ML19350A330
| ML19350A330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Stamiris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8103130491 | |
| Download: ML19350A330 (16) | |
Text
. . . . _. . . . - . . _ . . .
ff h 2 l
l"
q CORPSS M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR FIGULATORY COMF..ISSION In the Matter of n d * .*
Q s
CONSUMERS PO'.v'ER COMPANY et s. 5 9~
jf 5 30 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) #'
3 9
/ l CONSUMERS . ._
RESPONSE TO INTEPJ.'ENOR (BARBARA STAMIRIS)
DISCOVERY REOUEST OR "RES?ONSE" OF JANUARY 26. 1981 Consumers Power Company (hereafter referred to as " Applicant") hereby responds to a docu=ent submitted by Ms. Sta= iris and entitled "Intervenor Response to Consu=ers Power Co=pany's January,1980 Discovery Reply for Notice of the Board," dated January 26, 1981. The afore=entioned document is styled in the form of a reply to Applicant's Dece=ber 19, 1980 Response to Ms. Stamiris' Initial Discovery Request, and contains ce==ents on Applicant's response, as well as additional r,ae.tions.
The history of these requests and responses can thus be su==arized as follows: -
12/4/80 Stamiris' "Intervenor Requests of Consu=ers Power Co pany" (hereinaf ter referred to as "Sta= iris' Initial Request")
p g 1/19/81 Consumers Power Co pany's Response to Intervenor Requests ('Consu=ers Powsr Co=pany's In5.tial Response")
9 occW;[ '
ge .
m wa 61981 > [/26/81 Stamiris' "Intervenor Response to Consumers Power Ofgfo% // Company's 12/19/80.pisecvery 0 Reply" ("Stamiris' Reply")
r5 4 , 2/27/81 Consu=ers' " Response to 1/26'/81 Stamiris Submission and Supple = ental Answers to 12/4/80 Request (Consu=ers g3,08130 { - - -
h Power Co=pany Respon u
s
- ~
Document Request No. 2
~
Ms. Stamiris' rep'.y indicates that Consumers Power Company's Response No. 1 is " incomplete" with respect to this document request. The request called for certain documents concerning " cost and schedule impact data" of " soil settlement matters", but contained no interrogatories on that subj ec t matter. The reply has no objection to the document production, but does include certain interrogatories on the subject addressed in the initial document request.
Therefore, Applicant concludes that the Interv'enor, by using the term " incomplete",
did not intend to object to Applicant's Response to her initial request. Rather, we interpret the use of that term to indicate that the Intervenor has fol' low-up questions on this subject matter. These questions are addressed below. .
All of the documents within document Request No. 2 of the 12/4/80 Discovery Request have been produced at the Midland Service Center of Consumers Power Company. Siace the filing of Consumers Power Company's Response No.1, Bechtel has initiated development of additional cost and schedule projectirens. Documents relevant to this effort will be supplied when the projections are completed.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PERTAINING TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2 2(a) Question What are the most recent estimates for total soil settlement costs j
, (including various completion schedule paths) assuming current remed,iation l
proposals are acceptable?
Answer i The es imates provided reflect the most recent estimates for total i .
soil settlement costs which have been communicated by Bechtel and
. reviewed by Consumers Power Company personnel. These estimates assume the accomplishment of remedial actions within the current project schedule i i
[ milestone requirements. The total for all of these estimates is $16,920,000.
2(b) Question Please explain these estimates, breaking them down into their component parts.
Answer The estimate worksheets and computer printouts provided indicate the component costs. Typically, the costs are identified with the following components:
- 1. Direct Field Costs The total cost of all materials and improvements forming a ,
permanent part of the finished project and of all Bechtel and subcontract labor engaged in installing or erecting such materials or performing such improvements.
- 2. Distributable Field Costs Bechtel material and labor costs which cannot be identified with specific direct operations in the construction of a plant and either '(,1). are supporting services by nature or (2) a.pply to several direct operations such' that a logical allocation to each separate operation cannot rehdily La sade.
- 3. Engineering Costs The total cost of All technical engineering and design activities including technical consultants and services performed by Bechtel in connection with a given project.
- 4. Other Home Office Costs The total cost of all management, service and clerical activities performed by Bechtel in connection with a given project. Since
o these costs are either supporting services or overhead costs by nature and not readily identified to a separate operation, they are i
usually allocated to a given project based on the amount of Bechtel technical engineering services.
Da the computer printouts, a series of numbers appear in sequences -
of two lines. The first line constitutes direct costs; the second line constitutes the distributable costs.
The column headings include: ,
(starting under " total field costs) material, subcontracts, manual labor, non manual labor, engineering and home office.
2(c) Question What are the most recent estimates for total soil settlement costs if Renoval and Replacement after Preloading (Option 3) (50-54fd21) were now necessary?
Answer
. e The most recent estimates on this matter are contained in the Answer to 10 CFR 50.54 f, Question 21.
2(d) Question Will any portion of these soil settlement costs be included in requests before the Michigan Public Service Commission as a part of construction costs or costs to be ultimately included in the rate base?
Answer Applicant objects to this question on the ground that it is irrelevant.
e
, 2(e) Questica If the answer to (d) is yes, pleass describe and explain such anticipated requests. ',
Answer See part (d) of the response to this question.
Document F.ecuest No. 3 .
The initial docu=ent request dated Dece=ber 4, 1980 fro = Ms. Sta= iris encompassed discussions "concerning and leading up to" the decision to
-appeal the NRC's boring request. .
Applicant interpreted the request as calling for =inutes of =eetings concernin;; the appeal within the NRC Staff, as well as other docu=ents regarding discussions which occurred prior to that time. The fact that so:c docu= cats beyond the " intent" of the request verc produce ( in not a ground for objecting to the response, providing all of those docu=ents within the scope of the request were supplied. While Intervenor's Response does clarify so=ewhat the " intent" of the request, Applicant believes that it has now presented all documents within the scope of the request as amended <
l or clarified in the Stamiris Reply of 1/26/81, except for the following:
l (1) All nonprivileged docunents within the scope of the request but in the sole pos-session of 3echtel's consultants have not yet been produced, but vill be produced within the next four weeks; (2) applicant cla N the attorney-client privilege with respect to one document, which contains a rendition of infor=ation and opinions given to counsel at a =eeting between Consu=ers Project Manage =ent and a Co=pany lawyer.
l Document Request No. 4
( Applicant has supplied the one unprivileged document within the scope of l
this request. The attorney-client and work-product privilege is clai=ed with respect to one other document, production of which is also objected to on the i
ground that it is irrelevant to this proceeding. The document in question is a memorandum between Lawyers and their clients concerning a technical legal
1
. question in connection with possible lawsuits. (The attorney-client privileges protects co==unications between a lawyer and his client. According to 4 Moore's i
Federal Practice, Paragraph 26.60(2), " Ordinarily, ce==unications between a client and his attorney are privileged and may not $e inquired into in discovery
~
proceedings any more than at the trial." The work product privilege protects l
the mental efforts of attorneys in anticipation of litigation. Since the docu=ent l in question is both an attorney-client ce==unication and a rendition of the = ental impressions of counsel, it is privileged under either theory) .
. Document Request No. .5 Applicant interpreted the initial request as calling for docu=ents other than the chosen option.
While Applicant objects to producing doeur.ents "concerning the chosen option.."
all such docu=ents fall within the scope of Ites 5 of Sta= iris' 1/14/81 Request.
The documents requested in Item 5 (of the 1/14/81 Request) are new producable at the Midland Service Center.
ANS*wERS TO INTERROGATORIES PERTAINING TO DOCUMEW pIOUEST Mo. 5 e 5(a) Question Why are there no records or docu=ents concerning correction of Ad=inistration Building settlement (including the chosen eption)? <
Answer See the above Reponse under Document Request No. 5.
i 5(b) Quesdien .
on what basis was the decision to remove and replace the faulty fill under the Administration Euilding made? .
Answer Applicant objects to this question on the ground that it is irreicvant to this case. ,
5(c) Questien Who made this (5b) decision? -y Answer l -
See the answer to 5(b) 5(d) Question When was this (Sb) decision =ade?
Answer See the answer to 5(b) 5 (e) Question
- Describe and explain any alternative corrective acticas ever considered and rejected for the Ad=inistration Building, if such considerations Vere made.
Answer See the answer to 5(b).
INTERROGATORIES Additions to Question 1 .
c
Response
l l With reference to Bechtel, the phrase " depending on its i=portance" refers to the degree of cost, schedule, licensing, or quality i= pact of a particular decision on the project. The Project Engineer and the Project Manager for Bechtel maintain open lines of communication, which enables thes to assess the relative importance of a particular decision with respect to the above criteria. They cre assisted in the procedure by other Bechtel members of the Midland Project Staff who have detailed knowledge of individual issues.
Regarding Consu=ers' Power Company, the phrase "in the case of decisions of lesser i=portance " defines those decisions having little or no effects on cost, cchedule, licensing, or quality. Any decision which would involve a commitment
of resources beyond that previously approved by the project manager would require approval by the Project Manager or by higher authorities within the
. Company.
Additional Response to Interrogatories 2 and 3 .
Applicant objects to the questions set forth in the " Reply" document of 1/26/81, as well as the questions set forth in the Initial Request as interpreted in the broad sense of the " Reply" document, on the following grounds: - - -
(1) The questions are vague and unintelligible.
(2) The questions are burdensome. .
(3) The questions ask for infor=stion which is equally available to the intervenor through documents which are on the public record.
As we pointed out in our initial response, the interrogatories in question cover a period of over two years during which numerous meetings, conversa-tions, consultations, phone calls, or other oral or written co=munications .
were exchanged or held. The questions attempt to approach =atters which e
involved complex and detailed technical analysis at the earliest possible stage of discussion. The questions are unlimited as to scope, detail, issue, time, place or person. Further, it is impossible to precisely determine what is meant by the parenthetical expressions contained in the questions, which seem to contradict the language used elsewhere in the Interrogatories.
Applicant is willing to discuss its objections to these questions with the Intervenor in an attempt to arrive at a compromise if she wishes.
Additions to Question 4 Response i
\
The matter of planned activities was discussed with Gene Gallagher, the geotechnical inspector from Region III,'during an inspection of October 24-27, 1978. Other than that communication, Applicant is not presently aware of any communication with the NRC geotechnical staff prior to November 7, 1978 concernied the preload proposal.
During the above conversation, Gallagher was advised of Applicant's tentative plans to preload the diesel building. ~
4(b) Question (Formerly 4d)
Was such input (4a) ever suggested by anyone? If so by whom, was it made, when was it =ade, and how was it responded to?
l
Response
No.
. e l 4(c) Question 1
In responding to'these questions, please include, but do not limit yourself, to statements made by A.J. Hendron in file B3.0.3 serial CSC-3674 notes of the November 7,1978 meeting recording disappointment regarding NRC not having seen the test pits. -
Response , .
During the November 7, 1978 meeting, Dr. Hendron indicated that it t
l would be desirable for Dr. Heller to see the test pits. At that time l
Applicant was concerned, and it is believed Dr. Hendron was concerned, that Heller would not be able to observe subsurface conditions first-I ~
{
l Ren.
hand prior to pre-loading, since any excavaticn would be filled by the sca.l pre-lead itsel-Heller did observe subsurface conditions during his Bett i \
December, 1978 site visit. However, as can be readily ascertained frc= .
shni the above, Hendron's comment was 'imited'co the test pit issue and did 978. no t.
concern the decision to pre-load the diesel generator building, so 7 co that it is not an example of a suggestion under question 4b (for=erly 4d).
? CRC s th-ts ;
rly esc ^
h l
l e b
i .
hond!
f, t l4 ac
.ng N J,
Gh2 G de it u Bisr
S.T c_oIREspo.sog,.a , \ WI 1 ico so
.! ,n> .
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA G.(, ,' .
I M s '.
[ NUCLEAR REG 11ATORY COMMISSICN h 8
- C!f.:t :f t's te: e'sy C; )tw & Se:We //
In the Mat:er of 4 g Wiefyg ,
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY eke: Nos. s2 G
)
Q, )
.0-;; n..
e (Midland P. ant, Uni:s 1 and 2) 50-329-O"
)
mace 50-330-Ou
)
r )
echni i
- 18, i CERTITICATE OF SERVICE
- CC I hereby certify that copies of Respense to In:erresa:Ory
?c (3arbara Sta= iris) Discovery Reques: dated January 26, 1981, were served D
upon the folleving persons by depositing' copies thereof in the Uni:ed States Mail, firs: class pos: age on :his D M day of February, 1931.
Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Dr. 7:ederick ?. Cowan A::orney General of :he 6152 N. Verde Trail Sta:e of Michigan A; . 3-125 Stewar: H. Free an, Esq. Beca Ra:en, Florida 33433 Assistan: A :orney General Greg:ry T. Taylor, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq.
Assistant A::orney General Isha=, Lincoln & 3eale 720 Law Building 0 e First National Plaza C Lansing, Michigan 48913 Sui:e 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
One IBM Plaza Mr. Steve Gadler Suite 4501 2120 Carter Avenue Chicage, Illinois 60611 St. Paul, Minneso:a 551G3 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall D. F. Judd, Sr. Project Manager RFD 10 3abcock &Wilccx Midland, Michigan 48640 ?. O. 3cx 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Charles 3echhoefer, Esq.
