ML20042C523

Advises That,Per Discussion W/Applicant,Requests in 820315 Applicant Discovery Status Rept Were Not Intended as Motions

ML20042C523
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	03/26/1982
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Frye J, Luebke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20042C524	List: ML20042C523 ML20042C528
References
NUDOCS 8203310482
Download: ML20042C523 (2)

Text

,

COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 1637 BUTLER AVENUE e203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (213) 478-0829 March 26, 1982 John H. Frye, III Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board  ;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555  ;

l i

Dr. Oscar H. Paris '

A4ministrative Judge 82 WR 30 jin :q Atomic Safety and Licensing Board , m U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission S i

, d j In the Matter of

,I RECENED 3

• The Regents of the University of California C (UCIA Research Reactor) Q "Nggppu30t** $M 45 Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License) h "@7,q7"ys j

D 3

\

/ f, , ,

RE: DEFERRA,L OF SCHEDULING MATTERS PENDING CONFERENCES AMON l PAffrIES SUBSEQUENT TO FILING OF APPLICATION AMENDfENTS BY APPLICANT  ;

AND INTERROGATORY ANSWERS BY STAFF ,

Dear Administrative Juiges:

l In its March 15, 1982, status report on discovery, Applicant made ,

several " requests" of the Board regarding scheduling, requests with which  :

Intervenor is in disagreement. Upon inquiry by Intervenor, Applicant has  !

indicated that the " requests" were not intended as a motion to the Board .

and that disposition of said scheduling matters would best await service .

of Applicant's amendments to its Application, expected in "two to three  !

weeks", and review of said amendments by Intervenor and riiscussion of l the scheduling implications thereto with the parties. Applicant and i Intervenor have thus agreed to discuss these scheduling matters shortly >

after Intervenor has had an opportunity to review the new amendments j and Board action is not requested at this time. i Similarly, Intervencr has contacted Staff ro6arding the likely timing i of its responses to the outstanding interro6atories addrosasd to its Battelle ,

consultants. Staff indicated it expects answers in roughly the same time  ;

frame "a few weeks"--and agrees to defer discussion of matters related  ;

to the Staff answers to the full set of interrogatories until Intervenor has [

had an opportunity to review the Battelle answers. In addition, the matter of whether discovery may be necessary as to the recently released Brookhaven i analysis will be discussed at the same time, when a better idea of scheduling l implications will exist.

I g503 s

/&

8203310482 820326 r PDR ADOCK 05000142 0 PDR

~. ,

l

[ '1herefore, the schedule should be much clearer within a few weeks, l af ter Staff has filed its remaining interrogatory answers and Applicant l its Amendments to its Application. The parties will a.ttempt to reach

! agreement on schedule without requiring motions to the Board. When i summary disposition does begin, Applicant and Staff have agreed that it .

j would be reasonable, given the ext ensive summary disposition intended by I at least Staff, far Intervenor to be grantal an extension of time to reg ond.

Formal request will be made when Applicant is more certain of its plans  !

in this regard. ,

Although this letter is not the proper place for the concerns to be i detailed, the Board should be advised that Intervonor views numerous asserticas in Applicant's March 15 memorandum to be at significant variance with the .

actual record of this proceeding.

The Board will be kept advised of future developments.

/  !

Resp'ctfully7subid.tted, e  ;

q

[g /,;[Nov- _

i Danie$ b ch' .

President COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE CAP cc service list .

r l

P.S. Applicant has indicated it will file a Motion for a Protective Order i on certain remaining discovery disputes. Please expect a response from i

Intervenor within the time period mandated by the rules of practice. l I

l i

I i l

i I

h f

! COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP l 1637 BUTLER AVENUE #203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (213) 478-0829 l

Nrch 26, 1982 i

'82 M 30 All :04 Mr. William Cormier Office of Adninistrative Vice Chancellor University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024 In the Matter of The Regents of the University of California (UCLA Research Reactor)

Docket No. 50-142 (Pronosed Renewal of Pa'.:ility License)

RE: AGREEPENTS AS TO CERTAIN SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY MATTERS

Dear Mr. Cormier:

This letter is to ecmfirm certain agreements made by phone on March 22 as to certain scheduling and discovery matters.

Applicant has indicated it will serve its Amendments to its Application in the next few weeks. Applicant and Intervenor have agreed to defer requests for schedullrig decisions by the Board pending discussion between the parties, discussion which will await service of the afcrementioned Amendments and an opportunity for Intervenor to review them to determine whether discovery as to the new material may be necessary. These discussions to be held shortly after the final Amendments are served will include discussion of matters related to the Emergency Plan and any other matters which remain to be resolved by the parties prior to motions to the Board.

Applicant also indicated that it did not know at this time how extensive, if any4 ~ its summary disposition motions might be, nor how much time it might need in their preparation. Applicant indicated it had no objection to a reasonable extension in time for response by Intervenor, but could not be precise at this time as to how much time might reasonably be required.

Applicant and Intervenor agreed to wait a bit and discuss the matter again when the a tter might be clearer. Intervenor will thus await such discussion before making its motion for extension to the Board.

Ny I suggest that we attempt to discuss similar matters that may arise from time to time in order to attempt to smooth out minor scheduling and related matters and not unduly burden the Board with requests for decisions that the parties can agree to among themselves? Intervenor appreciates your willingness to notify the Board, for example, that the scheduling L.'ders raised in your March 15 discovery report can be deferred pending discussion among the parties after review of the expected Application Amendments.

Sincerely.e f db 5 Daniel Hirsch La -

President cc: service list COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP l