ML20212P673
| ML20212P673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-543 OL, NUDOCS 8609030230 | |
| Download: ML20212P673 (6) | |
Text
54 3
.n - m--en L C A S E =%r 214/946-9446 (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
'86 SEP -2 P 2 :05 August 27, 1986 0FFICE OF SR N '
! PM Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch 00CKETigc Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Subject:
In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Request for an Operating License Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 01-Request for Clarification of Board Order During 8/19/86 Prehearing Conference During the 8/21/86 meeting between the NRC Staff and Applicants at Arlington, which CASE attended, NRC Staff counsel' Larry Chandler indicated a different understanding from what CASE has regarding the Board's verbal order at the beginning of the second day of the prehearing conference (8/19/86).
I am very much concerned that there be no misunderstand 1ng about this, and request clarification froh the Board.
I have attempted to transcribe (as best I could from a tape recording I made) the applicable portions of the 8/19/86 prehearing conference and of the 8/21/86 meeting; copies are attached hereto for the assistance of the Board.
(Unfortunately, I did not tape record the first day of the prehearing conference, 8/18/86, where CASE stated specifically what we were proposing.)
CASE believes that Mr. Roisman made it very clear, and that the Board clearly understood, that we were only proposing and the Board was only looking at the prospect that we would look at the generic defects of the CPRT Program Plan as it related to items not including Stone & Webster design issues, cable tray support design issues, and Cygna design issues.
Certainly this was our intent, and we would have pursued the matter further at that time had we thought there was the slightest doubt in that regard.
8609030230 860027 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
PDR 1
O S o.3
We ask that the Board specifically clarify this. Further, if CASE is incorrect in our understanding in this regard, we ask that the Board let us know immediately and that we be given additional time to file a Motion for Reconsideration, if necessary (since the usual deadline for filing a Motion for Reconsideration would be ten days after the order was issued, or by Friday, 8/29/86).
Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) do A./
rs.) Juanita Ellis President cc: Service List: Federal Express to Judge Bloch, NRC Staff Counsel Geary Mizuno, Applicants' Counsel Thomas Dignan, CASE Co-Counsel Anthony Roisman; First Class to balance of Service List f
2
q a
Board Order at beginning of 8/19/86 prehearing conference re: scheduli.ng i
(second day of prehearing conference on scheduling and ' discovery; typed from tape recording made by je):
BLOCH: We do not consider that either of the orders of litigation suggested by the parties is impossible or impracticable. We could start first with the technical issues or first with the CPRT adequacy issues identified by CASE. We note that both the Staff and the Applicants in their previous filing 6 had suggested starting with CPRT adequacy issues, and nothing that has passed since the time of their initial representations makes it impracticable or impossible to do that now.
4 In the interest of expedient handling of the case, given the status of the technical issues at this time, we adopt CASE's proposed discovery order to the point of the filing of their summary disposition documents. This means that they would have 30 days from today to complete their discovery on the CPRT adequacy issues, after which Applicants will respond either in the regulatorily prescribed fashion or through obtaining additional time from the Board. Thirty days af ter the last summary disposition answers are received --
excuse me, thirty days af ter the last answers to interrogatories are received, CASE will file summary disposition motions.
By that point, the Board will have reached conclusions as to what the proper groupings of the technical issues ought to be.
We expect we'll receive further guidance from the parties on that before that time, and we will then commence a process which is similar to the one suggested by the Applicants for the technical issues. As we review the summary disposition motions, we will at that point decide whether the best thing to do is to go forward to completion on those issues or to continue with the technical issues; 1
3,-
r
,,,---w,
,,...---..,.,---my--
.n-~.--
..,-,m, w--m--
r
---.m...
,4 e
~
that will depend on the nature of the motion and the likely effects of going ahead with that branch of the case.
This morning we have arguments on --
ROISMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, could I just get one clarification. I believe you said that 30 days after the last answers to interrogatories are received, we will file summary judgement motions. Our original proposal was 30 days after last responses to discovery were received, which might be production of documents. Actually, interrogatory answers are due 14 --
BLOCH: Correct that. Whenever the last answers to your discovery is, whether they are interrogatories or documents. My understanding is that you are not, at this point, anticipating live dispositions, however. Is that correct?
ROISMAN: That is correct. If we are, we are going to fit them into that time schedule.
BLOCH: This morning, we are going to be discussing discovery disputes. It appears to the Board best that we start with CASE on these questions, since they are the propounders of the interrogatories.
Mr. Roisman, would you estimate the time necessary for your argument?
ROISMAN: I would think around 20 minutes, as you suggested yesterday, not counting rebuttal time, should be adequate. That somewhat depends on the Board's questions, obviously.
BLOCH: Shall we make it 25 minutes including rebuttal?
ROISMAN: Sure.
2
r-Excerpts and notes from 8/21/86 meeting between NRC Staff and Applicants (with CASE's Juanita Ellis and Jerry Lee Ellis in attendance), regarding Board's 8/19/86 Order re: Scheduling (as typed from tape recording which was made by Juanita Ellis, which was somewhat difficult to hear at times, but the substance of which is accurately reflected in the following):
Included among those in attendance:
Lawrence Chandler with the Office of General Counsel, in Washington, D. C.
John Beck, TUCCO Bob Wooldridge, one of Applicants' counsel Bill Counsil, TUGC0 Vince Noonan asked Larry Chandler to briefly summarize the Board's Order at the 8/19/86 prehearing conference:
CHANDLER: "Briefly, the Board ruled on the schedules that had been proposed by CASE and responded to by the Applicants and by the Staf f with respect to the conduct of hearings and future activities leading up to a hearing. The Board has now ruled that within 30 days CASE is to complete its disecvery on CPRT adequacy. Thirty days after the last complete answers to CASE's discovery are filed, CASE is to file summary disposition requests, and responses to those motions will be filed by the Applicants and Staff, and thereafter the Board will do two things:
First, they will identify proper groupings of technical issues, and second, they will then review the motions for summary disposition and decide whether to proceed first with CPRT adequacy issues or with the technical issues. I don't pretend that to be an exact recitation of what the Board ordered, but that I think is, I trust, a fair 1
summary of what the ruling was.
Mr. Wooldridge was present, or Mrs. Ellis have any different reflection on that, why don't they add it at this time."
ELLIS:
"There's one caveat that we wanted to be sure was understood, and that is that the design adequacy part as far as the Stone & Webster effort with the pipe supports and the cable tray supports and the Cygna stuff was not included in that part of it."
CHANDLER: "Juanita, I'm not sure that -- certainly that was not clearly an element.
I understand that's what you had raised with the Board, and I believe isn't [is? -- not clear] on the record of the prehearing conference. My notes and my recollection don't reflect that that was explicitly made a part of the Board's ruling at this time."
ELLIS:
"Oh.
Well, it was my understanding that they accepted CASE's schedule up to that point, and I don't think that they really addressed it.
That's something apparently we need to get clarified with the Board."
CHANDLER:
"It certainly wasn't explicit in the Board's ruling, and may require clarification."
ELLIS: "And I think, you know, that was simply that we just don't have that much information now about those issues, and won't have by that time. And also we also made very clear that we don't want to do summary disposition motions regarding design."
CHANDLER:
"That's a point that was clear."
2
.