ML19324B040
| ML19324B040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/04/1989 |
| From: | Chan E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Darke J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324B034 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-355 NUDOCS 8910310032 | |
| Download: ML19324B040 (4) | |
Text
"
....7...,.......,.
...,....--....-4p~~~g~
'9 q
r.s
%.\\
UNITED 8T ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WAtHfNetoW.D. C. 70005 April 4, 1989 Nr. John F. Darke P.O. Box 701 Cop >er Queen Station Of s >ee e AR 85603 Dear Mr. Darke 1 have been asked to respond to your letters of February 22, 1989 and March 29, 1989 addressed to Mr. Stello.
Your letter asks about what happened to your setitions requesting a hearing in connection with the Order issued by the NRC to Atlas Minerals on July 31,1987.
Your initial telegram request of August 31, 1987 and your subsequent correspondence were not explicitly addressed by the Commission when, on September 25, 1987 it ordered that a hearing be held in response to a request for hearing filed by Atlas in connection with the July 31, 1987 Order.
Rather, the Commission established a Presiding Officer with jurisdiction to consider the denial of Atlas' renewal application.
The Commission made the Adjudications.jecttothe"InformalHearin'tProceduresforMaterialsLicensing proceeding sub published in the Federa' Register on May 29, 1987.
The Presiding Officer had authority to consider petitions by persons other than Atlas to intervette in the proceeding; if such persons satisfied the requirements for intervention set forth in those rules.
On. November 9, 1987 you submitted to the presiding Officer a petition to intervene in the Atlas proceeding.
At the Board's direction, on February 29, 1988 the NRC staff addressed your petition indicating:
i your petition did not satisfy the applicable intervention L
standards; if as a result of the then pending settlement between the NRC L
staff and Atlas a license were in fact granted, you would have an opportunity to petition for a hearing to contest the issuance of the Itcense -- which appeared to be your intent.
Although the Presiding Officer's Memorandum and Order of April 6,1988 did not address the merits of whether your petition would satisfy intervention standards, he nevertheless terminated the proceeding without granting your petition.
You did not file an appeal of that decision in accordance with Co m tsston rules.
You were subsequently informed on April 13, 1988 that the staff had granted a r bruary 25, 1988. You did not file a request renewal of license to Atlas on e
for hearing with respect to that license amendment within the time speciffed i
1 L
8910310032 090811 1
KE 55 PDR t
~.
.. p:,
i.
r t
I l.
f i
in " Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licensing Adjudications,"
?
pubitshed in the Federal Register on May 29, 1987.
The Presiding Officer's Order of April 6,1988 terminated the proceeding on the Order issued to Atlas on July 31, 1987 and that Order is final.
Your requests for hearing in connection with that proceeding are no longer pending before the NRC.
If you have any questions regarding this matter I can be reachedat(301)492-1583.
Yours truly,3 C L
Elaine 1. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff l
G t
I i
I
.. f.-
V?) / $ 7 g, 4
e i
f 4.
,)
+
- Y
.gg.
uxiTeo STATES
}
-[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
memwovow.o c. roue s
k.
l i
Mr. John F. Darke P. O. B ox 701' Copper Queen Station Bisbee, AZ' 85603 In the Matter of Atlas Minerals Division of Atlas Corporation (Source Materials License No. SUA-917)
Docket No. 40-3453 i
Dear Mr. Darke:
' On May 8, 1989 you spoke to me on the telephone in reference to Ms l'
Chans's letter to you of April 4,1989 and a letter your. wrote to Victor i
Stello on April 17, 1989.
I have reviewed Ms. Chan's letter of April 4 and j
your letters of February 22, 1989 March 29, 1989, and April 17, 1989.
. As she indicated, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Presiding Officer's Memorandum 'and Order of April 6,
1988, dismissed the proceeding which commenced in September 1987, as that proceeding was limited to considering whether the surety furnished by Atlas was sufficient and the Staff had been l
satisfied with Atlas' surety arrangements and renewed the subject license, j
You did not appeal that order.
In that order you were expressly advised that Jhatever the merits of these positions may be, it is evident 1
that there is little practical point in going forward with this proceedin9 This proceedino necessarily must be limited to a consideration of the surety furnished by Atlas, yet the renewal i
of the license raises the possibility that other issues might
)
l be. raised.
It makes no sense to consider the surety issues in l'
one proceeding and other issues in yet another. Both Atlas and O
Staff recognize that the granting of the renewed Ifeense
{
affords interested parties the opportunity to request a u
hearing.
Consequently, Atlas' motion to dismiss this j
proceeding is granted.
In taking this action, I express no
)
opinion on Mr. Darke's >etition or Atlas' and Staff's responses 1
j p
to it.
Consequently
".his action is without prejudice to Mr.
1 Darkes' again raising the issues he has raised in this I
o proceeding in connection with the renewed license, and without prejudice to Atlas and Staff raising the same objections to j
those issues as were raised in this proceeding.
You were informed on April 13, 1988, that the Staff had granted a renewal of the Atlas license on February 25, 1988.
Despite this notice and the j
j IL l[.
c
.g.
c
)
statements in the decision of the presiding officer, you failed to request a hearing under the regulations of this Comission.
The Order of April 6, 198R, termi'nated the proceeding concerning the adequacy of the surety provided by Atlas.
You did not appeal that order and i
L it is final.
You did not petition in a timely manner for a hearing after notice of the license renewal was given to you on April 13, 1988 The time to petition for such a hearing has expired and this matter is closed.
i Sincerely, fk Edwin). Reis Deput'y Assistant General Counsel Reactor Licensing Branch
.