Answer in Opposition to California PIRG 840608 Request For

~' _ ,. 1

.. . -

I" 7/13/84

, |

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REG'? ATORY COMMISSION $p BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' .84 k g3 - P2:47 ' In the Matter of - ) y_

, y.. . . } 4:; ;,. Docket No. 50-70-01.R. d,.- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ) '' * ). (GETR Vallecitos) ') .

' NRC STtFF'S ANSWER TO CALPIRG'S' REQUEST FOR

READMISS10K 10 PROCEEDINGS ,

. .- . . , , On June 8,1984, Mr. Glenn Barlotfile(I an unsigned pleading enti- tied " Petitioners /In'tervenor'slRequest for Readmission to Proceedings"

~ ("Reqdest") Ton behalf of the C'alifornia Public Interest Research Group, ._ .. Santa Cruz office ("C'alPIRG"-). In its Request, CalPIRG asserts that it

' had previously established standing in_this proceeding in 1970, but that its petition was dismissed in 1983 without CalPIRG being " informed" of this decision "until very recently." CalPIRG further asserts as follows:_ This past week our' State Board first learned about the NRC's renewed interest in relicensing the_GETR reactor in Alcmeda County, after a lapse of nearly. seven years, and our Board "oten unanimously'to ' -continue C'alPIRG's participe ion in this proceed- ' ing . . . . For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staf# T W P ) opposes CalPIRG's ,

Request and recommends that.it be denied.' _

BACKGROUND On September 15, 1977, notice was published in the Federal Register indicating that the Commission was considering the applications file 6 by

8407240313 840713 i PDR ADOCK 05000070 G PDR O QS/

J .

. . -2-

General Electric Company ("GE") for renewal of SNM License No. SNM-960, and Operating License No. TR-1 for the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR) located at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center.1/ The notice further indicated that any persons whose interests might be affected by these proceedings may file a petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. % 2.714, with respect to either or both of the renewal applications. Pursuant to the Federal Register notice, a timely " Petition for Leave to Intervene in License Renewal Procedures, Request for Hearing, and Request for Further Relief" (" Petition") was filed on October 14, 1977, by Jed Somit, Esq. , on behalf of petitioners Jack Turk, CalPIRG, and four other petitioners. Petitioner CalPIRG was identified as follows: Petitioner CalPIRG . . . is a non-profit corporation with its office in Berkeley, California, in the County of Alameda. The CalPIRG membership consists of 12,000 students at the University of California, Berkeley Campus, the vast majority of whom live within 45 miles of the nuclear facility in question. (Petition, at 7). Supporting affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the Petition were filed by the petitioners; among these was an affidavit exe- cuted on behalf of CalPIRG in Berkeley, California, by Gail Williams, who was identified as " Coordinator, Vallecitos Project". Subsequent to the filing of the Petition, the Staff became aware of information concerning the existence of faulting near the Vallecitos

-1/ " Consideration of Applications for Renewal of Operating License and Special Nuclear Material License," 42 Fed. Reg. 46427 (September 15, 1977).

. .. . - .- - .. |

' * -3-

site and, on October 24, 1977, the Staff issued an Order to Show Cause, suspending operation of the GETR.2/ Responses to the Petition were filed

by the Staff on November 23, 1977_/3 and by GE on December 16,1977.S/ In its response, the Staff identified certain deficiencies in the Petition, and opposed the Petition as then constituted; with particular respect to CalPIRG, the Staff noted that CalPIRG had failed to satisfy the " interest" requirement for standing under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and that CalPIRG had failed to demonstrate sufficiently the interests of any of its individual members and the effects thereon (Staff Response, at 7 and 14); GE con- curred in the Staff's comments on standing (GE Response, at 2). Thereafter, on March 16, 1978, a prehearing conference was held in the show cause proceeding to consider the requests for hearing that had been filed in response to the Comission's Order to Show Cause. At the prehearing conference, the then Licensing Board Chairman (who also served as the Chairman in the license renewal proceeding), stated as follows with respect to the instant Petition: A timely petition to intervene in . . . [the license renewal] proceedings has been received. The petition was filed on behalf of certain individuals and organizations. . . .

-2/ A copy of the Order to Snow Cause was transmitted to the Licensing Board and Counsel for the petitioners on October 26, 1977. See Letter from Lawrence J. Chandler, Counsel for NRC Staff, to the Licensing Board, dated October 26, 1977.

-3/ "NRC Staff Answer to Joint Petition for Leave to Intervene" (" Staff Response"), filed November 23, 1977.

-4/ " General Electric Answer to Joint Petition for Leave to Intervene" ("GE Response"), filed December 16, 1977.

n _ _ . . _ _ ,- . 4-

Now, this Board has not heretofore announced its determination with respect to that petition to intervene.- We do so today. The petition is granted. A full statement of determination and the reasons for it, along with a statement of our views as to the proper parties and the admissible contentions will be issued by way of a fonnal order in the near future. Thus, given the continuance of the applications, a public hearing will be held in connection with the renewal applications . . . . (Prehearing Conference Transcript, at 6-7; emphasis added). On June 15, 1981, each of the six petitioners in this proceeding filed a document entitled " Substitution of Intervenor in Pro Per for Attorney of Record," whereby they entered personal appearances in lieu oftheirformerattorney,Mr.Somit.N On August 16, 1982, the Licensing Board issued its Initial Decision intheshowcauseproceeding.E Shortly thereafter, on October 21, 1982, the Licensing Board in this proceeding issued a Memorandum and Order, noting the issuance of its Initial Decision in the show cause proceeding and requesting that GE advise the Board of its intentions with respect to the pending license renewal applications. On November 12, 1982, fol-

y CalPIRG's substitution was signed by Jerry Skomer. In a letter from Jed Somit to the Commission's Secretary, dated June 22, 1981, Mr. Skomer was identified as CalPIRG's representative; his mailing address was provided as " Jerry Skomer, CalPIRG, 2940 Channing Way, Berkeley, CA". See n. 8, infra. y General Electric Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center - General Electric Test Reactor, Operating License No. TR-1), LBP-82-64, 16 NRC 596 (1982), affirmed sua sponte, ALAB-720, 17 NRC 397 (March 23, 1983), Commission review declined (July 25,1983).

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

' * -5-

lowing its receipt of GE's statement of intentions,U the Licensing Board issued a further Memorandum and Order directing the petitioners and Staff to respond to GE's filing; this was followed by the issuance of a further Memorandum.and Order on November 19,1982.8/ Only one of the petitioners, Mr. Jack Turk, responded to the Board's orders; and on April 8,1983, the Licensing Board issued its " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Petition to Intervene and Related Matters)" in which, inter alia, it denied the petition of the other five petitioners, having interpreted their silence as signifying the lack of "a continuing interest in these proceedings," (2) granted Mr. Turk party status subject to the acceptance by the Board of at least one contention, and (3) required Mr. Turk to revise his contentions in light of the events which had transpired :;ince the

7/ " General Electric's Response to October 21, 1982 Memorandum and - Order," dated November 5, 1982.

8/ The Board's Order of November 12, 1982, requested that the petitioners specify their mailing addresses and telephone numbers, since these were not provided in the notices of substitution. On the same date, the Licensing Board requested that Mr. Somit serve his former clients with the Board's Orders of October 21 and November 12, 1982, and GE's filing of November 5, 1982. Mr. Somit declined to serve these documents on his former clients, stating that he had previously advised the Commission's Secretary of the petitioners' mailing addresses. See Letter f rom Jed Somit, Esq. , to John H. Frye, Ill, Licensing Board Chairman, dated November 15, 1982, enclosing letter from Jed Somit to Docketing and Service Section, Office of the Secre- tary, dated June 22, 1981. The Licensing Board then issued its Memo- randum and Order of November 19, 1982, in which it, inter alia, (1) directed the Secretary to revise the Commission's service list to include the petitioners' mailing addresses and to serve the petitioners with the Board's prior orders, (2) directed GE to serve its prior response on the petitioners, and (3) requested the petitioners to indicate any corrections to their mailing addresses and to provide their telephone numbers. . . -6-

Petition was filed, with particular attention to the decision in the show cause proceeding.1/ On November 28, 1983, Mr. Turk filed his revised contentions and, on DecembeV 19, 1983, the Staff, GE and Mr. Turk met for the purpose of discussing the revised contentions. On January 16, 1984, the parties submitted a " Stipulation and Request for Dismissal" in the SNM license renewal proceeding (Docket No. 70-754-SNM) based, in part, on Mr. Turk's withdrawal of his request to intervene in that proceeding and his withdrawal of his contentions to the extent that they relate to License SNM-960; this request was granted by the Licensing Board on January 20, 1984,andtheSNM-960licenserenewalproceedinghasnowbeendismissed.b Responses to Mr. Turk's contentions were filed by GE and the Staff on January 30E and February 10, 1984, E respectively, and a prehearing conference has been scheduled to be held on August 9, 1984.

DISCUSSION In the discussion which follows, the Staff addresses, first, the status of CalPIRG's petition prior to CalPIRG's dismissal on April 8,

~'9/ General Electric Co. (GETR Vallecitos), LBP-83-19,17 NRC 573, 575, 578 (1983). 10f " Memorandum and Order (Dismissing SNM-960 License Renewal Proceed- ing)," dated January 20, 1984. The application for renewal of the SNM license has since been granted by the Staft. See letter from Leland C. Rouse (NRC) to G. E. Cunnningham (GE), dated May 10, 1984 (attached hereto as Attachment 1). 11/ " Licensee's Response to Mr. Jack Turk's Contentions Pursuant to the ~ Board's April 8, 1983 Order," dated January 30, 1984. 12/ "NRC Staff's Response to Petitioner Jack Turk's Initial and Revised Contentions," dated February 10, 1984.

- - . , _ . _. . . -7-

1983; second, the correctness and effect of the Licensing Board's dismissal of CalPIRG; and third, the merits of CalPIRG's cending request for readmission. As is more fully set forth below, the Staff submits that CalPIRG has~never demonstrated, nor has it been found to have, standing to intervene in this proceeding. In addition, regardless of whether CalPIRG had ever demonstrated its standing to intervene, its petition was properly denied by the Licensing Board on April 8, 1983, thus termi- nating whatever may have been CalPIRG's party status. Finally, the Staff submits that the pending Request, either by itself or read in conjunction with CalPIRG's initial petition, fails to comply with the fundamental requirements for intervention provided in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714. For these reasons, as more fully set forth below, the Staff submits that CalPIRG's request for readmission should be denied.

A. CalPIRG's Intervention Status Prior to its Dismissal. As discussed supra at 3-4, the Licensing Board has never issued a written decision setting forth its determination as to the adequacy of the Petition. However, in orally granting the Petition, the Licensing Board Chairman indicated only that the Petition itself -- filed jointly by three individuals and three organizations -- was beir.g granted. No statement was made concerning the adequacy of each petitioner's demonstration of standing. Rather, the Licensing Board Chairman expressly stated that I theBoard'swrittendecisionwouldinclude"astatementof[theBoard's] views as to the proper parties . . . ." (Tr. at 7). The Staff submits that this statement clearly reflects, and can be interpreted to mean only that the Board had found some of the petitioners to have failed adequately - - -8-

to demonstrate their standing to intervene, and that those petitioners were not to be admitted as " proper parties" to the proceeding. While the Licensing Board has never clarified which of the joint petitioner $'had adequately demonstrated standing so as to be admitted to the proceeding, a review of the original Petition demonstrates that CalPIRG most certainly was one of those persons, given the insufficien:y of CalPIRG's showing of standing. As discussed in the Staff's original response to the Petition (see n.3. supra), CalPIRG had not identified any of its individual members and had not specified any of those persons' interests or the effects which this proceeding might have on those interests; rather, CalPIRG was identified only as a non-profit corporation whose membership consisted of "12,000 students at the University of California, Berkeley campus, the vast majority of whom live within 45 miles of the GETR." In addition, nowhere in the Petition or in the supporting affidavits attached thereto did CalPIRG indicate that it had been authorized by any of its members to represent his or her interests in this proceeding, or that CalPIRG had authorized Mr. Somit or any other indiv,idual to represent that organization in this proceeding. These deficiencies in CalPIRG's Petition contravene the fundamental requirements for participation in Comission adjudicatory proceedings as set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. See, e.g., Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 583 (1978). In light of these facts, the Staff submits that there was simply no basis upon which the Board could have found that CalPIRG had demonstrated its standing to intervene. CalPIRG's present assertion that it has previously established its standing to intervene is simply incorrect, and is unsupported by any fact or ruling of record in this proceeding.

-______- - - _ - . - - . ______. |

' -g-

B. The Licensing Board's Dismissal of CalPIRG's Petition. As set fcrth supra at 5-6, the Licensing Board dismissed CalPIRG's petition for leave to intervene on April 8,1983, after CalPIRG had failed to respond to the Board's orders requiring its response, interpreting CalPIRG's silence as indicating the lack of a continuing

interest in this proceeding. This action was fully within the discre- j tion of the Board, pursuant to its authority under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.718(e). See, e.g., United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-761, 19 NRC 487, 492 (Feb. 29, 1984). E CalPIRG's current Request asserts that it was not informed "until very recently" of its having been dismissed by the Board in April 1983. While this statement fails to indicate that CalPIRG could not have learned of its dismissal sooner, it appears to raise a questio as to whither CalPIRG was served with the S w d's April 8, 1983 decision. In this regard, and in view of previous service difficulties in this proceeding, Staff counsel contacted the Office of the Secretary to determine whether service of the Board's decision was made upon CalPIRG. Staff counsel was informed by the Secretary's office that service of the April 8, 1983 decision was, in fact, made upon CalPIRG, as was service of the Board's prior order of November 19, 1982 (requiring CalPIRG's

_ 10 C.F.R. 5 2.707 would permit the imposition of sanctions, 1_3/ including the dismissal of a party, for failure to comply with a Board order; that provision, however, was not relied upon by the Board in its dismissal of CalPIRG. I

. . - 10 -

response).EI In this regard, the Appeal Board has "giv[en] effect to the well recognized presumption that served documents have been received by the addressees." Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating ^ Station, Unit 1), ALAB-574, 11 NRC 7, 12 n.13 (1980). Further, the Appeal Board has held that a person receiving filings in a proceeding is charged with examining each document "as it arrive [s] for determining its possible crucial importance to the prosecution of his intervention endeavor." M.,at13. Accordingly, proper service of the Board's orders having been made upon CalPIRG's named representative, CalPIRG's complaint that it learned of its dismissal only "very recently" should be rejected.15/

C. The Merits of CalPIRG's Pending Request for Readmission In view of the propriety of the Board's dismissal of CalPIRG and that decision's effective termination of CalPIRG's participatory rights i- in this proceeding, CalPIRG's request that it be readmitted to this

, i H/ Copies of the Board's Orders of November 19, 1982 and April 8,1983, along with the service lists used for service of each of those orders have been provided to Staff counsel by the Secretary's Office and are attached hereto as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. As | indicated therein, service was made upon CalPIRG's representative, Jerry Stoiner, at the address previously provided for him by CalPIRG. , i : -15/ In this regard, it should be noted that at no time following the ! designation of Mr. Skomer as its representative has CalPIRG filed an !- amended appearance, changing the name or address of the person upon ! whom service is to be made. The need and duty of a party to file . I such an amended appearance is obvious, given the need for proper ' service of documents to be made. See 10 C.F.R. ll 2.708(e), 2.712(b), and 2.713(b). Any failure by CalPTRE to properly identify the person E authorized to receive service on its behalf requires that CalPIRG | ! "not be heard to complain of a failure of receipt of a document ' sent to [it] at the address reflected" of record. Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A,1B and 2F), ALAB-398. 5 NRC 1152, 1154 (1977).

- , . . . ._ _ _ _ - ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _.__ _ _ . . _ _ ' * - 11 -

proceeding most properly should be evaluated in light of the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714. relative to late-filed petitions to intervene. United States Department of Energy (Clich River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-761, 19 NRC 487, 493-94 (Feb. 29, 1984); Mississippi Power and Light

Co.o (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-73-41, 6 AEC 1057 (1973).EI In this regard, the request must be deemed to be deficient for failing to satisfy (1) the " interest" requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2), and (2) the good cause and balancing tests set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1). For these reasons, CalPIRG's Request should be denied.

1. The " Interest" Requirement of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. % 2.714(a)(2), a petition must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding; this demonstration is to include reference to the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(d).

* Judicial concepts of standing have been utilized to determine standing to

_ _16/ Even if CalPIRG's Request should be deemed to revive its prior petition, rather than to constitute a new petition for leave to inter- , ! vene, it should be rejected. The Appeal Board has repeatedly held that parties may not step into and out of Commission proceedings at will. -See, eg., United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Wactor Plant), ALAB-761, 19 NRC 487, 493 (Feb. 29, 1984); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, 16 NRC 897, 907 (1982). In the absence of any satisfactory showing by CalPIRG of good cause for its failure to respond to the Board's orders or to protest the dismissal of its petition until now, the | principle prohibiting a person from floating in and out of a proceeding at will should be applied here. | i

n .

. . - 12 -

participate in NRC adjudicatory proceedings. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-76-24, 4 NRC 610, 614 (1976); Duke Power Co. (0conee Nuclear Station), LBP-79-2, 9 NRC 90, 95 (1979). Where the petitioner is a membership organization seeking to obtain standing in a representative capacity, it must demonstrate, inter alia, (1) that an individual member has, in fact, authorized such repre- sentation, and (2) that such individual member possesses the requisite individual standing. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 646 (1979); Consumers Power Co. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP-79-20, 10 NRC 108, 113 (1979); Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-79-1, 9 NRC 73,

77 (1979). CalPIRG's pending Request, like its original Petition, plainly fails to satisfy these fundamental requirements for standing to intervene. Nowhere does CalPIRG identify even one of its members whose interest may be affected by this proceeding; the member's interests and the effects thereon are not described; and no indication is given that any of CalPIRG's members have authorized it to represent their interests in this proceeding. Further, given the fact that it is now CalPIRG's Santa Cruz office that seeks to intervene, CalPIRG's members simply may not possess the requisite standing, since Santa Cruz is more than 50 miles distant from the GETR. See, eg., Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 n.4 (1977). Accordingly, CalPIRG's Request should be rejected.

._ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ . . ..m. . -- - ._. ..

. . - 13 -

. 2. The h d Cause and Balancing Requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) Even if CalPIRG were able to satisfy the interest and standing requiremenp described above, it's Request must be denied absent a favorable balancing of the following factors: (i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; (iii) The ext:nt to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest " will be represented by existing parties; and

(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(a)(1). An examination of CalPIRG's Request demonstrates that it fails to

' meet these requirements. CalPIRG's Request altogether fails to demonstrate good cause for the late filing of its Request, having allowed its prior participation in this proceeding to lapse, nor has it addressed the otherfourfactorsspecifiedbyregulation.El CalPIRG states only '. hat its State Board first learned of the possible renewal of GE's license "this past week", "after a lapse of nearly seven years"; however, as set forth above, effective service of the Board's orders has been made and should be presumed to have alerted CalPIRG to the continuation of these

17/ Absent a showing of good cause, a " compelling showing" is required as to the remaining four factors for there to be a favorable balancingunder10C.F.R.62.714(a). South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 886 (1981), aff'd sum nom. Fairfield United Action v. NRC, 679 F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir.1982); Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725 (1982).

_ _ _ _ . - _ - - ______- _ _ _

. . 14 -

proceedings as well as to CalPIRG's dismissal. No explanation is given as to why CalPIRG's " State Board" failed to learn of the dismissal or of the continuation of these renewal proceedings before now (nor is any indication given as to the State Board's role in this intervention attempt). Moreover, given CalPIRG's knowledge of the pendency of the show cause proceeding -- the outcome of which would clearly affect the application for license renewal -- CalPIRG's assertion that this proceeding had " lapsed", or that it was surprised by the reactivation of this proceeding, should be rejected. See, n , Clinch River, supra, ALAB-761, 19 NRC at 493. With respect to the renaining four factors specified in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1), the Staff submits that a balancing of those factors requires that CalPIRG's Request be denied. Specifically: (1) Other means are available for CalPIRG's interest to be protected, in that Mr. Jack Turk, with whom CalPIRG initially filed a joint petition, has actively continued to press their contentions and otherwise to participate in this proceeding; (2)CalPIRGdidnotparticipateintheshowcauseproceeding,has not demonstrated any special expertise with respect to these matters, and has failed to show that its participation in this proceeding may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (3) CalPIRG's interests can be represented by Mr. Jack Turk, with whom CalPIRG initially filed a joint petition and who has continued to press their jointly filed contentions;E/ and

18/ Since CalPIRG has failed to demonstrate its standing, as of right, ~~ to intervene in this proceeding, and no showing has been made as to why discretionary intervention should be permitted, it should not be admitted as a " party" to the proceeding. Accordingly, consolidation of CalPIRG with Mr. Jack Turk pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.715a as has been suggested by GE in its response to the Request (at 13n.7), would be inappropriate at this time. .

' - 15 -

(4) CalPIRG's participation may well broaden the issues and delay the proceeding, particularly in light of the progress that has been made by the other parties to date in narrowing the contentions for litigation.E For these reasons, CalPIRG's Request should be denied.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, CalPIRG's Request fails to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 governing petitions for leave to intervene, and otherwise fails to demonstrate that CalPIRG should be " readmitted" to this proceeding. Accordingly, CalPIRG's Request should

be denied.

Respectfully submitted, M&olw Sherwir E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of July, 1984

19f In this regard, to the extent that CalPIRG seeks to reintervene in the SNM license renewal proceeding, its Request is moot. As noted supra, at 6, tnat proceeding has been terminated and the application for SNM license renewal has been granted. Accordingly, CalPIRG should not be allowed to intervene as to SNM license renewal issues. See e.g., Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power W oject, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-34, 12 NRC 407, 408 (1980). More- over, even if CalPIRG were to be admitted to this proceeding, it should be required to "take the proceeding as it finds it." Long Island Lightinq Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-13,17FRC469,472(1983), citing Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Can 3, 8 (1980). yon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-600, 12 NRC

- - _ - . _ _ - _ - __ _ _ 1 * . , Attachment 1 , g . ..c o * 3 * 'c, Uf.lTED ST ATES " [ Y.y s . (/|~ }, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V* E W ASHINGT ON,0. C. 20555 t 2 s%, h''%"S[. A " p* . f Qv 19 y ..... Docket No. 70-754 License No. SNM-960, as renewed

. General Electric Company ATTN: G. E. Cunningham Senior Licensing Engineer Vallecitos Nuclear Center P. O. Box 460 Pleasanton, California 94566

Gentlemen: Enclosed is Special Nuclear Material License No SNM-960, as renewed. The license contains certain specific conditions (as stated In Items 8 through 14 of the License) which address the following areas:

1. Implementation, maintenance, and execution of the response measures of the VNC Radiological Contingency Plan submitted to the Commission on October 29, 1982,

2 Yearly submittal to NRC of GE's annual report summarizing the effluent monitoring and environmental surveillance programs at VNC,

3. Notification of NRC of any planned activities using unencapsulated plutonium 'in Building 102-Core Materials Engineering Laboratory,

4. Requirements concerning leak testing of sealed plutonium sources, , 5. Requirements for decontamination of facilities and equipment prior to release for unrestricted use, and

6. Requirements for decommissioning (should GE decide to terminate this license), in addition to the requirements of 10 CFR 70.38, with reference to your general decommissioning plan as -submitted by letter dated Februa ry 17, 1983, and related financial connitment presented by letter dated May 14, 1979. The conditions of the renewed license were discussed and agreed upon between R. T. Kratzke (NRC) and G. E. Cunningham (General Electric-Vallecitos) during Mr. Kratzke's site visit, April 16-18, 1984.

, - - . -n .-n-. , , , _ - . , , . . - - - - - . - - < - - - - - . - .

. . Gene ~ral Electric Company -2- ggg

You are hereby advised that any request for amendments to the license should be submitted in the form of replacement or new pages for the conditions section.. Appendix A of the license renewal application, and if necessary, for the demonstration sections, Sections 1 through 13 of the license renewal application. The changed or new items should be clearly identified in the replacement or new pages as submitted for the amendment request. The Materials and Plant Protection Amendment issued pursuant to Parts 70 and 73 and the Certificates of Compliance issued pursuant to 10 CFR 71 are not affected by this licensing action and remain in effect. Based on our review of your application, we have concluded that the activities authorized by this license can be performed without undue risk to the health and safety of the public and that the application fulfills the requirements of 10 CFR 70.23(a), " Requirements for the Approval of Applications." Based on an environmental assessment of your past and current activities as authorized under this license, we have also concluded that the issuance of this renewed license is not a major federal action significantly affecting ' the quality of the human environment and that pursuant to.10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), 'no environmental impact statement, negative declaration or environmental appraisal need be prepared. Copies of our safety evaluation report prepared in support of this licensing action and our environmental assessment will be sent for your information under separate cover. -

FOR THE NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION

' ' * v . Leland C. Rouse, Chief Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety

Enclosure: License No. SNM-960, as renewed

- - - - _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ _, . _ - _ - _ __ - __ _ I - v. ( 1 1 s.[ : . :' E..S- EE_O. IP --- IN- iN:ASE S O :::. Udi ~- eA:d-

* U C NUCLE Ait :tEGUf ATO1tv C0\1MI!KION 8'-oE I o ' 13 4%ES . . ' ;j MATERIALS LICENSE .* - .5- . : e .sinic E,ergy Ac: of 1954. as amended. tne Ene:;y Ren:ganizanen k: cf !o'4 (Pubhc Law 93 43t e. and Title 10. : ;j C . J. , rc.'e.:! R gula: ions. Ch:pter 1. Pris 30. 31,32. 33. 34. 35. 40 and 0. and in re:iance on statements and rep :t:ntst:ons Q r et/we r c .' y the Ucensee. a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive. acquire. possess. and transfer byproduct. r ; u a rf. :.tal nuclest materu; designated below: to use such matenal for the purpose (si and at the pla:ets) desicnated belov.: to ' '( .- : cnsfe, such material to persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s):and to i j ,' qmrt u t; product and source materia:. This license shall be deerned to contain the conditions specified in Section 183 of the ( ;j Atsn; Ener;y Act of 1954. a: arnended. and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory ; * ' y Ctrw.wcn now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below. g r a- Leensee . 1 . 4. i General Elect-ic Company 3. License number i $j: ;. n11ecitos Nuclear Center [ g i SNM-960 as renewed j f ~- I j F. O. Box 460 4 Expiration date May 31, 1989 j $ :iahsanton, Cali for.nia 94566 , S. Docket or i Q .___ ! Reference No. 70-754 i i :$s r ti E' & | h 6. Special Nuclur Material Possession Limits ! R Onc Authorized Flace of Use . r. k i M. i> ( h following quantities of special nuclear material are the maximum amount ;f 6 IN: *Se. licensee may possess at any one time under this license.' The authorized a @ plar.es of use are specified as they relate to their respective possession limits. i 3 - ii E .1 VALI.ECITOS NUCLEAR CENTER ! ;$ > k b .l .1 'J- 235 . 50 kg enriched to less than or eoual to 10 percent for authorized [ >f a cti vities. The material may be in the forn of irradiated special nuclear [ y material with its attendant by-product and reactor-produced transuranics. ; h: i 4 C.i.2 0-235. 4 kg enriched to more than 10 percent for authorized activities. :i . k The materiai may be in the form of irraetated speciai nuciear material with its attendant by-product and reactor-produced transuranics. ;p | ; E 6.1.3 Diutonium. 500 grams in any form in addition to the irradiated quantities E 1 .> as referenced to in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 above. % 3 'J- 23 3 . 200 grams in any form. 3 f 6.1.4 } , w h h, 4. V, > j. F k' E It.. -

. A r it F .;* t b | 4 i 3 .

.#$ .I 3"~I N.E.C d$$fMNNIIN5DMT;;~a~.~:~.ZfN DE - u - > - ~~ h -h575 ' - udE.~.~.3[~.

. _- . _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ . . - _. _ , ______- _ _ - - - , . -:.= tr .r = =k=J- = U.fea=; =2- =-+ &-, + - . . u . :: + = . .% +.:c--%4 L = '= = =" == = k:: - ..(, *.*.4 ,. . . .U.S. NUCLE A A R EGU6ATORY 00Ws5StON PA E 2 08 6 -VC.E j,, k

- Latnse numt

; properties of special nuclear materials. j W t = s k [+ b $ E!

______. _ _ , _ _ . _ - _. - - w- ,_..._....a=1-----:-a------.x-m - r-: ? - k. -' :-: V'-==- : ~ -r ~ s c~. m : _ -- -n :- '--Y_- t NRCCcm PtA U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATO3Y COMMISSloN 3 o, 6 # DAGE nets -

, , , bcense numNr

- MATERIALS LICENSE SNM-960 as renewed .k * ' ' * " * * " " SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET , 4

p I i & I E $! i g 7.2.3 Physics and Health Physics. Measurements of radiation and its effects on i :t instruments and on the structure and composition of materials. ! .s ; k 7.2.4 Hot Laboratories. Post-irradiation examination, testing and analysis of | h fuel elements and materials in shielded enclosures by remote manipulative i @ techniques; research and development and/or pilot plant activities involving ! recovery and recycling of waste or nonspecification material.

E 7.2.5 Researcn and Development. Including but not limited to the above. . | | 1 g: 7.3 GENERAL SERVICES OPERATIONS g 4| E *$ 7. 3.1 Equipment Maintenance and Engineering. Design, fabrication, and testing j of equipment containing special nuclear materials and maintenance of such j @@ equipment. , E i- % 7.3.2 Storage. Storage of special nuclear materials other than wastes in J Q snielded containers and/or at locations as applicable and in designated E f general purpose storage areas. [ nd' E $ 7.3.3 Transportation and Transfer. Inspection of packaging and preparation i i for shipment and/or transfer of special nuclear materials.- 1 @': 'g, * I 7.3.4 Decontamination. Decontamination of equipment and facilities. f ; r t , " 7.4 WASTE TREATMENT (4a. . ? 7.a.1 Liquid. Concentration of the radioactive constituents of liquid wastes I k* by evaporation, chemical treatment, sedimentation, filtration, and ion j k exchange; agglomeration and packaging of concentrates and discharge of g processed effluents. I ! | F : 7.4.2 Solids. Packaging and storage of wastes contaminated with or containing j nonreclaimable special nuclear materials, excluding direct burial in soil. [ l 1 ! 7.5 0FF-SITE ACTIVITIES 1 I E l Nonnuclear, nondestructive modification, demonstration and testing of materials and ! | devices containing unirradiated uranium and plutonium provided that: j, j t. ' . Such materials and devices shall' be under the supervision of General Electric g at all times, and k ! b : i . Plutonium shall be fully enclosed at all times in containment devices of adequate ! integrity to reduce to an acceptably low level the possibility of release and/or [ mitigate the consequences of containment failure, g I - I & > k' E q - .g - 'd

