ML20053B922
| ML20053B922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1982 |
| From: | Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| To: | Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206010346 | |
| Download: ML20053B922 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
' /
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP -
f 1637 BUTLER AVENUE =203 N
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (213) 478 0829 as from: Box 1186 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 (408)336-5381 Ny 25, 1982 Mr. William Cormier Office of Administrative Vice Chancellor University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024 In the Matter of The Regents of the University of California (UCLAResearchReactor)
Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)
RE: FOLLOW-UP TO MAY 17 PHONE CONVERSATION Dear Mr. Cormier On May 17 I spoke with you by telephone about two matters, one regarding failure of your May 10th pleading to reach me here in Den Lomond, the second a suggestion we discuss the proposal about re-photographing contained in your May 3rd pleading, a matter which you had not discussed with us prior to making your counter-proposal to the Board.
In addition to the spare copy of the May 10th pleading you forwarded on May 17th after we spoke, I finally did receive (on May 22) the copy that had been mailed the week before. The reason for the nearly two week delay appears to be that the address used on the mailing label utilized the wrong zip code--90048 instead of the correct 95005 As to the other matter, when I suggested we discuss the re-photographing proposal contained in your filing of May 3, given the Board's direction that we confer on such matters prior to bringing motions before the Board, you declined to discuss the matter or similar disputes, indicating that the University "did not find such discussion fruitful."
You suggested instead that I file a motion with the Board and that CBG could then learn the response of the University in its response to our motion.
(I did, the following day, which was the due date for such responses, file a response to your proposal with the Board.) You suggested that if CBC did net wish to file a pleading with the Board, we could " send a letter" to the University.
l D503 820 6 010 3 V6 p 5-t 0
_2-
{
Ve find the mnner of conferring about disputes that you have suggested extremely cumbersome, especially when there is a tight schedule.
Discussion and negotiation are most difficult by mail, where numerous responses and counter-proposals on even minor disputes can take months.
Where such a metixxl can be employed without unduly delaying the proceedings.
CBG will follow ~it, but CBG finds Applicant's unwillingness to confer except' through motions or letters will likely necessitate the use of the former more often than would otherwise be requirtsd.
Sincerely
'd <
x w
Daniel Hirsch ecs service list.
- - _ _. _ _