ML20073G823

Reply Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap 830404 Response to ASLB 830322 Memorandum & Order,Taking Exception to ASLB Stated Concerns on Potential Sabotage as Part of Accident Analysis.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20073G823
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	04/12/1983
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8304180395
Download: ML20073G823 (5)

Text

.

ECCKETT' q.

T3 APR 15 P1 :46 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

_ ; j c 3g, M::,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

) '

(UCLA Research Reactor) ) April 12, 1983

)

i i

UNIVERSITY'S REPLY TO CBG'S APRIL 4 RESPONSE CONCERNING SABOTAGE AS PART OF ACCIDENT ANALYSES i

DONALD L. REIDHAAR l GLENN R. WOODS l CHRISTINE HELWICK i 590 University Hall l 2200 University Avenue

! Berkeley, California 94720 Telephone: (415) 642-2822 Attorneys for Applicant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA i

i 8304180395 830412 g'r 05000 4 gDRADOCK

r.

l.

DOCKET MUMr tn Fr.0D. S UM, pac.. . . .

....r m h

a 1

E 09hM,c.r'ED In its March 23, 1983 Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order (" Order") the Board invited any party or a$t1dfp$tyt,p respond to the Board's stated concerns respectingithe-consideration L ' ,a c:

of potential sabotage as part of accident analyses whichThSd'been proposed in CBG's Contention XIX, Subpart 1. The Board also indicated that any party desiring to reply to a response was to notify the Board within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of receipt of the response.

On April 8, 1953 University received CEG's " Response to Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order of March 23, 1983"

("CBG's Response"), which was dated April 4, 1983. Among the matters addressed in CBG's Response, CBG took exception to the Board's stated concerne on the consideration of potential sabotage as part of accident analyses. CBG's Response, pp. 33-44. On April 8, 1983 University informed the Board that is intended to reply to CBG's response and that itsreply would be filed April 12, 1983.

In its Order the Board explained that the basis for its concerns on this point was that the sabotage portions of Contention XIX might constitute an impermissible challenge to the regulations.

As the Board reasoned, Part 73 of the Commission's regulations lays down the measures which licensees must implement in order to deal with potential sabotage. The Part 73 requirements can neither be relaxed or strenghtened as the result of the consideration of sabotage 4

i scenarios in accident analyses. University concurs fully with the Board's reasoning. Under the Commission's regulatory scheme sabotage is not considered in connection with accident analyses.

In CBG's Response it is argued that the Board cannot now summarily dispose of Subpart 1 to Contention XIX because a) the

" contention was admitted", b) "no changed circumstances have arisen necessitating reconsideration", c) " summary disposition has already been denied on this contention", and d) the Board lacks "sua sponte

~

I authority" to dismiss admitted matters. CBG's arguments are mistaken and without merit.

4 In its September 3, 1982 Motion of Summary Disposition University argued, inter alia, that there was no regulatory requirement 5 that sabotage be considered as part of accident analyses (p. 51).

Because this was a legal argument University did not support its argument with any factual statements on sabotage matters which were asserted not to be in dispute. In accordance with the Board's

( bifurcated response procedure, the Board's February 8, 1983 Memorandum

and Order, ruling on the motions for summary disposition, was based

(

on an examination of the factual statements asserted not to be in l

1 dispute. The Board's February 8 Order was concerned solely with the l

factual statements submitted by the parties and not with the statements of the contention or their subparts. The Board did not have occasion l to consider the parties' legal arguments. Indeed, CBG had not presented its legal arguments on this point at the time of the February 8 Order and it would have been unfair to CBG for the Board l to dispose of the matter at that time.

l l l

Following the procedures it had established (procedures J

established for the convenience of CBG) the Board took up the matter of the specific contention language at the February 23 prehearing conference and later, with respect to Contention XIX, Subpart 1, by conference call on March 9. On these occasions University and NRC Staff stated their concerns. The Board's concerns were stated in its Order. CBG has now responded with its legal arguments, disputing the Board's authority to " reconsider" the matter at this time and also offering its reasons why sabotage should be considered in accident analysec. CBG provides no authority for'its interpretation of how the Commission's Part 73 regulations are to be applied in this .

proceeding. CBG's vague reference to the " Columbia" case is entirely

, misplaced. Further response to CBG's creative but erroncons interpretation of the Part 73 regulations is not necessary. The matter is now fully briefed and it is appropriate for the Board to .

rule !1t this time to summarily dispose of Subpart 1 to Contention XIX.

Dated: April 12, 1983.

DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK By: f - E" William H. Cormier Representing UCLA i

l i

l l

4 O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached: UNIVERSITY'S REPLY TO CBG'S APRIL 4 RESPONSE CONCERNING SABOTAut ad PART OF ACCIDENT ANALYSES.

in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following -

by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this date: April 12, 1983 .

John H. Frye, III, Chairman Mr. Daniel Hirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap ,

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1637 Butler Avenue, 1203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90025 Washington, D.C. 20555

, Mr. John Bay, Esq.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 3755 Divisadero 6263 Administrative Judge San Francisco, CA 94123 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Daniel Hirsch Washington, D.C. 20555 Box 1186 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Nuclear Law Center ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c/o Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Washington, D.C. 20555 Los Angeles, CA 90048

Counsel for the NRC Staff Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff

, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR Deputy City Attorney l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washington, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Chief, Docketing and Service Section OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Carole F. Kagan, Esq. j .

Atomic Safety and Licensing /

Board Panel WILLIAM H. CORMIER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission UCLA Representative Washington, D.C. 20555 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ , _