ML20209G091

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

ML20209G091
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	07/13/1999
From:	Chancellor D UTAH, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#399-20654 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, LBP-98-07, LBP-98-7, NUDOCS 9907190018
Download: ML20209G091 (8)

Text

r 1

2%GY DOCXETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 99 JUL 16 P2 :59 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 01 AL).

)

In the Matter of:

)

Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

)

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC )

ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel

)

{

Storage Installation)

)

July 13,1999 STATE OF UTAH'S MOTION TO DISMISS UTAH CONTENTIONS F AND P The State of Utah hereby moves for the dismissal of Utah Contentions F and P with prejudice, which relate to the training program for the Private Fuel Storage Facility. See LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,252 (1998). The State seeh dsmiasal on the ground that it has settled its dispute with the Applicant, as reflected in the attached letter from Paul A. Gaukler to Diane Curran (July 13,1999). Both the Applicant and the NRC Staff support this motion.

The State suggests that as a result, the Applicant's pending Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contentions F and P - Training and Certification Qune 11,1999), is moot, and should also be dismissed.

DATED this 13'h day of July,1999.

)

9907190018 990713 PDR ADOCK 07200022 C

PDR 1 S03 I

t

l-i Respectf submitted, dnic

</

De Chancellor,'issWant Attorney General L

Fre G Nelson, Assistant Attorney General Diane Curran, Special Assistant Attorney General Connie Nakahara, Special Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for State of Utah Utah Attorney General's Office 160 East 300 South,5th Floor, P.O. Box 140873 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0873 Telephone: (801) 366-0286, Fax: (801) 366-0292 l

l l.

y..

00CKETED USNPC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE o9 JJL 16 P2 59 I hereby certify that a copy of STATE OF UTAH'S MOTION TO DISMISS Or UTAH CONTENTIONS F AND P was served on the persons listed below~by; ADA '

. electronic mail (unless otherwise noted) with conforming copies by United States mail first class, this 13' day of July,1999:

Rulemaking & Adjudication Staff Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Secretary of the Commission Catherine L. Marco, Esq.

U. S. Nuclen Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop 15 B18 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc. gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (ori inalandtwo copies)

Washington, DC 20555 g

E-Mail: ' set @nrc. gov G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman E-Mail: cim@nrc. gov Administrative Judge E-Mail: pfscase@nrc. gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Ernest L. Blake,Jr.

E-Mail: gpb@nrc. gov Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.

Dr. Jerry R. Kline Washington, DC 20037-8007 AdministrativeJudge E Mail: Jay _Silberg@shawpittman.com Atomic Safety and Licensing Board E-Mail: ernest _blake@shawpittman.com U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-Mail: paul _gaukler@shawpittman.com Washington,DC 20555 E-Mail: jrk2@nrc. gov John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.

kjerry@erols.com 1385 Yale Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Dr. Peter S. Lam E-Mail: john @kennedys.org AdministrativeJudge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Richard E. Condit, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Washington, DC 20555 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 E-Mail: psl@nrc. gov Boulder, Colorado 80302 E-Mail: rcondit@lawfund.org 3

h l

1

g 1

James M. Cutchin Joro Walker, Esq.

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 165 South Main, Suite 1 Panel Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E Mail: joro61@inconnect..com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-Mail: jmc3@nrc. gov Danny Quintana, Esq.

(electronic copy only)

Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.

50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Office of the Commission Appellate Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Adjudication E-Mail: quintana @xmission.com Mail Stop: 16-G-15 OWFN U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (UnitedStates mailonly) jo n M-emse Chancell r o

ssistant Attorney General State of Utah 4

k Jul-13-90 CE:23ps. Free -

T-205 P.02/H F-8H l

1 ShawPittman m e. w w,,# % -

Pan A. sA m es 302.663.4304 put.gsaalev$stiewpmaan.com l

i July 13,1999 l

Diane Curran, Esq.

Harmon, curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg. L.L.P.

1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washineinn D.C.20036 Re:

Pshate Fuel Storage, L.L.C.

Settlement of Contentions Utah F & P

Dear Diane:

The purpose of this is lener is to ce=9m the serriement reached between Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. ("PFS") and the State of Utah (the ' State") with respect to Contemions Utah F & P, as admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Your leuer of June 30,1999 proposed a settlement of Utah F & P based on PFS committing to incorporate into the Safety Analysis Report ("SAR") for the Private Fuel Storage Facility ("PFSF") (a) censin information provided in PFS's responses to Requests for Additional Information ("RAls"),

(b) certain information provided in the Declatation of Michael Ladd f!!cd in support of PFS's Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah F A P, and (c) language stating that federal laws end regulations governing railroad engineers would apply to all locomotive operators employod by PFS at the Isk.a.edal Transfer Point ("ITP") and the PFSF. The State's June 30,1999 letter identified six points on which the State sought the inclusion of specific language in the SAR as the basis for senting Utah F & P. We have discussed each of the six points with the State as well as with NRC Staff counsel. The agreement that PFS and the State have reached with respect to each of the six points follows.

Eits, the PFSF SAR will ince.yarate Mr. Ladd's erstament in paragraph 6 of his declaration that PFS will follow the same Systematic Approach to Training (" SAT") for the l.

training of PFSF personnel in their respective duties as that mandated by the NRC for the l

training ofnuclear plant operators under 10 C.F.R. I 55.4. The application of this SAT process will result in a unining program for PFSF personnel that differs substantively from that required for nuclear plant operr.1ers, because of their far different duties and fhoctions, l

but the process or approach to the training of PFSF p,.ac. eel under 10 C.F.R. I 72.192 will include the five elements of the SAT set fonk in 10 C.F.R. I 55.4.

I i

WuNngtori. De l

%)ork 2300 h 5rteet.hw Wo.h.ngton. DC 300)?-112e 202.663.3000 Faa:202.663.6007 awn.saanpirrman cam 1.ondon

1 l

T-235 P.03/05 F-83l l Sh awPittm.. a.n l

L i

Diane Cunan, Esq.

July 13,1999 Page 2 Sseand, the PFSF SAR will incorporate the statement in paragra declaration that during the implementation of the PFS training program,ph that will povide greater detail related to initial f course descriptions t

and continuing training for all PFSF technica1 disciplines.

cation, 3hird, the PFSF SAR will incorporate the language in the " Respon PFS's May 19,1998 response to RAI 9-10 (attached as Exhibit (b) ofPFS's February 10,1999 respouse to RAI ITP-Utah 8)which states that: Declaration ofJohn A. Vincent filed in su "To the extent that PFS acts as a canter the PFSF), PFS would comply with the applicable [U.S.] Deparanen[from the m and the related hazardous material v yst.gion requirements." PFS willincorporate the t ofTransportation e,

requested language suhioct to a disclaimer, requested by the NRC Staf i

this conuntuness in the PFSF SAR does not constitute a license c ce commitment under the 10 C.FA Part 72 license for the PFSF, does not render t these requirements, or undertake enforcemens ac

. sequirements, under the 10 C.FA Pan 72 license for the PFSF.

i (b) of PFS's Febmary 10,1999 response to RAI I chosen to transport casi s from the main rail line to the PFSF and PFS the udlity customers, PFS would operate as a rail canier and meet the ap requirements of a ssil carrier, including 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV (Pan A), Sub associased implementing :egulations in Title 49 of the Code ofFederal Reg itu.c.p.iion of this mmmitment in the PFSF SAR d licensing conunisment under the 10 C.FA Pan 72 license for the PFSF, or commitment sub these regi = ject to 10 C.t'A { 72.45, and does not obligate the NRC Staff to enforce requirements, under the 10 C.FA Part 72 license for the PFSF., or

^

'Ihe State has also requested that in consunction with these chan hi'= 9.1 25 of the SAR, which requires "all mechanics" to become "ges, the language i licensed locomotive is dewbped to the site, all mechanics must become

~

~ ' ~

G.Gh-

T-285 P. DUD 5 F-831 ShawPittman

- ~

Diane Curran, Esq.

Atly 13,'1999 Page 3 the requirements of 49 U.S.C. f 20135 and 49 C.F.R. Part 240 and that the SAR sh provide that if an 1TP is used, any locomotive operators at the ITP will be subject to requiremems for railroad engineers. PFS will revise the SAR to provide that (a) if a is developed to the site, all PFS locomotive operators will become licensed " en accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5 20135 and 49 C.F.R. Part 240, and (b)if an ITP i PFS locomotive operators at the ITP will similarly h-==a licensed railroad enginee

=~daa-e with 49 U.S.C. ( 20135 and 49 C.F.R. Part 240, subject to the same di set forth above, that incorporation of these commitraents in the PFSF SAR does not coneunne a license condition or licensing comminnent under the 10 C.F.R. Part 72 licens fbr the PFSF, does not rendar da commitmeer subject to 10 C.F.R. I 72.48, and does n obligate the NRC Staff to s.Srce these requirements, or undertake enforcement a respect to violation of these aqisernents, under the 10 C.F.R. Part 72 license for the PFS Sisth, the State has requested that the PFSF SAR incorporate language in sub (b) ofPFS's February 10,1999 response to RAIITP-1, which suses that if the hea option is chosen and PFS acts as a carrier for the utility customers, PFS would meet t requimments for motor carriers which apply to both motor and common contract c inchiding Subtitle VI (motor vehicle and driver requirements). 'FS will incorporate language imm the RAI response which provides that, if the heavy-haul option is ch PFS acts as a carrier for the utility customers, PFS would meet the applicable U.S. DO requisements for motor carriert, including 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VI (motor vehicle and driv requimments), subject to the same disclaimer, set forth above, that incorporation ofibi comminnent in the PFSF SAR does not constitute a license condition or !iemia*

commitment under the 10 C.F A. Part 72 license for the PFSF, does not render the commitment subject to 10 C.F.R. g 72.48, and does not obligate the NRC Staff to enforce these segui.m.s.s, or undertake enforcement action whh respect to violation of these requ6

, under the 10 C.F.R. Pars 72 license for the PFSF.

of the agreements that we have reachad for the settleme confbras to your under--~8 :. the State will file, as we have agreed, a motion to distniss with prejudice Contention Utah F & P based on our settlement as ser forth above.

1 Sincerely 4

@ A Paul A.Gaukler e.

se

__49.

\\

m

... =... ~............

i

.... e. so.ma croe-T-285 P.05/05 F-831 ShawPittman Diane Curran Esq.

' July 13,1999 Page 4 Denise Chancellor, Esq.

l cc:

Sherwin Turk, Esq.

% n: msnv.

1 I

.a es e