ML20129H736

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Pages 2 & 15 of Case Response to Alleged Mootness & Proposed Schedule for Docket 2 Issues.Encl Pages May Be Missing from Original Due to Copying Errors
ML20129H736
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 07/17/1985
From:
TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#385-838 OL-2, NUDOCS 8507190397
Download: ML20129H736 (3)


Text

- ._.

TRIAL l AWYERS FOR Pusuc JUSTICE SulTE 611 cmrtNS Ltcat ctmic orrictRs 2000 P STREET. NORTHWT$f (( fugt etn5,ron cconctsuAoc>N retsioon WASHINGTON. D C. 20036

^ '

nostetCARTMOT pre $iDENT-tuCT Dia C O Aar u u ,A~r c5 ten coTcNert. vct-ratsimut (202)463 86W> Jll18 A10:58 start ATTOANEY winIAM A TRINE.f1NANCIAL CHAIRMAN K! VIN HANNoN MONsCAM HMLNEL $tCRETARY ^

siucotsON neconDmc5ccRitaaY OfflCE OF SECRtiA,s - 3 (", 3s o 00CKETING & SERVILI omct MANon

, ,,,c3,otN,3 BRANCH l2 Lit DEAN ROSS DAN 5uumu staff ARDEN ALLRANDER.MEM6tRSHIPDIRECTOR RITA 58MMONS. StCRITARY

    • d b ~

00C;& , t.

C- (L 0 July 17, 1985 Due to copying errors it has come to our attention that some copies of CASE's Response to The Alleged Mootness of Docket 2 Issues and Proposed Schedule For Docket 2 may be missing pages 2 and 15. Those pages are here enclosed. We

. apologize for any incovenience.

i 9

~ " . _ =

A PROJECT OfTHE CITIZENS LEGAL CLINIC '

8507190397 850717 PDR ADO' M 05000445 0 PDR

4 y

o Resolutionjlf All Issues, June 28, 1985) there is a great deal more to this proceeding than a hypothetical test of the adequacy of the Comanche Peak Response Team's Program Plan (CPRT) and the presumed receipt of an operating license by Applicants. The purpose of this filing is to make clear that absent some significant concessions by Applicants, the issues in Docket 2 are not moot; and, further that Applicants proposed schedule, which assumes a continuation of the present applicant-initiated discovery black-out, (we have no response to our informal 4

discovery from staff or Applicants) is unacceptable. In a subsequent filing we will fully explore all of the erroneous and

[o often unstated factual and legal assumptions which underlie p Applicants' position. We focus here on mootness and scheduling.

7, 1 II. Alleged Mootness W i

..~.

lj According to Black's Law Dictionary, an issue is moot when p.

k s

judgement on it cannot have any legal or practical effect on the b.t 1

-g existing controversy.

o n;

g 41-

+ The controversy in Docket 2, and the question which must be fi

( answered, is whether there has been a pervasive breakdown of the fj QA/QC program for construction at the Commanche Peak plant such a

+

1. Blacks Law Dictionary, Revised Fifth Edition, p. 909 (1979)

=l 3 (,

c> t issue in Docket 2 or the real remedy which Docket 2 seeks, Docket 2 issues have not been superseded by the CRPT promises of reform. The CPRT represents, at best, a new afffirmat'ive case by Applicant on the Docket 2 issues. As such it is subject to all.

the normal rules of discovery and hearings. CASE intends to pursue these issues to their inevitable conclusion. If (

Applicants continue to insist on avoiding the inevitable the only issue that is moot is the issue of mootness.

Respegtfully Submitted,

g. D Anthon . RoIsman i Bille a e Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 4

~

2000 P Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 t- Counsel for CASE:

l-L L

'l

. .