ML20236T144

Documents 871005,1113 & 1119 Telcons Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Suggestion That Recipient Be Permitted to Amend Proposed Contentions Before 871208 Prehearing Conference Will Be Opposed.Svc List Encl

ML20236T144
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/23/1987
From:	Baxter T GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Skolnick F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
CON-#487-4921 OLA, NUDOCS 8712010042
Download: ML20236T144 (4)

Text

_ - _ -_ _ _ _ - _ __ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _- - - ____- _ _- _

h as $92/ }

4 SHAW. PITTMAN, PoTTs & TRd@{fbGE A PARTNERSHIP lNCLUOfNG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2300 N STREET. N. W.

. asusAv O. PovTs. P c.

WASHINGTON. O. C. 2003 g g gj g JAuEs e MAMLIN. P C. GEORGE F. TROwBRIDGE

^ #

N N O. mons."e - e sCYr[CusNRYJi.. '"**D '*"""

GERALO CMARNorF, P.C. RICMARO s. mEATTy JCMM r."DEALY88

- %"#,Mv"?N*s"#C? *a"n*,"

, "C"".ll* c. OFFICE UT SECRfIAt Y Ro**R','go n . .I

1. f"i'L T0*E"C' ""' "* *- "?#N " L C"I.'"!: C P C. 00CKETING ). SE%10f. ,,,,,,, , ,AL,,.

• BRANCH i?fu"E"."MJA^t..M"e'C. - "'A?' 3 .","T"A'"E.'s'";ft. e.e. COwN.EL A IN O M LL F J NM O LL JR P.CI VIRGINIA OrriCE e RSA M . SSOTTI PC. FERY . An'L N', b.C. d RE R P C, '. O M CsE gRmEST L 36Ang, JR.. P C. . PAUL F. MICREY. JR. TELECOPIER RL'A?". t#"A*/C.* ".?O"",h **"A&N. *

• 2'$~275o ' '28 375'

)

t #CK 4 CMEY PC I J. CV ON TELE AskE

".C?".';'"T"E'IfC? 2"',t's'Z'M.** *

• z e

• 2 *"a*'* * ** ~)

'J MN L. P C .

OTT A ANE DeSE RG

- *A"Ei."*/

, a*,"3 '" " * * * '!"E "A.t".?a" "

2;'t"A" *: !.*u""3R" fe. Lt"'"2P ****O"R. JR.

WINTMROP N. SHOWN. P.C. ALLEN J. MLEIN

!jd' 5351'(( (202) 663-8090 i

November 23, 1987  !

Ms. Frances Skolnick 2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 In the Matter of GPU Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)

Docket No. 50-320-OLA (Disposal of Accident-Generated Water)

Dear Ms. Skolnick:

This will document, for the record, what I view to be the significance of our several telephone conversations about this proceeding.

On October 5, I initiated a series of telephone discussions with you, as.the representative of SVA and TMIA. My purpose was to convince you (and others of your organizations, at your option) to sit down with me, at a convenient location in your neighborhood, to discuss informally the issues you wish to adju-  ;

dicate in the proceeding. I explained that in the interest of '

expedition, which is very important to my client (and which I 8712010042 871123 gDR ADOCK 05000320 PDR 6

Y- - - - - -

I I

l SH AW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE l

.v~c m i cwo,~o orcss,em coa.oa4rio~s i

Ms. Frances Skolnick November 23, 1987 Page 2 l

also believe to be in the public interest), I was interested in discussing your draft of proposed contentions to see if we could work out language acceptable to both sides. If successful, the discussions would have resulted in a stipulation between GPU l Nuclear and your organizations on the contentions to be admitted in the proceeding. We then would have invited the NRC Staff and the Commonwealth to consider joining in the stipulation, and l would have filed it with the the Licensing Board in lieu of your unilateral filing due on October 30. My client was prepared to begin discovery as soon as we reached agreement on the issues.

Over the next several weeks, while you considered my meeting proposal and discussed it with others, I telephoned several times to check on your progress in identifying the subjects for your proposed contentions. We agreed that any meeting would not be productive until you had at least sketched out your ideas. Even-tually, as the October 30 filing date grew nearer, you responded to one of my calls with the announcement that you did not want to have a meeting before filing the proposed contentions. You left open the possibility of getting together after you made the fil-ing.

I telephoned on November 13 to advise you of our filing in response to the proposed contentions, and once more to urge a meeting. I indicated that while some of our objections went to the scope of the proceeding, most of them centered on the absence of specificity and detail. I explained that it could still be very fruitful to attempt to agree upon amendments to the conten-tions which would meet my objections as to specificity and still place before the Licensing Board the issues which you wish to have decided. I also proposed that we discuss a schedule for  :

further events in the proceeding. Again, I indicated that if we  !

could agree, a written stipulation could be presented to the Li-censing Board before or at the December 8 prehearing conference.

You indicated a desire to receive and review the responsive filings before deciding whether or not to meet with me. I reached you by telephone again on November 19 (while I was in Harrisburg on business). You informed me that you would not agree to a meeting. The only reason you offered is your tight schedule.

e' ' SHAw, PITTMAN, POTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNER $MIP DNCLUDING PaortsSIONAL CO9pCRATIONS Ms. Frances Skolnick November. 23, 1987 Page'3

)

Your. refusal to meet informally to plan for this case and to explore potential areas of agree:nent is unprecedented in my expe-rience with interveners in NRC proceedings. (It is also incon-sistent with my firm's experience with TMIA in the TMI-l proceed-ings.)

This proceeding will delay-disposal of the accident-gener-ated water, which in turn will delay completion of the TMI-2 cleanup. Consequently, we must urge that the proceeding be con-ducted expeditiously. You have refused my sincere offers first to advise you in advance of our positions on draft contentions '

and to explore acceptable compromise language, and second_to ex- 4 plore amendments to your filed contentions which would both meet our objections and' preserve the concerns your organizations wish to be heard. Because you have declined these opportunities, we will vigorously oppose any suggestion that you should be afforded an opportunity during or following the December 8 prehearing con-ference to amend your proposed contentions. Such a delay in the l progress of the proceeding would be unfair to Licensee and would serve to reward your approach to date, which has been aimed ap-parently at delay for its own sake.

Sincerely, m .

Thomas A. Baxter Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation TAB:jah cc: Service List attached l

.- .A

• [  ; _3 .

, . ~

m_____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ ._

)

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA

) (Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)

Station, Unit 2) )

SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire John F. McKinstry, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Environmental Board Panel Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C. 20555 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Ms. Frances Skolnick Atomic Safety and Licensing 2079 New Danville Pike Board Panel Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. William D. Travers Washington, D.C. 20555 Director, Three Mile Island Cleanup Project Directorate Dr. Oscar H. Paris P.O. Box 311 Atomic Safety and Licensing Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 2GJ55 Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Services Branch Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _-_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --