ML19345G834

First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Porter County Chapter Intervenors Re Failure to Complete Const within Times Specified by Cp,Good Cause for Extension of CP & Need to Construct Slurry Wall.Related Correspondence

ML19345G834
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	04/10/1981
From:	Eichhorn W EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
To:	PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS
References
NUDOCS 8104220477
Download: ML19345G834 (11)

Text

-

g 92 q, ,

$\ yg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W._. -

-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION & \

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCMD 7 In the Matter of ) Docket No. 5

"

7..*h'*\y [2 S

) 0)

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE ) (Construction u %gg.M) ,,

COMPANY ) Extension) g v.

g,

) '

i (Bailly Generating Station, ) April 10, 1981 ' ,'. '. .', '. , '(-

Nuclear-1) )

II'

.

\'

)

APR 131981 e NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE B (,, ' ' " I'7 COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO t _., g.

PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS b g 1 --.' \

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) hereby serves its First Set of Interrogatories to Porter County Chapter Intervenors (hereinafter "PCCI"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740b.

Each interrogatory is to be answered fully in writing, under oath or affirmation, by an officer or agent of PCCI and is to ,

include all pertinent information known to PCCI. Each answer ,

should clearly indicate the interrogatory to which it is intended to be responsive.

Under NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. S 2.740(e)) parties are required to supplement responses to interrogatories under certain circumstances when new and/or different information becomes available.

"PCCI" shall include all agents, employees, attorneys, investigators, and all other persons directly or indirectly subject to its control in any way.

" Documents" means all written or recorded material of any kind or character known to PCCI or in its possession, custody,-

or control, including, without limitation, letters, correspondence, l

telegrams, memoranda, notes, records, minutes, contracts, agree-ments, records or notations of telephone or personal conversations

,

DS 3

.s 8104220477 O

._. .

.

or conferences, inter-office communications, microfilm, bulletins, circulars, pamphlets, studies, notices, summaries, reports, books, articles, treatises, teletype messages, invoices, tape recordings, and work-sheets.

When used with respect to a document, " identify" means, without limitation, to state its date, the type of document (e.g.,

letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, photograph, sound reproduction, etc.), the author and addressees, the present location and the custodian, and a description of its contents.

When used with respect to a person, " identify" means, with-out limitation, to state his or her name, address and occupation.

If PCCI cannot answer any portion of any of the Interrogatories in full, after exercising due diligence to do so, so state, and answer to the extent possible, specifying the inability to answer the remainder and stating when PCCI expects to be able to answer the unanswered portions.

1;IPSCO'S INTERROGATORIES

1. (a) Please identify all of the reasons which you contend are contributing factors to the failure to complete construction of Bailly within the time specified in Construction Permit No. CPPR-104.

(b) For each reason listed in your answer to interrogatory 1(a), please identify:

(1) the basis for your contention that the reason was such a factor;

.-.

, . .

'

.

(2) the documents which relate to your contention that the reason was such a factor; (3) the length of delay which you contend is attri-butable to the reason; (4) whether you contend that the reason cannot contribute to a conclusion that " good cause" exists for the extension of the construction permit for Bailly; and (5) the basis for your answer to Interrogatory 1(b) (4) .

2. You have alleged that the " reduced rate of growth [ot demand on NIPSCO's system] and increased generating capacity led NIPSCO to the conclusion that the need for the power to be generated by Bailly was reduced, or at the very least, that the date by which it could be claimed to be needed was substantially deferred."1!

(a) Please identify those statements and/or documents issued by NIPSCO personnel which relate to your allegation.

(b) Please identify those past or present NIPSCO personnel who you contend arrived at such a conclusion.

i l (c) When do you contend the persons identified in your

'

answer to Interrogatory 2(b) arrived at such a con-l clusion?

l l (d) To what date do you refer in the phrase "the date by which it could be claimed to be needed"?

$! " Joint Intervenors' First Supplement to Petition for Leave r to Intervene," Contention 6, p. 13 (Feb. 26, 1980).

l 1 -

.- _ .. .

.- . - - . _ . _ - - . . _ . .

I

.

(e) Please specify the amount of the reduction in the "need

.

for the power to be generated by Bailly" to which you referred in the statement quoted above.

(f) Please identify those actions which you contend that NIPSCO undertook for the purpose of delaying construction of Bailly in response to the alleged " reduced rate l of growth and increased generating capacity."

(

i (g) Please provide the bases for your answers to Inter-i rogatories 2 (b) , 2 (c) , 2 (d) , 2 (e) , and 2(f) .

3. You have alleged that the " decision of NIPSCO not to build Bailly as quickly as it could was further motivated by the dramatic increase in the estimated cost of the proposed plant . . . . I/

"

(a) Please identify those documents and/or statements issued by NIPSCO personnel which relate to this allegation.

! (b) Please identify those past or present NIPSCO per-sonnel who you contend arrived at such a decision.

(c) When do you contend the persons identified in your

- answer to Interrogatory 3 (b) arrived at such a decision?

(d) Please identify those actions which you contend that NIPSCO undertook for the purpose of delaying construction of Bailly in response to the alleged " increase in the estimated cost of the proposed plant."

(e) Please provide the bases for your answers to Inter-rogatories 3(b) , 3(c), and 3(d).

II " Joint Intervenors' First Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene," Contention 6, p. 13 (Feb. 26, 1980).

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

- _

- _ _ - _

-

.

- 4. You have alleged that "when January 1, 1974 arrived and the construction permit had not been issued, NIPSCO could have identified a later completion date"1/

(a) Please specify the "later completion date" to which you refer.

