ML20083F592

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Corrected Version of 831214 Motion for Curtailment of Activities Re Sabotage Protection Plan
ML20083F592
Person / Time
Site: 05000142
Issue date: 12/27/1983
From: Hirsch D
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20083F583 List:
References
NUDOCS 8401030192
Download: ML20083F592 (4)


Text

i

. COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE ThE GAP Dscsmber 14, 1983 e 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 (corrected 12/27/83)

Ios Angeles, California 90025 I (213) 478-0829 2

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6

In the Matter of

~

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY T WFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of

  • I '"**

9 (UCLAResearchReactor) 10 MOTION FOR CURTAILMENT OF ACTIVITIES (I) 12 No Sabotage Protection Plan 13 he Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in Memoranda and 14 Orders of May 11, 1983, and October 24, 1983, has disposed of a major issue in this case.

16 Contention XX alleges, inter alia, that Applicant's security 17 plan fails to provide adequate protection against sabotage.

18 l The Applicant, admitting that its security plan "is not l 19 l/

designed tc provide protection against sabotage," has argued (with Staff)

I 20 l that the regulations do not require such a plan. The matter has been the 21 subject of argument and briefs for three years.

22 The Board, in its May 11, 1983 Memorandum and Order, disposed me 23 M@ of the matter in ruling on summary disposition of Contention XX.

"8 no 24 hat ruling, which was reconsidered by the Board at Staff and Applicant's o 25 L request, and re-affirmed on October 24, determined that, UCLA's assertions j -u 96

~

j @@ notwithstanding, it is required to have an approved plan that provides O#

! - 27 or protection against radiological sabotage.

$$o 28 If 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 August 25, 1983, p. 3

.2-1 Thus, nearly four years after submission of the Application 2

by UCIA, a major issue has been resolved: CBG contending that the 3 ,

security plan is inadequate to protect against sabotage: UCIA admitting 4

its plan isn't designed to protect against sabotage, but asserting it 5

isn't required tog and the Board ruling it is so required under the 6

applicable regulation,10 CFR 73 40(a).

7 8

Discussion 9

10 UCLA's application is a combined request for two licenses:

a Part 50 license to operate a utilization facility and a Part 70 license 12 to possess Special Nuclear Material. 10 CFR 50 34(c) requires that, 13 for an application to be sufficient, it must include a security plan which "shallchmonstrate how the applicant plans to comply with the requiremento 15 of Part 73". Part 73 contains the requirements that applicants 16 and licensees must meet in order to possess Special Nuclear Patorial (Sh7.).

17 Nearly four years ago UCLA submitted a combined Part 50 and 18 Part 73 application. Its physical security plan was submitted after 19 ,f the deadline for the timely renewal application provisions." CBG, when 20 granted Intervenor status, contended that the plan was insufficient in 21 regards sabotage protection, beginning a long process of addressing UCLA's 22 assertion that the plan need not provide sabotage protection at all.

23 24 2f See Application, p. 5 25 Y the plan was initially submitted by letter dated Farch 10, 1980, amended seve2al times thereafter the license expired Parch 30; timely 26 renewal provisions require submission at least thirty days prior to expirationn 27 28

o I As stated in Applicant's August 25, 1983, pleading on the 2 ratter:

3 University wishes to note that its security plan, which is not designed to provide protection against 4

5 sabotage, has ban approved by the Commission's safeguards branch and that the low-power university 6

research reactor licensees have never been required to 7 adopt security plans designed to protect against sabotage.

(emphasis added) 9 10 The Board has ruled that the fact that it is Staff's position that 11 UCIA's plan, without sabotage provisions, is adequate and that sabotage l 12 protection is not required is, of course, not dispositive.

13 In a contested proceeding it is up to the Board to make that 14 datermination, which the Board has done in this case, ruling against 15 Staff and Applicant. Summary disposition on the matter has been determined.

16 An Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the Commission's [

17 regulations in order to obtain a license (see, for example,10 CFR 50.40).

18 Those regulations, the Board has ruled, include 73.40 protection against 19 sabotage, contrary to Applicant's assertions. In the absence of a plan 20 designed to provide 73 40 sabotage protection, license to possess or 31 utilize Special Nuclear Faterials is impermissible. The import of the 22 Bosrd's summary disposition ruling is to effectively deny that portion 23 of the application that requests authority to possess special nuclear 24 material in the absence of a security plan designed to protect it from 25 sabotage.

26 27 28

. i 3

2 3

'Ihe Practical Effect 4

UCLA's Part 70 and Part 50 possession and utilization requests 5

g Deing 1Npermissible without the requisite sabotage protection plan, possession and utilization authority lapses (even assuming the timely 7

renewal Provisions had been met, which they were not.) UCLA cannot 8

g possess SNM without a licenses it cannot possess a license with a negative d***"*1""*1 " " 1** P" E **d " **"I' 1* """ * * # ^"**d

  • 11 '"**'

10 the Board has now ruled, without a security plan designed to protect g

against sabotage. UCLA cannot be granted-and therefore no longer has--

the authority to possess or utilize special nuclear material.

Utilization therefore must immediately be curtailed, and immediate preparations made for expeditious off-shipment because possession authorization no longer exists.

17 18 ,

Respectfully submitted, 20- A '

, ~W Daniel Hirsch

')1

~

dated at Ben Lomond, CA '

this 14th day of December, 1983 22 23 24 25 2G 27 28

__ _ _ .