ML20235R495
| ML20235R495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1987 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4531 86-534-01-OL, 86-534-1-OL, CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8710080073 | |
| Download: ML20235R495 (3) | |
Text
_ __ ___ _ _____
. V53/
i SeLMETED ALJ 10/2/81NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W E 4 E. 2 5
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f94ISSION SFFich+TMG CVJVfb3 M +ict m BSCH r'
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 8 RANCH Ivan W. Smith
.i I
SERVED OCT -51987 1
I In the Matter of Docket No. 50-320 General Public Utilities Nuclear License No. DPR-73 l
Corporation EA 84-137 4
[ASLBPNo. 86-534-01-0L]
(Three Mile Island, Unit No. 2)
(Civil Penalty)
October 2, 1987 ORDER DIRECTING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS This $64,000 civil penalty proceeding is based upon a straightforward four-count allegation that GPU Nuclear discriminated against Richard Parks in 1983 in violation of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Discovery began more than a year ago and has raged on ever since. Dozens of prospective witnesses have been deposed, several rounds of interrogatories were exchanged and many documents produced. The NRC Staff has requested more than one hundred admissions of fact which have been answered, albeit not to the Staff's satisfaction. Much of this discovery has been punctuated by unusual contention and disputation as the adversaries become increasingly wary of each other.
Each party by now must be saturated with infonnation about the other's case.
Yet this information has not led to any agreements gA* R88R B B88 b pw eo" o
L-1
) I between them or to any simplification of issues. To the contrary, discovery seems to have expanded the areas of dispute and the litigation gathers energy as it proceeds. The parties are no closer to an evidentiary hearing than they thought they were at the outset of discovery in July 1986. During the prehearing conference on September 30(setsomewhatnaivelywiththethoughtthatthematteris now ripe for hearing), it became apparent that the parties cannot agree l
l upon anything but the most simple and uncontrovertible matters. Despite my repeated requests,~ the parties have not been able to stipulate reasonably.
l The proceeding to date has been costly, both to the public and to the Licensee. Possibly the major costs have yet to be incurred. The best estimate for the evidentiary hearing exceeds thirty hearing days.
In addition, there will be trial preparation, post-hearing briefing and, almost inevitably, appeals. Meanwhile the evidence is growing stale.
The costs and the strain on scarce public resources seem to be disproportionate to the benefit one might expect from a fully litigated resolution of this dispute. A serious effort to settle the matter needs l
to be made.
Accordingly, I direct the parties to enter into settlement negotiations forthwith. Counsel shall have full authority to settle the matter, bring a client / official with such authority to the negotiations, or have constant and ready access to such an official.
No later than October 16, 1987, the parties shall submit a report on their negotiations. The parties may also request a settlement i
1
---______a
2 1 conference at any time.
If there is no settlement agreement as a result of the negotiations, a settlement conference will be set -- probably for Ottober 21, 1987.
In the meantime, the proceeding is suspended except for the few items of discovery previously planned and the inquiry into Mr. Hofmann's affidavit approved at the September 30 prehearing conference.
/8A 4i "Ivan W. Smith" ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland October 2, 1987
- _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _