ML20235H691
| ML20235H691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1987 |
| From: | Jim Hickey GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4488, CON-#487-4488 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8710010140 | |
| Download: ML20235H691 (2) | |
Text
_
i 44ff 1
setvuu SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBMIDGE A PARTf4ER$mP INCLUDeNG PROFES$1CNAL CORPORATIONS
...ee '2 f."!.**ff....o
.3ei',"A lRfo',1.
,..=N,
~ =:=:~
i g!g(sf a cg.g-teori esse,os gg rzez) aza 27eo s aza 3,.,
- s. emmen mcxcy. p.c.
September 28, 1987 BY MESSENGER Ivan W.
Smith, Esq.
Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of GPU Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclea Station, Unit 2 50-320;EA 84-137 -04 P(E Docket No.
Dear Judge Smith:
This will confirm the information we gave your office on Friday, September 25, that the only motion presently pending is the NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order (filed September 4, 1987).
However, for planning the schedule, we wish to advise you, and by copy of this letter the staff, of our intent to file on behalf of the licensee a Motion for Summary Disposition with regard ;o Issue No. 3 of your Order of August 13,- 1986 relating to the interview of Mr. Parks concerning his Quiltec activities by Me.asrs. Hofmann and Wheeler on March 14, 1983.
We request that Octeber 30 be approved as the date for filing that motion.
To facilitate the discussion of the agenda items contained in your Memorandum and Order of September 3, we also wish to bring to your attention that we intend to propose at the Prehearing Conference on Wednesday that prefiled testimony on be-half of the licensee should not be required, or if it is, should be submitted only at the conclusion of the staff's case.
While we will be prepared to discuss this in more detail at the confer-ence, the substance of our position is that since the burden of proof concededly rests on the staff under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.732, and since the licensee has no obligation to present evidence unless and until the staff offers sufficient evidence to support, under the applicable legal standard, findings that the alleged viola-tions occurred, prefiled testimony should not be required from o
()b
I l
. SH AW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARThgggeesp INCLUDING PnorE65+0NAL CCaponAtiONS Ivan W.
Smith, Esq.
September 28, 1987 Page 2 1
the licensee.
See also 10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(b), making the submis-sion of testimony in written form inapplicable to proceedings under Subpart B.
While this regulation expressly applies to pro-ceedings for modification, suspension or revocation'of a license, we believe it also provides the appropriate procedure for civil penalty proceedings as well.
We would of course continue to par-ticipate in the preparation of stipulated f;;ts, including the
" cast of characters" you have requested.
We would also be pleased to submit, if you desire, a trial brief summarizing our view of the expected evidence and the conclusions to be drawn, but would feel that such a brief, like proposed cross-examination plans, should not be served on the parties until the close of the hearing.
l Respectfully, M
f' J.
Patrick Hickey Counsel for GPUN cc:
George E. Johnson, Esq. (via messenger)
Service List 1
l j
1 l