ML20129J557
| ML20129J557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1996 |
| From: | Buckalew N External (Affiliation Not Assigned), UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#496-18023 CLI-96-10, NUDOCS 9611070010 | |
| Download: ML20129J557 (5) | |
Text
-
10<25<96 16:50 C603 d69 364J hi h LL L.uu.\\
6U01.ous j N eve.). g o z 3 Nn W 5 io/ 5/m 3 20 P mi Dem me 2
'W "'
United States of America
~
N'"$
NuclearRegulatory Commission Shirley Ann Jackson, Chair
'96 OWM V'MN W0i M-W M-D -M Kenneth Rogers GretaJ.Dicus Of Fll.
FT NilsDiaz DOCKCiL '
4 Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
pooKETED C
0CT 2 91996 tober 25,1996
$d DOCKETWG &
m SERVICE BRANCH SECY-NRC
)@
b
- 3 In the Matter of
)
)
MEMORANDUMANDORDER
)
Docket No.(s) 70-7001/7002
)
U.S.ENRICHMENTCORPORATION
)
CL1-96-10
)
(Paducah, Kentucky and Piketon, Ohio)
)
)
)
l VERIFIED COMPLAINT l
ADMINISTRATIVE PETITION FOR ACTION l
This verified complaint and administrative petition for action is regarding the Memorandum and Order of October 23,1996 in the Matter of the U.S.
Enrichment Corporation. In response to the Nuclear Regulatory's threshold findings, we submit the following:
l 1.)
Findine The Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied eligibility status to petitioner, l
Neilly Buckalew as representative of Kwanitewk NATIVE Resource / Network l
and signatory, to seek review by the Commission regarding the Commission's findings in the matter of certification of the gaseous diffusion plants published in the Federal Register notice of September 16,1996, Docket No.(s) 70-7001-7002. The Commission's denial of eligibility status was based on " failure to meet the conditions of eligibility for the filing of a petition for review." (p.4, Memorandum and Ortier) This determination is based on the terms set forth in i
Ja.)
Resoonse; 3
9611070010 961025 b0 PDR ADOCK 07007001 Q
C PDR A
__m 10<25/96 14:50 C603 469 Jb4J A A AD.u.a. L.u v.6 u* v - Wu i.
l The administrative procedure required by the Commission in this matter exceeds the Commission's statutory authority and pre-empts the requirements of Federal law under the Administrative Procedure Act governing the right of all interested persons to participate during administrative adjudication and rulemaking. Section 553(e) states that any " interested person" has the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 does not grant the Commission any, nor particular authority to limit or circumscribe participation of U.S. citizens in matters regarding the gaseous diffusion plants nor the U.S. Enrichment Corp.
In addition, the actions of the Commission in this matter appear to be inconsistent with its own reluctance to act outside of statutory authority in l
other matters. In response to a request for technical assistance submitted July of 1996 by the Manager of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program of the California Health Services. Chairperson Shirley Jackson clearly aclotowledged the Commission's ihnitations to interpret and implement federal laws in other l
matters. Jackson stated that NRC's " authority and expertise to interpret and l
implement the AEA (Atomic Energy Act) and the LLWRPA (Low-Level Waste Radioactive Waste Policy Act) does not extend to Federal law on public land transfers."
Similarly, in this instance the matter regards a major public assets paid for by taxdollars, transferred through a lease from the Department of Energy to a now federal corporation slated to be " private" entity, the U.S. Enrichment Corp.
Furthermore, the United States Enrichment Corp is currently backed by U. S.
Treasury bonds. As a taxpaying citizen, I co-OWN USEC and I co-OWN the GDP's where I have full and equal right as does USEC to comment and participate in matters regarding the Commission's findings and actions on matters regarding the GDP's and USEC Would the Commission please cite the exact statutory law that would grant authority to the Commission to preclude any person or interested party, and/or citizen from full participation regarding the Commission's findings in the matter of the GDP's and USEC publicly noted in the Federal Register?
i 2.) Action:
i The Commission has funneled and circumscdbed participation ofinterested persons to only those persons who submitted written or oral comments during i
specific hearings at specific locations and to those who submitted comments on SPECIFIC ACTIONS ONLY regarding the certification process.
2a.) Resoonse:
This would seem to indicate that the Commission held or holds allocated j
funding for interested persons to either 1.) travel to the specific hearing sites e
l w.a n u.u u.~
'/
in order to fully participate in the certification process or 2.) to receive in a timely manner the necessary documents visa mail. If the Commission does not have the funds either to subsidize travel costs of, or mailing costs to interested persons, then the Commission has dampened democratic participation that goes well beyond the scope of their authority.
Also, did the Commission publish a notice in national newspapers in addition to I
the federal register offering such aforementioned subsidies to U.S. citizens?
l And, did the Commission publish in national newspapers when the hearings would take place? Along with such notice, did the Commission clearly state the limits that would be placed on citizen participation in latter NRC proceedings regarding the GDP's and USEC, ifinterested persons did not take part in the l
NRC proceedings of fall 1995 as well as hearings of November,1995 in Ohio l
and the counter hearing in Kentucky?
l i
l 3.)
Action:
The Commission has funneled and circumscribed participation ofinterested l
persons to only those persons who submitted written or oral comments on i
l SPECIFIC COMMISSION ACTIONS ONLY.
J 3 a.) Resoonse; The two gaseous diffusion plants have been under the direct regulatory control of the Department of Energy, as well other coordinating regulating agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency since the 1970's. As directed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, direct oversight s to be transferred over to the i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Narrowing comments to only the Commission's actions not only goes beyond l
the statutory authority of the Commission, but also ignores the fact that direct oversight has only recently been transferred to NRC. It is considerably irresponsible if not astonishing to disconnect past participation of citizens that took place while the GDP's were still under the direct oversight of the DOE, and during the hazy transfer process. (And, DOE still has control over various regulatory and procedural matters at the two GDP's) i l
As representative of Kwanitewk, I have been actively engaged in commenting j'
on the transfer of oversight of the GDP's (as well as privatization) with written j
documentation to the Department of Energy including Secretary Hazel O' Leary, and have in person delivered comments to Department of Energy Officials, 1
including Bob Alvarez. In addition, I have met with Senator Murkowski's staff l
April 15,1996 (along with Military Production Network representatives) l regarding the two GDP's and USEC.
i
10 25 96 16:51 Otiv a 4 o u.m a a t.u tt (31u) t oo n o.3 s
Finally, to place a wall around only the Commission and Commission's actions is directly counter to the Presidential Memo's directing agencies to coordinate their actions. (Exec. Order 12875 Enhancing the Intergovernmentaj Partnership and Exec. Order 12866 Regulatory Planninn.)
4.)
Definine " Interested nersons who MAY be affected" DOE 50 mile radius National Historic Protection Act The Department of Energy historically has considered persons within a 50 mile radius of DOE federal facilities as potentially and directly affected persons. The Commission has used the terms "may be affected" as one of the prescriptions describing those who may participate in administrative findings regarding the GDP's. The Great Serpent Mound of Ohio is well within the 50 mile radius of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant. This site is of cultural and historical significance (for ten's of thousands of years) to many American Indian Nations, Groups, Bands. Organizations, a.d Peoples - this includes specifically the Lenape and Iroquois. The cultural and historical ties of the Lenape and Iroquois are well recognized by the Ohio Historical Society and in their i
literature / documentation about the Serpent Mound. As a Lenape, I am a person who "MAY be affected" by actions of the Commission regarding the GDP of Ohio. As director of Kwanitewk, I represent American Indian people who I
also MAY be affected by actions of the Commission regarding the GDP of Ohio.
i In addition, the National Historic Protection Act regulations recognizes and grants the right of Native Americans both recognized and un-recognized to participate and register comments regarding Federal actions LP., t MAY affect l
historical and cultural sites. The Commission cannot ignore it.e 1equirements 01 a major Federallaw. In fact, the Commission has requested xmments from the Ohio Historical Society regarding the GDP of Ohio. Thus, this is an admission on the part of the Commission that the requirements of the National Historical Protection Act applies to the Commission actions regarding the GDP of Ohio. The i
Commission cannot cut-out the right granted to ALL citizens and interested persons to participate under the NHPA on matters that MAY affect a prominent and significant National Historic site.
The regulations state in_eeneral " members of the public with an interest in an undertaking and its effects on historic properties should be given reasonable opportunity to have an active role in the... process." As the lead agency, the Commission must meet the full requirements of the NHPA which also requires coordination of agency efforts.
For the above stated reasons, and with appropriate consideration for full public participation in Commission proceedings, we respectfully request that the 4
= _..
_. -... - = _. _.
~
10/25<96 14:52
@6u3 4ew Jo4J iu.no.u.c t.u va m.
l Commission reconsider the threshold findings in the Memorandum and Order of October 18,1996, CL1-96-10, and review our petition of October i
Respectfully Submitted, Neilly Buckalew, MSEL Director Kwanitewk NATIVE Resource / Network (603) 469-4967 PO Box 382 Meriden, NH 037 /0 cc:
United States Civil Rights Commission i
Office of Attorney General, Ohio Delivered this 25th day of October by facsimile transmission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C. office of the Director.
(301) 415-7192 telephone (301) 415-5370 facsimile i
I i
l