ML19208D040

Discusses Discovery Procedures for Restart Hearings.Methods Should Be Adopted to Reduce Discovery Time & Avoid Delay

ML19208D040
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/30/1979
From:	Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS
To:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7909270780
Download: ML19208D040 (2)

Text

'-

-

DUGU W M

.

ae goo.&UIlt,E& SU-d D ERQ PUBLIC DOCmsggy, HARMON. ROISMAN & WEISS 1725i STREET,N.W.

SutTE SO S KARIN M SHELDON Gall M.MARMON ~

WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 TE

,,o,'E[" ""

,o ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN '

ELLYN R. WEISS WILLI AM S. JORDAN, lif 8 ADMITTED IN MM:HtGAN ONLY

• 9 Dt

-

July 30, 1979 \

'

_f Joseph Hendrie, Chairman = Y* 1

'_ Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Richard Kennedy, Commissioner

• g\,,D QCM y y 3 Peter Bradford, Commissioner '

John Ahearne, Commissioner _

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Having attended your meeting on Friday morning, July 27, on the order for Three Mile Island, Unit 1, I see that some questions exist among you as to the most desirable way to handle discovery in the TMI restart hearings. I

'

will take the liberty of offering some observations on the proposed alternatives for discovery, based on my experience.

The alternatives proposed by the General Counsel's

-

office strive to accomplish an objective with which I -

agree, namely to reduce to a minimum the time taken by discovery. However, in my opinion, Alternative B would certainly fail to achieve this goal. To the contrary, it is likely to increase the time required for the TMI proceed-ing.

First, getting a decision from a hearing board is of ten a slow process, and this proposal ensures that the Hearing Board will have to rule on each and every discovery

' request. The Board will be flooded by requests for discovery, will have to consider each separately and will have to write a decision on each. In addition, the hearing board has no guidance in the form of NRC precedents on how to balance the competing considerations whether a discovery is worthwhile.

The novelty of the situation will cause added delay.

Second, the General Counsel's concern for the burden that discovery places on small intervenors is well-founded, but Alternative B will not eliminate that burden. On top of all the normal requests, motions, and responses will be added the need for discovery justifications, cha11enges to other parties' requests for discovery and appearances before

~

.

, 1042 135

'

7 9 09 270 7Po G

.

.

SHELDON, HARMox, RoIsM.AN & WEISS Commissioners .

July 30, 1979 -

Page 2 } -

l a

J. },s IaL the Board. NRC directions to the board to issue protective orders promptly as needed is the best guarantee that small intervenors will not be unduly harassed by discovery.

Other methods which might expedite discovary could be included in the order. A list of all documents relevant to ,

the issues in the case could be provided to each party. The exchange of coitmon kinds of information gained by discovery could be facilitated by stipulating that all parties must provide that information to all others, e.g., lists of witnesses and their qualifications. The normal discovery -

procedure is flexible enough that unnecessary delays could be eliminated by an aggressive Board.

I hope that in your effort to move the hearings along quickly, you will not adopt an untried discovery procedure, such as Alterna^ive 3, only to end up in a greater morass of delay and paper shuffling. -

Very trulv yours,

/

'

Ellyn R. Weiss ERW/dmw

,

e 4

,

,  ! 4

' ' ~

1042 136