ML20054H730

Recommends That Implications of 10CFR73.21 & 10CFR2.744(e) on Protection of Unclassified Safeguards Info Be Topic of Discussion at 820629-30 Prehearing Conference.Protective Order & Affidavit of Nondisclosure May Not Be Necessary

ML20054H730
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	06/17/1982
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Frye J, Luebke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206240372
Download: ML20054H730 (2)

Text

- ._ _ _

s COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 1637 BUTLER AVENUE tt203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (213) 478 0829 as frons. Box 1186 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 (408)336-5381 June 17, 1982 Judge John H. Frye, III Chairmn Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Yashington. D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of

'Ihe Regents of the University of California (UCLAResearchReactor)

Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)

RE: NEV REGUIATIONS AS TO PROTECTION OF UNCIASSIFIED SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION Dear Administrativo Judges On May 25, 1982, CBG reported to the Board that it had the previous day been ande aware of two new NRC regulations, recently put into effect, that would appear to have significant implications for the matters currently under discussion as to a protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure as to the security contention in this proceeding.

The two new regulations are 10 CFR 73.21 and 2.744(e).

We indicated in our May 25 letter that we would discuss the matter further with Staff, which had likewise been unaware of the new regulations, and report tack to the Board. , We indicated that we might at that time suggest that the parties brief the implications of the new regulations on the matter before the Board, or that oral argument thereon be heard at the June 29-30 prehearing conference.

Since our May 25 letter we have spoken several times with counsel for NRC Staff regarding the matter. There appears to be substantial agreement that the new regulations do have significant implications to the manner in which safeguards information is to be protected in this proceeding. It is CBG's view, after these discussions, that much, if not all, of the protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure proposed by CBG may now no longer be necessary. There would appear to be other implications as well.

8206240372 820617

{DRADOCK 05000142  %

h PDR

e, l

• ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIGNSING BOARD June 17, 1982 Page Two CBG has requested that Staff consider providing the participants in this proceeding with copies of any guidance documents prepared in connection with the new regulations in the hope that such guidance will help clarify the implications of the new regulations for this proceeding.

CBG therefore respectfully suggests that the matter be discussed at the prehearing conference scheduled to commence twelve days from new. This would afford all the participants-CBG, Staff, Applicant, and the newly-admitted City of Santa Monica vyycrtunity to anko known their views

~

on the matter.

R octfull su t ed, f

~

el Hirsch President COMMITTEE % BRIDGE THE GAP cc: service list l

l l

r

.. -