ML20100M885
| ML20100M885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1985 |
| From: | Roisman A TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Bloch P, Grossman H, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#285-572 OL-2, NUDOCS 8504170751 | |
| Download: ML20100M885 (2) | |
Text
~z.
5)>
L.
TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE P.C.
COUN5tuCRS AT LAW SUITE 611 2000 PSTREET NORTHWEST 00.J BRCgQQ)463-860 ANTHONY Z. RO15 MAN VMSHINGTON, D.C. 20036 mcm oiRtcTOR ARTHUR BRYANT STATF ATTORNEY
" Tc" L" "soR D APR 17 A10:50 f
SANCRA SHEMRD Omctm April 16, 1985 0FFICE OF SELiitIARY DOCHETE & SERVICF' BRANCH l
Peter Bloch, Chairman l<
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington; D.C.
20555 Herbert Grossman Alternate Chairman l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 j
i Walter H. Jordani Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 y
l, Re:
In the matter of Texas Utilities Generating Company, i
et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and 50-446-2 1 :
j_
Gentlemen:
It has been several months since these hearings were i
l suspended at the request of the Applicant.
Many significant l
events have transpired since that time which will have a major l
impact on the future course of these hearings.
From both phone calls and written communications between myself and the other l
parties it is clear that the parties have markedly different l
views of the impact of these events on both the substance and procedure for the remainder of this hearing.
For instance the parties do not agree on the scope of the specific issues remaining to be resolved in Docket 2, the l
appropriate timing for commencement of further hearings (partic-i ularly what events need to be completed before hearings can i
t i
8504170751 850416 i
PDR ADOCK 05000445 d
3j l
g PDR o)<
m(=p' o a U-su continue), the extent to which testimony by previous witnesses no longer employed by Applicant in a OA/QC capacity at Comanche Peak is valid evidence (a matter which depends at least on the true reasons for their departure), Applicant's rights and responsibilities with respect to presentation of rebuttal evidence, to mention only a few.
Without some guidance from the Board on these and other procedural matters it is difficult to be prepared for what may transpire.
For instance proper preparation for hearings depends on whether hearings will start shortly after the last of the individual SSERs is published or only after the final SSER and on what issues are within the scope of the remaining hearings in Docket 2.
The parties are sharply divided on these and other equally basic procedural matters.
To alleviate the problem we propose the Board hold a scheduling conference no later than the end of April.
Due to the complexities of the issues and the probable duration of the hearing we believe it should be face to face.
In addition, parties should have present those non-lawyers whose personal knowledge is essential to answer questions about schedule, scope of work planned to complete ongoing investigations and the like so that we can have at the hearing all the relevant and factual accurate information needed to resolve these matters.
Sincerely, c Anthony ol man Executi e irector cc:
Service List