|
---|
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
/-
00CKE1ED t!WRC Filed: June 1,1990.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 90 #4 -4 P4 :05 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p ucE or SECHEl W before the D O C Kt htm :', W N !
M MWi ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) (Construction Period POWER CORPORATION ) Recapture)
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )
Power Station) )
)
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES (VYNPC SET NO. 3)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(f), the Licensee, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, moves that the Board enter an order compelling the intervenor, the State of Vermont ("SOV") to give proper answers to those of i its " Interrogatories Propounded by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corpora-tion to the State of Vermont (Set No. 3)" as are set forth herein. The interrogatories were served by mail on April 26, 1990; the answers were served by Federal Express on May 17, 1990.
L Introduction - Applicable Legal Principles.
The Licensee telles upon and respectfully refers the Board to the -
discussion of applicable legal principles contained in its two prior Motions to Compel filed under dates of April 24,1990, and May,1990, and its Reply to SOV' Answer in Opposition to [ Licensee's First) Motion to Compel, filed under date of May 17,1990. We supplement that discussion with a reference !
to a point of recurring applicability.
{
in its responses to Licensee's first round of interrogatories, SOV used several terms which were not self-defining, and SOY then made a number of new assertions of purported fact the bases of which were not readily apparent. Licensee therefore followed up by asking SOV to define these new terms, and to state the factual bases for these new assertions.
In response to several of those follow-up questions -- specifically 5,13, l 14, and 15 -- SOY in effect responded that it did not wish to answer at this time:
.I A O 5
.R R ._
_ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . __._m_.-...__.m.
1
" Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it attempts ;
to compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this case which it has not made the decision to perform. Vermont further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it attempts to impose a schedule for doing such work within a relatively short discovery period.' .l As a matter of law, SOV's assertion, that it can choose to disclose its case l when and if it wants, is simply wrong. The Appeal Board long ago noted that ;
such " contention" interrogatories are appropriate: 1
' Judicial tribunals have long recognized that the party being inter- "
rogated would have to gather such information before trial in any i
event;Ithe only burden is to advance that compilation to an earlier stage." ;
in so holding, the agency was following hornbook law to the effect that "[a)n interrogatory will not be held objectionable as calling for research if it relates to details alleged in the pleading of the interrogated party, about which he presumably has information, or if the interrogated party would gather the information in the preparation of his own case.'8 As a practical matter, moreover, SOV's refusal to disclose its case during !
the discovery period threatens to lengthen and complicate these proceedings, by reducing the possibility of resolving issues by summary disposition, and 3 by forcing Licensee to present an affirmative case at hearing against vague and open-ended charges. Quite aside from the issue of fairness to Licensee, this Board as a matter of efficiency should compel SOY to respond to these questions, no later than the close of discovery.
- 11. Specific Interrogatory Answers, laterrogatory No.1.
Interrogatory:
Please identify each and every SALP report or "other enforcement actions" relating to VYNPS wherein SOV contends that NRC has placed 'importance" on " clearly established management controls" for the purpose of alleviating any " shortage of qualified replacement
' Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-613,12 NRC 317,334 (1980).
2 i_
Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil i 2174 at 555 (1970)(footnotes omitted); see also cases cited therein.
l i
r
[ maintenance] personnel," as asserted in the answer to Interrogatory .
No. 8. Set 1 Responses at page 7. j Response: .
Vermont objects to this interrogatory because it misstates Vermont's response to interrogatory No. 8. Vermont did not respond '
that, in SALP reports or enforcement actions specific to Vermont Yankee, NRC placed importance on clearly established management ;
controls. Notwithstanding and without waiving this objection, Vermont states that the sentence from part 2 of Vermont's Response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 8: ,
"This fact is established by the importance placed on manage- r ment by NRC in such vehicles as SALP evaluations and !
enforcement actions."
was stated to indicate the importance attached to management control over nuclear plant activities. For example, the importance that NRC ;
' attaches to management is demonstrated by the SALP criteria, reproduced on page RI-i of NRC letter to Vermont Yankee of March 7,1990(Russell to Murphy),' Final Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Report....' The definition of each SALP' i performance category, Category 1. Category 2 and Category 3, begins
! with the words, ' licensee management attention and involvement ...." >
! The SALP process is set up to evaluate each aspect of licensee performance in terms of licensee management attention and involve-ment. ;l Argument: .
SOV's answer to this perfectly reasonable follow-up question is evasive.
(in particular,it evades giving the accurate and responsive answer of'None.') - ;
in Interrogatory No, 8 of Licensee's first round of interrogatories.
Licensee asked 'Does SOY contend that ' clearly established management controls' can adequately compensate for a shortage of ' qualified replacement personnel', as those terms are used by SOV in sub-paragraph "c' of its Contention 77' The question asked about the link between controls and a personnel shortage, and called for SOV to state all the facts and evidence possessed by SOV bearing on the question.
In its answer, SOY asserted thit: ,
'Without clearly established management controls the shortage of I qualified replacement personnel cannot be compensated for. This fact "
is established by the importance placed on management by NRC in !
such vehicles as SALP evaluations and enforcement actions." !
l v
?
e In light of this answer, Licensee understandably followed up by asking -
SOY exactly where (if anywhere) the NRC has drawn such a link between controls and compensating for a personnel shortage. In its "an:wer* to the follow-up question, however, SOY ignores the topic of personnel shortage (which previously it had alleged as a basis to its contention) altogether.
Instead SOV chooses to answer another question, of its own design, as to what emphasis the NRC places on management controls in general. Licensee l respectfully suggests that SOV should be compelled to answer the question l
asked, not some other question SOY may prefer but which was not asked,
- especially since the question asked seeks to pin down the factual basis (if any) t for one of SOV's own assertions. !
If, in fact, "None" is the accurate and responsive answer to the question '
that was asked, the Licensee is entitled to have that answer on the record.
I laterrogatory No. 5.
Interrogatory:
Please define what SOV contends is included within the scop 6 of the term " correct controls" as used by SOY at page 7 of its Set i Re- ,
sponses, and provide all the bases for your definition.
Response
l The term, " correct controls" as used in part 4 to Vermont's :
~
I response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 8, is a general reference to the changes necessary to correct the inadequacies in Vermont Yankee's maintenance program. A description of these changes was requested by Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2)
No. 6. As of this date we have yet to receive response to a single discovery request, and due to time spent responding to licensee's l Interrogatories and motions, our evaluation has not progressed beyond that described in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No.
i:
- 2) No. 6.
Vermont has not determined "what....is included within the scope of the term *, and thus Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it attempts to compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this case which it has not made the decision to =>
perform. Vermont further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it attempts to impose a schedule for doing such work within a relatively short discovery period.
Argument:
?
SOV's objections should be overruled, and a full response compelled, for the reasons stated in Section I above. SOV clearly is dodging here. In its 4
t y . ,. . . . , , --,
E i
Contention, SOY stated that " clearly established management controls" were needed. When Licensee asked what that meant, SOY said that " clear" controls ,
were not enough, that " correct" controls were needed. Licensee then followed up by asking what " correct" controls meant, only to be told that SOV does not ,
know, it is fundamentally unfair, Licensee respectfully suggests, for Licensee !
to be asked to defend against accusations when the authors of those accusa- '
tions themselves cannot--or will not--define them. ,
laterrogatory No.13.
Interrogatory: :
For each and every assertion made by SOV in his Set i Responses at Interrogatory No.10.b. pages 10-12, please: >
- a. State each and every fact on which your assertion is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in SOV's possession or of which SOY has knowledge that SOV contends establishes each such fact.
- c. For each assertion, either provide the technical qualifications .
(education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that SOV contends establishes the '
qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise SOY relies for the assertion or state that SOY does not rely upon ~
the expertise of any person for the assertion.
Response
- i. Vermont objects to this interrogatory because it attempts to ,
compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this j case which it has not made the decision to perform. If Vermont '
l Yankee wishes to argue in this proceeding that it can lure main-l tenance craftspersons from other industries and train them effective-( ly, it is incumbent on Vermont Yankee, and not Vermont, to develop .
and present evidence on this point.
Argument:
- SOV's objection should be overruled, and a full response compelled, for the reasons stated in Section I above. All that this interrogatory sought from SOY was the factual basis, possessed at that time by SOY, for a series of i SOV's own assertions. There is simply no basis for SOY to object to revealing what it knows. Licensee cannot fairly be expected to meet its burden of proof if SOY is allowed to conceal the substance (or lack thereof) of its case.
j i
, f i
i l
laterrogatory No.14. ,
interrogatory:
(
j Please describe in detail what level of awareness SOY contends, at >
pages 10-11 of its Set i Responses, that " nuclear maintenance
! personnel" must have of 'the interrelationships between ECCS and f other safety systems." Please also: i
- c. State each and every fact on which your answer is based.
}
- b. Describe all of the evidence in SO\": possession or of which SOY - 4
'nas knowledge that SOV contends establishes each such fact, i
- c. Provide either the technical qualifications (education, employment -
history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that ,
, SOY contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any ,
person on whose expertise SOY relies for the answer or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
1
Response
Vermont ob,lects to this interrogatory on the same grounds as stated in respon.:e to the foregoing interrogatory. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks Vermont to quantify specifically the aware-ness that a maintenance craftsperson must have, without adequate procedural guidance, of " t]he interrelationships between ECCS and other safety systems with [the power producing systems of the plant,'
Vermont objects further on the basis that it would be unduly burdensome. Such quantification would amount to developing the ,
" precautions' sections of procedures which Vermont Yankee is I apparently lacking.
Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Vermont ;
states that nuclear maintenance craftspersons should be trained as -
outlined in INPO 86-018,' Guidelines for Training and Qualification of Maintenance Personnel", or receive the equivalent training. The ,
required training and qualification should provide the required .
knowledge and skills to perform maintenance on all safety related systems, structures. and components. - Such training not only should provide maintenance craftspersons an awareness of interrelationships between ECCS and other safety systems but also between nonsafety systems that can aifect safety systems. INPO 86-018 states that ,
maintenance craftspersons should have knowledge of: site or plant
~
layout; impact of maintenance on ECCS Components, knowledge of-.
plant systems including alarm types, system block diagrams, impor-tance to plant operations / safety, effect of isolation systems com-ponents on operations and interrelationships with other plant systems; ,
knowledge of control logic and diagrams, normal / abnormal perfor- ,
mance and probable cause of abnormalindication; and any specialized skills needed.
l
. . - . . . = - . - - . - .
5 k
The above answer should not be considered a complete listing of I all guidance but gives examples of knowledge and skills that main- !
tenance craftspenons should have to attain the minimum awareness l of maintenance activities performed on safety or nonsafety systems that may adversely effect ECCS systems and reduce the margin of plant safety to unacceptable levels. For this response, Vermont relies on the expert opinion of its technical consultant, Mr. H. Shannon 1 Phillips, whose technical qualifications were identified in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No.1).
Argument! L SOV's objections, to the extent that they are identical to those made to the ,
preceding interrogatory, should be overruled, and a full response compelled.
for the reasons stated in Section I above. As for SOV's objection that ;
answering would be " unduly burdensome". SOY has not demonstraied any j
, impropriety in being required to explain the factual basis for its own ;
assertion. Moreover, the case law makes clear that such inquiries are both proper and prudent. E.g., Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), AL.AB-613,12 NRC 317,334-35 i (1980).
SOY admits that its response is incomplete. Given the baselessness of its objections, SOY should be compelled to respond to the full extend of its present knowledge. ,
Interrogatory No.15.
Interrogatory:
i Please describe in detail what level of awareness SOY contends, at page 11 of its Set i Responses, that " nuclear maintenance persontiel" L
must have of " requirements, commitments and regulations." Please also: ;
- a. State each and every fact on which your answer is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in SOV's possession or of which SOY !
has knowledge that SOY contends establishes each such fact.
- c. Provide either the technical qualifications (education, employment '
history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that SOY contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any ;
person on whose expertise SOY relies for the answer or state that SOY does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer. ;
1 I
l i
Response
Vermont objects to this interrogatory on the same grounds as j stated in response to Interrogatory No.13. To the extent that this !
interrogatory seeks Vermont to quantify specifically the awareness that a maintenance craftsperson must have, without adequate procedural guidance, of " requirements, commitments and regulations" -
Vermont objects further on the basis that it would be unduly burdensome. Such quantification would amount to developing the ,
' precautions
- sections of procedures which Vermont Yankee is apparently lacking. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Vermont states that the Vermont Yankee plant is a ;
complicated facility consisting of numerous systems and controlled by rigorous safety requirements, and presenting the possibility of sccidents causing radiological effects upon local land and population.
- As such, Vermont Yankee is rnore complicated than a coal- or oil-fired plant, or other industrial facility (the subject of Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.10 sub-part b), and the consequence of maintenance error is more serious. The maintenance l craftspersons (who would perform maintenance at Vermont Yankee !
without adequate written procedures) must be aware of the require-ments, commitments and regulations, in order to be able to perform .
maintenance on systems without violating safety requirements, without endangering public health and safety, and without challeng-ing safety systems. For this response, Vermont relies on the expert opinion of its technical consultant, Mr. Shannon Phillips, whose
- technicalqualification were identified in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No.1),
Argument:
SOY here repeats the same fiawed objections as it made in the im- ;
mediately preceding response. It is neither procedurally improper nor unduly burdensome to ask SOV to state the facts (if any) underlying its own ,
Assertions.
t l
i s
E e
O [
I When stripped of its objections and irrelevance, SOV's answer to the l question is simply to restate, without any elaboration or factual support, the ,
assertion which prompted this follow-up question in the first place. A full j response should be compelled, so that Licensee has some fair warning of what :
case it must defend against.
eys, R. K. Gad 111 / \
Jeffrey P. Trond Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110 '
Telephone: 617-951-7520 ,
Dated: June 1,1990.
t k
4 x
t I
k
i
,e i
Pat t.L ; L(:'
UdNRC YYN 148 l
'90 JLN -4 P4 :05 Certificate of Service '
LVFICE OF SECREIARY I, R. K. Gad 111, hereby certify tirue1Jtiljdhlt996J I made service of the within Motion to Compel, by mailing 'c 5t@hhereof, first class mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
Robert M. Lazo Esquire Jerry Harbour o Chairman Administrative Judge i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ?
U.S.N.R.C. ' U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D.C. 20$55 Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Adjudicatory File ;
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel >
U.S.N.R.C. U.S.N.R.C. ,
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washinston, D.C. 20555
'i Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Ann P. Hodadon, Esquire Cohen, Milstein & Hausfeld Patricia A. Jehle, Esquire Suite 600 U.S.N.R.C.
1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20005 James Volz, Esquire Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 i i
h .'
L , . .
R. K. Gad 111 /
k 4
i
,- _ _ . _ _ _ .