ML19323C063
| ML19323C063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005140618 | |
| Download: ML19323C063 (4) | |
Text
8005140ggy T(L Bd 5/1/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA w
NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION r'
c;
\\
.X O
'b poc%-t ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
.g y th)M gm di Ivan W. Smith, Chairman h@$$[A$ $#
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Linda W. Little
(/
/p Ign t In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON LICENSEE'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF TMIA (May 1, 1980)
For the reasons discussed in our Memorandum and Order on Licensee's [First] Motion to Compel Discovery of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA), dated April 11, 1980, and in our Memo-randum and Order Compelling UCS to Answer Licensee's Interrogatory No. 8-1, dated April 1, 1980, Licensee's Second Motion to Compel Discovery of TMIA, dated April 22, 1980, is granted.
TMIA is directed to respond to licensee's interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3,
- /
5-4, and 5-6 (except 5-6 (a)).-
- /
Most of the interrogatories to which answers are being com-pelled have been properly modified in the licensee's second motion to compel pursuant to the limitation stated in our prior order of April 11, 1980.
That limitation changed language in the interrogatories,such as " relating to or bearing upon" to "in support of".
Language such as "upon which the allegation is based" used in interrogatory 5-3(b) is also acceptable.
Licensee's motien to compel neglected to change interrogatories 5-1(b), 5-2(b), and 5-6(b) to reflect the limitation imposed by the board.
They are deemed to be modified to conform to the language of 5-3(b).
. These interrogatories, originally filed on January 14, 1980, seek the specific facts, instances, documents, and persons relied on by TMIA for its broad allegation in Contention 5 that licensee has improperly and in violation of regulations (" negligently" and
" willfully") deferred necessary maintenance and repairs.and per-formed ~ essential maintenance with fatigued employees.
IMIA's answer that the general mass of information from which it is culling its specifics is available to the licensee is an inadequate response.
As we discussed in our April 1, 1980 order on the inadequate response of UCS to licensee's interrogatory 8-1, the interrogatory is exactly as broad as the contention.
If the interrogatory is too broad for discovery, the contention is too broad for litigation.
I TMIA is incorrect that the information is equally available to the licensee.
Licensee, even if it has exactly the same mass of information from which TMIA has gleaned specific facts it will rely upon (and even this is uncertain due to lack of identification by TMIA), cannot know which specifics TMIA is relying upon.
Li-censee is entitled, by fundamental fairness and due process, to know this to focus on the specifics of TMIA's allegation, if TMIA has any, in preparation for the evidentiary hearing.
In addition, licensee is entitled to responses to its interrogatories seeking TMIA's definition of phrases used by TMIA in its contention.
This board has previously expressed great interest in the allegations of TMIA and others regarding inadequate qualifications
. of the licensee.
We expected TMIA to be of assistance in develop-ing the record by presenting specifics in support of its conten-tion 5.
We are disappointed that TMIA has chosen not to timely respond to discovery on this subject (without making timely obj ec-tion), and then, when a response is finally made it in effect fails to respond substantively.
To the extent TMIA's " response" (which the board, like licensee, did not receive until April 14, although it is dated April 3) may be deemed an objection to interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, and most "of 5-6, the objection is denied for the reasons discussed above and in our referenced prior orders, and because the objection is very late.
Timely objection to interrogatories filed before Febru-ary 13, 1980 were due on February 25, 1980.
In addition, TMIA was 3
1 in default for failure to respond to licensee's first motion to compel, dated March 24, 1980, which motion included the interroga-tories which are the subject of this ruling.
This discovery dispute was discussed during a telephone con-ference call on May 1, 1980 initiated by the Chairman, with counsel for TMIA and for the licensee.
The board emphasized its holding (set out at page 2 above) that licensee is entitled to know the specific facts upon which TMIA is relying for its broad contention, in order for licensee to be expected fairly to prepare to meet its evidentiary burdens as to any such specifics at the hearing.
. The point was made during this conference call that "we don't know" may be an appropriate answer to an interrogatory, but if TMIA makes such a response, it would be under a duty seasonably to supplement such a response when the answer in fact becomes known.
Sey; 10 CFR S 2.740(e)(2)(ii), and (e)(3).
Although such a response could give rise to arguments by the licensee regardirig the timeliness of TMIA's case preparation and the effect on licensee's obligations and burdens in the litigation of the contention, this was not the point of the discussion nor a part of the ruling.
The ruling is confined to compelling a response to the interrogatories.
TMIA, during the conference call, stated it could respond to licensee's interrogatories by May 8, 1980.
That schedule was found acceptable by the board, and it was so ordered.
TMIA, in responding with the specifics requested by the interrogatories, shall supply the specifics it has, indicate the source of the specifics, state whether it is still developing specifics and from which material, and if the answers will require supplemen-tation, when the supplemental answers can be expected.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Bethesda, Maryland Ivan W. Smith, Chairman May 1, 1980
_