|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20195H1911999-06-15015 June 1999 Application of Montaup Electric Co & New England Power Co for Transfer of Licenses & Ownership Interests.Requests That Commission Consent to Two Indirect Transfers of Control & Direct Transfer ML20204H9901999-03-24024 March 1999 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.54(a)(3) Re Changes to Quality Assurance Programs ML20206T9731998-05-27027 May 1998 Citizens Awareness Network'S Formal Request for Enforcement Action Against Vermont Yankee.* Requests That OL Be Suspended Until Facility Subjected to Independent Safety Analysis Review,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20247G8501998-04-0909 April 1998 Petition Demanding That Commission Issue Order Stating That Administrative Limits of TS 88 Re Torus Water Temp Shall Remain in Force Until Listed Conditions Met ML20217P5481998-04-0606 April 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Changes to Industry Codes & Stds ML20199A3121998-01-20020 January 1998 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Monitors to Ensure That Personnel Would Be Alerted If Criticality Were to Occur During Handling of Snm.Exemption Granted ML20198L1791997-12-29029 December 1997 Final Director'S Decision DD-97-26 Pursuant to 10CFR2.206, Granting in Part Petitioners Request in That NRC Evaluated All of Issues Raised in Two Memoranda & Suppl Ltr Provided by Petitioner to See If Enforcement Action Warranted ML20217G7151997-10-0808 October 1997 Director'S Decision DD-97-25 Re J Block 961206 Petition Requesting Evaluation of 961205 Memo Re Info Presented by Licensee at 960723 Predecisional Enforcement Conference & 961206 Memo Re LERs Submitted at End of 1996.Grants Request ML20140C2511997-03-31031 March 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR170 & 171 Re Rev of Fee Schedules ML20134L5701996-12-0606 December 1996 Petition for Commission & EDO Evaluation of Encl Documents Pursuant to 10CFR2.206 to See If Enforcement Action Warranted Based Upon Info Contained Therein DD-93-23, Director'S Decision DD-93-23 Re M Daley & J M Block Requesting Per 10CFR2.206,that NRC Reconsider Civil Penalty Assessed Against Vynp for Operating Station Outside TS from 921015-930406.Request Denied1993-12-28028 December 1993 Director'S Decision DD-93-23 Re M Daley & J M Block Requesting Per 10CFR2.206,that NRC Reconsider Civil Penalty Assessed Against Vynp for Operating Station Outside TS from 921015-930406.Request Denied DD-93-19, Final Director'S Decision DD-93-19 Under 2.206.Denies Request That NRC Take Immediate EA to Require That Reactor at Plant Remain in Cold Shutdown Until Licensee Could Provide Proof That EDGs at Plant Meet Safety Function1993-12-14014 December 1993 Final Director'S Decision DD-93-19 Under 2.206.Denies Request That NRC Take Immediate EA to Require That Reactor at Plant Remain in Cold Shutdown Until Licensee Could Provide Proof That EDGs at Plant Meet Safety Function ML20057C1321993-09-16016 September 1993 Memorandum & Order (CLI-93-20).* Reverses Board Conclusion That NRC Staff Action Had Effect of Terminating Proceeding. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930916 ML20045H3741993-07-0909 July 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Operators Licenses.Proposed Change Would Eliminate NRC Requirement to Conduct & Supervise Individual Operator Requalification Exams During Term of Opeerator 6-yr License ML20128P9821993-02-24024 February 1993 Affidavit of Rd Pollard Re New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments in Opposition to Proposed Finding of NSHC ML20128Q0101993-02-22022 February 1993 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Request for Hearing on Proposed Amend to Vermont Yankee OL ML20128Q0041993-02-22022 February 1993 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comment in Opposition to Proposed Finding of NSHC BVY-91-106, Comments on NRC Proposed Amend to Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Consistent W/Mou,Util Established Position of State Liaison Engineer to Communicate W/State of VT1991-10-23023 October 1991 Comments on NRC Proposed Amend to Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Consistent W/Mou,Util Established Position of State Liaison Engineer to Communicate W/State of VT ML20085H8331991-10-23023 October 1991 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NRC Proposed Amend to Policy Statement Concerning Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ML20082G8961991-08-0909 August 1991 Memorandum of State of Vermont Concerning Withdrawal of Contention.* Contentions Re Maint & Proferred late-filed Contention Re Qa.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G9071991-07-30030 July 1991 Withdrawal of Contention & Intervention.* Withdraws Contention,Motion (Pending) for Admission of late-filed Contention & Intervention ML20066G9981991-02-0808 February 1991 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance.* Requests Withdrawal of Jp Trout as Counsel for Applicant in Proceeding. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065U0421990-12-12012 December 1990 State of VT Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Fifth Motion to Compel.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis of NRC Misciting Cases.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062H6711990-11-0101 November 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion to File Reply.* Staff Believes That Matter Should Be Resolved as Soon as Possible & Not Defer Resolution of Matter Until After Not Yet Scheduled Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K4021990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion for Leave.* Unless State of VT Substantially Suppls,In Timely Manner,Prior Responses,Then Staff Citation to Stonewalling by Intervenors in Shoreham Proceeding Would Seem Well on Point.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K3961990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion to Compel (Document Request Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C2321990-10-22022 October 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Interrogatories,Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20062C2371990-10-18018 October 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Motion to Compel.* Alternatively, State Requests That Licensee Motion Be Included for Oral Arqument in Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0221990-10-12012 October 1990 State of VT Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set 3).* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059N8671990-10-0404 October 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (State of VT Set 3).* Requests That Board Enter Order Compelling Licensee to Give Proper Answers to Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M6461990-10-0202 October 1990 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Compel Production of Documents.* Supports Licensee Motion Due to State of VT Objections Not Well Founded.Notices of Appearance & Withdrawals & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20059M5591990-09-27027 September 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp Fifth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Issued So State Need Not Suppl Responses.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M5711990-09-26026 September 1990 Supplemental Response to Applicant Interrogatories by State of VT (Set 3).* W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20059M6301990-09-21021 September 1990 Transcript of 900921 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting Re Termination of Plant Proceedings & Motions on ALAB-919 & Amends to 10CFR40 in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-5 ML20059L8791990-09-21021 September 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Motion to Dismiss Proceeding Granted & Proceeding Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900921 ML20059M6221990-09-21021 September 1990 Notice.* Notifies That Encl Request for Clarification from Commission Will Be Reported in NRC Issuances. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 900924 ML20059L8721990-09-14014 September 1990 Responses of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to Document Requests Propounded by State of VT (Set 3).* Util Objects to Request on Grounds That Request Not Relevant to Admitted Contention.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20059L8241990-09-14014 September 1990 Answers of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to Interrogatories Propounded by State of VT (Set 3).* Supporting Info Encl.Related Correspondence ML20059L7241990-09-12012 September 1990 Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Set 1).* State of VT Should Be Compelled to Produce,In Manner Requested,Documents Requested in Util Requests 1-15 ML20059L7431990-09-12012 September 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensing Board Should Grant State Motion.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20059C4891990-08-28028 August 1990 Responses to Document Requests by State of VT to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp (Set 1).* Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20059C5341990-08-27027 August 1990 Memorandum & Order (Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories,Set 3).* State of VT Need Not Answer Interrogatories 1,5,14 or 15 Presently But Obligated To,If Further Info Develops.Served on 900827.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059C5931990-08-23023 August 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Answers to State of VT late-filed Contention.* Requests Permission to File Written Reply to Filings of Util & Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059C5471990-08-22022 August 1990 Stipulation Enlarging Time.* Parties Stipulate That Time within Which Licensee May Respond to State of VT Third Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents Enlarged to 900910.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A8641990-08-17017 August 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Fourth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion to Compel & Issue Protective Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A9151990-08-13013 August 1990 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Amend State of VT Suppl to Petition to Intervene & Accept & Admit Addl late-filed Contention.* Licensing Board Should Reject Proposed Contention X.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A9491990-08-13013 August 1990 Notice of Postponement of Prehearing Conference.* Conference Scheduled for 900821 & 22 in Brattleboro,Vt Postponed to Date to Be Determined Later.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 900814 ML20059A9031990-08-13013 August 1990 Responses to Interrogatories by State of VT to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp (Set 5).* Related Correspondence. W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B2221990-08-0808 August 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee to State of VT Motion for Leave to Submit late-filed Contention.* Motion of State of VT for late-filed Contention Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B2141990-08-0606 August 1990 Supplemental Responses to Applicant Interrogatories by State of VT (Set 2).* Clarification Re Scope of Term Surveillance Program as Used in Contention 7 Provided.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence 1999-06-15
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206T9731998-05-27027 May 1998 Citizens Awareness Network'S Formal Request for Enforcement Action Against Vermont Yankee.* Requests That OL Be Suspended Until Facility Subjected to Independent Safety Analysis Review,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20247G8501998-04-0909 April 1998 Petition Demanding That Commission Issue Order Stating That Administrative Limits of TS 88 Re Torus Water Temp Shall Remain in Force Until Listed Conditions Met ML20134L5701996-12-0606 December 1996 Petition for Commission & EDO Evaluation of Encl Documents Pursuant to 10CFR2.206 to See If Enforcement Action Warranted Based Upon Info Contained Therein ML20065U0421990-12-12012 December 1990 State of VT Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Fifth Motion to Compel.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis of NRC Misciting Cases.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062H6711990-11-0101 November 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion to File Reply.* Staff Believes That Matter Should Be Resolved as Soon as Possible & Not Defer Resolution of Matter Until After Not Yet Scheduled Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K3961990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion to Compel (Document Request Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K4021990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion for Leave.* Unless State of VT Substantially Suppls,In Timely Manner,Prior Responses,Then Staff Citation to Stonewalling by Intervenors in Shoreham Proceeding Would Seem Well on Point.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C2321990-10-22022 October 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Interrogatories,Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20062C2371990-10-18018 October 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Motion to Compel.* Alternatively, State Requests That Licensee Motion Be Included for Oral Arqument in Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0221990-10-12012 October 1990 State of VT Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set 3).* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059N8671990-10-0404 October 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (State of VT Set 3).* Requests That Board Enter Order Compelling Licensee to Give Proper Answers to Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M6461990-10-0202 October 1990 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Compel Production of Documents.* Supports Licensee Motion Due to State of VT Objections Not Well Founded.Notices of Appearance & Withdrawals & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20059M5591990-09-27027 September 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp Fifth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Issued So State Need Not Suppl Responses.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L7431990-09-12012 September 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensing Board Should Grant State Motion.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20059C5931990-08-23023 August 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Answers to State of VT late-filed Contention.* Requests Permission to File Written Reply to Filings of Util & Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A8641990-08-17017 August 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Fourth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion to Compel & Issue Protective Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A9151990-08-13013 August 1990 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Amend State of VT Suppl to Petition to Intervene & Accept & Admit Addl late-filed Contention.* Licensing Board Should Reject Proposed Contention X.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B1741990-08-0202 August 1990 NRC Staff Motion to Enlarge Time within Which to Respond to State of VT Late Filed Contention.* Response Period Extended to 900813.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B2101990-08-0202 August 1990 NRC Staff Motion to Enlarge Time within Which to Respond to State of VT Late Filed Contention.* Response Period Extended to 900813.Served on 900806.Granted for ASLB on 900803.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20056B1941990-08-0202 August 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Interrogatories Set 2).* Motion Should Be Denied Based on Listed Reasons.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20056B1981990-08-0202 August 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Set 4).* Util Moves That Board Enter Order Compelling State of VT to Give Proper Answers to Interrogatories Propounded by Util.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056A3731990-07-24024 July 1990 Motion to Suppl Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Document Requests,Set 1).* Util Moves That ASLB Grant Leave to Suppl Motion to Compel by Adding Encl as Howard Ltr.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058K7391990-06-26026 June 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set 1).* State Moves to Compel Licensee to Produce Documents Denied to State of VT Because of Licensee Limited & Improper Interpretation of Scope.W/Certificate of Svc ML20055D9211990-06-22022 June 1990 Response of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Enlarge Discovery Period.* Request for Indeterminate Enlargement of Discovery Period Fatally Premature & Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043H2921990-06-18018 June 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Third Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043H1931990-06-14014 June 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (State of VT Set 1).