* 3- s: :- :t';'";' "~';"$ f=~;~q Q.=~Y-~:; n~+: . i= =W - x. -- - :a:_et . :. . -x' v:- - c-:. =~ T ';* M.c-

- , .. - . - . _ - _ - . - _ - - . . _ - - - - _ _ - - _ . _ -,- __ _ - . _ _

,- . _ . a. a. --- _-m - . .- ,nn n_-nx ,_.-.n. .-- , R 8''c m 37t.A U.S. NUCLEA3 r.EGULATORY COMMISSION o r.c t 4 ca 6 ucts h; ; j ucense numer t; i, MATERIALS LICENSE ! SNM-960 x mowed E "" * " " " " * " 5 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 3 70-754 g i 'W s= g f 8. The licensee shall comply with the provisions of the attached Annex B, N 3i " License Condition for Leak Testing Sealed Byproduct Material Sources $ l' and Sealed Plutonium Sources," for all sealed plutonium sources as authorized f under this 1.icense and in the licensee's possession and/or supervision. y p 6 I: 9. As part of the conditions presented in Section 8.12, " Contamination-Free F Articles" of Appendix A. " License Conditions for the Vallecitos Nuclear f Center," of the application, the licensee shall observe the " Guidelines f:p f ' ij for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for ig [ Unrestricted Uses," dated July,1982, that are found in the attached Annex C. M 10. Should the licensee decide to terminate this license and in addition to the h requirements of 10 CFR 70.38, " Expiration and Tennination of Licenses," t (invoked as a result of said decision), the licensee shall decomission the |jp t facilities operated under this license in accordance with the general I| decomissioning plan for License No. SNM-960 as submitted by. letter dated !p( f; February 17, 1982. The financial comitment to assure that such decommissioning g is accomplished is presented in the licensee's letter of May 14,1979 and is W hereby ' incorporated as a provision of this license, as renewed. jj, i g 11. At such time that facilities covered by this license are decontaminated ! E for proposed unrestricted release (in accordance with Annex C), the licensee i shall submit a report that identifies the facilities where radioactive ! f . q materials were used and stored, or disposed on the site. The report shall 1 briefly describe operations conducted and radioactive materials used in s the facilities and shall assess the results of the decontamination activities. f|p j The report shall provide the basis for unrestricted release of the facilities e A and the site, including a description of sampling and survey methods and b instrumentation used, and shall include final contamination survey data for p pf the facilities and grounds. The licensee may segment the report to obtain j I, 4 release of certain areas of facilities or individual structures if it is I demonstrated that ongoing activities in other areas will not lead to recontamina- y [ tion of the area or structure proposed for release. ;, | 12. The licensee shall implement, maintain, and execute the response measures of | g, his Radiological Contingency Plan submitted to the Comission on October 29, | 1982. The licensee shall also prepare and maintain implementing procedures ' || ' li for his Radiological Contingency Plan as necessary to implement the Plan. | (This Radiological Contingency Plan and associated implementing procedures ,, f| incorporate the emergency planning requirements of 10 CFR 70.22(1) as they j gi refer to onsite planning and notification.) The licensee shall make no j gj change in his Radiological Contingency Plan that would decrease the response j I! effectiveness of the Plan without prior Commission approval as evidenced by (, I! a license amendment. The licensee may make changes to his Radiological >, 3' Contingency Plan without prior Comission approval if the changes do not t f decrease the response effectiveness of the Plan. The licensee shall maintain j M records of changes that are made to the Plan without prior approval for a y l period of two years from the date of the change and shall furnish the Chief, p 4 Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle and 6 I Material Safety, NMSS, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 0 P | 20555, and the NRC Regional Office-Region V at the address specified in , Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 20, a report containing a description of each [ j change within six months after the change is made. ,, bm v+mm m-m cere - - em m m m m my m m v ge:-rd * ' " '' - N "-N ^-" - *, *[.1EQQM."E : .:. GTia-- **''MI-M16* " ' " " - " ' " -- ~ ' - " * -' *$ f! AC Fuem 374A U.S. NUCLE A3 DEGULATO?eY COMMISSION N eace 5 o* 6 eors e{ , Lac,n3 number I MATERIALS LICENSE : SNM-960 as renewed ' " |k SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET *q . !70-754 - 4 ' k : 4, I 13. The licensee shall inform NRC of any planned activities using unencapsulated f plutonium in Building 102-Core Materials Engineering Laboratory (formally ; h(~!the Advanced Fuel Laboratory). t : i ,j 14. The licensee shall provide to the NRC copies of its annual report I 1 summarizing the effluent monitoring and environmental surveillance ! ' % programs at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center. This report shall be sent t k. to the Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division ! *! of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ' ' | Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and the NRC Regional Office-Region V | . at the address specified in Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 20. g i EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL AUTHORIZATIONS . l, i i P The following exemptions and special authorizations are hereby granted: a i i 4; A. The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2) | provided that the safety conditions described in Section 8.14. "High Radiation i .!| Alarm Exemption," of Appendix A of the application are satisfied. ;

. 5 ! B. Exemptions to the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, " Criticality Accident i t Requirements," are hereby granted pursuant to 10 CFR 70.24(d). The E 4 ; exemptions are granted in accordance with Section 2.2, " Locations other <: | than Vallecitos Nuclear Center," and Section 5.9, " Monitor Alarm e System," of Appendix A of the application as follows: y' . 'q l ',| 1. The following areas are exempted from monitor alarm requirements: ,( | a. Areas where SNM is stored in locations within the United | States provided that the SNM is fully packaged as for transport

i in containers meeting all of the general license requirements 1 | of 10 CFR 71 or in containers owned by the General Electric I j Company and certified for transport under the provisions of 10 i | CFR 71 in accordance with the conditions of a certificate of ,. j compliance authorizing delivery of such containers to a carrier , ; for Fissile Class I transport, I t t j b. The Radioactive Product and Services Laboratory pool and hot cells, j ! c. For each area in which is stored one (1) shipment of packagos j . containing special nuclear material licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 71 g | for transport outside the confines of the Vallecitos Nuclear t' i Center insofar as the requirements of Section 70.24 pertain to .i the material contained in such shipments, g | ., ,

4 i

d. . .

* *"* * a, _ |**y "TY_ Y Y t - 3. ..- w.;:.:L.i.- = .. = - x &.--- -=-=m.-n------,,--v------; ~ e C Poem 374A U.S. NUCLEA2 C:ECULATL2Y COMMISSl!N g g g , , y

j,. . uee w neer 5 41ATERIALS LICENSE SM-960 as renewed ; U' ' '''"** * ' 't SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET t jg '70-754 g ;f - I ti I 4 $ g 3 d. For each area where there is not more than one " safe batch" I k (as defined in Section 3.11 of Appendix A of the application) ! if of finished reactor fuel rods or assemblies, under conditions E g whi'ch protect against rearrangement of fuelbearing portions ;E g into more reactive configurations, [

@qf, e. For each ar's which meets the requirement of a "subcritical area" f Rf as defined in Section 3.14 of Appendix A of the application. 't * it .g i8 2. Exception to the maximum preset alarm point of 20 millirems per hour !E t,i; specified in 70.24 is granted for areas described in Section 5.9.3 !O y', of Appendix A of the application provided that the maximum preset alarm [ g, . point does not exceed 500 millirems per hour. | ' t- pursuant to 10 CFR 20.106(b), the licensee is hereby authori;:ed to release .i: radioactive materials i.1 accordance with Section 8.11, " Airborne Effluent + lj,C.Control," of Appendix A of the application. j ! P

, E :h I. $ l 4 :P ! :P It t' t{ i 4 i 4 t %! :E gi E ;l I .p V ! p ! l' ' P I ,P ,! o- o i F ; F ! El F * I | 59 i 5: ; E j For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p

. o i O f I w / e " ' - - Date May 10, 1984 By .N I q Division of Fuel Cycle and g ; :e Paterial Safety Wasnington, D.C. 20555

py v =iw=rg+ +-=- + ==g=- _n -- - -- x.------. - . ~ .m =+7= - zz .

