ML19323H318

Opposition to Licensee Motion to Require Further Specificity of Contentions.Licensee Seeks to Extend Discovery W/O Affording Reciprocal Opportunity & to Compel Testimony Months Before Due Date.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19323H318
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/05/1980
From:	Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8006120371
Download: ML19323H318 (4)

Text

'

... ,p v .

-a -

((&

3 ~.

• q n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !h { ..

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .-

_hN BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

) ~

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ) Docket No. 50-289 et al., ) (Restart)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

)

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS OPPOSITION TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO REQUIRE FURTHER SPECIFICATION OF CONTENTIONS The licensee has asked the Board to establish a deadline of June 30 by which "further specificity" must be supplied with respect to certain identified questions. It then lists the contentions, which include UCS contentions 9, 10 and 13. Al-though the second portion of the request is not entirely C

clear, the licensee apparently also asks the Board to rule that intervenors will be limited at the hearing to proof of the facts which are contained in the written bases for the ,

contention or " expressly identified and provided as support for the contention in the course of discovery." This requested restriction on the ability of intervenors to prove tnelr cases goes far beyond accepted practice and confuses duties under discovery with the standard for admissibility of a c:ntention.

UCS notes at the outset that we recognize our obliga:icn to meet the directives of the Board with respect to contentions

%. O hh(( o 8 0 o 6 I 2 037/ di--

9, 10 and 13 after the close of discovery. We will need- some reasonabic period of time thereafter in.wnica to do so. There is no Justification, however, for requ2 ring this showing to be made before discovery is completed, as the licensee has requested. We also note that we have not yet received the staff's filing on Class 9 accidents, nor do we have the SER.

Nor, indeed, have we received full answers to all of our interrogatories.

However, UCS objects most strongly to the licensee's attempt to limit proof at the trial to facts specifically given as part of the written basis for the contentions or in response to discovery. The purpose of the requirement of

a. factual bases for contentions is to determine litigability of the issue. The purpose of the requirement of reasonable specificity is to provide notice to aaversaries of the issues they will be required to meet. The process of discovery pro-vides an expanded opportunity to define issues and learn ene I

elements of the opposition's case.

In this proceeding, no party has been entirely satisfied ,

with discovery. Because the positions of all involved, includ-ing tne staff anc licensee, have been evolving in the after-math of the TMI accident and because sc ne information has been slow in being developed,1/ discovery has not been optimally I 1/ For example, UCS has requested specification of equipment which failed in the accident environment. This has not yet been provided.

satisfactory. The licensee has chosen to respond to this by, in effect, seeking an extension of discovery withcut aff rd-ing other parties the same opportunity. Moreover, tne 11cen-see asks the Board to take the unprecedentec step of limiting proof to facts specifically included in the written basis and/or answers to discovery. In essence, the licensee seeks to compel the direct testimony of the intervenors to be filed months before its own is due.

The licenses has had ample opportunity to seek relief in cases where answers to discovery have not been to its satis-faction. It has done so on more than one occasion. There is also the duty to supplement responses. The licensee will have the direct testimony of the parties and ample opportunity to rebut that testimony. Indeed, the legal and technical resources available to the applicant ensure that it will be in a far better position than the intervenors to cope with the exigencies of this proceeding .

UCS urges the Board to deny the motion.

Respectfully suomitted;

[f ic- u 9 - lQr Ellyn R. Weiss SHELDON, MARMON & iiEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washingttn, D.C. 20006 (202) 933-9070 DATED: June 5, 1990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) .

)

• METROPOLITAN EDISON )

COMPANY, et al.,

- ~ - -

) Occket No. 50 '29

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island )

Nuclear Station, Unit )

No. 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE o

I hereby certify that copies of " Union of Concerned Scientists Opposition to Licensee's Motion to Require Further Specification of Contentions," was mailed first class postage pre-paid this 5th day of June, 1980 to the following parties:

Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 883. W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

• Dr. Linda W. Little

.< D %

/ v' '-

5000 Hermitage Drive -

Raleiegh, North Carolina 27612 i'.'! ._

ir George F. Trowbridge, Esquire i _

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ,

1800 "M" Street, N.W. .

Washington, D.C. 20006 @go

. s .7

, James Tourtellotte, Esquire -

.. J ~

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ;

Washington, D.C. 20555 . ---

, l . L .,

mEllyn R. Weiss