ML20214C841
| ML20214C841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1986 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1600 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8611210259 | |
| Download: ML20214C841 (2) | |
Text
n, /f/3 1
SERVED NOV 201986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Dg;3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
'86 NOV 20 Ail :11 Peter B. Bloch, Chaiman gF,
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom coC f
=
Dr. Walter H. Jordan ap3s j
)
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)
)
)
November 19, 1986 MEMORANDUM (December 3 Discovery Conference)
There will be a pre-hearing conference, regarding pending discovery questions, in Bethesda, in the hearing room of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, on December 3, 1986 beginning at 9 am and continuing, if necessary, on December 4.
We will, however, be pleased to cancel this conference or to conduct it by telephone if the parties are satisfied that thev have reached sufficient agreement for the
. scheduled conference to be unnecessary.
Thoughts To assist the parties in conducting fruitful negotiations, we wish to suggest some guidelir.es regarding the nature of the issue now being litigated.
It has been the ruling of this Board that the current issue for litigation is whether or not the CPRT program plan is adequate.
We consider it important, as part of this issue, to ascertain the meaning Nk kDo$
])So2-
I Discovery Conference:
2 of the plan as it currently exists.
The history of the development of the plan and of its early use is relevant to that issue and is a legiti-mate subject for discovery.
We also contemplate that it will be relevant for Applicants to demonstrate, if they choose, that certain aspects of the plan remain flexible in a way that will cure apparent deficiencies, arising from the interpretation of the plan as it now exists.
We reserve any judgment at this time as to whether Applicants' answers to discovery requests adequately respond to specific interroga-tories related to the issues we have just discussed. There may be some room for clarifying the specific requests and answers in discussions between the parties.
We urge that the thrust of those discussions be the importance of disclosing the facts that are relevant to the pending questions, not on demonstrating the rightness or wrongness of the specific questions that have been asked or the specific answers that have been given. The purpose of discovery is to give both sides access to the truth.
The issues are too important to be considered merely a game of hide-and-seek.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
,n,'
(
k k
Feter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland
.