ML20093G125
| ML20093G125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1984 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093G128 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, OL-1, NUDOCS 8407230332 | |
| Download: ML20093G125 (5) | |
Text
"
r-
-~
DELATED CCantSPONDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7/19/84 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD vi&~ 'ED In the Matter of l
~
i Docket Nos. 50-445 i g g DOS TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING l
and 50-446-1 COMPANY, et al.
l i
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
~~
Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S MOTION OPPOSING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF MAXIMUM ROUGHNESS SURFACE PREPARATION ISSUE AND CASE'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY REGARDING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF MAXIMUM ROUGHNESS SURFACE PREPARATION ISSUE On June 25, 1984, applicants filed their Motion for Summary Disposition of Maximum Rougness Surface Preparation Issue. CASE files herewith our Motion Opposing Applicants' Motion, or, in the event the Board determines that Applicants' Motion has merit, our Motion for Discovery regarding this issue n/.
n/ CASE's response was due twenty days from the date received by CASE (June 26, 1984), which would have been July 16.
However, the assistance of Mrs. Ellis, CASE's primary representative on all matters other than intimidation, has been needed in the intimidation portion of these proceedings to assist in briefing attorneys, supplying necessary documents, helping with the logistics of arrivals of attorneys and witnesses, and (for a good portion of Monday and Tuesday, 7/16/84 and 7/17/84) in digging through two years of boxes to find tape recordings of meetings between the NRC Staff and Henry Stiner in 1981, and the NRC Staff and Dennis Culton in 1982.
Once those recordings were found, it was necessary to have copies made and to deliver them to a drop point to so that they could be delivered to the NRC Staff and the Applicants 80 miles away in Glen Rose (where the Intimidation depositions are being held).
We ask that the Board grant this three-day extension, which can not prejudice any other party since the other parties are involved in Intimidation depositions.
f l
1 8407230332 840719 PDR ADOCK 03000445 O
PDR 3 yod
The Board should summarily dismiss Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition CASE submits that the issues discussed in Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition should be addressed along with other related Protective Coatings issues f2/.
In fact, Applicants themselves admit (Motion for Summary Disposition, page 2, footnote 1):
" Applicants have indicated to the Board that this issue could be addressed in tha context of Applicants' coatings reinspection program."
Applicants further state:
"On review, however, Applicants conclude that the issue may be resolved on the independent basis presented in this motion."
However, they offer no reasons for their conclusions or for taking this particular issue out of the context of their coatings reinspection program.
CASE expects to pursue the issue of maximum roughness surface preparation not only with respect to the time frame when CASE witness Robert Hamilton (who initially raised the issue in his testimony) was employed at Comanche Peak, but also with respect to the time frame when CASE witness William Dunham was employed at the plant.
The parties are currently engaged in the taking of evidentiary depositions on the issue of intimidation, harassment, threatening, firing, etc., of Quality Control Inspectors. CASE's primary representative has in effect already been barred from full and active participation in those proceedings due to the staggering work load of assisting in answering about 15 (we've temporarily lost count) of Applicants' Motions for Summary f2/ See 3/15/84 Board Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues), pages 7 and 8, 2
Disposition on design issues f3,/ and working on proposed findings on welding issues, as well as keeping up with discovery requests, responding to 1
interrogatories, and other necessary matters. Having to respond to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Maximum Rougness Surface Preparation Issue at this time would place an unequitable and totally unnecessary additional burden on this Intervenor. Also, it would require CASE to divert substantial resources from what little time CASE's primary l
representative is able to assist with the ongoing evidentiary Intimidation depositions in order to respond adequately to the motion.
Further, attempting to separate this issue from the other Protectiva Coatings issues will make it more difficult for the Board to understand the relationship between the two time frames when Messrs. Hamilton and Dunham were employed at Comanche Peak, create an artificial and unrealistic separation of Applicants' clear patterns regarding Protective Coatings, and create an unnecessary and undesirable division of the record on Protective Coatings thereby making it more difficult for the parties and the Board to prepare Findings of Fact.
For the reasons stated in the preceding, CASF. urges that the Board summarily dismiss (under the Board's clear authority under is IR 2.749(a)) Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Maximum Roughness Surface Preparation Issue and order them instead to include this issue in the context of Applicants' coatings reinspection program.
]3/ CASE will be responding to Applicants' 7/15/84 letter to CASE regarding
-their Motions for Summary Disposition on design issues shortly; our i
response will require some research.
In the meantime, if such assurance is necessary, we assure the Board that (contrary to Applicants' assertions) CASE has never and will never knowingly misled the Board, in this or any other instance.
3 1
- -. e-
to t
In the alternative and in addition, CASE moves for discovery regarding Applicants' Morion for Summary Disposition
)
of Maximum Roughness Surface Preparation Issue Should the Board decide that Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition is the proper method for deciding the issue of maximum roughness surface preparation, CASE moves for discovery on this issue f4/. As can be seen from a review of the attached interrogatories and requests for documents, such discovery is necessary for CASE to be able to adequately answer Applicants' Motion. And, as the Board reiterated in its 1/3/84 Memorandum and Order (Additional Scheduling Order), page 2:
. it is appropriate to answer a motion for summary disposition by indicating why discovery should be allowed prior to' acting on the motion.
See Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Matters), December 28, 1983 at 7."
i In conclusion For the reasons stated herein, CASE moves that the Board:
(1) Grant CASE the three-day extension requested in which to file this response; (2) Summarily dismiss Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Maximum Roughness Surface Preparation Issue; and
]4/ In fact, whether or not the Board decides in favor of allowing Applicants' Motion, CASE requests discovery regarding these matters (since they will presumably be included in the context of Applicants' coatings reinspection program).
^
4
L w.,
4 a
4.-.
i.
(3) Grant CASE discovery regarding Applicants' Motion and related l
issues (whether or not the Board summarily dismisses Applicants' Motion).
Respectfully submitted,
>>s W) fM_ L_-
ps.)JuanitaEllis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 i
l 5
l =
'"-t***
., ~,..
y
+
--