ML20115J511
| ML20115J511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1985 |
| 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-#285-652 OL-2, NUDOCS 8504230576 | |
| Download: ML20115J511 (5) | |
Text
.
?]f9c9.
TRIAL. LAWYERS FOR Pusuc JUSTICE. P.C.
,[
COUNSELLORS ATLAW
.[
SUITE 611 h
2000 P STREET. NORTHWEST p
3 ANTHONY Z. Rol5 MAN WGHINGTON. D.C. 20036 ggg02)463-8600 usidu r
=c= =c'o" ARTHUR BRYANT 3
+
$TAFT ATTORNEY
~
h g 22 AtI:44 KEVIN HANNON senNcc ^omOR s=NoRA sNuno mCE MANAGER kggFSECRw.
April 17, 1985 BRhCk
~,
)i Peter Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j
.U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D.C.
20555 3.;
'k Herbert Grossman
~
Alternate Chairman
..'I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j~
Washington, D.C.
20555 ri Walter H. Jordan, Member j
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
?!.,
Washington, D.C.
20555 ii asJ
- Re:
In the matter of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units
- f..
1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and 50-446-2 E
Gentlemen:
, :q l 1 The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Chairman's S
request (phone call 4/17/85) to provide a specific proposed
. agenda -for the scheduling conference requested in my letter of April'16, 1985.
~
In general the conference should produce a procedural I
roadmap for the remainder of the hearings.
To do this the Board i ;
would have to resolve a number of issues on which I believe the parties are in significant disagreement.
The Board would need to 3'
have a reliable factual base to resolve these issues.
To facilitate this process we would propose that all parties file within three working days of an order from this Board calling for i
a scheduling conference a statement of facts, in the form of an affidavit by a person with personal knowledge on the following L
facts:
i.
.g3 8504230576 850417 O
PDR ADOCK 0500044 5 9
0 PDR
f:
9 D-Staff 5
1.
List all ongoing reviews, investigations, analyses and the like by the Staff, including 07, Region IV, the TRT, technical specification reviews, and the Senior Management Panels, related to CPSES and describe the
,?
subject of each.
2.
Provide current best estimates of the date of f
JI completion of each of the listed matters from question 1 and how the results will be reported.
3.
List all documents to be completed in the future which i
l-i*
will articulate the position of the Staff on any issue related to the licensing decision for CPSES, who will be the person or persons responsible for its preparation and final approval and the best estimate of ii when they will be available.
]
a 4.
How will the Staff address those allegations not covered by the present TRT investigations and those deficiencies not fully investigated by the TRT.
[
D Applicant g
+
1.
List all ongoing reviews, investigations, analyses and the like by the Applicant, including the CPRT, the Safe J
Team and all consultants, related to CPSES and describe
?
the subject of each.
}
2.
Provide current best estimates of the date of completion of each of the listed matters from question s
1 and how the results will be reported.
l 3.
List all documents to be completed in the future which q
will articulate the position of the Applicant on any issue related to the licensing decision for CPSES, who j
will be the person or persons responsible for its preparation and final approval and the best estimate of when they will be available.
i
~
4.
What is the present schedule for the Applicant to complete all work it believes it needs to complete prior to be ready to a) load fuel, b) do hot functional testing, c) do suberitical testing, d) do low power i
testing, e) do full power testing.
Describe the nature of the work Applicant believes is required to be ready for each identified step.
l 4
1 1
i 5
Y'
,y C 3 CASE 1.
List in categories all Staff or Applicant _ personnel c-whose deposition will be sought prior to recommencement t-of hearings.
2.
List other anticipated discovery that will be sought prior to recommencement of hearings.
'l 3.
Provide the anticipated schedule for completion of the described discovery.
.The next step would be for the parties to file, three working days before the scheduling conference, a statement of position on the following matters which will then be resolved by the Board
~1 r-(where disagreement exists) at or as a result of the scheduling 4
(
conferences j
o J'
1.
What issues should be resolved in Docket 27 For A
instance we assume the following issues are in the I
hearing.
/
V l
1 d)
The adequacy of Applicant's proposed plan to address the concerns expressed-in the TRT findings 4
and the SSERs.
6 ilm e)
The adequacy of Applicant's correction of any
(,
7 hardware problems identified by its response to
,]
I the TRT findings and the SSER.
3 l-P.
1 f)
What evidentiary standard must the Applicant meet T
L' to establish that the plant as built is safe?'
}g g)
The correctness and completeness of the Staff if
(
findings on all issues relevant to CPSES.
',}
w 2.
What event or events should be concluded before the 1
. hearings recommence and if applicable should hearings J
recommence in several phases and geared to what events?
n l
i'
P4-
?='
i
' r, i
i 3.
What additi6nal evidence do the parties believe they j
have a right to present on those issues, who will be i
t.
proposed to present it and when will it be ready to be j;
presented?
j 4.
Miscellaneous issues that are ready for resolution:
i a)
The status of the Glen Rose stipulation.
1 b)
The status of testimony presented by former QA/QC managers no longer employed by Applicant in QA/QC positions.
4
.3 c)
The schedule for resolution of the issues' raised i
by CASE's Motion to Establish an Evidentiary f
Standard.
a-
-e d)
The status of the Lipinsky matter including the h
1 implications of the SSER on paint coating.
3 1
?
e)
The relevance of findings in Docket I related to
{
unacceptable design or hardware on the ultimate 1
+
QA/QC issues in Docket 2 (i.e. Docket 1 findings R
d' are similar to TRT findings (although the former _
are binding on the parties and the latter are only binding on the Staf f) as to matters that were 3
outside the' scope of the TRT investigation or resolved differently than the TRT).
y;i 6
4 k
The specific schedule for resolution of these matters at the 4
scheduling hearing is difficult to project at this time.
We
}
propose that the order of business be as follows:
g
?f 1.
Oral presentations by affiants to clarify matters in
.[
~
the factual affidavits.
Js 2.
Discussion of the scope of the issues in Docket 2.
If' l
l 3.
Discussion of the scheduling of hearings.
j E
4.
Discussion of the proposed evidence to be introduced in the hearings.
~
5.
Discussion of miscellaneous issues.
?
CI i;
-3 4
m s
's l
I
r-5-
rLc 1
t I trust this letter provides the additional detail the Board has requested.
If not, I am available for a conference call this week.
y Sincerely, u.
f d
p' Anthony oi man s
Ir.4 Execut i
7 rector
!.I 7
e cc:
Service List 2
I in
.r, h
,4
..p ;
b i
2 1
t-4f 1
't.?
3-f ';
i 3
s-
.t
- 3. >
j y
k 4
l
.c s
G i
n
~4 i
1 I
$'y
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. _. -