ML19316B191: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _        _              _ _ _ _ _      _ _ _ _
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _
A Lic 5/12/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                       g In the Matter of DOCKETED                g
A Lic 5/12/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
                                        )                                     USNRC
DOCKETED g
                                        )                       9                                   "
In the Matter of
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY       )   Docket No. 50-289   b     MAY 13 IO8D                   T2
)
                                        )       (Restart)     k O!!ite of the Secretary           -
USNRC
(Three Mile Island Nuclear       )                             Olfrbch Station, Unit No. 1)             )
)
7            i i
9 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
g             9 LICENSEE'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF CEA On January 18, 1980, Licensee served upon Chesapeake i     Energy Alliance, Inc. ("CEA") a first set of interrogatories.                                       j l
)
On March 17, 1980, CEA filed a document entitled "CEA's Response To Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories."       Most of CEA's March 17 responses were insufficient, incomplete, or unresponsive.
Docket No. 50-289 b
CEA filed no response whatsoever to some of Licensee's interrogatories.                             l Accordingly, on March 31, 1980,. Licensee moved the Board for an order compelling CEA to respond fully to Interrogatories 5-1 proper, 5-1(a) , ~ 5-1(b) , 5-1(c), 5-2, 5-3 proper, 5-3(a), 5-3(b), 5-3(c),
MAY 13 IO8D T2
5-4, 5-5, 6-l' proper, 6-1 (b) , 6-1 (c) , 6-1(d), 6-2, 6-3(b), 6-3(c),
)
i-     7-1 proper, 7-1 (a) , 7-1(b), 7-1(c) , 7-1(d), 7-2 proper, 7-2(a),
(Restart) k O!!ite of the Secretary (Three Mile Island Nuclear
;      7-2 (b) , 7-2(c), 7-2(d), 8-1 proper, 8-1(a), 8-1(b), 8-1(c), 12-2,.
)
12-3 and 12-4. CEA did not respond to the motion to compel.
Olfrbch 7
i Station, Unit No. 1)
)
i 9
g LICENSEE'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF CEA On January 18, 1980, Licensee served upon Chesapeake i
Energy Alliance, Inc. ("CEA") a first set of interrogatories.
j l
On March 17, 1980, CEA filed a document entitled "CEA's Response To Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories."
Most of CEA's March 17 responses were insufficient, incomplete, or unresponsive.
CEA filed no response whatsoever to some of Licensee's interrogatories.
Accordingly, on March 31, 1980,. Licensee moved the Board for an order compelling CEA to respond fully to Interrogatories 5-1 proper, 5-1(a), ~ 5-1(b), 5-1(c), 5-2, 5-3 proper, 5-3(a), 5-3(b), 5-3(c),
5-4, 5-5, 6-l' proper, 6-1 (b), 6-1 (c), 6-1(d),
6-2, 6-3(b), 6-3(c),
i-7-1 proper, 7-1 (a), 7-1(b), 7-1(c), 7-1(d), 7-2 proper, 7-2(a),
7-2 (b), 7-2(c), 7-2(d), 8-1 proper, 8-1(a), 8-1(b), 8-1(c), 12-2,.
12-3 and 12-4.
CEA did not respond to the motion to compel.
800e1206)6
800e1206)6


e e-In its " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion To Compel Discovery of CEA" (April 16, 1980), the Board found that 4
e e-
. In its " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion To Compel Discovery of CEA" (April 16, 1980), the Board found that 4
each of Licensee's interrogatories to CEA "is relevant to the proceeding and * *
each of Licensee's interrogatories to CEA "is relevant to the proceeding and * *
* appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" (slip op. at 1-2), and i
* appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" (slip op. at 1-2), and i
directed CEA to respond to Licensee's interrogatories, as modified by the Board, within ten days following the service of its Order (slip op. at 9).
directed CEA to respond to Licensee's interrogatories, as modified by the Board, within ten days following the service of its Order (slip op. at 9).
On April 26, 1980, CEA filed its "Further Response To Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories."         With very limited exceptions, CEA's responses fail to supply the information sought by Licensee.     In many instances, CEA has responded that it does not have facts or other data to support its allegations.-1/           Given this state of affairs, it would be pointless for Licensee to ask the Board to compel a further response. to most of the interrogatories.
On April 26, 1980, CEA filed its "Further Response To Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories."
If CEA does not have and has not developed information to support its contentions, a further order to compel disclosure of the information would serve no purpose, though Licensee may later seek other relief.     See " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Second Motion To Compel Discovery of TMIA" (May 1,           1980) (slip op. at 4) .
With very limited exceptions, CEA's responses fail to supply the information sought by Licensee.
There are, however, several interrogatories which the Board ordered CEA to answer, but which CEA omitted. entirely from its "Further Response" of April 16.       These are Interrogatories 6-2, 1/ See, e.g., CEA's "Further Response" of April 26, 1980 to Inter-rogatories 5-1(a) , 5-1(b), 5-1 (c) , 5-2, 5-3 proper, 5-3 (a) , 5-3 (b) ,
In many instances, CEA has responded that it does not have facts or other data to support its allegations.-1/ Given this state of affairs, it would be pointless for Licensee to ask the Board to compel a further response. to most of the interrogatories.
l 5-3 (c) , .7-1 (a) , 7-1 (b) , 7-1 (c) , 7-1(d) , 7-2 (a) , 7-2(b), 7-2(c), 7-2(d),
If CEA does not have and has not developed information to support its contentions, a further order to compel disclosure of the information would serve no purpose, though Licensee may later seek other relief.
8-1 proper, 8-1(a), 8-1(b),_ 8-1(c) , 12-2, 12-3 and 12-4.
See " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Second Motion To Compel Discovery of TMIA" (May 1, 1980) (slip op. at 4).
i 7y                     , , - , - -                  -,-
There are, however, several interrogatories which the Board ordered CEA to answer, but which CEA omitted. entirely from its "Further Response" of April 16.
                                                                                              ..-y
These are Interrogatories 6-2, 1/
: See, e.g., CEA's "Further Response" of April 26, 1980 to Inter-rogatories 5-1(a), 5-1(b), 5-1 (c), 5-2, 5-3 proper, 5-3 (a), 5-3 (b),
l 5-3 (c),.7-1 (a), 7-1 (b), 7-1 (c), 7-1(d), 7-2 (a), 7-2(b), 7-2(c), 7-2(d),
8-1 proper, 8-1(a), 8-1(b),_ 8-1(c), 12-2, 12-3 and 12-4.
i 7y
..-y


6-3 (b) ,-2/ and 6-3 (c) . Licensee further notes that CEA's "Further Response" to Interrogatory 5-5 does not include the "further elaboration", ordered by the Board, relating the alleged risks and probabilities of accidents at TMI-2 to postulated interference "with energency storage facilities that may be needed in the event of an accident at Unit 1."
. 6-3 (b),-2/
    " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion To Compel Discovery of CEA" (April 16, 1980) (slip. op           at 6) .
and 6-3 (c).
Licensee further notes that CEA's "Further Response" to Interrogatory 5-5 does not include the "further elaboration", ordered by the Board, relating the alleged risks and probabilities of accidents at TMI-2 to postulated interference "with energency storage facilities that may be needed in the event of an accident at Unit 1."
" Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion To Compel Discovery of CEA" (April 16, 1980) (slip. op at 6).
Licensee therefore moves the Board for a further order compelling CEA to expeditiously provide Licensee with full and substantive responses to Licensee's Tnterrogatories 5-5, 6-2, 6-3(b), and 6-3(c), in accordance with the Board's April 16 Order.
Licensee therefore moves the Board for a further order compelling CEA to expeditiously provide Licensee with full and substantive responses to Licensee's Tnterrogatories 5-5, 6-2, 6-3(b), and 6-3(c), in accordance with the Board's April 16 Order.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:                   ''          '
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:
                                                  ' //// u       s
' //// u s
                                            ^3' George F . Trowbridge     /
^3' George F. Trowbridge
Dated:   May 12, 1980 2/   The Board did not rule directly on Interrogatories 6-2 and~.'6-3 (b) .
/
Dated:
May 12, 1980 2/
The Board did not rule directly on Interrogatories 6-2 and~.'6-3 (b).
Rowever, the Board noted that it had " examined each of the interroga-tories as to which licensee seeks to compel answers," and that
Rowever, the Board noted that it had " examined each of the interroga-tories as to which licensee seeks to compel answers," and that
    "[elach interrogatory is relevant to the proceeding and * *
"[elach interrogatory is relevant to the proceeding and * *
* reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and ruled ganerally that " licensee is entitled to an accurate and complete answer to its interrogatories" (slip op. at 1-2) (emphasis supplied) .
* reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and ruled ganerally that " licensee is entitled to an accurate and complete answer to its interrogatories" (slip op. at 1-2) (emphasis supplied).
In light of these comments-and, in the case of Interrogatory 6-3(b),
In light of these comments-and, in the case of Interrogatory 6-3(b),
in the context of the Board's discussion of Interrogatories 6-3(b) and 6-3(c) at pages 6 and 7 of its April 16 Order - Licensee believes the Board's April 16 Order should properly be read as compelling CEA's response to Interrogatories 6-2 and 6-3(b).
in the context of the Board's discussion of Interrogatories 6-3(b) and 6-3(c) at pages 6 and 7 of its April 16 Order - Licensee believes the Board's April 16 Order should properly be read as compelling CEA's response to Interrogatories 6-2 and 6-3(b).
                                      . . .      footnote cont'd next page
footnote cont'd next page


                                    -4_
-4_
e 5
e 5
cont'd footnote. . .
cont'd footnote.
Licensee notes, however, that it may have confused the Board, in " Licensee's Motion To Compel CEA Answers To Licensee's Interroga-tories" (3/31/80), by. accepting CEA's reference to its 3/17/80
Licensee notes, however, that it may have confused the Board, in " Licensee's Motion To Compel CEA Answers To Licensee's Interroga-tories" (3/31/80), by. accepting CEA's reference to its 3/17/80
      - response to-Interrogatory 6-2 as CEA's response to Interrogatory 6-3 proper (" Licensee's Motion" at 13) while rejecting CEA's 3/17/80 response to Interrogatory 6-2 as an answer to Interrogatory G       (" Licensee's Motion" at 11).
- response to-Interrogatory 6-2 as CEA's response to Interrogatory 6-3 proper
(" Licensee's Motion" at 13) while rejecting CEA's 3/17/80 response to Interrogatory 6-2 as an answer to Interrogatory G (" Licensee's Motion" at 11).


May 12, 1980
May 12, 1980
                                          ~
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of               )
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
                                    )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY     )   Docket No. 50-289
)
                                    )       (Restart)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
(Three Mile Island Nuclear     )
)
Station, Unit No. 1)           )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Second Motion To Compel Discovery Of CEA" were served upon those persons on the attached Ser-rice List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 12th day of May, 1980.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Second Motion To Compel Discovery Of CEA" were served upon those persons on the attached Ser-rice List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 12th day of May, 1980.
                                        /JAs.d
/JAs.d
                                                        /$4V!/           -f
/$4V!/
                                      'g ~ Gp rge F. Trowbridge/
-f
Dated:   May 12, 1980 l
'g ~ Gp rge F. Trowbridge/
l l
Dated:
l
May 12, 1980


UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the Matter of                               )
UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the Matter of
                                                        )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY                     )     Docket No. 50-289
)
                                                        )                 (Restart)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
                                                        )
)
Station, Unit No. 1)                           )
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
S,ERVICE LIST ~
S,ERVICE LIST ~
Ivan W. Smith, Esquire                         John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman                                       Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing                     Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'r Board Panel                                 Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission             Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan                           Assistant Attorney General ,
Ivan W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing                     505 Executive House Board Panel                                 Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive                           Harrisburg, Pennsylvania               17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee   37830 John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W. Little                             Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing                       of Commissioners Board Panel                                 Dauphin County Courthouse                     -
Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'r Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.
5000 Hermitage Drive                           Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612                   Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - 17101 James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)             Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director         Consumer Advocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission             Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (21)
20555 Karin W.
Office of the Secretary G. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 9
Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General,
                                          -,    , - - g     ,  -.,,-~e,, , , ,  , - - . - .w -
Atomic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E.
Minnich Dr. Linda W.
Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of Commissioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - 17101
' James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)
Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C.
20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (21)
Office of the Secretary G. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 9
g
-.,,-~e,,
.w


Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire               Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire ,         )
. Jordan D.
Attorney for Newberry Township             Attorney for People Against Nuclea' T.M.I. Steering Committee                   Energy 2320 North Second Street                   Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110             1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Peager Selkowitz & Adler             Robert Q. Pollard Post Offire Box 1547                       609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105             Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire                     Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned         Judith H. Johnsrud Scientists                               Environmental Coalition on Nuclea8 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss                       Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 ~ _1   _. 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006                     State College, Pennsylvania   16801 Steven C. Sholly                           Marvin I. Lewis 304 South Market Street                     6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania   17055         Philadelphia, Pennsylvania   19149 Gail Bradford                   -
Cunningham, Esquire Karin P.
                                            ~
Sheldon, Esquire,
Marjorie M. Aamodt Holly S. Keck                               R. D. 5 19320
)
  ~
Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against Nuclea' T.M.I.
Legislation Chairman                       Coatesville, Pennsylvania l         Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York
Steering Committee Energy 2320 North Second Street Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
!        245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 O}}
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Peager Selkowitz & Adler Robert Q. Pollard Post Offire Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Judith H.
Johnsrud Scientists Environmental Coalition on Nuclea8 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 ~ _1 _. 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C.
20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C.
Sholly Marvin I. Lewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt
~
~
Holly S. Keck R.
D.
5 Legislation Chairman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 l
Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 O}}

Latest revision as of 22:22, 1 January 2025

Second Motion to Compel Intervenor Chesapeake Energy Alliance Response to 800118 Interrogatories.Intervenor 800426 Response in Compliance W/Aslb 800416 Order Failed to Supply Requested Info.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19316B191
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 05/12/1980
From: Trowbridge G
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8006120036
Download: ML19316B191 (7)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _

A Lic 5/12/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g

DOCKETED g

In the Matter of

)

USNRC

)

9 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-289 b

MAY 13 IO8D T2

)

(Restart) k O!!ite of the Secretary (Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Olfrbch 7

i Station, Unit No. 1)

)

i 9

g LICENSEE'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF CEA On January 18, 1980, Licensee served upon Chesapeake i

Energy Alliance, Inc. ("CEA") a first set of interrogatories.

j l

On March 17, 1980, CEA filed a document entitled "CEA's Response To Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories."

Most of CEA's March 17 responses were insufficient, incomplete, or unresponsive.

CEA filed no response whatsoever to some of Licensee's interrogatories.

Accordingly, on March 31, 1980,. Licensee moved the Board for an order compelling CEA to respond fully to Interrogatories 5-1 proper, 5-1(a), ~ 5-1(b), 5-1(c), 5-2, 5-3 proper, 5-3(a), 5-3(b), 5-3(c),

5-4, 5-5, 6-l' proper, 6-1 (b), 6-1 (c), 6-1(d),

6-2, 6-3(b), 6-3(c),

i-7-1 proper, 7-1 (a), 7-1(b), 7-1(c), 7-1(d), 7-2 proper, 7-2(a),

7-2 (b), 7-2(c), 7-2(d), 8-1 proper, 8-1(a), 8-1(b), 8-1(c), 12-2,.

12-3 and 12-4.

CEA did not respond to the motion to compel.

800e1206)6

e e-

. In its " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion To Compel Discovery of CEA" (April 16, 1980), the Board found that 4

each of Licensee's interrogatories to CEA "is relevant to the proceeding and * *

  • appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" (slip op. at 1-2), and i

directed CEA to respond to Licensee's interrogatories, as modified by the Board, within ten days following the service of its Order (slip op. at 9).

On April 26, 1980, CEA filed its "Further Response To Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories."

With very limited exceptions, CEA's responses fail to supply the information sought by Licensee.

In many instances, CEA has responded that it does not have facts or other data to support its allegations.-1/ Given this state of affairs, it would be pointless for Licensee to ask the Board to compel a further response. to most of the interrogatories.

If CEA does not have and has not developed information to support its contentions, a further order to compel disclosure of the information would serve no purpose, though Licensee may later seek other relief.

See " Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Second Motion To Compel Discovery of TMIA" (May 1, 1980) (slip op. at 4).

There are, however, several interrogatories which the Board ordered CEA to answer, but which CEA omitted. entirely from its "Further Response" of April 16.

These are Interrogatories 6-2, 1/

See, e.g., CEA's "Further Response" of April 26, 1980 to Inter-rogatories 5-1(a), 5-1(b), 5-1 (c), 5-2, 5-3 proper, 5-3 (a), 5-3 (b),

l 5-3 (c),.7-1 (a), 7-1 (b), 7-1 (c), 7-1(d), 7-2 (a), 7-2(b), 7-2(c), 7-2(d),

8-1 proper, 8-1(a), 8-1(b),_ 8-1(c), 12-2, 12-3 and 12-4.

i 7y

..-y

. 6-3 (b),-2/

and 6-3 (c).

Licensee further notes that CEA's "Further Response" to Interrogatory 5-5 does not include the "further elaboration", ordered by the Board, relating the alleged risks and probabilities of accidents at TMI-2 to postulated interference "with energency storage facilities that may be needed in the event of an accident at Unit 1."

" Memorandum and Order On Licensee's Motion To Compel Discovery of CEA" (April 16, 1980) (slip. op at 6).

Licensee therefore moves the Board for a further order compelling CEA to expeditiously provide Licensee with full and substantive responses to Licensee's Tnterrogatories 5-5, 6-2, 6-3(b), and 6-3(c), in accordance with the Board's April 16 Order.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:

' //// u s

^3' George F. Trowbridge

/

Dated:

May 12, 1980 2/

The Board did not rule directly on Interrogatories 6-2 and~.'6-3 (b).

Rowever, the Board noted that it had " examined each of the interroga-tories as to which licensee seeks to compel answers," and that

"[elach interrogatory is relevant to the proceeding and * *

  • reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and ruled ganerally that " licensee is entitled to an accurate and complete answer to its interrogatories" (slip op. at 1-2) (emphasis supplied).

In light of these comments-and, in the case of Interrogatory 6-3(b),

in the context of the Board's discussion of Interrogatories 6-3(b) and 6-3(c) at pages 6 and 7 of its April 16 Order - Licensee believes the Board's April 16 Order should properly be read as compelling CEA's response to Interrogatories 6-2 and 6-3(b).

footnote cont'd next page

-4_

e 5

cont'd footnote.

Licensee notes, however, that it may have confused the Board, in " Licensee's Motion To Compel CEA Answers To Licensee's Interroga-tories" (3/31/80), by. accepting CEA's reference to its 3/17/80

- response to-Interrogatory 6-2 as CEA's response to Interrogatory 6-3 proper

(" Licensee's Motion" at 13) while rejecting CEA's 3/17/80 response to Interrogatory 6-2 as an answer to Interrogatory G (" Licensee's Motion" at 11).

May 12, 1980

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-289

)

(Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Station, Unit No. 1)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Second Motion To Compel Discovery Of CEA" were served upon those persons on the attached Ser-rice List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 12th day of May, 1980.

/JAs.d

/$4V!/

-f

'g ~ Gp rge F. Trowbridge/

Dated:

May 12, 1980

UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-289

)

(Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Station, Unit No. 1)

)

S,ERVICE LIST ~

Ivan W.

Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'r Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.

20555 Karin W.

Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General,

Atomic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E.

Minnich Dr. Linda W.

Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of Commissioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - 17101

' James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)

Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C.

20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (21)

Office of the Secretary G. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 9

g

-.,,-~e,,

.w

. Jordan D.

Cunningham, Esquire Karin P.

Sheldon, Esquire,

)

Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against Nuclea' T.M.I.

Steering Committee Energy 2320 North Second Street Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,

Suite 506 Washington, D.C.

20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Peager Selkowitz & Adler Robert Q. Pollard Post Offire Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Judith H.

Johnsrud Scientists Environmental Coalition on Nuclea8 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 ~ _1 _. 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C.

20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C.

Sholly Marvin I. Lewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt

~

~

Holly S. Keck R.

D.

5 Legislation Chairman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 l

Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 O

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19316B191&oldid=4794257"