ML20134H293
| ML20134H293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1985 |
| From: | Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bloch P, Grossman H, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-322 OL, NUDOCS 8508280353 | |
| Download: ML20134H293 (2) | |
Text
,
7/-1
/
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00 METED g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 USNRC g*****/
'85 MG 23 P3:21 August 22, 1985 GFFICE or Sgcg,h;yl,i 00CXErmG & SE.
BRANCH Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dean, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Architecture and Technology Washington, DC 20555 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 Herbert Grossman, Alternate Chairman Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Oak Ridge National Laboratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Washington, DC 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Electric, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units' Tand 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 O L
Dear Administrative Judges:
The Staff has received " CASE's Proposal Regarding Design / Design QA in Response to Applicants' 6/28/85 Current Management Views and Management Plan for Resolution of All Issues" (August 15, 1985) (" CASE's Proposal").
The Staff considers CASE's Proposal to be a supplement to " CASE's Initial Response to Applicants' 6/28/85 Current Management Views and Management Plan for Resolution of all Issues" (July 29, 1985) which responds to Applicants' Management Plan of June 28, 1985. Accordingly, the Staff does not intend to respond to CASE's Proposal.
Insofar as CASE's Proposal urges that litf ation of pipe support design and design QA issues be continued under the. old theory of the case, the Staff opposes such a proposal, as reflected in the "NRC Staff Response to Appli-cants' Statement of Current Views and Proposed Case Management Plan" (August 2, 1985) (" Staff Response").
In the Staff Response, the Staff agreed with Applicants that litigation should now focus on the CPRT Program Plan. Staff Response, pp. 5-12.
ge2ggggt g;oaggs 7)So'}
G
. On another matter, the Staff does not intend to file a response on
" CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 7/22/85 Memorandum and Order (Motions Related to the MAC Report)" (August 5, 1985), which concerns a discovery dispute between CASE and Applicants.
Sincerely, j
W G ry S.
izuno Counse or NRC Staff cc: Service List