|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217J9611999-10-22022 October 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply).* State 991021 Motion for Leave to File Reply to 991018 Pfs & Staff Responses Re Admission of late-filed,amend Contention Utah V Granted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 991022 ML20217L8541999-10-21021 October 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to State of Utah Request for Admission of late- Filed Amended Utah Contention V.* NRC Staff Do Not Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20217E9691999-10-18018 October 1999 Applicant Response to State of Utah Request for Admission late-filed Amended Utah Contention V.* Recommends That State of Utah Request Should Be Denied as Untimely.With Certificate of Svc ML20217E9281999-10-18018 October 1999 NRC Staff Response to State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Utah Contention V.* Staff Submits That Contention V Should Be Rejected on Grounds That Contention Untimely Filed Without Good Cause.With Certificate of Svc ML20212M0201999-10-0707 October 1999 Order (Schedule for Responses to Request for Admission of late-filed,amended Contention).* Responses to Amended Utah Contention V Shall Be Filed on or Before 991018. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 991007 ML20217B6741999-10-0404 October 1999 State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Utah Contention V.* Amended Contention V Both Admissible & Meets Commission Standard for Late Filed Contentions & Should Be Admitted ML20217B6821999-10-0404 October 1999 Notice of Change of Address.* Submits Listed Address Change for C Nakahara ML20217B6861999-10-0404 October 1999 Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of Utah Amended Contention V.* Declaration of M Resnikoff Re Inadequacy of Table S-4 in 10CFR51 to Address Environ Impacts of Transporting Sf.With Certificate of Svc ML20217B6921999-10-0404 October 1999 Notice of Withdrawal.* Informs That DG Moquin No Longer Represents State of UT in Proceeding & Notice of Appearance Withdrawn Effectively Immediately ML20212B8271999-09-20020 September 1999 NRC Staff Correction to NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* No Affidavit Being Provided in Support of Legal Change.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212B8351999-09-20020 September 1999 Memorandum & Order (Summary disposition-related Rulings).* Applicant 990903 Motion for Reconsideration &/Or Clarification of LBP-99-35 Denied.With Certificate of Svc. Served on 990920 ML20212C1701999-09-20020 September 1999 Memorandum & Order (Revised General Schedule).* Orders That Parties Should Provide Board with Joint Rept That Outlines Suggested Schedule for Estimated One to Two Day Evidentiary Hearing.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990920 ML20212B3491999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Reply to Application & Staff Oppositions Ot late-filed Second Amended UT Contention Q.* Applicants Objections to Admission of Second Amended Contention Q Without Merit & Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B8451999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribe B.* State Requests Denial of Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B3661999-09-13013 September 1999 Reply Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of UT Second Amended Contention Q.* Statement of Qualications Was Filed on 971120,as an Exhibit to State of UT Contentions in Proceeding ML20211Q9211999-09-0909 September 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Response to Second Amended Contention Q.* Neither Applicant Nor Staff Oppose Subj Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4651999-09-0909 September 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply).* State of Utah 990909 Motion for Leave to File Reply Granted in That State Reply to 990903 Pfs & Staff Responses Shall Be Filed by 990913.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990909 ML20211N4821999-09-0909 September 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20212A4521999-09-0808 September 1999 Transcript of 990908 Prehearing Conference Private Fuel Storage,Inc in Rockville,Md.Pp 1168-1215 ML20211M3151999-09-0707 September 1999 Joint Rept to Aslb.* Authorizes Applicant to Submit Joint Rept Re Scheduling of Nov 1999 Evidentiary Hearing,Estimate of Time Trial & Security-C Hearings in Response to 990830 Memorandum & Order.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M5691999-09-0707 September 1999 Applicant Position on Dismissal of ITP-related Contentions.* Requests That ITP-related Portions of Contentions Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211Q9301999-09-0707 September 1999 State of Utah Response to Impact of Board Ruling in LBP-99-34 (Utah Contention B) as Ruling May Relate to Other Admitted Contentions.* Maintains That Relevant Parts of Contentions R & Not Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M4051999-09-0707 September 1999 NRC Staff Position Regarding Impact of LBP-99-34 on Other Contentions.* Staff Submits That Remaining ITP-related Contentions (or Portions of Contentions) Should Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M5571999-09-0707 September 1999 Order (Schedule for Responses to Reconsideration/ Clarification Motion).* Orders That Party Responses Be Filed on or Before 990913.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990907 ML20211M5421999-09-0303 September 1999 Applicant Response to State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Utah Contention Q.* Applicant Requests That Board Deny Utah Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4901999-09-0303 September 1999 Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20211M2411999-09-0303 September 1999 NRC Staff Response to State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Utah Contention Q.