Difference between revisions of "ML20136J236"

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:
   
 
=Text=
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
+
{{#Wiki_filter:7
  +
( :'
  +
* CO ik${En
  +
, 1/6/86* a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *M/ /0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!91ISSION W, . . 02t47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
  +
<:p ;/ -
  +
In the Matter of I l
  +
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 {
  +
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
  +
(Application for an
  +
~
  +
l (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Operating License)
  +
Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND/0R MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 0F BOARD'S 12/12/85 MEMORANDIN AND ORDER ,
  +
(PERIOD FOR DISCOVERY; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION)
  +
.In the Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order (Period for Discovery; Motion for Reconsideration), the Board stated that CASE would be allowed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Board's decision and that applicants would not be permitted the privilege of reponse. This pleading constitutes CASE's Request for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order (Period for Discovery; Motion for Reconsideration) Lif.
  +
[1/ On 12/23/85, CASE sought and was granted an extension of time until 1/6/86 in which to file this pleading; neither Applicants nor NRC Staff had any objection, and CASE's request was granted by Judge Bloch.
  +
8601130280 B60106 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR _
  +
Q
  +
  +
i In the Board's 11/25/85 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Misrepresentation Memorandum), the Board stated (page 11):
  +
" Discovery may of course cover the supplementary filing."
  +
The Board's 12/12/85 Order appears to rescind this portion of the Board's 11/25/85 Order. If such was the Board's intention, CASE moves for reconsideration of this point, since clearly information contained in Applicants' corrections and clarifications to their previous affidavits constitutes new and potentially significant infonnation which may require discovery by CASE in order to assure a complete and accurate record, and
  +
.in order for CASE to properly assess such corrections and clarifications and to allow CASE to. properly prepare for future hearings.
  +
CASE also requests clarification from the Board that its 12/12/85 Order does not preclude #1SE's filing requests for admissions urder 10 CFR 2.742.
  +
Our concern is due to the wording on page 2 of the Board's 12/12/85 Order:
  +
. . . we have consequently decided to limit CASE's new period of discovery to information designed to clarify or follow-up on information obtained by them in response to their questions or to Board questions."
  +
We do not believe that it was the Board's intention to deprive CASE of the use of this expeditious tool of discovery which can help clarify, consolidate, and narrow issues for hearings. If such was the Board's intention, CASE moves for reconsideration on this point.
  +
In its 11/25/85 Order (and remaining the same in its 12/12/85 Order),
  +
the Board ordered Applicants to promptly respond to interrogatories previously served, and stated that the discovery period shall run for 50 days from the issuance of the Board's 11/25/85. 0rder. However, Applicants have not responded further to those interrogatories which they previously had not answered under
  +
  +
the Board's '12/18/84 Order (the five sets of interrogatories filed by CASE re: Credibility). CASE believes that we have fully met our burden with our
  +
~
  +
10/26/85 Response to Board's 10/15/85 Request Regarding Discovery Matters (and attachments); and that the Board has recognized this during the 11/8/85 conference call about discovery matters, the 11/12/85 prehearing conference on discovery, and in its 11/25/85 Memorandum and Order; the burden has now shifted to the Applicants. We do not believe CASE should be, or has been, required by the Board to file an additional Motion to Compel to obtain answers to our duly and timely filed interrogatories and requests for documents. If we are incorrect in this assunption, we request clarification from the Board, and an opportunity tio file such motion to compel. If we are correct in our understanding of the Board's rulings, we move that the Board clarify its wording to indicate that Applicants are to immediately supply answers to all unanswered discovery requests re: Credibility and that the discovery period shall run for 50 days from receipt of Applicants' last answer to our already filed interrogatories.
  +
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth herein, CASE _ requests clarification as set forth herein, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order to:
  +
: 1. Allow discovery regarding information in Applicants' corrections and clarifications to Applicants' affidavits attached to their Motions for Reconsideration;
  +
: 2. Allow requests for 'adnissions in addition to the follow-up questions and clarifying questions on infonnation obtained by CASE in response to our questions or to Board questions; and
  +
: 3. Order Applicants to immediately supply answers to all unanswered discovery requests re:. Credibility and that the discovery period shall run for~50 days from receipt of Applicants' last answer to our already filed interrogatories.
  +
Respectfully submitted, k f/E.)
  +
~ s.) Juani.ta Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 l
  +
m
  +
  +
.- - . - .- .-_ . _ _- ~ .
  +
..."t e
  +
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
  +
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of }{
  +
}{
  +
TEKAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{
  +
Station, Units 1 and 2) }{
  +
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By.my signature.below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S _ Request for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order (Period for Discovery; Motion for Reconsideration) have been sent to the names listed below this 6 day of January ,39g_ _6 ,
  +
by: . First Class Mail Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
  +
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board & Reynolds Washington, D. C. 20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
  +
Washington, D.C. 20036 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary S. Mieuno, Esq.
  +
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Refulatory
  +
. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
  +
-.1107 West Knapp Street stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 j-l I
  +
  +
Chairman. .
  +
Renea Hicks, Esq.
  +
Atomic. Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division
  +
' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711
  +
. Mr. Robert. Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
  +
Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street,-N. W., Suite 611 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20036 Arlington, Texas' 76011 .
  +
Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Owen S. Merrill Christic Institute Staff Engineer 1324 North Capitol Street Advisory Committee for Reactor Washington, D. C. 20002 Safeguards (MS H-1016)
  +
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. David R. Boltz Washington, D. C. 20555 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
  +
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Counsil. Vice President & Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esc.
  +
Ropes & Gray Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street (3 copies) Boston, Massachusetts 02110 10ffice of the Secretary iU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C. 20555 Project Manager -
  +
Cygna Energy Services Ms.' Billie P. Garde 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Government Accountability Project - San Francisco, California 1901 Que Street, N. W. 94111-5894 Washington, D. C. 20009 Mark D. Nozette,' Counselor at Law
  +
.Rcor P. Lessy, Jr. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
  +
1800 M Street, N. W. Suite 700
  +
. Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C. 20007 Washington, D. C. 20036 4
  +
/ LM s.') Juanita Ellis, President SE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk
  +
' Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2
  +
y, y , 7- ,. _.,7 -,.,.-.y,,.,c.-__ , . . - ,--- -. . - - , _ . - - .- . _ _,_,,_-.-,-,.r, .- - - - . , , , - - . - -}}

Latest revision as of 02:20, 1 July 2020

Request for Clarification &/Or Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 851212 Memorandum & Order Where ASLB Stated Case Allowed to File Motion & Applicants Not Permitted Priviledge to Respond.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20136J236
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 01/06/1986
From: Ellis J
CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD PANEL (ASLBP)
References
CON-#186-718
Download: ML20136J236 (6)


Text

7

( :'

  • CO ik${En

, 1/6/86* a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *M/ /0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!91ISSION W, . . 02t47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

<:p ;/ -

In the Matter of I l

Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 {

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

(Application for an

~

l (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Operating License)

Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND/0R MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 0F BOARD'S 12/12/85 MEMORANDIN AND ORDER ,

(PERIOD FOR DISCOVERY; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION)

.In the Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order (Period for Discovery; Motion for Reconsideration), the Board stated that CASE would be allowed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Board's decision and that applicants would not be permitted the privilege of reponse. This pleading constitutes CASE's Request for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order (Period for Discovery; Motion for Reconsideration) Lif.

[1/ On 12/23/85, CASE sought and was granted an extension of time until 1/6/86 in which to file this pleading; neither Applicants nor NRC Staff had any objection, and CASE's request was granted by Judge Bloch.

8601130280 B60106 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR _

Q

i In the Board's 11/25/85 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Misrepresentation Memorandum), the Board stated (page 11):

" Discovery may of course cover the supplementary filing."

The Board's 12/12/85 Order appears to rescind this portion of the Board's 11/25/85 Order. If such was the Board's intention, CASE moves for reconsideration of this point, since clearly information contained in Applicants' corrections and clarifications to their previous affidavits constitutes new and potentially significant infonnation which may require discovery by CASE in order to assure a complete and accurate record, and

.in order for CASE to properly assess such corrections and clarifications and to allow CASE to. properly prepare for future hearings.

CASE also requests clarification from the Board that its 12/12/85 Order does not preclude #1SE's filing requests for admissions urder 10 CFR 2.742.

Our concern is due to the wording on page 2 of the Board's 12/12/85 Order:

. . . we have consequently decided to limit CASE's new period of discovery to information designed to clarify or follow-up on information obtained by them in response to their questions or to Board questions."

We do not believe that it was the Board's intention to deprive CASE of the use of this expeditious tool of discovery which can help clarify, consolidate, and narrow issues for hearings. If such was the Board's intention, CASE moves for reconsideration on this point.

In its 11/25/85 Order (and remaining the same in its 12/12/85 Order),

the Board ordered Applicants to promptly respond to interrogatories previously served, and stated that the discovery period shall run for 50 days from the issuance of the Board's 11/25/85. 0rder. However, Applicants have not responded further to those interrogatories which they previously had not answered under

the Board's '12/18/84 Order (the five sets of interrogatories filed by CASE re: Credibility). CASE believes that we have fully met our burden with our

~

10/26/85 Response to Board's 10/15/85 Request Regarding Discovery Matters (and attachments); and that the Board has recognized this during the 11/8/85 conference call about discovery matters, the 11/12/85 prehearing conference on discovery, and in its 11/25/85 Memorandum and Order; the burden has now shifted to the Applicants. We do not believe CASE should be, or has been, required by the Board to file an additional Motion to Compel to obtain answers to our duly and timely filed interrogatories and requests for documents. If we are incorrect in this assunption, we request clarification from the Board, and an opportunity tio file such motion to compel. If we are correct in our understanding of the Board's rulings, we move that the Board clarify its wording to indicate that Applicants are to immediately supply answers to all unanswered discovery requests re: Credibility and that the discovery period shall run for 50 days from receipt of Applicants' last answer to our already filed interrogatories.

In conclusion, for the reasons set forth herein, CASE _ requests clarification as set forth herein, or in the alternative, reconsideration of the Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order to:

1. Allow discovery regarding information in Applicants' corrections and clarifications to Applicants' affidavits attached to their Motions for Reconsideration;
2. Allow requests for 'adnissions in addition to the follow-up questions and clarifying questions on infonnation obtained by CASE in response to our questions or to Board questions; and
3. Order Applicants to immediately supply answers to all unanswered discovery requests re:. Credibility and that the discovery period shall run for~50 days from receipt of Applicants' last answer to our already filed interrogatories.

Respectfully submitted, k f/E.)

~ s.) Juani.ta Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 l

m

.- - . - .- .-_ . _ _- ~ .

..."t e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of }{

}{

TEKAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{

Station, Units 1 and 2) }{

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By.my signature.below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S _ Request for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/12/85 Memorandum and Order (Period for Discovery; Motion for Reconsideration) have been sent to the names listed below this 6 day of January ,39g_ _6 ,

by: . First Class Mail Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board & Reynolds Washington, D. C. 20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary S. Mieuno, Esq.

P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Refulatory

. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

-.1107 West Knapp Street stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 j-l I

Chairman. .

Renea Hicks, Esq.

Atomic. Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division

' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711

. Mr. Robert. Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street,-N. W., Suite 611 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20036 Arlington, Texas' 76011 .

Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Owen S. Merrill Christic Institute Staff Engineer 1324 North Capitol Street Advisory Committee for Reactor Washington, D. C. 20002 Safeguards (MS H-1016)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. David R. Boltz Washington, D. C. 20555 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.

Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Counsil. Vice President & Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esc.

Ropes & Gray Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street (3 copies) Boston, Massachusetts 02110 10ffice of the Secretary iU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C. 20555 Project Manager -

Cygna Energy Services Ms.' Billie P. Garde 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Government Accountability Project - San Francisco, California 1901 Que Street, N. W. 94111-5894 Washington, D. C. 20009 Mark D. Nozette,' Counselor at Law

.Rcor P. Lessy, Jr. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,

1800 M Street, N. W. Suite 700

. Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C. 20007 Washington, D. C. 20036 4

/ LM s.') Juanita Ellis, President SE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk

' Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2

y, y , 7- ,. _.,7 -,.,.-.y,,.,c.-__ , . . - ,--- -. . - - , _ . - - .- . _ _,_,,_-.-,-,.r, .- - - - . , , , - - . - -