ML20004E551

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Order Granting NRC 810512 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 810430 Order.Affirms Order
ML20004E551
Person / Time
Site: 05000142
Issue date: 06/09/1981
From: Bowers E
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106120329
Download: ML20004E551 (3)


Text

.

4 4

g cccrsmo U"r?

2 b

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

JUN 101981 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ie

  • [Q'T UN1 2I331h. ~

.....ch Before Administrative Judges:

7

&4 k g %,$

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman

.'s0 m

Dr. Enneth A. Luebke n

SE3VED ggjg y0 9)N 1

Dr. Oscar H. Paris In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 OL

)

(Proposed Renewal of Facility THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY License) 0F CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor)

June 9, 1981 ORDER RELATIVE TO NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD ORDER OF APRIL 30, 1981 l

In our Order of April 30, 1981, we stated the following:

Nonnally, the Board would await the responses of Applicant and Staff to a motion from the Intervenor but in this situa-l tion, time is of the essence. We will rule this date and if l

the parties are not in agreement, they can file motions for l

reconsideration.

The Staff filed a motion for reconsideration on May 12, 1981, of the l

Board's Order of April 30, 1981. At the request of the Licensing Board, a secretary called Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) and learned Intervenors were not filing a response to the Staff motion. On May 27, 1981, the Applicant (UCLA) filed a memorandum in support of the Staff's motion.

The Staff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

l This dispute arose after the Staff filed a motion for sunnary disposition l

on April 13, 1981 relative to Contentien XX (security). On April 24, 1981, l

l l

8106120 M g5

+

/

I G

. CBG protested that motions for summary disposition could not be filed until July 30, 1981, in accordance with the schedule stipulated by the parties and adopted by the Board. The CBG filing on April 24, 1981 was a motion to strike the Staff's motion for summary disposition as premature. The Board's Order of April 30, 1981 agreed with CBG that it had been stipulated and approved by the Board that motions for summary dispositio'n would not be filed until July 30, 1981. The Order also mentioned that if the schedule were not in place, motions for summary disposition could be filed any time up to forty-five (45) days before the hearing started.

The Staff stated in its motion for reconsideration that it was not its intention to propose a radical change from the procedure in 10 C.F.R. ! 2.749 and i# that had been the intent, it would have been explicit in bringing that fact to the attention of the parties and the Board. The Staff also stated that the filing of the motion for summary disposition supports its position that there was no intention that such motions could not be filed prior to July 30, 1981. The Staff further mentioned that it is only reasonable that such motions be filed ahead of or during discovery. The Staff suggests that CBG be given twenty (20) days from the date of this Order reversing the prior Order to i

respond to the motion for summary disposition.

UCLA fully supports the Staff's position and states any other interpre-tation is illogical, mistaken and counter to expressed Commission policy.

UCLA further states that neither Staff nor Applicant would ever agree to the interpretation of the stipulation suggested by CBG.

We said in our Order of April 30, 1981, that this is a unique situation.

We do not discount the sincerity of the Staff and the UCLA intentions but we are bound by the language in the transcript quoted in our April 30 Order.

n, e<,, -

,p---

p-wg-a-g-

,,yy-n p

w e--wey.

.o

. It is our detemination that the language supports the CBG's position that motions for sumary disposition are not to be filed prior to July 30, 1981.

It would be patently unfair to hold CBG to the " terms" of a stipulation that are not those to which it had agreed. Our Order of April 30, 1981 is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d2JGft/w ElizfbethS. Bowers, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland June 9. 1981 1

.