ML20092P243
| ML20092P243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1984 |
| From: | Kohn R COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8407060094 | |
| Download: ML20092P243 (19) | |
Text
00f]
[2( '
's
~
ROGER L. KOHN c/o Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203
'84 J1 -5 P 2 :39 Los Angeles, Jalifornia 90025 (213) 478-0829 n
(213) 379-3956 rie.t :.,ssa-BRMKH Attorney for Intervenor COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of h
Docket No. 50-142 OL
)
(Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY)
Facility License R-71) 4 0F CALIFORNIA
)
)
July 3, 1984 (UCLA Research Reactor)
)
)
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP'S RESPONSE TO UNIVERSITY'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ITS APPLICATION FOR LICENSE RENEWAL I.
INTRODUCTION On July 14, 1984, Applicant, the University 6f California, announced that it was withdrawing its application for renew--
al of its facility license for the UCLA. nuclear reactor.
Simultaneously the University filed a motion for withdrawal of its application with the Licensing Board in this pro-ceeding. The University'also proposed, as appropriate conditions for the acceptance of the withdrawal, that the 8407060094 840703 PDR ADOCK 05000141' O
PDR EEb5
. reactor remain out of operation and that the facility be dismantled.
Committee.to Bridge the Gap supports Unive'sity's re-quest for withdrawal and its conditions, if the Besrd in its order accepting the application withdrawal makes defi-nite the terms of the conditions which University has pro-posed and takes care of certain procedural matters.
II.
UNIVERSITY'S WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED CONDITIONED UPON UNIVERSITY'S TERMS AS SPECIFIED BELOW University has roquested that its license-application withdrawal be accepted subject to certain conditions which it proposes. Request to Withdraw Application (June 14, 1984), at 1-2.
It is certainly appropriate to attach conditions to the withdrawal of a license application. 10 CFR $ 2.107(a);
Toledo Edison Company (David-Besse Nuclear Power Station,-
Units 1 and 2), ALAB-622, 12 NRC 667, 669 (1980). Safety and Licensing Boards regularly attach conditions to applica-tion withdrawals.. In Public Service Company of Oklahoma
-(Black Fox Station, Units 1-and 2) LBP-83-10, 17 NRC 410, 412 (1983), the Board-conditioned withdrawal on the disman-tling of improvements-and on site restoration by dates cer-1 tain and subject to NRC Staff's monitoring and approval.
In Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Stanislaus Nu-l l
. clear Project, Unit 1), LBP-83-2, 17 NRC 45, 55-57 (1983),
the Board conditioned the withdrawal on the preservation of documents.
In Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Gen-e' rating Station, Nuclear-1), LBP-82-37, 15 NRC 1139 (1982)
[NIPSC0], the Board cond,itioned the withdrawal upon a number of conditions. The applicant was required to implement a specific site-restoration plan,.to begin and to be completed by dates certain; applicant was to report progress every three months to all parties, and Staff was in turn to send reviews of these reports to all parties; and parties were entitled to site inspections upon completion of the restora-tion. These conditio-were imposed subject to enforcement by the Commission and the courts. 15 NRC at 1140-42.-
CBG approves' University's request for with'drawal and its proposed-conditions, provided that they be explicitly de-tailed in the order accepting withdrawal of the application as indicated below and that certain procedural matters are also taken care of, such as document preservation and the dissolution of the protective orders.
A.
THE REACTOR WILL REMAIN OUT OF'0PERATION The University has proposed as a conditon of withdraw-al.that the reactor remain out of operation, Request to Withdraw Application, at 1, and'has stated that the reactor will not operate again, Letter from Walter F. Wechst, Jr.,
. Director, Research and Occupational Safety, UCLA, to Har-old Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC (June 14, 1984).
CBG agrees that this is an appropriate condition to be included in the Board's order accepting withdrawal.
B.
UNIVERSITY SHALL DISMANTLE THE UCLA REACTOR University has agreed tilat the license withdrawal is appropriately conditioned on "the terms described above" in its Request to Withdraw Application, one of them being "to dismantle the facility and dispose of its component parts."
University has elsewhere expressed the same intent of dis-mantling the reactor. Letter from Walter F. Wechst, Jr.,
to Harold Denton (June 14, 1984). We agree that this is an appropriate condition and, see Black Fox, 17 NRC at 412, one that the Board can and should. include in its order.
C.
UNIVERSITY SHALL SHIP ALL SNM (HELD PURSUANT TO LICENSE L-71) 0FF-SITE BY JANUARY 1,1985 University has stated its intention to ship its fuel off-site now that the reactor is shut down and University
. is requesting withdrawal of its license application. The Board has ordered UCLA to " ship the nuclear fuel presently onsite to a suitable recipient as soon as reasonably prac-ticable consistent with applicable regulations and with its security,.public health, and safety obligations...."
Board Memorandum and Order'(June 22, 1984).
University has expressed ~ concern-that shipment off-5.
. site could not be accomplished before the Olympic Camos.
Since the University has already begun the appropriate planning, six months should provide ample time. Thus the Board should make definite this step of University's con-dition of dismantling of the reactor, and include a dato certain, see Bailly and Black Fox, of January 1, 1985 for completion of the shipment off-site of the special nu-clear material held by UCLA pursuant to license R-71.
D.
UNIVERSITY SHOULD SUBMIT BY JANUARY 1, 1985, A PLAN FOR DISMANTLEMENT OF THE UCLA REACTOR The University has, as-a condition for withdrawal of.the application, committed itself to dismantle the UCLA reactor and to develop plans for so doing. See Letter from Charles E. Young, Chancellor, UCLA, to Nunzio J. Palladino, Chair-man, NRC (June 14, 1984), at 2; and Letter from Walter F..
Wechst, Jr., to Harold Denton (June 14, 1984).
It is appropriate and usual for licensing boards to re--
quire plans for site restoration after termination of li-cense applications.,NIPSCO (Bailly), 15.NRC 1140-42; Black Fox, 17 NRC at 412. These plans contain' dates certain-for completion and implementation of the plans. Doubtless Uni-versity~has.already begun.the.'evelopment of'such a plan.
d CBG agrees that such a plan as. University proposes is ap-propriate, and that a'date certain-January 1, 1985-- by.
which time.Universitygshall complete and submit a plan for 4
. final dismantlement of its reactor, be incorporated as a condition of the Board's acceptance of University's with-drawal. Consistent with the case law, the plan itself should contain dates certain for completion of phases, and final completion of the dismantlement. Copies of the plan should go to NRC Staff and to CBG.
The Boards in both Black Fox,.17 NRC at 412, and Bailly, 15 NRC at 1141, included reporting and monitoring i
of the plans by Staff. In Bailly, Staff itself requested a role of independent reviewer, 15 NRC at 1140, and the Board ordered that reports by applicant, to be followed in twenty days by written reviews by Staff, be sent to all parties re-garding progress on the plan..every three months. This woul'd be an appropriate term to University's plan. But, to be less burdensome, the Board should require University, be-ginning with the January 1, 1985 plan implementation, to i
send progress reports to Staff and CBG thereafter only every six months (followed as in Bailly by written Staff reviews),
until completion of dismantlement.
E.
CBG SHALL BE KEPT INFORMED IN THE MATTER OF THE UCLA REACTOR-Fundamental fairness, procedural due-process rights, and CBG's considerable investment of money, time, and ef-fort, Stanislaus, 17 NRC at 53, argue for keeping CBG in-formed in the matter of the UCLA reactor. CBG,therefore h
. asks that the Board require that Staff-University and Uni-versity-Staff correspondance continue to be served upon CBG until the completion of dismantlement per the dis-mantlement plan, in analogy to the service continuation mandated by the Appeal Board in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159, 183 (1974).
For like reasons,'CBG requests that the local public document room be maintained until dismantlement is com-plete. In the context of the length and volume of the past l
proceedings in the matter of the UCLA reactor, the contin-ued maintenance only through dismantlement should require only a negligible administrative effort.
Finally, and for like reasons, the Board should re-quire notice to CBG of any. intended change'.in licensing _
status including but not' limited to application by Univer-sity for a construction or operating license or license for possession of special nuclear material for a fission reactor at UCLA until.the end of the period of the renewed operating license for which University had applied.
III.
THE BOARD'S ORDER ACCEPTING WITHDRAWAL SHOULD WRAP UP CERTAIN-PROCEDURAL MATTERS The Board should conclude certain procedural matters concerning disposition of documents and the dissolution of the protective orders now that the licensing-proceeding
~
~
q
. io to be terminated.
A.
THE BOARD SHOULD DISSOLVE THE PROTECTIVE ORDERS The Board promulgated protective orders on June 17, 1982 and on January 18, 1984, revised April 20, 1984 and amended June 1, 1984 (see Memorandum and Order of June 8, 1984). The protective orders were promulgated to protect information regarding security measures for the physical protection of special nuclear material (SNM) from theft and radiological sabotage.
Disclosure of information is to be co restricted only for " compelling reasons." 10 CFR $$ 2.744(e), 2.790(a).
Moreover, the Board has an affirmative duty to remove in-formation from the protected category when the original jus-tification vanishes. " Documents shall be removed from the Safeguards Information category whenever the information no longer meets the criteria...." 10 CFR $ 73 21(i). Upon off-shipment of UCLA's SNM, th original.justifiestion for the protection vanishes and the protective orders should dissolve.1 The Board should taus' order its protective.or-ders dissolved effective at the date on which the-SNM (held pursuant to license R-71) has departed the UCLA reactor site.
1 Nor should the protective orders remain to protect ge-neric security information. Generic security and safeguards information is unprotected, see, e.g.,
Interior Intrusion Alarm Systems, NUREG-0320 (public document); and Regulatory Guide 5 59 (public document). Congress deliberat'ely deleted any provision in i 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
I 2167, for protection of generic safeguards information.
See SEGY-81-464A, Enclosure A, at 16 (Sept. 16, 1981).-
i
i
_9_
At the same time that the protective orders dissolve, University should be required to give CBG sufficient o.'-
4 portunity to copy, for its records, the items and documents known as "the Security' File" for the UCLA reactor facility (including but not limited to the items described in greater detail in Letter from Roger L. Kohn, Attorney for CBG, to William H. Cormier, representing UCLA (May 2, 1984) at 2-3) which were previously withheld from CBG with regard to copying only becauce of the presence, and security consequences, of the SNM at the reactor facility.
B. APPLICANT SHOULD PRESERVE DOCUMENTS PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE REACTOR The Board in Stanislaus, 17 NRC.52-53, recognized a clear legally cognizable harm to intervenors in allowing applicant to withdraw after heavy _ investment in money, time, and effort, and promulgated an " explicit and com--
prehensivec document-preservation order. Since the UCLA 3
proceedings have progressed further through-hearings than the Stanislaus proceedings, CBG has a greater legal invest-ment than did the Stanislaus intervenors. CBG is thus entitled to protection of its interest and investment in these proceedings until the UCLA reactor is finally dismantled
~
and disposed of.
The Board should thus require-University
~
1.ito preserve, until final. dismantlement of the re-actor, (a) all items contained in what is known as
the University's Security File for the UCLA re-actor facility; and (b) all items in the list at-tached below an Attachment 1; and
- 2. to give CBG sufficient opportunity to copy, for its records, the above documents at such time as University intends to destroy them.
C. CBG AND ITS SUCCESSORS WILL RETAIN CBG'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS The Board's order should specify that any rights that exist or accrue to Committee to Bridge the Gap will devolve upon CBG at any future address or upon its designated suc-cessor, if CBG. notifies University and NRC Staff of any future changes in address or of a successor organization (or person) to CBG.
IV.
THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY BOARD'S WITHDRAWAL ORDER SHALL BE OBLIGATIONS ASSUMED BY UNIVERSITY Licensing boards have regularly; imposed conditionsfon their-acceptance of application-withdrawal requests. Black Fox, 17 NRC at 412; Stanislaus, 17 NRC a t 55-57; Bailly, 15 NRC at 1139. University has requested that its. withdrawal be accepted-subject to its proposed conditions. In Bailly, 15 NRC at 1139, the Board specified.with admirable clarity-how it could best integrate such conditions with its im-
~
mediate a'eceptance of applicant's withdrawal. The Bailly Board required "[t] hat-the conditions imposed by th'is I
. termination order be considered as an obligation assumed by NIPSCO in consideration of the Commission's terminating this proceeding prior to the restoration of the site, en-forceable by the Commission and the courts. Bailly, 15 NRC at 1142.
University has proposed its withdrawal be conditioned upon certain terms. This Board should follow the Bailly model and likewise order that the conditions imposed by its order accepting University's withdrawal request be consid-ered as an obligation assumed by University in consideration of the Board's accepting the withdrawal at this time, which obligation is enforceable by the Commission and the courts.
V.
CONCLUSION The Board should accept University's request for with-drawal of-its application for renewal of license R-71, ef-fective immediately. It should do so with the conditions as set forth above, the conditions representing terms al-ready proposed by University-in its own request and its supporting correspondance, and certain procedural. matters.
The conditions should be incorporated in the Board order ac-cepting.the withdrawal, in accordance with the cited'regu-lations and case law. With.these~ conditions, th'e Board should order,_ effective immediately, the withdrawal accepted and the proceedings terminated.
'i
. For the-Board's convenience, a proposed order is attached as Attachment 2 which comprison the necessary terms and conditions to be incorporated in a Board order accepting University's request to withdraw its license-renewal ap-plication.
t July 3, 1984 Los Angolos, California f
5 ROGER L. KOffN Attorney for Intervenor COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP l
_ =..
ATTACHMENT 1 UNPROTECTED DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESERVED 1.
Radiation Use Committee Minutes 2.
- Operating, Maintenance, and Calibration Logs 3
Engineering Change Orders 4
Experimental Safety Analyses 5
License Amendments, Documents, and Correspondance 6.
Internal-Audits 7.
Responses to Notices.of Violations 0-8.
Abnormal-Occurrence Reports 9
SCRAM Reports
~
10.' Dissertations at and Relating to the Reactor
- 11. Health Physics Survey Records
- 12. Other NRC/AEC - UCLA Reactor Correspondance
(
b
'e g~
ATTACHMENT 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
John H. Frye, III, Chairman Glenn O. Bright.
Emmeth A. Luebke l
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-142 OL
)
(Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY)
Facility License OF CALIFORNIA
)
R-71)
)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
July 1984
)
ORDER I.
The Regents of the U'niversity of California's appli-cation for renewal.of license R-71, dated February 28, 1980 and as amended, for the UCLA reactor facility is hereby ordered withdrawn.
II.
The following conditions apply:
A.
-The reactor will~ remain out of operation; B.
University.shall dismantle:the UCLA reactor; C.
-University ~shall ship all.special. nuclear material (held
_ pursuant to' license R-71) off the UCLA.siteJto'a suita-ble recipient'as soon as. reasonably. practicable consis -
- tent'with its security, public health, and safety obliga-a r
7
_2 _
tions, the completion to be no later than January 1, 1985; D.
University shall submit, by January 1, 1985, a plan for the dismantlement of the UCLA reactor which shall con-tain dates certain for the completion of phases, and for final completion, of the dismantlement; copies of the plan are to go to NRC Staff and to CBG; University is topropare progress reports every six months and send them to Staff and CBG beginning on January 1, 1985, and Staff is to prepare written reviews of these reports twenty days later and send them to University and CBG; E.
Staff and University will continue to. serve Staff-Uni-vercity and University-Staff correspondance on CBG, and the local public document room will be maintained, until dismantlement is' completed; University and Staff will promptly notify CBG of any intended changes in licen-sing status, including but not limited to application by' University for a construction or operating license or license for possession of special nuclear material-for a fission reactor at UCLA until 2000, the end' of the period of the renewed license for which University applied in.these proceedings; F.
The' Board herewith dissolvesfProtective Orders of June 17, 1982 and.of January 18,[1984, as revised and amen-ded, effective'on the'date on which the SNM.(heldLpur-suant to license R-71) has departed the UCLA reactor
~
~
J i
. site; University shall at'that effective date provide CBG sufficient opportunity to copy the items known collectively as "the Security File" for the UCLA re-actor facility (including but not limited to the items listed in Letter from Roger L. Kohn to William H. Cor-mier.(May 2, 1984), at 2-3);
G.
University shall preserve, until dismantlement is com-pleted, all. items in its " Security File" and all items on the list in Attachment 1 herewith, and shall give CBG sufficient opportunity to copy thoso documents at
-such time as University intends to remove or destroy them; and H.
Any rights that exist or accrue to CBG will devolve upon CBG at any future address or upon its designated suc-cessor, if CBG notifies University and Staff'of any ad-dress-changes or of a successor organization (or per-son) to.CBG.
III.
The conditions imposed by:this withdrawal order are-to be considered as an obligation assumed-by University in consideration of the' Board's acceptance of the with-drawal request at this time, enforceable by the Commission and the courts.
-IV.
The above application is-hereby: ordered withdrawn and
-:. o-
-4.
the renewal proceedings terminated effective this date.
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn 0. Bright ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Emmeth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
-John H._Frye, III, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland July.
.,~19841 I
i 1
)
I
.j
r-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONU l-l "
BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'd4 J'l -5 P 2 ^t50-142 00)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No.
)
(Proposed Ronowal of Tile REGENTS OF TIIE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA j
NdI
[th v,a (UCLA Roccarch Reactor)
)
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I horoby cortify that copios of the attached COMMITTEE TO DRIDGE TIIE GAP'S IfE9PONSE TO UNIVERSITY'S REQUEST TO WITl! DRAW ITS APPLICATION FOR LICENSE RENEWAL in the above-captioned proccoding have boon oorved on the following by deposit in the United Statea mail, first claos
.or oxproos mail, postago prepaid, addressed no indicated, on this dato:
July 3, 1984 r
1 John ll. Fryo,.III, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmoth A. Luobko Administrativo Judge Atomic Safoty and Liconning Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commincion-Machington, D.C. 20555 l
" - -Glenn 0. Bright Administrativo Judge Atomic Safety and Liconoing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiaolon Washington, D.C. 20555 I
- -Counsel-for'NRC Staff
~
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn.: Ma. Colleen P. Woodhead
. Chlor,7 Docketing.and Service Section (3) l~
.0ffice of:the Secrotary U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington,-D.C. 20555 s
l L,
-l 2 of 2.
1 Daniel Hirsch I
P.O. Box 1186 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 L
Los Angeles, CA 90025
\\.
l John H. Bay _
Chickering & Gregory Three Embarcadem Center, Suite 2300 l
San Francisco, CA 94111 l-l Dorothy Thompson Nuclear Law Center p
l 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 l
Los Angeles, CA 90048 William H. Cormier Office of the Administrative Vice Chancellor University of California
'.05 Hilgard Avenue.
Los Angeles, CA 90024 Christine-Helwick Glenn R. Woods i
Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94720 i
Lynn G. Naliboff Deputy ~ City Attorney
- EXPRESS MAIL City Hall 1685 Main Street t
S a'n t a M o n i c a, CA 90401 L
l ROGER L. KOHN Attorney for Intervenor COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP i
i 0-F u
.