ML19320C980
| ML19320C980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1980 |
| From: | Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007180391 | |
| Download: ML19320C980 (8) | |
Text
'
Lic 7/14/80 D
q 0
G ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-1 2
JUL 171980 > Z BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICET.NG BOARD Officeof theSecretary 'Il Docketing & Service In the Matter of
)
4
/
)
fu METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL BY TMIA Three Mile Island Alert ("TMIA") filed on June 18, 1980, a second set of follow-on discovery interrogatories.
Licensee ob-jected to the interrogatories on June 27, 1980, and TMIA moved to compel responses on July 7, 1980.
Licensee's objection and TMIA's motion to compel adequately frame the dispute between the parties.
Listed below are four additional points raised by the motion to compel:
1.
The crux of TMIA's argument appears to be that, given the extent of the data produced during discovery, TMIA could not earlier have reviewed the material and framed follow-o.. interroga-tories.
The short answer to this claim is that TMIA should have protected its interests by alerting Licensee an' the Board of this concern through a timely filed motion seeking an extension of time within which to submit follow-on discovery.
Had this procedure been used, TMIA could have notified the Board in April of its need for more time to review Licensee's discovery responses.
The Board could then have set a reasonable schedule for the filing of 8007180?>$\\
. follow-on discovery.
In this manner a date certain would have l
been set for *MIA to complete its discovery.
However, instead of following this procedure, TMIA reserved for itself the decision of what constituted reasonable progress in reviewing Licensee's earlier discovery responses.
It is not possible for this Board to now determine whether TMIA has diligently pursued its discovery obligations.
In addition, by not properly seeking an extension of time, TMIA is only now at this late date in the proceeding first presenting to the Board its position as to the " availability" of information.
l 2.
TMIA's definition of " availability" as the " time the discovering party actually gains knowledge of the new information t'
upon which it bases its request" is at odds with prior statements by the intervenors as to the meaning of " availability".
At the last prehearing conference, Ms. Weiss, speaking on behalf of the intervenors, discussed the concept of " availability".
See Tr. at 1832-34.
While it was recognized that defining " availability" would require case-by-case consideration, Ms. Weiss did state that
" time ought not to begin to run until we are in receipt of a docu-ment", and that the intervenors "would define availability as either service plus five days, * *
- or the time at which the document is in the hands of the party receiving it * * *" (Tr. at
)
1832).
The Board has previously taken cognizance of this discus-4 sion.
See Memorandum and Order of May 22, 1980, at p. 14.
De-spite these statements, TMIA now argues that if the Board intended
" availability" to mean date of service, it should have stated so i
expressly.
l I
... ~.
. 3.
In its motion to compel, TMIA implies that Licensee's
" responses" and computer " summaries" were somehow less than what was requested; that the responses at issue were not typical either in " quantity or quality".
TMIA is mistaken.
Interroga-tory Nos. 5-7 5-7 and 7-9 were specific as to what was sought 1/
and Licensee provided precisely what was requested.
That the in-formation was voluminous is only because TMIA did nc place reasonable time limits on its request, seeking instead information developed over long periods of time.
TMIA is following a similar approach in follow-on Interrogatory No. 2 which seeks all documen-tation on work-related accidents, sick calls, and infirmary records from October 1, 1977 to March 30, 1979.
4.
In support of follow-on Interrogatory No.
4, TMIA claims that the request is based on Interrogatory No. 7-9 and could not have been filed earlier because the information was not entered into the log books until May 27, 1980.
This argument misperceives the scope of Interrogatory No. 7-9 which sought Licensee's Main-tenance Log Book.
The request was fully satisfied by making avail-able the Log Book as of March 31, 1980, the date on which Licensee responded to TMIA's Seventh Set of Interrogatories.
TMIA's inter-rogatory did not request that the Log Book be supplemented with
-1/. Interrogatory No. 5-6 sought a specifi.c report, the Corrective l
Maintenance Component History Reports Unit 1, for the periods January 1, 1977 to September-28, 1978 and March 28, 1979 to January 1, 1980.
Interrogatory No.'5-7 sought four specific summary re-ports, only three of which are maintained by Licensee.
And, In-terrogatory No. 7-9 sought the Maintenance Log for TMI Unit 1.
. 2/
additional information.-
Had such a request been made, Licensee would have been able to alert TMIA to the entry of new informa-tion and follow-on discovery could have been made promptly.
Under TMIA's view of things, discovery will never end in this proceeding.
By its nature the Maintenance Log Book is continually being revised.
If TMIA can draft follow-on interrogatories on those revisions it can file interrogatories without limit.
The better view is that, so long as revisions to the Maintenance Log Book do not render earlier provided information incorrect, follow-on discovery must be limited to the information in the Log Book as of March 31, 1980.
There is no injustice or inequity in this position.
Courts and agencies routinely establi.Sh a discovery cutoff date.
Such a date must be set if the procesding is to move from the discovery stage to the hearing stage.
on:.y upon a show-ing that significant and substantial new information has been dis-closed should discovery be permitted beyond the cutoff date.
In this instance there is no showing by TMIA that the information it seeks is not merely cumulative of information already in its possession.
-2/ Nor does 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(e) require that supplementary infor-mation be supplied in these circumstances.
The information sought does not relate to persons having knowledge of discoverable matters or expert witnesses; does not indicate a prior response was incorrect or constitutes a knowing concealment; and is not covered by a prior Board order or agreement of the parties.
K
. For all these reasons, the Board should not compel responses to TMIA's second set of follow-on interrogatories.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i
By:
/
Robert E Zahler'
-Dated:
July 14, 1980
., - -.. ~..
.., ~..,.
a 4
Lic 7/14/80 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)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to Motion to Compel by TMIA" were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, post-age prepaid, this 14th day of July, 1980.
4tBbert E. Za:11e r C
Dated:
July 14, 1980
$W
/ c.>f C
/
'000nETED I
fy UsNm:
\\
ly I{lI 4 v
t
. [.\\ D:ke c! &
i M'N V[' /
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg tyf 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 Chai - n Assistant Counsel Atmic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Ctmn'n Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory h iasion Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atmic 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 CMiman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of h iasioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. 'Ibur ellntte, Esquire Walter W. Cohen, Esquire r
Office of the Executive Legal Director (bnsumer Advocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory h iasion Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C.
20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Hav,-iahm3, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ctrrmission Washington, D.C.
20555
- An additional copy was hand-served on July 15, 1980.
F
.. Jordan D. Cun% ham, Emmire Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against Nuclear T.M.I. Steering Comittee Energy 2320 North Second Street Sheldon, Hamon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Sa.te 506 Washington, D.C.
20006
'Iheodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowitz & P C.er Pobert Q. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Jbdith H. Johnsrud Scientists Envimmental Cbalition on Nuclear Shalam, Namm & Weiss Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 433 Orlando Avemie Washingtor., D.C.
20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C. Shelly Marvin I. Iewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Philadalphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aartedt Holly S. Keck R. D. 5 Iegislation @iman (batesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philmlolphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 1
.\\.
"lb T.
f I
w w
4
=
\\
.