ML20113G629

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Clarifying Amend to 10CFR73.40(a).Situation Arises from UCLA Litigation & ASLB Ruling Against Staff.Provision States That W/O Specific Requirements,Aslb to Determine Requirements.Appeals Judge Decided Against NRC in Past
ML20113G629
Person / Time
Site: 05000142
Issue date: 11/09/1983
From:
NRC
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20113G428 List:
References
FOIA-84-198 NUDOCS 8501240448
Download: ML20113G629 (1)


Text

  • lC1 lE ?>

Y l

NOTE p FIII:

RE:bPart 73 Clarifying Amendment (73.40(a))-Carl J. Withee In the State of California, there is an intervenor group known as the Comittee to Bridge the Gap. They are out to get UCIA via their con-tention that Part 73.67(f) mkes no mention of the threat of sabotage (while it does lay out procedures for guarding against theft (of SE of low strategic significance). They contend that the general requirements of 73.40(a) blanket the entire part 73 and that they require precautions against both threat of theft and sabotage (emphasis mine).

The staff's interpretation, which goes back to the advent of man, is that there are clear distinctions. The more stringent safeguards are for power reactors, while the protection against theft only are sufficient for SE of noderate ard low strategic significance.

The intervenor, in the meantime, has mde the contention that UCIA's plan, as spelled out in 73.67(f) should include sabotage and should be subject to litigation.

The Board's reading of the requirements differ from the procedures that the staff has historically been espousing and practicing and advising to any licensees who ventured to ask for an interpretation of the regulation.

The clicker is that there is a provision written scnewhere which states that in the absence of specific requirements, the Board is to determine during litigation what the requizements should be.

On November 29, 1983, the hearings begin in t'aHfornia. Colleen Woodhead is hearings atty and Fonner is regs. atty. NRC wants scnething published before then.

Another minor point is that if this gets to an Appeals Judge, the man who has been appointed served in the same role 10 years ago when, in an instance involving Columbia Univ., the court decided against the NRC.

Signir..g off.

r,tiO1240448 840725 PDR FOIA AFTERGD84.198 PDR