ML17138A786

Responds to Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers 790625 Supplemental Discovery Requests.Requests for Info Re Des Does Not Correspond to Contentions.Request for audio-visual Exhibits Is Not Supplementary Request

ML17138A786
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/07/1979
From:	Cutchin J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Lemanowicz I CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS
References
NUDOCS 7909170487
Download: ML17138A786 (8)

Text

'

i Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairperson The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers P.O.

Box 377 RDP1

Berwick, PA 18503 C~

Auqust 7, 979 DISTR~

<ION Cutchc.

Hoodhead Rei s Shanar/Enge1hardt/Christenbury FF (2)

R eq Cen:

LPDR S.Miner O.Parr S.Bajwa kt.'Regan In the Matter of Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.

.Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(Susquehanna Steam Electri tation, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos.

5 -3 and 50-388

Dear Mrs. Lemanowicz:

I recei ved a copy of your "Supplemental Discovery Requests to the NRC" dated July 25, 1979.

Since you were served a copy of my letter to Dr. Johnsrud dated June 27, 1979I, you are no doubt aware of the procedures governing requests for documents from and interrogatories to the NRC Staff.

They were 'cited and 4iscussed in that letter.

However, as noted in that letter, the Staff has seldom forced a party to resort to those procedures.

You made Lfourgrequests of the Staff.

They are quoted and responded to below:

~RN.i. i ii. iid i

i tii i

ii' studies and consultants'nalyses, that, although not explicitly published in the DES, were actually u'tilized as background reference data by the NRC in arriving at each and every conclusion, evaluation and recommendation pub'1'ished in the DES.

V Re vest No. 2.

Furnish the exact excerpts of data used by the NRC from the "References 'ublished throughout the text add appepdixes of the DES in ar-riving at each and every conclusion, eval ation and recommendation published in the DES.

Staff Res onse to Re uests Nos.

1 a d 2.

Your request is overly broad.

In this proceeding on an applicat on for an operating license, discovery is permissible only on those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Board in its Special Prehearing Conference Order dated March 6, 1979.

Since you have not identified the contentions to which you believe the information sought is relevant, it is not apparent that your overly broad request seeks information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible e

'pection in %Cfh cccccccc Ace a&

ctATa~

and copying i gamone

~ ~ oQ eCr ~ ~ ~ ~

hRC NORW Sl0 (976) SECS'240 the NRC Publ c Document R

m (PDR) at 1

ny-more-shoul -be-availabl for-inspecti 4 o.o. oovaccccecaccr rcccccrccco oaaccccc cote oeee -tee 17 H Street, n-and "copyi n

.M;,

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~

0 ~ ~

0

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7 Q-

1 A

y ~ I 1

local, and state agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

A few, such as notes of telephone communications or personal letters, may be available only in the files of personnel at the Argonne National Laboratory.

If you will specify with particularity those of the references listed in the DES which you are unable to inspect at the PDR or at offices of agencies of the Commonwealth of'Pennsylvania, and identify how you believe the information sought may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the Staff will try to obtain those references and make them available for inspection and copying at the office of NRC Staff Coun'sel in Bethesda, Maryland.

~RN.

3.

F th 11 dl dy 1

1 hit\\

ll hl t dt that will be presented as evidence at the public hearings by the NRC, in the fons of photographs, small scale(dravings or charts, and tape transcripts, etc.

rN 33.4.

F th d

lid dl gthy Fl tt 3

3 th th NRC will defend its position on each and every conclusion, evaluation and recom-mendation published in the DES, especially as NRC defense arguments relate to the relevant contentions before the Board.

Staff Res onse to Re uests Nos.

3 and 4.

This does not appear. to be a "supple-mentary discovery request based on informatiop appearing in newly issued documents or in responses to first-round discovery requests--as required by the Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order (at 81).

However, to date the Staff has not prepared any "audio and/or visual exhibits

..~. that will be I presented as evidence at the public hearings by tile NRC."

The Staff's evidence in chief will consist of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the Final Environmental Statement (FES) and supplements, if any, to those documents.

As it always does, the Staff will serve those documents, when they are issued, on the Board and the parties.

llhether additional direct evidence in the form of written testimony by expert witnesses is considered necessary will not be decided until after the Prehearing Conference required by 10 CFR 2.752 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

Sincerely, cc:

Charles Bechhoefe, Esq.

Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Oscar H. Paris (J!ay Silberg, Esq.

Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky James M. Cutchin, IY Counsel for NRC Staff y

Susquehanna Environmental Advocates Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Iggyan A. Sna'gj>,

Esq.

Mr. Robert M. Gallo Atomic Safety and Licensing Board orricm~

OuNNaIIII~

oaTN~

OELD OMCutcfivn d EJReis---

08/ '(/79 Docketing a d Service Se

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~

ion 4 ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ 3

~

~ ~ ~ ~

.I ZCK PORM $10 (976) NRChC 0249 0 U 4, OOVIINNIaNNT~NINTINOONIFIONI les ~

s ~ ~

7 ~ e

0

't

Robert E. Harsh, Jr., Esq.,

Krohn and Hoegen, Attorneys-at-Law 930 United Penn Bank.Building Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701 DISTRIBUTION.-'

@fili."d August 7, 1979 Reis Shapar'/Engelhardt/

Christenbury FF (2)

Reg Cen:

LPDR S. Niner O.Parr S.Bajwa II.Regan In the Matter of i

Pennsylvania Power and'Light Co.

Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Statiop, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos.

50-387 and 50-388

Dear Mr. Marsh:

Our letters dated July 16, 1979 must have passed

)n the mail.

In your letter dated July 16 you indicate that your client, Ms. Mary Kelchner Creasy, denies hyving made the statements attributed to her in the article, which appeared in the Berwick Enter rise-Bloomsbur Press of June 2-g, 1979 and(a copy of which

'was'ttached to my letter of July 16.

Moreover, you indicate that your client has advised you that the article as it relates to )er is entirely false.

s II I0n my letter dated July 16 I had indicated that irl view of the inconsistencies 8n. the statements of Ms. Creasy as presented in your letter to me of July 3 and as attributed to her in the newspaper article, I believed the taking of her

'eposition to be imperative.

However, in light of your statement that Ms. Creasy completely repudiates the article as it relates to her, I am again willing tq attempt to dispose of this matter vS+aNs.

Creasy's affSdavSt.

If Ms. Creasy is able to execute an affidavit setting forth her unequivocal statement (1) that her inability to provide more information to support allega-tions made by her at the January Prehearing Conference results from her lack of knowledge of additional facts rather than from anygSecrecy(Agreements that she executed while employed by Bechtel Corporation and (2) that the article which appea~red in the Berwick Enter rise-Bloomsbur Press of June 2-3 is completely false as it relates to her, the Staff believes tpat it can complete the report requested of it by the Licensing Board and dispose of this matter.

The form of the oath taken by Ms. Creasy should make clear that she makes the statement freely and without mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that she swears that the statement is true.

V9080VO 64'7~

I suggest that you call me to discuss the affidavit, after it is drafted but ors toss~

ogstssAMss~

oArst~

KRC ECRU 310 (976) NRCbf 0240

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

5 ss.o. ssovssssssssssssr rsssssrsssss os s seats sere - eee - ree

'0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0'

~

~ ~

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~

'I I

I 3

1 J

f

.<<i J) 970 QVCV

'V I

0 purpose intended avoidance of the inconvenience and expense of an unnecessary deposition.

Sincerely, cc:

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.

Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr.~Oscar H. Paris Jay Silberg, Esq.

Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky Ms. Colleen Marsh Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz Susquehanna Environmental Advocates Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Bryan A. Snapp, Esq.

Mr. Robert M. Gallo Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section James M. Cutchin, IV Counsel for NPC Staff OrIICa~

OQIIMAMC~

OATC~

OE "OMCU'Mtff

/'EJReis...

08/ '7/79 tt

~\\ ~ OO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

eo ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

io

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

5RC PAUL 110

($476)

NRCGC ONO 5 V ~, OOVOIIIIMOIITOIIINTIIIOOI((I(ICICII ~ 1 ~

NO T ~ O

lg

~c~a C

I n