ML20235Z366
| ML20235Z366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1984 |
| From: | Schuster M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235Z143 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-454, FOIA-88-A-50 NUDOCS 8903150367 | |
| Download: ML20235Z366 (2) | |
Text
_ - _ - -
',..... it "
ty TID sTA IS C7 /.O :~>
NU~ LEAR RIGL"LATOEY CO.tI!* :0N T
g-BE. Tori THE ATOMIC SATETY AND LICENSING BOARD e.
M,'." % -
.ys7.
In the Hatter of
)
- .. l'
)
TE FICENTS OF TE UNIVERSITY OF
)
Docket No. 50-142
~
CALITORNIA
)
)
(Proposed Renewal of Tacility (UCLA Research Reactor)
)
License)
ATTIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. SCHUSTER STATE OF CALITORNIA
)
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
)
as:
I, MATTHEW D. SCHUSTER, being duly sworn do depose and state as follows:
1.
My name is Matthew D. Schuster.
Consnission as Chief of the Security Licensing and Emergency Prepared Section in Region V, Walnut Creek, California.
During the period of 1974 to 1980, I was employed as a Physical Security Inspector and during the period of 1980 to 1983 as Chief, of the Physical Security Section.
During the period 1974 to 1983, security inspections of the UCLA Research Reactor Facility were performed by me or members of my Section.
2.
The punese of my Affidavit is to respond to a question raised by the Atenic Safety and Licensing Board in the UCLA proceeding in its Order of February 24,1984, page 7.
There, the Board states:
We were even more astounded to find that every Part 73 security inspection report furnished by UCLA indicates that staff did, in fact, examine UCLA's activities related to physical protection
.against sabotage "in accordance with applicable requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations Part 73."
The reports furnished are for the years 1975 through 1979 and 1982.
3.
The Board is evidently referring to the cover letter forwarding all physical security inspection reports not only to UCLA but also to each and every licensee inspected.
The particular statement on this cover letter is as follows:
The inspection included examination of activities related to physical protectiou against industrial sabot. age and against theft of special nuclear material in accordance with applicable requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 73, " Physical, Protection of Plants and Materials," your Security Plan, and license conditions pertaining to physical protection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective eraninations of procedures and records, interviews with facility personnel and observations by the inspector.
8903150367 090303
~~
A ER A,-50 PDR
~ "'
[_]
[_
_ _ _ _____ _I__' l'_l -
~
7;.e l a t.p a g e in thi s p a r a r r a; h is it.te:de d to e:.:::p e s s rer.:f re ::t s f e r
~ '
the various licensee physical security plans, e.g.,
physical accu::ty; contingency and training and qualification plans. This cover letter is sent to power reactor licensees, fuel faci *;ty. licensees, as well as nonpower reactor licensees (see enclosures I through 4). The intent of this paragraph is to indicate that the inspection was conducted according to Part 73, " Physical Protection of Plants and Materials" which are applicable to a specific facility. This is indicated by the language the Board referenced "in accordance with applicable requirements...."
(emphasis added) This language was not and is not intended to indicate the particular regulations applicable to any specific licensee, and should not be so interpreted. This cover ie'tter has been in use by OIE for many years and to the best of my knowledge, was sent to the Regions by OIE Headquarters for use. Therefore, the Licensing Board's conclusion that general and comprehensive language in the standard cover letter indicates that sabotage protection is required for DCIA or any nonpower" reactor licensee is mistaken.
L.
5.
As to the contents of t.he physical security inspection reports for the years 1975-1979 and 1982, the following information is provided. Up until 1979 we inspected for sabotage protection. In 1979 a rule change eliminated sabotage protection as a requirement for NPR facilities.
Hence, our post 1979 inspection, reports did not reflect any inspection._
activity for sabotage protection. No notices of violation have been nor would be issued for sabotage protection since this is not a requirement for UCLA.
I attest that the foregoing affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Oh dfA A b Y Matthew D. Schuster Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6thday of March
, 1984 omcat stu USA J. WILHITE NotAmy Pustic.cgromma J /)AJ
/h ib PRINCJPaL OFFIC1 tN C0"T"' C0"A COUNTY l
Notary Pub 11c W Gmmism Expres reb 6.1967 Hy commission expires: 2-6-87 e
i.. j", _
..e
[
' 'e,.
