ML20113J054: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:' ~
{{#Wiki_filter:'g _ :-
'g _ :-         _
' ~
7 RELATED CORRESPONDENCE t
7 RELATED CORRESPONDENCE t
N January 23       5       D
N D
                                          -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                       9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION            (             [Y         1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAlb v   ce w        1,
January 23 5
                                                                                            ~
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
In the Matter of-                           )
(
                                                              )     Docket Nos. 50-445 and n /
[Y 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAlb v
                -TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC                     )                 50-446       L/ L COMPANY, ET AL.                         )
cew 1,
                                                              )     (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric-               )     Operating Licenses)
In the Matter of-
                    ~ Station, Units 1 and 2)                 )
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
~
* ORDER REGARDING CASE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY I. INTRODUCTION
)
                                                                                                              "~
Docket Nos. 50-445 and n /
Pursuant to.10 C.F.R. {2.740(c), Texas Utilities Electric.
-TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
Company, et al. (" Applicants") hereby move for a protective order f'               with respe.ct to " CASE'.s First Set of Interrogatories to'Appli-                       ,
)
cants and Requests to Produce Re           Credibility," dated January 17, i
50-446 L/ L COMPANY, ET AL.
1985.1 -CASE premises its discovery requests on the Board's
)
          ,.      reopening of discovery in its December 18, 1984, Memorandum
)
                -(Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement).
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric-
                                                                          ' Applicants request 4-               that the time for. responding to CASE's discovery requests not i'
)
                'begin to.run until the Board has ruled on Applicants' motion for.
Operating Licenses)
            ,    reconsideration of the Board's Memorandum.
~ Station, Units 1 and 2)
                    .            O G                       4-Applicants received CASE's document on January 21', 1985.
)
O                                                                                             ]
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CASE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY I.
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to.10 C.F.R.
{2.740(c), Texas Utilities Electric.
"~
Company, et al.
(" Applicants") hereby move for a protective order f'
with respe.ct to " CASE'.s First Set of Interrogatories to'Appli-cants and Requests to Produce Re Credibility," dated January 17, i
1985.1 -CASE premises its discovery requests on the Board's reopening of discovery in its December 18, 1984, Memorandum
-(Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement).
' Applicants request 4-that the time for. responding to CASE's discovery requests not i'
'begin to.run until the Board has ruled on Applicants' motion for.
reconsideration of the Board's Memorandum.
O G
4-
. Applicants received CASE's document on January 21', 1985.
O
]


II. BACKGROUND On December ~18, 1984, the Board issued its Memorandum                                                                   ,
, II.
(Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement)           (" Memorandum"), in
BACKGROUND On December ~18, 1984, the Board issued its Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement)
                  ' which :it reopened discovery regarding the       representations of
(" Memorandum"), in
[ Applicants] in this proceeding" (Memorandum at 10).                             Applicants
' which :it reopened discovery regarding the representations of
:  moved for reconsideration of the Memorandum on January 7,.1985.
[ Applicants] in this proceeding" (Memorandum at 10).
                  - Applicants. requested, inter alia, that the Board limit reopened
Applicants moved for reconsideration of the Memorandum on January 7,.1985.
      .            discovery to'the nature of the sampling performed and relied on
- Applicants. requested, inter alia, that the Board limit reopened discovery to'the nature of the sampling performed and relied on
                  -in Applicants'' motions for summary' disposition (Motion at 44).
-in Applicants'' motions for summary' disposition (Motion at 44).
The Board Chairman orally ruled, on January 9, 1985, that there was "no-indication that Applicants had done anything intentionally wrong," noting that the matter appeared to involve
The Board Chairman orally ruled, on January 9, 1985, that there was "no-indication that Applicants had done anything intentionally wrong," noting that the matter appeared to involve
                  - only.a " lack of communication".. The Board Chairman further ruled
- only.a " lack of communication".. The Board Chairman further ruled
                  -that the- parties' obligation to respond to Applicants' motion for reconsideration would be stayed pending receipt of additional information from Applicants' regarding the representativeness of the' dimensions of certain test configurations to support con-2                  figurations Jin the - field. The Board Chairman did not stay the opportunity to file discovery or the obligation to respond to requests when filed.     (Statement of Chairman Peter Bloch, January 9, 1985-(transcribed).)
-that the-parties' obligation to respond to Applicants' motion for reconsideration would be stayed pending receipt of additional information from Applicants' regarding the representativeness of the' dimensions of certain test configurations to support con-The Board Chairman did not stay the figurations Jin the - field.
2 opportunity to file discovery or the obligation to respond to requests when filed.
(Statement of Chairman Peter Bloch, January 9, 1985-(transcribed).)
t '
t '
ye .a. .
-_-.,_.,.,.__--.--,___,_n r.r p y,,y--ew
mm_.  .r,- - - . - -    -_-.,_.,.,.__--.--,___,_n
-=
_                            r .r p y,,y--ew   ,
,---wm
 
