ML20010C239

Fifth Set of Interrogatories Directed to Util.Related Correspondence

ML20010C239
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	08/11/1981
From:	Whicher J PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS, VOLLEN, R.J. & WHICHER, J.M.
To:	NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
References
NUDOCS 8108190274
Download: ML20010C239 (9)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:'

        ,                                         n n. m c., cur s c: m NCt /(< T E- D/ y s-   /
   .                                                                         \                    QN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                  4                            T.
                                                                                             ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COE4ISSION . REFORE TliE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B06@ p, A23 31981 >

                                                                       #9i                               R C - ' ".= 3: :uri           ~

g . .: . 7- L hai:t 9 In the Matter of

                                              )
                                              )                                N/r M        &

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC ) Docket No. 50-367 .- s SERVICE COMPANY ) (Construction P /g Extension)

                                                                                          ~

(Bailly Generating Station, ) , Nuclear-1) ) M Ik 9' NI 1 S '[[@e PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS' - FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES 'Is NIPSCO k. '

v. '[

y

                                                                            .h ,/ i . : -rd      s 6 'i Porter County Chapter Intervenors (PCCI), by .t heir attorneys, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740b, hereby serve upon Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) the following interrogatories to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath by its officer or agent, within 14 days of the date of de Board's granting of PCCI's application for discovery filed August 11, 1981.

The term " document" means any writing or recording of any kind, however produced or reproduced, including but not limited to letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports, studies, tape recordings, computer printouts, photographs, calendar and diary entries, minutes, pamphlets, notes, charts, tabulations, and records of meetings, conferencer and telephone or other conversations or meetings, which are in the mtual or constructive possession, custody or control of JIPSCO or its agents. The term "you" an d "NIPSC0" include Northern Indiana Publ'ic Service Company, its gCd

          . agents, employees, representatives, subsidiaries, and those consultants, attorneys, contractors or subcontractors over whom                             !

NIPSCO retains control. The terms " staff" and "NRC" include the 0108190274 81081I PDR ADOCK 05000367 C PDR_

                                                        -2 I

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Energy Commission, its staff, members, attorneys, employees, consultants, divisions or subdivisions, contractors and subcontractors, and consultants. The term " evaluation" refers to the "NRC Staff Evaluation of the Request for an Extension of Construction Permit No. CPPR-104 for

~
                    *he Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1, Docket No. 50-367" dated

,;_ July 17, 1981. The term " negative declaration" refers to the U 'RN " Negative Declaration Supporting the Extension of the Expiration c

i Date for Construction Permit No. CPPR-104 Bailly Generating Statit-

   ;e ,    ,                         .

Nuclear-1, Docket No. 50-367". The term " appraisal" or "EIA"

          -;7 refers to the " Environmental Impact Appraisal Prepared by the Division of Licensing Regarding the Excension of Construction Permit No.

CPPR-104 Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1, Docket No. 50-367" dated July 17, 1981.

1. Uith respect to the " evaluation", the " negative declara-tion", and the " appraisal", please state:

(a) Whether NIPSCO has had any communication, either orally or in writing, with any member of the NRC staff or its consultants concerning the contents of those reports. (b) If your answer to (a) is yes, for each such conmunication, please state:

1. The date of the communication

11. The person (s) at NIPSCO who participated in the communication 4

iii. The person (s) at the NRC staff who parti-cipated in the communication i v. The substance of the communicat' ion

5 y . 9 1 l

1. 3-  !

1

    ;;                        ,          v. Whether the communication was oral or q,k                                             in writing a

M.;I vi. A description of all documents relating

  'g -                -
                                  ,         ----- to the cournunication 3';                                               -
-"                            2. In the " appraisal", at page 10, is stated:

y. c -

(,. ~ g While.the permittee has verbally agreed

.,:L                                     to submit the appropriate program modifi-
$E.

Mc x cations to the NRC staff for review, it has not yet;done so. -- 4 . 7 jgge With respect to this statement, please state:

. g..          .
                                                            ;.

('R (a) The manner in which HIPSCO has " verbally agreed to submit the appropriate program modifications to the NRC j;-f stqff for review".

]                   ~

(b) The person (s) t NIPSCO who participated in making this verbal agreement. (c) The person (s) at the NRC staff who participated in making this verbal agreement. (d) The date of the agreement. (e) The substance of all conversation during which this c verbal agreement was made, discussed, or negotiated. (f) Whether the agreement is memorialized or referred to in any document and, if so, a description of each such document.

3. L'.th respect to the sentence quoted in Interrogatory 2, please state a description of the " program modifications" which you have agreed to submit. If there exist any documents pertaining to the " program modification", please describe each document.

                                                                                  ~

4. In the " evaluation", at p. 3 it is stated:

4

                                                      -4 To have kept specialized, capital intensive contractors "on call" for either en 18 month or a 25 month period attributable to the judicial. stay of
                           .      construction would have resulted in inordinately large economic penalties.

With respect to this statement, please state: (a) What you contend it would have cost to keep such contractors "on call" for an 18 month period. w

 ,         4                 (b)  What you' contend it would have cost to keep such contractors "on call" for a 25 month period.

(c) Whether it is your position that your answers to 2 (a) and (b) amount to " inordinately large economic penalties"

 ,                     and the basis for your position.

(d) The amount of expenditure which NIPSCO attributes to

   ~

any delay caused by the judicial stay referred to.

5. Is it your position that, if the staff review of the short pilings proposal had been initiated at some time prior to March 1978, the review would have been completed prior to the date

                   ~

upon which it was completed? Please state the basis for your - answer. i

6. Is it your position that, had the accident at Three Mile Island not occurred, the NRC staff review of the NIPSCO short pilings proposal would have taken less time than it did in fact I take? If your answer is yes, please state:

, (a) The basis for your answer. ! (b) The length of time which you contend the staff l review would have taken if the accident at,Three Mile Island had not occurred.

              ,                                                                         l 4

7. In the " appraisal", at page 2, is stated:

                                                    ~
      ,F'          .       That permittee estimates that at the time
      -iaj'-             -of peak. labor demand, :there would be 1200 H       95^                  construction workers enterini, the Bailly 11                    fa~cility.through this intersection for the
       '.,A                morning shift in about 800 vehicles in
        .-                  addition to those vehicles used by the "Gijl                 Bethlehem Steel work force.

t .n a. [  ;{p}if With respect to this statement, please state: p ,~e (a) Whether the de cribed ' estimates" are memorialized 6 J? in any writing, and if so, a description of each document. 89% yf, (b) The basis for your estimate that there would be 1,200 construction workers entering the Bailly facility through this $ intersection. (c) The basis for your estimate that there would be 1,200 construction workers entering the Bailly facility through this intersection for the morning shift in about 800 vehicles. (d) The number of vehicles used by the Bethlehem Steel work force as rcferred to in the above quoted sentence. (e) The capacity of the intersection. (f) The basis for your aaswer to Interrogatories 7(d) and (e) .

8. In the " appraisal", at page 3, is stated:

Specifically, construction dewatering of the excavation will be performed while the safety-related foundation piles are placed, the concrete base mat is p'oured and the outer walls of the various buildings are built above the " natural" level of the groundwater at the Bailly site. These construction phases should be completed about two to three years after construction has resumed.

              ;                                                                                                                                   .

With respect to these statements, please state: (a) Whether you agree or disagree with each of these statements. (b) The basis for your agreement or disagreement. (c) What you contend is the " natural" level of the groundwater referred to in the sentence. L 9. In the " appraisal", ar page 5, is stated:- The permittee has undertaken a number of activities which have altered ground-water movement. With respect to this statement, please state:

                           -(a)    Whether you agree or disa;ree with the statement.

(b) The basis for your agreement or disagreement.

10. Is it your position that ' reactor fccility excavation'has altered groundwater movement? If your answer is yes, please state in what respect, groundwater movement has been altered, and the location of the alterations referred to in your answer.

11. Is it your position that 'Youndation pilingd' have altered groundwater movement? If your answer is yes, please state in what respect groundwater movement has been altered, and the locations of the alterations referred to in your answer.

12. Is it your position that the'plurry and sheet pile walls" have altered groundwater movement? If your answer is yes, please state in what respect groundwater movement has been altered, and the locations of the alteratio: s referred to in your answer.

e i13. Is it your position that the 'hsh pondd' have altered ground-water movement? If your answer.is yes, please state in what respect

 ~ ji_

groundwgter movement has been alt,yered, and the locations of the

     .; 7                                                    -
                                                                ~

g.g alterations referred to in your answer.

                             ~.14 (a)   Is it your position that the dewatering program assessed in the construction permit hearing is identical 4-
                           .~1to the dewatering program considered in the " appraisal"?
 ;3 :f;_ :- .         .

J,;pt r ~ - ..- (b) If your answer is no fstate in what respects they

  ,,         .,                                                ~;

f differ.

.u:"" (c)- Please state the basis for your answers to (a) and

             .I (b).

n

                                              ~

15.(a) Is it your position that the mitigation program considered in the construction permit. hearing is identical to the mitigation program considered in the " appraisal"? (b) If your answer is no, state in what respects they differ. (c) Please state the basis for your answers to (a) and (b).

16. Is it your position that the proposed extension of the Bailly construction permit is a " major federal action" as that term is used in the " negative declaration" and the " appraisal"?

Please state the basis for your answer.

17. Is it your position that the proposed extension of the Bailly construction permit "significantly affects the quality of the human environment" as that term is used in the " negative declaration" and the " appraisal"? State the basis for your answer. .

              -18   (a)   Is it your position that the proposed extens' ion of the Bailly construction permit affects the quality of the human environment in any respect?

(b) If your answer to (a) is yes, state in what respect.

(c) Please state the basis for your answer to (a).

19. Please give the following information for the person swearing to the answers to these Interrogatories:

(a) Name (b) Address (c) Title

                  - (d)   Capacity

20. Please give the following information of each person who has provided or furnished information to the person identified in Interrogatory 19, consulted with that person in the preparation of the responses to these Interrogatories, or otherwise aided in the preparation'of the responess:

(a) Name (b) Address (c) Title (d) Number (including subpart) of each Interrogatory with respect to which that person consulted, aided or provided or furnished information; and - (e) The nature of the information or aid furnished.

f . [

21. For each of the 3bove Interrogatories, please describe each document referred to or relied on in fomulating your responses.

DATED: August 11, 1981 Robert J. Vollen Jane M. Whicher t By: -

                                                      %s_          .           _@

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

                               -- ,      ,      ,                       ,           ,c -}}