ML20080D312

Response Supporting NRC 830815 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830511 Memorandum & Order.Aslb Should Reverse Ruling Denying NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Xx. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080D312
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	08/25/1983
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8308300328
Download: ML20080D312 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

DOCKETED -

USHRC

~d3 AUG 29 P1 :07 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 kr 3 fkhfj[g' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter ot )

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

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) ) August 25, 1983

) .

UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF NRC STAFF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON STAFF'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION

• l l DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 590' University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 Telephone: (415).642-2822 Attorneys for Applicant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 8308300328 830825 PDR ADOCK 05000 G

T)S03

' s I. INTRODUCTION 1

In its May 11, 1983 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention XX) the Board denied Staff's motion based on the Board's interpretation of certain Part 73 provisions as applied to the UCLA facility. Citing the complexity l of the Part 73 provisions the Board stated that any party could seek reconsideration of its rulings appearing .?.n Sections B, C and E of its Memorandum and Order by August 15, 1933. Responses in support of such motions were to be filed by August 25, 1983, and response in opposition by September 12, 1983. The NRC Staff petitioned for reconsideration of the Order denying summary disposition and of Sections B and E of the Memorandum.1./ University fully supports the Staff petition for reconsideratio,n for the reasons discussed in Staff's petition to which brief mention is made below.

II. DISCUSSION .

A. The Board's Ruling that the Scaled Pu-Be Neutron Source Exemption is not Included in Sec. 73.60 is Incorrect Staff's petition explains that Sec. 73.60 clearly incorporates Sec. 73.67 (b) which exempts Pu-Be Sources from SNM accounting. As Staff points out, any contrary interpretation would result in an in-consistency in the regulations. Staf f cites the Statement of A!"NRC Staff Petition for Reconsideration of the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order Ruling on Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition",

dated August 15, 1983.

. s Consideration issued with 10 CFR Sec. 73.67 which explains the rationale for excluding small quantity Pu-Be Sources from safeguards concerns.

B. The Board's Ruling Concerning the Applicability of Sec. 73.40 to the UCLA Facility is' Incorrect In its Memorandum and Order the Board concluded that Sec. 73.40 imposes a generalized requirement that the UCLA facility be protected against sabotage. The Board ruled further that the I specific means of providing physical protection against sabotage at the UCLA facility was properly a subject for the parties to address in this adjudicatory proceeding. However, as the Staff explains at length, Sec. 73. 67, which applies to licensees with SNM of moderate and low strategic significance, imposes the performance objectives of minimizing removal of SNM and facilitating recovery and identifies the specific requirements applicable to such licensees.

It is contradictory to assume that, in addition, a general, non-specific requirement to protect against sabotage is impose.d on such licensees. The Commission's statements and memoranda cited by Staff demonstrates that the Commission has not imposed such a generalized requirement.

University wishes to note that its security plan, which is not designed to provide protection against sabotage, has been approved by the Commission's safeguards branch; and that the low-power university research reactor licensees have never been required

~-

to adopt security plans designed to protect against sabotage.

Surely the Commission's consistent practice in interpreting and applying its own safeguards regulations to licensees such as University is entitled to considerable weight in this proceeding.

C. The Board should Reconsider Its Denial of Staff's Summary Disposition Motion As Staff points out, the Board has not ruled on the issues raised in contention XX for which Staff requested summary disposition. The Board Order addresses only the several legal questions concerning the proper interpretation cf 10 CFR Sections 73.40 and 73.60. A factual dispute no longer exists with respect to the quantity of SNM at UCLA, notwithstanding that there has been disagreement concerning the proper accounting for Pu-Be Sources.

The Board has not identified any genuine factual dispute Lnat exists with respect to Contention XX. Denial of Staff's Motion is unwarranted.

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons above and those contained in Staff's petition to which University fully subscribes, University respectfully

. i requests that the Board reconsider its rulings interpreting 10 CFR Sections 73.40 and 73.60 and reverse its ruling denying Staff's motion for summary disposition of Contention XX.

Dated: August 25, 1983.

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

e e

I L

e O

e Q' & %

i- -- -- - -

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 L9IVERSITY ) (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 IN SUPPORT OF NRC STAFF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD' S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON STAFF'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISpOSTTTON.

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: August _25, 1983 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. Ncclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90025 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. John Bay, Esq.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 3755 Divisadero $203 Administrative Judge San Francisco, CA 94123 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Daniel Hirsch Mashington, D.C. 20555 Box 1186 .

Ben Lomond, CA 95005 l Mr. Glenn O. Bright 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 Ms. Carole F. Kagan, Esq. Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washington, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Counsel for the NRC Staff OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 WILLIAM H. CORMIER UCLA Representative THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

-_-_ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .