ML19260E030
| ML19260E030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Kepford C Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130150 | |
| Download: ML19260E030 (4) | |
Text
.
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER C+Direetcrs: Mr. George Boomsma-R.D. s1, Peach Bottom, Pa. 17563 717-548 2336 Dr. Judith Johnsrud-433 Orlando Avenue, State College, Pa. 16801 814';37 3900 January 25, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, et al.
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
(Suspended License Hearings)
ECNP Intervenors' Correction to the ECNP Intervenors' Answers to the Board's M & 0 of January 9, 1980 In the process of typin9 the response of ECNP to the Board's Memorandum and Order of January 9, 1980, a footnote was inadvertantly left out.
The aporopriate page from that filing is reproduced here, with the footnote in place, and the text of the footnote on the following page.
Respectfully submitted
,/
,,. f ('.' th
('ChaunceyKepford/
'm n
O D
Representative of ECNP go u#
g s
4 @ @1
.d C
\\9
?@ **y#$
ew 1-
/
d 3s ch
\\
~
C
/ 70 3002130 t
the suspended licensee.
For the same reasons, ECNP has been denied access even to the transcripts of this proceeding!
Similarly, discovery uoan the NRC Staff has been only slightly more successful.
ECNP accepted on good faith the word of the NRC Staff counsel that the Staff would fully cooperate in fulfilling informal discovery requests for documents, by forwarding actual copies of documents.
ECNP gave Staff Counsel Mulkey two lists of requested materials on November 14, 1979, with delivery promised in two or three weeks.
These lists each contained about a-dozen items. About January 18, 1980, ECNP received the first seven documer$ts from the Staff with no indication as to when the rest would arrive.
Thus, ECNP has already been denied the access to these materials necessary for the preparation and presentation of its case.
ECNP has made additional discovery requests of the Staff.
However, the described experiences suggest that any further discovery requests upon the Staff may not be honored in time to be of any use, if the requests are honored at all.
Thus, the ability of ECNP to parti-cipate fully and effectively in these proceedings has already been severely limited by the suspended licensee and by the NRC Staff.
- 4) No other oarties have raised the issues that ECNP has.
In its reviseu contention, ECNP raises issues which ECNP believes have not been adequately raised by other parties to this proceedirg.
- 5) The croceeding will not be delayed but the issues will be broadened.
Since no party objected to the 10 day extention requested by ECNP, the proceeding has not been delayed by the 10 day request of ECNP.
This is especially truo since the revised contention has already been timely served (Jan. 7,1980) in the 10 day period fo' whic: an extention was requested and no party has been orejudiced.
The issue of the delay of the proceedings and the question as to the merit of granting the 10 day extension are therefore moot.
Furthermore, since the contention in question is merely a revision of earlier, timely filed ECNP contentions, all parties had ample notice of the issues raised in the revisei contention and no prejudice or delay occured oc could have occurred merely because the final
1 Although the Applicant did offer, during the first Prehaaring Conf erence, to assume the costs of reproducing and distributing filings of the vari.as intervenors, under certain limited circumstances, this offe.- in fact was made for self-serving purposes.
First this offer was only nade for the filings received several days before they were otherwise dua to be received.
Thus, under the terms of its limited offer, the susoended licensee would receive advance notice and opportunity to review intervenor filings prior to the service of these filings upon the parties.
In additiori; under the terms of its limited offer, the suspended licensee has, in effect, achieved an unfair advantage, in that any filing subject to the offer must be pre-pared with less than the full time for preparation otherwise provided.
Finally, the prejudicial intentions which underlie the suspended licensee's offer are emphasized by its refusual to reproduce copies of documents requested of the suspended licensee on discovery and also by its refusal to make copiet of the transcript for the other parties.
Thus, the suspended licensee is notably unwilling to further the health and safety objective which by law must guide this proceeding.
Instead, the suspended licensee offer was motivated by a selfish and indefatigable purpose.
s.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of ECilP I!!TERVEi! ORS' CORRECTI0t! TO THE EClP INTERVEt:0RS' At1SWERS TO THE BOARO'S M&O OF JANUARY 9, 1980 have been served on the following by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage paid on this day of January:
Ivan W, Smith, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board Of fice of the Secret ary
, U. S. Na cl e ar ?_cqul at or y Cec:n is s io n U.S.
theler 'legulatory Ccc=1ssio n Washingto n, D.C.
20555
.Washingt on, D.C.
20535 Dr. Walter E.
Jord an James A. Tcu rt e 11 o tt e, Isc.
881 W. Cuter Drive Of fice o.f E.xecut ive LeJal Dirocter Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37330 U.S.1helear Regalatory Commissic Washington, D.C.
00555 Dr. Linda W. Little George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
5000 Her2itage Drive Shaw, Pittman, Potts a T-owbridge Ral eigh, North Carolina 27612 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washingt o n, D.C.
20006 W
(
,...,, p Chauncey Kepford 6
e