ML20237J845
| ML20237J845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1987 |
| From: | Bernard H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H679 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-196 NUDOCS 8709040094 | |
| Download: ML20237J845 (2) | |
Text
-
f p arcq l
h,[ '
UNITED STATES 6
l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
i e
n l
{.
,E
~
~
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- l l
,f u
y, x y; q l
I NOTE TO:
James R. Miller, Chief, Standardization & Special Projects' Branch, DL I FROM:
Hal Bernard, Project Manager, Standardization & Special Projects Branch, DL
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CALLS TO R. ODEGARDEN RE:
UCLA FUEL SHIPMENT 2:35 ON APRIL 27, 1981 I phoned Mr. Odegarden to continue the discussions begun on April 24, 1981 regarding apparent problems concerning shipment of UCLA fuel that they
- y l\\ l\\ ',,
brought to Mr. Miller's attention (on April 24,1981).
hwe,
Mr. Odegarden phoned Mr. WilhrF on April 24, 1981 indicating that UCLA
[
was in violation of 10 CFR 70.12. Mr. Miller wanted me to follow up on
(
3 this to determine if indeed there was a violation.
r As I understand it, UCLA delivered a cold (nover irradiated) fuel element to Atomics International located 20+ miles from UCLA.
The fuel element A
contains about 375 grams of 90% enrTched V 235.
There is an apparent l
difference of opinion on the regulations concerning the propriety of the l
above fuel transport activity by UCLA.
On April 24, I phoned Mr. Odegarden to indicate that we did not feel 70.12 was the only condition that pertained in the UCLA situation and suggested a meeting on April 30, 1981 with the transportation section to review the situation and come to a consensus. Mr. Odegarden said that he would set something up and call me back with the details.
As Mr. Odegarden had not phoned me regarding the aforementioned meeting, l
I phoned him on April 27, 1981 re-iterating the need to get together, especially now that I located a memo from Mr. Fonner (0 ELD) which indicates that 73.67 pertains to shipments of this type.
I also mentioned that NMSS i
indicated to me that in their opinion 73.67 pertained.
He told me what he thought of the NMSS opinion, t
After a little fencing, and not getting anywhere, I pointedly mentioned that we both work for NRC and if section(s) were potentially contradictory, we i
should resolve or interpret those sections to everybody's satisfaction.
He felt that there was no use in getting together, that 70.12 pertained.
If I didn't believe him, I wouldn't believe his Branch Chief or anybody.
I said I did not think he had a healthy attitude, and that I would be l
willing to put this discussion, the 10 CFR contradictions and our impasse in iting for our management to consider, if that was what he wanted.
s 8709040094 870901 A
ER
-196 PDR
('
JamesR.'Si51er After listening to a 30 second diatribe on what he felt I could do with this, I " clicked" him off and wrote the above.
Attached are the relevant sections of 10 CFR 70.12, and 73.67(g) and the March 3,1981 memo from Mr. Fonner.
Recommendations:
I I still believe we should get together with that group.
I think we may need a referee as they appear to have a " patriarch" approach te 70.12.
I. think a few phone calls on your part to perhaps Mr. Crow and Mr. Fonner and then a meeting with OELD.
Participants:
Us Them MMSS DELD
- s NI
/
Har ld B
, Project Manager 3 S ndardization and Special Prcjects Branch Division of Licensing
/