ML20126F123
| ML20126F123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1985 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-416 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8506170359 | |
| Download: ML20126F123 (4) | |
Text
._.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
00tHETED USNRC Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ti JM 13 NO:39 0FFICE OF SECRETAkV DOCKETING & SERvin In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-44986605 OL-2 50-446-OL & OL-2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
June 12, 1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SERVED JUN 131985 MEMORANDUM (REQUESTFORANEXTENSIONOFTIME)
Applicants' Motion to Extend Time (for filing Current Management Views), filed June 10, 1985, has been opposed by CASE in two filings, filed on June 10 an'd June 11.
CASE questions whether Applicants need for additional time is based on a misrepreser 'ation about when a two-day meeting with Staff was scheduled, whether Applicants have presented reasons for delaying their filing before the Board or whether they were more properly addressed to the Staff in order to obtain a delay of the Staff meeting, whether Applicants have sought an unfair procedural advantage by delaying filing the request u1til the last moment, and whether the Staff can appropri-ately meet with Applicants to consider a program plan that does not also include the substance of the requested Current Management Views.
However, we see little reason for CASE or the Board to be so concerned about these details under present circumstances.
To the extent that the Current Management Views may be relevant to pending Staff actions, it is within the discretion of the Staff whether or not to act before reviewing those views --it is not up to the Board to direct Staff policy.
We expect the Staff meeting to be transcribed and
$r
. fty..
n.
Time Extension:
2 to be of possible use in this proceeding. The discussion with Staff may help to provide a context within which to consider the Current Manage-ment Views.
The Current Management Views may be important because they will reflect management's knowledge and skill in understanding and coping with' current problems.
What we desire is a snapshot, supplemented as important changes in management perception occur.
Although we would be distressed by a substantial delay in receiving management's first report, we sympathize with the need for a two week delay in which to incorporate a thoughtful response to SSER 11.
We would, however, be very unlikely to permit further delay.
ORDER l
For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the l
entire record in this matter, it is this 12th day of June 1985 ORDERED:
l TexasUtilitiesElectricCompany,etal.(Applicants),shall deliver their Current Management Views to the service list, in compli-L i
l ance with our May 24 Order, by June 28, 1985.
l Applicants' Current Management Views shall be updated thereafter whenever necessary to reflect substantial changes in the facts or opinions filed before this Board.
FOR THE 1
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS f
. db V'
Peter B. Bl'bCh, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I
Bethesda, Maryland w
Mlb.
o DOCXETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman OFFICE CF sgcap, Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 0migg Ch Dr. Walter H. Jordan In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445-0L & OL-2 50-446-OL & OL-2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
June 12, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SERVED JUN 131985 MEMORANDUM (REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME)
Applicants' Motion to Extend Time (for filing Current Management Views), filed June 10, 1985, has been opposed by CASE in t o filings, filed on June 10 and June 11.
CASE questions whether Applicants need for additional time is based on a misrepresentation about when a two-day meeting with Staff was scheduled, whether Applicants have presented reasons for delaying their filing before the Board or whether they were more properly addressed to the Staff in order to obtain a delay of the Staff meeting, whether Applicants have sought an unfair procedural advantage by delaying filing the request until the last moment, and whether the Staff can appropri-ately meet with Applicants to consider a program plan that does not also include the substance of the requested Current Management Views.
However, we see little reason for CASE or the Board to be so concerned about these details under present circumstances.
To the extent that the Current Management Views may be relevant to pending Staff actions, it is within the discretion of the Staff whether or not to act before reviewing those views --it is not up to the Board to direct Staff policy. We expect the Staff meeting to be transcribed and 5
.