_ .- . _ _ ,_. _ . . _ - . . _ - , _ - _ _ _ _ - .- _ - . - - - . _ . ._ _ . _ . - . - - ______. ______. - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - , . . . .

. .

ANNEX A

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES s FOR GE VALLECITOS NUCLEAR CENTER LICENSE APPLICATION

. LICENSE NO. SNM-960, DOCKET NO. 70-754

The pages listed for Appendix A. " License Conditions for the Vallecitos Nuclear Center," are the effective pages which describe the license requirements.

Page No. Date Page No. Date

' * 1 04/18/84 A-6-1 04/18/84 11 04/18/84 A-6-2 04/18/84 111 04/18/84 A-6-3 04/18/84 - A-1 -1 04/18/84 A-6-4 04/18/84 A-1 -2 04/18/84 A-6-5 04/18/84 A-1-3 04/18/84 A-6-6 04/18/84 A-2-1 04/18/84 A-7-1 04/18/84 A-2-2 04/18/84 A-8-1 04/18/84 A-3-1 04/18/84 A-8-2 04/18/84 A-3-2 04/18/84 A-8-3 04/18/84 A 4-1 04/18/84 A-8-4 04/18/84 . . A-4-2 04/18/84 A-8-5- 04/18/84 A-4-3 04/18/84 A-8-6 04/18/84 A-4-4 04/18/84 A-8-7 04/18/84 A-4-5 04/18/84 A-9-1 04/18/84 A-5-1 04/18/84 A-5-2 04/18/84 - A-5-3 04/18/84 A-5-4 04/18/84

ey....

- -- _ _ _ _ - ____-___-______

. .

ANNEX A page 2

These pages in Sections 1 through 13 demonstrate the application of the license requirements. These pages listed are not license requirements.

Page No. - Date Page No. Date

- Title March 1984 2-1A 03/28/84

2-2A 03/28/64 . 1 04/18/84 2-3A 03/28/84 ii 04/18/84 2-4A 03/28/84 - iii 03/28/84 2-5A 03/28/84 iv 03/28/84 2-6A 03/28/84 1-1 03/28/84 2-7A 03/28/84 1-2 03/28/84 3-1 03/28/84 1-3 03/28/84 3-2 03/28/84 1-4 03/28/84 3-3 03/28/84 1-5 03/28/84 3-4 03/28/84 1-6 03/28/84 3-5 03/28/84 1-7 03/28/84 3-6 03/28/84 1-8 03/28/84 3-7 03/28/84 1-9 03/28/84 3-8 Oa/18/84 2-1 03/28/84 4-1 04/18/84 2-2 03/28/84 4-2 03/28/84

. 4-3 03/28/84 2-3 04/18/84 * 2-4 03/28/84 4-4 03/28/84 2-5 03/28/84 4-5 03/28/84 2-6 04/18/84 4-6 03/28/84 2-7 04/18/84 4-7 03/28/84 2-8 04/18/84 4-8 03/28/84 2-9 04/18/84 4-9 03/28/84 ~2-10 04/18/84 4-10 03/28/84 2-11 04/18/84 4-11 03/28/84 2-12 04/18/84 4-12 03/28/84 2-13 04/18/84 4-13 03/28/84 2-14 04/18/84 5-1 03/28/84 2-15 04/18/84 5-2 04/18/84 2-16 03/28/84 5-3 03/28/84 2-17 04/18/84 5-4 03/28/84 2-18 03/28/84 5-5 03/28/84 2-19 03/28/84

- : ~. .

. . . . .

. .

ANNEX A page 3 These pages in Sections 1 through 13 demonstrate the application of the license requirements. These pages listed are not license requirements.

Page No. . Date Page No. Date

5-6 03/28/84 8-1 03/28/84 5-7 03/28/84 8-2 03/28/84 5-8 03/28/84 8-3 04/18/84 5-9 03/28/84 8-4 03/28/84 5-10 03/28/84 8-5 03/28/84 - 5-11 03/28/84 9-1 03/28/84 5-12 03/28/84 9-2 03/28/84 5-13 03/28/84 9-3 03/28/84

5-14 04/18/84 9-4 . 03/28/84 . 5-15 04/18/84 9-5 03/28/84 6-1 03/28/84 9-6 03/28/84 6-2 04/18/84 9-7 03/28/84 6-3 04/18/84 9-8 03/28/84 6-4 03/28/84 9-9 03/28/84 - 6-5 03/28/84 10-1 03/28/84 6-5 - 03/28/84 10-2 03/28/84 6-7 03/28/84 10-3 03/28/84 6-8 04/18/84 10-4 03/28/84 6-9 03/28/84 10-5 03/28/84 6-10 03/28/84 10-6 03/28/84 6-11 03/28/84 10-7 ' 03/28/84 6-12 03/28/84 10-8 03/28/84 6-13 03/28/84 10-9 03/28/84 7-1 03/28/84 10-10 03/28/84 7-2 04/18/84 10-11 03/28/84 7-3 03/28/84 11-1 03/28/84 7-4 03/28/84 11-2 03/28/84 7-5 03/28/84 11-3 03/28/84 7-6 03/28/84 11-4 03/28/84 7-7 04/18/84 12-1 04/18/84 7-8 04/18/84 12-2 03/28/84 7-9 04/18/84 13-1 03/28/84 7-10 04/18/84 13-2 03/28/84 7-11 04/18/84 13-3 03/28/84 13-4 03/28/84 - 13-5 03/28/84 13-6 03/28/84 13-7 03/28/84

4 * . ,e

. . - _ - -_ . _ ~ - _ - . _ _ _ - _ _ . __. _ _ _ . . . ______. . _ _ __ _- _ __ __._ _

. . , - . ,

. .

- .

' .

ANNEX B * : - || LICENSE CONDITION FOR *

LEAK TESTING SEAL") ETPRO'3UC* MATE?lAL SOITACES ' " AND SEALED PLUTONIUM SOURCES

- A. Each source shan be tested for leakage at intervals not to exceed six (6) months. In the absence of a certificate from a transferor indicating that a test has been made within sir (6) months prior to the tranafer, the sealed source shan not be put into use until - tested. * ' .

B. - ' The test sha n be capable of detecting the presence of 0.005 nicro- , curie of contamination on the test sample. The test s2nple sha n be taken from the source or from appropriate accessible surfaces of the device in which the sealed source is permanently or semipermanently - mounted or stored. Records of leak test results shall be kept in units of microcuries and. maintained for inspection by the Commission. . . - C. If the test reveals the presence of 0.005 microcurie or more of removable contamination, the licensee shan imediately withdraw - ' the sealed source from use and shall cause it to be decontaminated ! - and repaired by a person. appropriately licensed to make such .. repairs or to be disposed of in accordance with the Commission ' regulations. Within five (5) days after determining that any source has leaked, the licensee shall file a report with the .

. , Director, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, U.S. Nuclear s Regulatory Cossaission, Washington, D.C. 20555, describing the source, the test results, the extent of contamination, the apparent * or suspected cause of source failure, and th'e corrective action taken. A copy of' the report shan be sent to the Director of the , nearest NRC Inspection and Enforcement Office listed in Appendix D * of Title 10, Code of yederal Regulations, Part 20. 6 ,.31 .. . i D. The periodic leak test required by this condition does not apply to - - sealed searces that are stored and not being used. The sources

excepted from this test shan be tested for laakage prior to any . use or transfer to another person unless they have been leak tested within six (6) months prior to the date of use or transfer.

* .

1 by

, , - . , n~ , - - . _ , . . - - , . , - .,,,,,._,---~.,-.n.,,.n- ,_ .n_,_--,--- -,,_-,n , - .. .

* ..,: 1 , , , ,

ANNEX C

. , .

* .

' GUIDELINES FOR DEC'6'ITAMINATION OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

PRIOR TO RELEASE FOR UNRESTRICTED USE -

OR TERMINATION, OF LICENSES FOR BYPRODUCT, SOURCE, . . ., , , ......

OR SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL -

. .

* .

. .

. \ .

* . .. - , , * . . .

* . ,

. . .

, '). S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Washington, D.C. 20555

July 1982

' . .

______. ______. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - _ ------A------.-.

. * - .

- . . .

The instructions, in this guida , in. conjunction .with Table 1, soecify the radionuclides and radiatier exposure rate limits which should be used in of surfaces or premises a.nd equipmen prior . decontamination and s o ms ' 1 to' abandonment or release for unrestricted use. The limits in Table 1 - - do not apply to premises, equipment, or scrap containing induced radioactivity for which the radiological considerations pertinent to their ~use may be different. The rein se of such facilities or items from regulatory contro'1 is considered on a case-by-case basis. 1. The. licensee shall nake a reasonable effort to eliminate residu'al - . . . . , .. contamination. , - . . - .. , 2. Radioactivity on equipment ~ or surfaces shall not be covered by paint, plating, cr other covering material unless contamination levels, as determined by a survey and decemented, are below the limits specified in Table 1 pricr to the application of the * covering. A reasonable effort must be made to minimi:e'the ' - contamination prior to usE,of any covering. - . _

- _, 35 The radioactivity on the-interior surf aces of pipes, drain lines, : - or ductwork shall- be datermined _by making measurements at all - : traps, and other appropriate access points, provided that contam- - ination at these Itocations is likely.to.be repressntative of

, - . contamination on .the interior of the, pipes, drain lines, or ductwork. Surfaces of pri'-ises,- equipment, or scrap which are .. . . - ~ ; likely to be cor taminated but are of such size, constrtiction, or - location as to make the surf ace inaccessitle for purposes of. . i measurement shall be presumed to be contaminated in excess of ' ! ' ! the limits. 1 4 ~. Upon request, the'Cornission may authorire a licensee to relinquish . - possession or control of premises, equipment,'or scrap having ~ surfaces contaminated with materials in excess of the limits specified.

. . This may include; but would not be limited to, speciai circumstances such as razing of. buildings, transfer of premises to another organization _ continuing work with radioactive materials, or conversion of facilities I .- to . long-term storage or standby status. Such requests must: J I ~ . a. Provide detailed, specific information' describing the premises, | equipment or. scrap, radioactive contr_minants, and the nature, | . ! extent, and degree of residual surface .cnntiminatien.

' Provide a ' detailed health and safety analysis which reflects b. . that the residual amounts of materials on surface areas, ' , , together with other considerations su'ch as" prospective use of | the premises, equipment or scrap, are unlikely to result in an unreasonable risk to the health and -safety of the public. .

% t

w-,-- ---# -- .- --.y-w--v ,.e -,e

. .

. - 2-

5. Prior to release of premises for unrestricted use, the licensee shall make a comprehensive radiation survey which establishes that 4 | .o. . contamination ~ is within the limits specified in Table 1. A copy of * the survey report shall be filed with the Di.ision of Fuel Cycle l and Material Safety, USNRC, Washington, D.C. 20555, and also the Administrator of the NRC Regionai Office having jurisdiction. The report should be filed at leas 30 days prior to :ne planned date of abandonment. The survey report shall:

a. Identify the premises.

~ * - b. Show that reason'abla effor has been made to eliminate ~ ' . . ' residual contamination. c. Describe the scope of the survey and general procedures followed. - , d. State the. findings of the survey in unit's specified in the instruction. Following review of the report, the NRC will consider visiting the facilities to confirm the survey. g

' .

* | , | * | .

| |

.- - . . . .-.. . . .- ~ .

- : : . .

. .- * TAri.E 1 . * .

. . . I ACCEPTABLE 5tMil' ACE C0fliAllillAil0fl LEV [l.S - | - ' -. t ~- _ piggggp d I Rtt10VA0tEbef 8 AVERAGEbcI HilCl. lDE 5 - .

2 1,000'dpm s/100 cm2 nal. U-235. U-230, and 2 15,000 dpm e/100 cm , isociated decay products 5,000 dpa e/100 cm . ransuranics Ra-226. Ra-228, 300 dpm/100 cm.2 20 dpm/100 cm2 4-230, th-220 Pa-231, 100 dpm/lh0 cm2 c-221, 1-125, 1-129 * * .

. 200 dps/100 cm2 | h'-nat, Th-232, Sr-90, 2 3000 dpm/100 cm2 ' ' a-223. Ra-224. U-232 I-126 1000 dpm/100 cm , .. | -13I, 1-13) ' . eta-garira emitters (nuclides 2 1000 dpa 31/100 cui | Ith decay modes other than 2 15,000 dpm sy/100 cm ! Ipha esission or spontaneous 5000 dpa py/100 cm . Ission) except Sr-90 and . (fiers noted above. , ~ - . _ _ . where surface contamination b'y both alpha- and beta-ganana-emitting nuclides e'Ists, the limits estabilshed for alphc- and beta-gansna-emitting nuclides should apply Independently. 'As used in this table, dpa (dlsintegrallons per minute) means the rate of emissioni by radloactive materlal as determined by correcting thecconts per minute observed by an appropriat6 detector for backgroundi ef ficiency, and geometric factort associated with the instrumentat on. l'or objects of less surface area, the average

:llcasurrinents of average contaminant should not be averaged over more than I square meter. . , should he derived for each such object. , l lhe maxinium contamination level applies to an area of not more than 100 cm2, 2 of surface area should be determined by wiping that area with dry filter or soft 'The amount of removable. radioactive material per 100 cm it Instrisment of absortent paper, applying moderate pressure, and assessing the amount of , radioactive material on the wipe with an appropr a eUnen removable contaasination on objects of Icss surf ace area is determined, the pertinent levels should he reduced known elliciency. , proportionally and the entire surface should be wiped.

'The average and maximian radiation levels associated with surface contamination resulting from beta-gamma- emitters should not exceed I cm and 1.0 mrad /hr at I cm, respectively, measured through not more than 7 milligrams per square centimeter of , 0.2 mrad /hr at . . .. total absorber. 4 . .

. ' . s . . *' . g ' : s

_ ' t - |

' Attachment 2 |

: -

' UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA k: ilVCLEAR REGULATORY COPEISSI0il ' ATOMIC SAFETY AtlD LICEllSING BOARD '82 NOV 22 P1:46 Before Administrative Judges: g. . .. . u .gg, John H Frye, III, Chairfnan ag;igDi:: ifs;ERviE , Dr. Harry Foreman BRANCH Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger SERVEC NOV 221982

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-70-OLR/70-754-SNMR GEllERAL ELECTRIC C0!1PANY

(GETRVallecitos) ) November 19, 1982

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.

2 In footnote 2 of this Board's Memorandum and Order of November 12 , 1982, we indicated that the attorney for Petitioners /Intervenors had filed documents entitled " Substitution of Intervenor in Pro Per for Attorney of Record," but had not indicated the mailing addresses for his former clients. By letter of the same date, the Board requested that the attorney serve his former clients with the documents entered in this docket since October 21, 1982. The attorney has responded to the Board's letter declining to accomplish such service and pointing out that in fact he had, by letter of June 22, 1981, to the Office of the Secretary, furnished Petitioners'/Intervenors' addresses and requested that they be added

to the service list. (See Attachment hereto) It appears therefore that the Secretary's service list should have been updated to include Petitioners /Intervenors in June,1981, but was not. The Secretary will kindly- update the service list cf these proceedings to include the names and addresses of Petitioners / ' -C//77P.////4 u- - ' ~ ' f

, ._. __ _ _ . - _ _ .__2 _ . __ _ __ .

. . -2-

o Intervenors as indicated in the June 22, 1981, letter to the Secretary

from Jed Somit. In consideration of the foregoing, it is this 19th day of

November,''1982, ORDERED

1. The Secretary is to serve Petitioners /Intervenors with ~ | copies of this Board's Memoranda and Orders of October 21 and November 12, 1982;

2. GE is to serve Petitioners /Intervenors with copies of its November 5, response to the October 21, 1982, Memorandum and Order;

3. The deadline for responses from Petitioners /Intervenors and i NRC Staff set forth in November 12, 1982, Memorandum and Order is . _ . amended as follows: t a. Petitioners'/Intervenors' responses shall be due 20 ' days after the date of service of the documents referred to in paragraphs 2 or 3, whichever occurs last; and b. NRC Staff's response shall be due 30 days after the date of service of the documents referred to in paragrcphs 2 or 3, whichever occurs last; and

4. In their responses, Petitioners /Intervenors shall indicate

| any corrections in their mailing addresses and shall give their telephone numbers.

FOR THE ATOI1IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD |

1 John' H rye, III, Chairman ADMIT I RATI /E JUDGE

| i Attachment: As stated Bethesda, Maryland November 19, 1982

. - ______. ______. _ _ _ _ _ - ______. -.______,...,__.__. _ _. _ _ _,..__-.___ -,_._ _ .. __ ._._ - m. _ - -

. .

! JED SoMIT AT im .: T AT LAW 2733 PRINCE STREET BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94705 (415) 652-0Mi

November 15', 1982

Mr. John H. Frye, III, Chairman Administrative Judge United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555

re: General Electric Company

, GETR Vallecitos Docket Nos. 50-70-OLR 70-754-SNMR

Dear Mr. Frye: I have received your letter of November 12, 1982, which requests that I serve on your behalf your orders of October 21 and November 12, 1982, and the General Electric Response of November 5, 1982. You make this request on the supposition that I failed to give the NRC the mailing addresses of_my~ former clients. As you can see by the enclosed copy of my letter of June 22, 1981, which was on the letterhead of Ibershof & Somit and which accompanied the Substitutions (which my notes reflect were filed June 25, 1981) the addresses were provided, along with a request that.these- names be added to the service list. I decline to serve the mentioned documents, not only because of the cost involved, and the fact that I have not received the November 12, 1982 Order, but also so that my former clients are not prejudiced by your administrative error and have a full opportunity to respond measured from the time when you make proper service upon them.

Please call'me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours, Q 2 4 hg - Jed Somit

JS:hs '

79 1 ) l 9 7 7/ ( f 7 I ~ () A. t (LJy I"I

l . - '. 's . . ' , ( *q ,; }

(

June 22, 1981

Docketing _and Service Section Office of the Secretary -, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [ Uahhington, D. C.,.20555. .i. ,

~ Re: ' General ~ Electric Company - Vallecitos Nuclear Conter Docket Number 50-70 Docket Number 70-754 ' l;'' Dear Docketing and Service Section: Enclosed find Substitution of Intervenor In Pro Per For Attorney Of itecord pertaining to each of the above docket numbers for each of. the intervenors therein. .These. forms substitute each intervenor in pro per in place of ~~ i this office. i The addresnes for the intervenors in pro per are as fo31ous: (Please add to service list.) -- | !isney C. Lyon ; . 35875 Plumeria Uay | Premont, CA .

~~ i Edith F. Laub ! East Day Women for Peace ! 2302 Ellsworth Street ! - Derhaley, CA Jack Turk 1195 Euclid Derkeley, CA 94708

~ Jacqueline Kamaoroff 4 Alameda County Citizens Against Vallecitos 7831 Claremont Avenue - Berkeley, CA ATTN: Sharon

Joseph Duhousky, Jr. ' e, 4315 Omega Avenue _ f. //7 ev / /Wh / ) C. astro Valley, CA 6 / ,L/ / // l " ' I /- ' i

O W"

.,.,.._---..n . , . - . - , , , , . - . - - . . - - . , - . , . , , . . . - - - , , ,, - -- . - - _ - - ______-____ ._____.

* . * * . J L *. n a l a . .11.:. etV&Gu !.()Ci.e t iIs. ' - k~ ' ' U.S. Nuclear 1..njul.itory Conauluttion f June 22, 1981 Page Tuo

* Jerry Skomer CalPIRG ~. - 2490 Channing Way Berkeley, CA

( Also enclosed is an extra copy of this filing. Please

- file stamp the copy and return it to this office; in the --- - . . envelope provided. -- - Very truly yours,

Jed Somit

k JS:sfm Enclosures

! ! i

* .

e #

8 m

. .i . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ .______m._.-._ . _ _ . _ - - e.;r W ;=Wl- W- Q~_a WiGWc =T ;FbMgy.' ; . ;..%.-- - , : .~ [ se . EME = 15: 02 . . Til m z.s:as. ' =m UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA rasz4

. E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m In the Matter of ) [ . ) 0$E-2 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. (s) '50-70 M ) 10 'lfd &---- )

) _ _ . . . s ) - ) J ) ' m.GG

- . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -7-_. I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by i=.s= the Office of the Secretary of the Comission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 - Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission's Rules and. j , Regulations. ... . = ...... ma

_ W :._.

Dated a tshington D.C. th s "T |.-. - day,of . 19g f.) . ]7 . . _ _

. _ _ . . .

._ , A- Yh/ . /k/) W & Of fich lof the Secretary of the/ Commission

=E=. * ::- := - ' |-5N 3$ : . {~~

:=:::::

=^' ?

k - 2.4.;3 f.5 ; b

* * -~ -_ _~_M_ M r M_W M **~*"***'#__ _ _ _ ._"C> WM .

. . . i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. (s) 50-70 ) 70-754 (Vallecitos Nuclear Center)

* ) )

* SERVICE LIST

John H. Frye, Esq., Chairman Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, M.C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Delivery U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiresion Civil Center Station Washington, D.C. 20555 Oakland, California 94604 j

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger- George L. Edgar, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kevin P. Gallen, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regg1& tory Commission Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,_ Washington, D.C. 20555 1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Harry Foreman, Director Center for Population Studies H. Lee Halterman, Esq. ' University of Minnesota Office of U.S. Rep. R.V. Dellums Box 395, Mayo '201 13th Street, Room 105 * ~ Minnea. polis, Minnesota 55455 cakland, California 94617 Counsel for NRC Staff Glenn W. Cady, Esq. -Office of the Executive Legal Director Law Offices of Carniato and Dodge 3708 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 300 1 U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Lafayette, California 94549 , . . Edward A. Firestone, Esq. California Public Interest Research .175 Curtner Avenue, MC 822 Group | ATTN: Jerry Skomer San Jose, California 95125 , i 2490 channing Way East Bay Anti-Nuclear Group Berkeley, California 94704 7831 Claremont Avenue i - Berkeley, California Alemeda County Citizens Against Vallecitos [ . ' Jed Somit, Esq. 7831 Claremont Avenue 2733 Prince Street Berkeley, California * Berhaler, f.e.lifornia 04705 , . , ' | Stephen F. Eilperin ". * * ! Friends of the Earth . Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boarc 124 Spear Street .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | San Francisco, California 94105 Washington, D.C. 20555 , e *I Howard A. Wilber j' Christine N. Echl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boarc Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comr.ission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

. - _------_ - - . - _ . .- - - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - . - . . _ - - . - A

. .

| | Ecard and parties - continued 50-70, 70-754

Ms. Nancy C. Lyon 35875 Plumeria Way Fremont, California Ms. Edith F. Laub East Bay Women for Peace 2302 Ellsworth Street | Berkeley, California i Mr. Jack Turk 1195 Euclid Berkeley, California 94708 Mr. Joseph Buhowsky, Jr. - 4315 omega Avenue Castro Valley, California

9 O

emmemo-.

------, - - - -- , e ., - we-,. e -m---- m g- --w-----y,.- --e + w- w