ML20206M799
| ML20206M799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1986 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bloch P, Johnson E, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-403 OL, NUDOCS 8608210403 | |
| Download: ML20206M799 (2) | |
Text
1
$h
~
.T
[f[ gmI%,
iE0 00 %S.
UNITED STATES -
4 U
C
(; g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5*$
/4 N.v /
.g gs 18 P3 03 August 13, 1986 E OF SyE f0C EigtgGdCH 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 Commission Architecture and Technology Washington, DC 20555 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Dr. Walter H. Jordan Oak Ridge National Laboratory Administrative Judge P. O. Box, Building 3500 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Ulifts 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 o (__,
Dear Administrative Judges:
In connection with the Board Order setting a prehearing conference for August 18 and 19,1986, to avoid misunderstanding I wish to make clear what the Staff would be prepared to discuss at such conference.
In I
discussing potential dates for such a conference, the Staff had discussed briefly with the Board and other parties the reasons for its position that a later conference would be preferable.
I With respect to scheduling, the staff counsel will be prepared to discuss the relative merits of its proposed approach to scheduling versus the approaches reflected in the filing by the other parties.
We will not, however, be prepared to discuss the organization of, or the timing of, the Staff assessment of the various results reports and other reports or
-the grouping of the various ISAPs and DSAPs (except for illustrative i
purposes as in the Staff's August 4,1986 NRC Staff Response to CASE's Proposed Schedule for Hearing).
As I indicated before the date of the prehearing conference was established, the Staff is planning, for later next week, a meeting with the Applicants to discuss in some depth the i
status of the Applicants' program.
It was for this reason that that Staff recommended a later date for the prehearing conference, so that we could not only discuss the " philosophy" of organization of the hearing but could also discuss specific proposals based on a firmer t
t
$ [ kO h $
G
i 4 understanding of the Applicants' report schedules. It is my understand-ing that Applicants agreed that a prehearing conference after the scheduled' meeting with Staff would be preferable. However, I understand that CASE believes that a prehearing discussion of the differing fundamental concepts reflected in the filings of the three parties would be desirable even in the absence of specific proposals for scheduling of specific issues.
The Staff believes that a prehearing conference so limited is unlikely to advance matters substantially over the information reflected in the filings, and it continues to believe that a more productive prehearing conference could be held approximately a week later.
Nonetheless, we will attend the conference scheduled by the Board prepared to discuss the matters outlined above and the questions posed by the Board in its August 6, 1986 Memorandum, except to the extent that those questions may involve matters relating to the grouping of ISAPs and DSAPs or the organization or timing of the Staff's assessment of Applicants' various reports.
We understand that the Board may also wish to discuss discovery matters.
In general the Staff has not been significantly involved with these matters.
Sincerely, F (NScinto s'e FiE Deputy Assistant General ounsel for Hearings
'j cc:
Service List l
l
-.. - -, -., -.,.. -. -. - ~ _
.