ML19305E145
| ML19305E145 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1980 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004230030 | |
| Download: ML19305E145 (8) | |
Text
__
LICENSEE 3/28/80 UNITED E FATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS*.ON BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO UCS' MOTION TO COMPEL LICENSEE TO ANSWER UCS' INTERROGATORY 179 UCS' Interrogatory No. 179 reads as follows:
"The licensee has stated that it does not have final positions on the merits of the UCS contentions.
s Please provide the licensee's present position on each UCS contention."
Licensee's objections to Interrogatory No. 179, dated March 11, 1980, were as follows:
" Licensee objects to UCS Interrogatcry No. 179 requesting Licensee's present position on each of the UCS contentions.
UCS' request is irrelevant to the ultimate disposition of the issues and, at the very least, is premature, as the Licensee has not completed its evaluation of these contentions or the underlying facts.
Requiring Licensee to respond to this request would force it to adopt a position without adequate information and to disclose at a preliminary stage a tentative evaluation of UCS' l
contentions.
In addition, UCS Interrogatory No. 179 constitutes an attempt by UCS to ascertain the man-ner in which Licensee is preparing for the hearing.
~
An answer by Licensee would necessitate divulgence of the mental impressions, conclusions and opinions of Licensee's counsel and other representatives and, as such, is protected from disclosure.
r 800423003o l
" Licensee's objection is reinforced in this pro-ceeding by the fact that Interrogatory No. 179 has been posed before the discovery process has been allowed to fulfill one of the central purposes of discovery contemplated by the Licensing Board, namely the clarification of intervenor contentions and the addition of basis and specificity thereto.
On January 18, 1980, Licensee served UCS with a set of interrogatories designed to accomplish just this purpose.
No response to any of these interrogatories has been received to date.
It is unreasonable for UCS to ask Licensee for its position, much less its present position, on UCS contentions which remain so undefined.
" Licensee reminds UCS that its final position on each of UCS' contentions will be developed in pre-pared testimony and served on UCG in advance of the hearing session at which the contentions will be con-sidered.
UCS does not face the situation, for which discovery is in part designed, of surprise testimony at the hearing."
Licensee stands on its objections to Interrogatory No.
179 and offers the following observations on UCS' motion to compel.
1.
As reflected in its objections Licensee viewed UCS' request for its "present position" on each of UCS' interroga-tories as a premature attempt to obtain Licensee's current thinking on how Licensee will ultimately formulate its testi-mony and arguments on each contention, and for the reasons stated above therefore objected to Interrogatory No. 179.
In the light of UCS' other interrogatories no other reading of Interrogatory No. 179 made sense.
If UCS meant only to elicit Licensee's technical position on the accuracy of the allega-tions in its contentions, including allegations as to the appli-cability of certain NRC regulatory requirements, and Licensee's technical position on the conclusion which UCS draws from those allegations, Interrogatory No. 179 is simply duplica-tive of a large number of other interrogatories which Licensee has fully answered.
A few examples, taken from UCS' first three contentions, will serve to illustrate the point.
UCS Contention No. 1 challenges the adequacy of natural circula-tion to remove decay heat in a small break LOCA; Licensee's answer in response to Interrogatory No. 6 states Licensee's position that natural circulation is an adequate means and references B&W studies in support of that position.
Conten-tion No. 2 asserts among other things that reliance on reactor coolant pumps for forced cooling is improper because they do not meet certain requirements for safety-grade equipment; Licensee's answers in response to Interrogatory Nos. 19 through 24 state Licensee's position that the reactor coolant pumps are not relied on for forced cooling during a LOCA and concede that the pumps do not meet certain requirements appli-cable to safety-grade equipment.
Contention No. 3 asserts that pressurizer heaters and associated controls are necessary to maintain natural circulation and should therefore be re-quired to meet all criteria for safety-grade equipment; Licensee's answers in response to Interrogatories 32 and 33 state Licensee's position that the heaters are not necessary to maintain natural circulation and are therefore not class-ified as safety grade equipment.
Inspection of UCS' remaining contentions and of UCS' other interrogatories and Licensee's answers will provide ample additional evidence that UCS sought and obtained in other interrogatories Licensee's technical position on its contentions and that Licensee was therefore entirely justified in treating Interrogatory No. 179 as an attempt by UCS to require Licensee to disclose prematurely its preliminary views as to Licensee's plan of attack at the hear-ing.
Further, after knowing the character of Licensee's ob-jections to Interrogatory No. 179, UCS has said nothing in its motion to compel to suggest that Licensee has read more into the interrogatory than UCS intended.
Should the Board nevertheless conclude that some fur-ther response to Interrogatory No. 179 is in order, it should at a minimum place on UCS the obligation, in the light of Licensee's responses to other interrogatories and of the depo-sitions which UCS has since taken of the individuals in GPU, B&W and Gilbert Associates, Inc., who prepared those responses, to identify those elements of UCS' contentions as to which UCS believes that Licensee's position has not been provided.
2.
Licensee's objections to Interrogatory No. 179 were reinforced by the fact that UCS had not provided any response to Licensee's January 18, 1980, interrogatories to UCS re-questing clarification and amplification of UCS' contentions.
UCS' statement in its motion to compel that it has responded fully to Licensee's interrogatories ignores the fact that UCS waited until the last possible day (March 17, 1980) to do so 4
i.
I and that its responses were therefore not available to assist Licensee in responding to Interrogatory No. 179.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE l
M1 Melse/
/
+
Y G(orge F. Trov:hridge[
Dated: March 28, 1980 i
t i
I t
t k
1 I I r
-,,e.
--re-r-
LICENSEE 3/28/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to UCS' Motion to Compel Licensee to Answer UCS' Interrogatory 179," dated March 28, 1980, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 28th day of March, 1980.
NJ S
/
G[orge F. Trowbridg[
Dated: March 28, 1980 t
1
+-
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W.
Smith, Esquire John A.
Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel t
Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington,~ D.C.
20555 1
Karin W.
Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H.
Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atonic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W.
Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of Commissioners Board Panel" Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R.
Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)
Walter W.
Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C.
20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (21)
Office of the Secretary U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Jordan D.
Cunningham, Esquire Karin P.
Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against T.M.I.
Steering Committee Nuclear Energy 2320 North Second Street Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506
^
Washington, D.C.
20006 Theodore A.
Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Robert Q. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellvn R.
Weiss, Escuire Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Attorney for the Union of Concerned Environmental Coalition on Scientists Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 State College, Pennsylvania 1680)
Marvin I.
Lewis Steven C.
Sholly 6504 Bradford Terrace 304 South Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Marjorie M.
Aamodt Gail Bradford R.
D.
5 Holly S.
Keck Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Legislation Chairman Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 s
e x
.