ML20196F380

CAN Reply to Board Order of 990614.* Board Should Find Way to Satisfy Public Right to Know Answers to Questions CAN & Others Raised Re Yankee Rowe Site Contamination.Fees,Costs & Expenses Justified.With Certificate of Svc

ML20196F380
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	06/23/1999
From:	Katz D CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK
To:
References
CON-#299-20583 99-754-01-LA-R, 99-754-1-LA-R, LA-R, NUDOCS 9906290193
Download: ML20196F380 (8)

Text

y

.J..

)b583 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMliRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the

?) JUN 28 P2 :20 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Administrative Judges:

g ADJUdr AFF Charles Bechhoefer, Chariman Dr. Thomas S. Elleman Thomas D. Murphy

' in the Matter of Docket No. 50-029-LA-R YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 99-754-01-LA-R

-(Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

License Termination Plan CAN'S REPl.Y TO BOARD'S ORDER OF JUNE 14.1999 Pursuant to'the Board's June 14,1999 Order in this case, CAN sets forth

)

the following replies:

1.

CAN (and other intenenors) hase put much work and effort into arguing standing, formulating contentions, discosery interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, as weli as making legal responses to the Board, NRC Staff, YAEC, and filing briefs to the Commission. CAN has been involved in the Yankee Rowe case since 1992 when we first attempted to get a hearing on the i

Decommissioning Plan for Yankee Rowe. CAN has gone through the process of

< tiling allegations with the inspector General,- tiling a civil. complaint with the United States District Court for Massachusetts,. tiling an appeal to the United 9906290193 990623 PDR ADOCK 05000029 O

PDR 3So3

l 3

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, lighting through standing issues and additional appeals' to obtain a limited hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel on a decommissioning issue, and now has struggled through this LTP process to obtain a hearing on how contaminated the Yankee Rowe site will remain for nearly forever. This is sery likely the last time CAN may secure the discosery information the Board has agreed that we are entitled to request from YAEC. If YAEC's threat to resubmit the LTP in 10 to 20 years hold true, many of our members will probably no longer be alive. For many of us, it is now or never -we want the uncertainty concerning the nature and extent of contamination at Yankee Rowe to end now. We also believe that this Board has the authority and ample justification in the existing record (including YAEC's own tilings) to justify ordering the production of all the discovery thus far requested, and directing that YAEC conduct testing to explain the anomalies that the hydrogeologist found in YAEC's site characterization data.

2.

CAN takes that position that aner the opening of Discovery in this case, YAEC relinquished the opportunity to further justify the adequacy of its application for approval of the LTP until summary judgment or trial on the merits.

Any justifications at this point should be in the candid and complete answers to the discosery requests. In good faith, CAN granted YAEC's repeated requests for additional time-to meet discovery requirements, and deal with administratise d

f'.

L dilliculties they were hasing in moving their alliees. This Board ruled that discovery could take place on the four contentions - CAN and NECNP filed joint L

discosery (again cooperatively acceding to YAEC's request that only one set of material be filed). CAN believes that this Board's order that discovery take place means that the Board found that it was in the public interest thi.t the requested

.discosery material be made available to CAN and the other intervenors. Thus.

discovery should be provided notwithstanding YAEC's request to w ti hdraw.

j 3.

It is a reasonable presumption that YAEC had considerable advance knowledge that it was changing its methodology to MARSSIM. YAEC has a

. high level management person on the committee that formulated MARSSIM. Yet, at the prehearing, YAEC made no mention that it was considering this change.

Thus, YAEC, while in a position to know well in advance of the discovery period that it was going to need to withdraw at least a substantial portion of the LTP, said nothing to the Board, NRC Staff, or Intenenors. YAEC has profited from its i

silence to the prejudice of the Board, the Intervenors, and the NRC StatT. While the NRC StatT may be paid fo'r their losses in time, money, and resources, CAN and the Intervenors should also be properly reimbursed, as YAEC's silence was no l

less prejudicial to CAN and the other intenenors' interests.

]

4L lt is reasonable, in the light of the abuse, to draw the conclusion that YAEC is attempting to avoid its legal obligations to meet discovery by

/

1

)

g

[,

c

L withdrawing the !!rP application. Thus, a reasonable condition this Board could impose upon YAEC's' withdrawal of. the application would be providing the requested discovery information and documents to the intersenors. It is hard to come to any other conclusions than that YAEC's withdrawal of the LTP is intended to asoid public knowledge of actual site conditions (which knowledge this' Board has found to be appropriate in its ruling on the admissibility of 1

contentions and setting of a discosery schedule). CAN is concerned that YAEC's future LTP submission may escape the same lesel of scrutiny that this Board would hase subjected it to if it had not been withdrawn. If YAEC is successful in this latet ploy, CAN will be forced to yet again endure the "OMce of Circumlocution" which judge Ponser noted that CAN had been subjected to in this case since 1992.

5.

Gisen the subsurface soil contamination and the contamination of groundwater issues raised by NECNP's hydrogeologist, this Board should safeguard the public interest by requiring that YAEC conduct further insestigation and analysis of the hydrogeologic data in its site characterization.

6.

Although YAEC claims the' it could be a decade before the submission of its next LTP, the resubmission of an LTP might be sooner.

Originally, YAEC told the NRC that it would go into SAFSTOR at Yankee Rowe.

