ML20114C598

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for June 1992.Page 205-260

ML20114C598
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/31/1992
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V35-N06, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V35-N6, NUDOCS 9209020326
Download: ML20114C598 (63)

Text

, _.. --..

..._ _ _ - _ _.. _.._. _.-~.. _ _._..

t NUREG-0750 i

1 Vo!. 35. No. 6 t

Pages 205-260 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES June 1992 i

j {..

b

(

b A'

L gy s

c s

-g,

.k,

-. n m

4 i

- J o

E

._g.

oj <l,. cis$

g-4 UQLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

9209020326 920831.

0 0R PDRi l

{ '.

=.

.u r

Available from Superir.tontendent of Documonts U.S. Government Printing Offico Post Offico Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexos, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical information Servico, Springfield, VA 22161 il Errors in this publication may.be reported to tho Division of Freedom of information and Publications Sorvices Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-

. Washington,' DC 20555 (301/492-8925)

L l.

l

1 NUREG-0750 Vol. 35, No. 6 Pagos P05-260 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES June 1992 This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors' Docisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM),

The summarios and headnotes proceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or have any Indopendent legal significance.

l l-i l

U.S. NUCLtAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

L Prepared by the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Washington, DC 20555 i

(301/492-8925) r i

l'

~..

COMMISSIONERS ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss Forrest J. Remick E. Gall de Planque B. Paul Cetter, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Ocard Panel

CONTENTS Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing floards

. LONO ISLAND LIOllTING COMI,,7 (Shorcham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1).

Docket $0-322-OLA 3 (ASLBP No. 91-642-10-OLA-3)

= (License Transfer) i ORDER, LBP-92-14, June 17,1992............,............ 207 LONO ISLAND LIOllTING COMPANY (Shorcham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1)

. Docket 50-322-DCOM (ASLUP No. 92-600-01 DCOM)

(Decommissioning Order)

ORDER, LBP-92-15, June 17,1% '..............,,..... 209 SAFETY LlOllT CORPORATION, et al.

(Bloomsburg Site Decontamination; License Renewal Denials)

Dockets 030-05980-ML&ML-2,030-05982-ML&ML-2 (ASLBP Nos. 92-659-01 ML,92-664-02-ML.2)

ORDER, LBP-9213A, June 11,1992........................ 20 5 Issuances of Directors' Decisions SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION (Gore. Oklahoma Facility) ~

Docket 40-8027 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.' 5 2.206, DD-92 2, J une 7, 1992...................................

211 SEQUOYAll FUELS CORPORATION (Gore, Oklahoma Facility)

Docket 40 8027 '

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, DD-92 3, J une 8, 1992................................. 236 iii

I Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarcs issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL B. Pauf Cotter,* Chief Administrative Judge Robert M. Lazo,* Deputy Chief Administrative J1dge (Executive)

Frederick J. Shon,* Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Technical) l Members Dr George C. Anderson James R Gloason Dr. Emmeth A. LuetAe Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Charios Bechhootor*

Dr. Cadet H Hand. J-i Peter B Bloch*

Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Morton B. Margulwn*

Gen O. Bnght Dr. David L. Hetnck Marshall E. Miller Dr A. Dixon Cathhan Emest E. Hill Dr. Peter A. Moms James H. Ca@ enter

• Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Rehard R. Parnek i

Dr. Rchard F. Cole ^

Ehzabeth B Johnson Dr. Harry Rein Dr. Thomas E. Elteman Dr. Watter H Jordan Lester S. Rubenstein Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr Charles N Kolbor*

Dr. David R Schenk Dr. Harry Foreman Dr Jerry R. Khne*

tvan W. Smith

• Or Richard F Foster Dr. Potor S Lam

• Dr. George Tkiey John H Frye til*

Dr. James C. Larnb ll1 Sheldon J. Wotfe I

• Permanent panel members i

i i

-l

~

p

- - ~. -,,,.

,,....--,.-.-,,.r..,,.,,ng..,--m,,ne,,

,.,n..

-,,,,,,-w-re.,-o

Cite as 35 NRC 205 (1992)

LBP-9213 A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD AND PRESIDING OFFICER Before Administrative Judges:

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman and Presiding Officer Frederick J. Shon James H. Carpenter in the Matter of Docket Nos. 030-05980-MLF ML 2 030-05982-ML&ML 2 (ASLBP Nos. 92 659-01 ML 92 664-02-ML-2)

SAFETY LIGHT CORPORATION, et al (Bloomsburg Sita Decontamination; License Renewal Denlais)

June 11,1992 ORDER On April 13,1992, the NRC Staff filed a motion seeking, inter alia, to have the portion of the Safety Light proceeding involving the D_irector's February

-7,1992 denial of the Licensees' renewal applications referred to the Chief Administrative Judge. By order dated June 1,1992 (unpublished), we referred

.that portion of the proceeding to the Chief Administrative Judge and, on June 9,1992, he severed the license renewal application denla!s from the proceeding and appointed a single pesiding officer to hear that portion of the case.

The Licensing Boards in the Safety Light ML proceeding and the Safety Light ML-2 proceeding find that the consolidation of these two proceedings for all purposes will be in the best interests of justice and b: most conducive to the effective and efficient resolution of the issues and the proceedings.- In such-circumstances,10 C.F.R. 52.716 empowers the presiding officers of the two.

205

- proccc4ings to consolklate them, indeed, at the May 8,1992 oral argument on its referral motion, the Staff conceded that the two proceedings, one a Subpart G proceeding and one a Subpart L proceeding, properly could be consolidated as a Subpart O p. xding pursuant to section 2316.* Accordingly, the Safety Light ML and ML 2 proceedings are hereby consolidated for all purposes, It is so ORDERED.

+.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS Thonm S. Moore, Chairman and stesiding Of0cer ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Frederick J. Shon

- ADMINISWATIVE JUDGE James H. Carpenter ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland, June 11,1992

• Tr. 61.

Moreover, the Stafr also suggested (Tr. 97) at the May 15,1992 prehcanns contcecnce in the Sgsry 14 hs ML 3

ptocordmg that the licensing Boant connotiJate the oM and oM-2 pnweedings with the ML pnweedmg for purpoons of deciding the common jurisdictional questims. We shall revuut that suggesdm afar we aceive ti.

patty's summary disposition filings on the jurisdicumal issues.

206

Cite at,35 f 4RC 207 (1992)

LDP 9214 Util1ED ST A1CS OF AMERICA f4UCLEAll REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOIAIC SAFETY Al4D LICEl4Gl!JG dot'1D Dolore Administrative Judges:

Thomas S. lAoore, Chairman D*. George A. Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. *(line in the IAatter of Docket flo. 60 322 OLA 3 (ASLDP flo. 91-04L10-OLA-3)

(License Transfer) lot 40 ISLA!1D UGHillJG COfAPAt4Y (Shoreham f4uclear Pom Staition, Unit 1)

June 17,1992 OllDElt On June 3,1992, the Petitioners, Shoreham-Wading River Central School

>istrict and Scientists and Enginects for Secure Energy. Inc., filed in the above-captioned license amend ~nt proceeding a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, their pending interventi Itions and hearing requests. Coun:.el for the NRC e

Staff, the Long Island Lighting Company, and the Long Island Power Authority consent to the granting of the Petitioners' motion.

• lhe Petitioners' motion to dismir.s, with prejudice, is granted. Accordingly, the proceeding is terminated.

E 207

I i

L f

it is so ORDERED, Tile ATOMIC SA113TY AND 5

1.lCENSING DOARD t,

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman l

ADMINIST11ATIVE JUDGE t

I Ocorge A. Ferguson ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Jerry n, Kline ADMINISTR ATIVE JUDGE 11cticsda, Maryland.

June 17,1992

- r

?

208

+

g.=.

g v.

-w*f--,.9

%.m..,

,c,,w,,

,,,.e.,,r.,

,,m,.-wWg-+*,-+rev<ww-++

v v.*we we*c.,-a,-'ng-==

-+-

=r wo ee--+-

e-+vww.-

-m e - w w-i e v =

e~-e e--> - e mww raw---*'vre

Cito as 35 iJRC 200 (1992)

L DP 9215 tA.'i1ED ST ATES OF AfAERICA IJUCLEAR REGULATORY COMtAISSIOfJ L

ATO!AIC SAFETY A!JD LICE!JSit4G BOARD Deforo Administrative Judges:

Thon.as S.1400:0, Chairman Dr. George A. retguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline in the lAatter of Docket IJo. 50 322 DCOIA (ASLBP flo. 92-GCO-01 DCOfA) l (Decommissioning Order)

LOlJG ISLAtJD LIGHTit4G COIAPAfJY (Shoreham lJuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

June 17,1992 OltDElt On June 3,1992, the Petitioners, Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" School District") and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE2"), fded in the above-captioned proceeding a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, their pendmg intervention petitions and hearing requests. According to the motion, it ".5 being Suomitted pursuant to the School District's and SE2's obligations ptauarit to certairt agreements, copics of which are attached."* The firt.t attachment is a settlement agiecment executed June 1,1992, between the School District and SE2, on the one hand, and the Long Island Ibwer Authority

("LIPA"), on the other hand, and settles all litigation tvetween these parties. The second attachtnent i an agreement between LIPA, on the one hand, and the

%.ri co[mua mm w Damm Ouw 3,1W3 si 2 209 m.-.-

County of Suffolk, the Town of Brookhaven, and the School District, on the -

other hand, and relates to certain assessments, taxes, and payments in lieu of taxes. Counsel for the NRC Staff, LIPA, and the Long Island Ligl ting Company j

consen' " #c granting of the l'etitioners' motion.

AP ed

• is not entirely clear under the Commission's regulations that we

]

nect

' p ve the June 1,1992 settlement agreement between the School 4

Dis.:v d ad LIPA, we nevertheless have, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.203, re-viewed it and conclude that the agreement and the termination of this proceeding i

are consistent with the public interest. Accordingly, the Petitioners' motion to

' dismiss, with prejudice, is granted; the settlement agreement (which is hereby 2

incorporated by reference into this order) is approved; and the proceeding is terminated.

Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.

- j 4

Thomas S. Moore Chairman ADMINIS1RA11VE JUDOB Ocorge A. Ferguson ADMINIS1RATIVE JUDGE Jeny R. Kline ADMINIS1RATIVE JUDGE l

liethesda, Maryland June 17,1992 i

t 210 4

a p

e rm 4-.+,.4-...y,nn,,e--

.,,_,..e_,.,,e..,ye..m,,-y.w,,

,m,,.

.ngv.v,,,.,w.

warm---w

+

erem-n-w w-- env e M -t-w we v 4 t r+ewet sw.sev e wavy w ymv 4-'gtw e g

==m-c e v -

P I

b 1

l i

'l Directors' Decisions Under 10 CFR 2.206 l

l l

d 1

l l

l l

l l

l

+

j 1

I l

j i

i I

l ll 2

s

Cite as 35 IJRC 211 (1992)

DD 92 2 UtJ11ED STATES OF AIAERICA tJUCLEAR REGULATORY COfAtAISSION OFFICE OF IJUCLEAR lAATERIAL SAFETY AtJD SAFEGUARDS Robert IA. Dernero, Director in the Matter of Docket IJo. 40-8027 SEOUOYAH FUELS CORPORA 110tl (Gore, Oklahoma Faellity)

June 7,1992 The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies a petition (" Limited Appearance Intervention and Obbction to Renewal" filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over the proceeding on

. the application for license renewal for Sequoyah Fuels Corporation's Gore. OL-lahorna facility, and refened by the Licensing Board to the Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission Staff for consideration under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206) and a supplemen-tary petition filed by Citizens' Action for a Safe Environment (CASE). The

-ltdllonei requested that the NRC deny Sequoyah Fuels Corporadon's (SIC) application to renew its license to operate the Sequoyah Fuels facility because of "the radionuclides and chemical toxies discharged by Sequoyah Fuels Rcility

[,1... the health affects (sic] to the general public," violadons of regulatory

. requirements, and environmental and external cost concerns. In addition, It-titioner requested that the NRC issue a temporary order staying the restart of SFC's operation and revoke StC's operating license because of the " licensee's unfitness to operate the facility."

LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS: DECOMMISSIONING l'UNDING

- 1 ack of approved certification of financial assurance for decommissioning in s

the amourn of $750,000 is not a basis to deny a renewal applicadon where the cerdlicadon is an interim' requirement intended to establish a minimum level of financial assurance for decommissioning pending licen;.c renewal. a 211

. ~.,

license condition currently requires the lleensee to maintam a reserve account for decornmissioning, and the reserve account contains over 5750,030.

NUCLEAlt RI:GULATOltY COhth11SSION: AUTituillTY 1he Nuc! car Regulatory Commission has no authority to enforce the condi.

tions of permits or licenses issued by other federal or state agencies, htATEltlALS LICENSES UNDEl4 PAltT 40: Ah1ENDStr.ilS 1he demonstration section of a license (Part 11, chapters 917 of the license application) is not incorporated into the license and does not conhin license requirements, and, therefore, changes to the demonstration scetion do not require NRC approval or licensing action.

- ATOh11C ENERGY ACT: TilANSI'ER OF CONTROL Ol' A LICENSE A name change not associated with a change in corporate structure or ownership is not a transfer of control of 9 license requiring prior NRC appraval in writing to be valid.

ATOh11C ENERGY ACTt blATERI ALS LICENSES The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, does not limit the terms of a umterials license issued under 10 C.F.R. Part 40. As a matter of policy and discretion, the Commission sets the terms of materials licenses to protect the public health and safety.

RULES OF PRAC'11CE: RENEWAL APPLICATION; ORDER REVOKING LICENSE Where petitioners hiive not provided the factual basis for their request with the specificity required by 10 C.F.R. 52.206, action need not be taken on their request.

ATOhtlC ENEltGY ACT: SCOPE OF INTERESTS PitOTECTED Protection of economic interests is not within the scope of the Atomic Energy

Act, 212 i

eiig ii ii iiii i i

. _ ~

'l ECllNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED tienefits of installing autoclaves for heating cylinders filled with UF,;

Segregation of process lab from environmentd lab; Solid waste disposal; Substitution of 11 for dissociated ammonia in UF, reduction plant; 3

Radiological contingency plan - frequency of exercises; De!cclion level for analysis of fluoride and nitrates in effluents:

Groundwater monitoring and contamination; Nitrate groundwater contamination from fertilizer application; Actual health effects of facility.

DIRECTOll'S DECISION UNDElt 10 C.F.H. 52.206 r

INTRODUCTION Dy Memorandum and Order dated 6 cost 2,1991 (unpublished), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over the proceeding rp the application for license renewal for Sequoyah Ibels Corporation (SIC) referred die Citizens' Action for a Safe Environrnent (CASE)" Limited Appearance 1%vention and Objection to Renewal" (Petition), dated July 1,1991, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) Staff for consideration as a petition under 10 C.F.R. 52.206. The Petition requests dial the Commission

' deny SPC's application to renew its license to operate the Sequoyah Ibels facility (facility) because of "the radionuclides and chemical toxics discharged by Sequoyah fbels lheility[,)... the health affects [ sic) to the general public." violattom of regulatory requirements, and environmental and external cost concerns. The Petition alleged the following bases for CASE's request:

(1) The SIC documentation purporting to meet a S750,00() decommis-sioning funding requirement is inadequate because (a) the SIC letter of credit and Citibank authoritation do not match, in that Citibank's assistant secretary states that Joseph Jaklitsch is a Services Officer but does not state that a Services Officer rnay sign and authenticate documents, does not state whether the letter of credit is a trust doc.

ument, does not state whether the letter of credit is a trust certificate or any other instrument that may be authenticated and signed by the specified officers, or whether the letter of credit is held in trust; (b) the instrument submined 1/4/91 and dated 7/27/90 is not primafacir binding; and (c) a decommissioning funding plan as per 10 C.F.R. 640.36, was to have been submitted at the time of the renewal appli-cation request; 213 9

a-----

9t*r----a r-i-w y

wa--

---

w+

w y

i-Tr re-*'er=-rmae

-C r'

+

r--

-m r

=

. -. ~-

(2) SFC is in violation of the license in that on 3 days in 1988 and f

1989, measurements of water effluents were either not made or j

i showed that certain measures fell outside ranges allowed by applicable environmental standards; (3) SFC promised to retrofit autoclaves on the main process building as i

a result of the 1986 offsite occurrence shutdown hearings and has not installed them; (4) since the last renewal, license amendments have beca made which adversely affect and impair the safety and efficiency of the facility; (5) renewal for a terrn of 10 yeats is twice as long as is statutorily permitted; (6) SFC is spreading about 270,000 gallons per day of barium treated ura-nitun raffinate solvent extract as " fertilizer" on approximately 10,000 acres with cumulative loading Maximum Ittmissible Concentrations set so very high that fatal toxicity would result; in addition, this prac-tice is antithetical to the 12/15/88 NRC " Review of Sequoyah Pucts

- Corporation 11/14/88 Report Entitled: %c Behavior of Five Mot.:.

tor Wells to Repetitive Evacuation," and soil farming should be halted under the Clean Water Act; and (7) the license falls to internalize the social and economic costs of the proposed activity onto the Licensce; in 1986, CASE requested the

..NRC to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the facility,

_ and this request was never ruled upon by the NRC and remains

. pending.

By letter dated August 27, 1991, the NRC acknowledged receipt of the

- 7 Petition and informed the Petitioner that the Petition would be reviewed in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 of the Commission's regulations and that a

' i decision would be issued within a reasonable time, ne letter also provided die -

Ittitioner the opportunity to submit a supplementary Petition to act forth the specifics of the concern to issue (4) which dealt wi'h licensing amendments that have adversely affected and impaired the safety and efficier;y of the facility.

On November 15, 1991, the Petitioner responded by submitting a " Supple-mental Petition for Emergency and Remedial Relief"(Supplement). %c Sup-picment specified six items under issue (4), described above. In addition, the

- Supplement requested t' ult the NRC issue a temporary order staying die restart of

. SFC's operation and revoke SIC's operating license because of the "llcensce's unfitness to operate the facility" %c Supplement alleged the following six l

ltems as bases for CASE's request:

. (1) The name change from "New Sequoyah Fuels Corporation" to "Se-l quoyah Fuels Corporation" was intended to shield Sequoyah Riels International, the hohling company, from liaNiity for the acts of Sc.

. quoyah Riels Corporation - the Licensee in prior years; as a result, 214 l

-ve er v

p+-,

r

,rv.

p

-ym,..,,

--w-r-

,,r+

i--w,y, w

r,

~ -

+

p----

e-vv.

t

'in the event of a forced cleafiup, attorneys lesponsible for identify.

ing primarily responsible parties will have a tougher time of properly identifying the Parent Corporation; (2) the segregation of the process taloratory from the environmental lab-oratory results in an isolated testing environment not accurately re.

flecting the true radiological conditions at the facility and is an admis-slon that background levels are so high as to influence environmental samples; (3) SFC revised its " Solid Waste" plan and notice was not given to interested parties of the revision; (4) a March 12,1990 requested revision substituted hydrogen (11,) foi dissociated ammonta in the UF, facility, thereby significantly increas.

ing fire risk within the facilhy; in addition, because the ammonta was the beneficial component in the ruffmate that is used as fertiliter, surface application should be regulated as a waste strearn and not as a beneficial " byproduct" of the process; (5) the September 7,1990 license amendment request to reduce SIC's onsite emergency exercises from annual to blennial is unwarranted in light of the 1986 release o~ uranium hexafluoride into the atmosphere, because SPC did not klentify what percentage of Plan cooperatmg agery pesonnel have never been through a drill; and (6) on September 11,1989 revisions to chapter $ of the license applica-tion were made, v hich (a) do not appear in the license and increased the facility's permissible effluent discharge of fluoride in violation of the Clean Water Act, (b) set nitrato discharge levels at double the maximum permissible level allowed for public and ;rivate drinking water supplies, and (c) reduced rnonitoring frequency for wcils, al.

lowing the facility to continue to weaken its permit with less frequent modifications.t.

Ily letter dated December 23,1991, the NRC acknowledged receipt of the Supplement, inforrned the Petitioner that the Supplement would be reviewed in accordance with section 2.206'of the Commission's regulations and that a decision would be issued within a reasonable time, and denied the Petitioner's request for immediate relief.

I have now completed my evaluation of the matters raised by the Ittitioner in both the Petition and the Supplement and have determined that, for the reasons stated in this Decision, the Petitioner's request should be denied, 3in addition,8%dthuiar aska the sun to irigmre whether "telaimm knuts should be sa by oklaks since cruas Alpha maairnwns would subeume dwe." sins rio rarther ongdanadun or this nutter mas pnwided, dw Sneft dedirus to make sah an irmjuary. However. sedan diwherse krnas are ad by 10 c ER. Pan 20, Anenas D, Table II, ed 2, arul rau under the NRC's jurisdicuan 215 m

V

I IIACKGROUND On August 29,1990. SIC submitted an application to renew Source hiaterial License No. $Ull.1010, which authorites SIC to operate the Sequoyah Ihels facility. In response, on September 28, 1990, Native Americans for a Clean Envi onment (NACE) filed a request, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.120$, for a headng on the application. On January 24, 1991, the Licensing Board issued an order in which it granted NACE's request for a hearing. See LiiP 915, 33 NRC 163 (Mernorandum and Order (Requests for licating and Ittitions for Leave to Intervene)). *lhe order afforded other interested persons the opportunity to file peutions for leave to intervene within 30 days of the order's publication, i.e., by March 25,1991. CASE filed its Itution on July 1,1991, and provided no explanadon for the delay. On August 2,1991, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.1205(k)(2), the Licensing Board issued an order (unpublished) i referring CASB's Ittidon to the NRC Staff for consideration under secuon 2.206. On Novemter 13,1991, CASE filed a Supplement with the NRC Staff for consideration under section 2.206.

DISCUSSION in um Petitkin, CASE opposes SFC's license renewal and requests that the Commission deny renewal of the SIC license. In the Supplement, CASE opposes the restart of the SIC facility and requests revocadon el the SIC license.

As discussed above, the Pedtioner raises seven issues as grounds for its requested relief. Each issue is considered below.

1.

Decommissioning l'unding

'Ihe lttidoner asserts that SIC's license requires that adequate assurance of funding for decommissioning be provided, and the Ittidoner questions the adequacy of SIC's decommissioning submittals. 'The Ittitioner asserts that on January 4,1991, SFC submitted inadequate documentadon purporting to meet the $750,000 decommissioning funding requirement. Ittidoner further asserts that the letter of credit and Citibank autleritation do not match; that Citibank's assistant secretary does not state that a Services Officer may sign and authenticate documents; that the document does not state whether the letter of credit is an instrument that may be authenticated and signed by the specified officers; that the document does not state whether the letter of credit is held in trust; and that the htstrument submitted January 4,1991,' and dated July 27, 1990, is not prima facie binding.

216

,y

,-+-n w-

.m-

.y y

p

• Ihe regulations in 10 C.F.It (4036(c)(2) require that licensees authorized to possess certain amounts of source material sutanit, on or before July 27, t

1990 a decommissioning funding plan or certificate of fmancial assurance for decommissioning in an amount at least equal to $750,000. On July 26,1990, SfC submitted its financial assurance package intended to meet the requirements of section 4036 and provided supplemental information on January 4,1991.

The January 4,1991 submittal was additional information to address some deficiencies related to the July 26,1990 submittal. The January 4,1991 letter makes it clear that the submittal is additional information and was not intended to meet the $750,(X0 certification requirement by itself.

The Staff has reviewed SfC's financial assurance documents and has identi.

fled four deficiencies, which are documented in a March 4,1992 letter to SFC.

• lhe deficiencies involve the standby trust agreement, the letter of credit, and the letter of acknowledgment and are described below First, SIC has been re-quested to amend the nodfication-of nonrenewal provision in the letter of credit to require notification by "centfled mall, as shown in the signed return reccipts" instead of by registered airmail as shown on the signed return receipt. Sec.

ond, MC has been requested to resubmit the letter of acknowledgment with tie standby trust agreement since the submitted letter cenifies the signature and authority of the financial institution representative to execute a letter of credit for tie tunk, but does not verify the execution of the standby trust agreement.

Third, SIC has been requested to modify the withdrawal limit of the standby trust agreement fmm $0% to 10% Finally, SfC has leen requested to modify section 11 of the standby trust agreement concerning trustec consultation with

counsel, The January 4.1991 documents on which petitioner relics to support the assertion that the submittal is inadequate was not the complete certification package. Ilased on the complete cenification package, the Petitioner's alleged deficiencies, as described t,bove, raise valid assenions only insofar as they aclate

. to the failure of SIC's submitted acknowledgment letter to verify the execution of the standby trust. SFC will be required to correct this deficiency, as well as the other deficiencies identified by the Staff.

The lack of an approved certification of financial assurance for decommis-sioning in the amount of $750,000, however, is not a basis to deny the renewal application for the following reasons. First, the requirement for the $750,0(0 certification is an interim requirement intended to establish a minimum level of financial assurance for decommissioning pending the license renewal. The July 26,1990 and January 4,1991 submittals are not part of the renewal application, but relate to the current license and will be superseded by the decommissioning funding plan upon license renewal. Second, SFC is required by the license to maintain a reserve account for decommissioning; the account curn ntly contains

_ over $750,000. This license requirement served a function similar to section 217

40.36 prior to the codification of section 40.36. While this requirement is more substantial than the certificatiort requirement of stclion 40.36. it too was not intended to provide the level of financial assurance for decommissioning that a decommissioning funding plan provides. The reserve account requirement will also ic euperseded by the decommissioning funding plan upon license renewal.

'Ihcref(re, the alleged and real deficiencies in the Janua:y 4,1991 submittal do not provide a basis to deny the license renewal application.

"Ihe Petitioner asserts that the renewal application is incomplete in that it lacks j

a deconmissioning funding plan and, therefore, the license renewal appheadon cannot te gmnted. SIC did submit a document with the renewal application titled the "Dty:ommissioning Funding Plan for Sequoyah Pacility." In the fundmg plan, STC committed to provide fmancial assurance for decommissioning in the form of an irrevocable standby letter of credit that meets the criteria in 10 C.F.R. 6 40.36(c). SIC will execute the letter of credit _ once the NRC accepts

. the Decommissioning Funding Plan. As SIC has submitted such a plan, the Peutioner's contention regarding the lack of a decommissioning funding plan provides no basis for denying SFC's license renewal applicadon.

2.

Illstorical Violations

'the second reason the Petitioner asserts for denial of the license is that

. SFC was in violation of its license four thnes in 1988 and 1989 and that these historical violations show that SPC lacks the requisite experdse and character to operate the facility. 'Ihe four violations referred to by the Petidorer were not violations of NRC reguladons or SFC's NRC License No. SUlbl010, but were violations of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systern (NPDES) permit that i; issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Although the NRC may review the general compliance history and the status of both the NPDES permit and the Okla'ioma Water Resources Board (OWRB) discharge permit issued to the facility as part of an environmental review under 10 C.F.R. Part $1. the NRC has no authority to enforce tic conditions of he t

permits. Only EPA and OWRB have jurisdiction to enforce these dischvge permits. Violations of these permits do not constitute violations of the NRC-issued license or any other regulatory requirement of the Commission 'Ihe Petition does not pre ent any reasons why these violations amonstrate SIC to be unfit to operate the facility in any other respect. Accordingly, the alleged violadons are no basis to deny STC's application for renewal of its NRC license.

218 a

m.

..w

..O.,

,y

,m,.

.,.,._.w.,,

-o.,.,

c., _,

..r.,_

3.

Itetrofitting of Autoclaves

• Ihe Ittitioner asserts that at the time of die last renewal, SIC made promises that it did not keep regarding operating parameters. Specifically, the IYudoner asserts that autoclaves' were to be retrofitted in the main process buildng as a result of the 1986 offsite-occurrence shutdown hearings and pursuant to promises made in the llouse Subcommittee llearings (Markey investigation).1he Petitioner notes that these autoclave plans were abandoned, j

and no autoclaves have been installed.

ittitioner's concesn regarding autoclaves is rooted in the following sequence of events. On January 4,1986, a 14. ton cylinder filled with uranium hexafluoride i

ruptured while it was being heated in a stearn chest at the Sequoyah Fuels facility.

I 1hc rupture resulted in a release of uranium hexafluoride. The incident occurred because SIC heate1 a cylinder containing uranium hexafluoride in excess of the normal hmits for filling in a steam chest without knowing the actual amount of material in the cylinder or providing for pressure measurement, venting, and automatic termination of heating while the cylinder was in the steam chest. As a result of the accident, SIC suspended its operations and was not allowed by 3

the NitC to restart the facility until October 14,1986, in response to the accident, SIC modified the operadon of the steam chests and the procedures for heating cylinders in steam chests. 'Ihe steam chests have been modified by providing pressure sensing instrumentadon for the cylinder to be healed. The pressure sensu.is interlocked with the steam heat system to automatically terminate heating and provide both kwal and control room alarms on a high pressure measurement.1 Filled uranium hexafluoride cylinders are not heated in steam chests unless the overpressure sensor and steam interlock shutoff system are operable. In addidon, cold traps connecting to the steam chests through a new drain line allow removal of uranlur" hexafluoride from the cylinder during headng.

Additionally, SfC installed an in.line sampling systere in the cylinder filling area. Previously, heating of cylinders was required to obtain.a sample for chemical analysis. Samples from the cylinders are now obtained during filling, thereby reducing the number of cylinders that must be heated. Generally, only cylinders that do not meet product specifications (e.g., concentration, purity)-

are now heated. Currently, cylinders containing product that does not mTt.

specifications are heated in order to withdraw tbc UF, and return it to the

. process.

I SFC now uses two separate scales for measuring the amount of uranium hexafluoride in a cylinder, providing reasonable assurance that a malfunction of a scale will not, in itself, result in the overfilling of a cylinder. SIC has installed

-8u cim i...n.cus oie us sue.hami wm unan p==. = hem 9. conuma of. cynau.

- 219 N

t b

y

=

M-

+tv-e e

o,cew c-g, =, -.,

,m..,

. +.....,.,

---rw.

v--.

4ew,- - - -w.,*-.'m-ev.

w, s.+--***

+

.w.-~.

s'--,---W----e---....%,e. - = =*

ne-~+

=

a phon >clectric switch to confirm diat the cylinder cart is properly positioned on the weighing scale platform Ahile it is being weighed. An interlock between the switch and the uraniurn hexafluoride filling valves prohibits filling if the cylinder is improperly positioned (i.e., is not completely on the scale). The use of interlocks with the scale cart posidon switch E.d weigh scales reduces the dependence that must be placed on operators to ensure correct weighing and filling. '!hese checks reduce the likelihood of overfilling as a result of scale c4rors.

Ibliowing the January 4,1986 accident, SFC appeared before the Commis-sion at an NRC briefing on March 13, 1986. During the briefing, SFC made a commiunent to evaluate the benefits of replacing die facility's existmg heat chesu with autoclaves for heating and sampling. On March 14,1986, SFC ap-peared before the House of Representatives' Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Governtr.cnt Operations, which was chaired by Congressman Synar. Mr. Randolph, President of SFC at the time, said in his opening statement before the Subcommittee that "we are evaluating de benefits of replacing the facility's existing heat chests with autoclaves for heating and sampling." Under questioning from the Subcommittee about adding autoclaves Mr. Randolph stated "That - as I mentioned, as our statement -

it is our intent, to put those devices in." Mr. RanAlph's latter statement is am-biguous. STC's statements to the Commission, ho er, were clear, namely that SIC would evaluate the benefits of installing autoclaves. SIC did not indicate to the Commission that it had already decided to install autoclaves. As explained b: low, SIC did, in fact, evaluate the benefits of installing autoclaves and the NRC Staff agreed with SIC that it was not necessary to install autoclaves at Sequoyah Ibels L rotect public health and safety.

By leuer dated October 30, 1986, SFC submitted a report, "Probabilistic Risk Assessment Concerning UF,lleating in Autoclaves versus Modified Steam

. Chests" (PRA report), dated August 1986. In the report, SfC concluded that autoclaves did not provide any significant increased safety margin over de modified stearn chest operation. NRC hired an independent organization, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. (MMES), to review th? Du A report and STC's " Analysis and Improvements in llandling Procedures for Product Cylinders Containing Liquid UF,," Volumes I and !!, dated April 1986. MMES's independent review was documented in a May 6,1988,"Indepenaent Review of Documents Assessing the Comparative Risks of Ileating UF, Cylinders"(MMES review). 'lhe conclusion of the MMES review was that a more compn:hensive risk assessment was needed to substantiate the conclusions of the SFC report.

By leuer dated March 3,1989, the Staff forwarded the MMES issues to SIC for further analysis. SIC responded by letter dated June 19, 1989, noting that the installation of an in-line sampling system t.1 the cylinder filling area enables SIC to heat only those uranium hexafluoride cylinders where the contents do 220

.._r

.,.y..

...,m, g.

_m not meet product specifications. In addition, process improvements, such as uranium hexafluoride fittesing (which filters out contaminants), have reduced the number of cylinders containing out of specification products As a result, the incidence of heating product cylinders in the modified steam chest has decreased significandy. Itased on the changes Sit made, as described above, the reduced number of heated cylinders, and the improved cylinder weighing procedures establisted since the 1986 restart, the Staff determined that SIC did not need to further evaluate autoclaves. SIC did satisfy its commitment to evaluate die use of autoclaves, and the NRC Staff agreed that, based on tic changes SIC made, there was no need to require SFC to replace the steam chests with autoclaves.

'Iherefore, this is not a basis for denying SFC's application to renew the license.

4.

LicensinR Amendments Adversely Affed Safety

- 1 i

The Ittitioner asserts that license amendments made $1nce the 1985 renewal

' adversely affect and impair the safety and efficiency of the facility and diat SIC, through amendments, has systematically regressed to pre-accident lealth and safety procedures. The Petitioner also claims that this concern can only be thoroughly presented in an evidendary hearing, The 1ttition does not

. provide any spcifics relating to this concern. In the Supplement, the Petitioner specified six items, including four amendments submitted on February 12,1990, a revised Radiological Contingency Plan submitted on September 7,1990, and an application omission on September i1,1989, to support the allegadon that safety has been eroded by issuance of these amendments. Each is considered

below, A. - The Petidoner states that four proposed amendments were submitted on February 12,-1990. petiuoner alleges that these amendments deal with a corporate name change, segregation of the process laboratory from the environmental laboratory, revision of the solid waste provisions, and eliminadon of the use of dissociated ammonia. STC's February 12, 1990 submittal dealt with four. Issues: (1) a corporate name change; (2) a reorganization of plant personnel that involved a due change and a reporting change; (3) decontamination; and (4) UI( reduction plant process changes. Tt'e actual amendment to STC's license involved only the corporate name change and the reorganinidon and concern Part I of the lleense application. Part 1 (chapters '

l 8) of the lleense application contains the proposed license conditions which state _ the performance requirements and are license requirements, Part I of the application is incorpoLated into the license. The amendment approving these changes was issued on March 26, 1990, in contrast, the decontamination and -

process change issues involved a change to the demonstradon section (Part II) of the lleense application The demonstration section consists of chapters 9-17 of the license application and is not incorporated into the license Accordingly, Part -

221

1 11 of the license application does not contain license requirements and therefore does not require NRC approval or licensing action. See Regulatory Guide 3.S5, April 1985.

(1) De first issue from the February 12, 1990 submittal is related to a corporate name change. %e IJecnsee at the time, New Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, changed its name to Sequoyah Fuels Corporation. De Petitioner alleges that the name change was intended to shield the Licensec's parent corporation, Sequoyah Nels internadonal, frorn liability for the acts of the formet licensec, Sequoyah Nels Corporation. De Licensec's February 12,1990 license arnendment application requested that de name on the license be changed from New Sequoyah Fuels Corporation to Sequoyah Fuels Corporadon and the narne of the Licensco's parent sitnultaneously be changed from Sequoyah Nels Corporation to Sequoyah Nels International Corporadon. Dese transwions resulted in no change to the Licensee or its parent except for their names. No change in corporate structure or ownership was associated with these name changes, nor did the name change involve a transfer of control of the license.

Unlike a transfer of control of a license, a name change does not affect liability.

' Fursuant to section IM of the Atornie Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 52234), a transfer of control is not valid unless the Commission obtains full informadon regarding the proposed transfer and gives its consent in writing (tior to the transfer, ne name change here involved no such transfer of control oT a license. Accordingly, this amendment did not have any effect on liability.

.He Petitioner has not made any argument that the amendment decreased safety "Ib the contrary, the Ittitioner states that the amendment does not appear to diminish the effectiveness of the operation, De Ittitioner does allege that in the event of a forced cleanup, it would be difficult to identify the primarily responsible party. He Staff disagrees. He Licensec at the time of cleanup

- will te primarily responsible for all cleanup activities. %c lYtitioner has not provided a basis either to revoke the license or deny lleense renewal.

(2) : he second issue from the February 12, 1990 submittal deals with segregating tie process laboratory from the environmental laboratory, he Ittitioner alleges that this change adversely affats the public' health.and safety by allowing the Licensec a testing environment that does not reflect

- the real radiological conditions at the facility. De Petitioner further alleges that the Licensec admits that the background levels are so high as to influenec environmental samples.

- %c actual licensing action involved a reorganintion approval that changed

reporting requirements for the lab managers. De movement of the environ-mentallaboratory into a separate arut dedicated facility did not require NRC

- approval or a licensing action. In any case, the movement of the environmen-tal laboratory into a separate building is an improvement. ne Petitioner has confused the background levels of the laboratory, which should be as low as -

222 l

l:

t

r possible, with ambient lackground levels around the faci:

The process lab is used to analyze process samplesi some of which exhn.a Mgh radioactivity corxentration. The presence of process samples will increase the background in the laboratory for environtneraal sample analysis. A high background from

- a process sample may dwarf the low activity of an environmental sample, thus i

making the latter rnore difficult to measure. Elecause the background should te lower in die new environmental lab, the minimum detectable levels should te reduced, allowing environmental samples of lower concentration to be un-alyzed.' Dackground does not affect the concentration of the sample, merely the minimum detectable levels. The samples themselves are not af fected by the background, only the analysis of the samples. The background referred to is the background for sample analysis and not the background or concentmtion levels that exist in various environmental media outside of the facility. Ihr the reasons

. given above, the movement of the environmental laboratory into a separate and l

dedicated facility should improve the accuracy of measurements. The Petitioner has not, therefore, provided a tosis to revoke the license or deny the license renewal opplication.

i (3) 1he third issue Imm the February 12,1990 submittal deals with the solid waste provisions of the facility's license. Tic Petitioner states that CASE was a party to a hearing tefore an Administrative Judge on the Solid Waste Plan and objects that notice was not given on the alleged revision to this plan. The Solid Waste Plan, submitted on May 25,1985, sought authorir.adon under 10 C.F.R.

620.302 to dispose of contaminated materials at the Sequoyah facility, On November 2,1987, the Administrative Judge terminated the proceeding tused on Sit's commitment to dispose of contaminated sludges and refuse by transfer i

to other licensees authorized to receive them under 10 C.F.R. 540.51(b)(5).

1hc Administradve Judge determined that, as a result of SFC's commitment, there was nothing pending before him that required an authorization pursuant to_ section 20.302, and, accordingly, that he had no jurisdiction to consider any matters that had been raised in the proceeding. In addition, the Administrative Judge noted that in the event Sir failed to meet its commitment, it would be requimd to seck approval of some onsite disposal plan pursuant to section 20.302, and a new hearing could be initiated,

'Ihe change the Petitiona refers to was a change to chapter 10 of the demonstration section of the license applicationi it did not require NRC approval or a _lleensing action, and it did not involve the Solid Waste Plan described above.- Rather, this change related to the process for sorting contaminated waste from uncontaminated v'aste, In short, the change did not involve onsite disposal under section 20.302 and, consequently, Petitioner was not deprived of an opportunity to initiate or participate in a hearing concerning any such onsite fdisposal. Moreover, the Petitioner does not claim that operational safety was h

- 223 t

1 v.

,m.,

4-*.

+~~ mow,,-,

v.-_,__,,,

.,--w---~,.,.,

4

.-. w A -

,,---,-%m

.'m--y

. - ~,--.-%,+v.

m v..--~

i l

t decreased by diis action. Accordingly, this concern does not provide any basis to revoke the license or deny the license renewal application.

(4) 1hc fourth issue fiorn the February 12, 1990 submitt2d concerns the use of hydrogen instead of dissociated amrnonia in the UF, reduction plant (itutioner refers to this as the UF facilhy). The process in tic UF, reduedon plant involves the chemical reacdon of UF, with hydrogen to produce UP and i

anhydrous hydrofluoric acid. The off gases containing any excess hydrogen are routed to the off g.is treatment, hydrofluoric acid recovery, a hydrogen burner to burn excess hydrogen, and then to the llP scrubber,1he only change to the process is the sourco of the hydrogen, not the actual use of hydrogen in the procca; Previously, SIC used dissociated ammoni.i as the hydrogen source.

Dissociated ammonia is arnmonia that has been separated into hydrogen nnd nitrogen. The Itudoner ulleges that the substitudon of hydrogen significandy increases the fire risk in the facility and that the change in the process stream has a consequence to the composidon of the treated raffinate that is used as fertilizer. Although this modification was t" chapter 16 of the demonstradon portion and did not require any licensing action by the Staff, the Peddoner's concerns are addressed below, The Peutioner claims that substitution of hydrogen for dissociated ammonia significantly increases fire rist within the facility and that SIC should have conducted an assessment of the adequacy of the fire protection system tecause of the increased risk, Petitioner does not explain why it believes timt the fire risk has increased other than to state that flaring off hydrogen creates a risk because of the toxicity of the process chemicals and product. Ilowever, hydrogen (from the dissociated ammonia) has always been used in the reacdon, and the off gas has always been routed to a burner to burn the excess hydrogen. Consequently, 3

there is no greater fire risk due to this change. In fact, the climinadon of tie risk of accidentally introducing raw anhydrous ammonia, which is also a flammable gas, is a positive factor in favor of the change because the accidental introduction of ammonia into the process could result in a reaction with the uranium hexafluoride and production of an unwanted byproduct. The toxicity of tic process chemicals and product do not affect the potential for a fire to occur, Accordingly, no increase in fire risk should result from the change, in addition.

STC limits the risk of fire by udliting ambient alt hydrogen detectors that alarm at 1% hydrogen concentration and shut off gas flows of 2% hydrogen.

The facility is served by a fire main system, part of which loops around the UP building, where the process takes place. There is an adcquate number of fire hydrants in the loop, The fire main is supplied by two 2000 gpm (gallon per minute) fire pumps from a 250,000-gallon storage tank and the perennial source of the Tenkiller Reservoir, Because the fire risk to the building has not increased,'the capacity of the system for supplying water to fight fires, augmented by portable extinguishers, continues to be adequate. The Ittitioner 224

)

~-

has not shown that thess i a significant increase in the fire risk and has provided no basis' to revoke the license or deny the license renewal application.

The Petitioner alleges that the substitution of hydrogen will adversely affect the beneficial component of the treated raffmate. *lhe change actually has no effect on de raffinate program. The hydrogen is used as a reactant in the uranium hexafluoride reduction process desenbed above. The UF, reduction

_ process does not generate liquid wastes. *lhe raffinate program is associated exclusively with the uranium hexafluoride conversion facility. The claim Otat the change will adversely affect the raffmate program is incorrect and does not provide a basis for the requested relief.

In sum, Petitioner has not shown that the changes audiorized when the 1

February 12,1990 submittal was incorporated into the license have decreased de safety of the facility operations. Therefore, no basis has been provided for revocation of the lleense or denial of the lleense renewal applicadon.

II. Petitioner alleges that a Septernber 7,1990, revision to the Radiological

- Contingency plan (RCP), which reduces the frequency of the onsite emergency exercise from annual to biennial, is against the public safety. The Ittilionet asserts that Sit has not identified employee turnover and the percentage of cooperating agency personnel who have never been through a drill. The Itudoner contends that turnover is important because high turnover means diat key employees may have never been involved in a walk through.

The NRC approved the change because it was consistent with recently promulgated 10 C.F.R. 640.31 requirements regarding emergency preparedness for mQor fuel cycle facilides.' 54 Fed. Reg.14,051 (Apr. 7,1989) 'lhe new regulation codified the requirement that major fuel cycle licensees maintain emergency plans and established the biennial interval for exercises. While the frequency of exercises was changed from annual to biennial, the drill frequency was not changed. An exercise is designed to measure the integrated capability of the participants and covers a mdor portion of die elements of die RCP, The exercise is accomplished through a formal, detailed scenario, using observation and control personnet. A drill is a supervised instruction period to test, develop, and maintain skills in emergency response. 3FC conducts

. monthly drills of the communications systems, which include the air sirens and the automatic telephone dialing system. SFC also conducts fire. drills three times a year; semiannual onsite hazards control and assessment drills for liquid and airborne releases; annual _ medical emergency drills involving a simulated contaminated victim; and an annual radiological monitoring drill. Additionally, the SIC license requires diat all employees receive training in the emergency requirements and procedures, as part of the general employee training; and the annual retrairiing program includes the emergency plan. Employees receive training and walk through experience through the training program and drills.

With respect to employee familiarity with emergency procedures, the change 225 l

l l

t

l from annual to biennial onsite emergency exercises should not significantly affect preparedness. Additionally, the requirements for train 8ng os newly hired employees (tte general employee training) und the frequency of drills indicates that employee turnover will not be a problem with. respect to emergency preparedness. As for offsite response group participation, these groups are invited, but are not required by the mgulation to participate in the exercises.

%c Petitioner has failed to show that the change to a biennial exercise in accordance with regulations promulgated for major fuel cycle facilities or die other concerns asserted by Petitioner regarding emergency preparedness will adversely affect the safety of the public or the facility. De change to a biernial exercise is consistent with acquirernents in section 40.31 and does not provide an adequate basis to revoke or deny the license.

C. Tie Petitioner alleges that on September 11,1989, changes were made to chapter 5 of the license application which do not appear in the license. Ilowever, the September 11,1989 proposed changes to chapter 5 were approved by license amendment on October 6,1989, and lecame part of the license at that t!me.

ne Petidoner further alleges that the changes increased the permissible amount of fluoride that could be discharged. De limit on fluoride discharge is not set by the NRC but by the OWRD and EPA. The OWR 11 has set the maximum allowable concentration on fluoride discharge for SFC's liquid effluent al 1.6 rnilligrams/ liter (mg/l); this value was not changed by the license amendment.

He change SIC requested in the NRC license involved the detection level for sampic analysis and the action level. %c action level is the effluent concentration, which triggers a licensee investigation! it is not a discharge limit.

. De NRC did not change the discharge limit.

He Petitioner also alleges that the nitrate discharge limits have been set above the maximum level allowed for drinking-water supplies. Again, the NRC does not set the limits on nitrate ditcharges. %c OWRB discharge permit sets the maximum allawable concentration for nitrates at 20.0 mg/1. SFC changed the detection level and the action level for nitrates in the NRC license. De amendment did not change the discharge limit.

Ec Petitioner also states that radium-226 and thorium 230 were addressed before the OWRD. Ilowever, Petitioner does not state how radium or thorium were addressed or any reasons as to how this has decreased safety. He Petitioner asks the Staff to inquire whether "[rjadium limits should not t; set by Oklahoma, a

since Gross Alpha maximums would subsume these." Ec Petitioner does not give further explanation of this matter,' %c NRC has no authority over the Oklahoma Water Resources Board,.In any case, the maximum permissible

. concentratioris for rcdium and thorium hre catablished by the NRC in 10 C.F.R.

' IV 20. Appendix u, %Ne 11; these limits were not changed by the licensing action. Only the detection levels and the action levels were changed by the licensing action.

226 l.

o A-

, ~-

-. _.- - ~

t 1hc Petitioner further alleges that the monitoring frequency for wells was reduced and that this reduction allows the anonitoring results to be stretched out over time,"thereby weakealng its permit with less frequerit modifications." lie

- change requested by $1C invohed three wc!!s, which are used to rnonitor the clarifier ponds, the sanitary lagoon, and the emergency basin. The monitoring

. frequency was changed from inonthly to quarterly. (1he frequency change had

- actually been approved in October 1988; the September 11, 1989 subrnittal corrected typographical enors.) It is not clear exactly what the Ittitioner is referring to by "less frequent modificadons" of the permit. SIC is required by its license to sample each of the three wells in question on a quarterly basis; this frequency cannot be decreased without approval frorn the NRC. Due to the sloor rate of groundwater movement, the quarterly sampling is adequate.

The Itutioner further states that recent findings (it is assumed the Petitioner is referring to the discovery of groundwater contamination around the process buildings) have reduced the Licensee responsiveness to concerns for the public health and safety. The groundwater contamination is located on SfC property and is not an immediate threat to the public health and safety.1he groundwater r

is not used as a drinking water source. The Licensee has recently completed a facility environmental investigation that included installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells, SFC has also installed recovery wells to recover tie uranium from the groundwater. Th_c Petitioner alleges that the widespread contamination has been concealed over time by changing the sampling locations

. and confusing the tracking system. SFC cannot change the sampling locations without NRC approval. Any changes in the required monitoring program can be

- tracked through various licensing amendments. The Petitioner has not provided any information as to how the public health and safety have been impacted. No

. basis has been provided to revoke the license or deny the renewal application.

In summary, the Petitioner states that the modifications have reduced the Licensee's ability to protect the public health and safety and that die changes have 'esulted in increased medical expenses, modification of diet, restricted use of property, and diminished values for land and homes, but gives n o bases for these contentions. The petitioner has failed to support any of its allegations and has failed to show that the safety of the facility has been diminished by any of tic licensing actions.

5.

Renewal Term lhe petitioner asserts that the requested renewal term of 10 yeani is twice as kmg as is statutorily permitted. Section 103 of the Atomic F.ncrgy Act of 1954, as amended (Act) (42 U.S.C. 6 2133(c)), limits the terms of licenses for_ production and utilization facilitics, The Sequoyah lacility is neither a production nor a utilization facility, as defined in the Act, illy and cc (42 227 i

pg -.,

y

,e, w.

c., y

. w n.

.--m_,c,,

., - - -,m-,v---,,

..r-,.-.r e..

v-,-,

w-

-.,v.-,

,,.--,.-m-,,w,w-m.,-.,,-a---,~

l I

U.S.C. 5 2014v, cc). The Act does not otherwise limit the term of a license.

Radict, as a snatter of policy and discretion, the Commission sets the terms of oder licenses to protect the pubhc health and safety. The current policy extending the term for fuel cycle licensees from 5 to 10 years was published in de Tcdcrat Register. 55 Fed. Reg. 24,948 (June 19,1990). Uranium conversion facilities, including SIC, wc4e specifically included in the pohey to extend the license term. The rnain reason for die extension is that major operaung fuel cycle facilities have become quite stable in terms of significant changes to their licen:es and operations.

6.

SFC's Atumonium Nitrate l'trtillar Program

%c Petidoner asserts that the SIC license should not be renewed due to the use of treated raffinate as fertilizer. De Petitioner states that the use of

^

treated raffinate as fertilizer is antithetical to the December 15,1988 NRC

• Review of Sequoyah Puels Corpotution November 14, 1988, Report Entitled:

• ne Ilchavior of Five Monitor Wells to Repetiuve Evacuation.'" With regard to grotmdwater contamination, the Petitioner quotes the December 15, 1988 report to support the position that the license should not be renewed because of the contamination problem perpetuated by the fertilizer application program, llowever, this report does not analyze the current application program but concerns the ponds used to store the treated raffinate, specifically with three wells that are part of the groundwater monitoring network for the storage ponds (ponds 3 6). After reviewing the available information, the NRC Staff concluded that the major contributor to the elevated nitrate levels in the three wells was thought to be due to past fertilizer application as described below, and not pond leakage or the current fertilint program.

Prior to the construction of the first ponds in 1978, the area was used for a fertillut applicat!on test p+ogram which included saturation applications to determine maximum vegetation and soit uptake A 1982 NRC Environmental Impact Appraisal, conducted prior to approval of the use of treated raffinate as fertilizer, concluded that overferulization was found to leave an undesirable quantity of residual nitrogen that may even;aally percolate into the groundwater table and degrade it. To account for this potential pmblem, the license limits the maximum application of nitrogen to 70() pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. The conclusions quoted by the Petitioner that "the recommended course of action for this particular site would be to aggressively pursue the elimination of any additional nitrate releases into the ground water" and "li]t would be truly unfortunate to create an additional nitrate plume that is incapable of being rapidly remediated..

to prevent further ground water contamination from occurring" refer to the ponds and various impoundments on the site and not to the fertilizer application program. Specifically, the nitrate plume discussed is 228

from pond 2. Pond 2 was an unlined pond diat is no longer used. SFC has remediated this pond by removing the liquid and sludge and placing a liner over the lottom of the pond to limit further impact.8 ne Ittitioner claims that the soil farming should be discontinued under the Clean Water Act. De Commission does not have authority to enforce the Clean Water Act, and therefore, the Clean Water Act does not form a basis for the Comtnission to deny SR"s application to renew the license.

De Ittidoner claims that application levels are so high in liquid concentr tion that runoff impacting public waters is occurring; that the cumulative loading maximum permissible concentrations are set so very high that fatal toxicity would result at those levels; and that soil farming of barium treated uranium raffinate solvent extract should be halted altogether due to the high potential for severe public health impacts. Petitioner speculates that the fertilizer is impacung t!c surface water and public health without any specific supporting information.

He use of treated raffinate as fertilizer has been thoroughly reviewed by the

~

NRC.ne envimamental impacts of using the treated raf finate as fertilizer were evaluated in the Environmental Impact Appraisal of the Proposed Amendment for Use of Raffinate (March 1982) (EIA), and a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was issued on June 30,1982. De EIA included a consideration of the effects upon surface water and groundwater. No significant radiological health and safety concerns were identified in connecdon with the use of barium-treated neutralized raffinate as a fertilizer He raffinate fertilizet program was also included in the environmental review conducted for the 1985 license renewal.

De 1985 environmental assessment concluded that continued use of raffinate-treated vegetation for forage should have no significant impact on catdc or humans. The concentrations of radionuclides in the treated raffinate are well below the 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limits for unrestricted release of radionuclides in water. Tim concentration of radium 226 is also_below levels for drinking water specified by EPA in 40 C.P.R. Part 141 (Interim Primary Drinking Water -

Reguladons)' He radium 226 and uranium concentradons are limited by the license to 2 picoeuries/ liter (pCi/l) and 0.1 mg/1, respectively. Calculated dose commitments, which could result from the use of treated raffinate as fertilizer and

_ human consumption of food products grown using treated raffinate as fertilizer, were determined to be far below the limits in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and those established by EPA in 40 C.F.R. Part 190' he program is conducted such that the nonradioactive trace elements are within the limits recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, considering both long-term buildup in soils and J

3Dunna an inspection brJJ an Marsh M 1992, doi:umented in inspectwa iterart 9242 dated Apa 13,1992 dis Statt nmed that dare is now a weu derined ruts te plane that is capendmg unds the ponds used to store treated eartinata, %s pbms is nu a result or the appbraiam program but rauhs rrten pund leakage.

• 1.PA's intenm regulaimms preently aDow up to 5 picacunes or radium pcr hier or water. The esfrinate renihact contains appeenaicly 1 g(M trinal regulations have un been pavmulgued.

229 1

'l

content of the forage produced.1he use is limited to crops that are not used directly as human food, in sum, the lttitioner's concettu over the fertilizer program do not provide an adequate basis for the requested relief. The use of ammenium nurate raf finate in the fertilizer program has been evaluated and determined by the NRC to present no undue risk to public health and safety or the environment 1hc Ittitioner

~

presents no new facts or data that afford an adequate basis for reevaluating Diis determination.

7.

Failure to Internalize the Cost of the Proposed.Atthity 1he final topic discussed in the Petition concerns tic failure of the Licensee to internalize the social and economic costs of the license renewal. Additionally, the Petitioner states that in 1986, CASE requested that the NRC prepare an linvironmental Impact Statement for the facility and that this request was never

' ruled upon by the NRC and rernains pending.

Social Costs Ittilloner claims that social costs are being externalized onto the community, the area, and state and federal taxpayers. These social costs are alleged to include a higher incidence of cancer and birdi defects to area residents and an increase in overall health consequences due to exposure to the facility's product and effluent stream. *Ihc Ittitioner has alleged that facility operations have negatively affccted the health of the public, but has pmvided no details to support this assertion. -While the ittitioner has referenced a number of documents, it has articulated no arguments as to how any of these documents support the allegation of increased health consequences from SFC cffluents.

- 1he Staff has analyzed the potential and known actual health effects of the facility by reference to the Commission's regulations and empirical studies of the health of workers at the facility. Releases from die plant are limited by the Commission's rules in 10 C.F.R Part 20, Appendix 11, Table 11, that are based on scientific data and that the NRC considers to pmvide adequate protection

to the public health and safety. With the exception of the 1986 accident, described above,' NRC is not aware of any information or data diat establish.

a connection between SIC activities and adverse hech consequences. After the 1986 accident, some individuals within the plume did experience hydrogen

. fluoride skin burns, acute irritation of the eyes and mucosal surfaces, and acute respiratory irritation. Respiratory initation resulting in pulmonary edema was fatal to one worker. -llowever, medical data and uranium bioassay data from the exposed workers were collected over a 2-year period; and analysis of the l-230-i

(

l

,2--

.-m

_ _ m data showed no evidence of long term toxicological damage to kidneys of SFC workers, the primary health effect of concern from intake exposure of soluble uranium (NUREO/CR 5566). NUREO 1391 compares the chemical effects from acute exposures to uranium hexafluoride to the nonstochastic effects from

'~

acute radiation doses of 25 rems to the whole tody and 300 rems to the thyroid.

%e document does not support the allegation of increased health consequences from SPC cfHuents. He commeris of his. Pat Costner on NUREG-1189, to which the ittilioner refers, were reviewed by the NRC and the Ad lloe %sk Force that prepared NUREO 1189. On February 6,1987, the NRC responded by letter to his. Costner's cridque of NUREO 1189. nc Pctitioner has not provided any specific information that effluents from the SFC facility have negadvely i

affected the health of the public. Without specific information to suppott the allegation, further action is not warranted.

ne Ittitioner further states that social costs include the foregone use salue of converting the facility to nontoxie use; dwt socially beneficial (sustainable) goods and services could be produced, manufactured, or managed on the land; and that the propeny could be restored to productive habitat. %us the Petitioner asks the Commission to choose a use for the facility difierent from that chosen by SFC, without any demonstration that STC is in violation of the Commission's reguladons or the facility's license and in the absence of any radiological hazard to public health and safety. De Commission issues operating licenses on an applicant's showing that it will comply with all of the Commission's regulatory

- requirements and that it will operate the facility such that the public healdi and safety will be protected. He Petition's contention regarding foregone use does not mendon, much less establish, a violation of the Commission's regulatory requirements or a radiological hazard to public health and safety. Accordingly, that contention is no tosis for denying SFC's application to renew its license.

De Ittitioner states that the NRC has never ruled on a 1986 request for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). De Staff was unable to identify a 1986 request for an EIS; however, a June 20, 1985 request for an EIS on plant expansion was identified. NRC responded to this request in a July 17, 1985 letter, stating that the NRC was preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate the impact of the expansion on the environment. Additionally, there was a hearing on the plant expansion before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)in which CASE was a participant. One of the concluflohs of-the ASLB regarding the hearing was that."[t]he NRC Staff's Envimnmental Assessment is adequate and its finding of 'no significant impact' appropriate."

LDP-87-8,25 NRC 153,167-68,171 (1987).

he Ittitioner further asserts that the incremental and cumulative impacts of facility operations have never been evaluated, in violation of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPt) and the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. The statement that the cumulative and incremental impacts have never been evaluated 231 l

t I

L is incorrect. The environmental impact of die facility's operation was evaluated in a rmal Environmental Statement dated February 1975, an Environmental impact Appraisal dated October 1977, and an Environmental Assessinent dated August 1985, De 1985 EA resulted in the publication of a Finding of No Significant impact. Therefore, preparation of an EIS was unnecessary.

. Environmental evaluations have also been prepared for various amendments.

Rese documents were prepared to comply with the Commission's regulations which implement the requirements of NEPA. he evaluations considered toth the cumulative and incremental impacts of facility operation. Addidonally, the environmental impact of operations will te assessed in connection with the

. pending license renewal application.. nc Petitioner's cintge, that the impacts of the facility's operation have never been evaluated, is unfounded. Therefore, de Petitioner does not provide a basis to deny the license renewal appilcation.

l De Pedtioner states that the Licetuce.,hould be required to assume all social costs. Petitioner asserts that the assumption of social costs for health harms should be forced through strengthening standards and compliance for airborne

- releases. %c Petitioner further states that this is probably not possible for this Licensee due to an ongoing, continuing pattern of disregard for regulatory authority and license responsibility evidenced by the history of lies, falsifications, and misinformation. Petitioner has not provided any evidence or any information to support its position. While the Licensee has on some occasions violated condidons of its license, those violations have not teen related to execc4ing the altborne release limit.

%e Petitioner further states that decommissioning should be timely, quick, efficient,' and complete and that ultimate cleanup trsponsibility should not te with the State of Oklahorna. Petitioner states that cleanup is stagnant at other sites historically affiliated with the Sequoyah facility and the Licensee. Mc

' statements relating to the historically affiliated facilides refers to facilldes owned by Kerr McGee, the former owner of SFC. Any alleged failures of Kerr McOce to decontaminate another vite are irrelevant to SFC's responsibilities at this facility. As to the responsthility for decommissioning the SFC facility, that responsibility will rest fully with the Licensec at the time licensed aedvities cease at the site. Tim State of Oklahoma will ont be responsible for decommissioning costs. As for tie timing of decommissioning, it would not begin undt operations

. at the facility have ceased. He license will remain in effect until terminated in writing by the Commission. No basis has been provided to deny the application for license renewal.

Externall:ed Economic Costs

%c Petitioner states that the cost of regulation should be assumed by the Licensee and that the taxpayers should not subsidite the cost of regulatory

.232

...m

_...,,._..m...

,._,.._m g.,_.

i i

overskt and monitoring. Congress has mandated that the NRC recover approximately 100% of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Department of Energy-administered Nuclear Waste Fund, for fiscal years

' 1992 through 1995, by assessing license, inspection, and annual fees. (Omnibus

[

lludget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Pub, l.. No. 101508 (Nov. 5,1990)). The Commission has implemented this statute by rulemaking amending 10 C.F.R. Parts 170 and 171; (56 Fed. Reg. 31,472 (July 10,1991)). This means that de nuclear industry bears the full burden of regulatory cost; the taxpayers are not subsidizing the cost of regulatory oversight and monitoring. Accordingly, the Petitioner's contention regarding the cost of regulation provides no basis for denying $fC's application to renew its license.

'Ihe Petitioner further states that the 1.itensee should be required to assume f all economic costs including compensadng individuals for health consequences when they are unabic to maintain human productivity. Petitioner further states that SIC's neighbors must sue to be compensated for obviota ecusally related losses. Petitioner states that the policy of 42 U.S.C. 6 2012(i) is to protect the public but that 42 U.S.C.12210 is not being enforced against Src. Petitioner -

claims that individuals with alleged valid serious claims and heahh consequences were " bargained-out"_ of the 1986 accident by contest and that almost all the Plaintiffs settled for a mere token er the value of thel claims, complete with releases in contravention of the provisions of 42 U.S.C. ( 2210(n). %c Ittition is alleging a basis resting on tort claims and diat the Commission is not enforcing sections 3 and _170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Pub.

L. No. 85 256, 71 Stat. $76 (1957)), which is commonly referred to as the Price-Anderson Act.-While the Price Andersen Act authorizes the Commission, in its 'discredon, to apply Price Anderson to NRC materials beensees, the Commission has done so only under the limited circumstances set forth in 10 Cf.R. I140.13a; this provision applies only to licensees that use and possess

' plutonium at a plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant, as defined in 10

(

C.F.R. Part 140. Because SFC does not use and possess plutonium at such a y

plant, Price-Anderson does not apply to SFC. Accordingly, SFC has not failed to comply with the Price Anderson Act, and the Petitioner's allegation to thu contrary is no basis for denying SFC's application to renew its license.

. With further regard to its tort. claims basis, the Itutioner is requesting diat the Commission deny SFC'J applicallon tu renew its license because of the results of litigation involving alleged torts by SFC. While the Pedtion alleges." health effects" from the operation of the facility, it presents no specific information documenting such alleged effects. The NRC Staff has concluded, based on

.a review of all available information, that operation of the SIC facility does v

not pose an undue risk to public health and safety. Moreover, the NRC has

no authorhy to regulate how persons recover damages for allegedly tortlous activity (aside from Price-Anderson, as discussed above), and thus cannot act 2

233 L

L

_-,--_.2_.-,._--_

au

l l

on the Ittitioner's allegations regarding the necessity of suit to recover damages in tort. Accordingly, the Petisioncr's contentions in this regard cannot be a basis for denying SFC's appl..ation 19 renew its license.

CONC 1.USION Our review of the seven concerns contained in the Petition and specified funhet in the Supplement has identilled no information that was not already available to the NRC Staff. As set forth above, the concerns raised by the Petitioner i. have no bearing on the license renewal application, (2) are not related it

.e'"

license. (3) do not assert a s?t;' concern, (4) reiterate previously u a information, or (5) constitute generall,.ed assertions without any supporting baces. Considering that the Ittition does not offer any new information or new insights into the issues it raises, I find no basis for denying SIC's license renewal application or fer revoking SFC's current operating license.

• lhe institution of proceedings pursu:mt to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202 is appropriate only where substantial health and safety issues have been raised (see Consol-Idated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and 3), CL175 8, 2 N9C 173,175 (1975); Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD.84-7,19 NRC 899,924 (1984)). In addition, the Commission may deny any application to renew a license if the licensee is in violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulatory requircraents. These are the standards that I have applied to the con.

cerns raised by the Petitioner in this Decision to determine whether enforcement action is warranted.

Ibr the reasons 3scussed above, I conclude that the Petitioner has not raised any substantial heah and safety issues and has not demonstrated any violation of the Act or the Commission's requirements. Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R Q 2.206 is denied as described in this Decision. As provided by 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review. The Decision will become the final nction of the Commission twenty-five (25) days 234

M 4

b

--'atter issuance unless the Commission on its own motion institutes review of the -

s Decl3'on within that time,-

+

FOR Tile U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Robert M. Bhtnero, Director

' Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 1992.

T

,a--

235 i-

. ~.

,,n.w.

r

Cito as 35 NRC 236 (1992)

DD-92 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AtlD SAFEGUARDS Robert M. Bornet o, f;irector in the Matter of Docket No. 404027 yy, kh SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION (Gore, Oklahoma Facility)

June B,1992 f'.f

( '-

The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies,

?

except insofar as a Notice of Violation will be issued citing Sequoyah Fuels J

Corporation (SFC) for violating 10 C.F.R. 640.9, and grants insofar as the

t Staff will publish in the Federal Register notice of all SFC license amendment applicadons until the Staff takes final action on the licen;c renewal application, a petidon filed by the Native Americans for a Clean Environment and the Cherokee Nation. Specifically, the Petition alleged that: SFC's August 29, 1990 license renewal application contains deliber:.te material omissions of fact and material false statements relating to soil and groundwater contamination at the site; the NRC Order Modifying License (Effective immediately) and Demand for Information (EA 91-067) issued on October 3,1991, constitutes the third time in 5 years that the NRC has cited SFC for a serious breakdown in management of the pir, the order is inadequate to reasonably ensure safe operation of the plant, and the experience of the past 5 years demonstrates that SFC is doomed to repeat its unsafe and poor environmentally hazardous practices until the basic causes of its poor environmental and safety record are resolved; and SFC has been given and wasted numerous chances to address and resolve its

. serious safety and environmental problems, at the expense of public safety and the environment, when onsite environmental investigations have revealed that the site is grossly contaminated with uranium and other chemicals. The Petitioners requested emergency action to revoke tlm operating license of SFC's uranium processing plant in Gore, Oklahoma. In the alternative. Petitioners requested that the NRC withhold audiorization to restart the SFC plant until: completion of a lormal adjudicatory hearing on whether the plant can be operated safely and 236 i

In compliance with its license and NRC safety and environmental regulations; access is provided to the Peutioners to certain internal SIC documents; SFC undertakes a "truly independent" audit of its management and operations; and SIC completes and implements all changes to management and procedusrs that are necessary to ensure safe operation of the facility. Petitioners also requested federal Register notice of all SFC licerse amendment applications.

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. N 2.206 1.

INTRODUC'llON Native ' Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE) and the Cherokee Na-tion (Petitioners) submitted to the Commission an " Emergency Petition to Re-vote Openting License for Sequoyah Fuels Corporation's Uranium Processing Facility" (Petition) dated November 27, 1991. The Petition requests that the Commission immediattly revoke the operating license of Sequoyah Fuels Cor-potation's (SFC or Licensee) uranium processing plant in Gore, Oklaho;Tia. In the alternative, Petitioners request that the Petition be considered pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 and that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with-hold authorization to restart the SFC plant until: (1) completion of a formal adjudicatory hearing on whether the plant cem be operated safely and in compli-ance with its lleense and NRC safety and environmental regulations; (2) access is provided to the Petitioners to certain internal SFC documents; (3) SIC un-dertakes a "truly independent" audit of its management and operations; and (4)

. STC completes and implements all changes to management and procedures that are necessary to ensure safe operation of the facility. Petitioners also request federat Register notice of all SFC license amendment applications. The Peti-tion was submitted on an emergency basis because the Petitioners believed that restart of the facility was imminent.

'Ihe Petition alleges the following bases for its requests:

(1)' SFC's license renewal application contains deliberate material omis-sions of fact and material false statements relating to soil and grouad-water centalaination at the site; (2) the NRC Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) and De-mand for Information (Order or EA 91-067) issued to SFC on October 3,1991, constitutes the third time in 5 years that the NRC has cited SFC for a serious breakdown in management of the plant. The Order

!s ihadequate to reasonably ensure safe operation of the phmt, and the experience of the past $ years demonstrates that SFC is doomed to repeat its unsafe and poor environmentally hazardous practices un-237

til the basic causes of its poor environmental and safety record are resolved; and

-(3) SFC has been given and _ wasted numerous chances to address and resolve its serious safety and environmental problems, at the expense of public safety and the environment. Moreover, onsite environmental investigations have revealed that the site is grossly contaminated with uranium and other chemicals.

By Memorandum dated December 9,1991 (unpublished), the Commission referred the Petidon to the Staff for consideration pursuant to section 2.206.

'Ihe Commission also stated that, prior to any decision by the Staff to permit restart of SFC's facility, an open Commission meedng would be held, at which the Staff would brief the Commission, and at which Petitioners and SFC would

also be given an opportunity to address the Commission.

By letter dated December 23,1991, the NRC Staff acknowledged receipt of the Petillon, denied the emergency relief requested, and informed the Petidoners that their Petition would be treated under section 2.206 of the Commission's reguladons and that a decision would be issued within a reasonable amount of time. Also, by letter dated December 23, 1991, the Staff requested SFC to respond to the Petition. SPC responded to the Pedtion on December 23,1991.

By letter dated January 24, 1992, the NRC requested clarification on SFC's response to the Pet: tion, SFC responded by letter dated February 3,1992. On

' January 22,1992, Ms. Curran on behalf of the Petitioners filed a reply to SFC's

_. December 23,1991 response. SFC responded to the Petitioners' reply by letter dated February 3,1992.

On March 17, 1992, the Commission held an open meeting at which the Staff, SFC, and Petitioners briefed the Commission.8 On March 20,1992, SFC, Petitioners, and the Staff submitted supplemental materials for consideration -

before a decision on restart.

On February 28,1992, Petitioners asked the NRC to prepare an Environmen-tal Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment prior to restart of the SFC facility. By letter dated March 5,1992, the Staff denied the Petitioners' request.

Petitioncis' March 5,1992 request that I reconsider my denial was denied on

' April 13,1992. On March 10,1992, Petitioners filed suit against the NRC in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seekMg a temporary restraining order to prevent the Commission from authorizing restart. On Aprii

'15,-1992, the Court dismissed the Petidoners' suit for lack of jurisdi_ction. On April 16,1992, Petitioners sought review of that Order and stay of the April 16.-

1992 restart authorization in the United States Court of Appeals for the District-

. of Columbia Circuit. Petitioners' motion for an emergency stay was denied by 3 1he oMahana Dcranment or WJdhfo Caservatim rded a wnuen stavment uth the Cmunissim resantra restan but did not auend the meeting.

238

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 22,1992. Their Petition for review, and motion for expedited briefing, remain pending.

s

-I have completed my evaluation of the matters raised by the Petitioners and have determined that, for the reasons stated below, the Petition shall be denied..

except insofar as a Notice of Violation will be issued citing SFC for violating 10 C.F.R. 640.9, and granted insofar as the Staff will publish in the federal Register notice of all SFC license amet.Dient applications until the Staff takes

- final action on the license renewal application.

t II. IIACKGROUND On' August 22,1990, SFC reported to the NRC that uranium contaminated

' soil and water had been discovered during excavation work near the solvent extraction (SX) building. On August 27,1990, an NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) began to investigate the event. 'Ihe AIT concluded that SFC's

- sta'f did not demonstrate the necessary sensitivity to the potential for uranium contamination or understand the urgency and potential significance of such a problem. As part of SFC's commitments to the NRC, the company agreed that an independent party would review SFC's entire response to the situation. An investigation by the NRC's Office of Investigation was initiated on September 4, 1990, to determine whether willful violations of NRC regulations had occurred.

On August 29. 1990, SFC submitted its license renewal application. to the

- NRC. SFC was notified on September 18,1990, that, pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 640.43(b), the current license would not expire until fmal action on the renewal application was taken by the Commission. On September 28,1990, NACE fded a request for hearing, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.1205. NACE's request for hearing.was granted by Order dated January 24,1991 (LBP-915,

- 33 NRC 163) 56 Fed. Reg. 7422 (Feb. 22,1991). The order afforded other interested persons the opportunity to file petitions for leave to intervene within 30 days of publication of the order. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife

- Conservation and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma filed requests to participate (in the hearing and were granted intervenor status on May 6,1991.2 On September 13, 1990, after an AIT followup inspection, the NRC Staff concurred in the restart of the solvent extraction process.1 Subsequently, on

September 14, 1990, SFC reported the identification of uranium-contaminated T water beneath the main process building (MPB). Because the NRC Staff was

- concerned that SFC was not aggressively pursuing an investigation of the 3Citizers' Actim for a safe tMvirmmet (CASE) bd a "llmiwd Appearance inwrvenum sud objection to Renewar' on My l.1991. De Atomic safen and Ucensing Board ref rred CASE's petitie to the Suff ror cmsideratim as a petitim under sceuon 2.206 'ntat paition is being treated as a separate maust and is currendy ur: der Staff review-239 y

N

+-

i groundwater contamination under the MPB, on September 19, 1990, the Staff issued an Order Modifying License (Effective immediately) requiring SIC to ensure the integrity of the floor and sumps of the MPB, obtain information and develop characterization studies regarding scepage of uranium contaminated water from under the MPB, and develop a plan to identify and characterize other locations on SFC property where past or present operations could have resulted in environmental contamination. (EA 90-162), 55 Fed. Reg. 40,959 (Oct. 5, 1990). SIC inspected all sumps and floors of the MPB for defec* r conditions that could compromise the integrity of the floot. Repairs v made to all identilled defects and suspect areas. On December 18,190

?C submitted the final report on the MPB investigation. The site characterization plan for the rest of the site was submitted on October 15. 1990. The order was closed out in inspection Report 90-07 dated March 1,1991 SIC implemented the emironmental investigation outlined in the characterization plan and on July 31,1991, submitted the " Facility Environmental Investigation Findings Report.

f On January 10, 1992, SFC submitted its Action Plan for dealing with the site contamination.

Based on information obtained from NRC inspections, the NRC became concerned that certain aspects of the SFC safety and environmental programs were not being performed in full accord with NRC requirements. On November 5,1990, the Staff issued a Demand for Information (EA 90-158) that required the Licensee to describe (1) an oversight program it would put ino place while management deficiencies and weaknesses in the permanent organization were bemg remedied, and (2) plans for an independent written appraisal of site and corporate organizations and activitics, which would develop recommendations for improvements in management controls and oversight to provide assurance that personnel would comply with regulatory requirements and site procedures, SPC's No< ember 20,1990 response contained SFC's interpretation of the August and September events and agreement to implement the oversight program and the management assessment. SFC proposed the firm of PLO, Inc. (PLG) to implement the oversight program. The Staff agreed to the use of PLO for the independent oversight. By letter dated December 18,1990, SFC proposed the firm of Morton and Potter to conduct the independent management assessment.

(

. SIC also indicated in this letter that following the completion of the management assessment, Morton and Potter would conduct a technical appraisal of SFC's safety program. By letter dated January 14, 1991, the NRC appmved the use of Morton and Potter with the understanding that Dr. Bernard Keys w0uld be a primary panicipant in conducting the appraisal. Morton and Potter submitted the management assessment on May 15, 1991. The assessment contained recommendations for needed improvements in the areas of policy, planning, communications, organization, management conucts, human resource management, training, and regulatory relations, llowe<ct, the assessment did not 240

r 1,

-include a discussion and analysis of the root causes of the deficiencies referenced in EA 90-158. SFC submitted its response to the management assessment on July 15,1991, agreeing to implement the majority of the recommendations over j

the next 18 months.

During the time period that the management assessment was being conducted, the NRC continued its investigation into the circumstances surrounding the August and September 1990 events, he NRC investigation activities concluded on June 28,1991. The Staff concluded that certain SFC managers had failed

, to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC, willfully failed to comply with NRC reguladons, and made false statements during NRC inspection and investigation activities.

Based on investigation activities and increased inspection effort, the NRC Staff determined that although SFC was addressing some of the Staff's concerns, additional enforcement action was warranted. On October 3,1991, tne NRC Staff issued the Order Modifying License (Effective immediately) and Demand

~ for Information (EA 91 067), 56 Fed. Reg. 51,421 (Oct.11,1991). The Order required SFC to perform an in-depth review of the administrative control and implementing procedures in the health and safety and environmental programs by qualined non-SFC personnel. The plan and schedule detailing this review were to be submitted to, and approved by, the NRC Staff prior to SFC's restart from

. a planned plant shutdown. The Order also modified SFC's license,o remove

' the Environmental Manager from supervisory or managerial responsibilities over NRC-regtdated activities for a period of 1 year. The Demand for Information required that SFC provide information 3 to why the Senior Viec President, the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, and the IIcalth Physics Supervisor should be allowed to remain in their respective positions, and as to why the NRC should not be notified 30 days before rehiring the former Manager, IIcalth, Safety, and Environment.

On October 17,1991, SFC proposed Mr. IIenry Morton as the overall project.

manager of the health and safety and environmental programs review effort required by the Order; several additional reviewers were also proposed. By letter dated Octur 24,1991, the NRC Staff approved the proposed reviewers, finding them to be technically qualified to perform the programmatic reviews required by the Order.' On November 4,1991, SFC submitted the list of procedures that SFC planned to review prior to restart, those procedures that SFC plans to review after restart and the justification for the priority established, and the

' time frame for reviewing the procedures, During December 2-6,1991, the NRC Staff conducted a team inspection to review the progress SFC had made toward addressing the Order. The team found that SFC had made appreciable progress in satisfying the requirements of the Order but that extensive work remained, l'he results of this inspection are documented in inspection Report 91 16. By

. letter dated December 10,1991, SFC submitted addition:d information on the 241

- -~

~.

procedure review to address concerns identified by the team inspection and to

' respond to questions that were posed by the Staff in a letter of November 15,

)

1991. During January 27 31.- 1992, the NRC Staff conducted a second team inspection. The team concluded that SFC had satisfied item B of section VI of the Order,' which required SFC to submit, for NRC approval, the plan and schedule for reviewing the adequacy of health and safety and environmental programs. nc results of this inspection are documented in Inspection Report 91 17.-

Dy letter dated October 7,1991, SFC informed the NRC that, in accordance with the Order, the Environmental Manafer had been removed from supervisory

'or managerial responsibilities over NRC-regulated activities at the facility. By letter dated November 15, 1991, SFC informed the NRC that the Senior Vice -

President, the Vice President of Regulatory _ Affairs, and the Ilealt!rPhysics

' Supervisor (discussed in the Demand) had been removed from their respective positions. The individuals no longer have any management or operational

. re:ponsibilities related to NRC-regulated activities. By letter dated Decetuber 2, 1991. SFC submitted its response to the Demand. In the response, SFC asserted that, based on the information available to SFC, SFC believed that the individuals nar,ied in the Demand neither acted in careless disregard of their respective responsibilitics for licensed nctivities nor failed to be candid with the NRC.

-The Licensee did admit diat the individuals made errors in judgment, missed opportunities to identify and correct deficiencies at an earlier stage, and could -

have done more to ensure that the NRC was fully informed of SFC activities. In

addition, by letter dated December 18,1991, SFC stated that for the foreseeable future SFC does not plan to use any of these individuals in the performance or supervision of NRC-licensed activities. SIC also stated that it will provide the_ NRC with 30 days' notice before utilizing any of the,3ndividuals in the performance oc supervision of NRC-regulated activities. On January 13,1992, the Staff modified SFC's license to confirm these commitments. Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective immediately), EA 91 196, 57 Fed. Reg. 12611 (Jan. 22,1992).

By letter dated January 3,- 1992, SIVidentified two fundamental underly-

_ing causes of the problems leading to the NRC's enforcement action. _De first was that a strong nuclear safety and regulatory compliance culture had not been instilled throughout the SFC organization, and the second was that a

" disciplined / formal management process had not been implemented throughout

--the organization. Factors contributing to these underlying eaoses included die particular background and experience of SFC senior managers, weaknesses in organizational structure, insufficient sensitivity to radiological aspects of SFC's activities, and inadequate communications internally and with the NRC._ At-txhed to the letter was SFC's "Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining High Performance Standards." The Plan contains the objectives 242

that SIC believes are the principal elements of an effecdve management process -

Mand which will ensure that previous problems do not recur at SFC. In a letter dated January 27, 1992 SIC provided a matrix showing how the independent management assessment recommendations and SFC acdons in response to those.

recommendations had been integrated into the Plan.

As part of the January 27-31,1992, team inspection, the inspection team ex-amined those management issues associated with the November 1990 Demand i

for Informadon. De team reviewed SFC's response to the management assess-ment recommendations,1which was supplemented by a program of objectives developed by the current management team. The team concluded that effective implementation of SFC's long-term corrective measures would substantially im-pr9ve management oversight and controls. The team's review of the root causes ridentified by the Licensee, as well as examination of the deficiencies identified -

within the organization, indicates that the causal factors identified by SFC are wnsistent with NRC's view. The Staff concluded that the measures proposed and taken by SFC to correct the weaknesses identified within its management organitation satisfy the NRC Staff concerns raised in the 1990 Demand, flow-ever, the team was concerned about SFC's management controls and oversight during the interim period while the planned long-term improvement programs are being developed and the staffmg of permanent health and safety technicians

- takes pixe.

At the open Commission meeting on March 17,1992, the Staff presented its evaluation of issues related to restart of the SFC facility. The Staff stated that authorization to restart depends on: - (1) the outcome of a currer.t investigadon by the Office of Investigations, (2) a satisfactory response to issues raised by:

- the inspection team and documented in Inspection Report 91 17, (3) effective SIC performance up to the time of restart authorization, and (4) any advice or direction from the Commission, resulting from the meeting. The resolution of the items is outlined below.

. De first itec concerning the investigation by the Office of Investigations is

no longer a restart issue he Staff concludes that there were no unresolved safety issues that would be a basis for delaying restart. Regarding item 2, SFC's' March 13.-1992 response describes its interim managemes.t oversight

. measures, plans for increased health and safety technician staffing, and corrective actions stemming from a concmiination incident. He response satisfies NRC's concerns fiom Inspection Report 91 17. The third item concerns effective SFC '

performance. SFC has demonstrated the requisite ability to manage, control, and perform its activities. This conciusion was based on observations made during NRC inspections since the March 17,1992 Commission meeting. The fourth item, a March 27,1992 Staff Requirements Memorandum directed the

= Staff to undertake nine actions related to SFC. The Staff completed those actions

~

- necessary prior to a restart authorization and authorized a phased restart of SFC's 243

-. ~

~.

facility on April 16,1992. These matters are addressed in SECY 92-132, a copy

= of which was provided to the Petitioners and is publicly availab!e.8 Ill. DISCUSSION Petitioners request revocation _ of the operating license for the SFC facility, or

[

in the alternative, withholding authorization to restart the plant until: (1) com-pletion of a formal adjudicatory hearing on whether the plant can be operated

' safely and in compliance with its license and NRC safety and environmental regulations; (2) Petitioners are provided access to certain internal SFC docu-ments; (3) SFC undertakes a "truly independent" audit of its rnanagement and operations; and (4) SFC completes and implements a!! changes to management and procedures that are necessary to ensure safe operation of the facility. Pe-titioners also request federal Register notice of all SFC license amendments.

The concerns that formed the bases for the Petitioners' requests are addressed below.

A.

ilequest for Revocation Ilased on Material Palse Statements

' Petitioners allege that SFC knew of severe uranium groundwater contami-nation at the site but made three material false statements in the August 29,

.1990 license renewal application. The statements are (1) in effect, SFC gave false assurances that it had comprehensively surveyed the plant site for uranium contamination and found no serious problems because SFC characterized its groundwater monitoring program as " extensive"; (2) SFC stated that groundwa ter monitoring wells were located in the areas most susceptible to groundwater contamination, when in fact there were no groundwater monitoring wells around or near the main process building (MPB) and the solvent extraction (SX) build.

~ing; and (3) SFC omitted monitoring data that demonstrated significant uranium contamination (data cellected from sand wells around the SX building betwecu 1976 and 1989 and from the subiloor process monitor under the MPB since

' 1976), and that by omitting such information citated a false picture that its op-erations_ have had a harmless environmental impact. Petitioners also assert that SIC made similar omissions in previous renewal applications.

As ulleged by Petitioners, SFC did characterize its groundwater monitoring

- program as " extensive." That characterization is, however, simply an opinion

' describing the size of its program, not a statement of fact that could constitute a 3The NRC also considars the pernuned phased restan or the 5FC raciLty to be a denial or Dune Curran's raiuest that an EA and Tts be perrormed pnor to nestart. That request, made o cormsp.mdence between Diana Curran and Rohen Bernero, is e,rsidered by the NRC staff to efractively cmbody a section 1206 request that such review take'plaem 244 i

ka:

),A-A na h

w

~

w a

A

--L--

A-

---m 4-JA; 1

1

' material false statement The essence of the Petitioners' allegation is that SFC misrepresented tic groundw' iter monitoring data as so thorough t!.at the program would have detected any contamination of concern. Whether the SFC program was vast or small does not permit a conclusios. as to whether the program was so comprehensive or inclusive such that SFC would have detected any uranium contamination of concern. SFC made no such representation. Accordingly.

de Staff cannot conclude that SFC's description of its groundwater monitoring

= program as " extensive" was a false statement of fact.

._Widi respect to the second alleged material false statement, SFC did state in the renewal application that its groundwater monitoring wells were located in areas most susceptible to groundwater contamination; and it is true that secp-

- age from operations in the SX building and MPB does constitute a significant source of contamination at the site. Petitioners, however, present no basis to conclude, and it cannot be determined at this time, that groundwater near the SX building or MPE is more susceptible to contamination than grountiwater in other locations, such as areas near pond 2,- the Emergency Basin, the Sanitary Lagoon, the clarifier pond, or ammonium-nitrate-lined ponds. Moreover, if the SX sandwells and MPB subiloor process mor.itor measure " perched" grotmd-water contamination, as argued _ by Petitioners, then SFC did, in fact, monitor groundwater near the SX building and MPB; and there is no issue of a mate-rial false statement if groundwater near the SX building and MPB were most

- susceptible to contamination, and if the data collected by the SX sandwells and subiloor process monitor are not groundwater data, then whether SFC's state-.

ment should be treated as a material false statement wonM depend on whether

- it could be concitded that SFC willfully misstated the matter with an intent to deceive, as explained below.

Whether the omission of the SX sandwell and MPB subiloor process mon-itoring data from the August 1990 renewal application constitutes a material falso statement within the meaning of section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act and.10 C.F.R. $ 40.9, requires consideration of two issues: (1) was the omined

- information material and (2) was the omission sufficiently egregious?*

Information is material if it is capabic of influencing the agency decision-maker. North Anna. CL1-76-22, supra note 4,4 NRC at 487; United States

- v. Weinstoch, 231' F.2d 699, 701 (D.L. Cir.1956); United States v. Dias. 690

- F.261352,1357-58 (11th Cir.1982). In this case, the omitted SX sandwell and subiloor process monitoring data constitute infnrmation relevant to an is.

4 Si mIy falso stateme'sts of matenal fact let also anussions of matetial ir.rormauon from a license apphcation.

may ecnstitute violadons or section 186 or the Atmic Energy Act. Virginia Dufric saf fe=c Co. (Nonh Attua Power staden. Units I and 2). C1J-7&22,4 NRC 480 (1976). qf'd sub non Virginia l'hetric sad # wr Co. v.

- MC.571 F.2d 1289.1291 (4th Cir.1971k "tslitence tegardmg issues or majas imponance to heensing decisions is scadily reached under the statutory phrase 'msterial false stamment"* Neth Anna. C1J 76-22. aupra. 4 NRC at 489- -

245 4

e

I b

i i

sue of importance in' the license renewal proceeding, potential environmental contamination. He Staff concludes that the omiued information is capable of influencing a decision on the renewal of SFC's operating license. Because the Staff would consider the omitted information before reaching a decision on re-newal, the omitted information is material to the renewal application.

4 The NRC has construed section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act and the regulations impicmenting that statutory provision such that the term " material false statement" will only be applied to misstatements or omissions of material fact that are egregious because they are made wit'i an intent to mislead the NRC.

Statement of Consideration, " Completeness and Accuracy of Information," 52 Fed. Reg. 49,362 (Dec. 31,1987). As explained below, available evidence indicate; that neither the omission of the SX sandwell data and the subfloor

- process monitor data from_the August 29,1990 renewal application, nor SFC's failure to supplement its cpplication with this information, was done with an iintent to deceive the NRC, Accordingly, the Staff cannot conclude that the 4

omission of that information from the ter,ewal application constitutes a material false statement. The omitted data do demonstrate uranium contamination under or around the SX building and MPBi however, SFC did notify the NRC of the fact of uranium contamination in the SX excavation pit on August 22,1990, and beneath the MPB on September 14f 1990. Since SFC informed the NRC of the fact of contamination, the omission cannot be considered to have been the result

' of an intent to deceive the NRC about, or tc conceal the fact of, contamination.

License applicants have a continuing obligation _to keep their applications ac-curate and up to date. The Commission interprets NRC requirements concerning completeness 'and accuracy _of information such that the failure to correct an unintentionally incomplete written submission, or failure to correct written lu-formation that raises questions about trustworthiness or commitment to safety,

. ay be treated as violations, General Statement of Policy and Procedere for W

m NRC Enfercement Actions,10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, iVI, Materials li-censees such as SFC submit an environmental report (ER) with any application for a license or renewal of a license.10 C.F.R 551.60(a). By letter dated

- September 18,-1990, SFC informed the Staff of its. intent to revise the ER submitted with the August 29,1990 renewal application. Moreover, the Staff requested that SFC delay its update of the ER natil the environmental character-12ation was complete and until the Staff's iniual review of the license renewal

- upplication was complete. _On January 10, 1992, SFC submitted a revised en-

vironmental report that incorporates the information from the facility environ-mer,tal investigation that was conducted at the site, including the SX sandwell and MPB subiloor process monitoring data. Moreover, since SFC notified the

' Staff of uranium contamination in the SX excavation pit on August 22,1990, and beneath the MPB on September 14,1990, the delay in updating the ER with

- the monitoring data'cannot be considered the result of an intent to mislead the '

246 y

I' u

li

!~

L ii

y 4

~

NRC, Accordingly, the Staff concluded that although SFC failed to supplement the SFC renewal application until January 10,1992, there has been no intent to l

- deceive the NRC, and thus_the delay in supplementing the renewal app ication

- does no' constitute a material false statement.

Petitioners contend that because SFC began collecting the SX sandwell and MPB sub0oor process monitoring data in 1976 and since SFC did not include

~

those data iri any SFC renewal application, including the August 1990 renewal application, SFC must have deliberately " suppressed" or withheld the data from y

l the NRC. Tte Staff, however, based Rs conclusion of a management breakdown la part upon the determination, after extensive inspection and investigation of the -August 1990 SX excavation pit contamination, that SFC managers who were aware of the monitoring data failed to aggressively pursue the apparent contamination suggested by those data because they failed to comprehend the sigrdficance of Oie data. (EA 91-067) Accordingly, in the absence of new evidence, it cannot be concluded that the SFC withheld die SX sandwell and MPB subiloor process monitoring data from any SFC renewal spplication widi

.an intent to deceive the NRC about the presence of contaminution.

Anhough it cannot be concluded that SfC made any false affirmative state-ments of material fact in its renewel applications, SFC's omission.of the SX

.sandwell and MPB subiloor process monitor data rendered the renewal appli-cations incomplete. Information supplied by an applicant to the Commission

- must be complete in all material respects,10.C.F.R. 5 40.9(a). License renewal applicants are required to submit an ER, which must discuss "the impact o!.iie proposed action on the canironment." 10 C,F.R. Il40.31(f) and 51.60(a). The

- ER must include not only informat on supporting the proposed action, but also i

" adverse information," 10 C.F.R. il51,45(b)(1), (e). The omitted SX sandwell and subiloor process monitor data constitute '? adverse information" regarding the impact of the proposed action on the environment, Because the Staff would

=

. consider that information before deciding whether to grant SFC's renewal ap-

' plication, the license renewal applications are materially incomplete in violation of section 40.9(a).'

LThe NRC may revoke materials licenses in cases where the licensee makes a

' material false statement in the application. See All ChemicalIsotope Enriciunent, Inc., LBP-90-26, 32 NRC 30 (1990). As explained above, however, the Staff cannot conclude that SFC made any material false statement in its renewal

~

applications. JAccordingly, the Staff concludes that license revocation would be an excessively harsh and unwarranted remedy in this case, and denies the

Petitioners' request to revoke SFC's operating license. A violation of NRC-l

requirements, even a material false statement (which is not involycJ here), does not, in and of itself, warrant the extreme remedy of revocation.' 7he choice of remedy rests within the sound discretion 'of the Commission, see Petition for -

Emergency and Remedial Action, CL1-78-6, 7. NRC 400, 405-06 (1978), and 247-

t Washington Public Power Supply System (WNP_ Nos. 4 and 5), DD-82-6,15

'NRC 1761,1766 n.9 (1982), based on factors such as the significance of the underlying violadons and the effectiveness of the sanction in securing lasting

^ corrective action. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Itwer plant, Unit 1), DD-84-8,19 NRC 924,933 (1984).

Enforcement options other than revocation include a nodce of violation, a

~

civil penalty, or appropriate orders in this case, the Staff has already ordered SfC to suspend operations based in part upon SFC's failure to prompdy notify the NRC of contamination around and under the SX building and the MPB and SFC's failure to supply the SX sandwell and MPB subiloor process monitor data to the NRC. See " Order Modifying License (Effective immediately) and Demand for Information," EA 91-067 (October 3,1991). Additionally, significant action has been taken regarding membeni of SIC management._ See " Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective immediately)," EA 91196 (January 13, 1992)' Additionally, the Staff modified SFC's license to remove a manager from the supervision of NRC-regulated activities for 1 year and to require that for 2 1

years thereafter, STC shall not reassign that person to the supervision of NRC-regulated activities without providing 30 days' prior notice. See EA 91-067.

'Ihose actions _wcre taken in response to a violation that involved withholding from an NRC inspector informauon concernmg uramum contamination in the SX excavation pit.

Even though significant enforcement action has been taken against SFC, the StrJf proposes to issue a notice of violation against SFC for violating section 40.9.

H.

Request for Formal Adjudicatory llearing and Access to SFC Internal Documents Before Permitting Restart

- Petitioners request that before permitting restart, the Commission orde a

-formal adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the SFC facility can be operated safely. Petitioners argue that the pending Subpart L renewal hearing is inadequate to address this issue because crass-examination c,f witnesses and discovery of SFC internal documents are necessary, but-Subpart L prohibits discovery and provides only for limited oral presentations in lieu of a formal hearing. 10 C.F.R. 95 2.1231, -2.1233. Although the. Commission, in its discretion, could order such a hearing, there is no= legal requirement in this case to conduct a formal adjudicatory hearing before restart is permitted. SFC

' argues that the Petitioners' request for a formal adjudicatory hearing prior to restart is, in essence, a legally impermissible attempt to litigate the sufficiency of NRC enforcement action in EA 91-067. There is no right to a hearing for the purpose of challenging the sufficiency of past or contemplated enforcement actions, including orders to suspend. Bellotti v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380,1383 248

(D.C. Cir.1983); Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (UF Production Facility), CL186-19, 6

24 NRC 508,513-14 (1986); Public Service Co. offndiana (Marble !!ill Nuclear s Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10,11.NRC 438,441 (1980); and flouston Lighting and Power Co. (Soudi Texas Project, Units I and 2), CLI 32,12 NRC 281,289 (1980). Nor is there a right to a hearing on the lifting of a suspension. Three Afile Island Alers, Inc. v. NRC. 771 F.2d 720,729-30 (3d

~

Cir.1985), cert. denied,475 U.S.1082 (1986): Southern Cahfornia Edir... Co.

. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), CLI 85-10, 21 NRC 1569, 1575 n.7 (1985); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2), CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953, aff'd San Luis Obispo Afothers

- for Peace v. NRC. 751 F.2d 1287,1314 (D.C. Cir.1984), ag'd on reh'g en banc, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C. Cir.1986).5 10 C.F.R. { 2.1209(k). Therefore, the Staff does not believe that the Petitioners have provided a sufficient basis for any hearirig or access to internal SFC documents.

C, Petitioners Allege EA 91-067 Is Inadequate to Reasonably Ensur;

' Safe Operation of the SFC Plant Petitioners contend that SFC has routinely violated safety procedures and put workers at significant risk over the past year despite oversight, that the violations are the same or,es for which SFC was cited previously, and that this cycle will not be broken because (a) the fundamental causes of the management breakdown -

have not been identified and (b) SFC has hired the same consultants who were

- involved in two previous unsuccessful management studies, and who, therefore, are not sufficiently independent to be obje:tive.

1. : Failure to ident{fy Fundamental Causes of hianagement Breakdown Petitioners contend that the Staff has never obtained a ;;atisfactory answer to its questions concerning the fundamental causes of SFC's problems. Petitioners further contend : hat the Staff apparently plans to allow SFC to resume operations without identifying the source of its management problems.

The November 1990 Demand stated that because the fundamental causes of f

SFC's failures could not be determined, the Commission required additional information to determine if there was reasonable assurance that the Licensee could properly manage its activities in accordance with the regulations and License No. SUB-1010. Accordingly, SFC was required to state whether it was -

willing to have an independent management appraisal conducted, which would i

3To os catan out discovery of sFC intemal documenu an.: cross.esur.aution might be necesury to res 4ve p

questions wnhin the scope of the renewat hearing, dm Comminids rules provide for such an eventuality.19 l

-(

C.F.R. I 2.1209M i

l.- i "

l 249 l:

i

l recommend necessary improvements in management controls and oversight. The

- appraisal report was to include the view of the independent organization as to causes of the deficiencies; The Staff further addressed the management problems

!in issuing EA 91067.- Section Vill of EA 91-067 required SFC to provide further inforrnadon "to d'etermine whether the Commission can have reasonable assuranee that in the future the Licensee will conduct its acdvities in accordance -

with the Commission's requirements" and information P determine if certain managers "will carry out the responsibilities and authorities assigned to their respective key position descriptions outlined in the license."

The Staff review of the independent management assessment and SFC's re-sponse was ongoing at the ti'ne EA 91-067 was issued; and at that time, the Staff had not yet completed the analysis'of STC's November 20,1990 response to EA 90-158, As noted in EA 91067, neither the independent management assess-

. rtent nor SIC's response directly addressed the root causes for the deLciencies in STC's management. The management assessment report did identify goals for strengthening management systems and supporting a high level of safety and compliance with regulatory requirements.- To achieve these goals, the report made specific recommendations in the areas of communications, organization, training, policy, planning, managernent controls, human resources management, and regulatory relations. SFC responded to these recommendations by letters dated July 15 and November 7,1991, agreeing to implement the majority of the recommendations.' Nevertheless, the. Staff concluded that the independent man-agement assessment report did not address the root cause of SFC's deficiencies and failed to clearly establish whether the recommended actions were sufficient

. to correct SFC's problems. (Inspection Report 91 17.)

Because SFC's new president was dissatisfied with the 1991 SFC responses, in January 1992, SFC provided a revised program of objectives developed by the current eminagement team to supplement its 1991 responses te the

. management assessment. During the January 1992 team inspection, the SFC president informed the NRC Staff that he believed ' hat the corrective measures previously planned by SFC failed to fully address the underlying weaknesses in the organization? In its January 3,1992 leuer, SFC identified what it believes to be the fundamental causes of SFC's problems. First, a strong nuclear safety

. and regulatory compliance culture had not been instilled throughout the SFC organization. Second, a disciplined / formal management process had not been implemented throughout the organization. To reach these conclusions, SFC relied upon an evaluation of the events that occurred during 1990 and 1991 and a review of contributing factors identified by two SFC consultants. As contributing factors, SIC identified the particular background and experience of SIC senior managers, weaknesses in organizational structure, insufficient sensitivity to radiological aspects of.SFC's activities, and inadequate communications both internally and with the NRC.

250 L

l'

As part of the January 1992 team inspection, the inspection team reviewed SFC's proposed programs for improving managerial effectiveness (as described.

in the January 3, _1992 *Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Plan for Achieving and

. Maintaining liigh Performance Standards" or Plan) and SIC's evaluation of

~ root causes of the deficiencies and programmatic weaknesses identified in the 1990 Demand and the 1991 Order. The Plan identifies eight objectives that SFC believes are the principal elemeats of an effective management process.

Many of the recommendations from the independent management assessment are incorporated into these objectives. These objectives are: - (1) selection of.

qualified managerJ with demonstrated records of success; (2) establishment and communication of SIC's corporate mission, goals, and strategies; (3) establish-ment and communication of SIT' management's policies and expectations; (4) -

improving effectiveness of procedures;(5) provision of adequate staffmg and ef-fcctive training; (6) strengthening of programs for identification and correction of problems to prevent recurrence; (7) establishment and use of performance indicators to assess the effectiveness of performance; and (8) provision of feed-back on performance to the SFC organization and individualf.

Although SIC planned to implement some of the Plan objectives prior to any restart authorization (procedures and training requirements captured under i the 1991 Order), the majority were viewed as long term corrective measures to be implemented over the next I to 2 years. Some of the specific actions that SFC has taken or plans to take to achieve these objectives include the following:

' STC has replaced all of the individuals specified in the Demand and has put.

in place a new~ management team. SFC has made organizational changes diat will allow the lleahh and Safety Manager to focus'en issues of industrial an't radiological safety. SIC los also hired management consultants to assess SFC's improvements, SFC is also developing a Business Plan to help institutionalize its plans and actions to ensure strong nuclear safety and regulatory compliance; The Plan will have both annual and long-term objectives. Additionally, SFC has estab-lished a corporate policy that " employees will perforr a nuclear professionals who are operating a nuclear facility" To communica its expectations, SFC holds weekly meetings at various_ organization levels. Approximately every 4'

. months, the SFC president plans to meet with all employees to communicate

SIC standards and expectations. The president also periodically issues written -

updates iaforming employees of the plant status and discussing management expectations. The training program now incorporates references to management expectations. SIC is also implementing a Conduct of Operations Program. The objective of the program is to achieve a high level of performance and account-ability throughout SFC's organization to ensure that activities are conducted in

.a manner that protects the environment, the health and safety of workers, and-the health and safety of the public. The scope of the program encompasses all 251 r

Wi i

g.

aspects of operations and management systems. ne program holds personnel accountable for their performance,

' in September 1991, SFC implemented a Procedure improvement Program to

' npgnde those operating procedures important to safe operation of the plant The program was developed in response to NRC concerns regarding the adequacy -

of SFC's opemting procedures. The progmm is a two-phase effort. For the first-

phase, SFC listed twenty-three procedures that would be reviewed in the short

. term and serve as a pilot program. The second plose, a long-term project. ill

? upgrade the remaining procedures; SfC continel the project after the October 1991: Order was issued. ; By the thne of tho itnuary 1992 team inspection, SFC had upgraded twenty of the twenty-three procedures in Phase I and was

-reviewing the other three. The program b designed to' develop consistent standards for format, style, and content; trrPac clarity; incorporate additional s

detailed instructions and guidance; incommte cautions, warnings, and work permit requirements; incorporate the peed for special tools and eqolpment; -

correct errors; highlight important pe fonAvce standards; and identify activities i

that should be governed by a procedure,

~ In the area of staffing, SFC has added several positions. The health physics staff has been increased to include a second heakh physics supervisor and a staff health physicist, as well as hiring consultants to assist with the program. SFC has added a waste management manager, a human resources manager, a QA engineer, and a licensing engineer, as_ well as cor.suhants to assist with various

- programs,- SFC also plans to conduct an orgmizational functional evalualon to analyze staffing levels. ' Although the project is in the developmental stage,

the humen resources manager md the controller are to complete the evaluation j

t of the health and rnfety, quality assurance, nuclear licensing, environment, and operations departments by June 1992.

SFC has provided training on' contamination control to operations, niainte-nance, and health and safety personnel. Health and safety technicians have re-ceived 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of training on health physics principles and practices 'Itaining on industrial safety and hygiene is planned. Employees utilizing revised procc-dures have been trained on those revised procedures, SFC intends to implement

' a number of improvements to provide a more structured training program for all

elements of the organization. SFC has reorganized its training department so all training activities will be conducted under the direction and supervision of the.

q human resources depanment. As part of the January team inspection, the team reviewed the effectiveness of SFC's training for operators and health and safety technicians, ne inspectors concluded that the. workers appeared adequately trained on the revised procedures; The team also concluded that SFC's training

for its permanent health and safety technicians was thorough.-

. The Staff has concluded that the responses and actions required by the 1990 Demand have been satisfactorily addressed by SFC, Complete implementation q

2S2.

1

~

_- =. -

of the 1,rogram would result in substantially improved management of licensed operations and satisfy the NRC's concerns. The inspection team found that although a riumber of improvements had been implemented or were in the

- planning stages, SFC's proposed plan for improvement represents long-term cornetive measures that will require future review to detumine wlvther they

' are effectively implemented and sustained. The inspection team did identify the-following three corcerns that SFC had to address prior to a restart authorization.

First, the Staff was concerned about the adequacy of the health and-safety technician staffing. The-concern was primarily focused on the number of permanent positions.- SFC has established twenty-ty'o positions of which twelve

- am staffed. Contract technicians augment the staff and will be phased out as

_ permane_n' positions are filled by trained SFC employees. SFC has also added a second health-and-safety supervisor position and hired a staff health physicist.

De second concern involves the corrective measures taken to improve managerient's sensitivity to regulatory concerns. Specifically, the reaction to the idendfication of contaminated articles located in unrestricted areas raised

. questions as to why SFC's staff failed to adhere to policies regarding internal notification to management, and failed to promptly control or restrict the area. SFC performed a root-cause analysis and determined that the root cause was significant and rapid change in the work environment. Contributing causes were inadequate job turnover and plans for surveys in umestricted areas.' SFC has since issued a new procedure on contamination control, and a temporary procedure was issued to provide guidance for actions to be taken when contamination is identified in unrestricted areas, For performing surveys in unrestricted areas, SFC has developed a pian that specifice the responsibilities -

of ladividuals, provides for prioritization, identifies app!! cable procedures and regulations, and establishes contamination trigger levels.

The third concern is the need for an addit'onal level of oversight of licensed Loperations during development _and implementation of long term corrective programs. In its March 13,1992 response, SFC provided additional information regarding the interim management oversight measures. SFC is impicmenting a.

manager-on-shift program during restart and for at least 30 days after restart.

SIC is utilizing senior experienced consultants prior to, during, and after -

restart to deal with ongoing maintenance and operations activities, root-cause analysis, performance itidicators, and regulatory compliance self-assessment.

= Re Sequoyah Oversight Team will implement a n: start program that focuses on critical procedures and activities. - SFC senior management _will conduct monthly inspections for at least 6 months. New procedures for deficiency

reports a-d corrective action requests are being implemented so as to involve all SFC personnel. SFC has also adopted interdepartmental reviews prior to new activities, prestartup checklists, revised procedures," frequent management visits to. work areas, improvements to the QA progmm, management meetings 253 y

with' the workforce to reinforce goals and expectations, improved commitment tracking systems, annual external audits, and use of technology consultants,Section VI, item B, of EA 91_067 ordered SFC to perform an in depth re-

- view of the administrative control and implementing procedures in the health and safety and environmental programs. Petitioners infer that die subrnission of a plan to review procedures in the health and safety and environmental programs

+

is all SFC must do prior to resumption of licensed act vities. However, the plan i

required some implementation prior to resaption of licensed activities. Imple-mentation of the plan involves hiring outside individuals to review procedures to ensure that instructions are clear, current, and technically adequate; revising the inadequate procedurest and providing training on the new and 1: vised pro-cedures. The plan itself just lists the procedures to be reviewed and provides justification for the time frame for review, i.e., before or after restart. Moreover, NRC Staff approval is required prior to restart. The Staff concluded that SFC has satisfied the exphcit requirements of item B of section VI of the Order.

(Inspection Report 91 17.)

Petitioners state that revamping procedcres will not address the organizational and attitudinal problems discussed in EA 90-158 and EA 91067. It is correct that changes to procedures alone will not address these other issues, llowever,

• FC has taken other steps, discussed above, to directly address these issues.

SFC has in place new management in key positions, including the president.

SFC has also hired additional staff in the areas of health physics, training, and regulatory affairs. SFC is implementing the management controls recommended in the independent mancgement assessment,-in the independent review of the August 1990 events, and in SFC's January 3,1992 letter. SFC is implementing a manager-on shift program to provide additional oversight to ensure compliance.

SIC has also initiated a Conduct of Operations program that is designed to change the cultural problems by making individual employees responsible for their actions.

'the changes being implemented by SFC appear to be effective. Workers have demonstrated the ability to perferm activities in accordance with the impmved procedures. - Additionally, workers Imve demonstrated sensitivity to -

SIC management expectations and standards for hwith physics practices and have initiated efforts to prevent and correct work practices that did not meet

' these standards. The Petitioners have not' presented any new information to indicate that SFC will not be able to operate the facility safely.

2, lack ofIndependence by Proposed Consultants Petitioners request ttet SFC be required to obtain a "truly" indt,.endent audit -

of its management and operations. Petitioners allege that SFC has ob:ained several evaluations of its management and operations by the same group of 254 N

a

,b -

1 a--

people, and that since these individuals have a long standing relationship with SIC, their objectivity is compromised because they have a vested interest in af firmlng their previous conclusions. Petitioners cite as examples the use of Dr.

James Buckham, PLO, Mr. Henry Morton, and Dr. B. John Garrick.

Pedtioners object to the use of Dr James Buckham to conduct an inde-pendent critique of SFC's response to the August 1990 event because of his association with PLO. Dr. Buckham's conduct of the independent critique does not presen, reason for concern that the report might be biased, in fact, Dr.

Buckham's review concluded that there were problems with SfC's response to the August 1990 events, and he made recommendations for improvement in SFC's programs, including a recommendation for root-cause analysis, changes in reporting of incidents, and improved communications. The lttitioner does not demonstrate that the report could be biased or why, but merely asserts that Dr. Buckham's association with PLO must severely taint the independence of his review.

Petitioners object to the use of PLO to provide the oversight required by EA 90-158 because PLO provided the oversight after the 1986 uranium hexafluorida cylinder rupture. SFC selected PLO to provide the oversight required by EA 90-158 partly because of the company's familiarity with the SFC facility. The NRC agreed to the use of PLO for the independent oversight. The oversight team was

- inWJed to provide additional assurance that NRC regulatory requirements were being satisfied during operation of the facility while management deficiencies r.nd weaknesses were beiry addressed. PLO only proviaed surveillance over SIT: activities; PLO did not conduct any management studies as part of its oversight function. As part of the January 1992 team inspection, the NRC Staff reviewed the ovettight team's activities. The NRC Staff concluded that although

'the oversight team may rtot have fully communicated its concerns in the daily and weekly reports, in general, the oversight team did fulfill the oversight role as described in the 1990 Demand.

Ittitioners question the use of Mr. Ilenry Morton to head the review of the health and safety and environmental programs.' Petitioners assert that Mr, Morton participated in both PLO's 1986 post-accident review and the oversight required by EA 90-158, and participated in the independent management assess-ment in 1991, Mr. Morton_was a participant in the oversight provided after the 1986 accident. lie was not, however, a participant in the 1991 oversight by PLO.

lie was listed as a polcatial member for that oversight team but in fact did not

- serve in that function. SFC proposed Morton and Potter to conduct the indepen-

. NACE objened rurmelh to the selection or Mr. Morton ror the program sview. teuer fmm Diano Currm, attorney ror NACE to Robert D. Mardn. NRC (November 4.1991). NRC cor.cludcJ that Mr. Marton's participatwn in the Pl.o mermight after the 1986 accident did noi disquahry hun from conduct.ng tbs program

. review. tetter rrtan koben % Martm. NRC. to Diane Curran (November 27.19911 255 r

n l.

i

~

l dent management appraisal required by EA 90-158. NRC approval of Morton and Potter 'vas contingent on Dr. Bernard Keys being a primary participant because of his expertise in management and the need to include management issues in the appraisal. The management appraisal did not include a technical appraisal of the health and safety and environmental programs. Ilowever, in the December 1,1990 letter, SFC did state its intention to have Morton and Pot-ter conduct a technical appraisal after completion of the management appraisal.

Mr. Morton had alread' titiated the still pending technical appraisal before the October 3,19% nems.a and Order.

lttitioners assert that Mr. Morton participated in Irviews that reported approvingly of SIC's operations, and that these conclusions were later proven to be incorrtet by SfC's mismanagement and environmental contamination.

Ittitioners assen that the independent management assessment, conducted by Morton and Potter, gave SFC a positive bill of health less than 5 months before the plant was ordered shut down. The May 15, 1991 management appraisal report, however, did not give SfC a clean bill of heahh. The report stated that SIC now has the organizational units in place that are needed to operate at a high level of compliance with NRC requirements. The repon identified fifteen goals for strengthening management systems and supporting a high level of safety and compliance with regulatory requirements. The report presented forty-seven recommendations to accomplish these goals. Areas needing improvemen' included policy, planning, communications, organization, management controls, human resources management, training, and regulatory relations.

y Ittitioners object to SFC hiring Mr. Morton as the project manager overseeing the program review in the health and safety and c avironmental programs because Mr. Motton has an alleged vested interest in affirming his prior conclusions that SIC's operations are adequate. As explained above, the 1991 management appraisal did not conclude that there were no deficiencies in SFC operations or that those deficiencies played no role in poor performance. Petitioners have not established that because of Mr. Morton's past association with SFC that Mr.

Morton's review of the health and safety and environmental programs would be biased. Moreover, Mr. Morton has a highly qualified group of individuals working with him on the procedure review. All reviewers have been approved by the NRC Staff. The NRC Staff has evaluated the adequacy of the health and safety and environmental reviews that were required to be completed prior to restan and concluded that those reviews satisfied EA 91-067. (Inspection Report 9117.) Ibnher independent review beyond completing the procedure review is not warranted.

ittitioners also disagree with the selection of Dr. B. John Garrick to head SFC's Readiness Review Committee. The Readiness Review Committee was chartered to review SFC's compliance with the Order and to advise SFC's president on the general readiness of the facility to commence operations. The 256 I

Committee was not required by EA 91-067 but represented an additional action that SFC took to provide assurance that the facility was ready for restart.

Petitioners assert that unless SFC obtal.is an independent assessment of its operations and management, the company will not cure those deficiencies.

In fact, SIC obtained independent reviews of its programs as required by EA 90-158 and EA 91067. 'lhe Staff was satisfied that those reviews werc

~

adequate to allow restart, and concluded that, with the exception of continued oversight by the independent oversight team, additional independent reviews are unnecessary. Petitioners have not provided any information that changes that conclusion. Accordingly, Petitioners' request for further independent assessments of o[rrations and management is denied.

D.

Petitioners' Request That SFC lie lleld to its Commitment to operate Safely by Completing All Chances to Management and Operations liefore Restart Petitioners request that all changes to management and procedures necessary to ensure safe operation of the facility be completed prior to restart. The Staff agreed and, before authorizing restart, determined that such necessary changes had been completed. Petitioners cite SFC's quality asst ^ see (QA) program and performance as an example of SFC's past tailur, to keep its commitments.

Specifically, SFC was cited for failure to audit its preventive maintenance and maintenance surveillance programs. (Inspection Report 9104.)

As indicated in Inspection Reports 91-04 and 91 16, the Staff is concerned about Sit's QA program, which is why QA procedures were added to the procedure review effort required by the Order. SFC's QA program previously consisted of periodic reviews of operating activities, to determine procedural adherence, which were conducted by a full-time employee assigned to complete the audits and corresponding reports Program weaknesses included insufficient staffing and the limited scope of the program in that it did not include functional areas other than operations. Audits were compliance-oriented with -

9 procedures, rather than programmatic reviews, and failed to evaluato

.uu not governed by procedures. SFC identified the need for program improvements, including the following:

(1) enhancement of the QA engineer's qualifications to that of an Ameri-can National Standards Institute certified Lead Auditor and increasing the QA staffing with personnel having disciplines in the areas rou-tinely audited. SFC also intends to train the QA engineer and other staff members in root cause analysis methodology; (2) evaluation of QA programs at other facilities to determine standards that may be useful at SIC and use of this experience to revise the QA program; 257

(3)-- development of clear definidon for QA-identified items to fxilitate identification of those audit items of greatest import.nce; and

- (4) revision of the existing QA procedures to include programmatic au-dits; establish qualifications of QA auditors; define Ludit methodology and the issuance, tracking, closing, and trending of audit items; and

_ clarify the use of contracted auditors in the QA ptogram.

~

SfC also intends to include the QA program in annual audits performed by General Atomics, SIC's parr,tt corporation. -In order to improve the identifi-cation of operations lacking formal procedures, missed procedure deficiencies, and conditions not audiorized in the license, SIC developed and implemented additional audit criteria and guidance for procedural audits and weekly facility walk-through inspections performed by the QA engineer.

Ihe Staff has reviewed SFC's QA plans and the interim measures to be taken while the QA program is being revised. The intcrim measures are acceptabic.

A unal determination on the QA program will not occur until af.er SFC has completely unplemented the revised program.-

Fetitioners allege that SFC has repeatedly contaminated die site and put workers at unnecessary risk and that the site has become grossly polluted with uranium and other chemicals, While SFC has exhibited poor contamination control practices in the past, which resulted in the environmental contamination probic ms of today, SFC is currently taking satisfactory actions to prevent further contamination. _SFC has taken or has planned actions to further minimize the sourte of contamination (i.e., the sump /tloor inspection program and relocation of the laundry) and has initiated actions to remedy existing contamination (i.e.,

-recovery wells and trenches, removal and consolidation of soil, and pond 2 remediation). Additionally, although some workers have been contaminated, records indicate that no overexposures have occurred. SFC has addressed the -

need to include contract workers in the bioassay program.

Before authosizing restart, the Staff evaluated the July 1991 FEl report and other data and concluded that existing contamination was not so extensive or so great pat it should prevent restart. Nonetheless, environmental contamination casoclCed with SFC operations islan issue related to license renewal. - The

- Staff's authorization 'of restart' was made without prejudice. to resolution of environmental issues in the pending license renewal proceeding._ Petitioners -

. are a party to that proceeding and have set forth areas of concern regarding environmenc# contamination to be addressed in that proceeding.-

-In summary, SFC' completed all pre-restart reviews and'is continuing the reviews designated fnr after restan, as required by EA 91067, and has put

- an acceptable m nagement in place, as well as the necessary management controls to err _ e safe operation. SFC not only satisfied EA 91-067 but

' went beyond what was required. SFC removed certain individuals, hired additional staff, implemented a readiness review committee, implemented the 258

c conduct of operations, and continued the proceduie performance improvement i

program. The Staff concludes that SFC identified the fundamental cause of its previous management weaknesses - SIC is implementing its plan to correct the problems at the facility. Upon completion, SIC should have in place the programs necessary to ensure that high performance standards are achieved and maintained. The Staff has determined that there is reasonable assurance that

- SFC car, operate the plant in accordance with regulations and its license. The Petitioners have not presented any new information mat was not considered before autharizing SIC's restart or which demonstrates that SFC cannot operate the facility safely. Accordingly, the Staff concluded that all changes necessary

~ before SFC could resu ne operations had in fact been made, and thus restart was authorized by letter dated April 16,1992; E.

Request fur Fedtral Register Notice The Itti'ioners have also requested that if and when restart is permitted, the Commission direct the Staff to provide notice in the Federa! Register of all proposed amendments to the SFC license. Delt request is based on the absence of ready means by which petitioners and members of the public may be informed of such matters. There is no legal requirement to give notice of a materials licensing action. Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rarc Earths Pacility), CLI-

. 82-2,15 NRC 232, 245 (1982), a/J'd sub nom. City of West Chicago v.NRC,701

= F.2d 632 (7th Cir.1983); Moreover, as a matter of long-standing practice, the NRC does not notice by publication in the Federal Register the approximately 5000 materials licensing actions it considers each year, unless the subject of the amendment is considered significant. See Statement of Consideration, " Informal llearing Procedures for Materials Licensing Adjudications." 54 Fed. Reg. 8269 (Feb. 28,1989).: Petitioners have presented no reason to change this long-standing practice with respect to any future SFC license amendment applications.

EShould the Staff conclude that any SFC license amendment application-is significant, a notice will be published in the Federal Register. See 10 C.F.R.

~ 5 2.105(a)(9). In any event, the NRC places all amendment requests, as well as other correspondence, in both the Public Document Room and the Local Public Document Room (LPDR). The LPDR is located at the Stanley Abbs Memorial Library,101 E. Cherokee Street, Sallisaw, Oklahoma. Interested members of the -

public, therefore, have a ready means of learning about license amendments, in light of the ongoing proceeding in connection with the license renewal, however, Uc Staff does agree to notice all license amendment applications, regardless of significance, in the Federal Register until the Staff takes final action on SIC's

- license renewal application.-

259 J

~

i

_r IV CONCLUSION The institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.202 is appropriate only where substantbl health and safety issues have been raised. See Consol-idated Edison Co of New Pork (Indian Point,- Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-75-8,

- 2 NRC.173,175 76 (197S); %'asidngton Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84 7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984). This is the standard that I have applied to determine whether the action requested by Petitioners, or

additional enforcement action, is warranted.-

Ibr the reasons discussed above, there is no basis for taking the actions requested by the Petitioners. The Staff carefully reviewed its enforcement actions and concluded that they were adequate to address SFC's deficiencies.

The health and safety concerns regarding contamination at the SFC site raised by the Petitioners have either been resolved through prior enforcement actions or will be addressed in the pending license renewal proceeding. No substantial health and safety concern warranting action has been raised by the Fttitioners.

Accordingly, the Petitioners' specific requests pursuant to section 2.206 for

. license revocation, for a formal adjudicatory hearing before restart of SFC operations, and for additional independent management and progran reviews are denied.. Although the Petitioners' request fer revocation because of alleBed material false staicments in the August 29,1990 renewal application is denied.

--a Notice of Violation will be issued citing SFC for providing inaccurate and

incomplete information in violation of section _40.9.:In addition, the Petition is granted insofar as the Staff agrees to publish in the Federal Register notice of all SFC license amendment applications until the Staff takes fmal action

on the renewal application.. As provided by 10 C.F.R. 62.206(c),' a copy of this Decision will b'c filed with the. Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review. The. Decision 'will become the final action of the

, Commission twenty five (25) days after issuance unless the Commission on its

'own motion institutes review of the Decision within that time.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of June 1992.

260

+

v E%*

m4 se-