* Licensee Should Be Ordered to Give Proper Answers to Encl Interrogatories.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20043C7211990-06-0101 June 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories,Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Set 3.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20043C2881990-05-22022 May 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Second Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion & Issue Protective Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043A6961990-05-16016 May 1990 Reply of Vermont Yankee to State of VT Answer in Opposition to Motion to Compel & Motion for Leave to File Same.* Std Lament Featured in State of VT Final Note Has Already Been Authoritatively Rejected. W/Certificate of Svc ML20042G8281990-05-0909 May 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20012F7021990-04-13013 April 1990 Motion for Reconsideration (CLI-90-04).* Reconsideration of Remand to Obtain Factual Info Requested Due to Proposed Contention Lacking Sufficient Basis & Remand Found Unnecessary & Inappropriate.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q7081989-09-25025 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Necnp Request to Set Briefing Schedule.* Request Opposed on Basis That Briefing Would Only Serve to Rehash Arguments Already Addressed at Length.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20247Q4501989-09-20020 September 1989 Response of Licensee,Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,To Necnp Ltr of 890828.* ALAB-919 Should Be Summarily Affirmed or Referral Declined,Unless Aslab Misperceived Commission Policies on NEPA Undertakings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247B4771989-07-19019 July 1989 Necnp Motion for Leave to Amend Environ Contentions 1 & 3.* Amended Basis of Contentions Should Be Admitted & Held in Abeyance Until Aslab Ruling.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20245D6251989-06-19019 June 1989 Necnp Reply to Opponents Motions to Strike Vermont Yankee Motion to Dismiss Environ Contention 3.* Board Need Not Await Aslab Decision in Order to Find That NRC Erred in Recommending Spent Fuel Pool Expansion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245A4641989-06-12012 June 1989 NRC Staff Response to Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20244D3661989-06-0909 June 1989 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to NRC Staff,Vermont Yankee & Questions of Board on Environ Contention 3.* Alternative of Dry Cask Storage Must Be Considered Due to Unresolved Conflicts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245A7771989-06-0909 June 1989 NRC Staff Motion to Strike Testimony of G Thompson.* Thompson Testimony Considered Irrelevant & Immaterial to Any Issue in Proceeding.Testimony Should Be Stricken & Environ Contention 3 Dismissed ML20245A7881989-06-0909 June 1989 NRC Staff Reply to Briefs of Necnp & Vermont Yankee on Environ Contention 3.* NRC Has Met Proof on Environ Contention 3 & Entitled to Decision in NRC Favor on Contention as Matter of Law ML20244D5231989-06-0909 June 1989 Memorandum of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp in Support of Motion to Strike & to Dismiss & in Response to Board Questions.* Facts Demonstrate That Environ Contention 3 Deemed Invalid & Should Be Dismissed ML20244D5401989-06-0909 June 1989 Motion to Strike Necnp Testimony Submitted on Environ Contention 3 & to Dismiss Environ Contention 3 for Lack of Contest.* ML20245A7981989-06-0909 June 1989 NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board Memoranudm (Issued for Consideration at 890621 Oral Argument), .* Discusses Environ Contention 3.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247K8171989-05-25025 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Necnp Memorandum on NUREG-1353 & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memorandum on NUREG-1353.* LBP-89-06 Should Be Reversed Due to Necnp Argument Reiterating Other Arguments.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247L0561989-05-25025 May 1989 Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions.* Recent Cases Cited by Applicant Have No Bearing on Instant Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247K9671989-05-25025 May 1989 Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memo Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions.* Requests Leave to File Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247F3871989-05-23023 May 1989 Advice to Board Re Commonwealth of Ma Position Re Dry Cask Storage.* Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Joins in Arguments in Necnp 890523 Summary of Facts & Arguments That Will Be Relied on Re Environ Contention 3.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247F4841989-05-23023 May 1989 NRC Staff Brief & Summary of Relevant Facts & Arguments on Which Staff Intends to Rely at Oral Argument on Necnp & Commonwealth of Ma Environ Contention 3.* No Issue of Matl Fact in Contention Exists.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247F6131989-05-23023 May 1989 Necnp Brief & Summary of Relevant Facts & Arguments on Which Necnp Intends to Rely at Oral Argument on Environ Contention 3.* ML20247L5151989-05-23023 May 1989 Memorandum of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp on Existence of Genuine & Substantial Question of Fact Re Environ Contention 3.* Contention Considered Invalid & Should Be Dismissed ML20246H4781989-05-10010 May 1989 Necnp Memorandum on NUREG-1353.* Addresses NUREG-1353 Applicability to Case in Response to Applicant & NRC Arguments.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-05-27
[Table view] |
Text
/0Z53 j i
i 00CKEILO j USNBC ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 90 APR 16 PS :59 l before the !