At0=ic Safety & Licensing 3 card Panel Ato=ic Safe:y & Licensing Appeal Scard U. S. Nuclear Regula:ory C - " 5. Nuclear Regala:ory Comissien Washington, D. C. 20555 Washing:en, D. C. 20555 Gut cave Linenberger Mr. C. R. Stephens, Chief Ate =ic Safety & Licensing Board Dc:keting & Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cen=. Office of the Secretarv Washing:cu, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission Washington, 7. C. 20555
Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Sumerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 William D. Paton, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Route 3 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. -
Washington, D. C. 20555 Sharon K. Warren 636 Hillcrest Midland, Michigan 48640 4
James E. Brunner y i
1 RELATED CORRESPOSDM UNITED STATES 0 AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANT ) 50-330-0M
) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM JONES William Jones, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is
~
e= ployed by Bechtel Power Corporation, as the Project Cost / Schedule Supervisor for the Midland Project; that he is responsible for providing answers to supplemental questions pertaining to docu:2ent request Number 2 l
(contained in the January 26, 1981 Stamiris " Response"); and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above infor=ation and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct.
- ^
W William Jane
+t Subscribed and sworn to before ne thia / day of February, 1981 l , D00fF~ *
idir
!$tg P Suic,8~4ashtenawm}rweb County 4 Michiganj la
[
'.~ \ ,
1 l
l
> I My Commission Expires: Ndl[ Y/
Office of the Seendary /
q WRt & Semce IMCft 1/
7 W1NDY L TAnQg I
g 4 orcry Pobi:c,Wedseere 4 w Corrunmen Expires 7-21 81 l
,a
$ 2 5 % .h w a .. .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ,) 50-330-0M
) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN BOOS Alan Boos, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the Assistant Project Manager, Midland Project, Bechtel Power Corporation; that he is jointly responsible along with Gilbert S. Keeley for the Responses to Additional Questions pertaining to Stas'.ris Interrogatory No.1 contained in the "Intervenor Response" Document dated January 26, 1981; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and' the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct.
m A A - --
Alan Boos
.;uu .-
i Subscribed and sworn to before me this /h-bbdayofFebruary,1981 W %
p 00CIM..
% . b~. .JL r; .te-
' L" Notary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan
! I gq 61981 P n_I 2.
My Commission Expires:Ei5'g .5:~~ . ..__cra co . ,: - a f &--------- t7.:0,1S.12 Dxhetieg & Service l
4 Bra ch l
M a
s
,. e -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - M W "*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' e In the Matter of )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY *
) ~ DOCKET NOS. 50-3: '-0M
)50-33t, OM (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL -3
) 50-330-OL @ %.
) ',
S occx5!'- '
STATE OF MICHIGAN) E'
)ss
- @M
~
MAR 61981 p, COUNTY OF JACKSON) .
Wa DcEqrJ 1. & We 8 Sei::e AFFIDAVIT OF GILBERT KEELEY s-Gilbert Keeley, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Consumers Power Company as Project Manager, Midland Project; that he is jointly responsible with Al Boos for providing a response to additional questions respecting Stamiris' Interrogatory No. 1; that he is primarily responsible for providing responses to additional questions respecting Stamiris' Interrogatory No. 4; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the ansvers to the above Interrogatories are true and correct. ~
/ 7 Ji l
l -
~ - h $ YY
, , Gilbert Ke ge
' Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
- February, 1981. .
~ -
/bNa W Notary Publicg' Jackson' C6/ Michigan j
My Comission Expires
! C3 CILIA MARIE VARFIItD WOTARY PJ31IO. liItL3:: ate CO.,r C11
' XY CO?O1ISSICN EIPIRIS JLLO3.1983
, Acting in Jackson County
- - ;...j; - ~~
V ji ' ; j i ~7! - =- - ' '
- E ~;~- -- -
~
- j;; .!
- - i3i' i Tir .
'E ~j' ;];' i;
! i. !1i 4 4
i -
i.
n:
..t. .
4
, t i! -!'
i ti.:; '
j: . .
?
l l~ j j l ljj'!ii' - ,
h i
, ~' '
i: -
l ! :
i: gi- iiib .
- l t
ji j- :: .
i;
- l 3 I. '! ! E) 4 l !! ll.!
$l -
! ?- 3; l3 jiji i:, 3 i :
j:1l
!!i il i}i i ' ;
. ic g -
! $ : ji i-i ii ::
i 1
- 3 r I 'i'
, .s... .
!T. .
l .. .!:! 9
- 3 i :
j .!
-1 ',
liki l;l i 9'
e
.. i i
iii
+.: l-f- ~ v,.
. p
. .:. p; e. -.
. s : p, ,
g, , .e t-
' - , - j g- .
U CORSumtIS POWtf C0mpany
)
, g ,.
GENERAL OFFICES 7
'4
. L9 1, #
j
, ;jj 'f * ~ {
j 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Midigen 49201 j jiA w m
- . &.1, x j { ' '
, ./
NJte9 i
~
l i Mr. C. R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section ;
l
! Office of the Secretary i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 i
2 5
'l 1