ML20038B954

Responds to E Woodhead to ASLB Re Language of Admitted Contentions.Explanation of Committee to Bridge the Gap Interpretation of ASLB Rulings on Contentions Listed

ML20038B954
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	12/01/1981
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Bowers E, Bueke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8112090355
Download: ML20038B954 (9)

Text

COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP-1637 BUTLER AVENUE c203 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 00025

.ET (2136 478 0829

_' d, n...E 'l

4. : : '.:.:

.t

9. c...~., un,,g n.i. r r.

0 0 - 7 P 1,.10 -

..c

-.,_c,

,81 e.c -./ ' *

-a r

. m. : '.e :

~

5iCR E W:

...cnG & SERVICE 211 rMCti. : cmcrc, ~:;., U.4.2 r.r -

.r. J: 141.. A. i.v.1:x

, & !nin'.: a tiv e.'v? c Ain1nic L: ati':. l '.

Atonic 3afet~ ant' I.icensi n Decr;

...:6.*e.> ", an: il v.*

r etv; L.2..'uclear Fe: u3cten Cuic: ir-i... *.:c : : v :" u

.Y:..:: 3 on

'J

Va shin-ton. ~,. 0. 2f r,"

"'a ni o

/(NL

/.4

,@"v { ly h

.,r.

Oscar :i. Tar;n

s

\\

Atomic 3afet / and I.icennini %r2

' N({- {N Adninistrative.*u' 't.

U S+

• .3. ':ucient Pe ul:t: ~" Cor.:.issio" 19@ ~~l li gg3 Uashinrtor.,

s.C.

20,""

p,ost D p c'M558"

-y Is. te.

. t ti.;

f

.hc :>e cn.s of the 'Jcdver rt - c' '.; al f orr 's G

..,$/

(*.",! A *-ecer.rch hetator) cff

'd '

Q4 lTL,

.09.c ' To. ' C-14'/

( -er.osc: : cneu-a Y F:=c' 31 t-

n.-

C...... -. C..,, 2

...,.3_....,

u... t. y., C'

.c.

.z :

o...4-

'Jear Adninistrative Judges:

"'his is in respons e to 1.s. '<.'oc:' head's le t tcr t o the. o.rd of roventer 20 refar:linE the lan.yuace cf the ecntertic:.n a u se: itic.'.'n this proceedin;.

f.s. "oedhead presented representr tivts cf the 1.t ervi.ncr uith a cpy cf the aiove-r.cntiened Ictter at the Jt ff-Interver.cr,31ccove:;

conferenc6 in 3an :#rar.cisco on ::cventer 2h.

1,1thca; h tenu tive r :ecr.ent tetween the parties uas reached on culte a ::u:.le of rz tters pr vicusly in dispute,1:s. 'loodhe.ad indicated, an she had in her Ictic: t:: thc : card, that "any difference 9 of ouinion ancnr the r.nrtica clou. the exact Inr.cunce c,f contentions should te 2 esc 1ved ?y the Icar:1 heccrdin to the '.or d 'c Earch 20, IM1 Cr3cr rulin. en the propoM conten*.icna."

l l

Therefore, pleam f1:.d hercir: 3 :. te2 v c *? cr ' '.

".v.' :-"

c.

• i-f r.terpretation of the I car.I' a r'.,li:c a on the cen - cr t $ t:.a.

cf t he ec:

.c.. tier; 3taff im!!cato: L:;at there In tc Jinpute t.

• o

.v.6 3 der.tifin i in Inte;rveror' : letter of CM o't:r 2't i c en w 1.:ilvert e: '

Staff'e ec:gi]n *.10:.; Jtatr r - t '.' "<.J r>:' uicn uero z..vlu 1:

4 Intervcr.or'.: propone-3 < ofrcetio:. ;,hutild I c ul e.

.m e ' wo c.'r e. i l u s y

are '/.33 arr! XXI. f.

5 II o$42av ?ls o

• o ez os, gov oo 04 i

~

~

..,m. :. W

',',4

,w. gje b

t

..'b

.,c 3, - 4

- y

>; %. d,' } 3 ;

~,

..j-t; su g.

...s fD,M.N I eh:. Np*M.[g5 N,y.~ r.g, w$sh,0.'.MMM).Mk..?i.MM%,.[v -

,;,u..

.. : :..,,.~ y

..y,.

s.

. :: - - r a o.

