ML20054E913
| ML20054E913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1982 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Resnikoff M Sierra Club |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E914 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206150028 | |
| Download: ML20054E913 (1) | |
Text
I t
T >
. (,s',.:< m m.h Le ;&,ad )(;;
s n u . ,' 2 . m Distribution:
-+ Docket 50-201 JRoth, Region I NMSS r/f LCRouse FCAF r/f ATClark Docket tio. 50-201 PDR FBrown (LA)
LPDR (2) WTing Project M-32 WJDircks JUN 4 198'2 JGDavis ED0 / r/f Sierra Club DMausshardt ABentl o>
ATTd: Dr. !!arvin I:esnikoff RECunningham BC1 Q Technical Consultant DRChapell RBoyl e -
J s
/4 \\
70 Elwood Avenue '
Duf f alo, !;cw York 14201 JWol f - 69 -
t Y
.6' e b
4 Gentlemen: y Inis letter is in reference to your letter, dated March 26,1 ( , /
concerning the issuance of Change do. 42 to Provisional Facility ratin: .
License !!o. CSF-1. As stated in ny letter to you, uated April 26, 4dW e "
have deterained that your letter constituted a request for reconsiderat on of the issuance of Change !!o. 32. In connection with your request I requested the views of the co-licensees. I have enclosed a copy of the responses of cach co-licensee with this letter for your inforaation and consi deration.
If, upon your consideration of the enclosed information, you nave any additional infornation you wish to provide, please do so within fif teen days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely ,
peg a pus.rA + c o f j%dohn G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear liaterial Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
- 1. Response froa t.FS
orrice> .ECAFg. . . . ECA .. . E.l& \ f,C4......... FS,, , jh@SS., . , , ,
SURNAME) .bI.([dr,N:.Sd$. pCRduse.... . (.. . . .
DRCh h,ahjiT 14EGmm . g,,am
, ,j/J/,82 , p/f/82 JfDavi /
one> .5.l2dl.82,,, ,,, , F/..M2,,
t , , , 5, , /82, /82, , , , , ,
NRC rORM 318 00 80) NRCM 0ao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGM 1981-335 960 L ,
r- . vv -
. MosoAN. LEWIS & BOCKlUS CovNsctons av Law . Miaws P- .a r t . = - 4 -
,gge ,pjQ{h. N.W Hannescuns
[ ., . 9I L "00" c) wa s inctos. O C. 20o36
.A test.-o.c asa e%-)oep -
q . . .
. . 3:. .
- v OT,EluED h';;( 2 5 GM
- Ma}(24' 1982r.:'
A u.s.pfi'd?" -
y ,
/ 'O
- syss /<
paakdca C Ef ETED q
wt\ s usne- .
Richard E. Cunninghan, Director y--
MAy 2 5 ISS2 >
Division of Fuel Cycle and liaterial Safety "
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards init3gg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission $ cua ct,u (
. Washington, D.C. 20555 -
A co .
Re: Sierra Club's Petition' for a Show Cause Order to Rescind Change No. 32 to License No. CSF-1.
Dear Mr. Cunningham:
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) hereby responds m ~
to your letter of April 27, 1982 requesting NFS's comments on the March 26, 1982 petition of the Sierra Club for a sh'ow - '
cause proceeding to rescind Change No. 32 to License No. .
CSF-1. From your letter, NFS understands that the Commis-sion is treating the petition as a request for reconsidera-tion rather than as a request for a show cause notice'.
Su aary Change No. 32 was issued in accordance with MRC regulatory procedures after the Commission determined that it would involve no significant hazards. The Sierra Club has alleged no violations of any regulatory requirements for which an order to show cause could be issued against NFS pursuant tc 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202. The Club's contention that icoortant issues remain to be resolved are unsubstantiated-and patently incorrect. NFS, therefore, submits that since the Sierra Club has presented no legitimate reason why -
Change No. 32 should be rescinded, its reque,st, whether
! considered a request for a show cause proceeding or for reconsideration of the Commission's issuance of Change No. 32, must be denied.
O f ~ ~
- 1. . I Wr l ,
- c. - -
3 .:i
% 2:2 y c:.i:
'6 rf %
b .
[F ~ %s sc7f
cr ~ ,
.o ,.
MORGAN, Lewis & BOCKlUS
- Richard E. Cunninghan.
May 24, 1982 Page 2 Background ,
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. and the New 'ork State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA: are joint licensees under NRC Provisional Operating Liuense CSF-1. The license, issued April 19, 1966, auth>:tizes NYSERDA to own the West Valley, New York facilities used for the reprocessing of spent nu. clear fuel, and the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes, and authorizes NFS to operate those facilities.
On October 1, 1980, the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Pub. L.96-368 ("Act"), was enacted. The pur-pose of the Act was to authorize the Department of Energy
(" DOE") to carry out a high level liquid. nuclear waste
.The Act,
=anage=ent deconstration Section 2(b)(4)(A), project provides thatat"(t)he West Valley State (. of New York) will make available to the Secretary (of DOE) the facilities of the Center and the high level radioactive waste at the Center, which are necessary for completion of the project" (hereinaf ter "the West Valley facilities") . Section 2(a)(5) of the Act provides that DOE shall decontacinate and decom-mission the facilities in accordance with such requirements as the Commission may prescribe, and Section 2(c) directs that DOE shall consult with the Commission and submit plans and safety reports to the Co ission for review and cocment.
NYSERDA and DOE entered into a Cooperative Agree-ment, effective October 1, 1980, to implement the demonstra-tion project. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, NYSERDA agreed to grant exclusive use and possession of the West Valley facilities to DOE for the duration of the Proj e ct , which is expected to last for acre than fifteen years. The Agreement further provides that upon project completion, NYSERDA will accept surrender of the decon- e i
l tacinated and decocaissioned facilities.from' DOE.
A necessary precondition to the lawful transfer of l the NRC licensed facilities and radioactive materials to DOE was c valid amendment to License CSF-1 permitting such a transfer. Pursuant to an apolication by NYSERDA, joined by DOE, on Septe=ber 30, 1981, the Cocaission issued a license amend =ent, Change No. 31, t o License CSF-1. Change No. 31 authorized NFS and NYSERDA, as thekr interests appeared, to
! transfer exclusive possession of the West Valley facilities
r~ . .
MORGAN 3 Lewis E. Bocxius Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 3 to DOE, subject to certain conditions, in order to implement the West Valley Decon'stration Project Act. .
NFS opposed the issuance of that license amendment without NFS as licensee having the opportunity for a prior hearing, as authorized by NRC regulations. Although Change No. 31 was, on its face, permissive, NFS was concerned that the Change could become cand,atory if a court order forced NFS to vacate the West Valley-facilities. 1/ In that event, NFS would have been feced with undefined fegal .and economic consequences. NFS, therefore, filed with the NRC Commissioners a Motion to Postpone the Effectiveness of the License Amendment and a Request for Hearing. 2/ By Order
~
dated November 6,1981, the NRC Commissioners denied NFS's Motion, and directed the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to establish a Licensing Board to conduct a hearing pursuant to NFS's request. .
On October 16, 1981, NYSERDA obtained a partial summary judgment from the U.S. District Court ~for the Western District of New York requiring NFS to vacate the West Valley facilities. This Order was subsequently stayed and later reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In remanding the case, the Court directed the District Court to act promptly to resolve the litigation.
-1/ At that time NYSERDA and NFS were involved in active litigation in the U.S. Di st rict Court for the Western District of New York concerning their centractual rights and responsibilities with rigard to the West Valley facilities.
-2/ NFS also filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Di. strict of Colu=bia Circuit question-ing the validity of Change No. 31 because of the manner in which it was issued. This petition was withdrawn on February 11, 1982, after the pa'rties had reached agree-cent on the terms of their Settlement Agreement.
MORGAM, Lewis 3. BOCKlUD ,
Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 4 Under an order from the District Court to confer with a Magistrate regarding resolution of their differences, NYSERDA and NFS negotiated a Settlement Agreement, Stipula-tion, and Order (Setcle=ent Order) to be subcitted to the Court. As a part of their negotiated agreement, on February 1, 1982, NFS, joined by NYSERDA, submitted to the Commission an application to acend License No. CSF-1 3/ to provide for termination of NFS' responsibilities as a T'icensee effective on the occurrence of three conditions: 1) acceptance of surrender of the West Valley facilities by NYSERDA, 2) assumption of exclusive possession by DOE, and 3) occurrence of the " Settlement Date" specified in a settlement agreement and order. 4/ On February 11, 1982, the Commission issued
~
Change No. li2, which provided that NFS's responsibilities and authority under the License would be terminated when the three conditions had been net.
In accordance with the procedures agreed to by NFS and NYSERDA pursuant to the terms of the proposed Settlement Order, on February 11, 1982, NFS notified the Licensing Board that NFS was withdrawing its Request for Hearing on Change No. 31. 5/ That Settlement Order was approved by the District Court on February 19, 1982. By the tercs of
-3/ NFS had previously subritted a proposed scendment to License No. CSF-1 on October 6,1981. That amendment would have autocacically terninated NFS as a licensee upon DOE assuming exclusive The possession and control of Commission, in a the West Valley facilities.
letter dated January 11, 1982, denied , without preju-dice, that application because NYSERDA and NFS had not ;
agreed on it.s terns.
-4/ The proposed Settle =ent Order provided that certain provisions would become ef fective and binding on the parties if, within one year from the date the Court approved the Agreement, or such additional period as the parties actually. agreed.to,.certain ev.ents had occurred.
5/ The Licensing 3 card granted NES's withdrawal of request for hearing in an order dated' April 30, 1982.
MORGAN3 LEWIS & BOCKluS Richard E. Cunninghan May 24,1982 Page 5 that Order, NFS was obligated, inter alia, to request the Commission "to dismiss the pending proceedings . .. .
initiated by NFS relating to Change No. 31 to License No. .
CSF-1, without prejudice to the initiation of further pro-ceedings if the Settlement Date does not occur within one year . . . ."
By letter agreement dated February 18, 1982, NYSERDA and NFS agreed that NFS would tran'sfer the West Valley facilities to DOE as soon .as DOE was ready to accept possession, and, effective on such transfer, NYSERDA accepted surrender of the facilities. DOE assumed exclusive possession on February 25, 1982. Thus, two of the condi-tions necessary for Change No. 32 to be implemented have occurred.
Standards for Issuance of a Show Cause Order.
NFS agrees with the Staff's determination that th'e Sierra Club petition does not meet the standards for a show cause order.
Under 10 C.F.R. S 2.202 an order to show cause shall "[a]llege the violations with which the licensee is charged, or the potential hazardous conditions or other facts deemed to be sufficient ground for the proposed action." 10 C.F.R. 5 2.20e allows any person to request the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to issue such an order provided that the request "shall specify the i
action requested and set forth the facts that constitute the
- basis for the request."
( -
l Thus, a request for a show cause order must meet a certain factual threshold before it need be considered by the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. The Director is required to make an "fnquiry appt.opriate to the i facts as asserted." Consolidated Edison Cocoany of New York l (Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and 3), CL1-75-S, 2 NRC 173, 175 l (1975). "[H]e is not required to accord presumptive valid-ity to every assertion of f act, irrespective of its degree l of substantiation . . . Northern Indiana Public Serv'.ce I Coccany (Bailey Generatl,.,"ng Station, Nuclear-1), CL1-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 432 (1978) . " General allegations that a particular action is n'eeded or certain objectives should be met are, t
e ..
MORGAN, Lewis E. BOCKlUS ,
Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 6 without more, insufficient to provide an adequate basis for relief under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206." Metropolitan Edison Cocoany (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
DD-80-14,11 NRC 581, 582 (1980) .
The Sierra Club petition fails to meet the factual threshold standard. As will be discussed more completely below, all of its allegations are based on conjecture, with-out any factual predicate. The Club's request for a show cause order is completely without- factual basis and there-fore does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206.