Then, through an illegal interpretation of regulations, the NRC allowed YAEC to

r I

L l

begin the Early Component Remosal project This entailed stripping and shipping l

of 90% of the radionuclide insentory otT site without prior submission and approval of a Decommissioning Plan. CAN took NRC to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit oser this issue and won in the subsequent hearing process, YAEC continued to strip the reactor while CAN raised serious health and safety issues which the Appellate Court decision validated, it is hard for CAN, aner these years and years of protracted legal struggles, to have any faith that YAEC will keep its commitments or promises concerning the clean-up of Yankee j

Rowe.

7.

YAEC may again mose quickly aller this proceeding is terminated and submit a second LTP. While YAEC has told this Board that it may be 10 or 20 years before the next LTP is submitted, it had told reporters that its will only be about two years more. CAN believes that the hearing process should be lett open for 'a gisen period of time. CAN contends that it is reasonable for the current Board to maintain jurisdiction of the case for at least 24 months to see whether YAEC will submit its LTP.- Further, CAN and NECNP should have automatic standing in proceeding commenced on this Board's continued jurisdiction over the resubmission of YAEC's LTP Being required to litigate standing on this matter I

will waste the Board's and Commission's time (as ueli as money - and that of the intenenors and the ratepayers too).

Reapplying for standing would be an

I?

i unnecessary and unfair delay that will merely distract from the important issues concerning the adequacy of YAliC's new LTP.

8.

In CAN's (and NECNP's) first ASI.AB hearing (in the Yankee i

t Rowe decommissioning segment of this case), the Licensing Board Panel allowed

)

i that our concems about onsite storage of high-lesel waste would be addressed at a later hearing. The Commission later ruled that our concerns about high-level waste storage were beyond the purview of the Board. We do not want to be caught in f

this kind of Catch-22 again regarding standing and other issues arising when YAliC submits its third LTP. Therefore, CAN believes that the standing of CAN's (and the other Inten enors) should be " grandfathered" in to any subsequent hearing process on YAEC's next. The NRC should also provide that the current rules on hearing requirements will continue to apply to any such subsequent LTP hearing, esen if the Commission subsequently alters the current regulations. In addition, YAEC should be held to 15 millirem /yr. standard in the FSAR and other YAEC documents. YAEC's resubmitted LTP should also be reviewed in light of CAN's (and the other intenenors') previous contentions, and any new contentions CAN (or the other intervenors) choose to submit.

C O N CI.t!SIO N in summary, CAN belieses that this ik>ard has the authority and just cause to grant the relief requested on behalf of the Inten enors in NECNP's June 7,1999,

)

tilmg and proposed Order. CAN also belieses that this Board should take action to assure that the interests of the public and the public-interest intervenor groups are not prejudiced by YAEC's withdrawal of the LTP Right now,. our members, and so many citizens of Franklin County and adjacent areas of Vermont, are left wondering about the nature and extent of contamination at Yankee Rowe. CAN has freely gisen time, energy, and resources to try to assure that our members and the public have adequate information about the contamination at the Yankee Rowe site At a minimum, the Board should find a way to satisfy the public's right to know the answers to the very serious questions CAN and others have raised about Yankee Rowe site contamination. To allow these questions to go unanswered for 10 to 20 years is not in the public interest, and compounds the plain legal prejudice CAN and the other intersenors have sutTered by YAEC's withdrawal of the LTP.

In short, fees, costs, expenses and conditions are well justified in this case.

Respectfully submitted:

/

DeborahS/Katz, Executive Director Citizens Awareness Network,Inc.

c/o P.O. Box 3023 Charlemont, MA 01339-3023 (413)339-5781 cc: Service List

)

Dated 6/23/99

w DO O

Q,ttificate of %enice.

,1, Deborah B. Kate, pro se representatise for Citizens Awarenos Network, Inc., certify that on June 23,1999, I sened the within CAN's Reply to lloard's Order upon parties rophisgbyp p.20 United States Postal Senice First Class Ntail, postage pre paid, as follows:

lion. Charles Bechhoefer, Chainnan The ifon. 'lhomas D. hifpihy...

Administratise Judge Administratisc Judge f'dLf.. '

~

Atomic Safety and Licensing floard Atomic Safety and LicendkGd Panel TF U.S. NRC U.S SRC Washmyton, D.C. 20555 Washington, D C. 20555 1 ton. Dr. ' thomas Elleman Jonathan Nt. tilock Admmistrative Judge Attorney for NECNP 704 Davidson Street P.O. Bos 566 Raleigh, NC 27609 Putney, VT 05346-0566 Robert K. Gad lit, Esq. and Nir. Samuel lovejoy, Chnn. Planning Board Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq Franklin Regional Council of Govemments Ropes & Gray 425 Niain Street One International Place Greenfield, At A 01301 Boston, htA 02110-2624 Ann P. Ilodgdon, Esq Othee of the Secretary /

hianan L. Zobler, Esq.

Rulemakings & Adjudications OtEce ofGeneral Counsel U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Washington. D C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 OfTice of Conunission Diane Curran, Esq.*

Appellate Adjudication llannon, Curren, Spielberg & Eisenberg U.S. NRC _

1726 Al Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20$55 Washington, D.C. 20036

. David Rothstein, Esq.'

Jim Perkins. President U.S. EPA Region i Suite i100-RCA NECNP 1 Congress Street P.O. Bos $45 130ston, MA 02114 2023 lirattleboro, VT 05302-0545

&a B/

Deborah B. Katz, pro se for Citizens Awareness Network, Inc.

.. -