ML19331D312
| ML19331D312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1980 |
| From: | Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008280667 | |
| Download: ML19331D312 (8) | |
Text
Lic 8/25/60 2
-o c.'
21
' aino t:
AUG 2 71980 P T i T-c vice w Cl
?x.airg 1 tm& /Y /
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA B ra"
^4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gy'/
, ~,
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 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE OF ECNP TO EMERGENCY PLANNING INTERROGATORIES I.
Summary Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(f), Licensee moves the Licensing Board for an order compelling ECNP to respond to
" Licensee's Interrogatories To Intervenor Enrironmental Coalition On Nuclear Power On Revision 2 of Licensee's Emergency Plan."
Licensee further moves that, upon ECNP's failure to timely comply with any such Board order, the Board should dismiss ECNP 1
- /
i Contentions 2-4, 2-7, 2-11, 2-13, 2-207 2-26 and 2 on i
which Licensee's interrogatories are based - for default.
$8gd /
II.
Arcument The history of Licensee's attempts at discovery on ECNP's l
contentions is concisely set forth at pages 1-6 of the Board's l
" Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion For Sanctions Against Environmental Coalition On Nuclear Power" (June 12, 1980).
As the
- /
The Board " consolidated" ECNP Contentions 2-20 and 2-30 in its
" Interim Order On Late Filed Emergency Planning Contentions" (2/15/80),
at p. 5, and in its " Fourth Special Prehearing Conference Order" (2/29/60), at p.10.
Though ECNP has not formally 'ombined the two contentions, Licensee here refers to the consolidated contentions as Contention 2-20.
.8008280 Q Q
2-Board there noted, Licensee's May 9 Motion For Sanctions sought the dismissal of ECNP as a party to this proceeding, based upon ECNP's failure to comply with discovery requests and with the Board's order compelling discovery.
The Board declined to dismiss ECNP as a party, but dismissed most of ECMP's contentions.
The Board ruled that "the subcontentions in the No. 2 series (emergency planning)" - including Contentions 2-4, 2-7, 2-11, 2-13, 2-20, 2-26 and 2 were among the contentions which survived, since Licensee had not (at that time) served interrogatories on the emergency planning contentions and, therefore, had not been injured as to those contentions.
However, the Board expressly noted that its ruling retnining a certain few of ECNP's contentions was "without prejudice to the right of Licensee to make later motions for sp?cificity or to seek other relief" consistent with the Board's order.
Sce " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion For Sanctions Against Environmental Coalition On Nuclear Power" (June 12, 1980), at p.22.
Licensee's seven interrogatories to ECNP on Revision 2 of the Emergency Plan were filed July 29, 1980.
Each of the interrogatories refers to a different emergency planning subcontention, focuses upon information which is relavant to the referenced subcontention that has been revised or included for the first time in Revision 2 of the Energency Plan, asks whether the new information resolves the concerns expressed in the contention, and - if the information does not
/
resolve the concerns - seeks the basis for that conclusion.
Such information is necessary to Licensee if it is to prepare thoroughly to meet the allegations embodied in ECNP's contentions.
Under the Board's " Memorandum and Order Resuming Schedule For Discovery and Contentions On Emergency Planning" (July 15, 1980),
Licensee should have received any objections to its July 29 interrogatories by August 8, and should have received substantive responses to the interrogatories by August 18.
ECNP has filed neither objections nor responses to Licensee's July 29, 1980 discovery requests.
Nor has ECNP sought an extension of time from Licensee.
Counsel for Licensee attempted to contact ECNP's representatives, but was informed that they are out of town and unavailable.
In addition to moving the Board to compel ECNP's response to Licensee's emergency planning interrogatories, Licensee also here moves that, should ECNP fail to comply with any Board order compelling such response, the Board dismiss ECNP Contentions 2-4, 2-7, 2-11, 2-13, 2-20, 2-26 and 2-28.
This single filing thus encompasses two distinct, though related, requests for relief:
one a motion for a Board order ccmpelling ECNP's response to the Cu'.y 29 interrogatories, and the other a contingent request that the Board promptly dismiss the referenced ECNP contentions i-ECNP should fail to timely comply with the terms of any Board order l
I 4-compelling responses to Licensee's interrogatories.
Through this contingeat request, Licensee seeks only to avoid another round of filings and further delay which would otherwise be occasioned should ECNP fail to comply with any Board ordei compelling response.
Moreover, by making such a request at this time, ECNP is put on notice of the relief desired by Licensee should ECNP fail to comply with any Board order that may issue.
It is now very late in this proceeding.
Both the period for general discovery and the period for discovery on the issue of emergency planning have ended, and Licensee is in the process of preparing testimony to address the mandatory issues in this proceeding and those contentiens as to which sufficient specificity has been provided.
In this procedural context, Licensee's contingent request for relief is properly characte ri=ed as a request for expediting the process by which Licensee is put on notice of which specific concerns it will be required to address in this proceeding.
III.
Conclusion On July 29, 1980, L.censee served seven emergency planning interrogatories on ECNP.
- censee should have received any objections to the interrogatories by August 3, and should have received substantive responses to the interrogatories by August 18.
ECNP has filed neither objections nor responses to the interrogatories, and has not sought an extension of time from
. Licensee.
Licensee therefore moves the Board for an order compelling ECNP's response to Licensee's July 29 interrogatories.
Licensee also seeks to avoid further filings and delay which would otherwise be occasioned should ECNP fail to comply with any Board crder compelling response.
Accordingly, Licensee further moves that, should ECNP fail to comply with any Board order compelling response to Licensee's interrogatories, the Board issue a further order dismissing ECNP Contentions 2-4, 2-7, 2-11, 2-13, 2-20, 2-26 and 2-28, on which Licensee's interrogatories are based.
Respectfully submittec, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:
' Robert E.
Zahler Dated:
August 25, 1980 i
l
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 Motion To Compel Response of ECNP to Emergency Planning Interrogatories" were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 25th day of August, 1980.
/
o Robert t/ Zanler j
Dated:
August 25, 1980 l
l
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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm' Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission
'Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atemic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Scard Panel Post Office Box 2357 881 Nest Guter Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W.
Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board i
Atomic Safety and Licensing of Commissioners l
Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 l
James R.
Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)
Kalter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C.
20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Office of the Secretary l
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.,n.
.-c~-
,--e
.------m
..,r.
- Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against Nucles T.M.I.
Steering Co:=nittee Energy 2320 North Second Street Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowit: & Adler Rchert Q. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Saltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Judith H. Johnsrud Scientists Environmental Coalition on Nuclea:
Har=on & Weiss Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 433 orlando Avenue Washington, D.C.
20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C.
Sholly Marvin I.
Lewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt Holly S. Keck R. D.
5 Legislation Chairman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 a
l i
r i
l i
e
-