ML20083K078

Motion Re Advance Notice of Cygna Review of Document Control.If Release of Transcript Is to Be Condition Precedent to Litigating Issue,Assessment as to When Advance Notice Question Can Be Closed Out Difficult

ML20083K078
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/12/1984
From:	Hartman S BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20083K084	List: ML20083K078 ML20083K110 ML20083K135 ML20083K146
References
NUDOCS 8404160059
Download: ML20083K078 (3)

Text

'

1 f dPD4  :

DOCKETED U9NRC

'84 APR 13 A9:25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)

APPLICANTS' MOTION REGARDING ADVANCE NOTICE OF CYGNA REVIEW OF DOCUMENT CONTROL During the March 30, 1984, telephone conference in the captioned proceeding, Applicants expressed the view that the Licensing Board should close-out the question of advanco notice of the Cygna review of -document control and the implications of that notice.1 The Licensing Board indicated that it was possible to do ,

so but that the transcript of the interview by the office of Investigation of Mr. Hutchinson "would have to be made available in advance of the hearing."2 Applicants understand that OI has not yet completed its investigation into the advance notice question and that it will not release the transcript of the interview with Mr. Hutchinson until such investigation is completed. Applicants have no way of

. predicting when that will occur. Indeed, the Licensing Board 1 Texas Utilities Generating'Co. (Comanche' Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket No. 50-445 and 50-446, Tr. at 12,009. . <

t 2 14. at.12,025.

g41g*598404J2

< .  ? "";g 1_. Z)sd2 .

apparently recognized the problem of predicting when OI material might be released When it decided in connection with litigation on intimidation not to wait for OI to complete an investigation into that matter because of delays in the OI investigation.

Consequently, if release of the OI transcript is to be a condition precedent to litigating this issue, it is difficult to assess when the advance notice question can in fact be closed-out.

The Licensing Board requested that the NRC Staff interview Mr. Hutchinson regarding the list of documents provided in advance of the Cygna review of document control in order to make a record of What Mr. Hutchinson knew at the time of the hearings last February.3 That goal has been accomplished. No reason exists, therefore, to refrain from litigating this matter now.

Further, Applicants have emphasized to the Licensing Board and parties the neind to complete hearings on the advance notice issue during the round of hearings commencing on April 24 because of the possible impact that issue could have on the plan on pipe foupport design presently being bnplemented.4 Therefore, Applicants move the Licensing Board to schedule -the advance notice question for the hearings commencing on April 24. We urge the ,

Board to proceedyto' decision on the.Cygna IAP, including the

' advance notice issue, on the basis of the record produced. prior to and during-the forthcoming hearings. Upon any subsequent release

< 3 Id. at 9,915-16.

4l 14. at 12,028.

~

'o 4

of OI material that might contradict the testimony of Mr.

Hutchinson elicited during the forthcoming hearing, the Board could entertain an appropriate motion of the parties at that time.

Applicants have onclosed with this Motion pre-filed testimony on the advance notice issue in expectation of addressing that question during the upcoming hearing.

Respectfully submitted, SichBlas S. Reynolds Sanford L. Hartman BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants April 12, 1984 1