ML20090F348
| ML20090F348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1984 |
| From: | Horin W BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8407200256 | |
| Download: ML20090F348 (3) | |
Text
' YO '
gv3g9... ~- }*
, ~
LAW OFFICES OF '
BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNC(DS-8200 S EVENTEENTH STR E ET, N. W.
UdIdiC IN NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D. C. 2OO 36 alSHOP, LISERMAN 8. COOK (2o2) as7-seOO
- 2.==OAowAY
,84 JUL 20 A!0 28
~ =~ 'a a" ~== va a 'a a-TELEX 440574 INTLAW UI (252)244-6900 TELCA 222767
- =
.0;.
.V. h -
M /.','?
July 15, 1984 b" * " "Q* * [ k Mrs. Juanita Ellis I' -
ZI g-President, CASE EC O '1I I-1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
On July 9, 1984, you hand delivered to me a copy of a letter memorializing an ex parte telephone call between yourself and the Board Chairman on July 6, 1984, regarding the schedule for CASE's answers to Applicants' outstanding motions for summary disposition.
In that letter you stated that you had represented to the Board that '_'most of CASE's requests (for documents related to the motions) are still outstanding."
On the basis of this representation the Board Chairman apparently has
" tentatively approved" an extension of-time for CASE to submit its answers.
As we discussed at the time you delivered the letter, and as is
[-
set forth below, your representation was inaccurate. I also_ express below our strenuous objections to further such ex parte contacts i
between CASE and any member of the Board on important, critical path schedule items such as this. The fact that the Board may have tentatively approved an extension of time on the basis of your misrepresentations is 4
proof enough that such e_x parte' contacts are not appropriate.
x This will set the record straight. On June 20, 1984, Applicants transmitted by overnight delivery five sets of documents relating to four of the motions for surunary disposition. This information responded j
in full to CASE's requests with respect to two of those motions (AWS v.
ASME Code Provisions (Design) and U-bolts Acting as Two Way Restraints).
'This material also included a partial response'to CASE's request for information regarding the motions concerning Generic Stiffnesses and j
Friction Forces.
(The only information lef t outstanding regarding-the -
Friction Forces motion was confirmation of the Gibbs & Hill practica for consideration of friction forces.)
In short, as of June 22, 1984, CASE-i i
84072 256 840715 i
PDR A K 05000445 g
PM l
l_
m 4
m m
f
~.
had received all substantive information requested regarding three of Applicants' motions.
Further, as you are aware, no request for informa-tion had been made with respect to two other motions (Section Property Values and Upper Lateral Restraint).
f Applicants provided additional information requested by CASE, again by overnight delivery, under cover letter dated June 28, 1984.
Therein, we provided all remaining information requested with respect to Applicants' motions concerning Damping Factors, Generic Stiffnesses and Friction Forces. The only information left to be provided at that point, i
a full week before your conversation with the Board Chairman, concerned j
two motions.
First were certain documents referred to in the motion 1
j regarding Safety Factors, as to which Applicants had informed CASE previously would take longer to gather because of the large number of documents. Applicants had provided most (30 of 41) of these references i
by July 3, again prior to your conversation with the Board Chairman. The j
remaining references will be provided shortly.
Second were materials concerning Applicants' practice regarding the j
fuspection of bolt holes in base plates, which relates to the motion concerning the effect of gaps. This information is attached. Copies of an example of the Material Identification Log, and the associated hanger drawing, for support H-BR-2-5B-001-009-3 are provided. This log l
1s filled out by the QC inspector prior to release of materials, includ-ing base plates, from the fabrication shop. Although not separately called out on the log, one of the attributes of base plates the QC
{
inspector examines is bolt hole size.
)
We have not objected to CASE's schedule for filing its answers to i
those motions, although that schedule provided for much longer response i
times than prosided for in the Rules of Practice. However, CASE's present request for, in effect, an unlimited extension of time for-l submitting those answers is wholly unwarranted. As discussed above, the information requested by CASE with respect to Applicants' motions j
has been provided in a timely fashion. Virtually all information l
requested was provided by or soon after the June 22 target date.
Given j
that CASE certainly would not be working on ansvers to all motions j
simultaneously, we see no reason for any extensions of time. Accord-ingly, absent a formal motion by CASE, responses by the parties, and ruling by the Board, we will expect CASE to adhere to its previously
}
established schedule.
4 i
As a final note, I feel compelled to comment.on the manner in
{
which this matter has been handled. Although it is unfortunate that l
CASE incorrectly presented the facts to the Board (without, as you-i
. informed me, having personally reviewed the matter)'regarding the i
status of your request, it is even more dia'.urbing that you would seek to obtain even a " tentative" Board ruling, eje parte, without having l
first contacted Applicants or the Staff. To avoid such a situation in the future, I will expect that you hereafter contact.the other i
Li.
i n
m c
m
. ~
3-i' interested parties before contacting the Board. By first contacting the other parties we will avoid the possibility that the Board would act, even " tentatively," on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information.
Sincerely.
William A. Horin Counsel for Applicants cc:
Service List (without attachment)
Stuart Treby, Esq. (with attachment) i i
'I I
i i
i t
3,.
1, ij y
5, r
6, e
p Y.
'rI '
1 s
n-e