ML20128K070
| ML20128K070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1985 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-748 OL, NUDOCS 8507100472 | |
| Download: ML20128K070 (4) | |
Text
,
C A S E==
(CITIZENS ASSN FOR SOUND ENERGY)
July 6, 1985 U5VC Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch U. S. Nucient Regulatory Commission 4350 Enst/ West Highway, 4th Floor eg g gj{,. 9 A]Q ;1 2 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
{SfC gl Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Denn Fi 5
Division of Engineering, BRANCH Architecture and Technology Okinhoma State University Stillwater, Okinhoma 74074 Dr. Walter 11. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dont Administrative Judges Subjects in the Matter of Texan Utilities Electric Company, et,,n_1,.
t 1
Request for an Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket : fos. 50-445 and 50-446bb CASE's Response to Applicants' 6/28/85 Current Management Views and Hanagement Plan for Resolution of All 1ssues (and attachment, Comanche Peak Responso Team Program Plan and issue-Specific Action Pinnn, Ravinton 2, June 28, 1985)
In the Board's 5/24/85 Memorandum and Order (Case Hanngement Pinn), the Board stated (pnge 4):
"Haaponnon. We will require CASE and the Staf f of the thiclear Regulatory Comminnion to respond to the Case Hanngement Plan that Appitennt will filo in response to thin Homorandum and Ordar. The rosponnas are expectnd to be helpful to the Board in defining and romolving issues."
The Board also stated (page 4):
" Time fic hed u l a_.
There is sufficinnt uncertainty about the neope and content of the filing that we are requiring of Applienntn that we will not indulgo in tho apparently fruitless exercine of blindly setting a I
1 H5071004 ;l 000
/,
C}
PDM A
K ODO M4D G
YDN Q
7
schedule for responses. CASE will not be subjected to unrealistic time schedules. We will consider as relevant to the scheduling the reasonableness of Applicants' responses to discovery requests."
I CASE is not certain when the Board anticipates that we might be able to i
respond to Applicants' pleading; however, we want to call the Board's attention to several barriers to our being able at this time to provide the l
Board with the type of helpful responses which the Board seeks:
1.
We first call to the Board's attention the fact that Applicants' 6/28/85 Current Management Views and Management Plan for Resolution of All Issues was incomplete. The primary focus and basis for Applicants' pleading is the CPRT Plan (Comnche Peak Rosponse Team Program Plan and Issue-Specific Action Plans, revision 2 June 28, 1985); however, this CPRT Plan was not included with Applicants' 6/28/85 filing.
CASE (in the main docket) did not receive a copy of the CPRT Plan until 3:25 P.M. on 7/3/85, and then not through normal channels /l/. As the Board is no doubt aware by this time, the CPRT i
Plan is itself a massive document, which will require detailed study and analysis before we can reach any conclusions regarding it.
1 Further, our very cursory review of the CPRT Plan indicates that it is not complete in and of itself either. Applicants' Mr. Council states in his 6/28/85 cover letter to the NRC's Mr. Vince Noonan (second page):
"To provide a sharper focus on the quality of the CPRT activities, we are developing an umbrella OA offort for all CPRT activitice which do not fall directly under the TUGC0 Appendix B program. We shall detail that effort in a separate transmittal."
This separate transmittal was not included with either of Applicants' filings and has not been received to date. We note, however, that the information purported to be contained theroin is obviously of interest and concern to CASE, and necesonry for a thorough response to the CPRT Plan.
2.
In addition, at this time there are att11 numerous discovery requests outstanding (both formal and informal), and it appears that it will be necessary for CASE to file a formal Hotion to Compel regarding some of those requests and, in some instancos, to forma 11:e what are now informal discovery requents. CASE has already informed Applicants of our intent in this regard, and have invited Appliennes to attempt to work with them informally on these matters (see CASE's 6/24/85 letter to ApplitAnts' counsel, Mr. Wooldridge, under subject: Discovery Requests).
W* have received no response to that suggestion.
ft/ We will save for nnother time a discussion of the manner in which Applicants have handled distribution of CASE's copics of their 6/28/85 Current Hanagement Views and the CPRT Plang however, Applicants should be on notice that at some point in time, CASK plans to pursue this matter further.
2
4 It may well be that CASE will, depending upon Applicants' responsiveness (or lack thereof), ask the Board to reschedule the prehearing conference (see Board's 5/24/85 Memorandum and Order (Case Management Plan), page 5, item 4) which the Board cancelled following the agreement between CASE and Applicants regarding discovery requests /2/. This may be helpful to avoid needless delay and effort on the part of all parties, and to expedite the hearings process.
3.
In addition, CASE needs to be able to refer the Board to specific portions of the transcripts of the NRC Staff / Applicants meetings held June 13 and 14 /3/, which we believe the Board will be receiving in the near future from the NRC Staff.
Further, another meeting between the NRC Staff and Applicants has been scheduled for July 19 in Arlington, Texas, to discuss the CPRT Plan just submitted by Applicants. We anticipate that there will be additional information contained in the transcript of that meeting to which we will want to refer in our response to the Applicants' filings /3/.
At this point in time, CASE is unwilling to accept either Applicants' i
approach or its timetable.
it is obvious that it will take quite some time to read, digest, and analyze Applicants' pleadings (which they obviously have been working on for months) f 4,/.
Because of this, uncertainties regarding discovery, and the matters f2/
It is noteworthy that Applicants' pleadings do not discuss open discovery requests or allow time for necessary future discovery regarding their pleadings or the CPRT Plan. One possibility is that CASE will request that honrings or evidentiary depositions be held (or at least begun) during the same week regarding discovery requests and the IMC Report and issues raised by the HAC Report (see CASE's 6/24/85 Board Notification and CASE's Motions: for Discovery Pegarding the HAC r
i Report and Issues Raised by the MAC Report and/or for llenrings and/or Evidentiary Depositions).
f3/ We also anticipate that it may be necessary for CASE (and the other partion) to take some timo correcting the transcript, as CASE requested the Staff to do regarding the 3/23/85 NRC Staff / CASE / Applicants meeting. As the Board and parties are well nware, CASE (and the other parties) have boon concerned for some timo about the quality and accuracy of the transcripts.
It is nino of concern to CASE that the transcripts are being mont out as Board Notifications to the Licensing Board and to the Commission without necessary clarifying changes having i
been mado.
/4/ Although CASE has previously received a draft of the current CPRT Plan, it apponre from a cursory comparison of the draft and the finnt document that there have been numerous changes.
It will tako additionni time to review and analyse the effect of, and reasons for, those changes.
3
detailed in the preceding, CASE (in the main docket) is reluctant to make a commitment of how detailed and helpful a response we will be able to make by Applicants' suggested response date of July 26.
It is our belief at this time that the most we could expect to provide at that time would be to detail with some specificity our approach to responding in detail; however, under the circumstances and considering the uncertainties discussed briefly herein, we hesitate even to make such a specific commitment at this time, especially with regard to the design issues.
Respectfully submitted, is k l,
f]!/ L prs.)JuanitaEllis, President i
CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 cc Service List i
l 4
l i_