ML20206S229
| ML20206S229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-737 OL, NUDOCS 8609220133 | |
| Download: ML20206S229 (3) | |
Text
..
ACASE==w a4/946-9446 (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
'86 SEP 18 Pl2:03 September 15, 1986 Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch 0FFICE ".r L.: ju v 00C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board g.
W U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 i
Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Subject:
In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
Application for an Operating License Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 C
Memorialization of Changes in Recent Board Orders and/or Filing Dates for l
Certain Pleadings i
l l
As we discussed during the telephone conversation which Applicants' Counsel l
Mr. Gad and I had with Judge Bloch last Wednesday, September 10, 1986, this letter is to memorialize changes in recent Board Orders and/or filing dates for certain pleadings.
1.
CASE requested additional time, until October 11, 1986, before having to file (place in the mail) Motions to Compel regarding the following:
1 Applicants' responses to CASE's First through Fifth Sets re:
Credibility Applicants' 7/28/86 Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents and Motion for Protective Order Applicants' 9/5/86 Responses to CASE's 7/29/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents and Motion for Protective Order k
O G
1
Applicants had no objection, and on September 10, 1986, Judge Bloch granted CASE's request. As stated during our telephone conversation, this extension was requested in order to allow CASE and Applicants to engage in further discussions regarding these discovery matters, in the hope that Motions to Compel could eitber be avoided or considerably reduced.
2.
Applicants requested an enlargement of time for all responses to the Board's 9/9/86 Memorandum and Order (Questions About Cygna's Continuing Role) by about one month, to the following dates:
Applicants to file on October 27, 1986; CASE and Cygna to file on November 4,1986; and NRC Staff to file on November 11, 1986.
CASE did not object to Applicants' proposed revised schedule; Mrs. Ellis advised that Cygna was one of the matters which CASE wanted to include in its informal discussions with Applicants (see item 4 below). On September 10, 1986, Judge Bloch granted Applicants' request, and the deadlines contained in the Board's 9/9/86 Memorandum and Order (Questions About Cygna's Continuing Role) were revised to those indicated above.
In a conversation subsequent to our discussion with the Board, Applicants and CASE agreed that service should be by overnight delivery to the other parties and Cygna which have deadlines by which to file, so that they can have pleadings by the other parties in hand as quickly as possible because of the short periods of time between the various filings. CASE suggests that it would be helpful for the NRC Staff and Cygna to do likewise,-
although the Staff and Cygna are obviously not bound by the informal agreement between Applicants and CASE.
3.
Further, CASE sought and was granted permission by Judge.Bloch on September 10, 1986, to include in CASE's 11/4/86 response regarding Cygna (rather than filing separately within ten days) comments regarding something which the Board said in its Order; Applicants had no objection.
4.
Following receipt of CASE's 8/27/86 letter to the Board requesting clarification of the Board's Order during the 8/19/86 Prehearing Conference i
(as to the scope of the Order specifically regarding the adequacy of Applicants' program plan insofar as it relates to design), the Board requested that CASE provide further clarification. Following discussions between Applicants and CASE, both agreed that the adequacy of Applicants' program plan insofar as it relates to design issues should not be addressed at this time and should be excluded from the scope of the Board's 8/19/86 Prehearing Conference Order. Applicants and CASE subsequently discussed this with Board Chairman Bloch, CASE requested that the Board so order, and on September 10, 1986, Judge Bloch agreed.
2
Both Applicants and CASE, in response to a question from Judge Bloch as whether or not Applicants and CASE had any agreement as to when those issues would be included, advised that we were unable to forecast that at this time. As stated on 9/10/86, CASE's present intent is that we will continue with discovery and informal discussions with Applicants, and will advise Applicants of our concerns with the Plan as we go along and give them the opportunity to respond to CASE's concerns. At the point when we have decided that we can agree on a specific item, or if Applicants decide at some point during the discussions that they are going to change some portion of their Plan, or it becomes apparent that we cannot agree and are deadlocked on a specific item, we will advise the Board and.the NRC Staff in-writing.
Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)
A rs.) Juanita Ellis President cc:
Service List (Overnight Delivery to: Judge Bloch, NRC Staff Counsel Mizuno, CASE Co-Counsel Anthony Z. Roissan, and Cygna; First Class to remainder of Service List) l l
l l
l 3
l
~
-