ML20024F184
| ML20024F184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1983 |
| From: | Fonner R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F185 | List: |
| References | |
| 83-488-01-ML, 83-488-1-ML, NUDOCS 8309090022 | |
| Download: ML20024F184 (5) | |
Text
.
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE PRESIDING 0FFICER DR. ROBERT M. LAZO, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE In the Matter of ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
)
Energy Systems Group Docket No. 70-25 Special Nuclear Materials
)
ASLBP No. 83-488-01-ML License No. SNM-21
)
STAFF MOTION TO TERMINATE THE PROCEEDING In the presiding officer's Memorandum and Order of July 27, 1983 the staff was given 15 days to determine whether it would appear as a party, and to answer the postcards and letters requesting a hearing. By order dated August 9, 1983, the time to answer was extended to August 31, 1983.
This Memorandum is the staff's answer to both matters.
THE STAFF AS A PARTY The staff deems it appropriate to appear as a party, in order to j
present its views on the question of standing and to participate in any further proceeding.
STAFF VIEWS ON STANDING In CLI-83-15, the Commission granted an opportuaity to the several hundred persons who, by postcard, had requested a hearing on the renewal of license No. SNM-21, to demonstrate that they could meet the Commission's requirements for intervention by interested persons. The Commission
(
l 8309090022 830831 PDR ADOCK 07000025 l
C PDR S
DESIGNATED ORIGIIIAI; l.
Certified By M
[
[fg l
2-outlined in detail the nature of the statement that potential intervenors must file.1/ orty-five days from issuance of the F
Commission order were allowed for responses.2_/ The' Commission order
~
also also stated that agency precedents regarding the application of 10CFR2.714(d)shouldgovernthepresidingofficer'sdetermination on standing.
Under 10 CFR 2.714(d) the presiding officer must consider the following factors, (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Atomic Energy Act to be made a party, (2) the notice and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding, and (3) the possible effect of any order entered on the petitioner's interest. As applied in Nuclear Engineering (Sheffield, Illinois Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site) ALAB 473, 7 NRC 737 (1978), the practical tests are that the petition must show (1) that the petitioner will or might be injured in fact by one or more of the possible outcomes
-1/
"The statement shall set forth with particularity (1) the interest of that person in the proceeding; (2) how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including a delineation of the reasons why that person should be permitted to intervene that makes particular reference to (a) the nature of the person's right under the Atomic Energy Act to be made a party, (b) the nature and extent of the person's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding, and (c) the possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest; and (3) the specific operator aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding that the petitioner seeks to have litigated."
2/
The order issued June 2,1983, accordingly the final date for responses was July 17, 1983. Ten responses were received before that date. Five appear to have been received afterwards, although four are postmarked before July 17th. One postcard is postmarked July 25, 1983 and is clearly out of time.
O g
~. _ ~. -...-
of the proceeding, and (2) that the asserted interest of the petitioner in ac,hieving a particular result is at least arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute involved. These principles need to be applied to two separate areas under license No. SNM-21. These are the Canoga Park facilities and the Santa Susana facilities individually discussed below.
a.
Canoga Park facilties:
It is abundantly clear from the affidavit of Nonnan Ketzlach, project manager for the renewal of license No. SNM-21, attached hereto, that, under the " outcomes" test of Nuclear Engineering, supra, no hearing is warranted in this licensing proceeding regarding the Applicant's activities at Canoga Park, located in Los Angeles county. The Applicant has ceased special nuclear material operations at the Canoga Park facilities and is in the process of decontaminating the plant for unrestrictea use.
Any loose or separable SNM has already been removed, other than that in the form of contamination or in waste. The Canoga Park facilities will be deleted from License No. SNM-21 as an authorized place of use.
In light l
of these facts there is simply no possibility that any of the petitioners will or might be injured in fact by any possible outcome of a hearing.
In effect the most complete remedy that petitioners could obtain by any order issued following a hearing has already been given voluntarily by the Applicant. Cf. Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear l
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI 80-10, 11 NRC 438 (1980). Accordingly, standing should be denied to all petitioners with respect to the Canoga Park l
facilities under License No. SNM-21.
i l
b.
Santa Susana facilities:
The affidavit of Norman Ke'.zlach also describes the situation at the Santa Susana facilities. At Santa Susana, located in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, the applicant is in the process of decommissioning and decontaminating Building 055, the plutonium plant. Other than plutonium on contaminated equipment therp are only 13 grams of plutonium and 27 grams of U-235 contained in analytical standards in building 055. Under the se license ESG may also possess 0.25 kg of plutonium in building 172 in encapsulated form for x-ray examination. With the elimination of the activities in building 055, however, building 172 is no longer used for x-ray examination of plutonium and will not be continued as an authorized place of use. Building 172 is suitable for release for unrestricted use.
It is again abundantly clear that no injury in fact can occur resulting from any outcome of a hearing as to activities at Santa Susana in the former plutonium facility in buildings 055 and 172.
Further, it appears evident from the texts of the letters and postcards that the petitioners are exclusively concerned with the Canoga Park facilities located within their residential area, and not with the Santa Susana facilities which are nowhere referred to. Even though building 020, location of the Rockwell International Hot Laboratory at Santa Susana, will continue to house radioactive material, it is not presented as a I
basis of concern in any petition for a hearing.
Accordingly, standing should also be denied with respect to the Santa Susana facilities under license No. SNM-21.
r l
e
c.
Failure to Meet Commission Requirements for Petitions:
It is.also patently clear that the persons submitting the postcards and the letters in a timely manner have not met the Commission's minimal requirements for the content of a petition requesting a hearing. Neither the postcards nor the two letters have set forth with particularity the petitioner's interest in the proceeding (other than a vague and generalized allusion to " danger" or potential injury from radiation), the nature and extent of the property, financial, or other interest, the possible effect of any order entere'd on the petitioner's interest, and the specific aspect of the subject matter that the petitioner needs to have litigated.
CONCLUSION Because of the failure of all petitioners to meet the outcomes test of Nuclear Engineering, supra. and failure to meet the requirements of CLI-83-15, the staff moves that standing be denied to all persons submitting requests for a hearing, and that the hearing proceeding be terminated.
i Respectfully submitted, i
Robert L. Fonner Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 31st day of August 1983 e,