|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
.
Lic 4/22/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 Uf2"3 9 cG.W "~ * 'y
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) p.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 #
g (Restart)
) .
D(MREND (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) @ upac Station, Unit No. 1) ) '~
APR 2 4 E o [---
Cmed of the tmehn7/
LICENSEE'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVER , Dccketleg & Service OF THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT % E'*h
~R y '
I. INTRODUCTION On January 14, 1980, Licensee filed interrogatories to TMIA. Failing response by March 17, 1980 (the deadline set by the Board), Licensee filed a Motion to Compel on March 24, 1980. The Board granted Licensee's motion by Memorandum and Order dated April 11, 1980.
On April 14, 1980, Licensee's counsel in this proceeding received from TMIA a response to its interrogatories dated April 3, 1980.1./ With very limited exceptions, THIA's responses
- fail to supply the information sought by Licensee. In many l
-1/ !
TMIA has offered no explanation for its late filing. Li- I censee notes that while TMIA did not manage to answer Licensee's interrogatories during the prescribed discovery period, it did find time to prepare a total of seven sets of interrogatories to Licensee (5 sets), the NRC Staff and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as to conduct extensive depositions of Licensee's employees. l l
l l
I l
g 8005220 2 23/
~
instances TMIA has responded that it does not have facts to support its allegations even as to past occurrences and that it has not yet developed information to support its allegations and predictions as to future events. Given this state of affairs there is no point in Licensee's asking the Board to compel a further response to most of the interrogatories. If TMIA 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.
Licensee notes, however, that the Board intends before the hearing, by requiring trial briefs or by other method, to re-quire a full and timely disclosure of each party's position on each issue affecting that party. Memorandum and Order on UCS March 24, 1980 Motion to Compel Licensee to Answer UCS Interroga-tory 179, p. 2 (April 2, 1980). The Board might well consider requiring parties advancing contentions to identify at that time the specific facts which they intend to show at the hearing, either through direct testimony or cross-examination, in support of their contentions.
There are, however, several interrogatories as to which TMIA apparently has information on which it relies in support of its allegations, but which TMIA refuses to answer. Licensce herein moves for a second time to compel TMIA's full and sub-stantive response to Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6. In the discussion which follows, Licensee first states the contention which is the subject of the listed interrogatories,
then sets forth its interrogatories (as modified at p. 2 of the Memorandum and Order dated April 11, 1980) , with TMIA's answers to those interrogatories.
II. DISCUSSION A 1 five of the interrogatories which are the subject of this motion were designed to elicit the specific factual bases for TMIA's Contention 5. That contention alleges that:
Met-Ed has negligently, and on occasion, willfully violated NRC regulations concerning the safe opera-tion of both Units 1 and 2, in that it has deferred necessary maintenance and repairs in order to mini-mize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself. The Li-censee has, in the past, allowed work orders to go undone in order to avoid shutting Unit 1 down to perform necessary maintenance. The licensee would allow work orders to pile up until refueling, at which time the licensee would attempt to do all the work required. Just to complete essential mainten-ance in the short time available, employees were worked to a point where they were no longer effec-tive because of fatigue. These actions, and actions of this type, reflect negatively upon the ability of the licensee to safety operate a nuclear facility. Consequently, it is contended that Met-Ed is incapable of safely operating TMI-l and that its operating license should be suspended perman-ently.
Licensee's Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 (as modi-fied by the Board at p. 2 of its Memorandum and Order dated April 11, 1980) are set forth below, with TMIA's answers to those interrogatories.
Interrogatory 5-1 5-1 Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " negligently . . . [or] willfully violated NRC regula-tions concerning the safe operation of . . . Unit #1 . . . in i
i 1
that it . . . deferred necessary maintenance and repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself."
- a. Define "necessary maintenance and repairs" as that term is used in the allegation.
- b. Set forth each and every fact and the scurce of each and every fact relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
- c. Identify all documents containing any evidence or information relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
- d. Identify all persons having any information or knowledge relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
TMIA's Response 5-1. Contention 5 was based primarily on the information provided in an article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Monday, April 16, 1979. This information was gathered oy twelve reporters of that newspaper, based on interviews with fifty past and present employees of the Licensee at Three Mile Island. That article is a matter of public record and available to the Licensee as easily as to TMIA. Based on the information contained in this article, TMIA has reviewed hundreds of work orders, and summaries of work orders, depositions and interviews conducted by the NRC and the President's Commission and has de-posed twenty-one individuals. All information gathered was either in the possession of Licensee or is now in its possession.