-w--r-mr-
                                      ;                III. APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Section 2.740(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
_,,r.,,
[   provides, as follows:
ye
z                Upon motion by a party. . . frm whom b                 discovery is sought, and for g wd cause shown, the presiding officer may make any i                 order which justice requires to protect a E                 party or person from . . . undue burden or i         .      expense . . . .              ,
.a.
i Good cause exists for issuing a protective order staying the
mm.
.r,- - -. - -
III.
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Section 2.740(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
[
provides, as follows:
Upon motion by a party.
frm whom z
b discovery is sought, and for g wd cause shown, the presiding officer may make any i
order which justice requires to protect a E
party or person from.
undue burden or i
expense i
Good cause exists for issuing a protective order staying the
{
{
r running of time for Applicants to respc2.' to CASE's discovery I   requests. Applicants request in their     _ ion for reconsideration ur that any reopened discovery be limited to the sampling performed in connection with Applicants' motions for summary disposition E   submitted pursuant to Applicants' Plan.       CASE's instant discovery b
r running of time for Applicants to respc2.' to CASE's discovery I
request concerns (1) liner plate inspection documentation, and b
requests.
e     (2) protective coatings. _Neither of these topics is relevant to Applicants' Plan, and the motions for summary disposition submitted pursuant to the Plan, regarding piping and pipe support design. Thus, should the Board grant Applicants' motion for reconsideration of the Memorandum, Applicants would not be required to respond to'any of those discovery requests.
Applicants request in their
Y           rurther, as noted previously, the Board has not ruled on Applicants' motion and, indeed, the parties have not yet even responded to Applicants' motion.2     Thus, the time for responding to these requests is likely to run before the Boa. d rules on 2     Applicants will provide the additional information requested by the Board shortly. At that time we understand the time for the parties to respond to Applicants' motion for reconsideration will begin to run.
_ ion for reconsideration ur that any reopened discovery be limited to the sampling performed in connection with Applicants' motions for summary disposition E
submitted pursuant to Applicants' Plan.
CASE's instant discovery request concerns (1) liner plate inspection documentation, and b
b e
(2) protective coatings. _Neither of these topics is relevant to Applicants' Plan, and the motions for summary disposition submitted pursuant to the Plan, regarding piping and pipe support design.
Thus, should the Board grant Applicants' motion for reconsideration of the Memorandum, Applicants would not be required to respond to'any of those discovery requests.
Y rurther, as noted previously, the Board has not ruled on Applicants' motion and, indeed, the parties have not yet even responded to Applicants' motion.2 Thus, the time for responding to these requests is likely to run before the Boa. d rules on 2
Applicants will provide the additional information requested by the Board shortly.
At that time we understand the time for the parties to respond to Applicants' motion for
{
{
reconsideration will begin to run.
[
[
F h
F h


Applicants' motion. Absent relief from the Board Applicants
. Applicants' motion.
      .would be subjected _to the undue burden of preparing and f1'.ing responses to_those requests. Accordingly, the Board should order that _ the time for responding to CASE's discovery requests not commence to run until the Board rules on Applicants' motion.
Absent relief from the Board Applicants
Finally, no delay or adverse impact on CASE will be occasioned by granting Applicants' instant request.       The hearings in both phases of the proceeding are temporarily suspended.     Even if the Board does not ultimately grant Applicants' motion for reconsideration, Applicants' responses to these requests will still be provided in more than sufficient time for their full consideration by CASE before hearings resume.     Thus, no delay will occur and CASE would not be adversely impacted should the Board grant Applicants' instant motion.
.would be subjected _to the undue burden of preparing and f1'.ing responses to_those requests.
In summary, good cause exists for issuing the requested protective order. Applic' ants submit that justice requires that,,
Accordingly, the Board should order that _ the time for responding to CASE's discovery requests not commence to run until the Board rules on Applicants' motion.
Finally, no delay or adverse impact on CASE will be occasioned by granting Applicants' instant request.
The hearings in both phases of the proceeding are temporarily suspended.
Even if the Board does not ultimately grant Applicants' motion for reconsideration, Applicants' responses to these requests will still be provided in more than sufficient time for their full consideration by CASE before hearings resume.
Thus, no delay will occur and CASE would not be adversely impacted should the Board grant Applicants' instant motion.
In summary, good cause exists for issuing the requested protective order.
Applic' ants submit that justice requires that,,
the. Board issue the order to protect Applicants from the undue burden of preparing and submitting responses to discovery which the Board may ultimately find should not be taken.
the. Board issue the order to protect Applicants from the undue burden of preparing and submitting responses to discovery which the Board may ultimately find should not be taken.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants move that the Board issue a protective order staying the running of time for
IV.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants move that the Board issue a protective order staying the running of time for


Applicants to respond to CASE's January 17, 1985, discovery requests until the Board rules on Applicants' January 7, 1985,
, Applicants to respond to CASE's January 17, 1985, discovery requests until the Board rules on Applicants' January 7, 1985,
      . motion for reconsideration.
. motion for reconsideration.
Respectf 11                   submitted,
Respectf 11 submitted,
                                                                          )}       } ^L-Nicholaf /S. $ eynolds Willian1).Ilorin                         .
)}
BISHOP, LIB                       ,  COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street,                   N.W.
} ^L-Nicholaf /S. $ eynolds Willian1).Ilorin BISHOP, LIB
Washington, D.C.                     20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants                     .
: COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
January 23, 1985
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants January 23, 1985


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                               )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
                                                        .)           Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC                         )                           50-446 COMPANY, ET AL.                               )
)
                                                            )       (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric                   )         Operating Licenses)
. )
Station, Units 1 and 2)                       )
Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
50-446 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding CASE's First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants-and Requests to Produce Re: Credibility", in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following persons by
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding CASE's First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants-and Requests to Produce Re: Credibility", in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following persons by
          . express ' mail (*) or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of January, 1985, or by hand delivery (**) on the 24th day of January, 1985.
. express ' mail (*) or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of January, 1985, or by hand delivery (**) on the 24th day of January, 1985.
            ** Peter B. Bloch, Esq.                                   Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and                               Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board                                       U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                                   Commission Commission                                           Washington, D.C.                 20555 Washington, D.C.       20555 Mr. William L. Clements
** Peter B.
* Dr. Walter H. Jordan                                     Docketing & Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive                                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee       37830                         Commission Washington, D.C.                 20555
Bloch, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. William L. Clements
* Dr. Walter H. Jordan Docketing & Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
_
_
* Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering                         **Stuart A. Treby, Esq.
* Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering
Architecture and Technology                           Office of the Executive Oklahoma State University                                 Legal Director Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074                             U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman,~ Atomic Safety                               7735 Old Georgetown Road and' Licensing Board Panel                           Room 10117 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                                 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
**Stuart A. Treby, Esq.
                . Commission Washington, D.C. 20555                                                                                         '
Architecture and Technology Office of the Executive Oklahoma State University Legal Director Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman,~ Atomic Safety 7735 Old Georgetown Road and' Licensing Board Panel Room 10117 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, Maryland 20814
l 9
. Commission Washington, D.C.
                                                                                                              -n. ,v , ---a,
20555 l
                  -   --      ,-  -      ., v..-. .--- - , _ . ,,        ,.7 . - , , .
9 v..-.
,.7
-n.
,v
---a,


