What is "INTERVENTION" in an NRC license process?
When the Atomic Energy Act gave the federal government sole authority over some nuclear facilities -- to the point of creating a "federal exclusion zone" where local, regional or state officials have no authority -- the Act guaranteed that citizens would have the opportunity for a full court-room style hearing before any nuclear license would be granted, and also before any amendment to an existing license can be given. The hearing process is bound by regulations, and only safety and some administrative and financial factors are considered "viable contentions."
So, we have the opportunity for a hearing before the NRC can license the MOX Plutonium fuel factory that DOE wants to build at SRS. Just to remind you -- this is going to be a tax funded DOE owned factory, sited at Savannah River Site, to be built and operated by a commercial consortium known as DCS -- (Duke COGEMA Stone and Webster) under a license that would be granted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
When NRC gets a license application -- in this case DCS will be applying for a construction permit for the plutonium fuel factory -- they will publish a notice in the Federal Register, telling the public that we have the "opportunity for a hearing." Wouldn't it be great if it were all those local, regional and state officials who are about to have their authorities preempted that would call for the hearing? Well, so far it is two NGO's -- GANE (Georgians Against Nuclear Energy) of Atlanta and Environmentalist's Inc. of Columbia that have committed themselves to this legal action. There is no limit on the number of interventions possible.
Well, those who decide to tell NRC to hold the hearing are at that point called "intervenors" in the license process. In other countries the government requires that the applicants for the license pay a fee that then funds the intervention process -- after all, intervention can help improve the quality of the project if it does not stop it. (Remember the principal: "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" and consider carefully what issues are appropriate to raise!)
An intervenor must show "standing" -- that they or someone they represent will be directly impacted by the facility, and also must file "contentions" which are the reasons that the license application is flawed and / or should be rejected. The regulations say that the intervenor must do this within 30 days of when the Notice of Opportunity for hearing was published.
Unfortunately, the NRC has gutted the regulations on licensing hearings for fuel cycle facilities, giving themselves the option of holding an "informal hearing" which will all be on paper. In the past fuel cycle facilities were included in regulations that provided full court-room style action with expert testimony, cross examination and "discovery." Sadly, it was the citizen victory killing a proposed uranium enrichment facility that another consortium -- Duke, Northern States Power and URENCO (sound familiar?) -- wanted to build in the swamps of Northern Louisiana, which inspired NRC to make it harder for the public to stop their license process…
Since DCS has stated that they intend to apply for the construction license next month (December 2000) -- a bunch of groups that are thinking about intervening met in Columbia on Nov 11, 2000. The focus of the meeting was to think together about what and how to do this. A second posting will be the notes from that meeting.
If you have questions or need more information, please contact me -- Mary Olson 828-251-2060