* Recommends for Reasons Stated,That State Second late-filed Contention Q Be Rejected.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M2021999-08-31031 August 1999 Declaration of Jc Pechman.* Declaration of Jc Pechman Supporting Factual Statements Contained in State of Utah Supplemental Response to Applicant Second Discovery Request (Contention L),Filed on 990831 ML20211J8341999-08-31031 August 1999 State of UT Supplement Response to Applicant Second Discovery Request (Contention L).* State of UT Acceded to Applicant Request to Suppl State 990628 Discovery Request. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211G8141999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting in Part & Denying in Part Motion for Partial Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B).* Decision Rendered in Favor of Pfs.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211G8381999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Denying Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention Utah R).* Pfs Requests for Partial Summary Disposition on Part of Contention Utah R Denied. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211G8941999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah B).* Grants 990611 Motion for Summary Disposition of Pfs & Rendors Decision Re Contention Utah B in Favor of Pfs.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211G9001999-08-30030 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Administrative & Scheduling Matters).* Board Will Hold Telcon with Parties to Discuss Number of Administrative & Scheduling Matters Re Three Group I Issues for Litigation.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990830 ML20211E7411999-08-27027 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contentions security-A & security-B & Partial Summary Disposition Re Contention security-C).* Pfs Motion Granted. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990827 ML20211E8231999-08-27027 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah G).* Order Granted for Reasons Given in Memo.Decision Regarding Contention Rendered in Favor of Pfs.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990827 ML20211F0221999-08-27027 August 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Re Contention Utah M).* Pfs Established No Genuine Issue as to Any Matl Fact & Is Entitled to Judgement in Favor as Matter of Law.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 990827 ML20211G9031999-08-26026 August 1999 Applicant Second Supplement Response to State First Requests for Discovery.* Applicant Files Suppl Response,Per 10CFR2.740(e),to Name Addl Witness to Be Called at Hearing. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211A6691999-08-23023 August 1999 Order (Schedule for Responses to Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Contention Utah Q).* Orders That Party Responses to State 990820 Request Be Filed on or Before 990903.With Certificate Svc.Served on 990823 ML20211B9701999-08-20020 August 1999 State of Utah Request for Admission of late-filed Second Amended Utah Contention Q.* for Stated Reasons,Second Contention Q Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20211A5701999-08-20020 August 1999 NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Staff Objects to State Discovery Requests.State Has Not Complied with NRC Regulations.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211A5821999-08-20020 August 1999 NRC Staff Second Suppl Response to State of UT First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Staff Reiterates & Renews Each Objection to State Discovery Requests.Related Correspondence ML20211M2121999-08-20020 August 1999 Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of Utah Second Amended Contention Q.* ML20211C0091999-08-20020 August 1999 Declaration of M Resnikoff in Support of State of Utah Second Amended Contention Q.* ML20211B8581999-08-20020 August 1999 Affidavit of B Sagar.* Affidavit of B Sagar Re NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of Utah Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff Re Utah Contention K ML20211B8411999-08-20020 August 1999 Supplemental Affidavit of a Ghosh.* Supplemental Affidavit of a Ghosh Re NRC Staff Objections & Responses to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff, Pertaining to Utah Contention K ML20210S4791999-08-17017 August 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply Pleading).* State 990816 Motion to File Reply to Pfs 990806 Response Granted in That State Has Up to 990818 to File Reply.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990817 ML20210U3061999-08-16016 August 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant Response to Amended Contention Q.* Moves for Leave to Reply to Applicant 990806 Response to Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Contention Q.With Certificate of Svc ML20210S3501999-08-12012 August 1999 Errata to 990720 Declaration of Major General J Matthews, Us Air Force (Retired),Re Matl Facts in Dispute with Respect to Contention K.* Submits Errata Notification Re Paragraph 16 of 990720 Declaration.With Certificate of Svc ML20210Q6721999-08-10010 August 1999 State of Utah Supplemental Answers to Applicants General Interrogatories (Utah Contention R).* State Suppls Discovery Responses to General Interrogatories 3,4 & 5.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210M4511999-08-0909 August 1999 Order (Granting Motion for Leave to File Reply to Response).* Grants State of Utah 990806 Motion for Leave to File Reply to NRC Staff 990805 Response.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990809 1999-09-09
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217L8541999-10-21021 October 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Responses to State of Utah Request for Admission of late- Filed Amended Utah Contention V.* NRC Staff Do Not Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B3491999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Reply to Application & Staff Oppositions Ot late-filed Second Amended UT Contention Q.* Applicants Objections to Admission of Second Amended Contention Q Without Merit & Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20212B8451999-09-13013 September 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribe B.* State Requests Denial of Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20211Q9211999-09-0909 September 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant & Staff Response to Second Amended Contention Q.* Neither Applicant Nor Staff Oppose Subj Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4821999-09-0909 September 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20211M5691999-09-0707 September 1999 Applicant Position on Dismissal of ITP-related Contentions.* Requests That ITP-related Portions of Contentions Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211Q9301999-09-0707 September 1999 State of Utah Response to Impact of Board Ruling in LBP-99-34 (Utah Contention B) as Ruling May Relate to Other Admitted Contentions.* Maintains That Relevant Parts of Contentions R & Not Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211M4051999-09-0707 September 1999 NRC Staff Position Regarding Impact of LBP-99-34 on Other Contentions.* Staff Submits That Remaining ITP-related Contentions (or Portions of Contentions) Should Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20211N4901999-09-0303 September 1999 Applicant Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Ruling on Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K/Confederated Tribes B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20210U3061999-08-16016 August 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant Response to Amended Contention Q.* Moves for Leave to Reply to Applicant 990806 Response to Request for Admission of late-filed Amended Contention Q.With Certificate of Svc ML20210Q6801999-08-0909 August 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R & Reply to Staff Response to Applicant Motion.* State Requests Opportunity to Cross Examine Applicant Witnesses.With Certificate of Svc ML20210N3431999-08-0606 August 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion to Strike Part of State of Utah Response to Application Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K.* State of Utah Withdraws Arguments Re Tekoi Facility.With Certificate of Svc ML20210N3531999-08-0606 August 1999 State of Utah Motion for Leave to Reply to NRC Staff Response to Amended Contention Q.* State Disagrees with Staff Characterization of History & Significance of State Attempts to Raise Contention Q.With Certificate of Svc ML20210M5531999-08-0404 August 1999 State of UT Reply to NRC Staff Response in Support of Applicant Partial Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Contention K & Confederated Tribes Contention B - Inadequate Consideration of Credible Accidents.With Certificate of Svc ML20210L0851999-08-0404 August 1999 NRC Staff Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to State of UT Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Staff Requests Time Extension to Respond to Utah Discovery Requests.With Certificate of Svc ML20210H7941999-07-30030 July 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories for Utah Contention O.* State Fully & Completely Answered Applicant Four Interrogatories & Motion to Compel Should Be Dismissed.With Certificate of Svc ML20210H9141999-07-30030 July 1999 Applicant Motion to Strike Part of State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah K.* for Listed Reasons,Board Should Strike Portion of State Response.With Certificate of Svc ML20216D6331999-07-28028 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R - Emergency Plan.* Staff Supports Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R & Recommends That Motion Be Granted ML20210H8201999-07-27027 July 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Contention G.* State Granted an Extension of Time Until 990630 to File Simultaneous Response to Applicant Motion & Reply to Staff Response ML20210H8371999-07-27027 July 1999 State of Utah Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention M.* State of Utah Has Reviewed Pleadings & Will Not Be Filing Responses to Applicant Motion or Staff Response.With Certificate of Svc ML20210H8581999-07-26026 July 1999 State of UT Response to NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention UT B.* Summary Disposition of UT Contention B Should Be Rejected by Board.With Certificate of Svc ML20210E3071999-07-22022 July 1999 State of Utah Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Applicant Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Contention O).* Neither NRC Nor State of UT Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20210E3181999-07-22022 July 1999 State of UT Request for Admission of late-filled Amended Utah Contention Q.* Amended Contention Q Meets Commission Std for Late Filed Contentions & Should Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E4701999-07-22022 July 1999 State of UT Opposition to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of UT Contention K & Confederate Tribes Contention B.* Response Raises Significant Safety Concerns That Applicant Has Not Addressed.With Certificate of Svc ML20210C6601999-07-22022 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention K & Confederated Tribes Contention B.* Staff Submits That Applicant Entitled to Decision in Applicant Favor ML20210C6561999-07-20020 July 1999 State of UT Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Partial Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of UT Contention K & Confederated Tribes Contention B.* with Certificate of Svc ML20210C6681999-07-20020 July 1999 Applicant Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories by State of Ut.* Board Should Compel State to Produce Info Requested by Applicant Interrogatories 2-4 & 6 Re Utah O. with Certificate of Svc ML20209H6861999-07-19019 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention G (Qa).* NRC Supports Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention G & Recommends That Motion Be Granted ML20209H6951999-07-19019 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention M - Pmf.* Staff Supports Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention M & Recommends That It Be Granted ML20210B1231999-07-16016 July 1999 State of Utah Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention B.* State Opposes Applicant 990611 Motion & Believes Applicant Not Entitled to Summary Disposition as Matter of Law.With Certificate of Svc ML20209G7171999-07-16016 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah B.* Supports Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah B.Motion Should Be Granted.With EP Easton Affidavit & Certificate of Svc ML20209G0911999-07-13013 July 1999 State of Utah Motion to Dismiss Utah Contentions F & P.* Moves for Dismissal of Utah Contentions F & P,With Prejudice,Which Relate to Training Program for Private Fuel Storage Facility.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K8421999-07-0707 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to State of UT Request for Admission of late-filed Amended UT Contention C.* State late-filed Contention C Should Be Rejected as Failing to Satisfy Commission Requirements Admission.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K5101999-07-0101 July 1999 State of UT Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions UT Security a & Security B & Partial Summary Disposition of Contention UT Security C.* with Certificate of Svc ML20196K5201999-07-0101 July 1999 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Disposition Motions on Contentions F & P.* Staff Has No Objection to Motion as Long as Time for Response Similarly Extended,As Requested.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K5221999-07-0101 July 1999 Applicant Request to Exceed Page Limitation for Response to State of UT Request for Admission of late-filed Amended UT Contention C.Applicant Requests to Be Allowed to File Up to 20 Page Response to Contention C.With Certificate of Svc ML20212J5561999-07-0101 July 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Security a & Security B & Partial Summary Disposition of UT Security C.* Staff Supports Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition on UT Security A,B & C ML20196K5041999-06-30030 June 1999 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Disposition Motions & Motions to Compel on Discovery (Group II & III Contentions).* Submits Schedule & Request Approval for Extensions of Time.With Certificate of Svc ML20196K5781999-06-30030 June 1999 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Disposition Motion on Contentions F/P.* Requests Extension from 990701 Until 990706 to File Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Dispositions F/P.With Certificate of Svc ML20196F9231999-06-28028 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Contention M Probable Max Flood.* Board Should Grant Summary Disposition with Respect to Contention Utah M.With Certificate of Svc ML20196F9491999-06-28028 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention R - Emergency Plan.* Board Should Grant Pfs Partial Summary Disposition of UT R.With Certificate of Svc ML20196G5281999-06-28028 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah G.* Board Should Grant Summary Disposition for Utah G,For Stated Reasons.With Certificate of Svc ML20196F1371999-06-25025 June 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of UT Contention H (Inadequate Thermal Design).* Staff Submits That Applicant Entitled to Decision in Favor as Matter of Law,On Subparts 3,4 & 5 of Contention UT H ML20196F9691999-06-25025 June 1999 State of Utah Opposition to Applicant Partial Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention H-inadequate Thermal Design (Document Redacted).* Opposition Supported by M Resnikoff.With Certificate of Svc.Partially Withheld ML20212H7861999-06-21021 June 1999 State of UT Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for State to Respond to Applicant Summary Disposition Motions for UT Contentions B & K.* Neither Applicant Nor NRC Staff Oppose Motion.With Certificate of Svc ML20196A9581999-06-16016 June 1999 Applicant Response to Ogd Motion to Compel Applicant to Answer Interrogatories & Produce Documents.* Requests That Ogd Motion to Compel Be Dismissed for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20196A8871999-06-16016 June 1999 Joint Motion for Extension of Schedule for Discovery Responses & Showing of Good Cause.* Private Fuel Storage & State of UT Request That Board Extend Date of Response to 990628.With Certificate of Svc ML20195G3531999-06-11011 June 1999 Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Utah B.* Recommends That Board Grant Pfs Summary Disposition on Utah Contention B & Dismiss Contention for Reasons Stated. with Certificate of Svc ML20196A2171999-06-11011 June 1999 Statement of Matl Facts on Which No Genuine Dispute Exists.* Applicant Submits Statement in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions Utah Security a & B & Partial Security-C.With Certificate of Svc ML20195J4181999-06-11011 June 1999 Intervenor Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Response Opposing Applicant Motion to Quash Deposition of Leon Bear.* Ogd Requests That Motion for Extension of Discovery Be Granted & Pfs Motion to Quash Notice of L Bear Be Rejected.With Certificate of Svc 1999-09-09
[Table view] |
Text
i 205 %
p.