e
e
  . .. e Robert D. Martin
... e.
* Elizabeth B. Johnson Regional Administrator,           Oak Ridge National Laboratory Region IV                       Post Office Box X U.S. Nuclear Regulatory           Building 3500 Commission                     Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000
Robert D. Martin Elizabeth B. Johnson Regional Administrator, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Region IV Post Office Box X U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Building 3500 Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Mrs. Juanita Ellis Arlington, Texas 76011 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Renea Hicks, Esq.
* Mrs. Juanita Ellis Arlington, Texas 76011             President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Renea Hicks, Esq.                 Dallas, Texas 75224 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection           Lanny A. Sinkin Division                       Execucive Director P.O. Box 12548                     Nuclear Information and Capitol Station                       Resource Service Austin,-Texas 78711               1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Dallas, Texas 75224 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Lanny A.
4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036
Sinkin Division Execucive Director P.O.
                                                  \
Box 12548 Nuclear Information and Capitol Station Resource Service Austin,-Texas 78711 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
William A. Horin' cc:   John W. Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq.
4th Floor Washington, D.C.
                                                                    .}}
20036
\\
William A.
Horin' cc:
John W.
Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq.
.}}

Latest revision as of 01:04, 13 December 2024

Applicant Motion for Protective Order Re Case First Set of Interrogatories to Applicant & Request for Production of Documents Re Credibility.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20113J054
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  
Issue date: 01/23/1985
From: Reynolds N
BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-221 OL, NUDOCS 8501250425
Download: ML20113J054 (7)
v • d • e


Text

'g _ :-

' ~

7 RELATED CORRESPONDENCE t

N D

January 23 5

-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9

(

[Y 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAlb v

cew 1,

In the Matter of-

)

~

)

Docket Nos. 50-445 and n /

-TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC

)

50-446 L/ L COMPANY, ET AL.

)

)

(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric-

)

Operating Licenses)

~ Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CASE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY I.

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to.10 C.F.R.

{2.740(c), Texas Utilities Electric.

"~

Company, et al.

(" Applicants") hereby move for a protective order f'

with respe.ct to " CASE'.s First Set of Interrogatories to'Appli-cants and Requests to Produce Re Credibility," dated January 17, i

1985.1 -CASE premises its discovery requests on the Board's reopening of discovery in its December 18, 1984, Memorandum

-(Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement).

' Applicants request 4-that the time for. responding to CASE's discovery requests not i'

'begin to.run until the Board has ruled on Applicants' motion for.

reconsideration of the Board's Memorandum.

O G

4-

. Applicants received CASE's document on January 21', 1985.

O

]

, II.

BACKGROUND On December ~18, 1984, the Board issued its Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement)

(" Memorandum"), in

' which :it reopened discovery regarding the representations of

[ Applicants] in this proceeding" (Memorandum at 10).

Applicants moved for reconsideration of the Memorandum on January 7,.1985.

- Applicants. requested, inter alia, that the Board limit reopened discovery to'the nature of the sampling performed and relied on

-in Applicants motions for summary' disposition (Motion at 44).

The Board Chairman orally ruled, on January 9, 1985, that there was "no-indication that Applicants had done anything intentionally wrong," noting that the matter appeared to involve

- only.a " lack of communication".. The Board Chairman further ruled

-that the-parties' obligation to respond to Applicants' motion for reconsideration would be stayed pending receipt of additional information from Applicants' regarding the representativeness of the' dimensions of certain test configurations to support con-The Board Chairman did not stay the figurations Jin the - field.

2 opportunity to file discovery or the obligation to respond to requests when filed.

(Statement of Chairman Peter Bloch, January 9, 1985-(transcribed).)

t '

-_-.,_.,.,.__--.--,___,_n r.r p y,,y--ew

-=

,---wm

-w--r-mr-

_,,r.,,

ye

.a.

mm.

.r,- - -. - -

III.

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Section 2.740(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice

[

provides, as follows:

Upon motion by a party.

frm whom z

b discovery is sought, and for g wd cause shown, the presiding officer may make any i

order which justice requires to protect a E

party or person from.

undue burden or i

expense i

Good cause exists for issuing a protective order staying the

{

r running of time for Applicants to respc2.' to CASE's discovery I

requests.

Applicants request in their

_ ion for reconsideration ur that any reopened discovery be limited to the sampling performed in connection with Applicants' motions for summary disposition E

submitted pursuant to Applicants' Plan.

CASE's instant discovery request concerns (1) liner plate inspection documentation, and b

b e

(2) protective coatings. _Neither of these topics is relevant to Applicants' Plan, and the motions for summary disposition submitted pursuant to the Plan, regarding piping and pipe support design.

Thus, should the Board grant Applicants' motion for reconsideration of the Memorandum, Applicants would not be required to respond to'any of those discovery requests.

Y rurther, as noted previously, the Board has not ruled on Applicants' motion and, indeed, the parties have not yet even responded to Applicants' motion.2 Thus, the time for responding to these requests is likely to run before the Boa. d rules on 2

Applicants will provide the additional information requested by the Board shortly.

At that time we understand the time for the parties to respond to Applicants' motion for

{

reconsideration will begin to run.

[

F h

. Applicants' motion.

Absent relief from the Board Applicants

.would be subjected _to the undue burden of preparing and f1'.ing responses to_those requests.

Accordingly, the Board should order that _ the time for responding to CASE's discovery requests not commence to run until the Board rules on Applicants' motion.

Finally, no delay or adverse impact on CASE will be occasioned by granting Applicants' instant request.

The hearings in both phases of the proceeding are temporarily suspended.

Even if the Board does not ultimately grant Applicants' motion for reconsideration, Applicants' responses to these requests will still be provided in more than sufficient time for their full consideration by CASE before hearings resume.

Thus, no delay will occur and CASE would not be adversely impacted should the Board grant Applicants' instant motion.

In summary, good cause exists for issuing the requested protective order.

Applic' ants submit that justice requires that,,

the. Board issue the order to protect Applicants from the undue burden of preparing and submitting responses to discovery which the Board may ultimately find should not be taken.

IV.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants move that the Board issue a protective order staying the running of time for

, Applicants to respond to CASE's January 17, 1985, discovery requests until the Board rules on Applicants' January 7, 1985,

. motion for reconsideration.

Respectf 11 submitted,

)}

} ^L-Nicholaf /S. $ eynolds Willian1).Ilorin BISHOP, LIB

COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants January 23, 1985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

. )

Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC

)

50-446 COMPANY, ET AL.

)

)

(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric

)

Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding CASE's First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants-and Requests to Produce Re: Credibility", in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following persons by

. express ' mail (*) or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of January, 1985, or by hand delivery (**) on the 24th day of January, 1985.

    • Peter B.

Bloch, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. William L. Clements

  • Dr. Walter H. Jordan Docketing & Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

_

  • Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering
    • Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Architecture and Technology Office of the Executive Oklahoma State University Legal Director Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman,~ Atomic Safety 7735 Old Georgetown Road and' Licensing Board Panel Room 10117 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, Maryland 20814

. Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 l

9 v..-.

,.7

-n.

,v

---a,

e

... e.

Robert D. Martin Elizabeth B. Johnson Regional Administrator, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Region IV Post Office Box X U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Building 3500 Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Mrs. Juanita Ellis Arlington, Texas 76011 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Renea Hicks, Esq.

Dallas, Texas 75224 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Lanny A.

Sinkin Division Execucive Director P.O.

Box 12548 Nuclear Information and Capitol Station Resource Service Austin,-Texas 78711 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

4th Floor Washington, D.C.

20036

\\

William A.

Horin' cc:

John W.

Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq.

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20113J054&oldid=4291031"