4

.n-

m..,

M,4Mki c Wand 14.a.ff';li. k..ewise ~i.nlica..t,es,t.hatgi. ere. s.mog spu e. tion"IIIII tin:1ts c en

• R M. 3t

~

w v

t Jihat sutp. arts 4

h d

ii pJM,c n.

s k(M k['fBGiM&'e rem %gliestesc'lik

~r

.cf;. contention'X.and. on en ct i

[

IS taff f1Elicitdi 4. hat'th'e'y'.~u'er8 5ct lincitrieO1M.af

~~htioM*WiQ#

'g te m

'cthe '3oartilerely3e GUWl&$5W$%W W%f"iW ins about -three contentions I.1,IIII~,

dhich are9elatively, trivialiQM,,.' %.M(%5' j

M2

. twotof e

r c h ' ?" U K Disput

.:.>.n..m j @ T i'./j' 7 ?

f

$y.,

..,.ky,%g,.,.,,g ry

p

,e..

s.s n

~ wc..- Q. Min,g

,y n.~;w gre-

,.y

.. y g s

.e-

.~

.r g;1. q..

. WX g;g 1.-

. v p..

{ng,'1The languace believod by Staff and that believed hStaff indicates..f @.. G;1

/ Intervener to fd2

[,

be thel"offdcial" languace are _in substance the sane.the 'langua6e cones fron

=

• • k

n

.c i

. ', '. R,y'g v

~

g

-"The Application reference to experinental vibration -

D,. 3 '.,'Ni.' -l ' -

t

,L

.cf the reactor is nislea:iin6.".

m.

z-a;,

?;,

.. ; y w" '.. g' t-.5u

.;-~

~,<

i. Q: h... g,

{.,. ~ 'i.

c That is precisely'.the7anguace indicated 'in Intervencr's ' letter of October 27. :q.u..} ;.r>

,).

e r- -

.: i' PT t 4

-k=*

~

The only difference is that Staff has Icf t out the phrase *'of the reactor," '

the effect of which, in Intervenor's view, is net consequential.

i It)/

XIX is of sonewhat greater consequence, lut not Overwhelnind y so.

The contention goes to the adequacy of Applicant's analysis of the E

• naxinun credible accid ent" c "d esign basis accident. " Intervencr had indicated at the pre-hearinc conference tnat the languace included by 3taff in Attachtent C (lancusre not agreed tc ty parties) was not the languace

.~.

Intervenor had sutnitted. The Scard nctes this in its larch 20 Order, but, T

as Staff notes, did not rule directly on the ratter, except with rcrards s

Subpart 3 I

I Intervenor has no problen with the hnruare indicated in 3taff's s-ccrpilation, as long as it is understcoi that the cententien coes to the adequacy of Applicant's analycis of the *"r.txin.w credible accident" c " design insis accident" for this facility. Intervener respectfully requests that if the 3 card decides that the languace adtitted by its March 20 OMer is as Staff had indicated, the Board nake clear that the cententien as adnitted cces to the adequacy of the Applicant's analysis of the P/:A or 13A for this facility.

1 l

[cM XIII is the natter cf prirary consecuence, tecause 3taff's interpretation 1

l would result in half of the contention being stricken.

Intervenor sees nothinC in the 3 card's Parch 20 Order which would indicate that was the intent or I

thrust of the ic W 's Crder.

1 The Board's C-der in this recard takcs the f err used thrcur:. cut the l

i Crd er.

The contention is decerited and the cpposinc positionc sunmariced then the Board indicates which cf the cpposing pocitions it arrees with ad states at the conclusicn i ts detern.ination of wncther the contention I

chculd te adr.itted.

If adritted in pa-t and denied in part. ine CW er j

explicitly says so.

l In this case, the 3 card identified b.o parts to the contentien, outlined the arruments ara!nst o.ach part, ad then ruled:

"We have, I

deterrined that there is a health and safety question involved ud the I

ccntentien is minitted."

l l

l l

l l

l

~_

.; n

.r

-. M, ; t. r..,,,

,..2.

3-3

,y *.

~

s

-t

.. ~

... c < c. +,

7s

.w

, L +.

s.

t,

?.; -

1

w ::...

.., g_

p nr

^

. - 7. s. -

/*...D d b..d 'd U.-.

0 4Nhf.'

• Qe 1, [.[,-,,(C

• L.,- There K no ' statement whatsoever.i that :the centention was _adnittedP @[^']

s. t.

'y.,.

'c--

"'{

P.

k, M,.s 4

' i]

$h'$ Yin ~ [ art'disi Tenied'.irdartM TV D.'.MMOJT % ' WO b -

eWbhWYNW

%:AY.$$'N{

N i~

cf ' Contention. IIII, wat. tit.".,wa..s.m -m.i.ts..~underst.anding t.ha.t?".t,h.e E k.S.t.a.ff.. argues :t.ha.

roc 111tigation,'g Appl 1 cant's.Mipulation N,*..

