO&
u..tu. s2
.e
.is
==.
te Pi bee JW.h.6a e,.*i g a.
> t
{
.P. e-u.s.
s,
= a 3>..
a 4
- m. er = w e e.
a ce r*
1 2
- e. F me p
.*= >= c e > e ** **
'l g
g 3
em s=
be,r as t a en O e
em a
P9
- O d
- es p gygi p E* &*>P S
e.f' edb**o-P F**
ad b F* ** I >
- 4* '.8 39> D E
4e D 9
9 >
9 7
>8
=
l' 88 ** >*
g,,g y ng as to 3 GE 49 em 4 F
=. #9
. om m.I **
8 4 **
d
,,, g.a me s, e o a.-
>. o. a-6
- e. u m..
n m
ea e.
Pe
.a s- -
=
e.
ses
,e e a
.,e ns ce e
y.
gye
- t. '8'9 er. gp pp up eoee Pmao be 9e*
e
,,p
- g. g,,
y,
ap m ensegm se o aw e.*
.** *e 3
'9 O 3 D
.** as P
e
- 4=
se s s 49 ** a. P* *
- Le p
g e, 3,, a sme
==
me w F* *
- f, a,t, 1, t'* g em g en se p sg i e me e? a * *
- L9 **
g
,,,, y ea U ggg, g gg b8 y
y p p.o,
ar sum p g.p, g, ey ay e, g= g g ** W h***
Eh pe F
h e e e ms> en h# eGe*%
g, e,,,, ee e.g og a
4 p
=e l
g me h,
I1.,*
I
'c*
g I
ce
[
e i
e I
6 i.e i
a so ca E'
r3 ap e,4 m.
s ~ $gg **#
~
'_ (W~*y~~iN_
~
__.,. 1 *_ i t Q,,,,,,L LA,
,,s,
_A
- ~ ~
e i
' ' " ' ~ "
9
,E n,,n,
P P
e a
- =-
a am 4
?
{
(g
[*
1..uu=mur 11 1 m
,,......r.
r_1 11
.,s=1
.. 11,
.1
-.e........
1 r
e
==
e e.
.e
=
e e
\\.
e
.e -
,(-
D.
.e s
s*e z
s
.e uu s.
=aH a,, 89 4 k
e
. ee d'
E9 88 4 s.
e m.,
60 e
se fu
- l 6
es se to
- e K
e6 N/-
f *e te e gg e
eG a S
..S**
t 4 e
i
- e. : A
~.%
e4 e s 4C
'*e ee N
ue 5 e S e J eI t de K ee ena e ee
- a am
.e u e %
- d 3 e6 e4
>e eO O9 Se4B
>e I
e a a
y e em e e e E e
- c. a+
ed to eo es e
e.s w
as e>
e es s.
e I
> es se e
se uO ww ta um >
== 2 8e es u emu es4 6
aeu es, -e at 5 e 9>O es na Sa 3 ad K es a as e
.ao aea Ca 3
ee 'o== e er s
e= ed K g
O
==
u3 m.
l PW es se rsea s
, s.
8** I
't '
i 2
e va O
.* O O
- e*
b-6 M
e.
W U
39 esme r) e. O ee en M e-no-5 e
2*
r s's W em e
e=4e no e e U O
e's es e
e=
p e.e se at er J es a.
p-20 m p to e.* t.s J em a g
3
- . a se J u s.'
3 n
e.4 e
8 Se s.mJ e9 p + *e 58 p.2E=
- e r a
F ee a ya r
e4 ou
)
e-* r e
,e se me
- d f*
e-F Si er
- t' S-
)
P es 9 8"
e' U t
E M
em s
E er 3 e
f*
3 sk 3
m i
e, y
i J
)
e9 % em es 1
=a e
i' a e' p
e-n l
e um.
as l
s=
I 6
e.
R l
J b
s<
e e,
Le 6.
e!.
8 e
We g
y em se e
e 4
e e
s elk ga l
e m.
as en q
g e
s y
g i
II*
U e
J e
p a ye
,e u e M
d
.e es m ** 1
,e
.a..e a.
ee u..e.-
i C
ei e8 e
ele e3 4
We ase >= es
- r. 8. e
(
a j
o, y e
e n,
e E ** P e
e J
es i
w g. as e6 5' es3e P m-es o. es a
a 8*
o "g W W
em g, a.a w se p.
3 We we.
I le e.s' 3,e arw5 'A
- 5 W
d g
og 3
6e es U
Po l,
m p
i e, e - se A v eu e
I as-e u
- s. o s e
e o eeeve
.e
,e.. a me J,p.
, m, =
E f* ad e.
es me ee i
- =e s e=e a
l a,
se s
ei ee
,e u
e
- u. w 5.* ake v
n na ee emeu e
m e **
me r
e-ou J
e o
a me em
%gC u
r,e
- 3 e' O u
E e*.
es f 33 Fse y op to me E e4 9 em l
em e
s.***
em e
aus me F@
3 F be J se em J e=8 ema 4 g y b.e F #F J e.s m.e Q on e's pr e*.
P*
e J en a p *= e
""d'*
e')
Le F
- .e e wee.4e emJe6 4"* P 1
es e.3 ya em g er se eJ ee oc
& 4e& b oe lb
- 'e' t eam &6e he b 3 se em I
l es fe W*e.e e*
l im ge ie f
e.e g
pg F
eg g e.
ed se e
W g as me N
> O O eO e
$.*e e
g q
44 e
e g
ce
- 8 W G O es en f'O e*
e f*
es ui4 e Jr M M.-
3-
'- - - - e.
e....., aw,ir.
-1
.,- g
--