ML20126B711
| ML20126B711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003190298 | |
| Download: ML20126B711 (22) | |
Text
o 3/10/60 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In.the Matter of
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-445 ET AL.
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CFUR AND CASE RESPONSES TO NRC STAFF'S STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED STIPULATIONS AND THEIR REQUESTS THAT THE NRC STAFF BE ORDERE9 TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND CONDUCT FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS I.
INTRODUCTION In pleadings filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereafter the LicensingBoard),1! CFUR and CASE, Intervenors in this proceeding, responded to a document filed by the NRC Staff on January 25, 1980 I and requested that 1/
The copy of CFUR's pleading recently transmitted to the Staff was not accompanied by a certificate of service and was not served upon the Staff.
CFUR's apparent failure to serve this document contravenes 10 CFR % 2.701(b) and 9 2.730(a).
There is a handwritten date of February 19, 1980 on the Staff's copy of the pleading.
Assuming that this pleading is treated as a motion, there is a fifteen day period for the Staff to file an answer, plus five days for mailing, which results in a response date of March 10, 1980.
10 CFR QQ 2.710 and 2.730(c), as amended.
The CASE pleading was accompanied by a certificate of service dated February 25, 1980.
2f See "NRC STAFF'S STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED STIPULATIONS AND REQUEST T0 SCHEDULE PREHEARING CONFERENCE," dated January 25, 1980.
This document was filed in response to the Licensing Board's Order dated January 10, 1980, in which the Licensing Board requested that the NRC Staff provide a realistic appraisal of the status of negotiations among the parties in this proceeding concerning the contentions of the several Intervenors.
In addition to apprising the Licensing Board of the status of the negoti-ations, the, Staff also suggested that the Licensing Board schedule a pre-hearing conference on March 20, 1980, for the purposes of (1) hearing oral argument on contentions, if it desires to receive such presentation in addi-tion to any written statements which may be requested by the Board (the Staff proposed that all parties file such statements by February 29, 1980) and 2) discussing further scheduling matters.
As. explained infra, in a letter to the Licensing Board dated February 25, 1980, the Staff proposed a revised schedule for submission of statements of position on contentions.
8008190
4 the Licensing Board 1) order the Staff to provide certain documents to CFUR and CASE, and 2) postpone any date for submission of written statements or a prehearing conference until the Staff, CFUR and CASE have completed discus-j i
sions on certain contentions proposed by CFUR and CASE.
CASE also requests that the Licensing Board 1) order the Applicants to provide CASE with certain documents, including copies of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),
Environmental Report (ER) and revisions, and 2) order the Staff to conduct further negotiations in the Dalls/Ft. Worth area (where CASE also requests that the prehearing conference be held).
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff believes that the requests of the Staff should be denied.
II.
BACKGROUND AND CHRON0 LOGY OF DISCUSSIONS.AND NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES CONCERNING CONTENTIONS On February 5,1979, a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing with respect to the application for an operating licenses in the captioned proceeding was published in the Federal Register (44 Fed. Reg. 6995).
The Notice provided that any persons whose interest might be affected could submit a petition for leave to intervene by March 5,1979.
Pursuant to that notice and the provisions of the Commission's Rules of Practice in 10 CFR E 2.714, timely petitions for leave to intervene were filed by CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), CFUR (Citizens for-Fair Utility Regulat'on) and ACORN /WTLS (Texas Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and West Texas Legal
-Services).
C.'
.- a M
and April 15,1979,E 19,1979,M arch 23,1979,0 In' pleadings dated March the Staff recommended that each petition for leave to intervene be granted.
In these pleadings, the Staff noted its intention, consistent with the Com-mission's views as stated in the Statement of Consideration accompanying the May 26,1978, amendment of certain sections of 10 CFR 9 2.714, 43 Fed. Reg. 17798 (April 26, 1978), to meet with each organization in an effort to arrive at agreement on contentions to be submitted in the future.E In accordance with this statement, the Staff arranged to meet in NRC's Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas, with Applicants' counsel and representatives and with representatives of CFUR, ACORN and CASE, on April 16,1979,E April 17. 1979,U nd April 18, 1979, respectively.E Subsequently, on a
April 17,18 and 19, counsel for NRC Staff and Applicants' counsel and representatives met with representatives of CASE and CFUR and counsel for ACORN to discuss contentions to be submitted by each organization.
As part of these discussions, counsel for Staff commented on the specificity and basis _ requirements in 10 CFR Q 2.714(b) regarding contentions.
y See, "NRC. STAFF ANSWER TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY CASE,"
(March 19,1979).
y See, "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY CFUR,"
(March 23,1979).
5/
See, "NRC Staff ANSWER TO JOINT PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY ACORN and WTLS," (April 19,1979).
y The Supplem'ents setting forth contentions had not yet been filed, y
.See Attachment A.
_.y' See Attachment B.
y See Attachment C.
L
'% In an unpublished " Order Relauve To Motion For Continuance" (Order) dated May 9,1979, the Licensing Board denied ACORN's Motion for Continuance filed on April 6,1979, 'in which ACORN requested that the time for filing conten-
-tions and the first prehearing conference be continued.
In this Order, the Licensing Board, noting that "the requirements for ' standing' being interest and at least one valid contention," requested that the Applicants and Staff
" address in writing ~ prior to the.prehearing conference... their position as to whether they believe there is one or more acceptable contentions for each of the petitioners." Order, pp.2-3.
On May 17,1979, the Staff filed, in response to the Board's May 9,1979 Order, "NRC STAFF MEM0RANDUti REGARDING CONTENTIONS AND FURTHER ANSWER TO ACORN /WTLS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE" (Memorandum).
