Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0212.377 1996-1998 R r~. LannySinkin 277 Keawe Street ~ Hilo, Hawaii 9672097 f~RY ly Pfd 4 10 May 14, 1997 Mr. Curtis Tyler COUNTY GF HAWAII Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Tyler, What follows is a summary of my conversations with Mr. Charles Cain, Director of Licensing, NRC Region IV, Dallas, Texas and Mr. Jim Montgomery, NRC Walnut Creek Field Office, Walnut Creek, California. Mr. Cain stated that Mr. Montgomery would probably be the NRC person to take the lead on any application for an irradiator in Hawaii. At the same time, Mr. Cain as Director, would have input to the process. Hawaii as aNon-agreement State As you are aware, Hawaii is anon-agreement state, which means that the NRC, not the State of Hawaii regulates any nuclear facilities on the islands. While Hawaii could become an agreement state, the process is very involved. The state would have to set up and completely fund a regulatory program. A set of regulations compatible with NRC regulations would have to be proposed and adopted. These regulations could be more stringent than NRC regulations as to requirements and penalties. They could not be less stringent. Technically qualified staff would be required to address license applications, inspections, enforcement, and all other aspects of the nuclear regulatory process. The Governor would have to certify that the program will be funded as agreed upon between the State and the NRC and that the program would be adequate to protect public health and safety. The Legislature would have to pass statutory authority and funding for the entire system. Given that there is a state constitutional amendment placing the state on record as generally opposed to nuclear development in the islands and that the process of changing to an agreement state would require a very involved and very expensive process, it would seem safe to assume that the status of Hawaii is not going to be changed and that the NRC is the regulatory agency that will handle the food irradiator application, if such an application is ever made. ~,,.~u. ~J.212.3~~' - F'ile No. r'1P Presented Ret MAY 1 4 1997 Mc Curtis Tyler Page Two May 14, 1997 The Application Process There is no pending application for an irradiator to be built on Hawaii. Whoever intends to construct and operate the facility will have to file the application and become the licensee.' The application itself must be complete before consideration will begin. The NRC does not wish to address applications piecemeal; they want to see the entire picture as they proceed through consideration. A complete application will contain at least the following: (I) credentials of the applicant (2) design of the facility, including specifications and drawings; (3) engineering for the facility; (4) soil engineering; (5) seismic analysis; (6) volcanic analysis; (7) other natural hazards analyses; (8) structural shielding analysis; (9) operating plan; (10) procedures; (11) training program for personnel; (12) emergency procedures; and (13) plan for decommissioning of the facility. Many of these requirements are site specific, so the selection of the site prior to filing of the application appears to be a prerequisite, or, at least, a prerequisite to any NRC consideration of the application. Preparation of such an application is a very time consuming and expensive process. Of course, if the County of Hawaii is going to provide public funding for preparation of the application, or the underlying studies needed for the application, the private operator would be relieved of that cost and the need to recover that cost prior to becoming profitable. Post-application Process Irradiator facilities are not automatically within the NRC's license application procedures as far as the usual requirement for notice, public hearings, etc. Each such facility application is taken on a case by case basis. Legal liability in case of accident is a separate question from who applies for and receives the license. That question is outside the scope of the NRC. Mr. Curtis Tyler Page Three May 14, 1997 For an irradiator application, there is no requirement for public notice, such as in the Federal Register. NRC personnel would almost surely notify anyone wishing to be notified of such a license application. Should you or anyone else wish to be notified of an application, the person to write to is Jim Montgomery, whose address and telephone are provided at the end of this letter. Because the response of the NRC is on a case by case basis, a strong indication of public interest in an application would likely lead to more involvement of the public. Such involvement could be through public hearings or could be through formal proceedings. Mr. Montgomery stated that irradiators aze exempt from the normal application requirements because [hey are not considered that hazardous to the environment or the public. Mr. Montgomery stated that the exemption is similaz to the exemption for hospitals installing cancer radiation therapy units containing only several thousand curies of radioactive material. He termed irradiators similar in some respects to such a hospital unit. Mr. Cain, Mr. Montgomery's supervisor, said that, based on what he had heazd to date, the Hawaii irradiator would be a major facility with amounts of radioactive material which may require more intensive evaluation. He said that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and an opportunity for a hearing might both be required. The opportunity for a hearing could be both a public hearing by the NRC and formal licensing proceedings= Formal licensing proceedings The NRC could decide to open formal licensing hearings based on public expressions of concern, the significant nature of the facility, or unique conditions in this application.' ' Mr. Cain did state that he was at a disadvantage in that the NRC had no pending application and, therefore, formally knew nothing about the plant. At the same time. through participation of NRC personnel in hearings on the island and through telephone calls, the NRC has learned a lot about what is proposed. There has been some confusion about the NRC attitude toward licensing irradiators in Zone 4 earthquake azeas. From my conversation with Mr. Cain, I believe the essence of what he meant to say was that almost all irradiators built in the U.S. to date are not in earthquake-prone areas. The NRC has probably never considered an application coming from such an area. While there is no per se ban on licensing an irradiator in such an area, there might well be unique licensing issues as to the additional requirements for design, engineering, emergency preparation, etc. The same holds true for a facility in the presence of a live volcano, i.e. there have probably not been any prior applications for irradiator facilities in such areas and unique Mr. Curtis Tyler Page Four May 14, 1997 I am including a brief overview of what such formal hearings include based on my own experience in NRC proceedings.° Public notice [f the NRC did decide a formal hearing process was required, a notice would be placed in the Federal Register. That notice would offer any qualifying party an opportunity to apply for intervenor status in the proceeding. Intervenors To qualify as an intervenor, an individual usually must live within a certain distance of the facility. An organization with even one member within that distance can intervene as an organization. The intervenor applicants are required to submit the issues they wish to litigate and some basic support for the existence of the issue. The issues usually fall within one of two categories: character or competence. In the case of a Hawaii irradiator, I believe the NRC would accept at least the following issues: (1) the history of performance by the license applicant, if such history included instances of procedural, technical, or other failures; (2) the history of performance of the proposed technology, if such history included contamination, injury to personnel, accidents or breakdowns; (3) the adequacy of design and engineering to respond to earthquakes, volcanic activity, subsidence, tsunamis, and other natural hazards; (4) the adequacy of plans for transportation and storage of radioactive materials; (5) the adequacy of emergency evacuation plans; and (6) the availability of other, less hazardous, technologies for achieving the same purposes as the irradiator.5 issues would be raised by such an application. I represented groups in two different NRC licensing hearings for nuclear power plants. In one case, that representation lasted ten years. I have not researched whether there are any changes in the regulations as to particular aspects, e.g. qualifications for intervenors. I am fairly confident the process as presented is very close to the current process. 5 The NRC would also be likely to accept issues framed synergistically, e.g. the repeated sticking of the racks containing the radioactive material in the up position as even more serious in an area where an earthquake could occur while the rack is up. Mr. Curtis Tyler Page Five May 14, 1997 As noted above, the fact that the NRC has never addressed some of these issues in the context of an irradiator license would make it more likely that the NRC would proceed through contested proceedings to ensure a more vigorous examination of the issues. Proceedings Contested proceedings involve development of evidence by all parties, including discovery, submission of prepazed testimony, calling of witnesses, and cross examination of witnesses called by other pazties. Where there are numerous discreet issues to be addressed, the NRC will likely schedule different sessions at different times. This process can be quite lengthy.b At the conclusion of the proceedings, the parties write findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of a suggested opinion for the administrative law judges heazing the application. After the NRC panel rules on the application, there is an appeal process to an NRC appellate panel, the Commissioners, and the courts. I hope you find this information useful in your deliberations. For future reference, the two individuals [spoke with are: Chazles Cain Jim Montgomery Director of Licensing NRC Walnut Creek Field Office NRC Region [V 1450 Mazia Lane 611 Ryan Plaza Dr. Walnut Creek, California 94596 Arlington, Texas 76011 (510) 975-0249 (817) 860-8186 Aloha, r~ d ~yn I.K ( a XXXJJJ L-an\ny S akin c.c. Member of the County Council Mr. Charles Cain Mr. Jim Montgomery 6 I participated in one proceeding that developed atranscript not counting exhibits, etc. of more than 10,000 pages.