ML20248D815
| ML20248D815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000036 |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1989 |
| From: | Bauser M ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY, NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246Q328 | List: |
| References | |
| MLA, NUDOCS 8908110140 | |
| Download: ML20248D815 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
)
)
Docket No. 70-36 (Hematite Fuel Fabrication
)
Facility, Special Nuclear
)
Materials License No. SNM-33)
)
)
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO JUNE 22, 1969 LETTER REGARDING TBE HEMATITE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY s
I.
INTRODUCTION On May 24, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(" Commission" or "NRC") pub]!.shed a notice in the Federal
.R gister stating that it was considering the issuance of an i
cmar.dment to the Combustion Engineering ("C-E" or " Applicant")
)
Special Nuclear Materials License for its fuel fabrication fccility in Hematite, Missouri.
54 Fed. Reg. 22,510.
The notice announced that the Commission had prepared an Environmental
- Aesessment relating to the proposed amendment and arrived at a Tinding of No Significant Impact" to the environment.
54 Fed.
Reg. 22,511.
The notice also provided an opportunity for "[a]ny person whose interest" might be affected by the proposed cmendment to request a hearing in accordance with the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L on " Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials Licensing Proceedings."
Id.
{
l 8908110340 e90720
)
{DR ADOCK0700g6 l
l
c i
i Recently, two individuals, Mrs.: Martha Dodson and Mrs.
- Kcren Sisk, and the Coalition for the Envire,nment jointly S
submitted a. letter to the Executive Director for OperationL, NRC, L
referring to'the C-E Hematite facility. 1/
This Joint Submittsl 5t_
1 lb
' fails t to' satisfy the Commission's minimum requirements for a j
j I
' h' earing request.
Furthermore, even if considered as a risquest, lLt does not meet the Commission's standards for convening a
- hecring.
II.
ANALYSIS **
A. Requirements For A Hearing Request The Joint' Submittal fails to satisfy the minimum NRC
- requirements applicable to a request ~for a hearing and should be rejected at the threshold:by the Office of the Secretary on this basis.
AsLprescribed in the Commission's regulations, a request for a hearing:
. must describe in detail--
(1)
The interest of the requestor in the proceeding; (2)
How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in paragraph (g) of this section [ pertaining to standing);
1/
Letter from M. Dodson, K. Sisk and the St. Louis Chapter of the Coalition for the Environment to the Executive Director for Operations, NRC (dated June 22, 1989) (hereinafter
" Joint Submittal").
k.,
7 p
?i
.(3)
The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding.
110 C'F.R. S 2.1205(d).
As explained in the statement of considerations accompanying the adoption of this provision, the specification of concerns must be sufficient to establish the icsues the requestor wants to raise regarding the licensing cetion.
While it need not be extensive, the statement "must be cufficient to establish that the issues the requestor wants to raise regarding the licensing action generally fall within the range of matters that are subject to challenge in such a proceeding."
54 Fed. Reg.. 8269, 8272.
The Joint Submittal mentione a number of broad concerns.
However, no matters are placed in issue, and no controversy is identified for a decision.
In addition, the concerns raised are so general that it is impossible to identify the precise matters they seek to address.
For example, it is not even clear whether the letter intends to characterize concerns as either environmental or 9fety related.
Further, the Joint Submittal fails to 4adicate what regulations -- if any -- are applicable to the
- ted concerns and would not allegedly be complied with by the activities under the requested amendment.
Thus, the Joint Submittal fails to sufficiently identify issues that fall within
- l.
- y tho range of. matters'that art " germane" to the subject-license cm:ndment.
54~ Fed. Reg. 8272. 2/
In addition, the Joint Submittal appears not to have bcon properly filed.
The Commission's regulations require that a rcquest for a hearing be filed with the Office of the Secretary, end that it be served on the Applicant and the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO).
10.C.F.R. SS 2.1203(b) and
~
2.1205(e).
Although it cppears that the EDO was properly served,
'thore is no indication that'the Joint Submittal was ever filed i
with the KRC Secretary.
In summary, the Joint Submittal does not adequately ep;cify issues and was not properly filed.
As a result, the Joint Submittal fails to comply with the minimum requirements for a hearing request.
Accordingly, if the Joint Submittal is, or
~/
Moreover, the concerns listed ceem to deal with matters that 2
are predominantly outside of che scope of the instant license amendment.
For example, the une of 5% enriched uranium, instead of 4.1% enrichment, was authorized previously.
Similarly, earthquakes and floods were considered previously by the NRC.