Numerous areas of concern have been identified in this process, many of which have been further identified in the depositions.
TMIA, if resources permit, will attempt to continue to identify these areas of concern. Since all the information is already in Licensee's possession, it would appear to be unnecessary, burdensome and improper.to require TMIA to attempt to describe in writing and in advance of hearing all of the many dozens of areas of concern where deferral of necessary or required mainten-ance has taken place. Since Licensee is fully aware at this point of TMIA's area of concern, since it has itself provided the documents upon which it is based, and since it knows (through the depositions) many specific work orders that have provoked concerns, Licensee can adequately prepare for trial.
l l
4 Interrogatory 5-2 5-2. Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " negligently . . . [or] willfully violated NRC regula-tions concerning the safe operation of . . . Unit #2 . . . in l l
l l
that it . . . deferred necessary maintenance and repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself."
- a. Define "necessary maintenance and repairs" as that term is used in the allegation.
- b. Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every fact relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
- c. Identify all documents containing any evidence or information relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
- d. Identify all persons having any information or knowledge relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
TMIA's Response 5-2. See answer to 5-1 above.
Interrogatory 5-3 5-3. Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " allowed work orders to go undone in order to avoid shutting Unit #1 down to perform necessary maintenance."
- a. Define "necessary maintenance" as that term is used in the allegation.
- b. Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every fact upon which the allegation is based.
- c. Identify all documents, including Generation Corrective Maintenance System Job Tickets (Work Requests) -
Three Mile Island [" Job Tickets"], containing any evidence or information relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
- d. Identify all persons having any information or knowledge relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
TMIA's Response 5-3. See answer to 5-1 above.
Interrogatory 5-4 5-4. Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " allow [ed] work orders to pile up until refueling, at which time the licensee would attempt to do all the work required."
l l
- a. Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every fact upon which the allegation is based.
- b. Identify all documents, including Job Tickets, containing any evidence or information relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
- c. Identify all persons having any information or knowledge relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
TMIA's Response 5-4. See answer to 5-1 above.
Interrogatory 5-6 5-6. Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that,
"[j]ust to complete essential maintenance in the short time available, employees were worked to a point where they were no longer effective because of fatigue."
- a. Define " essential maintenance" as that term is used in the allegation.
i b. Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every fact relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
- c. Identify all documents, including Job Tickets, containing any evidence or information relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
- d. Identify all persons having any information or knowledge relied upon by TMIA in support of the allegation.
TMIA's Response 5-6. See answer to 5-1 above. " Essential maintenance" is that maintenance which was identified by the operator itself as most important or is understood in the industry to be of great importance to safe or efficient operation.
The Board has previously examined all of Licensee's inter-rogatories to TMIA and has compared them to TMIA's contentions.
On the basis of this review, the Board has already ruled that Licensee's interrogatories "are relevant to the proceeding and
are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admiss-ible evidence." Memorandum and Order on Licensee's Motion to Compel Discovery of TMIA, p. 1 (April 11, 1980). Licensee is therefore entitled to full, substantive answers to its inter-rogatories.
TMIA's answer to Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 (except to define " essential maintenance") is generally non-responsive to the questions posed.2,/ Though the citation to the Philadelphia Enquirer article is partially responsive to the interrogatories, TMIA only "primarily" based its Contention 5 on that article, and itself admits that it "has reviewed hundreds of work orders . . . depositions and interviews conducted by the NRC and the President's Commission and has deposed twenty-one individuals." Presumably, TMIA intends to rely upon some of this other material, in addition to the cited newspaper article, in support of its contention. However, the mere recitation of TMIA's research in preparation for trial does not answer Li-censee's specific questions as to the bases for TMIA's conten-tion, and does not comply with the Board's April 11 Memorandum and Order.
It is no answer to Licensee's proper interrogatories to assert'that the information sought "is a matter of public record
-2/
Though TMIA's definition of " essential maintenance" is of little help to Licensee, Licensee does not here seek to compel a further response to Interrogatory 5-6(a). Instead, Licensee seeks further specification, through its other interrogatories, of the specific items of maintenance to which TMIA refers.
2nd available to the Licensee as easily is to TMIA" and "is already in Licensee's possession." Though it may be true that Licensee has in its possession much of the information on which TMIA bases its Contention 5, Licensee cannot verify that assertion until TMIA specifically identifies that information for Licensee.
Moreover, the mere attendance of Licensee's representatives at some of the many interviews and depositions conducted by the various TMI investigative groups and by TMIA is not sufficient to put Licensee on notice of the specific facts, documents and persons relied upon by TMIA in support of its allegations.
Only TMIA itself can provide the sp;cific bases for its conten-tion. This it has refused to do.
TMIA's responses to Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 (to the extent that answer refers to the answer to 5-1) may be viewed not as answers to those interrogatories, but rather as legal objections. However, such objections are without merit.
See, e . g ._ , Stonybrook Tenants Association v. Alpert, 29 F.R.D.
165, 167 CD. Conn. 1961) (permissible to inquire into matters within interrogating party's knowledge); Erone Corporation v.
Skouras Theatres Corporation, 22 F.R.D. 494, 500 (S . D .N.Y. 1958)
(mere fact that matters are within knowledge of examining party or are matters of public record not valid objection to interroga-tories); and Wolf v. Dickinson, 16 F.R.D. 250, 252 (E.D. Pa. 1953)
(objection to interrogatory on ground that information is equally available to parties ordinarily not sustained).
Further, TMIA's responses to Licensee's interrogatories are dated April 3, 1980, more than five weeks after objections to
l I
Licensee's interrogatories were due. TMIA sought no extension 1
of time for the filing of objections. The applicable Commission discovery rules generally parallel the analogous provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 460 (1974). '
A failure to file objections to interrogatories within the time ,
prescribed by the rules waives those objections. Mengle v. Tucker, 21 F.R.D. 187 (E . D . Pa. 1957); Bohlin v. Brass Rail, 20 F.R.D. 224, '
225 (S.D. N.Y. 1957). TMIA has thus waived any objections it might have to Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6, including the legal arguments it included in its response to those interroga-tories dated April 3.
Finally, TMIA complains that "it would appear to be un-necessary, burdensome and improper to require TMIA to attempt to describe in writing and in advance of hearing all of the many dozens of areas of concern where deferral of necessary or required maintenance has taken place." However, Licensee is at a loss to understand how it is to prepare to litigate "all of ;
I
. . . [TMIA's] many dozens of areas of concern" if TMIA will J not specify those areas. At page two of its April 11 Memorandum and Order on Licensee's Motion to Compel Discovery of TMIA, the Board noted:
If licensee is to prepare carefully to liti-gate the allegations contained in TMIA's con-tentions, responses to the interrogatories are very desirable, perhaps essential.
Moreover, if TMIA truly finds responding to interrogatories on its contention to be intolerable, TMIA may avail itself of the remedy which the Board pointed out to UCS in its April 1, 1980 Memorandum and Order Compelling UCS to Answer Licensee's Inter-rogatory No. 8-1; TMIA can narrow its Contention 5. Licensee's interrogatories are exactly as broad as the contention which gives rise to them. If the interrogatories are too burdensome for discovery, TMIA's contention is too broad for litigation.
III. CONCLUSION TMIA's answers to Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 (except its definition of " essential maintenance") are non-responsive, incomplete, and an untimely objection which lacks merit. TMIA's answers therefore do not comply with the Board's April 11 Memorandum and Order. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (f) , Licensee moves the Licensing Board for a second order compelling TMIA to respond fully and substantively to Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 (except 5-6 (a) ) .
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: /M,/ L jM -
./
Q G(orcfe F7 Trowbridgfe Dated: April 22, 1980 1
Lic 4/22/80 UNITED STATES OF AM$RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
MFTROPOLITAN 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 Three Mile Island Alert", were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by de-posit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of April, 1980.
l l
l l
MJ M *
/
'Ge[rgdF<Vfrowbridg Dated: April 22, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOhY COMMISSION 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) )
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Ievin, Esquire Chaiman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Ccan'n Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atcmic 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 Chaiman, Dauphin County Board Atcmic Safety and Licensing of Ccmnissioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hemitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 l James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Office of Consumer IdNocate Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawbtrry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 i L
Jordan D. Curuungham, Psquire Karin P. Sheldon, Esquim Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against Nuclear T.M.I. Steering Cm mittee 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, Esqune Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Pobert Q. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Mary 1.md 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Judith H. Johnsrud Scientists Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C. Sholly Marvin I. Iewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 I
Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt Holly S. Keck R. D. 5 Iegislation Chairman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404
..