ML20133J069

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Memorandum & Order Requesting Parties to Respond by 851030 to Listed Questions Re 851010 Settlement Agreement & Proposed Order Terminating Proceeding.Served on 851017
ML20133J069
Person / Time
Site: 05000142
Issue date: 10/16/1985
From: Bright G, Frye J, Luebke E
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA, COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
CON-#485-821 OL, NUDOCS 8510180247
Download: ML20133J069 (3)


Text

b 1 \

D CL h p".

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA tc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00I I7 A!0:22 Before Administrative Judges: hfgj.gsjcq, "njg("5:m :

John H Frye, III, Chainnan Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Ensneth A. Luebke

~ SERVED 00T1'11985

)

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 OL THE ?,EGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY (Proposed Renewal of 0F CALIFORNIA Facility License)

(UCLA Research Reactor) October 16, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Board has reviewed the settlement agreement and proposed order terminating this proceeding furnished by the parties on October 10.

That review has raised the following questions.

1. Paragraph 6 found on page 2 of the proposed order appears inconsistent with 6 2.8 of the settlement agreement in that 16 prohibits any use of the component parts of the UCLA Argonaut in another reactor, while i 2.8 limits this prohibition to another reactor at UC.A. Should 16 be amended?

-2. Sections 11 and 13 of the settlement agreement might be construed to limit the authority of the NRC Staff to take enforcement or other action with respect to the dismantlement of the reactor in that 6 11 would require Staff to obtain the consent of UCLA and CBG to any change in the agreement and 613 seems to limit such Staff actions to those which enforce the agreement. What are the parties' views on this

[BFTdR BP$p g CO D

S k

point? In particular, does Staff believe that it has freedom to act in a manner inconsistent with the settiement agreement should it determine in the future that such action is necessary?

3. Section 3 of the settlement agreement appears to give CBG some right to UCLA's security files, while s 8 would vacate the protective orders which safeguard security information. While we see no need to continue to protect security information which is solely applicable to UCLA in light of the status of the reactor and the absence of fuel, we are concerned that public release of information pertaining to an NRC approved security plan or the plan itself might compromise other security plans for operating research reactors. In this regard, we recall that the UCLA plan was modeled after a draft plan prepared by the Staff and contains information concerning the devices and procedures Staff deems necessary for adequate security. We question whether other security plans are sufficiently different so that their effectiveness would not be compromised by public release of the details of the UCLA plan. We wish Staff to respond to this concern.
4. Finally, we wish to advise the parties that in the event we approve the settlement agreement and enter the proposed order, we will also enter an order terminating the dismantlement proceeding in light of the withdrawal of CBG's petition to intervene. l

s The parties are to respond to the above questions by October 30, 1985.

It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M

~GT5Hn 0. Bri~ght /

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

0. '

Dr. Emeth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE oh H Fr Fe, III, Chairman MI ISTR ,TIVE JUDGE L

Bethesda, Maryland, October 16, 1985

___ _ __-_