ML20116G370

Proposed Case Mgt Plan,Including Applicant Suggestions for Determination of Issues Remaining for Contested Resolution. Case Should Be Given 10 Days to Respond to Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20116G370
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/26/1985
From:	Dignan T, Reynolds N, Reynolds N, Reynolds S, Wooldridge R BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC), WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLRIDGE (FORMERLY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-781 OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8505010461
Download: ML20116G370 (8)

Text

5, ] 9 ) .

pgocoa . ,

Aprf({fff0 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 85 kPR 30 N1:00 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECjlEIMY before the 00CKEljty*CkE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY et al. ) 50-446

) 50-445-2 (Comanche Peak Steam ) 50-446-2 Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

APPLICANTS' PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN A. Statement of Principles Set forth in this proposed case management plan are the Applicants' suggestions for facilitating the determination as to what issues remain for contested resolution in the two Comanche Peak dockets. The principles that underlie the suggestions herein are two in number. First, there is, we presume, no desire on anyone's part to' expend time, effort or expense conducting further adjudicatory proceedings with respect to issues which have been mooted by the passage of time or intervening events. Second, the Board has 8505010461 850426 PDR G

ADOCK 05000445 PDR ,. ,

()h

\

w ., .

.t sufficient authority to adopt the procedures suggested herein, manage this litigation, and' assure its-timely resolution. 10 CFR $ 2.718.

B. Background The Comanche Peak operating license proceeding has been ongoing for some time. Certain exigencies have resulted in the case being split into two dockets with an identity of parties but not of counsel, judges, or issues. A number.of issues have arisen in each docket that are of a complex nature and that, as of this writing, remain unresolved.

Of perhaps more importance at this juncture, a number of intervening events have occurred since January 1, 1985 that, we believe, have great significance in any analysis of the future management of this proceeding. These include numerous changes in the management of the lead applicant, issuance of reports by various Staff teams and groups with respect to numerous subjects and, following numerous meetings with the Staff, CASE, Cygna, the NRC Contention 5 Panel and the Applicants, the undertaking by various independent experts employed by the Applicants of extensive projects designed to determine the existence, clarify the extent, and assess the safety significance, if any, of deviations from design or specifications in the construction of the plant, and defining any corrective action deemed

,s=

h necessary.1 We refer in particular to the ongoing efforts of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT") to deal with the questions raised and concerns expressed by the Staff's Technical Review Team (TRT) as well as design adequacy issues raised by Messrs. Walsh and Doyle, Cygna and NRC technical experts and consultants.

The effect of these intervening changes, studies, and undertakings has been, or will be, effectively to render unnecessary (or at least have an effect upon) further consideration of a number of admitted issues. In light of this, the Applicants propose the following procedures for winnowing the issues to be resolved.

C. ]he Plan

1. Procedures in Docket No. 2

a. No later than fifteen (15) days after the issuance of the Staff's QA/QC SSER, (presently anticipated within the next three (3) weeks) the Applicants will file a statement giving their view as to whether intervening or contemplated events have rendered,.or will render, further consideration of one or all of the issues in this docket unnecessary and, if so, an exposition of the reasons for the positions taken.

1

. Applicants have already directed the modification,

replacement or removal of over 100 pipe supports. See Letter Beck to Noonan, April 15, 1985.

l i

3 i.

b. Fifteen (15) days later CASE will respond to the 4

- Applicants' statement specifically stating whether or not it 2

agrees with the Applicants' characterization of the present status of the issues and the grounds and basis for

. disagreement, if any.

c.. Ten (10) days later the' Staff shall file a statement as to its' agreement or disagreement with the various l -positions taken by Applicants and CASE.

d. Thereafter the Board shall dismiss as moot all matters the parties have agreed have become moot and rule on the suggestion of mootness made by the Applicants to the I extent it,is contested by either CASE or Staff.

2. Procedures in the Main Docket

a. No later than fifteen (15) days,after issuance of

' the. Staff QA/QC SSER the Applicants will file a list of the concerns extant in the docket and raised by-the TRT and the i

SSERs on file together with the plan formulated by the Applicants for. dealing with each such concern.

, b. Fifteen (15) days later CASE shall file a statement I

specifically setting forth with respect to each concern listed whether or not CASE agrees that the proposed plan will, if carried out as described, resolve the concern. If

' CASE believes any plan is deficient, it shall state (a) what the deficiency is and (b) a statement of the basis for e-- -

, , , , m,. - - - - - - - - , - - , . ,,,,-r-,-,, ,,..,,,-r ..r,,,r, ,,,-,,r, , , , , , ,-r--,--~,v,--,- ,- ,-,-.--,,,e,-- --v,, , - , -r -

'W , ,

x _ +'

a' l 4 .; .

~

'e i

. sw -

~

CASE's assertion that the alleged deficiency will, in CASE's judgment. preclude, resolution of the concern.

c. Ten (10)dayslatertheStahfshall'fileastatement astoitsagreementordisagreementwithtijopositionsset

? .~ /

forth by Applicants and CASE pursuant to Paragraphs 2.a. and

^ ' ^ '

2.b. above.

d. Thereafter the Board will ente'r an order (a) precluding..fr.om.theproyeedingfurtherconsiderationofany issue of $$ ether the proposed plan will, if carried out, s O resolve those concerns as.3o which the parties are agreed the plan is sufficient and (b) Eesolving the dispute as to a .

the. sufficiency,of any plan as to which the parties are in disagreement >as to sufficiency assuming the taking of further evidence is not necessary to resolve the dispute.

D. Conclusion and Sugges_tions for Consideration The above pl~an, iffollowed)shouldrecettinthe posture of the case being one of a proceeding w'th i specific well-defined issues of disputed fact beihg set for evidentiary resolution (either by hearing or- motion for summary disposition) under the rules of practice. At that time the Board can set a new schedul,e for any remaining s

matters as to which there are didagrebments, if any.

We respectfully request that CASE be^given ten (10) days to respond to the foregoing suggestions and that the Staff be required to respond five (5) days thereafter. In the

,T' ..

e s .

5"- +

s '

~kw -s  %

s

r D . .

event there is disagreement as to the use of these >

procedures, the Board may then resolve those disputes by issuance of a prehearing order adopting these procedures or

.otherwise responding to these suggestions.

Respectfully submitted, lS/ fkH4bk-lt Y Robert A. Wooldridge t->

C Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels

& Wooldridge Suite 2500 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 748-9365

/s/ $ C hfp0 Nicholas S. Reynolds (f Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds Suite 700 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800

/S,l fwnn h hc( j ?.

Thomas G. Dignpth, Jr.g Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100 Attorneys for Applicants

F7 l e- 1

.j . *

'u .,

1 i ggTED COR ,

l' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

}<' 000KETED USNRC

'>A ,

I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys $ r h g g Applicants herein,. hereby certify that on April 26, 1985, I made GFFICj 0F SECRETARY service of the within " Applicants' Proposed Case OOk h gEgygn"

.by, mailing copies the$' eof, postage prepaid, to: ,

Peter B.'Bloch, Esquire. Herbert Grossman ,

Chairman Alternate Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing , Atomic Safety and Licensing

. Board Board U .' S . Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555.

Washington,-D.C. 20555 i Dr. Walter H. J,ordan Mr. John Collins Administrative Judge Regional Administrator, Region IV 881 W., Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge; Tennessee 37830 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Chairman 3 Mr. William L. Clements Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing & Services Branch Appeal Panel ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ; Washington, D.C. 20555 Commiseion 1 >

Washington, D.C. 20555 Stuart'A[,Treby, Esquire- Chairman Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director' Board Panel U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 10117 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 s

i

/

I A k,

i l o

J

_t Renea Hicks, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Assistant Attorney General President, CASE Environmental Protection Division 1426 S. Polk Street P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Dallas, Texas 75224 Austin, Texas 78711 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Executive Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Board Panel 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Joseph Gallo, Esquire Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale Dean, Division of Engineering, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Architecture and Technology Suite 840 Oklahoma State University Washington, D.C. 20036 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Citizens Clinic Director 3022 Porter Street, N.W., #304 Government Accountability Project Washington, D.C. 20008 1901 Que Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009 Elizabeth B. Johnson Mr. Robert D. Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Region IV P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission 611 Ryan Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Bldg.

Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 lJ FM ]-

f*"/

Thomas G. Dignan, Ur.