ML20097D125

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion to Set Discovery & Hearing Schedule & to Lift Stay on TMI-1 Leak Rate Falsification Issue.Related Correspondence
ML20097D125
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/11/1984
From: Bernabei L, Doroshow J
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20097D126 List:
References
SP, NUDOCS 8409170390
Download: ML20097D125 (5)
v • d • e


Text

gg . .- -. ..: ~ )

.}' RELATED COE,ISPONDENCE' TMIA - 9/11/84 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . y, g

. . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'y gc" Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

'84 Stf14 89:31 .

In the:Mattef of ) , _. ,

. - ) i~ i .~I',ud'I H .K

-METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY )  % ANCH

)'

-(Three Mile Island Nuclear- ) Docket No. 50-289 SP Station, Unit No. 1) ) (Rest, art - Management Phase)

THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT'S MOTION TO SET DISCOVERY AND HEARING SCHEDULE AND TO LIFT STAY ON TMI-L LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION ISSUE

~

~

.TMIA requests that-this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licen-cing Board") ' set a discovery and hearing schedule for the two issues of the Hartman' allegations of falsification of leak rate data for TMI-2,

.cnd the' alleged falsification of leak rate data for TMI-1.

TMIA further requests a lengthening-of the discovery period for the two issues currently being litigated and a continuation of the

' hearing date.

. Finally, TMIA formally requests that the Board lift the stay it has imposed on litigation of TMI-l leak rate data falsification.

I ~ BACKGROUND.

lon September 7, 1984, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Com-mission") announced it would take review of both Appeal Board decisions which' reopened the record on licensee General Public Utilities Nuclear's

("GPU") management integrity, ALAB-738 and ALAB-772. On August 31, 1983,

'the Atomic Safety and. Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") reopened the record .?in ALAB-738 on _ the "Hartman allegations" of falsified leak rates for TMI-2. On May 24,.1984, the Appeal Board in ALAB-772 re-opened the record on'three' issues: (1) the Dieckamp mailgram; (2) train-ing; and (3) alleged falsification of leak rate' data for TMI-1.1

~

8409170390 840911 PDR ADOCK 05000289 DS$

.-.i. -

c -

. s. . .

a l On September 7, 1984, Chairman Nunzio Palladino stated that he predicted the Commission woul'd require'threeto five' months to complete its review of the.two Appeal Board dscisions and reach a final de- _

cision. In the me'antime'the' Commission ruled the hearing should go for-

. ward on the'four issues on which the Appeal Board had ordered hearings.

In su) ruling, - the Commission effectively granted TMIA's motion to lif t

the stay on:the "Hartman allegations."

Currently pending before this Board is TMIA's motion for exten-nion of time of the discovery period and continuation of the hearing date for the two issues of training and the Dieckamp mailgram.

II THE COMMISSION'S DECISION MANDATES LIFTING OF THE LICENSING

, BOARD'S STAY ON THE ISSUE OF FALSIFICATION OF LEAK RATE DATE FOR TMI-1.

This Board based its stay of litigation of the alleged falsifica-

-tion of TMI-l leak rate data on the Commission stay of the Hartman al-legations and the Appeal Board's dicta that the'two issues should be heard together. ALAB-772 at 154.- Both cases have been removed by the Commission's decision of September 7, 1984. The Commission lifted the stay on the Hartman allegations. 'Therefore the hearing is to go forward on this issue immediately. The Appeal Board dicta suggesting that both l Ileak' rate data issues should be heard together require this Board to l lift its stay _of the second leak' rate issue concerning Unit 1.

Since it is likely that some witnesses will be knowledgeable about both issues and that testimony on the issues will overlap, it will be

-more expeditious to litigate the two issues together. Therefore, con ,

1 cidering the Commission's decision on September 7, the Appeal Board's i

i On October 7,1983 'the Commission stayed litigation cf the Hartman. allegations.- On July 9, 1984, in its Memorandum and Order  :

Following Prehea~ ring Conference, this Board, believing the two issues I should.be heard together, stayed litigation of the' issue'of falsifica-

' tion of'TMI-1, leak rate data. Memorandum and Order, at 7.

