__

~

PANE 6/30/80* *

M ,'./ :=2nD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ilbNUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION -O El 2 1960 *

r a ,, p /.-

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD we ;., 7,

*

3,s3'' . . .

s . . .,

)In the Matter of )

)METROPOLITAN EDISON ) Docket No. 50-289 |

COMPANY, et al., ) (Restart)-

-~

) .

(Three Mile Island ) |Nuclear Station, Unit ) -

1

No. 1) ) |) i

REQJEST FOR BOARD GUIDANCE ON SCHEDULING " " " " ^ ~

OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS ISSUES- ~~

People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) requests guidance

from the Board concerning preparation for and scheduling of

consideration of psychological distress issues in this pro-ceeding. As indicated to the Board during the prehearing

conference on May 13, 1980, PANE has begun to prepare itscase. However, it has been and remains reluctant to commit

1

the full resources that will be necessary until the Commission I

has ruled on whether and how psychological distress will be. .considered. With the issuance of a firm schedille throug gthe final'prehearing conference, PANE now seeks guidance

concerning what the Board expects from PANE and the other~

parties in terms of preparation in the absence of a Commis~

sion decision. -

At the time of the May 13 prehearing conference, PANE

had undertaken substantial research into the relevant litera-ture, contacted and obtained offers or assistance.from.._ _

.m

8007osoo g =

.. . . .

_ _ . , _

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

. .

-2-

-

prominent experts, gathered together virtually all directly

relevant studies, and begun meeting with experts to lay the

groundwork for intense preparation. The week after the pre-

hearing conference, most of the experts actually spent two

days in Middletown. Walking the tightrope of trying to pre-

pare while not wasting its absolutely. minimal resources, PANE

- now stands on the threshold of very expensive and time-

consuming in-depth psychiatrie- and psychological studies,

which it is loath to pursue in the absence of guidance from.

the Board or the Commission.

In its Second Special Prehearing Conference Order of

January 11, 1980, the Board recognized the difficulties faced

by PANE and the other intervenors in the absence of any

decision by the Commission, and it urged "that some reasonable

efforts, if possible, should be made by these parties to

prepare themselves for the litigation they are seeking." This

was a sound approach at that time since a decision by the

Commission was expected well before now. PANE has undertaken

discovery of both the Licensee and the Staff and has taken the

steps briefly described above to prepare its direct case. PANE

has certainly met the standard of reasonable efforts to this

point.

With the final prehearing conference just over one month

away, and with the hearing itself approximately three months

away, PANE now needs guidance from the Board concerning its

expectations of reasonable preparation efforts in light of

present circumstances. Rapidly approaching deadlines cry for

+.

..-

.

-f,.,

.

-3--

preparation, while the' lack of any Commission decision holds

us back.

The Board needs to consider three possible scenarios:.

a. The Commission issues a decision betweennow and August 12, the date of the finalprehearing conference.

~b. The Commission issues a decision betweenAugust 12 and the beginning of the hearing.

c. The Commission fails to. reach a decisionbefore the hearing begins.

Under the first scenario, it will at least be possible to

incorporate the psychological distress issues into the case

during the prehearing conference. The second and third

scenarios render everyone's job more difficult.

In considering how to address this problem, the Board

can take some comfort from the fact that the psychological

distress issues are separate and distinct from all of the

othe,r issues in the case. There is no need either to hear

the psychological distress evidence or to reach a decision on

the issues at the same time that other contentions are

addressed. The psychological distress issues can be added to

the end of the hearing or, if necessary, they can be the

subiect of essentially a separate hearing scheduled after the

projected close of the hearing on the other contentions.

Accordingly, the Board has the flexibility to move ahead to

completion of all other aspects of the hearing and then to

hear the psychological: distress contentions on a separate

schedule. Given the complexity of the other issues, it is

quite likely that the net result would be that a delayed or

.

-o- ---9 v v y- aw-Ve y v +

.

;::. ,

:

-4--

1

tentative schedule for psychological distress issues would

not cause any delay in the hearing as a whole.

Finally, during the May 13 prehearing conference, Counsel,

-for PANE indicated that PANE could not expect to have its

direct testimony prepared until the e'nd of September, which~

is:approximately three weeks after it .uld be due under the

tentative schedule. At this point, it appears that the end

of October is a far more reasonable expectation. Until it

receives guidance from the Board, PANE will move ahead as

quickly as possible, with an October date in mind. For the

reasons stated above, PANE does not believe that this will

cause any overall delay in the hearing. However, in the

absence of a Commission decision within the next few months,

PANE may be forced to mocerate its preparation. The Board's,

guidance would be most helpful on these points.

Respectfully submitted,

- fi& C Shu.'<s.bcWilliam ordan, IIIHarmon & Weiss1725 I Street, N.W.Suite 506Washington, D,C. 20006

. (202) 833-9070'

Counsel for PANE

bPPDate

1

.

l|

. . ... . . . . -

_ _

;n .

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?CIISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)In the Matter of )

)METROPOLITAN EDISON ) #

COMPANY, et al., ) Docket No. 50-289) (Restart)(Three Mile Island )

,,,

Nuclear Station, Unit )No. 1) )

,

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of the Request for Board Guidance onScheduling of Psychological Distress Issues have been mailed postagepre-paid this 30th day of June,1980, to the follcwing parties:

Secretary of the CommissionATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service SectionU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Ivan W. Smith, EsquireAtomic Safety & Licensing Board PanelU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555 v,

@ l l~ N,Dr. Walter H. Jordan 'N

,*

881 W. Outer Drive k \Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 D' The;@9 9 ' [.

rnC3-!

Dr. Linda W. Little

d 4g '3%,,,)j iw ??',,'[J.:-%- , g5000 Hermitage Drive

Raleiegh, North Carolina 27612 %'-

, p.

George F. Trowbridge, Esquire gj@'/.

--

-

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge1800 "M" Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006

, James Tourtellotte, EsquireOffice of the Executive Legal DirectorU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

.

ADS.,Q ?. - aWilliam S (Jordanf III