ML20204J737

Memorandum Informing of 860818 Prehearing Conference in Dallas,Tx to Discuss Scheduling of Case & Outstanding Discovery Disputes.Served on 860808

ML20204J737
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/06/1986
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#386-234 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8608110175
Download: ML20204J737 (2)

Text

_

r

, SN c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS99N AW -8 AIO:31 Before Administrative 00C Jug ${, TING d W%Y Peter B. Bloch, Chairman gg3ygfRW.

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Walter H. Jordan SEnvEu AUG f1989

)

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445-0L 50-446-0L

! TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, --

et al.

ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

) August 6, 1986 MEMORANDb;l (Pre-Hearing Conference)

]

j There will be a pre-hearing conference in Dallas on August 18, commencing at 1:30 pm and expected to conclude by 11:30 am August 19.

The subjects to be covered are: (1) scheduling of the case, and (2) outstanding discovery disputes.

On the scheduling question, the parties will have 30 minutes each:

Applicants, then CASE, then Staff, with Applicants and CASE being permitted to reserve up to 5 minutes for rebuttal. After argument, the Board will deliberate and determine whether further argument may be helpful.

i With respect to scheduling, the Board suggests the following as some of the topics the parties may wish to cover:

1. How is the CPRT addressing the concerns expressed in SSER

1. 13 and in CASE's criticisms of the CPRT program plan? Are there one or more subjects related to these concerns that would lend themselves to an early, productive hearing? Does CASE contest findings in SSER #13?

koch $50 5 b

$0

i

)

e Conference: 2

2. Should the Staff's scheduling suggestions, on which the Board looks favorably, be adopted?

3. CASE want to litigate CPRT adequacy before litigating technical issues related to specific ISAPs. Applicants have objected, in part, that CASE seeks to litigate general issues and subsequently to relitigate the details. Would it be acceptable to permit CASE to proceed with its CPRT adequacy issues but to require, whenever applicable, that the proof include specific examples from completed functional groupings or disciplines?

4. How much lag time should separate the completion of results reports (and the related answers to the Board's 14 ques-tions) and the filing of documents by others? What documents should be required to be filed?

Parties may also deliver written views on scheduling, prior to the conference, preferably by noon August 15. These written views may also suggest the appropriate time allotments to parties for the portion of the conference dealing with discovery disputes.

Should the parties agree on scheduling and on enough of the pending discovery ~ disputes so that a conference would not be productive, the conference may be cancelled.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2A-(h .

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman

. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland

. . - _ - - _ . _ _.- - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _- _ - _ . . . _ - _ - _ . - _ ..