In addition, to the extent concerns are based on " expanded operations," the Joint Submittal misconstrues the nature of the subject modifications.
As stated in the Federal Register notice:
Currently, the Hematite plant receives UF6 and converts it to UOg powder.
Most of the UO2 Powder is then shipped to the CE Windsor plant where it is fabricated into pellers.
CE plans to relocate all pelletizing operations'to the Hematite plant.
)
54 Fed. Reg. 22,510.
Thus, the " installation of two new pellet lines" (54 Fed. Reg. 22,510), does not constitute is
" expanded operations."
Rather, the form in which UO2 shipped from Hematite will be modified from powder to pellets.
q f
_j
1.
was, received by the Office of the Secretary, it should be summarily rejected pursuant to 10 C.F.R. SS 2.1261 and 2.772(i).
B.
Requirements For Convening A Hearing i
Even if the Joint Submittal is not rejected as insufficient to constitute a hearing request, it fails to satisfy the requirements necessary for convening a pr.oceeding.
The Commission's regulations require that a person requesting a hearing demonstrate that " judicial standards of standing" have i
been satisfied.
10 C.F.R. S 2.1205(g).,The following factors are to be considered when determining if such standing exists:
(1)
The nature of the requestor's right under the (Atomic Energy) Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2)
The nature and extent of the requestor's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and i
(3)
The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding upon the requestor's interest.
Id.
The Joint Submittal fails to address any of the factors in 12 C.F.R. S 2.1205(g).
Neither the named individuals nor the Coalition for the Environment demonstrates any property, financial or other interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act, or how such an interest could be affected by the outcome of the instant licensing action.
The Joint Submittal fails to address either the particularities of the subject license amendment or the specific circumstances pertinent to those who signed the letter, and must be denied.
fL
- In addition, each signatory to the Joint Submittal I
makes a allegation concerning proximity to the Hematite facility.
Mrs. Dodson states that she lives se'ren miles 2 rom the plant and f
owns property three miles downwind from the facility.
Joint Submittal, pp. 1-2.
Mrs. Sisk indicates that she is a resident of Jefferson County, the county in which the Hematite facility is located.
Ig. at 2.
The Coalition alleges that it has taany l
Is.
m;mbers who live "within 50 miles of the plant In promulgating the informal heaking procedures of Subpart L for materials licensing proceedings, the Commission explicitly rejected a rule of standing based solely on proximity to the facility in question.
The Commission rojected both" 'the fifty-mile radius' rule" that had developed with respect to standing in power reactor licensing proceedings, and a presumption of a lack of standing for petitioners residing outside a "five-mile radius" from the facility in question.
Is.
Sne also 52 Fed. Reg. 20,0A9, 20,090 (May 29, 1987).
A d; termination with respect to standing is to be based on "the particular material that is the subject of the licensing netion.
"The standing of a p2titioner in each case should be determined based upon the circumstances of that case as they relate to the factors set forth in paragraph (g)."
Ig.
None of the signatories to the Joint Submittal have demonstrated any connection between their " proximity to the fccility" and a particular interest relevant to the pending
_-_____-_-_____-____-_d
a Q~
- g..
l license amendment.
Further, the Coalition'is' depending on injury to the interests of its members in order.to establish standing.
]
- See Joitat Submittal, p. 2.
When such an organization. seeks to participate in a proceeding before the NRC, however, it must
' identify at least one member of the organization who would allegedly be injured, describe the nature of that' injury and provide an authorization frot that individual for the organization to represent the individual in the proceeding.
Philadelphia Elec. Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1437-38 (1982).
The Coalition has not identified any member of the organization having an-interest in the license amendment, or who has authorized the Coalition to represent him or her.
Thus, the Coalition has failed to demonstrate that it has organizational standing to appear as a party in a licensing proceeding.
In addition to the requirement for standing, the grant of a hearing must be based on an adequate identification of concerns.
10 C.F.R. S 1205(d).
As discussed in Section II.A, c.c.eever, the Joint Submittal falls far short of the required standard.
Because the Joint Submittal fails both to establish the legal standing of Mr.s. Dodson, Mrs. Sisk or the Coalition for the
p.l
,)..r-p l'. -
l.
-s-i..
I,
' Environment, and to identify with sufficient precision the matters-they wish to litigate, it does not provide the necessary basis for convening a hearing.
Respectfully submitted, M
Maurice Axelrad-Michael A. Bauser Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 Washington', D.C.
20036 Telephone: (202) 955-6600 Counsel for Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Date:
July 7, 1989
= - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _. - _ _ - _ _ -.
_-_--____________-____-_-_____: