ML19305E253
| ML19305E253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Goodhope A, Little L, Remick F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004230206 | |
| Download: ML19305E253 (2) | |
Text
_
8[pnuc, o
'o, UNITED ST ATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.*g"*
m C
WASHING TON, 0. c. 20%5 a., IM./
g '.v April 17, 1980 Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Dr. Forrest J. Remick Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 305 Fast llamilton Avenue 3320 Estelle Terrace State College, PA 16801 Wheaton, MD 20906 Dr. Linda W. Little 500011ermitage Drive i
Raleigh, NC 27612 i
In the Matter of I
General Electric Company (GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility)
Docket No. 70-1308 (Renewal of SNM-1265)
Dear Members of the Board:
[
The purpose of this letter is to bring to the attention of the Board and the i
other parties typographical errors in the "NRC Staff Response to Second Set of Amended Contentions of the State of Illinois" and the "NRC Staff Response to Re-Amended Contentions of Rorem, et al.",
both filed on April 4, 1980.
These etrors have just come to the Staff's attention.
In the "NRC Staff Response to Second Set of Amended Contentions of the State of Illinois", on p.2, in the second sentence, contentio.1s 1(a) and 2 were mistakenly omitted from the listing of contentions which the Staff opposes.
Also, as to contention 6, only parts (c) and (d)(iv) should have been in-cluded. Thus, that sentence should read:
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes contentions 1(a),1(c), 2, 6(c) and d(iv), 7(a) and (b) and 10, as amended.
After that sentence, the following sentence should be inserted:
r The Staff supports admission of contention 7(c).
B On p.14 of'that picading, the second line should read:
UH2.740b, 2.741).
b 8004880 2 0 6
~
s..
Also, on p.14, (Section IV., " Conclusion"), in the first sentence, contentions 1(a) and 6(d)(iv) were omitted from the listing of contentions which the Staff opposes.
The first sentence should thus read:
For the reasons stated above, the Staff opposes contentions 1(a),1(c), 2, 6(c) and (d)(iv), 7(a) and (b) and 10, as further amended.
As corrected, the above paragraphs reficct the Staff's position with respect to these contentions, as set forth in its pleading.
On p.2 of "NRC Staff Response to Re-Amended Contentions of Rorem, et al.,"
in the second sentence, contention 1.D was mistakenly omitted from the listing of contentions which the Staff believes should be denied. Thus, this sentence should read:
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff believes that con-tentions 1. B., 1. C., 1.D., 2., 3., 4., S., 6., and 7. should be denied.
i Page 20 contains the same error in the citation to 10 CFR s2.740b as p.14 of the "NRC Staff Response to Second Set of Amended Contentions of the State of Illinois" and should be similarly corrected.
Two errors occurred on p.21, in the last paragraph (Section IV. " Conclusion".)
In the first sentence, contention 1.D. was omitted from the listing of con-tentions which the Staff believes should be denied.
In the second sentence, contention 1.D. should be deleted and contention 1. A. inserted in its place.
Thus, this paragraph should read:
Based on the foregoing, the Staff opposes admission of Inter-l venor's contentions 1.B.,
l.C.,
l.D.,
2.,
3.,
4.,
5.,
6., and 7.
The Staff believes that contention 1. A. minimally satisfies the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR s2.,714, raises an issue appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and should be admitted.
d As corrected, the above paragraphs reflect the Staff's position with respect to these contentions, as set forth in its pleading (in particular, see pp.2-7, relating to contention 1).
The Staff regrets any inconvenience these errors may have caused.
Sincerely, I%t3A% U{.: n ib;G,1llt i
Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Service List
,.