. n...J -

3..ty%p% 756 g d

.J. i

.d

" L s renov O.,W,9q('A.abouti,.its:.S,W. an,ilthat}o.nlyf,t.h..e.[~-s)ec.o.nd sent,ence.

.)

! @ ;o vi ani'A11 fifofm6. c "jk@esj[oiQty r

.. a.. s.. ad.nitted.~.a.s. Contenti.o.n.IIII.** MJ' 6. : m ove, Intervenor,,, sees;nothing 3.n the ~3 card' Crder that iindi,ates3pM,;-ff. $ 4 w

.i:

. As stated,ab.

m '

h 3.h.,rgy/M Qk 2 c

r E.A,..

? -th' fifs't"s.e..ntence o.e% v ^ c..., e ef..the Contention was denied f. W y+

?

e WP' g. v :

A i

r

.....g.. w

.. m : : M,L. *' t &.% 6

~ m:

Mci ' % % ~::o@@..

.,o m G;

< t "The. crux. o' the' =atter is -thatjthe inf or=ation'.which the contention,$4. %yh 24 w

h:

.A,^d b.J. '

, alleges *is. nissing'.from the application is still Teis' sing, nearly a ~ year i p3 & ;;W,6*

s i

T

[.-

later,'despite UCI).' assertions at the time about what.it would be w1111n6.

J 'F. y~ ~

[*

to furnish l.in thefuture.,~ynen_ that inferration is fully provided, the.

, M y y'

'g

, allegation in-the.first sentence,of the contentien nay:no~1enger te a y

• i c r,.

dispute-but'.theJ.nformtion, was not in the application:at the time of.

"+" *

~

% ;' the pre-heari,n5f conferenceeipn;ot mow in 'the.applicatiers and$emains veryJi T.>,,;

nuch a* dispute M S W F M...N M 7 '.1'." " " W ", .^P M'

' T.T. '

'.v7.'.,^ ' 4 b 4 6$,u%

3. $ r.::w.; y. ; e

-.,.....y

}

v e

n

~

1 -

r.,.

.t

(-

+@<f s

i 4

Furthermore, the sentence'in question alleges a failure to meet NiC regulations regarding' content cf SD: license applicaticns. It was our understanding that the 3oard admitted the entire contention, with the.

l

f understanding that if the' nissing informticn~uere provided at a later date, the first part of the contention uculd no/ longer be in dispute. iere part

. }

cf the contention denied, Intervenor respectfully asserts, the Order would

[

have so stated.

'.t 9,. n In sun, of the three contentions about which Staff and Intervenor i

are in disagreenent as to the irport of the 5 card's Earch 20 Order, the effect of the disagreenent as to one is, in Intervenor's view non-censequentials cf another, likewise of little consecuence if it is r.ade clear that the i

contention goes to the adequacy of the Applicant's analysis of "raxinun credible accident *' er " design basis accident" for this facility; and the last contention, XIII, of consequence in that it appears to Intervenor that Staff's interpretatien invc1ves denial cf half cf the cententien wh<treas Intervenor's readinc of the Crder indicates no such denial, as the 1 card ruled "the contention is adnitted."

'de hope the above clarifies Intervenor's position on the r.atter, r

Ees #c,tfully subnitted,

, - /

l',;,, c G; /,

'M &

i h6 6W 7

~1 Daniel Hirsch 7: esid ent

- ~.

C:lCFE TC 3EI30 THE CAP

..tcrvencr i

cce service list a

9 4

3 4

COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP

^

1637 BUTLER AVENUE e203 -

LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90025 E

(213) 478-0829 COM1.,T.,ED '

c.3 n i, : :

.:. ; i c....,

.n < ;. r

,81 03 -7 P1 10 s,.......,-

.s

e. c:..

p. c. e

~ Y.s.d. '.';i.

~

g i.

.- u Eli 2 eth 3dbOUdrr. 2 u.,

2. I rr..

Dr..:: Le-1.,.. _.uct::c Airinistrstive.'tec

. AJ r.in! - t:n 15 '...'.::; <

Ato:::ic 3a c y an? !.icensi.

.r->

.. m.c X r., and 1.ic.wir :.c:e :

ft U.3. :*uclear ?c: v3r. tor.'

Co.-.:~i

! c-

'..;. ';:c'.-:r. g 2n ::- 202.;.12si or.

Va shin-ton,' ~,. C. 2:'5' '

.'n m -.

. ~.i. W f?

