ML20093M504
| ML20093M504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1984 |
| From: | Bernabei L, Doroshow J, Nernabei L CHRISTIC INSTITUTE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093M499 | List: |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8410220185 | |
| Download: ML20093M504 (4) | |
Text
e TMIA - 10/17/84 V?
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORi 00MMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- '.FE TED COggf.S?O,3,0-g333c In the Matter of
)
BIN gD
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY )
14 NH 22 A11:13
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Docket No. 50-28 9 ' SP ;q_, In(( 'f gy;-
_,,.;.3 Station, Unit No. 1)
)
(Restart - Managemen(lt Ph&ReEH y:
)
)
THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No.1 Three Mile Island Alert
(" TMI A" ) objects to production of information responsive to this interrogatory in that it requests information that is not relevant to the issues in this proceed-ing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
TMIA and Licensee have entered into a stipulation, which has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" )
Staff and this Board concerning the Report prepared by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs entitled "Re-porting of Information Concerning the Accident at Three Mile Island" (March 1981) ("Udall Report").
In the Mailgram Stipulation the parties agree that certain reports and inter-views conducted in the course of those reports will be admit-ted into evidence and the Board may give the reports and inter-views such weight as it determines they deserve.
The parties' also agree in tdue stipulation that tha testimony of Henry Myers, proposed as a witness by TMIA, will not be heard and that interrogatories inquiring into his testimony and his investi-8410220185 841017 PDR ADOCK 05000289
,s.
0 PDR
r,
_2-gation wo'uld be withdrawn.
Now Licensee attempts to circumvent this stipulation by inquiring once again-into the Udall Report and the investiga-
- r. ion which led to the Udall Report.
TMIA believes that licen-see's attempted discovery is in violation of the clear intent and spirit of the stipulation which was intended in part to avoid problems in discovering information from the Congres-sional branch of the government.
Licensee as well as TMIA was informed by the chief counsel for the House of Representatives that it could not provide information or testimony regarding the internal processes of the House or House Staff, including evidence about the method by which the Udall Report was com-piled.
Given that representation, licensee chose to enter in-to a stipulation which admits into evidence the Udall Report.
Now licensee is attempting to circumvent that stipulation and ask new discovery questions about the Udall Report.
Secondly, the information requested by licensee is not relevant to this proceeding.
This hearing is not intended to focus on the adequacy of all investigations into the TMI Ac-cident which led to NUREG-0500 nor the adequacy of the other
~
investigations such as the Senate investigation, the Special Inquiry Group investigation, or the Kemeny Commission investi-gation. -All these investigative reports and the interviews underlying these investigations, are included within the Mail-gram Stipulation.
Given that fact TMIA does not believe dis-2 covery on these investigations, investigative reports or the i
l underlying interviews would produce information r~elevant~to t
(
l l%
E#
_3_
this proceeding.
Although evidence concerning the manner in which these investigations were conducted may provide the Board with some marginally useful information about the weight it should give to individual interviews, TMIA believes the mini-mal assistance to the Board such evidence would provide is out-weighed by the collateral broadening of this hearing.1 TMIA believes that in this event discovery on the reports, investi-gations and interviews underlying the investigations is outweighed by the burden to the parties and to this Board, and unduly expensive and burdensome.
See Rule 26 (b) (1), Fed.
R.Civ.P.
Respectfully submitted,
/ /*w krA" Lyn,np Bernabei Goternment Accountability Projec.
Dated:
October 17, 1984 1555 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Suite 202 Washington, D.C.
20036 3
Telephone:
202/232-8550
)C Mw T,d d
A_
Joanne Doroshow The Christic Institute 1234 North Capital Street Washington, D.C.
20002 Telephone:
202/797-8106 The NRC Staff has stated that it will' present the testi-mony of Mr. Moseley on this issue.
After the Staff announced that it would call Mr. Moseley, TMIA announced that it would call as a witness Mr. Gamble, who participated in the investi-gation and in the writing of the NRC Staff Report into licen-l see's reporting failures, NUREG-0760.
Therefore, TMIA believes that NUREG-0760 stands on a _ different footing than the other reports included within the Mailgram Stipulation in that the m,
,1w
~V; s
1 (Footnote 1, continued)
NRC Staff has stated that through its presentation of Mr.
Moseley's testimony it intends to make its report, NUREG-0760, an issue in this proceeding.
NUREG-0760 is already admitted into evidence in this preceeding and is included once again within the Mailgram Stipulation as evidence to be admitted in this proceeding and to be given such weight as this Licensing Board believes appropriate.
+..
-- -