ML20215E688
| ML20215E688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1926 OL, NUDOCS 8612230072 | |
| Download: ML20215E688 (5) | |
Text
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CMETED BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
OG In the Matter of l
Docket Nos. 5%6449EC 18 P2:22 l
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC and 50-446 -ov -
COMPANY, et al.
UOM [
(Application Yor an N Operating License)~
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) i CASE'S PROGRESS RE? ORT (III)
Pursuant to the June 6, 1986, Board's Memorandum and Order (Progress Report and Notice of Available Documents), CASE submits its third progress report n/.
CASE is currently still engaged in attempting to obtain discovery from i
both Applicants and NRC Staff regarding those portions of Applicants' CPRT Plan which are to be included in the upcoming proceedings $ /, and in reviewing.those responses which we have obtained to date. The Board is well aware of the currently outstanding discovery disputes, and we will not reiterate them in detail here; hopefully those disputes will be settled by the Board during the currently-scheduled prehearing conference on December 15 (and, if necessary, continued on December 16) in Washington H/.
f_lf on Friday, 12/12/86, Mrs. Ellis telephoned Judge Bloch and advised that she had attempted to reach the Applicants and was unable to speak with them, and on that basis Judge Bloch granted an extension to file this Report until Monday, 12/15/86.
R / As discussed in the Board's order during 8/19/86 prehearing conference (Tr. 24603-24605); and in CASE's 9/15/86 letter to Board under
Subject:
Memorialization of Changes in Recent Board Orders and/or Filing Dates for Certain Pleadings, item 4, pages 2 and 3.
See also 11/21/86 letter from CASE's Mrs. Ellis to Applicants' counsel, Mr. Gad.
M / See 11/21/86 letter from CASE's Mrs. Ellis to Board under
Subject:
December 3, 1986 [now rescheduled for December 15-16, 1986] Prehearing Conference, which is still applicable.
8612230072 861215 gd DR ADOCK 0500 S
F 9
\\
V CASE is still working on its analyses of Results Reports, and our review and analyses are continuing of other documents received on discovery and other documents received recently (for example, those listed by Applicants in their 12/1/86 Third Progress Report and in Applicants' Annotated Bibliographies, as well as other documents received on discovery, proposed changes to the FSAR, etc.).
We expect to file additional discovery requests regarding these matters f4/.
We have received some responses to discovery requests filed regarding the Stone & Webster " Generic Technical Issues" Report f 5/ and discovery and discussions, until recently, had been continuing regarding those responses, as well as on other discovery requests regarding which Motions to Compel by
' CASE are in abeyance awaiting results of further informal discussions between CASE and Applicants f6/. In the past, Applicants' and CASE's joiat f4/ CASE has already noted that Applicants have disclosed that they are about to issue Revision 4 of the CPRT Program Plan (confirmed again by Applicants on page 1 of attachment to Applicants' 12/1/86 Response to Board Concerns). We again respectfully request that the Board inquire immediately into the status of Revision 4 (see page 21 of CASE's 11/28/86 Motion to Compel Answers to Sets 3-7); this is not only important for the discovery matters discussed in CASE's 11/28/86 Motion to Compel, but design / design OA and the rest of the case as well.
f5/ Applicants' 9/5/86 Responses to CASE's 7/29/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents and Motion for Protective Order.
f6/ See CASE's 9/15/86 letter to Board, under
Subject:
Memoralization of Changes in Recent Board Order and/or Filing Dates for Certain Pleadings, item 1; and most recently, 11/21/86 letter from CASE's Mrs.
Ellis to Board under
Subject:
Enlarge:Sant of Time for Filing of Motions to Compel.
In a 12/2/86 joint letter from CASE's Mrs. Ellis and Mr.
Roisman to Applicants' counsel Mr. Dignan [not yet sent to the service list], CASE stated that:
"In the expectation that this matter will be resolved promptly, Mrs. Ellis does not intend to file motions to compel (pending j
further discussions with Applicants' counsel) regarding those discovery matters about which she has been engaged in discussions with Applicants; those motions to compel had been tentatively scheduled to be filed this Saturday, December 6, 1986 (see 11/21/86 letter to Board from Mrs. Ellis)."
2
...'e t
efforts had appeared to be fruitful in many areas, and we had mutually agreed on further extensions of time so that these efforts could continue; we will continue to keep the Board advised in this regard.
I
~At the present time, there is a problem because of Applicants' positionL (as stated in Mr. Dignan's 11/24/86 letter to Mr. Roisman, page 2 /7/) that no one associated with the Applicants -- other than their counsel of record
-- is to communicate with CASE on any subject, and that all such communications are to be limited-to Mr. Roissan or Ms. Garde. No one with Applicants is currently communicating with CASE's President, Mrs. Ellis, who has been an authorized representative of CASE in these proceedings since they first began in 1979, and who' plans to continue to be.
Discussions between Mrs. Ellis and Applicants' Mr. Counsil which were authorized by the 8/19/86 Agreement Between CASE and Applicants Regarding Discovery Matters
' Relating to Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (agreed upon during the 8/18/86-8/19/86 prehearing conference, copy of which was attached to the 11/21/86 letter from Mrs. Ellis to Mr. Counsil) have ceased. CASE has
~
attempted to remedy this situation, in a 12/1/86 telephone conference call between Mr. Dignan, Mr. Roisman, and Mrs. Ellis, in a follow-up 12/2/86 letter to Mr. Dignan jointly from Mr. Roisman and Mrs. Ellis [not yet sent to the Board]; there is also a 12/3/86 follow-up letter from Mr. Dignan jointly to Mr. Roissan and Mrs. Ellis (not yet sent to the Board].
Resolution of this problem has been delayed somewhat due to the illness of Mrs. Ellis for about a week beginning 12/4/86 (but from which she has now pretty well recovered), and the unavailability of Applicants' counsel to
/7/ See 11/24/86 letter from Applicants' counsel Mr. Dignan to CASE's (TLPJ) Mr. Roisman; see also 11/7/86 letter from CASE's Mr. Roisman to Applicants'.Mr. Gad; 11/21/86 letters from CASE's Mrs. Ellis to:
Applicants' Mr. Counsil; Applicants' counsel Mr. Gad; and Board.
3 i
l 1
5 discuss an extension of time for a CASE response to Applicants' 12/1/86 Response to Board Concerns or a motion to compel regarding Applicants' 12/2/86 Answers to CASE CPRT Program Plan interrogatories (Set No. 12).
In the fond hope that a rational and mutually acceptable solution can still be worked out between CASE and Applicants, CASE will attempt to resolve this matter with the Applicants; we do not wish to have this discussed in the absence of Mrs. Ellis (such as at the prehearing conference on 12/15/86-12/16/86) and we are not at this time requesting the Board's assistance in resolving this matter, although it may be necessary to do so if it cannot be mutually worked out soon. We mention it at this time only because it is a necessary part of our report on' progress, which was ordered by the Board.
We continue to believe (as we reported in our 10/7/86 second Progress Report), that the discovery process was generally working (and hopefully can again work) more smoothly than,had been the case previous to the 8/19/86 CASE / Applicants Agreement, and that, although there continue to be some problem areas which will ultimately have to be settled by the Board, efforts were continuing between Applicants and CASE to work out disagreements insofar as possible without having to involve the Board, and both parties would be seeking and granting extensions of time where such efforts appeared to be productive f8/.
Since our last Progress Report, CASE has sent to the Board some documents which we believed were significant or potentially significant, in f8/ As had been indicated previously (for example, Applicants' 9/24/86 letter to the Board), it is the understanding of both CASE and Applicants that, in cases of agreement on en1'argements, the Board does not require that any action be taken by it, but rather is satisfied with notice of the agreement.
4
l*
I
- /f.
accordance with the Board's stated desire to be kept informed of such matters. We shall continue to do so.
i Although we continue to be unable to be as specific about dates by which discrete tasks will be completed as we had hoped at the time we filed our first Progress Report, CASE remains hopeful that -- once discovery matters which are to be covered during the prehearing conference on 12/15/86 l
(and 12/16/86, if necessary) are clarified by the Board, and once the I
current communication problem discussed previously is worked out -- the l
joint efforts of Applicants and CASE to better communicate, and to work out 1
discovery problems to the extent possible before involving the Board, will again be productive and will ultimately be beneficial to the Board, the parties, and the record of these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted, hA l >
A
- fyfirs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 Co-Representative for CASE Filed:. December 15, 1986 f
5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.