Dr. Oscar...i. 2aras Adninistrat5ve Ju' %

Atomic.;afety an? I.icencine ' card

• '.3. ';uclear 2 r uittery Cc;v.ission l'ashinrtor., 's.C.

205 c5 2r the

.tte -f The Bectnta of the Ur.1verzity c:

.1: f :.r: '

('JC:1, Fecenrch :.cactor)

~.o.tc t 70. (G-31G

(',-entisc6 ~:.eneu-a of Fe c' 2 t-L' unm '-

1

..a c.s. I.... r C,,

,.,C.

...,C. 3

..y, 3.s,..,. 3 7.,

i..4-

.a.

Lear Adr.inietrative JudTes:

"'his is in respense.o !.s. 'riocfbead' : 3 et tc

-;o :.hc. c2rd of Toventer 20 retarding the lar:.7eace cf the centertio:.n c; : d..itted in this proceedinc.

T.s. Yocdhead presented rep' ece.te ti' t cf the Ira erver.cr uith a opy cf the al ove-r.cntioned 1citor at the.3t ff-Interver.cr :!i cove:,-

co-?2rence. $n 3an Fraticisco on ::ove::ter 2h.

1.1*heu; h 1 ent:.iive s: rec.cnt between the parties uas reached on culte a nu:.le: of rs.ttert, ;r viously in dispute,1:s. 'loodhead indicated, n.n she hni in her le'.tcr to the Ioad,

- that "any differences of ouinion arenc the r.ar*.ica clout the err.ct lartunce of contentions should te resc1ved by the ? card accordin _ 'o dhe Lord's l

Farch 20,1021 Cr-3cr rulinc cn the propecti cor. ten tions. "

'~nerefore, plcnno find herc'.n In+.c vencr'. e.9:nnM i c.

c2 ita

' r.terpr<A.ation of the Lcar.1':. rulinge en t.ht -ontentira.u.

I to two cf the cer anticr2

. staff indicates t::at there in t o 1* npute

$cientifie-1 in Intersonor's Intter of D

• ober Er tccou.w Inaivert e:.

c:~'salcnc uero 1.Mu in Staff'u co.,.,M 3a *.l o:.;.3 taff recor/-e;J-th i P al.ould Ic /ul e.

. h r e.e d uo c. r..:: i l u.c In.crver.or'c proponed cecrectio:

are '/ 31 and XXI. T.

l 4

~

m+

• • • • _- ~

~

. g..... ; r...,. m.. T. 4.!,

m'-

• ~. 3 ': 1 (

g.

~,, -. * ;,.

. - s"v n -

4

~ 5 r@

.L..m ~[. r

- m-r q,

~

c

.,.." ;; g.. w. c

., ~ y%...

. ',.. ~ ~

• t,rr.v ;

. g;L m.n..

c

....a. m, r, w.. v..-

,,.7

...g y u -

a bE'5&g. m M.AkhN?$&5. &N$:&;.W.Qs W a

,y x.

ute lihat sub. art.s 9.:.'Ks,s.M.

Y '~

v.kf h.8 u'. 3 ;. L.h&1; Yt. 5. N (p

.f-mA

. Staff;*11.k..eviae r9 htes ci.h.a.,tA.., ere,-is,rd,.fisp#. -

r r.

g W

- 3 s.

~

.i..nfit. s ren. tirety%me:e 'deferredf y u

• d ? 5 :. Staff fi trH cates.p. hat, th..a..n,d.yC..o.q.o.nwua,infSt

."...w!3.and%.~~,cf,.;,Co..nt. O cnju. C....

en p ntenti x.

W

., a wwwm$ested;Meremogncluiad 3

jam?in6 opuikftfedIco'ntentions'.?Gt

'rF a 2h ey f

46We EWFM W

N; fd[M:

thew 6ardhetelyisi V4 d e,C' "d%I)isp'ute:recainstabout.2three@contenticns -(I.

' X Ptwo'2fh@

.?IIIIDandV:I Q

M.icha e relativelf}triila'1?'45Q? ' fIs'hp.[$'..MEMMf;ht; 4 D.*,1,P

-: (

N. AN*.k.7..

.kkk..#...h h,h

....;..+ h.:'N~N! D D E, k h.o,1 i

fe.

.. 39 @ij (a )/,,.a.The langt. age.belicved by ' Staff and that tclieved D Intervenor

,Sf.,., e..s 3..

.i,.

f.lp. !.q,

e..

s..

p y

p. ' ~

p

i. ~

be theefficial*' languace are in substance the same.

Staff indicates? .J c, M!C,0.Y.?'f j,

the' language cones from p. 3 cf the Icard's Farch 20,~1981 Orior, which readsi %.. F...

r

'*The Application reference to experimental vibration j

,.. of the reactor is nisleadin6."

7,

,' ~

..w.,

f-t p. g.,y.ty

,;-A.

-3..

3.

+ ; ;.; c..m -~f. Kp~s,, e

.4 g ',;s..

i

.~,,

. r%

?"

-> i

~ That.is precisely.'the languace indicated in~ Intervenor's letter cf October 27.' y, '

,,y; a.

The only difference is that Staff has left cut the phrase "of the reacter,"

' ~ // ',

F the effect of which, in Intervenor's view, is net consequential.

Q)/

XIX is of soneuhat greater censequence, lut not everwheltingly so.

The contention goes to the adequacy of Applicant's analysic cf the

naximum credible accid ent" cr "d t sign basis accident. " Ir.tervencr had indicated at the pre-hearinc conference that the lancuace includcc by Staff in Attachnent C (lancuare not acr 'ed ic ty parties) was nct thc languace Intervenor had cutnitted. The 3 card nctes this in its 1 arch 20 Crder, tut,

-~

as Staff notes, did not rule directly en the catter, except with recards 3utpart 3 Intervenor has no pret1cr wit" the lancuage indicated in 3ta'f's cc: pilation, as lcne as it is understec-i that the contention coes to the adequacy cf Applicant's analysis cf the '"caxinur credible accident" cr "desicn tecic accident" fcr this facility.

Intervencr respectfully requests that if the 3 car' deciden that the language admitted by its March 20 Onder is.as Staff had in'iicated, the Board nake clear that the cententicn as admitted roes to the aiequacy cf the Applicant's analysis of the ?CA or '3A for this facility.

XIII is the natter of prirary consccuence, tecause Staff's interpretation would result in half of the contention teini stricker..

Intervencr cees nothinc in the 3 card's tarch 20 Orler which would indicate that was the intent or thrust of the 1.cC's Crder.

The Eoard's Crder in this rerard tecs the ferr. uced thrcur. cut the Cri e r.

~'he cententior is decerited an the c;;cain7 pc citicns cu.uarized; d

then the Board indicates which of the gpcnin. pocitions it acrees with and states at the conclusicn i ts de ter:.inaticn of whcther t'.e ccrtention should te adnitted.

If adnitted in part and denied in part. tn e C~d er explicitly aays so.

In this c.we, the Scard id e ttfied two parts to the cententien, cutlined the arrunents against each part, e.nd then rulod s

• "W e h a v e.

determined that there is a health and s8fety question involved and the contentien is adnitted. "

4

(.

o

.,n.

-..x c..e

_w i.

3 c.

in

-Q,-

s.

-,, <t

.' 3, c..

s p.

m n:

c*

,... 4 f,.1 4

,.. 4 s

.U de

.qi

• p

. W, f g/.

qi, -,

si

si'.

,4 o

s

y. '

, t.

+ g. here '.s.no,statenent~ khatsoever-that.the cententich was adnitted

- s g.ct QM,s

~ d.9;3 &jn' pArtirx!, denied in M.E Ob W.2 W W. M 44.M,s*.v & h'M.:

,,m,i

EO e

.v. MfMet.i r. 24% y,Y,Q.E.

hMF

fh W 3J Utgl g;a b 5Pd A M p f ]M,. Sf p}

M w

n:

-%.-.x.usv. v m. -p n.

~.

- >,. - 4.... m c & y^ ;

.~t,.,.

A r.,?,H ?-i

.N. S. taff,-argues cth. a_.t.,u.61..t. t,s. a..s, ?,i. ts.r. unde.rs.t.andi. ?.. hat;J*'t.h.e..f.. irs t e se.n..te.nce b

D

.~

' L, i., r w

m oa.it.a.ga w

r.%

' 1[

N @% # Ato...C.o.n..

'.1 oh.

.t.en.t.w Q 2

.d..r. n..

4 grovide;a.r..t.II,i ally 4was ;ene..v edti io ontreques..t.io.nW.Applican,t.'.,s., stipulation e,,,

. i

%1. ' <.

r s

r

.n a

4 r;y.an orma M.,,aboutli

& :.?.,As... ~ _is.SW.i, n.d A. h.a.t.I. ~.n.l~ i heT.H_edridT..intMe.e.Twisl adni.t..t. e.

t y

.y c._

stated above,7nterveno. -r sees nothirgin theJoard Crder that' indicates (DWVth'e'?fi5st senten'ce #cf -thle'ICob.t'enticin was'denic:

r.

Lf g. S M 3 $ ", M *3.K 3 :

~

s N

W; r - i.1

-W-

...n-u e :n

...n

,1,.:

S

R -. % s y

.t:

.J-T Y. C.'f d'he'. crux of[the' matter'is that the information'which the centention. :; ?.,

? ' }a

'e

..i.,.

w.

-\\',-

~

at,

4

[1. -

. alleges' is ~issinc frorf.the application is still nissing, 'nearly a year '

f.'

'later, despite UCLA assertions at the tire about khat.it~ would be willing <

~. -E.,

r

'/

to fu nish in the future.;Jhen that inferration is fully provided, the.

~

a

' i

~ llegation in the.first' sentence of the contentien nay no longer te a

., p

i.-

s. :=...,

dispute--but.the inforcation' was. net in the application at the -time ef ' ~

j' E.

.the pre-hearingiconferenc~e!:is not now in the. application',' and #renains'very}.#

• $ G.

(M. ! ' nuch a' dispute.'.E:"WW.N E'" n

~ "*#9 ^ ' 'f *^.

.2 T'

.' i

~!

- h Q,;.' y.:.? h.d M;..' ".' ~

', ~ '

'. ~ -

^*'

s.

- m

~.u-,.-

.c n

i

~

Furthernore, the sentence An question alle'e,s a failure to meet EiC c

.y.

regt:1ations regarding content cf SE license applicaticns. It was our

'~

~

understanding that tne 30ard adnitted the entire contention, with the Jg ' -

^

h understarding that l' the missing inforraticn were provided at a later date,- -

the first part of the contention would no loncer be in dispute. Were part of the contention denied, Intervenor respectfully asserts, the Order would.~

have se stated.

T..'

In sun, of the three contertions about which Staff and Intervenor

~

are in disagreenent as to the inport of the 5 card's Earch 20 Order, the effect of the disagreenent as to one is, in Intervenor's vieu, non-consequential; of another, likewise of. little consecuence if it is nade clear that the contentien goes to the adequacy of the Applicant's analysis of "raxinun credible accident" er " design basis accident" for this facility; and.

the last contention, XIII, of consequence in that'it appears to Intervenor that Staff's interpretation involves denial of half of the contentien whereas Intervenor's readinC of the Crder indicates no such denial, as

[

the 3cani ruled "the contention is adnitted."

t We hope the above clarifles Intervenor's position on the r.atter.

Pes e/'tfully sulni tted, l

c

/

'/ ',.u ed ~,/

~,,

.. r f-Daniel Hirsch l

CCWIT"EE TG EEIOCE HE CAP Iresident-

~

Intervencr I

cc: service list 4

s 9

l i

~

]

' COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 1637 BUTLER AVENUE m203 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9/J25 (213) 478 0829 P

.. g. n..~ t 9.

.......m

.. e.. c..

rr Dr. :: a i.. i.. _.uct::c

^

211 W eth 3..;c;cre. Oru..

A inistrative itP e.

c.O.in'o tn t:. - T.e p t 2

,*.onic 3afetr an' 11ce.'.31

.

.r r

.i;.v

-.-Je / an 1.1G.:.01 -(

.c:u c

~

L.:. Juelcar Fe ;hter: 0*

.. : 1:

L... ' uc' ; r. tre:a'.a:

cn

. alor.

Vashin-ton, 1.0. 2'J5r!

• /a-i.1 -

. ~ :..$.'$,!

i-

.;r. C, car...i. Iar.,s Adninistrative Jube Atomic 3afety anf T.i ce.r. cine '-card U.3. '.;uclear Pe-ult. tory Ccre.ission a

Vashinctor., 7.C. 20ft it. th

• ta f

hc Pe:Tnts of the U.d ven.h

,,C:':1-(UC*A Ec':etr::h ict Mur) l T.eht - Ti. r*-1!J

" 7:v e' 11 t - ' ' < < ~. ' -

(Ncnnsed ieneu.C i

.m u

r..

..a..

-s.1.,.:.

u.i A..c., CF

,.C.....

1 C..,

,2

..z-., :

Lear Adr.inistrative Judges:

This is in response to hs. Yocfhead's leitc; o

• .he.

m.rd of Toventer 20 re arding the langua e cf the centertio:.r. as ir.itte.! 'n this procee*ing.

T.c. '.'ot! head presented reprece-t,-tivcs of the latervcncr with a epy cf the aiove-:r.cntioned Ictier at the ?, tiff-L terver.cr c*incove:;

conference in 3an Frar.cisco on ::ove:nter P.h.

/Jtheuch ientntive sr:eenent tetween the parties was reached :,n c. ite a ::u:.ler of ri.tterc ;.rv icusly in dispute, T.s. '.!oodhe.ad indicated, an she had in her icit ti tu 8.hc :ca*d..

I that "any differenec 5 of o'ainion n c r.c the r er ica rion'. the eract larcuarc cf contentions should be resclved Y.

the Toard necer*ir.. t o the ; o:~~ ' c.

l

'hrch 20,19P1 Cr3cr rulin en ' '.he rrged contc:.:.ic:m. "

I i

2.orcfore, p1ca :o fird herc!r: 2 : ' < 2 n c2 ' -

c.*y.

t' e..

cf : t.:

intcrpristatien of the 1.c'.r1'a ruli: *; on th' ~ cr..c: t ' c..v..

i 3taff indic stes that. there in' c M npute,:

o

'.v

. c."

t he ect. vnti en.;

~

o C -t ober 7'r i m:'u.w

.1 i vert e:..

3dentifiel in Interver.cr'c Intt:ct r

. o:..vaions uere 1. tide $ n Staff's cca,11a*.10:.; JtittT rrce.e.e.4 - t in '

t uo c. r... : i u s

[

In.ervi.r.or'c propocc1 ce, rection: Lt.ould Ic

...le.

. - e are 7.13 rin-! ZXI.S.

t 4

4

+

y-w mwy y we v --g v-w e e"*

re~a--=rT--.'.'t- + -

-e-*~

-ww-.eti.+m r,*+.~rs v - - -

tes---t--

e *

-*.e es.--

=

~rw--m e

i. =

.%-r--.-

v+-Pe-

-t

g,

.=

L,

. -c. d..

n r -c ; s.,. -.

2 x,

u,,"<_

y-

.s.

3 s

z

. up -

,..4 p f'd. W

.*M 1 8 3 E cJc b M / $ d$25J M, $ i @ W aiTP d. -J5taffflihewise:indicates l-

's L7 :

m%

g g;:sht 0 @liExidites";that:they]Veie%ot}1ncluiedf;i:nSta'js cocpilatio 3

1. fof-CbstestiErifX andVCeh~ention'2IIInin'its!entiret;.

L c

N; NIStaff

'l

, j'25 S kthe'IoartSmerelyhe(meudsstediaMtingsofja'dEitte:iccontentions..Ma,.?R 4

"V#?

5 m

,vre & n,.?'>

Wwu y wggMf N.W:

• WEP 'WM MYM h rE

&y'v.

y

.? p [; % $, %., & P W.

N 4. ' Disp'ute renains '%'T,? ree. con entiens. (I.1,,."IIIirand 'XIX), : two'of W

ab out I

,:Mcc[g$fd!

f y

IOM w,acma m-% - w.W:n.Y.}e$hidai e ielativelyI triviallSc?i W: E TMUdji.$ D@$:= ' %5' $a

[-

.y i -

s.

~~

-.V Me.

+ p..

1 ; %..,.. - e -

+,

g,

,.,,y p; k

' ;(. M

• W;,'a,nguag.

-~

-. 4. p n;;s* M f*

i,)/ ~~The 1 _ n

., s.

yd:D

~-

jo

. F - rl7 y*

~

e' believed by'.Stt.ff and that believed by lntervencr Staff indicates % p'..:;,Ic h

-6

,be-the1*' official" language are _in substance the sane.

i.

the lan6uage cones from p. 3 cf the leard's larch 20, 1981 l

..,s,

...p.

e

• ' ?

a t

[

Ihe Applicationlreference to experinental vibration y'.j '

l..

of:the reactor:is nisleadin6."

u a.9

m W, ~ -

.3,y,. ; :..:. -

-o s

~ ~.

o

~.. s +s '),n.

n...

,r.

> ~ -

,s

['.

That is precisely th'e~ 1anguage indicated in Intervencr's letter of October 27.-

+.

a.

The only difference ~is that Sttff has left cut the phrase "of the reacter,"

h the effect of which, in Intervenor's view, is not consequential.

(b)/

XIX is of sonewhat Freater consequence, but not overwhelnicely so.

I The contention goee to the adequacy of Applicant's analysis of the "maxinum credible accident" er "d esiFn tasis accident." Intervencr had indicated at the pre-hearing conference tnat the language included by Staff in Attachnent C (languye not agreed ic ty parties) was not the lanEuage

'-~

Intervenor had suttitted. The Board notes this in its Earch 20 C der,' but, t

as Staff notes, did not rule directly on the natt.er. except with regards

^

Subpart 3 Intervencr has no protlen with the lancuage indicated in Staff's cc: pilation, as long as it is understcoi that the cententien coes to the adequacy of Applicant's analysis cf the '"naxin.n credible accident" or " design insis accident" for this facility.

Intervener respectfully requests that if the Board decides that the lang' age adnittcd by its Parch 20 Ctder is as Staff had indicated, the board nake clear that the contention as admitted goes to the adequacy of de Applicant's analysis of the P.':A or D3A for this facility.

(c)/

XIII is the natter of prinary consecuence, tecause Staff's interpretation would result in half of the contention being stricken.

Intervenor sees nothinc in the Board's } arch 20 Czder which would indicate that was the intent or threst of the 1.:rd's Order.

The locrd's CMer in this recard takes the f er-used th:curnout the Order. The cortention is descriled and the cpposinc positions sunnarized s.

then the Board indicates which of the opposing positions it acrees with and states at the conclusicn its detern.ination of whether the contentien should be admitted. If ad:citted in part and denied in part, the Order explicitly says so.

In this case, the Leard identified two parts to the contentien, outlined the arrunents against each part, and then ruled:

• • We have detern.ined that there is a health and safety question involved and the contentien is adnitted."

t 4

e

~

~ _ _ _

_ _ ~ _ _.

-; ?,

.,,._?

?-

w a-

j.,

. if -

g=.. i?, 1 %,;f

h -j5S5;,:

-}-

.~

- : f Q. Tph.e

'Bere is no statement whatsoever. that the' contention was:admitudMS 4, Q y.

^-

~

. v.

p..., -

n.

Y

k I

^

~

< wStafdargues that'it' was-itsnznderstanding;that;'"the.first:sentenceMQ4 h f. A.-

5 ' of ' Contention XIII' ~waliiYeiovid3friin011tijatiisi1QjrflicE.Et,'s!s~tipulationpF '.N b r

~

3chh

.O., N ovid e"ahyMndi al.fi.h. fchiti'oiiW ud.sf.e.d. hy.7,ihe,. Staff.E.c- "th.i, Conte.ih AL" to Ne As..sta.t. ed 1ab. o.ve, 'I..erve.

% e s.~e.s.. cone.s..en ence:wt.s admitt.ed a..s......

about..its.32,an,'d 3 hat,. :i.1 n

e.

.- ? ',..

-the first sentence of <-th_nor s.e..s n_oth_i.ng;in;s e.)oarti'Crder tha ti '

.n.. o. n..II 6

J

. ~

u..

e 6

O. M.,b C.

A t

r.

e.. Contention was..deni d.'

~

^

. fW..

.mi

.. o... -

', T 'l.$. 4; '

' !p;%n. y-Mn -g-..;,v:-

. W 2 x..._. ;...+

M-Wn f..

((:., '

. ;4 vv 6

."j.,,..

"he' crux of the matter.is-that.the informtion which the centention

- M. -

~

alleges is missing from the~ application.is still mis' sing, nearly a year -

~

.. p' later,"despite UCI). assertions at the tine' about what.it would be willing to furnish in the future'. ~When that infcrmation is fully provided, the

..c

(.

allegation.in the first'. sentence;of the. contentien{nay no lonCer te a' ;

dispute--but.the _informtion was not.in the applicatientat the time of

. gd.

- the pre-hearing -conference,' ~ is not now in' the Qpli' cation,'.and ' remains 'very '.. Y~J'[

f(. _

cuch a' dispute. 4 f* W ', - - ' ~

~ -'

~

~\\

i Ec hN.*.

C Ap g.

r.

w.

Further cre, the sentence in question alleges a failure to meet IGiC regulations regarding content cf SI;E license t.pplicaticns. 'It was our I

understanding that the 3oard admitted the entire contention, with.the.

understanding that if the tissing informaticn were provided at a later date, the first part of the contention would no-loncer be in di:pute. Vere part of the contention denied, Intervenor respectfully asserts, the Order would have se stated.

In sun, of the three contenticb.s about which Staff and Intervencr are in disagreement as to the irport of the Ecard's Earch 20 Order, the i

effect of the disagreement as to one is, in Intervenor's vicw, non-consequential of anothe:, likewise of little consequence if it is made clear that the contention goes to the adequacy of the Applicant's analysis of "taximun credible accident" or " design basis accident" for this facility; and

,i the last centention, XIII, of consequence in that it appears to Intervenor that Staff's interpretatien involves denial of half of the cententien whereas Intervenor's reading of the Crder indicates no such denial, as the 3oani ruled "the contention is admitted."

We hope the above clarifies Intervenor's position on the atter.

Pes e/tfully submitted, cs&%L Daniel :-iirsch h esid:.n t CC:.MITEE TO IEIECE THE CAP Intervenor cc service list 4

.