ML20134N365
| ML20134N365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1985 |
| From: | Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-411 OL, NUDOCS 8509050109 | |
| Download: ML20134N365 (5) | |
Text
g//
August 30, 1985' a
CC:Wtc0 unsu UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,65 EP ~3 f12:01 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD fi ~E OF EEE u -
OCCXLiac; Sgg g ;
In the Matter of SRANCH TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-44506 COMPANY, et _al.
)
50-4450/_.
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S OFFER OF PROOF ON LACK OF INDEPENDENCE OF CPRT I.
INTRODUCTION
?
CASE has filed its " Offer of Proof of Lack of Independence.of Appli-cant's latest Plan ("CPRT Plan") (August 19, 1985) (" CASE's Offer of Proof"). The NRC Staff (" Staff") herein responds to CASE's Offer of Proof.
II.
BACKGROUND On June 28, 1985, Applicants filed their " Current Views and Manage-ment Plan for he:olution of All-Issues" (" Applicants' Management Plan")
and the " Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, Revision 2" ("CPRT Program Plan"). Applicants' Management Plan proposed that litigation in this proceeding be refocused on whether~the CPRT Program Plan is adequate f
to provide the Board with reasorable assurance that the CPSES facility
}
has been properly designed and constructed. Applicants' Management i
Pian also proposed that, if tFeir Management / Plan was accepted] CASE be
)
required to submit a.', list of " charges" indicating, with specificity and basis, those aspects of the CP,RT which CASE wishes to challenge as being l
l
.'I
'I
v inadequate. Applicants' Management Plan, pp. 43-45, 72. The Board has decided not to adopt the Applicants' Management Plan at this time.
Memorandum and Order (Propoal for Governance of this Case), LBP-85-32 (August 29,1985)("BoardOrder").
III. DISCUSSION Since CASE's Offer of Proof does not explicitly request any Board action or finding, it is unclear what CASE seeks from the filing of its Offer of Proof.
If CASE intends that its Offer of Proof be notice
'to the parties that one of the issues that it wishes to litigate regard-ing the CPRT Program Plan is the independence of the CPRT (and therefore the validity of the CPRT results), the Staff submits that CASE's Offer of Prcof is a premature filing.
The Board has decided not to adopt Appli-cants' itanagement Plan at this time; therefore, there is no immediate relevance of the CPRT and issues regarding its independence to the currently-admitted issues-in-controversy.
The Staff submits that it is therefore inappropriate for CASE to submit any pleadings regarding the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan at this stage in the proceeding, given the August 29, 1985 Board Order.
The Staff points out that CASE is not without an avenue to present in a timely fashion its views on the adequacy of CPRT Program Plan to the Staff and Applicants. As indicated in Board ffotification 85-075 (August 16,1985), the Staff will be receiving and evaluating CASE's ccmrents on the CPRT Program Plan. 1/ CASE also has the opportunity to
-1/
The Board also encouraged CASE to share their concerns regarding the CPRT Program Plan with the Staff.
Board Order, p. 3, n.3.
. submit its concerns directly to Applicants for their consideration.
The Staff favors CASE's early identification of concerns, since it affords the Applicants the opportunity to censider CASE's comments in an informal, non-adversarial framework. SI Applicants ray well modify elements of the CPRT Program Plan to address CASE's concern, thereby rencving that ccncern as a natter of contention between the parties.
Indeed, CASE r.ay well come to an understanding with Applicants on the question of CPRT independence. Because of this possibility, it is the position of the Staff that the Board need not, at this time, consider CASE's Offer of Proof.
Likewise it would be inappropriate for CASE to file similar
" offers of prcof" raising concerns with the CPRT at this time.
IV.
CONCLUSION The Ecard should not consider CASE's Offer of Proof.
Respectfully submitted, Q
Geary Mi uno Counsel.. NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of August, 1985
-2/
Just as the Staff believes that it is desirable for CASE to identify its concerns with the CPRT Program Plan early in the process, the Staff also recognizes that early identification of Staff concerns with the CPRT Program Plan would be helpful to Applicants.
- Thus, the Staff transmitted a preliminary series of questions and com: rents to the CPRT Program Plan to Applicants on August 9,1985 (attachment to Board Notification 85-075).
ka.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, _et _al.
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S OFFER OF PROOF ON LACK 0F INDEPENDENCE OF CPRT" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 30th day of August, 1985:
Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Administrative Judge-President, CASE' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge _
Environmental Protection Division Dean, Division of Engineering P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Architecture and Technology Austin, TX 78711 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK, 74078 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
William A. Horin, Esq.
Elizabeth B. Johnson Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Administrative Judge Purcell & Reynolds Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1200 17th Street, N.W.
.P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Washington, DC 20036 Oak Ridge,.TN 37830 Billie Pirner Garde Dr. Walter H. Jordan Citizens Clinic Director Administrative Judge Government Accountability Project 881 W. Outer Drive 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, DC 20009
I o
(, Herbert Grossman, Alternate Chairman
- Mr. W. G. Counsil Administrative Judge Executive Vice President Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Texas Utilities Generating Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Washington, DC 20555 Dallas, TX 75201 Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.*
William L. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20555 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Lanny Alan Sinkin Worsham, Forsythe, Samples 3022 Porter Street, N.W., #304
& Wooldridge Washington, DC 20008 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 James T. McGaugby Southern Engineering Co. of Georgia Mr. James E. Cummins 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W.
' Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Atlanta, GA 30367-8301 Steam Electric Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 38 Panel
- Glen Rose, TX 76043 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 William H. Burchette, Esq.
Mark D. Nozette, Esq.
Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Appeal Heron, Surchette, Ruckert Board Panel *
& Rothwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Robert D. Martin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Jablon, Esa.
Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-4798 1
h 6. A Gearf S.-Miz ano N
i Couns fo JRC Staff m