9 00CHETED June 2S,Si5I99 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 09 JJN 28 P219 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARhhf 4 i.
ADi In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI i
)
(Independent Spent Fuel
)
)
- Storage Installation)
)
{
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S '
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF UTAH CONTENTION H (INADEOUATE THERMAL DESIGN)
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.749(a) the NRC Staff (" Staff") herewith responds to the
" Applicant's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Utah Contention H (Inadequate Thermal Design)" (" Motion"), filed on May 19,1999 by Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (" Applicant" or "PFS"). For the reasons set fonh below and in the attached Affidavit of Jack Guttmann
("Guttmann Aff."), the Staff submits that each of the issues raised by subpans 3,4 and 5 of Utah Contention H and their supporting basis statements have been resolved, insofar as they involve the HI STORM 100 cask system, and there no longer exists a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to these subparts of the contention for the HI STORM 100 cask system." Inasmuch as these issues have been resolved, the Applicant is entitled to a decision in its favor on these subparts of Utah Contention H, insofar as it involves the HI STORM 100 cask system, as a matter
' As discussed infra at 8 and in the attached Affidavit, the Staff expresses no opinion herein as to the TranStor cask system.
9906290142 990625 PDR ADOCK 07200022 l
C PDR 9
l T
i i
\\
- oflaw. The Staff therefore supports the Applicant's Motion and recommends that it be granted, in part, as it relates to the III STORM cask system.
i BACKGROUND Utah Contention H (Inadequate Thermal Design) was filed by the State of Utah on November 23,1997.2 As admitted by the Licensing Board,' the contention states as follows:
Utah H - Inadequate Thermal Design' CONTENTION: The design of the proposed ISFSI is inadequate to protect against overheating of storage casks and of the concrete cylinders in which they are to be stored in that:
1.
Storage casks used in the License Application are not analyzed for the PFS maximum site design ambient temperature of 110 F.
2.
The maximum average daily ambient temperatures for unnamed cities in Utah nearest the site do not necessarily correspond to the conditions in Skull Valley; PFS should provide information on actual temperatures at the Skull Valley site.
3.
PFS's projection that average daily temperatures will not exceed 100"F fails to take into account the heat stored and radiated by the concrete pad and storage cylinders.
2 " State of Utah's Contentions on the Construction and Operating License Application by Private Fuel Storage, LLC for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility" (" Utah Contentions"), dated November 23,1997, at 52-59.
2 Private FuelStorage, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7 (1998),
47 NRC 142,188-89,253 (1998).
d By Order of May 18,1998, the Licensing Board clarified that Paragraphs 3 through 7 of this contention are limited to site-specific issues -- 1.c., whether the PFS site conditions fall within the envelope of the cask vendors' designs, "with the understanding that the site conditions at issue may include conditions resulting from the effects of the site specific cask interactions specified in the contention."
s
./
^.
4.
In projecting ambient temperatures, PFS fails to take into consideration the heat generated by the casks themselves.
5.
PFS fails to account for the impact of heating the concrete pad on the effectiveness of convection cooling.
6.
PFS has not demonstrated that tile concrete stmeture of the TranStor cask is designed to withstand the temperatures at the proposed ISFSI.
7.
PFS has not demonstrated that the concrete structure of the HI-STORM cask is designed to withstand the temperatures at the proposed ISFSI.
In its motion for partial summary disposition of Utah Contention H, PFS asserts that the bases for subparts 3,4 and 5 of the contention have been eliminated and that these subparts of the contention are therefore no longer valid. In support of this assertion, PFS states that Holtec International has revised the thermal calculation for its HI-STORM 100 storage cask system, that the revised thermal calculation takes into consideration the specific factors raised by the State of
)
Utah in these portions of the contention, and that the calculated temperatures for spent fuel I
cladding in the HI-STORM 100 storage cask system is greater than and bounds thermal conditions for the TranStor cask system (all other conditions being equal). See Motion at 5-7 and n.11; Ixwis Affidavit at 5; Rampall Affidavit at 2-6. Accordingly, PFS concludes that summary disposition of subparts 3,4 and 5 of Utah Contention H should be entered in its favor.
DISCUSSION A.
I2 cal Standards Governine Motions for Summary Disposition.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.749(a), [a]ny party to a proceeding may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision by the presiding officer in that party's favor as to all or any part of the matters involved in the proceeding. The moving party shall annex to the motion a l
l l
~
f 4
separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends that there is no genuine issue to be heard.".In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 62.749(b), when a
- properly supported motion for summary disposition is made, "a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer;'his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue'of fact."5 In addition, an opposing party must annex to its answer a short and concise statement of material facts as to which it contends there exists a genuine issue to be heard.
10 C.F.R. f 2.749(a). All material facts set forth in the moving party's statement will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted in the opposing party's statement. Id. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
f 2.749(d), "[t]he presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavit, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law."6 l
5 Accord, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
ALAB-841,24 NRC 64,93 (1986). General denials and bare assertions are not sufficient to preclude summary disposition when the proponent of the motion has met its burden. Advanced MedicalSystems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041 ), CLI-93-22,38 NRC 98,102 (1993).
l Although the opposing party does not need to demonstrate that it will succeed on the issues, it must j
at least demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact exists to be tried. Id.; Public Service Co. ofNew Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-8,35 NRC 145,154 (1992) (to avoid summary disposition, the opposing party had to present contrary evidence that was so significantly probative as to create a material issue of fact).
6 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.749(c), if a party opposing the motion demonstrates in its affidavits that valid reasons exist why it cannot provide facts essential to oppose the motion, the presiding officer may deny the motion, order a continuance to pennit affidavits to be obtained, or take such other action as may be appropriate.
i
r l
The Commission has encouraged the parties in its adjudicatory proceedings to utilize its summary disposition procedures "on issues where there is no genuine issue of material fact so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues." Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Promdings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,457 (1981).' Further, the Appeal Board has recognized that summary disposition provides "an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on. demonstrably insubstantial issues."
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-6%,16 NRC 1245, 1263 (1982); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
1 ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 550 (1980).8 The Commission's summary disposition procedures have been analogized to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977). Indeed, the Commission, when considering motions for summary disposition filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
f 2.749, generally applies the same standards that the Federal courts use in determining motions for summaryjudgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules. AdvancedMedical Systems, 38 NRC 7 The Commission recently endorsed its earlier policy statement, but indicated that " Boards should forego the use of motions for summary disposition except upon a written finding that such a motion will likely substantially reduce the number ofissues to be decided, or otherwise expedite y
the proceeding." Statement ofPolicy on Conduct ofAdjudicatoryProceedings, CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18,20-21 (1998). The Staff submits that partial summary disposition of Utah Contention H will reduce the multiplicity ofissues that require hearings in this proceeding, and will otherwise serve to expedjte the proceeding.
8 It is well settled that an agency may ordinarily dispense with an evidentiary hearing where no genuine issue of material fact exists. Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't ofAgriculture,832 F.2d 601, l
607-08 (D.C. Cir.1987).
. at 102 (1993). Decisions arising under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules may thus serve as guidelines l
}
to the Commission's adjudicatory boards in applying 10 C.F.R. 62.749. Perry, 6 NRC at 754.
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules, the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.,398 U.S.
l 144,157 (1970); Advanced Medical Systems, 38 NRC at 102. In addition, the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Poller v. CBS, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 1
473 (1962); Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), ALAB-944, 33 NRC 81,144 (1991). However, if the moving party makes a proper showing for summary disposition and the opposing party fails to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact, the District Court (or Licensing Board) may summarily dispose of all of the matters before it on the basis of the filings in the proceeding, the statements of the parties, and affidavits. Rule 56(e),
Fed. R.' Civ. P. Accord, Advanced Medical Systems, 38 NRC at102; 10 C.F.R. f 2.749(d).
The Licensing Board in this proceeding has recently had occasion to rule upon a motion for summary disposition filed by PFS. See " Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Contention Utah C), LBP-99-23,49 NRC (June 17,1999).
Therein, the Licensing Board succinctly summarized the standards governing the granting of summary disposition, as follows:
Under 10 C.F.R. f 2.749(a), (d), summary disposition may be entered with respect to any matter (or all of the matters) in a proceeding if the motion, along with any appropriate supporting material, shows that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law."
The movant bears the initial burden of making the requisite showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, which it attempts to do by means of a required statement of material facts not at issue and any supporting materials (including I
1 7-affidavits, discovery responses, and documents) that accompany its dispositive motion.
An opposing party must counter each adequately supported material fact with its own statement of material facts in dispute and supporting materials, or the movant's facts will be deemed admitted. Sgr Advanced Medical Systems.
11(One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-93-22,38.NRC 98, 102-03 (1993).
LBP-99-23, slip op. at 10.
As more fully set forth below, the Staff submits that summary disposition is appropriate in accordance with these established standards, with respect to subparts 3,4 and 5 of Contention i
Utah H, insofar as they involve the HI STORM 100 cask system.
B.
Adeauacy of the Aeolicant's Cask Thermal Desien.
l 1.
Anolicable Reculatory Standards.
As filed by the State of Utah, Contention H asserts that the Applicant fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. If 72.122(b) and 72.128(a) (see Utah Contentions at 52). Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
f72.122(b), an applicant for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) must demonstrate that " structures, systems, and components important to safety must be designed to accommodate the effects of, and to be compatible with, site characteristics and environmental i
conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, and testing of the ISFSI... and to withstand postulated accidents." Also, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. f72.128(a), an ISFSI applicant's spent fuel storage systems "must be designed to ensure adequate safety under normal and accident conditions"; and the design must include, inter alia, " suitable shielding for radioactive protection under normal and accident conditions" and a " heat-removal capability having testability and reliability consistent with its importance to safety."
l i
L 2.
The Aoplicant's Thermal Analysis.
As set forth in the attached Affidavit of Jack Guttmann, the Staff has reviewed the revised thermal-hydraulic analysis for the HI-STORM 100 storage cask system, which PFS submitted on February 10,1999 in response to the Staff's Requests for Additional Information (RAIs). On the basis of this review, the Staff has determined that the HI-STORM 100 thermal-hydraulic analysis satisfactorily addresses each of the concerns raised by subparts 3,4 and 5 of Utah Contention H, for that cask system. Further, the Staff has determined that the Statement of Material Facts submitted in support of the Applicant's Motion is correct, except with respect to the third and fourth sentences of Material Fact No.4, as to which the Staff expresses no opinion at this time (Guttmann Aff at 2).'
For these reasons, as more fully set forth in the attached affidavit, the Staff submits that there does not exist any genuine issue of material fact with respect to subparts 3,4 and 5 of Utah Contention H insofar as it concerns the HI STORM 100 cask system, and the Applicant is entitled to a decision in its favor on this aspect of the contention as a matter of law.
' In the third and fourth sentences of Material Fact No. 4, PFS states as follows:
A fully loaded HI STORM 100 cask will experience higher temperatures, all other conditions being equal, than a fully loaded TranStor cask. Therefore, the revised thermal calculation for the HI STORM 100 cask is bounding.
The Staffis continuing to evaluate the design of the TranStor cask ' system and whether the statements made in the third and fourth sentences of Material Fact No. 4 are correct. In the event
' that the Staff is able to state a position with respect to the cited portions of Material Fact No. 4 L
' during the next week, and to state its position on the Applicant's assertion that the HI STORM thermal analysis is bounding, the Staff will seek leave to file a supplemental affidavit setting forth that position.
1
e i
9 1
CONCLUSION l
For the reasons set forth above, as more fully set forth in the attached Affidavit of Jack 1
Guttmann, the Staff submits that the Applicant is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law, on subparts 3,4 and 5 of Contention Utah H, insofar as they relate to the HI STORM 100 cask system.
Respectfully submitted, l
OTM/v
[L Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day of June 1999 i
I l
l l
l<
l l
l 1
1 l
1 l
i_._,_.