ML20058P805
| ML20058P805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1993 |
| From: | Walker N CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH, SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. |
| To: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| CON-#394-14520, RTR-NUREG-1484 00013, 13, NUDOCS 9312270280 | |
| Download: ML20058P805 (6) | |
Text
DEC 09 ' 93 12:46 SIERRA CLUB L.D.F.
605 Pal m
SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, fNC.
su Y,'
Tbr law Formfor the Ewironmental%s emer., ?
If*h....
IU Snw M. McKrd7 Ann! Adam 4 so Maguine Street. Suite 4ci New Orleans,IA 7o13o (504) sna394 ro (so4) W6m4:
wtum omca December 9, 1993 gam a m, an*rnt me)
A Ref: 00013 usm ex,na 5: afar-=er 08-814 Mr. John W. N. Hickey, Chief won c.r, %;w.on c, --n tumea h'==
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissibn
%u es.rmtres Chief, Enrichment Branch RO Ns=t" Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Mail Stop 4-E-4 nowt ome' sen traxin.c Wm..
Washington, D.
C.
20555 RE:
Docket No. 70-3070-ML;
[J[$'),
ASLBP No. 91-641-02-ML; jor
.x u
( pecial Nuc1 ear 5 strie Whiegwn gg griels LiCsDas);
E,%'$'
P. posed Claiborne Enrichment Center, Homer, Louisiana
Dear Mr. Hickey:
Citizens Against Nuclear $ Trash
(" CANT"),
the intervenor in the above-refdrenced proceedings, on NUREG-1484, which requests that the comment period lt Statement is the Draft Environmental Impag
("DEIS")
for the proposed Claiborne Enrichment Center (" CEC"),
be extended for 31 least 90 days, through April 10, 1994.
THE CURRENT ColOMNT SCIEDdLE DENIES CANT ITS RIGHT UEDER NEPA TO A w miINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO ColomNT ON TR DEIS CANT is a citizens group dhose members consist 4
principally of neighbors of the proposed CEC.
The construction and operation of a large radioactive and g y,;3 toxic chemical factory in the midst of their community, with its potential impacts from' emissions and waste 2
generation, may well have severe adverse effects on the quality of life for CAFT members for many years to come, perhaps indefinitely.
However, in its DEIS, the NRC has now proposed to concludq that the impacts of the proposed facility are eitherfnonexistent,
)
9312270280 931209 6
PDR ADDCK 07003070 C
PDR th v.s.s,.,
,,n,1,e o,sms,,. m,,,
a member of Earth Sha g
DEC 69 '93 22:47 SIERRA CLUB L.D.F.
695 P@2 m
Mr. John W.
N. Hickey, Chief December 9, 1993 Page 2 insignificant, or outweighed by the benefit's of the project, and that the facility should be licensed.
The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires that before this proposed decision can be given effect, the public must have a full and f air opportunity to submit comments which challenge the basis for the NRC Staff's decision and which provide the Staff with relevant information that may influence the Staff's ultimate conclusion.
The current deadline of January 10, 1993 in no way provides a full and fair opportunity for public comment.
The DEIS is a very lengthy and technical document, which will require extensive review by CANT, its attorneys, and its experts.8 The issues which CANT must respond to in its, comments are complex, technical, and fact-intensive, including, but not limited to, the nature and extent of emissions from the plant, the adequacy of the NRC's discussion of waste disposal, the need for the enriched uranium to be produced at the plant, the effects of the plant on the surrounding community, and the inadeq4 ate ccnsideration of alternatives.
Over the last several years CANT has been working on technical and environmental issues as they.have appeared -- and been revised repeatedly -- in the license application.
- However, the DEIS reflects the opinion of the NRC Staff on these issues, and this is CANT's first opportunity to address the Staff's determinations.
It is both unreasonable and unfair to expect that the DEIS, which took the NRC several years to prepare, Dan be commented on in the course of only a few weeks -- over the wi6ter holidays no less.
Moreover, it will be difficult if not impdssible to obtain the services of technical experts over the holidays.
In fact, CANT's experts at the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, an organization with expertise in the area of environmental impacts of nuclear facilities, have already indicated an inability to perform their work under the current time constraints, adding that they 4
will require a minimum of 90 days.
t Contrary to the suggestion in the December 6,1993 letter 8
from Peter G. LeRoy, the licensing manager for applicant, I have apj; " read the document thoroughly."
Until ! received my copy of the DEIS on November 23, 1993, I had no information on the DEIS except the " Summary and Conclusions" which the NRC Public Affairs office faxed out to the press on November 17, 1993.
DEC 09 '93 12:48 SIERRA CLUB L.D.F.
605 P03 I
l Mr. John W. N. Hickey, Chief December 9, 1993
{
Page 3 j
i Tax CommmmT comummT scannULs nunzps cAur ITs RIGMT TO 3EhMINGFUL P4RTICTPATIDM lM.TER LICENSING ER& RINGS The provision of an adequate period for! Preparing comments on the DEIS is also inextricably linked tp CANT's meaningful participation in the licensing hearings Zor the CEC.
CANT intervened in this proceeding in 1991, in part because of its grave concerns regarding the potential adverse environmental impacts of the CEC on the surrounding commynity and its innvironment.
Based on the license application, CANT filed contentions that raised numerous concerns about the environmental impacts of the facility.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admiyted several of these contentions.
l CANT's comments on the DEIS must be thorbugh enough to lay the foundation for any positions that it ta)qos in the licensing hearings with respect to the environmental contentions that have been admitted.
Such thorough comments cannot possibly be prepared under the current comment schedule.
Furthermore,10 C.F.R. $ 2.714
)
(b) (2) (iii) specifically entitles CANT to have adequate time to review the DEIS and determine whether it provides any significant new information that should be raised in further contentions before the Licensing Board.
Thus, the comment patiod is, in effect, a l
critical phase of the litigation of enviro 4msntal issues in the licensing hearings.
l The comment schedule currently provided by the NRC Staff is grossly inadequate to allow CANT to review t:he DEIS, consider new contentions, and prepare comments.
Given the technical complexity i
of the issues and the importance of this phase of the proceeding to the litigation of environmental issues in the licensing hearings, i
an extension of 90 days is the minimum required to permit effective participation by CANT.
During the nearly three years that this matter has been pending, CANT has worked tirelessly and dilig$ntly in participating in this licensing proceeding, and has never (equested an extension of any deadlines until now, when the ne4d is crucial.
(In contrast, the applicant in this proceeding' has routinely taken inordinately long periods of time to furnish linformation requested by the NRC Staff -- as only one example of many, see attachment "1"
indicating that applicant took over one year; to respond to a June 25, 1991 request for additional information from the Staff.)
It would be grossly inequitable to now deny CANT!an appropriate amount of time to comment upon this most important ' document and consider the appropriateness of new contentions.
l
Mr. John W.
N. Hickey, Chief 9
December 9, 1993 Page 4 i
And finally, as counsel for CANT, ny inbility to review the DEIS, prepara comments, and consider new dontentions, has been severely hampered by the fact that I had a devastating fire at my home ten days ago, which has caused me ito look for another residence for my family and begin the process of acquiring clothing, furniture and all of the basic n$cessities to get our J
lives back in order.
I In short, in order to truly afford a niaaningful opportunity 4
for public participation, the comment period ishould be extended for at least 90 days, through April 10, 1994.
i I look forward to your response.
very trul'y yours, l
Nathalie M. Walker Attorney for CANT cc:
Administrative Judge, Morton B. Margulies Administrative Judge, Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge, Frederick J. Shon Secretary of the Commission Of fice of Commission Appellate Adjudication i
Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk Joseph DiStefano Peter G.
Leroy i
J. Michael McGarry, II l
I l
i homer \\deisl.ltr L
. ~ ~~
~
DEC e9 '93 12:49 cIERRA CLUB L.D.F.
605 PO5 s
i.O UIS W A EyERGY I
l l
~
l August 4, 1992
]
I 1
Mr. Louis R. C. Johnson, Administrator Ground Water Protection Division i
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quali;ty P O Box 4427, Baton Rouge, LA 70B04 i
Subject:
Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Claiborne Enrichment Center LADEQ Request to Line Hold-Up Basin File:
6046-00-2001.02
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Ns b
I This is in response to your letter of June 26, 1991,) dopy attached) which recommended lining hold-ul:Lbaait with a geotextile fabric liner.
Thank you for yotgr review cf the facility information we provided and your recommendation.
Both your letter and related discussions on this matter indicate that your reconnendation was based upon the discharge of water from building floor drains to the basin.
The design of systems which collect, treat,.and discharge wastewater at the facility has been modified.
As modified, the building floor drains will be routed to the' sewage treatment system for treatment prior to discharge.
The facility wastewater discharge will be at a single NPDES permitthd outfall.
This discharge will be to Bluegill Pond, not to the hold-up basin as planned in the earlier design which you reviewed.
As a result of these modifications, the only flows which will be received by the i
hold-up basin are stormwater collected from yard drains, building roof drains, and clean Utility System water used to test the Fire Protection System which is Collected in tho' yard drains.
Attached, for your information, is a copy of Safety Analysis Report Figure 6.4-36, Flow Diagram of yard Drains System, revised 1
June 1992 to reflect these modifications.
i These system design changes should alleviate any concern regarding the need for lining the hold-up b'asin.
Please notify us, in writing, of your acedptance of this response to your l
recommendation.
Thank you for your assistance.
WN
-