UNITED ST ATEs
/<
l',
i e%
N U C L E A R R E G U L A T C R Y C C '.*.*.'. :.".i; C N
. 3..' k I
REGION V hM
- 15
,8 1990 N. CALIFORNIA SOULEVARD p
T *.Q
,P SUITE 202. WALNUT CR E E K PLAZA WALNUT CREE K. CALIFORNI A 94EM t
g) P JUL 2 21980 y.
4 Docket No. 50-139 Q'h 6
University of ushington College of Engineering 369 Loew Hall, FH-10 Seattle, Washington 98195 Attention:
Dale A. Carlson, Dean College of Engineering Gentlemen:
This letter refers to the inspection of your activities authorized under NRC License No. R-73 conducted by Mr. W. P. Mortensen of this office on June 11, 1980.
It also refers to the discussion of our findings held by the inspector with a member of your staff on June 11, 1980.
The inspection included examination of activities related to physical I
protection against industrial sabotage and against theft of special-nuclear material in accordance with applicable requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 73, " Physical Protection of Plants and Materials," your Security Plan, and license conditions pertaining to l
physical protection as described in the enclosed inspection report.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations i
of procedures and records, interviews with facility personnel and observations I
by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were observed.
In accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, documentation of the findings of your safeguards and security measures are exempt from public disclosure; therefore, the enclosed inspection report will not be placed in the Public Document Room.
s J
p, cm n
a
l 1
JL'l 2 2 EID 4
';r.t.er:t ty cf 'e shir.;;:.. -' ^ ~ 2 22 3.T y R ) f
- Sh:uld you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss thers with you.
l Sincerely,
, t.d o
Chief. Safeguards Branch
Enclosure:
1 IE Inspection Report No. 50-139/80-03 (IE-Y-392) cc w/ enclosure:
Professor Chalk Director Nuclear Engineering Laboratory W l
W. P. Miller, Assistant Director For Reactor Operation, W WB i
l i
l e
4
_.-__________.-_________...-_.11__
- =
m;
_a.- '. 7 m.
- -- ;n". M' :.* r /.
WT" C~
W U y
K-M -
.O
.___}
Q.
{pg h
U.S. WCLEAR REGULATORY CC'4MISS10ft OFFICE OF INSFECTIO!! AND E'IFORCD!Elli l
Region V Repert ilc.
50-13g/80-03(IE-V-392)
Docket flo.
50-139 License No.
R-73
~
Safeguards Group _ i 1.icenses:
University of Washington College of Engineering, Loew Hall. FH-10 Seattle. Washington 98195 Facility Name:
University of Washington Nuclear Reactor (UWNR)
Inspection at:
The campus of the University of Washinoton Seattle. WA Insr.schon Conducted:
June 11. 1980 Date of Last Physical Security Inspection Visit:
October 1979 Type of Inspection:
Unannounced Physical Security Insgecters:,
/YM C. Ablff
~7[lf[8e
/ W. P. Mortensen, Physical Security Insp ector
' Date Signeo i
i Date Signeo l
Date Signec l
Spprnved by:
frn Q b L $
'1 ft %~ RO I
M. D. Schuster, Chief, Physical Security Section Date Signeo Inspection Su=sry:
Areas Inseected:
Security Plan; Protection of SNM; Security Organization; Access control Alaqstems; Keys, Locks and Cor.binations; Communications; Surveillance; ProceduresDec i
Radiological Sabotage.
ity Program Review; and Protection Against
{
N f.-- -
The inspection involved seven inspector hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
_Resul ts:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.'O G'93
/ 2 T/'/
I g l o t, t
- y.. ~
,_._,g..
}
gJ
W-A=%,.,
D gm=.;n:.;. r. :. w 7 a c=2M --=
s-wgx DETAILS
~
1.
Persens contacted
- =amouwseum.
- ,I. P. Miller, Assistant Director for Reactor Operations, UW D. Fry, Reactor Staff. Facilities Engineering A. Stearns, Deputy Chief, University of Washington Police Department
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives '(denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection of June 11,1980.
The inspector sumarized the scope a'nd findings of the inspection, the licensee agreed to expeditious repair of the dcad bolt lock on door SA (80-03-01).
3.
MC 814058 - Security Plan _
No items of noncompliance were noted. The inspection results were attained through:
a.
An ensite review of the physical security plan for the University of Washington Nuclear' Reactor (UWNR) which was dated June 8,1976, b.
Observation and confinnation that the designated security areas within the UWNR as specified in their security plan were:
(1) the reactor room, which contains the reactor and the process pit containing the primary coolant equipment, and the fuel storage area; (2) the reactor control room.