In accordance with the Board's Order of May 9,1979, the Staff confined its consideration of contentions in the Memorandum to assessing whether, "in our view, there is one or more acceptable contentions for each of the parties." Memorandum, p.3(citationomitted). The Staff stated its view "that the contentions have not been set forth with the clarity desired and are frequently inter-
~ twined with the basis given." However, the Staff perceived a " common issue which each petitioner seeks to raise, namely quality assurance / quality control."
Id. The Staff believed it appropriate to consolidate the various
._ quality assurance / quality control contentions into a single contention, and recommended' acceptance of a particular single contention set forth by the Staff in lieu of the several contentions proposed by the Intervenors. Jd.,
pp.3-4._
I
-S-On May 22,1979, the Licensing Board held a prehearing conference in Glen Rose, Texas to consider the petitions for leave to intervene filed by CASE, CFUR and ACORN.
Subsequently, in an " Order Relative to Standing of Peti-tioners to Intervene," issued on June 27, 1979, Texas Utilities Generating
_ Company, et al., (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-79-18, 9 NRC 728 (1979), the Licensing Board admitted CASE, CFUR and ACORN as Intervenors in this proceeding.10/ The Board also determined, with respect to the proposed Quality Assurance / Quality Control contentions, that the following language encompasses all the contentions:
"The Applicants have failed to establish and execute a quality assurance / quality control program which adheres to the criteria in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B."
9 NRC at 733.
It was the Licensing Board's expectation, as stated in its Order of May 9, 1979, supra, that if CASE, CFUR and ACORN were admitted as Intervenors in this proceeding, that the Applicants and Staff would meet with the Inter-venors and "try to reach a stipulation on one or more other contentions."
Orde r, p. 3.
Accordingly, on July 17, 1979 and July 18, 1979, counsel for NRC Staff (and other NRC staff members) and counsel for Applicants and other representatives of Applicants met with CFUR and CASE representatives in Arlington, Texas and Dallas, Texas to discuss the contentions proposed by CFUR and CASE in this proceeding.
The parties' discussions covered the proposed contentions contained in CFUR's " SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE 10] The Board determined that "Intervenor status is not granted for WTLS."
9 NRC at 733.
1]/ See Attachment D.
i l
% TO INTERVENE" and " MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE", dated May 29, 1979 and in CASE's " SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE," dated May 7,1979, as corrected (p. 21) on May 22, 1979. At the meeting, it was agreed that since certain of CFUR's contentions l
raised issues relating to the accident at the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant (Contentions II.B. and III.B., as set forth in the Supplement and Motion For Leave to Amend Supplement, May 29,1979),and since certain reports analyzing that accident had not yet been issued,E the parties would defer consideration of those particular contentions pending issuance of the reports. At this meeting it was also agreed that further negotiations would be conducted by telephone conference.
In addition, the Staff offered, in response to inquiries by CFUR and CASE about the availa-bility of certain documents, to consider on an informal basis, requests for particular documents or information related to the specific issues raised by j
CFUR and CASE in this proceeding.
In a letter dated August 1,1979,b the Staff provided to CFUR certain NRC documents which CFUR had requested at the meeting on July 17, 1979.
12f It is. the Staff's belief that the particular reports the parties had in mind are the NRC Investigation Into The March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island Accident, by Office of Inspection and Enforcement (NUREG-0600, completed in July 1979 and published in August 1979); the Report of the President's Commission on the Accident At Three Mile Island (October 1979), and the.-
report of the Rogovin Special Inquiry Group (Three Mile Island - A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public, issued on January 24,1980).
As explained infra, NUREG-0600 was furnished to CFUR on October 4,1979.
Copies of the Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island and Vol. I of the report of the Rogovin Special Inquiry were provided to CFUR and CASE and all parties in NRC adjudicatory proceedings as part of " Board Notifications" of November 8,1979 and January 29, 1980, respectively.
(AttachmentE).
. 13/ SeeAttachmentF(enclosurenotincluded).
1
, J By letters dated August 21, 1979, the NRC Staff transmitted to each Inter-venor, including CFUR and CASE,8 a copy of the respecthe Intervenor's
' contentions, which reflected the changes made at the meetings held by the 1
parties in July and the positions taken by the parties at that meeting.
In this letter, the Staff stated that the position taken at those meetings were not final and are subject to change. This letter a?so stated that a conference call to further discuss these contentions was scheduled for August 30 or 31.
The purpose of these letters and attached statements of contentions (which set.forth the position of the partie; with respect to each contention) was to assist the parties in considering the language agreed to and positions taken at the meetings in July and to serve as a basis for the further negotiations contemplated by the parties.
Subse-quently, by telephone conference, the Staff and Applicants further discussed with CFUR and CASE the contentions proposed by each of them.
By letters dated October 4,1979, the NRC Staff transmitted to represen-tatives of CFUR and CASE draft stipulations covering CFUR's and CASE's contentions.b The letter to CASE also explained, in detail, the Staff's reassessment of its position regarding CASE's contentions relating to y
emergency planning, based on certain recent developments.
To assist CASE's representative in understanding these developments, the Staff included in its letter, copies of-certain NRC documents relating to emergency planning.
3 / See Attachments G and H-(enclosures not. included).
15/ a See Attachments I and J (enclosures not included).
(Bylettersdated
~
October.4, 1979, the NRC Staff also transmitted to ACORN draft stipula-
'tions covering ACORN's respective contentions. : By letter of October 4, 1979, copies of the draft stipulations were sent to Applicants' counsel).
i
_,. Also, by another letter dated October 4,1979,b the Staff responded to CFUR's " Informal Request for Information from the NRC Staff," dated August 25, 1979.. In response to CFUR's nine page request, the Staff provided infonnation and a number of documents to CFUR (including NUREG-0600, cited in fn. 12).
The Staff advised CFUR that some of 'the documents requested, -such as the report of the President's Commission investigating the TMI-2 accident and that of the Rogovin Special Inquiry, had not yet been issued.
(As explained in fn.12, p. 6, both of these reports were subsequently provided to all parties in NRC adjudicatory proceedings as part of " Board Notifications.")
On October 31, 1979, CFUR filed a " Motion to Add Contention."
In the "NRC Staff's Answer to CFUR's Motion to Add Contention," dated November 20, 1979, the Staff, noting that the parties were then engaged in etforts to arrive at stipulations regarding the admission of various contentions, proposed that the parties consider the new contention "in the framework of the totality of contentions, rather than isolated." Staff Answer, p. 1.
Accordingly, the Staff suggested that a ruling on CFUR's motion should be deferred by the Licensing Board until-the parties have filed their stipulation or respective statements of position on contentions.
M.,p.2.
The Staff allowed a period of several months for the parties to consider the draft stipulations and statements of contentions.
The Staff received substan-tive comments from Applicants' counsel, CASE, and CFUR relating to the draft stipulations and proposed contentions.
.H/ See Attachment K (enclosures not included).
, 'By letters dated January 25, 1980, the Staff forwarded to the Intervenors (including CFUR and CASE)b stipulations and attachments (statements of revised contentions) which had been executed by counsel for Staff and counsel for Applicants.E These letters stated that the executed stipulation and attachment differed in some respects from the draf t stipulation and statement of contentions previously forwarded to the Intervenors. To assist each Intervenor in recognizing those changes, the letter described every change of substance,- based on the Staff's records, which reflected the various discussions among all the parties during their negotiations, telephone i
conference and correspondence.
III.
DISCUSSION A.
Requests for Orders Compelling Further Negotiations and Production of Documents From the Staff Should be Denied.
The crux of CFUR's and CASE's complaints before the Licensing Board is that there has been no " meaningful" discussion (or with respect to CASE, inade-quate discussion) of certain proposed contentions.
CFUR therefore requests M See Attachments L and M (enclosures not included).
-J8/. Although the Staff does not wish to engage in a needlessly lengthy exposi-tion of all the contacts between the parties in their efforts to reach a stipulation on contentions, the Staff is compelled to address the implica-tion on pp. 2-3.of CFUR's pleading that there were improper contacts between Staff counsel and Applicants' counsel during the course of these negotia-tions.
The-discussions of the parties included, as CFUR is aware, not only the two meetings (in' April and July 1979) among all the parties, but numerous other discussions, either in the form of telephone conferences, 4
correspondence or other contacts of an informal nature.
Based upon all of
'these meetings:and discussions, the Staff drafted proposed stipulations which were sent to the parties in October 1979 for their consideration'and comment.
The part9s, including CFUR and Applicants, have communicated to i
the Staff ' comments with respect to the draf t stipulation and attached state-
)
' ment of revised contentions. As a result of these communications, the draft stipulation was revised, executed by counsel for NRC Staff and counsel for Applicants, and sent.to the Intervenors for signature.
L
.10'-
that the Licensing Board 1) compel the Staff to provide CFUR with all reports and documents related to particular CFUR contentions and 2) postpone the date for " submission of written statements or pre-hearing conference until meaningful discussion" is completed between the Staff and CFUR on certain of CFUR's contentions.
CASE requests that. the Licensing Board 1) compel Appli-cants and Staff to provide CASE with certain documents, 2) order the Staff to conduct further negotiations on contentions in the Dallas /Ft. Worth area, and 3) postpone the prehearing conference scheduled for April 30, 1980 and hold the prehearing conference in the Dallas /Ft. Worth area.
In the Staff's view, the sequence of events described above shows that CFUR's and CASE's description and characterization of consideration of their contentions is lacking in_ merit.
As the Licensing Board's " Order Requesting a Status Report on Proposed Stipulations," dated January 10, 1980, recognizes, considerable time has elapsed since the May 22, 1979, prehearing conference considering the petitions for leave to intervene filed in this proceeding.
As the Licensing Board is aware, and as described above, during this time the parties have been meeting and corresponding in an effort to reach a stipulation on the contentions proposed by the Intervenors.
Contrary to CFUR's statement in its Response that there has only been one meeting between the parties in which CFUR has been a participant, in April 1979 j
~
(before the prehearing-conference was held)', and in July 1979 (af ter the 1
prahearing conference) the Staff and Applicants met with CFUR (and CASE and
- ACORN) to discuss the proposed contentions to be' litigated in this pro -
g
--w
- w ewve-a
=
e re m
~
,. ceeding..At these meetings,- the Staff explained those principles, which in its view, govern the admissibility of contentions under 10 CFR Q 2.714, in general, and stated how these principles applied to the particular con-tentions proposed by the Intervenors.
Although CFUR's filing before the Licensing Board suggests that the efforts of the parties to reach a stipu-
'lation on contentions consisted of no more than a one-day meeting and a telephone conference, the sequence _of events described above and the attached correspondence between the Staff and CFUR shows that CFUR's description of these efforts has no factual basis.
The Staff believes that it has negotiated with CFUR and CASE (and the other Intervenor) in good faith, in an effort to reach a stipulation on conten-tions. CFUR's and CASE's filing before the Licensing Board indicates that' the discussion cf their contentions may not have reached the result that they may have wished.
CFUR requests that the Licensing Board order the Staff to provide to CFUR with "NRC reports, documents, rulings, or other written infonnation" regarding the Staff's position on the so-called " deferred" contentions, In addition to an order compelling the Applicants and Staff to provide CASE with certain documents, CASE requests that the Licensing Board order the Staff to conduct further negotiations.
In the Staff's view, there is no legal basis for any such orders and in' addition, no practical need for them.
As the Staff's letter to the Licensing Board of February 25, 1980, 5 indicates, j9/ See Attachment N.
i l
. - the Staff continues to be hopeful-that it will be possible for the parties I
to reach a stipulation on contentions. The Staff recognizes that further negotiations and discussions will be necessary in an effort to reach such a stipulation.
However, the Staff believes that the requests of CFUR and CASE of the Licensing Board show a misunderstanding on the part of their repre-i sentatives as to the nature and purpose of negotiations among parties to NRC adjudicatory-proceedings.
In the first instance, the Staff notes that there is no provision in NRC Rules of Practice in 10 CFR Part 2 requiring such negotiations.
However, such negotiations are consistent with the Commission's views, as stated in the Statement of Consideration, supra, accompanying the May 26,1978, amendmentofcertainsectionsof10CFR92.714.5 In the Statement of Consideration. the Commission recognized that:
"It has become common practice for parties and petitioners in nuclear power plant licensing proceedings to discuss infomally the framing of contentions until just before the special preharing conference which is held some months or more af ter expiration of the 30-day period for timely petitions pursuant to 62.751a.
During this period the con-tentions are frequently revised based on the discussions among the parties and petitioners.
Often the petitioners and parties will be able to present the presiding atomic safety and licensing board with an agreed upon set of 1
contentions at the special prehearing conference.
This practice reduces unnecessary controversy and litigation and should be encouraged.
Accordingly, the rules are amended to permit the filing of contentions until shortly before the special prehearing conference." 43 Fed. Reg.
at 17799 (emphasis added).
The' informal meetings between NRC Staff, Applicants, CFUR and CASE were undertaken in an effort to have the parties reach an understanding of and 3_0/ These amendments, inter alia, extended the time period for filing of 2
contentior.s until shortly before the special prehearing conference.
. 13 -
agreement on the language of the contentions CFUR and CASE seek to have admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding. A further goal of these discussions was to reach a stipulation on the admissibility of the contentions. The parties have reached an understanding of and agreement on the language of a number of contentions.
With respect to the two " deferred" contentions of CFUR raising TMI-2 related issues, Applicants and Staff have stipulated to the language of the proposed contentions, athough there is no agreement among the parties as to the admissibility of these contentions.
J Concerning the contention contained in CFUR's Motion to Add Contention, supn, the parties have not reached agreement as to either the language or admissibility of the contention. Although the Staff at one time (October 1979) proposed that the parties defer consideration of the CASE and ACORN contentions raising emergency planning. issues, the Staff subsequently reverted to its original position taken at the July meeting, supporting admission of these contentions.
For reasons explained to CASE (and sup-ported by NRC documents transmitted to CASE) the NRC Staff changed its position with respect to two other CASE contentions and proposed that the Licensing Board defer ruling upon the admissibility of another CASE conten-tion.
At no time has the Staff refused to discuss any aspect of proposed contentions proposed by CFUR and CASE, although the emphasis was on reaching an understanding of and agreement on the language of the proposed contentions.
l
. The ' pleadings of C_ FUR and CASE before the Licensing Board imply that negotia-tions must be conducted until there is agreement, at least between the Staff 1
and Intervenors, as to the admissibility of contentions. While such agreement may sometimes be possible, it is not always a result of negotiations. The purpose of the prehearing conference which the Staff suggested that the Licensing Board schedule, is to allow all parties to present their views, both orally and in writing if desired, as to the admissibility of those proposed contentions upon which agreement are the parties as to both lan-guage and admissibility cannot be reached.
It is not the Staff's goal to keep from any of the Intervenors, its position regarding the admissibility of contentions. However, since it is the Licensing Board, and not the Staff, that has the authority to rule upon. the admissibility of contentions, it is appropriate that the views of all the parties regarding the admissi-t bility of contentions be presented to the Licensing Board. To assist the Licensing Board at the prehearing conference, the Staff suggested in its Status Report that all the parties submit statements of position on the proposed contentions, in writing by February 29, 1980.
In the Staff's view, filing such statements on that date would allow for their receipt and mean-ingful consideration by the Licensing Board and parties before the suggested March 20,1980 prehearingconference.b This schedule was proposed by the Staff with the expectation that the stipulations which were executed by h/ In its Status Report suggesting these dates,. the Staff stated in a foot-note that efforts to discuss this matter (the dates suggested) with ACORN and CASE were unsuccessful due to their unavailability.
The Staff did not mean to imply, as CASE apparently believes (p.1 of CASE response),
that CASE's representative has generally been unavailable to discuss con-tentions. The Staff only meant to state that with respect to the dates suggested in its Status Report, it was unable to contact CASE's repre-sentative before filing the Status ~ Report to discuss whether those dates were convenient.
L
4
. counsel for NRC Staff and counsel for Applicants, and transmitted to Inter-
- venors on January.25,1980 would be executed shortly.
Since the stipula-tions have not been executed, and in viu of the Licensing Board's proposal not to schedule a.prehearing conference until April 30, 1980, the Staff proposed, in its letter dated February 25, 1980, a revised schedule for submitting written statements of position on contentions. The Staff stated in this letter that in the event the parties reach a stipulation on conten-tions, it is the Staff's intention that the stipulation provide that the parties will file statements of position on contentions no later than twenty (20) days prior to the holding of a prehearing conference. As the Staff further stated, if it is not possible to reach a stipulation even on the language of proposed contentions, the Staf f, nonetheless, will file written statements of position on the contentions as originally proposed in the petitions to intervene (or as amended) no later than twenty (20) days before the prehearing conference.
It is still the Staff's intent to file such statements in accordance with this time frame set iorth in the Staff's letter.
In addition, since the Staff is still hopeful that it will be possible to reach a stipulation on contentions before the prehearing confer-ence, the Staff' contemplates further discussions among all the parties in an effort to reach stipulations on contentions.
Such discussions would cover all of the contentions, including those considered to have been deferred.
It is apparent that no purpose would be served by granting CFUR's request that the Licensing Board compel'.the Staff to " provide CFUR with NRC reports,
~
~
documents, rulings, and other written information" regarding deferral of a
.4'
. certain contentions or the similar request by CASE for documents.
The Staff has undertaken, on a voluntary basis, to consider requests by CFUR and CASE for information and specific documents relating to the issues raised by them in this proceeding.
In response to CFUR's requests for documents, the Staff has provided to CFUR and CASE, infonnation and a number of documents.E In addition to the requests of Staff counsel for documents, CFUR and CASE also requested of Staff counsel that NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) include them on the distribution list for all communications between I&E and the Applicants.
Although the Staff's response to CFUR stated that it is generally not I&E policy to include Intervenors on such distribution lists, in this proceeding, Staff-counsel subsequcntly requested that I&E add-all parties to the distribution list for I&E investigation and inspection reports for Comanche Peak.2_3/ Finally, concerning the availability of documents to CFUR and CASE, there is a Local Public Document Room (LPDR) established in Glen Rose, Texas.
In addition, there is a " mini-local public document room" at the University of Texas, Arlington (UTA).
Staff counsel understands that' copies of all I&E reports in connection with Comanche Peak are being sent to UTA on a weekly basis.
This " mini" LPDR was set up by the NRC Staff, on a temporary basis, for the public's convenience and contains selected documents (e.g. FSAR, ER and amendments and ISE reports).
12/ With regard to CFUR see Attachment F (Letter of August 1, 1979); Attach-ment K (letter of October 4,1979); Attachment 0 (Letter of January 29, 1980) (enclosures not included).
- With respect to CASE see Attachment P (Letter of February 14,1979); Attach-ment Q (Letter of February 27,1979); Attachment R (Letter of March 21,1979);
Attachment S (Letter of May 4,.1979); and Attachment T (Letter of August 17, 1979); Attachment U (Letter of December 14,1979); Attachment V (Letter of December 27,1979); and Attachment W (Letter of January 17,1980) (enclosures notincluded).
23/ ~ See Attachment.U (Letter of December 14,1979).
i
.. The Staff intends to continue, on a voluntary basis, to consider requests by CFUR and CASE for specific documents and information related to the issues it seeks to have litigated in this proceeding.
CFUR's " Response" now requests that the Staff provide to CFUR all "NRC reports, documents, rulings or other written infonnation" related to the deferred contentions and CASE requests that the Licensing Board compel Applicants and Staff to provide to CASE certain documents described in its response.24/ With respect to CFUR's request, the Staff notes that the parties agreed to defer certain conten-tions, based upon the fact that certain reports related to the TMI-2 acci-dent had not yet been issued.
As previously stated, these reports have now l
been issued and are available to or have been furnished to CFUR (see fn.12).
j Accordingly, the documents 'or information related to these contentions which CFUR seeks are already in CFUR's possession or available to CFUR.
14/ The Staff would note, that under the Commission's Rules of Practice formal discovery shall begin only after proposed contentions have been admitted as issues in controversy in a proceeding.
10 CFR $ 2.740(b)(1).
Aside from the previously mentioned "QA/QC" contention, no contentions have been admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding.
Accordingly, formal discovery on contentions other than QA/QC contentions is not permissible at this time.
However, as noted above, in an attempt to cooperate with thezIntervenors, the Staff has agreed to voluntarily provide documents and information on an informal basis, to aid in the clarification of con-tentions.
No commitment or legal obligation can be implied from the Staff's cooperation that it would respond to such a broad and unspecified request as 1) CFUR now makes to provide "all NRC reports, documents rulings or other wr-itten infonnation" related to certain proposed contentions, or
- 2) a request such as CASE's in its pleading.
CASE has requested that it be provided with a copy of the FSAR, ER and 1
revisions thereto.
Staff counsel has discussed this request with Appli-cants' counsel and provisions have been made to assure that CASE will be provided with the documents. Accordingly, the-Licensing Board need not take any. action with respect to this request.
m
,.. A full discussion of the Staff's position, with appropriate citations, will be set forth in the written. statements of position which the Staff intends to file prior to the prehearing conference and at the prehearing conference.
The Staff intends to continue discussions on contentions with the parties, consistent with the schedule proposed by the Staff in its letter of Februa ry 25, 1980.
Although, in the Staff's view there is no reason why such discussions cannot cover as in the past, an explanation of the position of the Staff with respect to the' admissibility of contentions, the Staff contemplates that all parties set forth a full discussion of their position on contentions upon which agreement among all parties as to both language
.and. admissibility cannot be reached, either in the written statements which the Staff proposed all parties file. prior to a prehearing conference or at the prehearing conference. The Staff believes that-such statements will facilitate consideration by the Licensing Board and the parties of the proposed contentions as to which agreement as to both language and admissi-bility cannot be reached.
It is the Commission's policy, as set forth in 43 Fed. Reg.17798 supra, to encourage informal discussions in which the parties attempt to reach an understanding of and agreement on the language of proposed contentions.
In the Staff's view, this policy would not be served by ordering further negotia-
.y tions or the' production of documents as part of these further negotiations,
$which the Staff intends to continue on a voluntary basis.
i, i
e l -) b,
-w
-r,.
e s.
.c
. B.
Requests for Postponenent of Prehearing Conference Beyond April 30, 1980, Should be Denied.
In its pleading, CFUR also requests that the Licensing Board postpone any "date for submission of written statements or prehearing conference until the Staff and CFUR have completed " meaningful" discussions on admissibility of "these once-deferred contentions." CASE requests a postponement of the prehearing conference until the conclusion of the further negotiations which CASE seeks to have the Licensing Board compel and requests that the prehearing conference be held in the Dallas /Ft. Worth area.
In its January 25, 1980 status report, the Staff suggested a date for a prehearing conference and the Staff understands that the Licensing Board has, by telephone, contacted the parties regarding a prehearing conference proposed by the Licensing Board for April 30, 1980 in the Dallas /Ft. Worth area.
It is the Staff's belief, as evidenced in its Status Report and letter of February 25, 1980, that a prehearing conference in the near future is ' desirable to consider all the contentions proposed in this proceeding.
The Licensing Board recognizes that a considerable period of time has elapsed since the first prehearing conference in May 1979 and that during this period the parties have engaged in. discussions in an effort to reach a stipulation on contentions.
Although the Staff believed when it filed its Status Report on January 25, 1980, that these discussions had concluded in January, at the time the executed stipulations-were transmitted to Inter-veners for. signature, it is now apparent that a further period of negotia-tions can be undertaken. The Staff does not know what CFUR means in its
~-
.4
-request;that the Licensing Board postpone a prehearing conference until
" meaningful discussion can_be accomplished between this Intervenor and the-Staff concerning these once deferred contentions." There has been a reason-able and rather. lengthy period'of negotiations already. The Staff and Applicants have stipulated to the language of the two contentions originally deferred in the parties' July 1979 meeting.
During the further negotiations contemplated between now and the proposed date for 'a prehearing conference, there may be discussion of the other " deferred" contention (contained in CFUR's Motion To Add Contention).
Concerning.the CASE contentions on which-CASE states there have been changes of position, the Staff has stipulated both to'the language and admissibility of the CASE consolidated emergency planning contention and has explained to CASE the reasons for its change of position on two other CASE contentions.
To postpone a prehearing conference beyond the date suggested by the Board, (April 30,1980) would not, in the Staff's view, serve any useful purpose.b In fact, it appears that the only purpose would be simply to delay further what may be a protracted pro-ceeding.
In this regard, the Staff notes that the Licensing Board denied ACOP.N's earlier motion for continuance, supra, based, inter alia, on the recognition that there were then, as there are now, " matters ripe for con-sideration at the prehearing conference." The prehearing conference sub-sequently conducted by the. Board considered, at the Board's request, only whether-the petitioner organizations had 1) demonstrated the requisite
'" interest" to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.714, and 2) stated at -
2_5/ The Staff. has no objection to holding the prehearing conference in i
5 the Dallas /Ft. Worth area.
.~ -.
. least oneor more acceptable contentions.
There are further open matters which are now ripe for consideration, namely, the contentions which Inter-venors seek to have admitted as issues in controversy. in this proceeding.
The Staff believes that this matter alone "would warrant proceeding with a prehearing conference since this is a fundamental matter which must be resolved.by the Board and will be further aided by a discussion of the issue..." May 9,1979, Order at 2.
To the extent that CFUR and CASE seek to have the second prehearing confer-ence postponed beyond any date _ contemplated by the Board, these requests should be denied.
Of course, in denying this request, the Staff does not believe that the Licensing Board will in any way preclude the further negoti-ations contemplated by the Staff, consistent with the schedule set forth by the Staff in its letter of February 25, 1980.
IV.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff urges that the CFUR and CASE requests of the Staff be denied.
Respectfully submitted, M
M2444A Mc/44/k Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of March, 1980.
1 4
UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD
- In'the Matter of'
)
)
. TEXAS UTILITIES' GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL, )
Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and.2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of."NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CFUR AND CASE RESPONSES
~
TO NRC STAFF'S STATUS REPORT' ON 'PROPOS ED STIPULATIONS AND THEIR REQUESTS THAT THE NRC STAFF BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND CONDUCT FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of March, 1980:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman
- David J. Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Liccading Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington, DC 20555 P. O. Box 12548, capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 1
Dr. Richard Cole, Member
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Debevoise & Liberman Panel (5)*
1200 17th Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Washington, DC 20036 Washington,'DC 20555 1
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Docketing and' Service Section (7)*
President, CASE Office of the Secretary 1
1426 South Polk Street U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555' l
\\
-Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay i
West Texas Legal Services 100 Main Street (Lawyers' Bldg.)
Fort Worth, TX 76102 DM;;$a'hm MMM-Marjofie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staf f 1
'/
ATTACHMENT A April 6,1979 Mrs. Noney lloidam Jacobson CFUR 1400 Hemphill Fort Worth, TX 76104 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446
Dear 1. irs. Jacobson:
This will confirm our meeting scheduled for 2: 30 p.m. on April 16, 1979 to discuss contentions in connection with the captioned proceeding. I have arranged for the use of a conference room at the NRC'c Region IV offices on the 10th floor at 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas for this meeting.
In the meantime, please send me a copy of your proposed contentions so
- hat I can review them prior to our meeting. A draft will suffice.
Sincerely, Lawrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds D
a a
g bWH 79o5 //O 3b
.2 ATTACHMENT B 1
April 6,1979 Geoffrey M. Gsy, Esq.
West Texas Legal Services 406 W. T. Waggoner Building 810 Houston Street Forth Worth, TX 76102 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Company, e,t al,.
t l (Comanche Peal: Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Dest Mr. Gay:
8 This will confirc2 our meeting scheduled for 10 a.m. on April 17, 1979 to discuss contentions in connc<. con with the caytiened proceeding. I have arranged for the use of a conference room at the NRC's Region IV offices on the 10th floor at 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas for this mr.cting.
In the meantime, please send me a ecpy of your propoced contentions so that I can review them prior to our meeting. A draft will suffice.
Sincerely, Lawrence J. Chandler Counsci for NRC' Staff cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds Ohh i
a
{
b%c
,,,g ~ s k
- m.....
_,_,a:,uw w - m usiow 3,
ATTACHMENT C April 6,1979 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, TX 75224 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
This v.ill confirm our meeting scheduled for 10 a.m. on April 18, 1979 to d!.-cuss contentions in connection with the captioned proceeding. I l
have arranged for the use of a conference room at the NRC's Region IV offices on the 10th ficar at 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas for this meeting.
In the meantime, please send me a copy of your proposed contentions so that I can review them prior to our meeting. A draft will suffice.
Sincerely, Lawrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds t{\\
k) obD J
Dug 9acno 5Go l
. :. e.cm a -.S
. '. ~l JQSGCI{ Dog ' U oI S EJ O dJ C D Y OJ O },'
.3 Attachment D i
1 u,2-
.+a
~
s I
Mrs. Juanita Ellir. Pr. ::..
CASE (Citizens Asce:istien for
}
Sound Energy)
I 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224 i
1, tho :': t i ; r c '
1 Texas UtH f.*1e
?-----t - - 'Wn t. e tJ.
(Comanche peak f't r-- E' e c* -u ' --ti n. L' nits 1 and 2) leet.ut W s.
53-H 6 and 50-446
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
This will confirm our tnecting scheduled for July 18, 1979 at 9:30 a.m. at
,q l Main Place (Suite 3000), Dallas, to discuss the contentions CASE has pro-(
proposed in this proceeding.
As indicated during our recent phone conversation, I will be accompanied by Mr. Chandler and Mr. Spottswood Burwell, the Staff's Licensing Project Manager responsible for the review of the Comanche Peak application.
Mr. David Preister of the Texas Attorney General's Office, will also be present.
In addition, it is expected that Mr. Nicholas Reynolds, possibly accompanied by a representative of the applicants, will attend our meeting in an effort to determine whether agreement can be reached on contentions.
With respect to your inquiry regarding a December 8, 1978, letter from Harold R. Denton to P. G. Brittain of Texas Utilities Generating Co.,
(TUGCO) I under-stand that this was a form letter sent to all utilities assigned NRC docket numbers, which includes TUGCO.
Sincerely, (POR hegRg,
[
'q0040 Marjorie B. Ulman Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service List bY 790g/ foco 7
l
.(
Attachment D 1
July 5, 1979 Mr. Richard Fouke l
1668-B Carter Drive Arlington, TX 76010 In the Matter of Texas Utilitics Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446
)
Dear Mr. Fouke:
This will confirm our meeting scheduled for July 17, 1979 at 9:30 a.m. at the NRC's Region IV offices, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 (10th Floor Conference Poom), Arlington, Texas, to discuss the contentions CFUR has proposed in this proceeding.
{
'As indicated during our recent phone conversation, I will be accompanied by Mr. Chandler and Mr. Spottswood Burwell, the Staff's Licensing Project Manager responsible for the review of the Comanche Peak application.
Mr. David Preister of the Texas Attorney Ceneral's Office will also be present.
In addition, it is expected that Mr. Nicholas Reynolds, possibly accompanied by a representative of the applicants, will attend our meeting in an effort to determine whether agreement can be reached on contentions.
Sincerely, Marjorie B. Ulman Counsel for NRC Staff n
ec: Service List
^@ \\,
g j @ i f@$O W
79oTK000G
o 9
Attachment E
,,(
o,,
UNITED $TATES
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
o
,I
{
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'g..
,o JAN 2 91980 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Boards FROM:
Steven A. Varga, Acting Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Division of Project Management
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION - INFORMATION ITEM - REPORT ON THREE MILE ISLAND BY THE COMMISSION'S SPECIAL INQUIRY GROUP (ROG0 VIN REPORT) (BN-80-5)
On January 24, 1980, the Commission's Special Inquiry Group, which was directed by M. Rogovin, issued the results of its investigation of the Three Mile Island Accident in a two volume report entitled, "Three Mile Island - A Report to the Commission and to the Public." Volume 1 of the report provides a narrative of the accident and the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the investigation. Volume 2 of the report, consisting of three parts, provides the backup analyses.
For.your information, we are providing you with a copy of Volume 1 of the above report. We understand that Volume 2 of the report is also available to both the Licensing Board Pa el and the Appeal Fanel.
Va a tin Assistant Director for Light Water React 's Division of Project Management
Attachment:
As Stated h
w%
ggyz anoo M
~
l Attachment E p raog UNITED STATES
,(
J,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
p, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 G
[
November 8, 1979, b
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Steve Scott, Chief, Document Management Branch, Division of Technical Infonnation and Document Control FROM:
Steven A. Varga, Acting Assistant Director for Light Water g
Reactors, Division of Project Management
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION - BN-79-38 (1) TMI-2 LESSONS LEARNED TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT - NUREG-0585 (2) REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND Please provide copies of the subject documents to the service lists for all Boards under LWR cognizance.
ar a, Ac ~
Assistant Director for Light Water tors i
Division of Project Management cc: See attached sheet N
4 oo m mw
t Attachment F August 1. 1979 Mr. Richard Fouke 1668-L Carter Drive Arlington, TX 76010 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Elcetric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 l
Decr Mr. Fouhe:
In connection with our ec.eting on July 17, I have enclosed copies of the threc Imc letters (onc dated April 19, 1978, and the other two dated 1:ay 30,1975) relating to imC staf f review of certain k'esting-house Electric Corporation topical reports.
Sincerely,
liarjoric E. Ulcan Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc v/o enclosure:
1 S
Service list
{3 rROb mw8 u-
{}uta qqo y9go SC O c
Attachment G
/.u Lat 21 3 '/9 3
l
- r. Pietard se h 3
1C 6'; L Cr r t er irij v Arlf r r.c ca, TA 7f: 9 7n th:'lNettr of 1
'i.
.s l'; ni'.._ m L m ere t i:. : Corman f, i t A.
l (Cor.aut :t l'esJ. St... Lh.etric S t.atica, Units 1 c.nc; 2)
Decin.e I:os. 50-445 and 50-446 Der:r lir. Teu'; c:
I 3
conre a tion uith c"r n e,' p:~."e cony' rr :n: ion, I have er. clone 1 a copy of CTI':' ' - ( e a '
the 1:
c '.
vu le t h.'
t - i. j u > e f i
par t d'% i.
- a. o:. r
./
!.: ; t ' <, 6 c'=. by r.. e, ; rt is c t j
t hfe. r c '..in s.
J y.
ci: e, t.a: im::lt Dc; n tr s cr. : :c ' 3 m:1 t'nd tire cubb.t t :. u. : s..
!. (.uc-
- t ce c.. J 1 to Icr i
- J dj:
w..
thtete ccu-tention:. ic : rtr.;:r ;f rc'
'a u ; d er /.c...; 30 or 31.
Sincerd y, I
I'3ricrie 3. Ulte.a i
Counsel for NI1C Stcf f i
Enclocure: As stated cc w/o enclocure:
Scrvice Idst
\\
o ( &. N i
9 1
Dug
- '/
)ef f 10 b y $
.*~
Y
~,--i-
%i 1
~.541Q*,
~ '*
z
eg.
- TWJ.#,.
,,. m
,1
'c
~
N~
%e
. es
.. y..
s.,
~^
- - g.SME?.,. Jtd, /
.i,..
- 3. L
/l -
F,
_ g,{ M. ~;.
,gg]
..f,, f.
l
.a
~
~
Attachment'H M M " M.S ' V'~ C i
b
-(
<l V
i August 21, 1979 l
l l
i I
Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President I
CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1, 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224
!4 In the Matter of J4 ~ ~'~
y Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
' '(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) 4,/$N. --h
~
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 h
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
lu connection with our recent phone conversation, I have enclosed a copy of
'y'~
CASE's contentions, which reflects the changes made at the meeting of the parties held on July 18, 1979, and the positions taken by the parties at that meeting. As I am sure you recognize, the positions taken were not final and are subject to change.
For exanple, as to CASE's Contention 7, the Staff has new information which causes it to change its position. A conference call r., _
to further discuss these contentions is tentatively scheduled for August 30 or yt 31.
W t.
- 4., -
Sincerely.
t
..q..
? V', J .
- ,7 Marjorie B. Ulman sf.7 ; r;&..~ ;gfy4W74d." h ""9~
s; Counsel for NRC Staff e
Enclosure:
As stated
- w, pk '
- l:.
ec w/o enclosure:
3 pg w(.k'
- SC Service List ga
~
~4K s.
~
k O
p gjSOSTl e&~
~
w
'pW
- M? ' '$$. **,f" '
s
,,,,, yw o
n d b y.
3 e,
.,,3:$ E *dM h.E N.(7-t
% m.-
pif"..k f
I I
M
.h, ' Sep O 5 d h e e, y 3 h,.,
.. Ap p,, g m un a.
Y.
T'
' 7'~
~ '
~
y-
D" *
. w.x - 1 c.rn -
, p,.
ce w
w. n,e.n.z. m @ h W f
,:m
. q *-
y..
.u.a w g
Attachment I p
\\t OCT 4 h. 3 i
t
r. .i c hi. rd F os he I U'.-: (crter Drive Arli:._ tc n, Te):as 70010 In the .ctier o Tur s Ctilitics
'.t n.ri. tin. Et.~.:v, M.
w.
(Lotanchefeel:..t;i.. Tlec tric Et: tien, "..its 1 4.m. U
! <.c '.i
- .t. : r /10 i.n.1 LC ?/r
[.j Cc:.r."r. Touhe:
MI In 4.ccordance with our recent telephone conversation, I hwe prcpreiaind[@($?.7
.j cncloscd c draft stipulation ccvering the contention; of CFUT:. This draft
~ -
k.
sti siction reflects the f.nsition of the strties trith respect to thosc cc:.-
i g%k.
t:ntions, as set forth in the st6te.ar.t cf contentions prcviously tr;.nsnittcd
- i. -
to ;ou and I.pplicant's countel.
I i c:#1L apprecicte it if you.!:.rld rcvic. tni drcf t sti;alation or an 0:; -
dit<.c' ti. tis, sincc I 1:111 t: cc.tSctirq ; tu and A' lictat's ccunt:l 5 :ril."
ii; or ar to ci: cuss s.hotDr t ere ar. c_ ct.4ctic.<.s :: the 1:::; u: c ir. C.
s:i; 1: tim..
Th: circft sti: al tion 4.r..
- t. it: nt ci cm.t;.ntiers ill ::.n
- t. : : r.:.. rtd ir, final for... c e., tr e ;s-it t. to yce f;r.ccr right :r., r
.r t
ser rcit: cover. As proprc. in fincl for, the docu wts n:ill r::ficci c:,r-
'e rectie::s or chances agreed to by the ;.:rties.
Isfter si;r.t ture,1:e. sti;;1F-h tion cnc statenant, of contentions 1:111 b: transnittcd to ttc Lice'.:in- !c rd p.
for its consideration.
3 Sincerely,
}.t....
~
,. z x,.C~.,
3
/M
.:r/ : r ie *.. Ul;.w
'.i'#
Cc.:r.t:.1 ior f.;;C 5 tcff
,.c
,,M Encicherer.: As statcc' g
i.kes.s cc ti/o enclosure:
Licensin; f card "c-t:.rs
)0 m
e cc t /enclo:,ure:
F.est of Service List
}
s y
h e
p.
D' kk w
a.
w'.:
- fQC '
'Tggp4-k. s. =,1 1
II v -
s m.a..
26
- ~ ' " "
fn
?tti V P Q:;asf:~
- w....
~
- -. - - ~