ML20038A890
| ML20038A890 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1981 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bowers E, Luebke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111240399 | |
| Download: ML20038A890 (3) | |
Text
'
e-
<g h
f dJ
$9 November 20, 1981 NOV2 3 issS P Q "" "l@gm Ll.2' C
sg s
27 77&d[No/
T Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman Dr. Enneth A. Luebke Adainistrative Judge Administrative Judge Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conaission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, CC 20555 In the liatter of The Regents of the University of California (UCLA Research Reactor)
Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License
Dear Administrative Judges:
This letter responds to Judge Bowers' telephone inquiry about 1:r. Hirsch's letter of October 27, 1981 containing proposed corrections to some of the language of my coopilation nf admitted contentions.
I am hereby setting out the canner in which I coopiled the contentions admitted by the Board to this proceeding by Order of !! arch 20, 1981 as well as noting corrections.
The compilation was sutaitted to the Board on Septer.ber 2, 1981 at its request. Soce langwp differences appear to be the result of differing interpretations of tne Board's Order. These will be discussed with i r. Hirsch during our Hovember 24, 1981 ceeting along with a possible agreement on interrogatories.
I will provide the Board with a report of the results of our discussions. Hoaever, the Staff believes any differ-ences of opinion among the parties about the exact language of contentions l
should be resolved by the Board acccrding to the Board's Farch 20, 1981 Order ruling on the proposed contentions. The following explanation of ny interpretation of the Board's rulings on the contentions is provided for the Board's consideration.
1.
Contention I.1 was modified by Board Order of l'. arch 20, 1981, p. 3, to read as in the ccapilation.
2.
The percent and delta signs were inadvertently omitted fron subpare-That sentence should be corrected to read
/)
cfraph11ofContentionV.
2.3% a K/K).
(
l gap 24 g aggg2
.g g, e,,,~
l
.o aare p OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam e -m uo
' sac Fonu sie (tamj secu c 40
O.
7-3.
Contention XIII: Soard Order of March 20, 1981, pp. 7-8 states:
XIII The contention consists of two sentences. The first is an allegation that infomation relative to the special nuclear materials license is lacking in the application. UCLA stated it wculd stipulate that it would furnish any and all information the Staff or the Board requested. All required infomation will be furnished so the allegation in the first sentence may no longen be a dispute. Tr. 270.
The second part relates to the enrichment level and quantity of the fuel. CBG does not contend that regulations have been violated but alleged that there is an unnecessary threat to the health and safety of the public. The Staff takes the position that the Board cannot inquire into the matter unless there is a health and safety question. UCLA takes the posi-tion that the fuel on hand is only that required to properly operate the reactor. tie have determined that there is a health and safety question involved and the contention is admitted.
From this, it was my understanding that the first sentence of Con-tention XIII was renoved from litigation by Applicant's stipulation to provide any and all infomation requested by the Staff or the Board about its SiH and that only the second sentence was admitted as Contention XIII.
4.
Contention XIX was admitted by Board Order,llarch 20, 1981, p. 10 wherein the Board noted that CBG suggested a language change in the "umbrelle paragraph" of Contention XIX in Attachment C of the parties' stipulation. The Order did not rule on the suggested word change but states at p.11 that Contention XIX is accepted but Subpart 3 is modified by deleting " Design basis accident" and substituting "nultiple failure mode."
Since the Board modified the contention to the extent indicated above and did not rule on the " umbrella paragraph" change, I understood that the Board had admitted Contention XIX as written in the stipula-tion except for the word change in the Order.
5.
Contention XXI.5 - fir. Hirsch's proposed correction should be made.
The sentence was inadvertently omitted from Staff's compilation, s
omcep SURNAMEk.
ocie )
, Ec rORM M p4SM NRCM Cm OFFICIAL RECORD COPY wm m-um L
- i..,
. 6.
It is correct that the subparts 3 and 4 of Contention X and Conten-tion XXIII were deferred.
I did not include deferred contentions in the compilation requested by the Coard since the request asked only for admitted contentions.
Sincerely, Colleen P. I,'oodhead Counsel for flRC Staff cc: Service List DISTRIBUTION:
CPWoodhead SATreby MKarman S/E C/0/S ELD FF (2)
HBernard DMB PDRlLPDR Chron l
i
(
l OELI h l^
OELD CN6B
'3fi i "TXTrs$i"... '
sua~cm >
..l.ll.2,0/81,,
,1,1B,0/81, oare >
l NRC FJRM 31a (10-80) NRCM C243 OFFIClAL RECORD COPY u3ca.m-mm