ML20050C123
| ML20050C123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1982 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204080161 | |
| Download: ML20050C123 (5) | |
Text
o p&
UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA
/2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y'
z 32 tr -2 o W 9 32 %
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD mN L;
w
/'3 Before Administrative Judges:
1 W
liarshall E.11 iller, Chairman
\\ j-Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom N
Dr. Richard F. Cole Docket Nos. 50-445 In the Matter of 50-446
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al.
) (Application for Operating License)
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
April 2,1982
)
ORDER (Following Conference Call) the Boa'd and the parties participated in a tele-On !! arch 26, 1982, r
phone conference call.1/ The Board considered the February 23, 1982 fiotion for Voluntary Withdrawal of Contentions Two, Three, Five and Seven filed by C, FUR, in which CFUR indicated that in addition to withdrawing the enumerated contentions, CFUR sought to withdraw as a party to this proceeding. CFUR also requested that the Board adopt Contentions Two, Three and Seven as its own.
The Board has previously granted summary disposition of Contentions Two and Seven. See Order (Granting Summary Disposition of Contentions 2 and 7) (March 5, 1932).
Having considered the filings of CFUR, the Appli-cant and the Staff en Contention Three, the Board declines to adopt that 1/ r. McCollum was unable to participate in the conference call but asked D
that the Board proceed by a quorum.
8204080161 820402 PDR ADOCK 05000445 Of d I
o PDR P
I
- h*}
contention as its own.
Contention Three is therefore dismissed.
Contention Five remains a contention in this proceeding under the sponsorship of CASE.
CFUR's motion for withdrawal as a party from these proceedings is hereby granted.
The Board holds that Contention 22 is not ripe for consideration at the evidentiary hearings to commence June 7, i'982. A discovery schedule on Contention 22 will be established after the June hearings are completed.
Accordingly, CASE's obligation to answer Applicants' Fourth Set of Interro-gatories to CASE and Requests to Produce dealing with Contention 22 is suspended until that time. No motions for summary disposition on Contention 22 will be entertained until after the June 7 evidentiary hearing.
Both the Staff and the Applicants indicated that they will be prepared to address Board Questions One and Three on or before the June hearings.
Evidence on these Board questions will therefore, if necessary, be taken during the June hearings. Summary disposition is not appropriate for Board questions, but if the Applicants or the Staff wish to file information with the Board which answers these questions, the Board will evaluate that information.
Evidence might therefore not be necessary at the June hearing.
The parties were reminded that all prefiled written testimony should be in question and answer form.
It was noted that CFUR mention in Exhibit 1,
- p. 8 to its February 23, 1982 motion for voluntary withdrawal that Comanche Peak will not have a boron injection tank. The Board therefore requested that pertinent information be supplied of record by the Staff, and the Applicants may file information if they so desire.
The Board is seeking a
9
- description of the system which is to be deleted, the purpose of the system, its status with reference to the Comanche Peak reactors, the basis for its deletion, and the means by which its functions will be performed if there is not to be a boron injection tank.
The Commission has approved amended regulations which remove financial qualifications issues, including decommissioning costs, from consideration in operating license proceedings. Accordingly, no further consideration will be given to those issues in this proceeding.
CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of Extension of Time for Discovery on Contention 5, dated liarch 22, 1982, was discussed.
As CASE requested, Applicants were ordered to provide CASE with all audits in the TGH series and all other audits encompassed within CASE's First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants.
I&E Reports 81-12 and 81-20 are to be provided to CASE by the Staff in their current state of preparation.
If the Staff refuses to provide this information, it shall provide a detailed written explanation of why it feels th.is material need not be produced.
The Board declined to clarify the wording of Contention 5 as CASE had requested. The Board noted, however, that in construing the wording of Contention 5, it was intended to encompass the content of all the proposed quality assurance / quality control contentions.
In addition, at least during discovery, the Board will take a broad view of what is encompassed by the contentions. There has not been any willfull withholding of informa-tion by the Applicants, or the Staff, and CASE's motion to impose sanctions is denied.
p The Board's Revised Schedule entered 11 arch 25,1982, resolves CASE's concerns regarding the close of discovery in March,1982.
One of CASE's timing concerns relates to trending of reports on the South Texas Nuclear Project. However, matters exclusively related to the South Texas plant are not at issue in this case, and no collateral inquiries will be undertaken.
CASE had also filed a flotion to Compel A'p'plicants to Supply Complete Answers to CASE's Eighth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants. Applicants agreed to clarify the answers they had given to Interrogatories 18(b),
19(a), 19(b) and 19(d) and to confer with CASE. They stated they would provide the tapes sought by Interrogatory 17.
CASE was reminded of the Board's directive that CASE must attempt to resolve its discovery problems through discussions with the Staff or Applicants before filing motions concerning discovery with the Board.
Finally, CASE had filed a flotion to Compel NRC Staff to Provide Complete Answers to CASE's First and Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce and Answer to NRC Staff's Motion for a Protective Order.
To the extent this motion concerned the Staff's Motion for a Protective Order, it was mooted by the Board's issuance of such a Protective Order on flarch 23, 1982. Also mooted through information provided in Applicant's letter of fiarch 2,1982 and by consultations with the Staff, was CASE's request for clarification of the Staff's reply to Interrogatory 1.(g)(6) in CASE's second set of interrogtories to the Staff.
The Board emphasized that it was to be informed of all significant events concerning this proceeding, not merely those which affect scheduling.
. In this connection, the Board referred the parties to the recent licensing board decision in remand proceedings dealing with the Midland plant which discusses a party's duty of voluntary disclosure to a Board. See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-329 CP and 50-330 CP, slip op. at 11-19 (Partial Initial Decision, December 22,1981).
Although the Board requires disclosure of potentially significant information, it is not proper for Intervenors through discovery te attempt to discover whether other parties are fulfilling their duties in this respect.
The Board reaffirms these rulings which were made orally during the conference call on March 26, 1982.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Marshall E. Miller, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of April,1982.
__