(b) (1) Are you contending that NIPSCO should have been able to predict accurately the date of issuance of the construction permit for Bailly?

(2) If yes, please provide a basis for your con-tention.

(3) If no, please explain the basis for the "later completion date" which you contend should have been selected.

(c) Are you contending that it was unreasonable for NIPSCO to fail to amend the application for the construction permit for Bailly before May 1974 to specify a later date for completion? If yes, please provide a basis for your contention.

(d) Please specify the date at which you contend NIPSCO should have amended its application to reflect the "later completion date" specified in your answer to Interrogatory 4(a).

(e) (1) Are you contending that the issuance of the con-struction permit four months later than NIPSCO l had predicted in 1973 cannot contribute to a con-clusion that " good cause" exists for an extension of the construction permit for Bailly?

! " Joint Intervenors' First Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene," Contention 1, p. 4 (Feb. 26, 1980).

. - _ - . . -- _ . - .-

-

.

i (2) If yes, please provide a basis for your contention.  !

l (3) If no, please specify how long an extension is justified by that delayed issuance.

5. (a) (1) Do you contend _that NIPSCO should have commenced remobilization of its contractors prior to completion of judicial review of the issuance of the construction permit for Bailly?

(2) If your answer to Interrogatory 5(a) (1) is yes, please specify:

1. the basis for your answer; and

11. the time at which NIPSCO should have commenced remobilization.

,

(b) (1) Please specify the period of time which you contend should reasonably have been required for remobiliza-tion of NIPSCO's contractors after NIPSCO decided to proceed with construction following completion of judicial review of the issuance of the construction permit for Bailly.

(2) Please specify the basis for your answer to Inter-rogatory 5(b) (1) .

(3) Are you contending that remobilization during the period of time specified in your answer to

.

Interrogatory 5(b) (1) cannot contribute to a con-clusion that " good cause" exists for the extension of the construction permit for Bailly? If yes, please provide a basis for your answer.

.

!

l l

,

-_ ._ - _ _. _

.

(c) (1) What specific period of delay in construction of Bailly do you contend is attributable to the stay issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit?

(2) Please provide a basis for your answer to Interrogatory S (c) (1) .

(3) Are you contending that the stay during the period specified in your answer to Interrogatory S('c) (1) cannot contribute to a conclusion that " good cause" exists for the extension of the construction permit for Bailly? If yes, please provide a basis for your answer.

6. (a) Are you contending that the delay in construction of Bailly associated with construction of a slurry wall cannot contribute to a conclusion that " good cause" exists for extension of the construction permit for Bailly? If your answer is yes, please provide a basis for your answer.

(b) Are you contending that NIPSCO knew or should have known, before the issuance of the construction permit for Bailly, that a slurry wall could be built for Bailly?

If yes, please provide a basis for your answer.

(c) What reasonable steps could NIPSCO have taken prior _

to the issuance of Construction Permit No. CPPR-104 to learn of the concept of a slurry wall?

.__ .__ . __ _ _ , _

.

-

.

7. (a) Are you contending that the delay in construction of Bailly associated with the NRC Staff review of NIPSCO's pile foundation design cannot contribute to a conclusion that " good cause" exists for extension of the construction permit for Bailly? If your answer is yes, please provide a basis for your answer.

(b) Are you contending that NIPSCO was legally permitted to perform geological investigations of the site before issuance of the construction permit for Bailly, which investigations would have enabled NIPSCO to disccver potential problems with driving piles to bedrock?

If yes, please specifically identify which investi~gations NIPSCO should have performed.

(c) Are you contending that the geological investigations which NIPSCO did perform prior to issuance of the construction permit for Bailly were improperly performed or that the results were improperly analyzed? If yes, please specifically identify which investigations were improperly performed or results improperly analyzed and the basis for your contention.

(d) Are you contending that NIPSCO should have submitted or was required to submit final designs for the piles before issuance of the construction permit? If yes, please provide a basis for your contention.

8. (a) Are you contending that NIPSCO's requested length for extension of the construction permit for Bailly is unreasonable? If yes, please identify the basis for your contention.

.

(b) What do you contend would be a reasonable length for an extension of the construction permit for Bailly?

(c) Are you contending that the average time required for construction of a nuclear power plant is the same now as it was in 19747 (1) If yes, please provide a basis for your answer.

(2) If no, please provide the average time required for construction beginning in 1974 and beginn!ng in 1980.

(d) Are you contending that any requested length of ex-tension which is longer than the construction period specified in the original construction permit or which is longer than the actual period of delay is unreasonable?

If yes, please provide a basis for your answer.

(e) Are you contending that the requested length of the extension is unreasonable because it contains a provision for contingencies?

(1) If yes, please provide a basis for your contention.

,

l (2) If no, what is a reasonable provision for con-tingencies? Please provide a basis for your answer.

(f) Are you contending that the bar chart attached to the letter of August 31, 1979, from E.M. Shorb to Harold R. Denton contains unreasonable estimates of construction times? If yes, (1) Please identify which construction times are un-

! reasonable.

_ _ . . _ .

_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ __

. _ . - _ . _ _ . - _ .

.

(2) For those construction times identified in your answer to Interrogatory 8 (f) (1) , please specify construction times which you contend would be reasonable.

(3) Please provide a basis for your answer to Interrogatory 8 (f) (2) .

Respectfully submitted, EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK 5243 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320 By:

William H. Eichhorn Attorneys for Northern Indiana Public Service Company ,

LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS

& AXELRAD l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 l

l

-

.

I l - - , , _ . , _ , , - ._

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