Furthe rmo re , even if the Sierra Club had supported its allegations with some factual basis, S 2.206 is an improper vehicle for the Club'sfreguest for a show cause order. The purpose of a show cause order is to investigate license violations and hazardous conditions at a particular facility. The Club's. request can be fairly characterized
- not as an allegation of license violations or hazardous conditions at the West Valley facilities but rather as a challenge to the propriety of the Commission's action.in issuing Change No. 32.
Such an allegation of improper Commission deci-sion=aking is beyond the purview of S 2.206. 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206 may not be used "as a vehicle for reconsideration of is sues previously decided. . . ." Indian Point, suora, 2 NRC at 177 ; Marble ' dill, suora, 10 NRC at 015, n.3. Thus, as the Commission has done, the Sierra Club's letter should be l treated as a request for reconsideration of the Commission I
action issuing Change No. 32 rather than a request for a show cause order. Since the Sierra Club's contentions fail to support either type of request, however, the outcome in f either case should be the sa=e. .a l ~
Soecific Sierra Club Allegations Tining of Chance No. 32. The Sierra Club ques-tions whether the Commission should have issued a license i
atendment which allows NF.S to be terpinated as a titular licensee before DOE departs the West Valley sit'e at theThe l coapletion of the West Valley Demonstration Project.
j Club seems to be asserting that the Commission acted l
i= properly in issuing Change No. 32; however. the Club l
l l
l
e
- MORGANgl.EWIS 3. BOCKlUS Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 7 presents no reasons why issuance of'Furthermore, this change before the Club project termination was improper.
asserts no license violation nor hatardous condition relat-ing to Change No. 32 which would mandate issuance of a show cause order.
It is important to. keep in mind the status of NFS, NYSERDA and DOE as they relate to the West Valley facili-DOE now has exclusive possession of the facilities ties.
and is actively carrying out the' West Valley remonstration Proj ect . When it completes that project, DOE must turn the West Valley facilities over to NYSERDA, which will be obli-gated both under NRC License No. CSF-1, Changes No. 31 and 32, and its agreement with DOE to accept surrender of the West Valley f acilities from DOE and to take the actions necessary to obtain any additional license amendments required by the Commission. .
Under the provisions of Change No. 31, NYSERDA may reacquire control from DOE only in accordance with technical specifications which the Commission deems nec'essary and proper. DOF will remain in control of the West Valley f acilities until the Commission is satisfied that, if an NRC license is still required, NYSERDA meets the criteria neces-sary to possess the facilities and to carry out any residual health and safety activities required at West Valley.
NFS, on the other hand, does not have the legal capability to resume possession of the Wes; Valley facili-ties. Change No. 31 excludes NFS from possession of the NRC-licensed West Valley facilities for the duration of the DOE project. Furthermore, upon acceptance of surrender of the West Valley facilities by NYSERDA on February 25, 1981, l
NFS' right to possession of the facilities ended. a l It also should be noted that in order to implement the DOE proj ect, DOE's contractor hired the NFS employees at West Valley and acquired (tnrough NYSERDA) the equipnent used by NFS at the site.
I Since the project arrangenents assure continuity of legal and technical control of the facilities by DOE and NYSERDA, there is no reason why the Cocmission should have waited for project completion before establishing the condi-If, af ter DOE project tions for removing NFS as a licensee.
i
- m. .
MORGAN, LEWIS 5. BOCK!U3 ,
Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 3 completion, NYSERDA is required by, the Commission 'to satisfy so=e technical standards before reacquiring the facilities, the fact that NFS was still a licensee would in no way affect the ability of NYSERDA, or any other organization, to meet those standards. Thus, the Commission properly found that Change No. 32 would entail no significant hazard consideration.
Technical and Financi~al Qualifications of NYSERDA. The
~ Sierra Club asserts that NYSERDA's rinancial anc technical qualifications nust be considered at a hearing before Change No. 32 becomes effective. Again, the Club presents no facts to substantiate this assertion, which seems to allege Com-mission impropriety in issuing the license amendment rather than violations by a licensee or existence of hazardous conditions.
The Sierra Club fails to' identify any statutory or regulatory requirement for a hearing prior to the issuance of the license amendment in question. This~is understand-able since the acendment was issued in complete compliance uith applicable NRC regulations. The Director of "uclear
- taterial Safety and Safeguards issued the anendnent pursuant to *O C.F.R. S 50.91. Notice of issuance was published in the Federal Register in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.106.
No orior notice was retuired because the Commission found that the acend:ent involved no significant hazards consider-ations. Thus, it is unclear upon what grounds the Sierra Club bases its contention.
The Sierra Club also questions the Cocaission's conclusion that NYSERDA, as an agency of the State of New York, possesses sufficient institutional stability and financial resources for any post-proj ect activities. Aga fn , -
however, the Club presents absolutely no grobnds for ques-tioning the ability of NYSERDA to fulfill its contractual and license cocaitments. NFS notes that the Waste Storage Agreenent between NFS and NYSERDA, entered into in 1963, contemplated that NFS =ight turn over the high-level liquid waste to NYSERDA during -the period of operation of the West Valley facilities, and in any event would do so upon expira-tion of that Agreement on December 3.1, 1980. NFS submits that in issuing License No. CSF-1 phe Commission (then ARC) considered and recognized that NYSERDA had a long-tera
r- 1
- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKlUS Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 9 responsibility for the West Valley 'f acilities, and.had the capability to obtain the necess ary financial and technical .
qualifications to possess the .lest Valley facilities afterIt
. completion or termination of its arrangements with NFS.
is premature at this time to reconsider NYSERDA's capability to obtain the necessary technical and financial qualifica-tions to assume responsibility for these facilities at some
' future time after completion'of the DOE project.
Even if the propriety 6f the Commission's action in issuing the amendment based on its conclusions as to NYSERDA's financial qualifications were an appropriate reason for requesting a show cause order under S 2.206, the Sierra Club has certainly failed to allege any facts which would call the decision into question.
Unevaluated Safety Ouestions: Possible License Violations. -
The Sierra Club has utterly solid failedwastes to present were.any factual buried impro-basis for its " belief" that The Sierra-Club's perly in the NRC-licensed burial ground. position seems to is unclear and that a survey by the New York State Geologi-cal Survey "may help clarify the geology. . .if theHowever, work is if scientifically-based and done with integrity."
the survey is done improperly because of "the biases of the New York State Geologic Survey," further surveys would be necessary. One must assume that either the Sierra Club believes the New York State Geologic Survey will not fulfill l its lawful responsibilities or that the Sierra Clubagree is hedging its bets in case the survey results do not with the Club's preconceptions. '
In any event, a person requesting a show cause .;
i
' order must demonstrate "how the requested actions will Three Mile Island, sunra, satisfy his particular concerns."
It is not enough to allege that some 11 NRC at 582.
proble=s may exist. The person requesting a show cause order under 5 2.206 =ust demonstrate "the nexus" Publicbetween Servicethe alleged problems and the action requested.
Comoany of Indiana. Inc e, (Marble Hill Nuclear. Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-7 9-17,10 NRC 613, 615 (1979) .
The Sierra Club has clearly failed to demonstrate such a nexus.
Even if the Club's unsupported allegations I-- - -
MORGAN.LEWID 3. BOCKlUS
- Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 10 were true, the issuance of Change No. 32 has no impact on the health and safety issues of such a situation. After the conditions in Change No. 32 are met, NYSERDA will still be a licensee. If prior license violations are detected at sone future date, the Commission will have a licensee to turn to for correction of the situation. Thus, release of NFS as licensee would not affect any remedial activities at the
. West Valley site necessary for public health and safety.
License Transfer / Termination. The Sierra Club contends that the Commission i= properly characterized Change No. 32 as a license amendment issued pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.91. The Club asserts that it should have been categorized as a license transfer under S 50.80 and, further, that the condi-tions for license termination under S 50.82 have not been cocplied with. Again, the Sierra Club does not allege a license violation or hazardous condition which would appro -
priately be the subject of a show cause crder. Again, also, the allegations are incorrect.
License No. CSF-1 is not being transferred to a new licensee so as to f all within the provisions of 10 C.F.R. S 50.80. Rather the roles of the already approved licensees are being redefined, as provided for by the terms of the license. License No. CSF-1, paragraph 4. A, contem-plates that the Commission cay issue an amendment to the license at any time, because of changes in the relationships between NFS and NYSERDA, to reflect "the future responsi-bilities of NFS and (NYSERDA] with respect to satisfying Corrission regulatory recuirements." Either licensee may request the amendment.
Change No. 31 substantially altered the original.
roles of the co-licensees by authorizing transf er of exclu~-
sive possession of the West Valley f acilitier, by restrict-ing the authority and the obligations of the co-licensees, and by directing that on completion of the DOE project they would, "as their interest may appear," make a timely applica-tion to the Commission for authority to possess and use the facility. Change No. 32 nerely recognizes tha~t, once NFS surrendered and NYSERDA accepted the West Valley facilities, and the other conditions of Change No. 32 have been met, NYSERDA has the sole obliga:Lon to/ipply for and be respon-sible for any license requirements inposed by Commission l
e
- MORGAN3 LEWIS 3. BOCKlUS Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 '
Page 11 with respect to possession and use.of the West Valley facilities. Thus, the licensees, under the terms of their -
license, appropriately requested a license amendment and the
. Commission appropriately approved such an amendment pursuant to S 50.91.
10 C.F.R. S 50.82. applies to voluntary surrender
' of a license coupled with dismantling of the facility by the licensee. By its terms S 50.82 is inappropriate for the situation at West Valley where DOE was authorized and directed by Congress to decontaminate and decommission the West Valley facilities, NYSERDA, as owner of the facilities',
contracted to give exclusive possession to DOE, and NFS has S 50.82, of no control or authority over those activities.
course, does not limit the Commission's authority to termi-nate a license but rather sets criteria and guidelines for such actions when the Commission determines thatfeertain disposal and dismantling procedures by the licensee are .
necessary to protect public health and safety. In this instance, DOE, under the West Valley Act, has the responsi- .
bility for disposal and dismantling of the Uest Valley facilities in accordance with Commis~sion requirements.
Dangerous Licensing Precedents. The Sierra Club's argument enat allowing DOE to take possession of and decommission the West Valley f acilities relieves the licensees of decommis- DOE's sioning responsibilities is completely irrelevant.
the Congressional nan-decommissioning activities carry out date established in the West Valley Demonstration Project AcC.
The Sierra Club seems to fear that Change No. 32 will somehow open a floodgate of DOE intervention in the decom=issioning of nuclear facilities which will relieve '
licensees of their deco =missioning responsibilities. It is impossible to imagine DOE assuming decommissioning responsi-bility for any privately owned nuclear facilities If the Sierra Clubwithout feels being directed to do so by law.
that such a law would be ill-conceived then the place to challenge it, if and when it would ever be considered, is before Congress. In any case the decommissioning of- the West Valley facilities is not a "very bad precedent", but rather a unique situation which Congress decided to deal with in a particular way.
p ,.
MORGAN, Lewis 5. Bocx US ,
Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 12 Public Interest Not S e rved. This contention is a conclusion based on the contentions discussed above and, for the rea-sons aircady stated, is incorrect. Simply stated, the Sierra Club can point to no valid public health or safety interest which would be served if Change No. 32 were rescinded. Furthermore, the Commission validly issued If Change No. 32 in accordance with Commission regulations.
the Sierra Club believes that these regulations are invalid, this petition to the Director.is an inappropriate method to challenge them. .
Imorocer Notice. The Sierra Club's contention that itwas wasa entitled to pFEor notice of Change No. 32 because it party to an earlier construction permit proceeding That proceeding is was terminated in entirely without = erit.
1977 at the direction of the Commission, see, Mixed Oxide Fuels, CLI-77-33, 6 NRC 861, 862 (1977) . ~3 Terra .Ciuo claims that it was not served with the order terminating the pro -
ceeding. Even if true, this does not change the fact that the proceeding was terninated. .
In any case, the Sierra Club certainly had the opportunity to concent on the removal ofNFS NFS as licensee proposed a long before Change No. 32 was issued.
license amendnent on October 6, 1981 which would have termi-nated NFS as licensee incediately upon Notice DOE assuming posses-of the proposed sion of the West Valley f acilities.
acendment was published in the Federal Register on November i
! 13, 1981 and copies of the proposal were =ade available for For whatever public inspection in the ' Jest Valley area.
reason, the Sierra Club chose not to cc cent on.the proposal.
Now, over 4 months after it first had the opportu-nity to comment on renoval of NFS from License No. CSF-1,'
the Sierra Club has belatedly conjured up a' number of In the alleged reasons for not allowing such re= oval.
meantime, however, NFS has substantially changed its posi-l I tion under the assumption that it could be re=oved from the license before DOE proie.ct .ompletion.
c . .
While th.e Sierra Club has suffered no prejudice by l the issuance of Change No. 32, for the Concission to now reconsider Change No. 32 would be^ extre=ely prejudicial to
r-- ,,
MORGAN, Lewis & BOCKlUS Richard E. Cunningham May 24, 1982 Page 13 NFS since this amendment was relied upon by NFS in agreeing to the court-approved Settlement Order with NYSERDA, in
- withdrawing its request for a hearing on Change No. 31, and
. in voluntarily transferring exclusive possession to DOE.
Commission acceptance of the specific conditions in Change No. 32 for termination of NFS' responsibilities as a Commis-sion licensee was a necessary prerequisite for those NFS
. actions. Had the Commission. questioned the application for Change No. 32, or had anyone raised a question about termi-nation of NFS as licensee before' project completion, NFS would have insisted on maintaining the status quo at the West Valley facilities until those questions were resolved.
Conclusion NFS submits that the Sierra Club has fat' led to advance any facts as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, which -
would warrant a show cause order. In fact, the issues
}
presented by the Club, questioning the propriety of the ~
' Commission's action in issuing Change No. 32, are not even properly raised under 10 C.F.R. S 2.202. Therefore, the Commission acted appropriately in not considering the Sierra Club's letter as a valid petition for a show cause order.
Furthermore, the Sierra Club has presented no valid grounds to justify Commission reconsideration of Change No. 32. The amendment was properly issued in accord-ance with valid Commission regulations. No public health, safety, or interest issues have been presented which would be alleviated by rescission of Change No. 32. Therefore, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Connission to recon-sider the issuance of this valid license amendment.
Sincerely
/ '9 ,
kv WN
- 0. S. Hiestand Attorney for Nuclear Fuel Services , Inc.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '.
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-201
) Provisional Operating NUC_IAR 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 fol' lowing:
Richard E. Cunningham, Director Neil J. New=an, Esquire Di-ision of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
' Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 6000 Executive Boulevard Safeguards -
Rockville, Maryland 20852 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Warren E. Bergholz, Jr. Esquire Office of General Counsel Lawrence Brenner, Chairman U.S. Department of Energy Ad #nistrative Judge 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Atcric Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20587 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission -
Washington, D.C. 20555 Sierra Club .
Attn.: Dr. Marvin Resnikoff-Dr. Jerry Harbour 78 Eltwood Avenue Buffalo, Sew York 14201 Ad 'nistrative Judge Atcric Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director Mr. Peter A. Morris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Adrinistrative Judge Commission Atrcit Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Carrine J. Clemente, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==issic General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 New York State Energy Research and Develop =ent Authority Atomic Safety and Licen, sing Boart Two Rockefeller Plaza Panel -
Albanv, "
N.Y. 12223 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=missit Washington, D.C. 20555 Philio H. Gitlen, Esquire Whiteran, Oster=an & Hanna Atomic Safety and Licensing 99 "ashington Avenue .... - Appeal Panel.
Alb any, NY 12210 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc=issi.
Washington, D.C. 20555
/ i -
! kh De.._-
__ D : y27
.. ,c.
e 1982 Orris}s. Hiestand Attorney for Nuclear Fuel Services
-- . .- ._ _