ML20097E249
| ML20097E249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1984 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8409180132 | |
| Download: ML20097E249 (11) | |
Text
-
h]
Ssptcmber 13, 1984 4
37, 4,,
~
+a
,,u u iM(TED m~c u
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'84 gg3 77 P12:gS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart Remand on (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Management)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO TMIA'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO TMIA'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES I.
INTRODUCTION On July 31, 1984, Intervenor Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
(TMIA) filed its First Set of Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear Corporation and its First Request for Production.
Shortly thereafter, as a courtesy to TMIA and in the spirit of coopera-tion, Licer.see informed TMIA that it intended to request a pro-tective order with respect to a number of discovery requests as l
exceeding the scope of the remanded hearing, and that it was willing to discuss its objections.
To facilitate this discus-l sion, Licensee provided in advance of meeting with TMIA a draft l
of the protective order it intended to request.
8409180132 840913 PDR ADOCK 05000289 h
k G
PDR V
4 On August,13, 1984, Licensee and TMIA met to discuss Li-censee's objections, but were unable to reconcile their posi-tions as to scope.
However, Licensee and TMIA agreed to sever-al clarifications in TMIA's discovery request, to the mutual benefit of both parties.
On August 15, 1984, Licensee moved for a protective order limiting the scope of TMIA's discovery request, and for an ex-
' tension of time until September 4, 1984, to respond to TMIA's interrogatories.
On August 27 1984, the Licensing Board in-
~ formed Licensee that Licensee's request for an extension of time was granted.
On August 29, 1984, TMIA notified Licensee that it was repudiating the clarifications to which TMIA and Licensee had agreed.
On August 30, 1984, the Board held a conference call dur-
' ing which it discussed its tentative rulings on Licensee's mo-tion.
The Board ruled on Licensee's motion by Memorandum and Order dated August 31, 1984, and served on September 4, 1984.
On September 4, 1984, Licensee submitted its responses to TMIA's discovery requests, without benefit of the Licensing
' Board's Memorandum and Order.
Licensee indicated that supple-
)
mental responses were forthcoming.
On September 7, 1984, with an excess of invective, TMIA filed a Motion to Compel Responses to TMIA's First Set of In-
- terrogatolles and First Request for Production; Motion for Rea-sonable Attorney Fees and Costs Incurred in Bringing this m
Motion; and Motion for Three Week Extension of Discovery Peri-od.
As discussed below, Licensee submits that TMIA's motions are baseless and should be denied.
II.
TMIA'S MOTION TO COMPEL Despite Licensee's indication that it would promptly file supplemental responses, TMIA has filed a motion to compel re-sponses to those discovery requests covered by Licensee's re-quest for a protective order to the extent such request was de-nied by the Licensing Board.
No motion to compel is necessary.
Licensee has in fact already filed its supplemental responses.
TMIA's motion apparently also requests that Licensee be required to respond to nine discovery requests as originally phrased by TMIA.1/
The revisions which had been agreed upon 1/
TMIA's counsel withdrew its consent to the agreed revi-sions on August 29, two working days before Licensee's discovery responses were due.
In describing the reasons for withdrawing from the agreement, TMIA has made several misrepresentations.
First, TMIA claims that at the meet-ing on August 13 Licensee's counsel made a " promise to withdraw objections of overbreadth or burdensomeness."
Licensee made no such promise.
TMIA's counsel's represen-tation that a promise was made is not even consistent with her letter to Licensee's counsel dated August 29, 1984, which simply infers from the fact that agreement occurred that such a promise was implicit in the negotiations.
Secondly, TMIA's counsel misrepresents by omission the ex-tent to which Licensee retained the right to object to the revised discovery requests. Licensee's counsel advised TMIA's counsel on Augusa 21, 1984, that Licensee would make a good faith effort to answer the revised discovery requests and reserved only the right, in the event such effort did not prove to be wholly successful, to object to further efforts as burdensome and unreasonable..,
o were mostly for the purpose of clarifying (not as TMIA now claims, narrowing) the discovery requests to state more accu-rately what documents or information TMIA wished to have and to restate requests which, when read literally, called for docu-ments and information which were irrelevant to the issues in the proceeding even as those issues were conceived by TMIA.2/
2/
For example, TMIA's Document Request No. 7 and Interroga-tory No. 42 originally asked for documents relating to and a description of "any checks of plant conditions and/or containment after observance of the pressure spike...."
Checks of plant conditions, however, are still being made.
TMIA agreed that it was not interested in all checks of plant conditions to date, but rather in checks of such conditions made within four hours of the spike.
With respect to Interrogatory No. 2(c), TMIA original'y asked for the precise time each method of communication at TMI-2 was established.
Literally, this interrogatory asked for the date on which telephones were first in-stalled at TMI-2.
TMIA agreed that it was really inter-ested in learning when the methods of communication were first used on the day of the accident, and when any new methods or lines of communication were added during the accident.
Accordingly, the parties agreed on a reworded Interrogatory No. 2(c) and to similar changes in Interrog-atory Nos. 2(d), 2(g), and 2(h).
With respect to Interrogatory No. 2(f), TMIA asked for identification of all persons who learned of communica-tions that occurred on March 28, 1979.
Licensee indicated that because communications were discussed in great detail in a number of interviews and reports, a complete answer would call for the identification of everybody who had ever read such a report or transcript.
TMIA indicated that it was really interested in the identification of in-dividuals who overheard a communication or who learned of
-the communication directly from the participants.
Interrogatory Nos. 4-7 also addressed communications, were similar in form to Interrogatory No. 2, and were equally (Continucd next page) i e
I y.
-,w.
-c,r,----.,,,a.,-,
,---m.,,.,,.,,,,,
,,--,w-,,
y.m m
,,.-,---m,
,-.~,w-
(
To the extent that the information requested by TMIA's original discovery requests differs from the information requested by the revised versions, Licensee has expressly objected to the discovery requests as both irrelevant and unreasonably burden-some.
Licensee here repeats that objection.
It is impossible, however, for Licensee to respond further to TMIA's motion to compel without any identification by TMIA of the information responsive to the original discovery request which TMIA consid-ers relevant to the proceeding.
III.
TMIA'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TMIA also seeks an extension in the discovery period.
Li-censee would have no objection to such an extension to the ex-tent delays in its response to the TMIA discovery request has (Continued) unanswerable.
Accordingly, Licensee and TMIA agreed to approximately the same changes as applied to Interrogatory-No. 2.
In addition, TMIA asked that wherever one of these interrogatories asked about a " method" of communication, the interrogatory be broadened to address " methods or lines" of communication.
Licensee permitted this change.
Finally, with respect to Interrogatory No. 9, Licensee permitted correction of what TMIA advanced was an error on its part.
Interrogatory No. 9 asked about concern for the presence of hydrogen in the reactor, instead of in con-tainment.
Licensee accepted the correction.
TMIA also clarified that by the phrase " member of the emergency or-ganization" it was referring to members of the "think tank," and that it was only interested in such members' communications on March 28 through March 30, 1979.,s.-.+-
,.--se, m-,-a
-,-s,..m, 7.-.-,.
g_.-,9---m-9.,.mywa_.p a. y w,m
J actually impeded discovery and trial preparation by TMIA.
Li-censee notes, however, that TMIA has more than enough in the way of discovery to get started on any follow-up discovery ef-forts and has made no showing of prejudice due to the delays in certain discreet categories of discovery responses.
TMIA's counsel is disingenuous in stating that she expect-ed full responses by September 4 to all discovery requests cov-ered by Licensee's request for a protective order to the extent that request was denied by the Board.
Licensee's counsel in-formed TMIA's counsel at their meeting on August 13 that Li-censee estimated that full responses to all of the interrogato-ries would take from four to six months.
It was primarily for this reason that Licensee promptly sought a protective order instead of simply objecting to the interrogatories at the time responses were due, as it was entitled to do, and then subse-quently joining issue with any TMIA motion to compel.
It was unreasonable to expect that Licensee would undertake the mam-moth job of gathering all of the information requested by TMIA without a Board ruling on the proper scope of discovery.3/
3/
While TMIA had every reason to expect that Licensee would have to supplement its September 4 answers.to discovery requests to the extent the protective order was not granted, Licensee was perhaps mistaken in making the same assumptions as to the Board's expectations.
Licensee's counsel regrets his failure to advise the Board explicitly during the conference call on August 30 of Licensee's in-tent to supplement its September 4 responses to the extent required by the Board's ruling on the protective order.._ - -
TMIA's complaint as to the location of documents produced by Licensee is unwarranted and should not in itself be cause for an extension of the discovery period.
Contrary to TMIA's i
assertions, Licensee followed the same practice of producing documents for TMIA in the-Harrisburg area as it had throughout the TMI-l restart hearing and in the recent Steam Generator Re-pair hearing.
Licensee assumed that TMIA would as in the past use its members located in the Harrisburg area to review docu-ments.
TMIA's counsel has indeed new requested that documents relating to the training issue be produced in Harrisburg.
Even as to the documents relating to the mailgram issue, as late as September 7 Ms. Louise Bradford called Licensee's representa-tive to make arrangements to inspect the doctments in Harrisburg.
TMIA's counsel thus not only failed to advise Li-censee's counsel that TMIA wanted a change in past practices as to document location, but failed to advise TMIA members as well.
Licensee has acted promptly to bring the mailgram docu-ments to Washington on receipt of TMIA's request.
IV.
TMIA'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES Finally, TMIA's request for attorney's fees is frivolous.
There is no basis in Licensee's actions or the Commission's regulations warranting the granting _of attorney's fees.
Li-censee has made every attempt to cooperate with TMIA and accom-l modate its requests.
i l l I
,9-we-
-r--yw-r-m--
-gy--
e--
ww-w-a------w-wm-
--e----
,q-ep,
--ewseam---y--
-m-
V.
CONCLUSION For all of the reasons above, Licensee submits that TMIA's Motion to Compel, Motion for Attorney's Fees, and Motion for Extension of Discovery Period should be denied in toto.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
, s,-kh nw
'G@rge/F. Trowbridge, P C.
David R. Lewis Counsel for Licensee Dated: September 13, 1984
September 13, 1984 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 Remand (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
on Management)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
l' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Answer to TMIA's Motion to Compel Responses to TMIA's First Set of Inter-L rogatories," dated September 13, 1984, were served on those
. persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 13th day of September, 1984.
MAG au eorp F. Trowbridge,f.C.
1 Dated: September 13, 1984 7
w
-w--
p...--,y,
-w-,
,_,.,,-_,,,,.,,,w_
-,,,m,,,.,,.._,4,n.-,,,
,,,,w
,,w,,
my,,,,.m,w.,,,,_ww-.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.In the Matter
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart Remand on Management)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Buck Washington,.D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington,-D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge James K. Asselstine, Commissione7 Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D. C.
20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Lando W.
Zeck, Jr., Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Eafety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Washington, D.C.
20555 L
Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D.
Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C.
20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Office of the Secretary R.D.
5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety & Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.
20555 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20002 Washington, D.C.
20555 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
G V'r ment 'ccountability Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq. (4) r Office of the Executive Legal 1555 Connecticut Avenue U.S Nuc ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20009 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Thomas Y. Au, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.,
Suite 430 Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.
20009 Department of Environmental Resources Michael F. McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael W.
Maupin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212
-. -.. - - -