ML20040C347
| ML20040C347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Edgar G NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8201270555 | |
| Download: ML20040C347 (18) | |
Text
i h ?[ED
?
M' 73 p ., . \
< UNITED STATES OF AMERICA @
NUCLEAR REGULATORY _ COMMISSION g
\
g-the Matter oT~
~ f - JAt;g g 02A ':g ,
~ ~ ~ " ") 8!
)
NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC., ) , -
AND ) m
)
NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH ) Docket No. 50-201A
)
AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY )
)
(Western New York Nuclear )
)
Service Center) )
/
ANSWER OF NFS TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER DIRECTING FILING OF
___ _ FURTHER_INFORMATION__
In response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order Directing the Filing of Further Information and Issues, dated December 31, 1981, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) hereby files its answers to the questions contained on pages 3 through 5 of that order.
QUESTION 1:
What is the present status and projected schedule of the litigation between NFS and NYSERDA before the United States District Court (W.D.N.Y.) and between NFS and the NRC before the United States Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)?
Include the same information for any other currently pending p503 8201270555 820122 -
}{
actions before the Courts or other government agencies which may be relevant to the proceeding before this Board.
Include, for each currently pending proceeding, a brief summary of the issues involved and a list of the parties, and explain whether the proceeding before this Board could be rendered moot by the other proceedings.
ANSWER:
The case before the United States District Court for the Western District of New York is an action for breach of contract between NFS and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA or the Authority). A brief background of the litigation was provided in the December 8,1981 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 81-7736, and is reproduced below:
On December 24, 1980, NFS sued the Authority in the District Court for the Northern District of New York for enforcement of its right to have the Authority accept its surrender of possession. Six days later, on December 30, the Authority sued NFS in the Cattaraugus County Supreme Court to enjoin NFS from abandoning the low level storage facilities at the Center and directing it to continue to maintain those facilities. On that same day, the state court issued a temporary restrain-ing-order granting the Authority the relief sought. NFS promptly removed the state action to the Western District on January 7, 1981, on the ground of diver-sity jurisdiction. Sometime thereafter NFS's Northern District suit was
3-transferred to the Western District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1404.
The Authority's claim, as set out in a lengthy amended complaint listing 32 causes of action, seeks damages and specific performance to require NFS to remain at the Center and perform its alleged obligations under the Agree-nent. On September 30, 1981, the Authority shifted ground and moved for partial summary judgment to require NFS to vacate a portion of the Center to DOE. The district court granted the motion, holding that the Authority had the right under the New York law of property to repossess the Center upon i the termination of the Lease on December 31, 1980, and that no reasonable inter-pretation of the Agreements supported NFS's claim that the Authority was required to accept NFS's surrender of possession. We disagree.
In its December 8th order, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's order for partial summary judgment and remanded for trial of the issue of the parties' intent concerning transfer of possession upon termination of the lease. NYSERDA filed a motion for reconsideration before the Second Circuit on December 23, 1981. The matter now awaits disposition by the court.
On December 17, 1981, a magistrate was assigned in the Western District of New York to attempt to reconcile the differences between the parties. NYSERDA and NFS met with the magistrate on January 18, 1982, and are scheduled to meet again on January 22, 1982.
l
Resolution of the issues involved in the proceedings before eithet the District Court or the Second Circuit would not, standing alone, render the proceeding before this Board moot. No matter what decisions are handed down by either court, the issue as to the validity of the September 30th license amendment will remain.
The litigation before the District of Colunbla Circuit involves a petition filed by NFS seeking review of the issuance by the NRC on September 30, 1981, of an amendment to NFS's license. The issue involved is whether the NRC, in violation of its own regulations and precedents, can issue an amendment to an operating license without providing the licensee an opportunity for hearing prior to the amendment becoming effective.
NFS filed a brief in support of its petition for i
review on January 11, 1982. The NRC has thirty days after service of the brief to file its brief in opposition. NFS will have 14 days after service of the brief in opposition to file a reply brief. The Court will then hear oral argunents and proceed to dispose of the natter.
NFS has petitioned the Court of Appeals to vacate the Commission order issuing the September 30, 1981 amend-ment, to declare the amendment null and void, and to remand the case to the NRC with directions to provide NFS with an opportunity for a hearing prior to any amendment to its l
license becoming effective. If the Court of Appeals rules in favor of NFS, the present ASLB proceeding would be moot since the license amendment which caused NFS to request the hearing would no longer be valid.
NFS has no knowledge of any other court or administrative proceedings which may be relevant to the
, proceeding before this Board.
, gUESTION 2:
What is the relationship to this proceeding of the NRC license amendment proposed by NFS on October 6, 1981, which is the subject of the December 10, 1981 letter to the Commission from 0.S. Hiestand, Counsel for NFS? (NFS is requested to provide a copy of that amendment application to the Board). What is the current status of the NFS applica-tion for amendment? To what extent is jurisdiction over the NFS application for amendment properly before this Board as l a necessary part of the consideration of the requests for hearing delegated to the Board by the Commission's order of November 6,1981 ?
ANSWER 1 The purpose of the amendment proposed by NFS on
- /
l October 6, 1981,-- was to remove NFS as licensee under l
License No. CSF-1 at such time as DOE as'umes exclusive
=
- ] A copy of the letter containing the proposed amendment is attached.
possession and use of the West Valley Center. If the amendment had been implemented, it would have removed NFS's objections to the September 30, 1981 amendment (Change No.
- 31) and thus removed the reasons for NFS's request for hearing.
The NRC Staff, in a letter dated January 11, 1982, notified NFS that it was denying, without prejudice, NFS's application for license amendment. (A copy of the letter is attached.)
Given the proper facts and circumstances, the Board has authority to condition Operating License No. CSF-
- 1. In deciding the issues involved in this proceeding, the Board may wish to consider the terms of the amendment proposed by NFS as a means of correcting the deficiencies and problems inherent with the September 30th amendment.
Thus, while the NFS proposed amendment is not an issue before the Board, the changes proposed therein may be considered by the Board as part of its deliberations.
Sl3_ESTION,,3,:_
Set forth the issues, with reasonable specificity and basis (Se_e 10 CFR S 2.714), which the participants seek to litigate in this proceeding. For each issue, indicate whether it is solely a legal issue or whether the presen-tation of evidence is necessary or desirable (and-if so, set forth the nature of the evidence which the participant would
7-adduce). In addition, for each issue, the proponent shall indicate the nexus of the issue to the license amendment (Change No. 31) issued by the NRC Staff.
ANStjER:
As a preliminary matter, NFS assunes that the Board's reference to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 (rules for intervention) is for the benefit of those persons, including DOE and NYSERDA, desiring to intervene in the nroceeding.
Since the Board was empaneled to conduct a hearing pursuant to NFS's request for hearing, NFS is already a party and need not further justify its interest in the proceeding.
The contention of NFS is that the NRC has issued an illegal anendment to NFS's operating license, thus exposing NFS to potential legal and economic consequences.
The specific issues for hearing are set out in NFS's Request for Hearing, dated October 13, 1981. These are summarized below:
A. The transfer violates NRC regulations with respect to DOE's exempt status (10/13/81 Request for Hearing 111.) 10 C.F.R. 550.11 provides that an NRC license is not required for operation of a facility controlled by a DOE contractor. However, Paragraph 7D of the license amendment states that with the exceptions noted in the license, "the responsibilities of the licensees, under the license . . .
shall continue in effect. . .". DOE cannot have exclusive
responsibility for health and safety matters, and thus qualify for the exempt status granted by 10 C.F.R. S50.11, if NFS simultaneously retains responsibilities as licensee, as paragraph 7D states that it shall.
B. The transfer violates the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 by providing for the unlawful delegation by NRC of its regulatory powers over its licensee to DOE (Request for Hearing 112.) NRC has responsibility under the statutes noted for licensing and regulation of licensed facilities and review of'the safety and safeguards of those facilities. 42 U.S.C. $5844(b).
The September 30th Amendment, . Paragraph 7D, provides'that the responsibilities of the NRC licensees "shall continue in effect, provided that neither licensee is authorized to take or permit. . . any action which in DOE's judgmgnt, may inhibit or prevent DOE from taking any action under the Atomic Energy Act or the Project Act." (Emphasis added.)
The effect of the amendment thus is to subject NFS to DOE's regulatory jurisdiction while leaving in question the responsibility of the NRC toward its licensee.
C. The transfer authorized by NRC violates the right of the licensee NFS to operate under a clearly defined or predictable regulatory standard (Request for Hearing 113.) The amendment restricts NFS's actions under the license to those "which in DOE's judgment" will not inhibit
4 9-DOE's actions. This unbridled discretion granted to DOE by the amendment leaves NFS in the position of being responsible for ill-defined continuing obligations under its license, while being held to the undefinable standard of avoiding any activities which DOE in its sole judgment decides should not be allowed, based on DOE's project activities.
D. NRC has no au-hority to suspend its Price-Anderson Indemnity Agreement with NFS. (Request for Hearing 114). The Amendment purports to suspend Indemnity Agreement No. B-29 while the West Valley site is in the possession of DOE. Section 170c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires NRC to indemnify and hold NFS harmless.
So long as NFS is a licensee, NRC cannot be excused from that obligation. However, Paragraph 7C of the Amendment states that as a condition of the transfer of the facility to DOE, NFS's Indemnity Agreement with NRC shall be suspended until DOE surrenders possecsion at some later date. In addition to being in violation of the Price-Anderson Act, such suspension by-the NRC would act as a
~
unilateral modification to its indemnification contract with NFS. Furthermore, it is unclear what indemnity coverage, if any, that NFS would be provided under a DOE indemnity
- agreement with its contractor (s). NFS could therefore
suffer severe financial risk and a nullification of its rights to protection under the Price-Anderson Agreement.
! E. The amendment conflicts with and violates the West Valley Demonstration Project Act (Request for Hearing
%15.) Section 2(b)(4)(A) of that Act provides that New York State "will nahe available to the Secretary the facilities of the Center and the high 1cvel radioactive waste at the Center which are necessary for the completion of the project." Since NYSERDA and NFS are joint holders of the license, the only apparent way for the State, through NYSERDA, to transfer the facilities is for NYSERDA to first accept surrender of NFS' rights as licensee. If NYSERDA is unable to transfer all rights to operate the facility, then the conditions set by the Demonstration Project Act cannot be net. In that case, neither of the parties to the project agreement - DOE or NYSERDA - has the authority to make such a transfer, nor can NRC approve such a transfer.
A nexus exists between each issue and the issuance of the license amendment, Change No. 31, since each issue challenges the validity of that amendnent. All of the issues raised will necessitate the presentation of evidence to adduce facts and circunstances concerning the issues summarized above.
Issues A, B, and C nre concerr.ed with the role and responsibilities of NFS both during the project and after
its completion. In order to consider those issues, evidence will be required concerning the scope of the project activities, DOE's plans for conducting those activities, and the role of the NRC during the course of the project.
Evidence will also be needed to consider the residual activities which must be conducted af ter project termination, the plans by the NRC and DOE for the completion of those activities, and the activities and responsibilities which the NRC and DOL envision for NFS as licensee both during and after the project. Evidence must also address the relationship of DOE and its contractor: with the NRC licensees, NFS and NYSERDA, during the project and after its termination.
Issue D will require evidence concerning the Indemnity Agreenent between the NRC, NYSERDA, and NFS. This will entail investigation of such matters as the current i
indemnity agreement among the parties, including the scope of NFS's liability and coverage under the current agreement and the p1dns by the NRC for suspension and subsequent reactivation of the agreement. Since the agreement purportedly will not be in effect during the project,.
evidence must also be considered as to the nature and extent of NFS's potential liability during the suspension and the source and extent of any-indennity coverage available to NFS during that period.
12 -
Issue E is concerned with the legality of the transfer of the facilities necessary for initiation of the project. Evidence will be required dealing with the roles and responsibilities of NRC, DOE, NYSERDA and NFS in the transfer, the procedures planned by DOE, NRC and NYSERDA for carrying out the transfer, and the conformity of those plans and procedures with the statutory authority provided for the conduct of the project.
JQUESTION 4:
l Is this Board precluded from inquiry into DOE's 1
conduct of the West Valley Demonstration Project where such inquiry is not for the purpose of regulating or licensing DOE's activities, but rather is incidental to a determina-tion of the present and future rights and responsibilities of NFS?
ANSWER:
The Board is not precluded from inquiry into DOE's planned conduct of the West Valley Demonstration Project where such inquiry is not for the purpose of regulating or licensing DOE's activities, but rather is for the purpose of determining the present and future rights and respon-sibilities of NFS. As indicated in response to. Question 3, above, the nature and scope of DOE's project activities are relevant to the issues presented to the Commission by NFS in its Request for Hearing. Since the Board was constituted to
consider that request, the Board certair.ly has authority from the Commission to consider the factors relevant to those issues, including DOE's planned activities. In fact, if the Board does not consider DOE's activities, it cannot adequately address the issues.
The Commission's authority to consider those matters relevant to the licenses issued by the NRC under its licensing authority was granted by Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganiza-tion Act of 1974. There have been no statutes in which Congress has countermanded that authority as it relates to
- /
the West Valley Center.-
SUESTION 5:
Would a prehearing conference be useful, as sug-gested by the Staff, after the responses to this order are filed? Are there issues which should be briefed in advance of a prehearing conference?
-*/ In fact, the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Pub. L. No.96-368 (1980), provides for NRC involvement (i.e., technical consultations) in DOE activities. Section 2(c)(1) states that:
[t]he Secretary (of DOE] shall cubmit to the Commission, for its review and comment, a plan for the solidification of the high level radioactive waste at the Center, the removal of the waste for purposes of solidification, the preparation of wastes for disposal, and the decontamination of the facilities to be used in solidifying the waste.
- ANSWER A prehearing conference would be of assistance in ostablishing a schedule for discovery and a hearing schedule. There are no issues which NFS believes should be briefed prior to a prehearing conference.
QUESTION 6:
In general terms, and in light of the above answers, what schedule for further actions in this procceding do the parties contemplate?
ANSWER:
lt is difficult, if not impossible, to. propose a schedule for future actions without knowledge of the range of issues which the Board will decide to address. NFS would be in a position to discuss a schedule for future actions only after consideration of the views of the other parties and the Board as to the issues invol;ed at a prehearing conference.
Respectfully submitted,
, W
/
TTeo ge f~
idiar-
~
uel Services, Inc.
~
Attorney for Nucle Dated: January 22, 1982
f)-
a,
( >O
_\/ Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 6000 Executive Boulevard, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland
- 20852 S .
o ii co g mx 4 See te> rx or ce>1v c on 77o 55io Ralph W. Deuster m sc' a' October 6, 1981 Mr. John G. Ihvis Direc*wr Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safegwnt U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccr:rission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Davis:
With this letter, Nirlear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) sub:rits to the Cco-mission an application for amnd::ent of License No. CSF-1. 'Ihis amndment, in conjuncrion with Amndment 31 issued on Septe::ber 30, 1981, is required in order that the Depart:1ent of Energy (DDE) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYERDA) my carry out the conditions of Section 2(b) (4) (A) of the West Valley Denonstration Project Act, Ptt. L.96-368 (1980).
'Ihis amndnent ter:rinates all rights and .wibilities of NFS muier License No. CSF-1 and transfers to NYERDA all residual rights and responsi-bilities of the licensees upon cmpletion of the West Valley Denonstration Project. All other infor::ation required by the Ccmrission for anendrent of an operating license is contained in the previous semissions of the licensees under Docket No. 50-201.
'Ihe requested amendment which adds a Paragraph 8 to the license, is as folicws:
- 8. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 11oense, all rights and res;cnsibilities of the licensee, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc> (NFS) , under License No. CSF+-l are ter::nnated upon DOE assu:mng ex::lusive possession and control of the feility. Upon DOE's assu:ption of erlusive pcssession and control of the facility as provided in Paragraph 7 above, all refences to
' licensee ' , ' licensees', ' licensees under this license, as their respective interests under this license appear', or ' licensees, as their respective interests under this license appear', shall thereafter refer erlusively to the New York State Energy Research and Developtrent Authority.
I understand that NYERDA is prepared to join in this application in con-nection with a settlerent between NP3 and NYERDA of their contractual disputes,
, provided that any such c:ancurrence by NYERDA nay be withdraen, without prejudice,
, , , , , c- m b
[
Nuclear Fust Services, Inc. -
2- October 6, 1981 in the event no settlement is reached, and provided further that the anend-ment is issued sinultaneously with the signing of the settle::ent agree: tent.
If any additional info =Tation is required, please let ne kroi.
Sincerely, U $^" $
aalph w. oeuster President 4
e 4
p--. , -- , ,---, ,-- -,- - - , . .- , , - , , . - - - , -. - - - - - , - , - - -
- 8. Upon DOE's assuming exclusive possession and control of the facility in accordance with Paragraph 7:
A. NYERDA (as successor to ASDA) shall thereafter have the authority and responsibility now held by NFS under the license, and the autnority and responsibility of NFS under the license is terminated. Notwithstanding termination of its authority and responsibility under the license, NFS shall promptly transfer to NYERDA all records in the possession of NFS that are main-tained pursuant to the license.
B. All references in Paragraph 7 to " licensee," " licensees,"
" licensees under this license, as their respective interests under this license appear," or " licensees as their respective interests under this license appear," shall thereafter refer exclusively to NYERDA, provided that NFS shall have transferred to NYERDA all right, title, or interest which it may have in any property at the facility.
C. Indemnity Agreement No. B-29 shall be modified to conform to the change in the authority and responsibility described in subparagraphs ( A) and (B) of this paragraph 8.
~, --
ps ur UNITED STATES 9 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON g
wassiscTc>u. o. c. zosss g 3,g i '
! JAN 1: 1302
%,o.V.../
Docket No. 50-201 \
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
ATTN: Ralph W. Deuster, President 6000 Executive Boulevard, Suite 600 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Gentlemen:
This is in reference to your application for an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. CSF-1, as set forth in your letter of October 6,1981.
Your letter stated your understanding that the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYERDA) was prepared, subject to certain contingencies, to join in your application. It now appears that NYERDA is not willing to join in ycur request at this time and, in fact, NYERDA opposes the grant of the requested amendment. We enclose a copy of a letter from NYERDA, dated December 17, 1981, which sets forth its position.
In absence of agreement between NFS and NYERDA, we have determined that your application should be denied. We are taking this action in order to avoid adjudication of issues of law and fact that are presently the subject of litigation in the District Court for the Western District of Ntw York.
These issues involve matters of contract constnJction wf th respect to which we have no particular competence. Deferring to the jurisdiction of the court, we believe it appropriate for us to abstain from deciding these disputed issues.
As provided in Paragraph 4.A. of the license, the Consnission will act upon an application and may issue an appropriate amendment reflecting future responsibilities in the event of ar.y expiration, modification, cancellation or termination of the contractual arrangement between NFS and NYERDA or any '
other change in the relationship between them. We believe the application chould articulate precisely the character of the change in the relationship, including consideration of future responsibilities, and provide an ealanation for the applicant's view that the requested amendment would be appropriate in the light of that change. Obviously, a final judicial determination of the respective rights of HFS and NYERDA would clarify the relationship between them so as to permit a more ready determination of the kinds of licensing action that would be appropriate.
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 'j:1. : _ g
\
Accordingly, the Commission denies your application, but without prejudice to your right to resubmit a request for the same or similar relief at any time in the future. Should you elect to make further application, we trust that you will take into account the considerations listed in the paragraph above. You may demand a hearing on this actior., pursuant to Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by filing a request for hearing within 20 days from the date of this letter.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f [W = ,
Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Ltr frm NYERDA dtd 12/17/81 cc: Mr. James Larocca, NYERDA Mr. Camine J. Clemente, NYERDA Mr. Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., DOE Mr. O. S. Heistand, Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius l
w - y --r-
4 1
DISTRIBUTION LIST Lawrence Brenner, Chairman I Irvin D.J. Bross, Ph.D.
Administrative Judge Director of Biostatistics Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Roswell Park Menorial Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 66C Elm Street Washington, CC 20555 Buffalo, NY 14263 Dr. Jerry Harbour Orris S. Hiestand, Esq.
Administrative Judge Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Peter A. Morris Docketing and Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Carmine J. Clemente, Esq. Board Panel General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Research ' Washington, DC 20555 and Development Authority Two Rockefeller Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing Albany, New York 12223 Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Philip H. Gitlen, Esq. Washington, DC 20555 Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna 99 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12210 Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20587
New York Ctata Energy Research and DevelopmegAuthority y Two Rockefeller Plaza . Albany. New York 12225 (518)465-6251 4og+ g I~n
' N l', S po ..., ,
December 17,198h"'5($[f0.
~
' " C(10y Mr. Leland C. Rouse u)
Chief G '
Advanced Fuel and Spent g)
Fuel Licensing Branch " '
Division of Fuel Cycle and ,
Material Safety 9 7 DEC 2 31981 > .
Office of Nuclear Material S Safety and Safeguards ,& y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1, mam Commission N Y Washington, D. C. 20555 g Re: Provisional Operating License No. CSF-1 s
Dear Mr. Rouse:
I am writing in response to your recent letters and the
- , Commission's notice of November 6, 1981 concerning a proposed g amendment of Provisional Operating License No. CSF-1 submitted by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. NFS' proposed amendment would terminate NFS' license, shift all of NFS' interest, rights and responsibilities to this Authority, and make the Authority the sole holder of the license to operate the fuel reproceas-ing plant and related facilities at West Valley. Your letters seek the Authority's position on the NFS-proposed l amendment and also ask for our comments on a modified l
formulation of the amendment proposed by NFS, transmitted
.w.ith your December 8 letter.
i
Background
When the license was originally issued, neither the Atomic Energy Commission nor either of the licensees intended that the Authority would ultimately be licensed to operate a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. As the Commission and NFS well know, the only Federal licensing responsibilities which were to be assumed by the Authority related to maintenance of the high-level storage facilities -- and 20061 02</3Jjeb82.2
then, only after NFS had either pfbced those facilities in an agreed-upon proper condition or had tendered to the Authority funds sufficient to compensate for any deficiencies.
Matters related to NFS' contractual obligations, however, are currently the subject of litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
Procedural Deficiencies ,
As a preliminary procedural mattar, NFS' two-page letter of October 6 falls far short of the requirements of the Commission's regulations for an application to terminate an operating license (see 10 C.F.R. Part 50).
For example, NFS' October 6 letter contains virtually none of the general information required by section 50.33, does not contain the decontamination plan required by section 50.82 or any environmental report on decontamination of the facility, and does not include the technical information required by section 50.34. NFS' declaration that "[alll other information required by the Commission for amendment for an operating license is contained in the previous submissions of the licensees under Docket No. 50-201" does
- g. not cure these defects. Nowhere does NFS even hint where the relevant information may be found. In contrast, section 50.32 of the Commission's regulations permits incorporation -
by reference only when "such references are clear and specific."
Because NFS' October 6 letter so fundamentally fails to meet the requirements for an application for termination of its operating license, the Commission should reject or dismiss the submission and refuse to consider it any furtner, without prejudice to resubmission of a proper application.
Request for Hearing By its October 6 proposal NFS seeks to force upon the Authority licensing responsibilities that the Commission, NFS, and the Authority never intended the Authority to have, which the Authority does not accept, and which are a part of the matters in litigation in the United States If, District Court for the Western District of New York. l despite the procedural deficiencies noted above, the l
Commission determines to continue to entertain NFS' October 6 submission, then as a " person wh se interest [will] be affected," the Authority requests a hearing on the proposed license termination, pursuant to section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, before any Commission action on I
the proposal.
f Sincerely, N
James L. Larocca Chairman cc: All persons on the atthched
--s Certificate of Service. s
..s
( .
s.
% s, O
3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of. ) Docket No. 50-201
) Provisional Operating NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. ) License No. CSF-1 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney.
herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding.
In accordance with 5 2.713(b), 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name': George L. Edgar Address: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Telephone No.: (202) 872-5121 Admission: Member of the District of Columbia Bar Name and Address of' Party Represented: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
6000 Executive Boulevard Suite 600 Rockville, Maryland 20852-
)
.[
George L. 3d' gar /
'/
Attorney for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
Dated: January 22, 1982
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-201
) Provisional Operating NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. ) License No. CSF-1 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding.
In accordance with S 2.713(b), 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Nsme: Orris S. Hiestand, Jr.
' Address: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone Nurnber: (202) 872-5160 Admission: United States Supreme Court District Court, District of Columbia Tennessee Supreme Court Illinois Supreme Court Name and Address of Party Represented: Nuclear-Fuel Services, Inc.
6000 Executive Boulevard Suite-600 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Orris,S.-Hiestand, Jrt i Attorney for J Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
Dated: January 22, 1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-201
) Provisional Operating NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. ) License No. CSF-1 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding.
In accordance with S 2.713(b), 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name: Frank K. Peterson Address: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Telephone No.. (202) 872-7661 Admission: Member of the District of Columbia Bar Name and Address of Party Represented: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
6000 Executive Boulevard Suite 600 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Y 5 .....f, M ' 6, u. .
Frank K. Peterson Attorney for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
Dated: _ January 22, 1982 y -,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
I In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-201
) Provisional Operating NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, Inc. ) License No. CSF-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing has been served as of this date by personal delivery or first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Lawrence Brenner, Chairman Warren E. Bergholz, Jr. Esquire Administrative Judge Office of General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20587 Dr. Jerry Harbour Irwin D. J. Bross, Ph.D.
Administrative Judge Director of Biostatistics Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Roswell Park Memorial Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 666 Elm Street Washington, DC 20555 . Buffalo, NY 14263
~
Mr. Peter A. Morris Counsel for NRC Staff Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Carmine J. Clemente', Esquire Docketing anc Service Section General Counsel Office of the Secretary New York State Energy Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Development Authority Washington, DC 20555 Two Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philip H. Gitlen, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna Washington, DC 20555 99 Washington Avenue.
Aany, NY 12210 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 {
/M 7 Dated: January 22, 1982 George L.sEdgar ' ff Attorney for Nuclear 7uel Services ,
Inc. ,
)
___. _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _