ML20054E918
| ML20054E918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1982 |
| From: | Jack H NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E914 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206150032 | |
| Download: ML20054E918 (5) | |
Text
- s New York B:Te Energy Research and Development Authority Two Rockefeller Plaza. Albany, New York 12223 (516)465-6251 9* I R\\.
S
.x.
Rf~o -
(L, rn*t)
A
'IUN May 27, 1982
{,
- u. s, y,,,g/Sgg,
L-l Cons.,k4ta,y kun 1
%itg*ctrory p
Mr. Richard E. Cunningham Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Docket No. 50-201 Cear Mr. Cunningham:
I am writing in response to your request for the Authority's views on the Sierra Club's " shew cause petition" in this docket, which you are treating as a petition for recensideration of Change No. 32 to License No. C3F-1.
Change No. 32 would terminate the authority and responsibility of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. ("NFS") upon the cceurrence of certain events, including a comprehensive settle =ent of the litigatica among the Authority, NFS, and Getty Oil Ccepany ("Getty")
in the United States District Ccurt fer the Western District of New York
("Cistrict Court").
The Sierra Club's petition ("3.C. Petition")
provides no legitimate reason 'er recensidering or rescinding Change No.
32.
First, the Sierra Club asserts that amending License No. CSF-1 to j
provide for potential termination of NFS's authority and responsibility is nct necessary at this time, and that the matter could be put off for up to 2C years, whenever the West valley Demonstration Project I
("Proj ect") being carried cut by the Department of Energy ("CCE)" is l
ccepleted (S.C. Petitien at 4). The Sierra Club does not provide any substantial reasen why this matter should be put off, hewever, or explain why Ccenissicn action new was improper. The issuance of Change Mc. 32 at this time was entirely consistent with what the license for the facility at West Valley has always centemplated. Terrdnation of NFS's responsibilities pursuant to Change No. 32 will occur only if a cceprehensive settlement of the pending contractual disputes in the Distri:t Court litigation between the Authority and NFS and Getty
/
l I
t l
l 8206150032 820607 PDR ADOCK 05000201 l
0 PDR 1
becomes effective.1/ If co=prehensive settlement occurs in accordance with the established framework, then the parties' contractual disputes will be resolved; NFS and Getty will make certain additional payments to aid the Authority in meeting license responsibilities, if any, that re=ain upon ccepletion of the Project; and the Authority will have reserved certain claims against NFS and Getty related te those responsibilities.
In that way, the cceprchensive settlement will clear the way for Change No. 32's redefinition for the future of the respective authorities and responsibilities of the co-licensees, NFS and the Authority, as contecplated by Paragraph 4. A. of the license. Thus, there was ncthing improper or inappropriate in issuing Change No. 32 now.
Second, the Sierra Club argues that the Ccamission staff should have held a hearing on the financial and technical qualifications of the Authority to assu=e responsibility for the long-term care of the freility site upon completion of the OCE Project.
(S.C. Petition at 4-5.)
Such an inquiry is unnecessary with' respect to Change-No. 32.
The financial and technical qualifications of the Authority, as a state agency, to take responsibility for the icng-term care of the facility 7
site after required decccmissicning were evaluated and determined in the process of originally issuing the operating license. CCI will decenmission the licensed facility to Cc==ission requirements as part of the Project. Thus, upon ccepletien of the Project, the Authority will be assuming no more licensing respcnsibility, if any, than the license etnterplated for the Authority when originally issued (i.e., leng-term raintenance, if any, necessary for any remaining high-level storage facilities). Moreover, because termination of NFS's respcnsibility-pursuant to Change No. 32 will cecur only upon the effectiveness of the cceprehensive settlement with NFS and Getty, the Authority wculd also have received additional ccrpensation from NFS and Getty to apply toward resting any such remaining respcnsibility.
The Sierra Club suggests also that the State evidently lacks adequate financial qualificatiens because it sought federal government assistance for solidificatien Of the high-level wastes at the facility.
(5.C. Petition at 5.)
This suggestion is based upcn an incorrect assurption. The State sought federal assistance for solidification, not because the State's financial rescurces are insufficient, but because the federal government bore a high degree cf responsibility for sclidification of the high-level wastes at West Valley. Thus, the State's call for substantial federal participatien in solidificatien was a natter cf equity and justice, and unrelated to the adequacy of the State's financial rescurces.
1/ The Sierra Club Petition asserts (at 2) that NFS applied for Change No. 32 by letter of Cetcher 6,1991.
That assertien is wrong.
The Octcber 6th NFS letter prepcsed an entirely different &=endment, which, unlike Change No. 32, did not depend en resolution cf the pending centractual disputes. The Octcher 6th proposal would thus have preceture?. terminated ':FS's license responsibilities and prejudiced the Authcrity's interests.
. s e
Third, the Sierrn Club speculates that solid wastes may have been t
buried in the Commission-licensed burial grounds in violation of the license.
Besides being speculative and unsupported, this concern has no bearing on Change No. 32.
Nothing in Change No. 32 affects any public l
health or safety requirements with respect to the NRC-licensed burial ground.
If comprehensive settlement between NFS and the Authority does not become effective, NFS will remain responsible under the license for a
any violations related to that burial ground and meeting public health and safety requirements.
If comprehensive settlement dces beccre effective, Section 9 of the Settlement pgreement, Stipulation, and Order entered in the District Court will still preserve to the Authority claims against NFS and Getty for violations, if any, related to the Cc= mission-licensed burial ground. In addition, the corprehensive settle ent would result in additional payments to the Authority from NFS and Getty, which the Authority could use to help meet the costs of future maintenance of the licensed burial grcund that might be required upon completion of the Project. For these reasons, the Sierra Club's concern over the Ccmmission-licensed burial ground is i =aterial to Change No. 32.
t J
, dierra Club argues that Change No. 32 constitutes a Fourth, thu transfer of license from NFS to the Authority pursuant to 10 CFR 550.80 and also that NFS f ailed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR $50.82 for an application to surrender a license voluntarily and dismantle a licensed facility.
(S.C. Petition at 6-7.)
These arguments are not well taken.
Change No. 32 does not involve a transfer-of License No.
3 CSF-1 frcm a licensee to a non-licensee, as contemplated by Section 50.82 of the regulations.
Pather, it involves the potential redefinition of the respective license authorities and responsibilities of the existing co-licensees, as expressly centemplated by the terms of Paragraph 4.A of the license as originally issued.
Ucr is Section 50.82 of the Cc mission's regulations applicable to Change No. 32. ))n the context of cceprehensive settlement of the pending contractual litigation accng the Authority, NFS, and Getty,
FS's request for Change Sc. 32 did net constitute an application by NFS te independently surrender the license and dismantle the facility within the secpe of Section 50.82.
Change No. 32 is contingent ucon NFS (with its parent, cetty) undertaking, through a cc=prehensive settlement l
agreezert, respcnsibilities for participatica in meeting the require:ents of the Project, including dismantling of the licensed facility (as we,L1 as post-Project Cc= mission requirements, if any).
Chus, Change No.,32 simply recogni:es that the potential ecmprehensive settlement of the centractual disputes between NFS and the Authority will prtvide;for NFS participation in the dec mmissioning scheme for the i
facility entailed in the Project, thus cbviating any need for the C:=m:ssien to determine any independent respenaibilities of NFS for i
decc missi0ning.
(The dece missioning under the Project, of course, must be performed in accordance with Cett.ission requirements, as prcvided by Pub. L. No.96-365, thus ensuring the Project will meet the public health and safety and defense and security cbjectives Of Section 50.22 cf the regulations.)
Ey the sare :: ken,/ Change Nc. 32 ensures that the State's centractual rights a:ainst NFS with respect to de:::miss; ning the licensed fa:ility will net be pre:udiced.
1 4
i
~ -- -
Fifth, the Sierra Club centends that Change No. 32 sets a
" dangerous" precedent for future license terminations, by relieving NFS of responsibility for decommissioning the licensed facility.
(S.C.
Petition at 7.)
Change No. 32 will not have such an effect, hcwever.
To the contrary, because it is contingent upon comprehensive settlement of the District Court litigation, Change No. 32 will ensure that, pursuant to the terms of that settlement, NFS will contribute t ward the decc=missioning to be carried cut as part of the Project, as well as toward meeting post-Project requirements, if any, that might remain after DOE completes its work.
[Moreover, COE could not, as the Sierra Club suggests (S.C. Petition at 7), on its own " assume decommissioning responsibility" for nuclear reactor licensees in the future. Any cuch
" relief" of licensees would require an act of Congress.]
Finally, the Sierra Club argues that the issuance of Change No. 32 occurred without adequate nctice and opportunity for public review.
That position, too, is untenable. The Cc= mission made a proper determination, upon thorough analysis, that Change No. 32 does not entail a significant hazards consideration. Thus, no prior notice of the amendment was required and notice of issuance was properly published in the Federal Register pursuant to 10 CFR 552.106 and 50.91.
- Moreover, the Cc= mission had issued notice of NFS's earlier (October 6,1931) prcposal to terminate its license authority and responsibility two months before Change No. 32 was issued. The earlier NFS proposal would have terminated NFS's respcnsibility upon DCE takeover of the facility (i.e., earlier than Change No. 32 would) and without resolution of the pending District Court litigatien. Chus, the Sierra Club and the public were on notice of a proposed terminatica a=end ent much broader than Change No. 32, but did not raise any cbjection or cctment' on that possibility.
The Sierra Club also relies en its former status as a party to the lcng-dead prcceeding on NFS's early l? O's application to ecdify and expand the facility as warranting pricr notice of Change No. 32.
That earlier proceeding is irrelevant here. The preceeding en Chance No. 32 was separate frem and unrelated to the prcceeding on the expansica plan amend ent.
Moreover, NFS had notified the Cet=ission in 1976, and the Sierra Club has long had actual kncwledge, that NFS would no lenger i
prosecute its expansion plan; and in 1977 the Ccmcission terminated that prcceeding as part of its decision in "ixed Cxide ruels, CL;-77-23, 6 N:C 861, 262 (1977).
Whether er nct the Sierra Club received a ccpy of the order terminating that proceeding, the prceeeding is still icng terminated and still immaterial to Change No. 32.
I l
l f
\\
/
l I
I I
i
.e 4.
-l o.
For the reasons set forth above, the Sierra club's petition is without merit and the Authority therefore respectfully urges that the petition be denied.
Since gly,-
Y f
I
'h Howard A. Jack First Deputy Co sel-cc: Ja=es R. Wolf, Esq.
Orris S. Hiestand, Jr., Esq.
Marvin Resnikoff J