QrrICE OF SLCRETAAY ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00ChlTING A M kVKf,'
DRANC51 I
) i in the Matter of ) ;
) ;
YERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION )
) (Spent Fuel Pool (Vermont Yankee Nuclear ) Expansion) ,
Power Station) )
i MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [
(CLI-90-4) ,
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.771 and the Commission's inherent authority,2 '
the licensee, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, respectfully moves that the Commission reconsider so much of its decision dated April 5,1990 :
and known as CLI-90-4 as remands the matter of the approval of the operat. i ing Ilcense amendment to the Appeal Board.
la support of this motion, the licensee says that the remand is directed in CLI-90-4 to obtain factualinformation (i.e. on the probability of accident ;
scenarios)in a case in which a proposed contention was excluded for lack of a sufficient pleaded basis. For the reasons set forth herein, such a remand is neither necessary to the disposition of the last remaining issue in this matter ;
nor appropriate for consideration in this contested operatin8 license ;
proceeding, i
- 1. In the decision below(ALAB-919), the Appeal Board determined that the Sierra Club decision8 did not mandate a different result than the Appeal Board had previously reached in ALAB-869 and ALAB-876.8 In CLI 4, the Commission endorses this conclusion. CLI-90-4, slip opinion at 2.
Consequently, this aspect of ALAB-919 and CLI-90-4 does not. warrant a
'See, e.g. Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2), CLI-81-12,13 NRC 838,839 n.1 (1981).
8 Sierra Club v. NRC,862 F.2d 222 (9th Cir.1988).
' Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-869, 26 NRC 13, reconsideration denied. ALAB-876,26 NRC 277 (1987).
$$g42g g $ h ,
_))S6
h 9 6 remand.
- 2. In ALAB 919, the Appeal Board held that the intervenor (NECNP) was obliged to defend (or fall to defend) the contention (Environmental Contention 1) that it had submitted to the Licensing Board, and that it could not rely on appeal on a different contention. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear o Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-919,30 NRC 29,44-45 (1989).' In CLI-90-4, the Commission endorses as correct the L
requirement that the intervenor be bound to the contention it had drafted.
CLI-90-4, slip opinion at 3-4 & n.2. Consequently, this aspect of ALAB-919 and CLI-90-4 does not warrant a remand.
- 3. In ALAB-919, the Appeal Board ruled that the documents cited by l the intervenor did not (and could not) fulfill the intervenor's obligation of f providing a basis for Environmental Contention I as pleaded, because the documents did not address the accident scenario on which the pleaded '
contention was premised. ALAB-919,30 NRC at 44-45. In CLI-90-4, the ;
Commission reaches the same conclusion. CLI-90-4, slip opinion at 3.5
- 4. The foregoing propositions, on which the Appeal Board and the ,
Commission are in agreement and which do not depend upon the results of any further proceedings on resnand, are sufficient by themselves to warrant-indeed, to compel-affirmance of ALAB-919.
,, 5. Contrary to the foregoing, CLI-90-4 seems to conclude that the
- E Appeal Board reversed the admission of the contention in question, at least in part, becsuse the Appeal Board:
(1) considered accident scenarios other than those contained in NECNP's Environmental Contention 1,
' Pointing out that the documents cited by NECNP refer to scenarios other l than the scenario depicted in the NECNP contention as drafted by NECNP, and that the documents therefore fall to provide a basis for the contention as '
l 1 pleaded. l l
8"Although certain parts of the accident sequence-for example, the 1 zircaloy-clad fire-are discussed in the documents cited by Intervenors, the 1 entire accident sequence is not. Specifically, the documents cited by j intervenors as a basis for the contention do not address how likely it would '
be that hydrogen combustion as a result of a reactor accident would lead to irreparable loss of spent fuel cooling. Thus the record at this point contains l~ no information on the likelihood or plausibility of the specific accident which !
! is the subject of the actual contention formally filed by the intervenors? l l l l
l l
l 1,
L . _ _ . _ _ _ ____ ._ ____. _ . - __ . .. .-# .
1 L' l L
i j (ii) assessed the probability of those other accidents at 10, and i I
i' (iii) then ruled as a matter of law that a potential event the !
probability of occurrence of which was 10" was " remote and !
speculative" and therefore not something of which NEPA i consideration is required by statute. !
CLI-90-4, slip opinion at 3' and 4 n.2. The licensee respectfully submits that '
the Appeal Board did not reverse the admission of Environmental Contention I on that basis. Rath'er, the Appeal Board limited the intervenor to the inter- ,
venor's pleaded scenario. (Point 2, above.) It then determined that scenario ;
to be necessarily premised upon the occurrence of a severe, beyond design basis reactor accident involving significant core damage and off-site conse-quences (though wholly undefined as to the nature of the initiating severe reactor accident). (30 NRC at 43.) It then ruled that "when a postulated
- accident scenario provides the premise for a contention, a causative mechan- .
ism for the accident must be described and some credible basis for it must be provided." (30 NRC at 44).' It then looked to the documentation that ;
NECNP claimed fulfilled this obilgation and found that the documents did ,
not supply a basis for the Environmental Contention I accident scenario i because they did not discuss that scenario. (30 NRC at 45-46.) The Appeal '
Board made no ruling or finding on the probability or remoteness of any accident scenarios. Rather, discussion by the Appeal Board of the documents discussing (only) other accident scenarios was limited to the holding by the Appeal Board (not questioned in CLI-90-4) that those documents did not
" describe [] and [ provide] some credible basis" for the Environmental Conten- .
tion I accident sequence. (Because the documents did not discuss the Environmental Contention I sequence, they could and did offer no informa-tion in support of the probability of occurrence of that sequence.) The ;
c i
'"We note in this regard that intervenors suggest before the Appeal Board that their contention should be broadened to include other reactor accident seguences as a cause for a major loss of spent fuel cooling water. We recog- i t
nize that the documents cited by Intervenors indicate that the upper limit on
! the probability of such events is on the order of 2.6 x 10" per reactor year and that the Appeal Board in effect found probabilities of this magnitude to .
t- be so low as to be remote and speculative for NEPA purposes." (Emphases I added.)
L L ' Citing Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, 1 Unit No.1), CLI-80-16,11 NRC 674, 675 (1983); Philadelphia Electric f Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-765,19 NRC 645,653-54 (1984), petition for review denied sub nom. Anthony v. NRC,770 l
1~ F.2d 1066 (3d Cir.1985). NECNP did not deny that the burden of establish-ing a basis for the contention lay on its shoulders.
1 i
- 1. ,
f i f' .' !
l l
u i Appeal Board neither established nor relied upon any numerical standard for
" remote and speculative.**
g'
- 6. Because this is a contested operating license amendment proceeding, ,
remand is consistent with the Commission's Rules of Practice only to the '
extent that the product of the remand has the capacity to be material to the !
decision on the licensing application implicated by the contention in question.
10 C.F.R. I 2.760s. Environmental Contention I was limited by the Appeal ;
Board to consideration of an accident scenario initiated by a severe reactor accident, and it was disposed of on the legal sufficiency of the NECNP pleadings (including the insufficient scope of the documents referred to i therein), on principal established by this Commission and not reversed.
overruled or even questioned in CLI-90-4. The licensee respectfully submits that if and to the extent that the Commission desires to acquire factual information on the probabilities (or other aspects) of any particular accident -
scenario hypotheses, such factual information should be obtained outside the scope of this contested licensing proceeding.' ,
i l
'Because the initiating sequence-that in the ab?cnce of which the -
Environmental Contention 1 accident cannot occur-is a severe reactor acci-dont with significant core damage and offsite consequences (perforce the failed containment), the compound probability of the contention accident cannot be greater than the probability of a severe reactor accident, indeed, it must axiomatically be less. It is no doubt for this reason that the docu-monts cited by the intervenors did not discuss this scenario. It is for the same reason that the licensee respectfully suggests that the data that might be obtained by the remand in question is not worth the effort that the remand would entail. ,
We add only that the Environmental Contention i accident sequence is controlled by those judicial decisions (e.g., San Luis Obispo Afolhers for Peace
- v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287,1297-1301 (D.C. Cir.1984), a//'d en banc. 789 F.2d 26, cert. denied,107 S. Ct. 330 (1986)) holding severe reactor accidents to be !
outside of the scope of NEPA's statutory requirements, as well as by this Commission's Policy Statement (45 Fed. Reg. 40,101) on the consideration of severe reactor accidents in Environmental Impact Statements prepared for other reasons. Thus, to open this proceeding to the receipt of information on, and contest over, the probability of the Environmental Contention 1 accident scenario is to jettison the sound principals of thoso decisions and that Policy Statement. There is no legal justification-and no factual or policy-based justification contained in NECNP's unsupported Environmental Contention 1-for so radical a departure from settled principals.
'Moreover, the final approval of the operating license should not be held up pending the obtaining of such additional and categorically immaterial r information.
4
- - = ,
.I l l
l '!
- 7. For the foregoing reasons, the licensee respectfully sussests to the Commission that CLI-90-4 be reconsidered, that so much of that decision as mandates a remand for further consideration by the Appeal Board be with-drawn, and that so much of that decision as affirms the Appeal Board's rul- ,
ings that (i) the intervenor is limited to the contention as pleaded and (ii) ,
the documents referred to by the intervenor do not supply a basis for the contention'as pleaded be affirmed.
Respectfull submitted, p 's '
.i . -
N N
/ '~g '"
John A. Ritsher/ .
R. K. Gad !!!
Ropes & Gray One International Place i Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone: 617-951-7520 -
Attorneys for the Licensee. ,
~
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Dated: April 13,1990.
?
f L ,
LOChllID VYN.gs: UWRC CLI . Mail CLICERT. DOC Certificate of Service '90 APR 16 P5:59 I, R, K. Gad til, hereby certify that on April , 90, I made service of the within ' Motion for Reconsideration (CLIW4)" by mailing a coPMICE OF SLCRflARY thereof, f,'rst class mall, postage prepaid, as follows: 00CKLllNG & SEUVICI.
BRANC64 Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts, Comaussioner United States Nuc. lear Regwintory United States Nuclear Reguin6ery Comuniesion Cosnedee6on Weehnaston, D.C. 30666 Washington, D.C. 30666 Kenneth C. Rosese, Comechar James R. Curtles, Comienionee United States Nuclear Regulatory United States Nuclear Regulatory
, Comuniesion comunesion Washington, D.C. 30666 Weehington, D.C. 30666 Forrest J. Remick, Commissioner Cheletine M. Mohl, Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Adannistrative Judge Conunise6on Atosnic Safety and Licensing Appeal Weekington, D.C. 30666 Panel U.S.N.R.C.
WasMagton, D.C. 30666 Howard A. Wilber Samuel H. Press, Eequire Administrative Judge Coorse E. Young, Eequire Atende Safety and Licensing Appeal Vermont Department of Public Panel Service U.S.N.R.C. 130 State Street Weekington, D.C. 30666 Montpelier, Vermont U6003 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Charles Bechhoefer, Chairenan Adennistrative Judge Adannistrative Judge Atende Safety and Licensing Appeal Atosnic Safety and Licensing Panel Panel U.S.N.R.C.
l U.S.N.R.C. Weshington, D.C. 30666 Weekington, D.C. 30666 l
Oustave A. Linenberger, Jr. James H. Carpenter Adannistrative Judge Adadnistrative Judge Atende Safety and Licensing Panel Atonde Safety and Licensing Panel U.S.N.R.C. U.S.N.R.C.
Weshington, D.C. 30666 Weehington, D.C. 30666
' Adjudicatory File John Traficonte, Esquire Atosnic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel One Ashburton Place U.S.N.R.C. Boston, Massachusette 02108 Washington, D.C. 20666 ,
i i- '
l Ann P. Hodadon, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire l Patricia A. Jehle, Esquire Herman, Curren & Tousley l UJ.N.R.C. Suite 430
! Washington, D.C. 20666 20018 Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 30009 Ceoffrey M. Huntington, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson Environmental Protection Bureau Administrative Judge State House Annex 116 Falcon Dein, Colthurst 36 Capitol Street Charlottesville, VA 22901
' )
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 N-j f
l' l
l R. K. Gad III/
1