The inspector did not identify any measures which were different fran those specified in the plan.
4.
NC 814108 - Pmtection of Sh?i No ite=s of nonce =pliance were noted.
The UWNR has approximately V
4.285 kg's of Stei in the fem of 93: enriched U235, 3.425 kg is contained, 810 grams are in the!
23.2 grams of bare foils and 27.68 gra,.s of melted fuel'pla'tes are within! _ ~
5.
HC 814158 - Security 055 necanization No items of noncompliance were noted.
The inspector detennined that the licensee's security organization is as described in the physical security plan.
The security force for the reactor is provided by the University Police Department (which was visited by the inspectors.
The University Police Department is composed of j sworn peace officers and l guards (unanned watchmen)_who operate.]
F - 5,,, _
The police officers.
_.m._
h
t m X4_.:,,w..
q.-.. q._g 2-
,are individually _,ar_medMth]
~-'
1 i---
6.
MC 814208 - Access control No items of noncompliance were noted.
The results of the inspection were attained through:
a.
,0bservation of the ingress. and egress of the staff and other individuals to the facility during the period of the inspection.
b.
.0bservation that access controls have been implemented as described in the secuiity plan to control access to the essential equipment, security areas, and the facility.
c.
Interview of personnel and the UWNR that visitors are identified, authorized for access, and escorted at the facility.
d.
A review of the visitor's register.
7.
MC 81425B - Alam 5'ystem No items of noncompliance were noted.
The inspector detemined that the licensee was not required to have/
8.
MC 81430B - Keys, Locks & Combinations No items of noncompliance were noted.
The inspector examined the
' licensee's precedure and methods of control for keys and locks, and determined they were in compliance with the physical security plan.
A check of the locking hardware on the doors and padlocked areas (e.g. expeHmental ports of the reactor, crane and building access portals) was accomplished, one deadbolt lock was found to have a failing deadlock mechanism; however, the locking action was functioning.
The licensee stated they would submit a prompt request for repair.
9.
Mc 81a358 - Communications No items of noncompliance were identified. The individuals within the UWNR_.ut.i.li_z_e_)
7
______________m_
c~T-F _. ;-2-T[ T:.
_____ - y ' 5 E 2 2
3-10.
HC 814a03 - Surveillance No items of noncompliance were identified.
The inspectors determined that the surveillance of SNM, essential equipment, security areas, physical barriers, and avenues of approach to security areas have been implemented as stated in the physical security plan.
- 11. MC 81445B - Pmeedures No items of noncompliance were identified.
Through intervi nd review of records, it was determined that the WNR ha ures \\
regarding unauthorized intrusion, security violatie ;y procbo and acts of etyiLdisorder. i
~
s j
- 12. MC 814508 - Security Procrim Review No ite=s of noncompliance were identified.
The last review of the security programs was accomplished on March 5-14, 1979 by the WNR Review Conrnittee.
The licensee plans to review the security program again t.t some date prior to August 1980.
- 13. MC' 814 tection Acainst Radiological Sabotage No items of noncompliance were identified.
Protection against
\\
sabotage is of concern to the licensee and is primarily effected by the security consciousness of the WNR personnel', campus police patrols, and adherence to established procedures and policies.
All means of access to the reactor core are controlled.
./.
4 9
r3.G.- -n > y,,g. -.. 3 :.
~
l 4
M
I Ct.4MITTEE TO BRIDGE THt JAP
- m p - ; n v. t.; r, ;.
- 0
- A. :,1. u. c Au w.. A w..
as from:
Box 1186 Ben Lorond, CA 95005 (408) 336-5381 April 2, 1984 Mr. Ron Smith Office of Inspector and Auditor U.S. Nuclear Reoylatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 I
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find a compilation of certain materials related to the allegations under investigation by your office regarding potential misrepresentations by NRC Staff as to sabotage protection of non-powor reactors.
We intend to send additional material in the next few days.
Because we are uncertain as to the current status of your investigation and do not wish to interfere with your investigatory process, we are delaying serving the enclosed material on any but the Board until we get a go-ahead from you that such service will not interfere.
As soon as we hear from you, we shall complete service.
Si rel g[o rs, A
L
,&f, '
Dan,1e Hirsch President cc:
w/ enclosure:
Board cc:
w/o enclosure:
50-14? service list D'# lGdR90 y Exhibit 6
- - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > " - - - - - - - -