ML20058E242
| ML20058E242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1982 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207280108 | |
| Download: ML20058E242 (3) | |
Text
y#"**'*fl
.o UNITED STATES r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
..y WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 e
,o July 23, 1982 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, TX 75224 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, UnEs7 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
On July 21, 1982, I received the " CASE Sumary of Exhibits," along with the documents listed in that summary. The Board has directed that the parties, in advance of the hearing, indicate the nature of objections to documents proposed as exhibits (Tr.1842).
The Staff objects generally to the introduction by CASE of any of the NRC documents listed as CASE exhibits (Nos. 198-304) on the grounds that CASE has not stated the purpose to be served by introduction of these documents.
It is not evident whether CASE intends to rely upon these documents as part of its direct case or during cross-examination of the other parties' witnesses.
If the documents are intended to be part of your direct case, the Staff notes that these documents are not discussed by CASE's witnesses in their testimony and therefore, are objectionable on the grounds that they are not relevant to that testimony.
Further, a number of the NRC Inspection Reports (as well as the " trend analyses") included as CASE exhibits are also NRC Staff Exhibits. As you are aware, on June 22, 1982, the Staff notified the Board and parties of its intention to introduce as exhibits all the documents mentioned by the Staff in its direct testimony.
I understand that it is CASE's position that since CASE copied some of the documents mentioned by the Staff in its direct testimony, CASE intends to introduce these documents as CASE exhibits. These documents consist of some, but not all of the NRC docu-ments included as Staff exhibits. While the Staff does not object to the admissibility of such documents, the Staff objects to introduction by CASE of the same documents the Staff intends to introduce.
If such documents were discussed in CASE's testimony and formed an integral part of such testimony, introduction of such documents by CASE would not necessarily be objectionable to the Staff. However, for CASE to seek to introduce duplicates of the exhibits, which are not even part of the testimony of CASE's witnesses, would only serve to clutter the record in this proceeding.
Furthermore, since these documents were prepared by the Staff, the Staff is the appropriate party to sponsor such documents.
VIA EXPRESS MAIL E3M 8207280108 820723 Certified BF gDRADOCK05000g 7
i
. The Staff's testimony discusses all inspection and investigation findings with respect to the specific construction activities mentioned in Contention 5.
CASE has included as exhibits a number of other NRC Inspection Reports, with no indication of the subject of these reports or their relevance to Contention 5.
Thus, the Staff objects to the admission of these inspection reports on the grounds of lack of rele-vancy.
The Staff specifically objects to the admission of the following documents on the grounds specified below:
Document 203, " Summary of I&E Reports." This is not an NRC document and appears to have been prepared by CASE. The S'taff considers this document to be in the nature of testimony. As such, it is necessary to have a witness with appropriate qualifications to sponsor it. The accuracy of this document as a " summary" of NRC inspection reports is not evident. Accordingly, the Staff objects to its admission.
Document 298,"7/7/82 NRC Sumary of Caseload Forecast Panel Meeting and Facility Tour," relates to the pro-gress of Comanche Peak construction completion.
In contrast, Contention 5 concerns the quality of construction. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has repeatedly ruled that matters which have a bearing on the schedule of this proceeding are outside the scope of Contention 5.
See " Protective Order," March 23, 1982 and " Order (Following Conference Call)", April 2,1982. Accordingly, the Staff objects to the admission of this document on the grounds that it is not relevant to Contention 5.
Document 303, (NRC) Design Change Control-Procedure 37996B, l
8/15/77." This document is part of the " General Inspection Procedures for Design Control." Those inspection procedures are not part of the inspection procedures for construction.
Since Contention 5 relates to Comanche Peak construction, procedure 37996B is not relevant to Contention 5.
l Document 304, "(NRC) Outstanding Items List" is an internal document prepared and maintained by the Senior NRC Resident Inspector (Construction) for tracking the status of NRC inspections at Comanche Peak.
It is not clear how this list is relevant to Contention 5, which concerns, among other things, the results of inspections at Comanche Peak as opposed to the status of such inspections.
l l
l i
.. I also note that CASE's exhibit list does not include the testimony of CASE's witnesses and the attachments thereto. Also, such documents 4
j have not been numbered.
In accordance with past practice in this proceeding, such documents and attachments should be included as CASE exhibits.
I Sincerely, T
I Marjorie U. Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff 3
cc: Service List 4
i 4
t a
i I
i l
l OFC :0 ELD
- 0 ELD pVg4L
_____:____jyggg,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _y s _
NAME :MURoth schil d SATreby gh'f : ____________: ____________:
9 DATE :07/23/82
- 07/1 /28 1