ML20116G443

Advises That Applicant & Parties Discussed Case Proposed Time Schedule for Responding to Requests for Admissions as Set Forth in Roisman .Parties Agree in Part W/Schedule

ML20116G443
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/22/1985
From:	Wooldridge R TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC), WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLRIDGE (FORMERLY
To:	Bloch P, Grossman H, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-772 OL-2, NUDOCS 8505010496
Download: ML20116G443 (2)

Text

, s wocana. Fonsrraz, SMPELS & W LD DO

• * , WEN,Ye FtVE MUND #to 200t envAN 10.Em w o s4 Meals DALLAS,TuxAs 7ssoa so,...e....M

' a"

=l ,*t,,y,*g, catxErE:

secucta c.ackvtA ,t LEPHO N t(214) 744-9365 USNRC DOpsALO M. MANSON O,CouMSEL JOS.satom .cesMAM J.

1.ADAN . S.OMANNAM

..A ..OOL .A.L A. ,0.. ,M .

0.*,,'L"i'L"."*." Ti APR 26 AH :23 oa.io c. LONEROAN ,ELEcoptEft(Ste) 840- OOst menevNOLos J,OMN MO.A. ,. L,m.O .

.O...- CE OF SEC6tTAx-

"*a','.;.7"O,0

. A.. .. . A s =

gMEifyCH scavict STEPHEN O. JOMNSON

• ""'#,*;"E "J""""""

April 22,1985

. A., . M. A.n DANIEL JOHN RESAN, JR.

meCMA#O G. MOOAC CECELtA J.SmWNCR Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and 1.lcensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert Grossman, Alternate Chairman Administrative Judq;e Atomic Safety and ..lcensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge 881 West Outer Drive .

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Ret In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and 50-446-2

Dear Administrative Judges:

The parties have discussed CASE's proposed time schedule for responding to its requests for admissions, as set forth on the second page of Mr. Roisman's letter to you of March 15, 1985, copy of which is attached for your reference. This provides the Board with the results of that discussion. Messrs. Treby and Rolsman have authorized me to represent that each concurs in the contents of this letter.

Regarding responses by Applicants, the parties have agreed as follows:

(1) since the requests for admissions all relate to state-ments in reports of the NRC's Technical Review Team

! (TRT), and Mr. Treby has stated that the Staff is "looking into" these issues, numbered paragraph 1 on page 2 of Mr. Roisman's letter is no longer applicable.

l (2) the parties agree with numbered paragraph 2 on page 2 of Mr. Roisman's letter and that the " reasonable time" In this particular instance shall be twenty days.

l 4-)

i 8505010496 850422 PDR ADOCK 05000445 \ ,_

Q PDR 9

Administrative Judges April 22,1985 Page Two Rt.garding responses by the Staff, Mr. Treby has Indicated that the Staff will respond to requests within twenty days after the Staff's SSER addressing the particular subject of the request has been issued.

The above understandings are without prejudice to the rights of any party to seek relief should circumstances arising hereafter justify it. Furthermore, by agreeing in part to CASE's proposed schedule, it should.not be presumed that either Applicants or Staff concur with the other statements in CASE's March 15, 1985 letter.

Respectfully submitted t

/

/ o# n,A,-

Robert A.Wooldridge /

Counsel for Applicants RAW /kiw Enclosure cc: Service List l

L

4-

• IRIAL LAWYER 5 FUK l'UBUC JU5TK L I'.L .

-- . m. m

$l#T1611

+

2000 P STRET. NORTHWEST gy -

VW6HINC10N. DC. 20036 (202WN oscuma ouncTon aamua sewa SWF AffoWeY "sosazameen i

smonasemmo March 15, 1985 asummmsca Peter B. Bloch, Chairman '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert Grossman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter B. Jordan 881 Weet outer Drive oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Re: In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Co.,

et al. (Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and 50-446-2)

Gentlemen:

Footnote 2 of the Memorandum issued on March 12, 1985 denying the CASE Motion For Evidentiary Standard states that the Board's February 15, 1985 order "should be interpreted to apply to the pending request for admissions" and that to "the extent the Staff is not addressing matters covered in these requests, it should inform Applicants, who should then respond within 20 days to such matters."

The Applicant objected to responding to CASE's request for admission at least until completion of the work of the Comanche Peak Response Team. This work will not be completed until all the TRT findings are published, and Applicant evaluates and responds to the findings with objections, proposed correction or both.

' Thepublication with the Staff's SSERs of themakeSSERs. clear that its work is not completed In many instances the SSER requests Applicant to do more work to identify the scope of a problem and/or propose specific solutions -(not suggested by the Staff) to fix the problems already found. In recent public meetings the Staff representatives have made clear that the current batch of SSERs will be followed after Applicant identifies a final SSER. the specific corrective actions it intends to take by The Staff has also indicated that it will respond to the CASE Request for Admission as its SSERs are issued relevant to the request.

YO SI MO /(,0 -

In light of all these developments coupled with the Board's recent order we assume that the time schedule for responses to CASE's requests for admission are Applicant

1) Respond to any request for admission within 20 days after the Staff indicates it is not looking into the issue.

2) Respond to other requests for admission within a reasonable time (perhaps 20 days) after the Applicant files with the Board its CPRT evaluation and proposed actions (if any) with respect to the parti,cular subject of the admission.

Staff

1) Respond to requests for admission within a reasonable time (perhaps 20 days) after it has completed its final SSER with respect to the subject of the admission.

As Staff reports are produced such as new SSERs and the final SSER, CASE will expand its request for admissions in order to facilitate the narrowing of issues on which the Baord will hold some of the remaining hearings. These particular hearings would focus on the issue of the adequacy of the implementation of QA/QC by Applicant, based on the TRT findings, SSERs and Applicant response and the adequacy of the proposed solution to the problem. It is possible, as our earlier motion assumed, that these issues can be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

Our understanding of the Board's recent order is that we must at least await the completion of the Staff SSER process, which now includes a final SSER, and Applicant's response thereto to renew our request for a finding on the pervasive breakdown of the QA/QC program and the need for an independent reinspection program or, if Applicant does not choose to do an independent reinspection, the outright denial of the operating license.

l If these understandings of the Board's order are incorrect,

! we suggest a conference call to clarify matters. -

Sineprely, Anthony . oi n Executi e ire or cca Service List e

• N n _ _ _ - - - . _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -