ML20079H375

Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap Memorandum Clarifying Contention Xx,Paragraphs 1,2 & 3.Committee Should Be Made to Respond to NRC Motion Re 10CFR73.67. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20079H375
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	01/17/1984
From:	Helwick C, Reidhaar D, Woods G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8401230416
Download: ML20079H375 (5)

Text

. _ .

-* DOCKETEI:

USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 84 JAN 20 All:04 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION f;FFICE OF SECRi.?/o BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARUCKEi!gEPV >

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 0F CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) ) January 17, 1984

)

UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO CBG'S MEMORANDUM CLARIFYING CONTENTION XX PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, AND 3 DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELHICK 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 Telephone: (415) 642-2822 Attorneys for Applicant 8401230416 840117 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY PDR G ADOCK 05000142 0F CALIFORNIA PDR

. I. INTRODUCTION By Order of October 24, 1983 the Board requested the positions of the parties with regard to what portions of Contention XX, in addition to those pertaining to sabotage, remain in controversy. The parties responded in pleadings dated December 13, 1983. In its December 23, 1983 Memorandum and Order (Regarding Contention XX) the Board stated it did not find the parties' submissions helpful and requested further responses. The Board directed CBG to indicate what portions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Contention XX bear on the issues of UCLA's compliance with 10 CFR Secs. 73.40(a) and 73.67. The other parties were given the opportunity to respond within five days following service of CBG's submission. On January 6,1984 CBG filed its Memorandum Clarifying Contention XX Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 (" Memorandum"). University's

~

response follows.1/

AIUniversity's response would have been due to be served on January 16th (CBG's 1 Memorandum was served by special delivery mail). However, Monday, January 16, 1984 was observed as a State holiday in California as a result of Governor Deukmejian's Executive Order D-27-83, signed November 9,1983, which declared that the third Monday in January, beginning in 1984, would be an official State holiday in observance of the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.

^

..ccordingly, University is serving its response on January 17, 1984.

II. DISCUSSION In its Memorandum CBG argues that removing the referer.ce to 10 CFR Sec. 73.60 results in no change in the contention. According to CBG, the subparts of Contention XX are based on grounds independent of Sec. 73.60. The subparts are related to CBG's assertion that "UCLA must protect against sabotage as per 73.40(a) and theft as per 73,67 . . . and . . . that (UCLA) fails to adequately do so." (Memorandum, at 8.) In explaining paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of its contention, CBG asserts that the subparts of each paragraph are all related to CBG's general claim that the UCLA facility is inadequately protected against sabotage. In addition, CBG apparently asserts that, except for sub-parts b, c ar.d e of paragraph 1, each subpart of CBG's three paragraphs are also related to CBG's general claim that the UCLA facility is inadequately protected against theft of diversion of SNM. In short, in CBG's view nothing has been resolved by the Board's several rulings on Contention XX. CBG continues to argue that nothing can be resolved until discovery is completed.

l Clearly, none of CBG's specific allegations that the requirements of l Secs. 73.40(a) and 73.67 are not satisfied at the UCLA facility have been resolved.

^

l l However, the applicability (or not) of each of these provisions can and should be considered separately. The Board's recent ruling concerning Sec. 73.40(a) may raise litigable issues. But whether Sec. 73.67 requirements are satisfied at the UCLA facility raises only legal issues which can be resolved on the basis of Staff's motion for summary disposition. Staff's motion demonstrates that CBG has mis- ,

interpreted the requirements of Sec. 73.67. In accordance with the requirements l

i

• of 10 CFR Sec. 2.749, in particular subsections (b) and (c), CBG should be required to respond to the motion with opposing affidavits. A decision on Staff's motion will simplify Contention XX. In the event that the Board decides that portions of the Contention concerned with the applicability of Sec. 73.67 remain disputed, the parties will at least have the benefit of a statement of the material facts that are in dispute.

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, University respectfully requests that the Board direct CBG to respond to Staff's motion concerning whether the require-ments of 10 CFR 73.67 are satisfied at the UCLA facility.

Dated: January 17, 1984.

l l

DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK By WILLIAM H. CORMIER Representing UCLA 1

l 1

I l

l l

1. 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 RESPONSE TO CBG'S MEMORANDUM CLARIFYING CONTENTION XX PARAGRAPHS 1, 2 AND 3.

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: January 17, 1984 ,

i John H. Frye, III, Chairman Mr. Daniel Hirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90025

Washington, D.C. 20555

• l . Mr. John H. Bay, Esq.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Chickering & Gregory i Administrative Judge Three Embarcadero Center

' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Suite 2300 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, CA 94111 Washington, D.C. 20555 .

. Mr. Daniel Hirsch Mr. Glenn O. Bright Box 1186 Administrative Judge Ben Lomond, CA 95005 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Law Center Washington, D.C. 20555 c/o Dorothy Thompson 6300 Wilshire Blvd., G1200 hounsel for the NRC Staff Los Angeles, CA 90048 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff Washington, D.C. 20555 Deputy City Attorney Attn: Ms. Colleen P. Woodhead City Hall 1685 Main Street i Chief, Docketing and Service Section (3) Santa Monica, CA 90401 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Express Mail WILLIAM H. CORMIER Repr&serting UCLA THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA l