ML19336A551
| ML19336A551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1980 |
| From: | Laverty J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bowers E, Luebke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8010300053 | |
| Download: ML19336A551 (2) | |
Text
_
/0 " "'90,D S
I o
UNITED STATES l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{a 3 g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h
gh 4 *****
October 27, 1980 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
)
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of I
The Regents of the University of California (UCLA Research Reactor)
Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)
Dear Members of the Board:
On September 25, 1980, the Licensing Board conducted a prehearing conferente in the UCLA Research Reactor operating license renewal proceeding. At that conference, the Board granted the Committee to Bridge the Gap intervenor status and admitted 4 of their 23 contentions as rephrased by the NRC Staff.
Rather than consider the admissibility of the balance, the Board gave the parties an opportunity to negotiate the wording and admissibility of the remaining contentions.
The Board also requested that the Staff make a status report to the Board in 30 days detailing the parties' progress in negotiating these matters.
That report follows.
On the afternoon of September 25, after the adjournment of the prehearing conference, the Applicant, Intervenor and Staff met for several hours to discuss Contentions I and V.
Tentative agreement was reached on how these contentions should be worded.
At the prehearing conference and during that meeting, Intervenor recognized that many of its contentions reiterated con-cerns made in other contentions.
Intervenor indicated its willingness to decide under which contention it wanted particular concerns addressed.
On October 2, Applicant, Intervenor and Staff hald a lengthy conference call.
During that call, Contcations VI through XIV were discussed.
Several subparts of these contentions were reworued.
Intervenor, however, had not yet decided under which contention it wanted particular concerns addressed.
The liRC Staff drew up a draft stipulation of the contentions considered through October 2.
This was mailed to Applicant and to Intervenor on October 10.
The cover letter which accompanied these drafts requested that 8010300D83 g
1
- 4 both Applicant and Intervenor review the document and note any proposed wording changes so that wording and admissibility could be considered in an expeditious fashion during the impending conference call of October 22.
On October 22, another lengthy conference call was held between Applicant, Intervenor and Staff.
At that time, all of the renaining contentions were discussed.
Intervenor stated that because it had not received the draft stipulation until Saturday, October 18, it had not yet decided what it wanted done with its duplicative contentions.
During that conference call, Jim Miller of the NRC's technical staff explained the requirements of the NRC regulations on security plans and safeguards contingency plans to Applicant and Intervenor.
Intervenor expressed its desire to frame a security contention. Thus, the Staff will call Intervenor I
and Applicant this week to discuss with them the nature of a security con-tention which would not be objectionable to the Staff.
Also during this October 22 call, Staff proposed a schedule by which the parties would provide the Board with a stipulation on contentions by Novem-ber 28.
This schedule was agreed to by all parties.
Under that schedule, Intervenor and Applicant will submit to the Staff on October 29, all pro-
]
posed wording changes in the contentions. These proposed changes should
)
include Intervenor's position on the duplicativeness of many of its conten-l tions. A third conference call is scheduled for November 10, at which final I
agreement should be reached on the wording and admissibility of contentions.
1 Thereafter, Staff plans to prepare a stipulation which will be signed by all 1
parties and submitted to the Board on November 28.
All parties will also
}
submit final statements of position on the admissiblity of unstipulated con-tentions to the Board on November 28.
1 Sin,cerely, l
I a
- j O.);a jl. L WcKly Jessica H. Laverty
)
Counsel for NRC Steff cc: Service List i
i
-_