_ l

F+ . . .

dicta, and the . convenience of the par' ties, TMIA requests that the Li-

, censing Board lift.its stay on the TMI-l leak rate falsification issue.

g III- ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW INTEGRATED DISCOVERY AND HEARING SCHEDULE FOR ALL FOUR ISSUES.

TMIA requests this Board establish a new discovery and hearing schedule ~for all four' issues currently before it in reopened management

-integrity' hearings. Establishment of a single and coordinated sche-dule for' discovery and hearing of all four issues will alleviate the

~ burden on all parties and ti e Board of preparing simultaneously for dis-covery and hearing on four different issues, and will resolve the. cur-

' rent discovery disputes between the parties. Specifically TMIA recom-mends-the following discovery and hearing schedule for all four issues currently before this Board:

(1) The discovery period for all issues be extended to "

December 31, 1984, (2) Prefiled testimony on all issues be filed by January 14, 1985, (3) Hearing on all four issues should begin on February 6, 1985 and continue until hearing on_all issues is completed. 2-Moreover, currently pending before this Board is TMIA's motion to compel responses to its First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production and TMIA's Motion for an extension of the discovery per-

..iod in light of GPU's continuing obstruction of TMIA's legitimate dis-covery requests. TMIA counsel, at the date of writing this motion has not had any opportunity to review the documents GPU has agreed to pro-duce ~in response to TMIA's First Request for Production, since these documents were only recently relocated to Washington. Further, as  ;;

2 If the Commission should determine that litigation of any one of the four issues is not required through its review of the two Appeal Board decisions, all parties and this Board would be relieved of the burden of hearings on those issues.

y i -

-" . Otated in TMIA's Motion to Compel, GPU has effectively failed to respond to a number of interrogatories except by reference to documents to which TMIA counsel had had no access up to this point.  !'

GPU has further failed to answer in any manner a large number of interrogatories which-this Board, in its August 30, 1984 order ruled GPU was obligated to answer. (The Board denied GPU's Motion for Protective Order regarding these interrogatories.) GPU's failure to answer these interrogatories or to. request any further extension of time to respond is in direct violation of this Board's August 30, 1984 order.

By-September 11, 1984, TMIA has yet to receive any response to j its First Request'for Production to GPU or a majority of its interroga-

' tories in its First Set of Interrogatories to GPU. As stated in its motion, T'IA M believes that GPU has thereby prejudiced TMIA's preparation for depositions currently scheduled to proceed beginning on Se"ptember 19, I

I 1984.

If this Board were to establish.a single schedule for discovery and hearing on the four; issues in these reopened hearings it would ef-fectively extend the discovery period for the training and Dieckamp mailgram' issues.' In this way it would prevent serious prejudice to TMIA's preparation:and give all parties adequate time for discovery and prepar-ation of their cases.

'It is clear that no party, including GPU has the resources to pro-ceed with discovery on two new issues and prepare adequately for the

-hearings currently scheduled to begin in November. GPU has requested and been granted extensions of time to respond to TMIA's discovery re-: .

quests on the training and Dieckamp mailgram issues. Even with these extensions,-GPU was unable to answer a large number of interrogatories.

L Further, GPU has admitted that responding to TMIA's discovery requests

. e. ,

has consumed a large amatut of time on the part of GPU attorneys and GPU management. See Licensee's Response to Three Mile Island Alert's First #

Set of Inter'rogatories and First Request for Production (September 4, 1984), at 2-3.

IV CONCLUSION.

In consideration of the foregoing arguments, TMIA requests that this Board lift its stay on the alleged falsification of leak rate data for TMI-l and set a schedule for litigation of the four issues currently admitted in these reopened management integrity hearings as recommended above by TMIA.

Respectfully submitted, i

hh Joanne Doroshow M NbW b The Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: 202/797-8106

/M nd L gn'e Bernabei G9ve nment Accountability Project 55 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Ite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: 202/232-8550 DATED: September 11, 1984 Attorneys for Three Mile Island Alert u

- - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20097D125&oldid=2782420"