ML20002C921
| ML20002C921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1981 |
| From: | Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101120437 | |
| Download: ML20002C921 (8) | |
Text
'
Lic 1/5/81 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD...y' N
k m
it In the Matter of
)
'h I
Ct.,,' Se a, 19 9
)
C dk Ak METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart) e[, # 5 by [D (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
/ g g.
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS INCLUDED IN ECNP FILING DATED DECEMBER 15, 1980 The Board's " Order To Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power," dated December 4, 198 0, directed ECNP "to report on or before December 15, 1980 whether or not it intends to appear and to prosecute its remaining contentions."
The " Response of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power To Board Memoranda and Orders of November 25, December 4 and 11, 1980," dated December 15, 1980 and postmarked December 16, 1980, stated that ECNP " intends to litigate its contentions on emergency response and evacuation planning to the fullest extent possible."~1/ ECNP's l_/
Notw:Lthstanding the Board's December 4, 1980 directive to ECNP to report whether it " intends to appear and to prosecute its remaining contentions," ECNP's filing dated December 15 states only that ECNP intends to prosecute its remaining emergency planning contentions.
ECNP failed to report whether it intended to prosecute its Contentions.4(b) and 4 (c), which are not emergency planning contentions, though the Board warned that such a failure to report would be construed as an indication that ECNP would not prosecute those contentions.
Licensee notes that, due to a typographical error, the Board's December 4 Order refers to Contentions 4(a) and 4 (b) as surviving contentions when, in fact, Contentions 4 (b) and 4 (c) survive.
ECNP Contentions 4(a) and 4 (d) were rejected in the First Special Prehearing Conference Order (12/18/79), at pp. 40-41.
ECNP Contention 6, also referred to in the Board's December 4 Order, was a psychological distress contention.
'""437 8'
' Response further included, inter alia, three requests for relief.
The Board ruled, in a discussion of procedural matters at the December 22, 1980 hearing session, that the Board would consider the requests as motions.
Licensee here responds to the motions included in the ECNP filing dated December 15, 1980.
ECNP first requests the Board to order the Staff to serve NUREG-0654 (Rev. 1) on ECNP.
The Staff originally served NUREG-0654 (Rev. 1) on the parties to this proceeding on November 10, 1980.
See Letter from Joseph R.
- Gray, Counsel for NRC Staff, to Members of Licensing Board (November 10, 1980).
The Staff later personally served ECNP's representative with a copy of the document on December 19, 1980.
Accord'ingly, as the Board observed in its December 22 discussion of ECNP's filing, ECNP's first request for relief is moot.
ECNP further moves that the Board grant ECNP "a reasonable extension of time following receipt of NUREG-0654 to compare it with NUREG-0746 and to formulate and submit any discovery requests that map " result from the perusal."
Licensee opposes ECNP's motion for an extension of time for discovery on emergency 1
planning issues.
Notwithstanding ECNP's representation that l
it had not, as of December 15, 1980, received a copy of NUREG-0654 l,
(Rev. 1), the record in this proceeding shows that the Staff served
[
- copies of that document on all parties to this proceeding on November +10, 1980.
To Licensee's knowledge no other party failed to receive that mailing.
Moreover, NUREG-0654 (Rev. 1) was discussed at the October 30, 1980 hearing session on emergency planning matters.
Therefore, even if ECNP had not been served with the document in early November, ECNP was aware of the existence of the document by October 30 at the latest, and was obligated to promptly request a copy if it considered the document important to the preparation of its case on emergency planning issues.
At a minimum, ECNP could have requested a copy of e
NUREG-0654 (Rev. 1) when Staff counsel contacted ECNP by telephone on or about December 11, 1980, to inform ECNP of a change in the time of the December 19 meeting.
Had ECNP promptly requested a copy by telephone, ECNP's asserted interests could have been accommodated with little or no delay in the discovery schedule set forth in the Board's December 11, 1980 " Memorandum and Order."
Moreover, ECNP has never particularized how the revised information in NUREG-0654 would assist it in framing discovery on NUREG-0746.
At this late I
date, ECNP s belated, open-ended request for relief would so prejudice the scheduling of emergency planning matters in this
proceeding that it should not be granted in the absence of adequate justification for the request, not present 2/
here.
Finally, ECNP's filing dated December 15, 1980 states:
(T]here may be a certain futility for all intervenors in pursuing contentions on emergency response and evacuation planning before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that has disqualified itself to hear these issues (Tr. 4512-14).
ECNP's revised emergency planning contentions * *
- should be reconsidered and readmitted by an ASLB that believes itself to be competent to hear and decide these issues.
The Boa'rd indicated, in its December 22 discussion of ECNP's filing dated December 15, that it would treat _this__part_of_ ____
ECNP's Response as a motion to disqualify the Board.
Licensee opposes this request by ECNP for relief as frivolous.
ECNP has simply misconstrued the discussion which is recorded at Tr. 4511 ff. (October 31, 1980), on which ECNP bases its request for relief.
The Board there neither " disqualified itself" to i
hear emergency planning issues nor suggested in any way that it was not " competent to hear and decide" emergency planning issues.
2/
ECNP's meritless request for an extension of time for discovery on emergency planning issues is particularly disingenuous in light of ECNP's repeated failures to respond to discovery requests by other parties.
- See, e.g.,
" Memorandum and Order on Licensee's Motion To Compel Discovery of ECNP" (4/11/8 0) ; " Memorandum and Order on Licensee's Motion For Sanctions Against Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power" (6/12/80); " Memorandum and Order Granting Licensee's Motion To Compel ECNP Response To Emergency Planning Interrogatories" (9/12/80); and " Memorandum and Order on Revised Emergency Planning Contentions" (11/12/80), at pp.13-16.
l l
Rather, the Board suggested to Staff counsel that informal meetings among parties interested in emergency planning issues and representatives of county, state and federal emergency planning organizations might lead to the substantive resolution of some intervenors' concerns outside the formal strictures of the hearing process.
Moreover, contrary to the implication of ECNP 's argument, there is no requirement that a Board have any special expertise in the matters which it hears and on which it rules.
Certainly, the lack of such expertise is not a valid basis for disqualification.
See Dairyland Pcwer Coocerative (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor), ALAB-614, 12 N.R.C.
347, 348-49 (1980).
In civil proceedings in state and federal courts, judges routinely hear and rule on a broad spectrum of technical matters which are utterly foreign to them until they are " educated" by the parties to the proceedings.
Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above, Licensee opposes the motions included in ECNP's filing dated December 15, 1980.
Respectfully submitted, l
SEAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:
i
(~ Robert E.
Zahler 8
l Dated:
January 5, 1981 l
l i
l l
January 5, 1981 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)
)
I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response
~
l To Motions ' Included In ECNP Filing Dated December 15, 1980" l
were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage, prepaid, this 5th day of Januar, 1981.
' K6bert E.
Za r
T Dated:
January 5, 1981 l
l 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) l (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W.
Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esquire Assistant Counsel Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm' Post Office Box 3265 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washingtr-G.C.
20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Jordan Dr. Wal a.
505 Executive House Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 2357 Board Panel 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E. Minnich Chairman, Dauphin County Board Dr. Linda W.
Little of Commissioners Atomic Safety and Licensing Dauphin County Courthouse Board Panel Front and Market Streets 5000 Hermitage Drive 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 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Washington, D.C.
20555 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
, Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Fox, Farr & Cunningham Harmon & Weiss 2320 North Second Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Washington, D.C.
20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Robert Q. Pollard Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler 609 Mor.tpelier Street Post Office Box 1547 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Chauncey Kepford Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Judith H. Johnsrud Harmon & Weiss Environmental Coalition on Nucle:
1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 206 Power Washington, D.C.
20006 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 168c Steven C. Shelly 304 South Market Street Marvin I. Lewis Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1914:
Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt ANGRY R. D.
5 245 West Philadelchia Street
~
Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 York, Pennsylvania 17404 Attorney General of New Jersey Attention: Thomas J. Germine, Esc Deputy Attorney General Division of Law - Room 316 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07102
_ _ -.