ML20216F041
| ML20216F041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1998 |
| From: | Gad R ROPES & GRAY, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#198-18875 LA, NUDOCS 9803180231 | |
| Download: ML20216F041 (4) | |
Text
u DOCKET NUMBER l * /rf 75 PROD. & UTIL FAC, yo -02N 00CKETED i
USNRC i
United States of America before the W MAR 16 P3 :48 Nuclear Regulatory Commission OFFiG y sEcq;o g RULEIMm;.3 AN9 ADJUDICARGNs gyp In the Matter of YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTI COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power -
4 tion)
ANSWER TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF NEW ENGLAND COALmON ON NUCLEAR POLLimON, INC.
On January 28, 1998, the Commission published a notice of opportunity for hearing under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.105 in respect of the approval of the License Termination Plan ("LTP") for Yankee Nuclear Power Station ("YNPS") submitted by Yankee Atomic Electric Company ("YAEC"). 63 Fed. Reg. 4300, 4327. Under date of February 24,1998 (but not received by U.S. mail until March 1,1998), New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc. ("NECNP") mailed a later addressed to one of counsel for Yankee Atomic Electric Company ("YAEC"). This letter (the "NECNP Letter") purports to request (of counsel) the granting of a hearing on the LTP, which is presently before the Staff for approval under 10 C.F.R. S 50.82(a)(10). The NECNP letter is not addressed to the Commission and does not purport to show copies sent to anyone else. Nor has YAEC received copies of any pleading or other document that might have been filed with or served upon the Commission, as is required by the Commission's Rules of Practice. Technically, therefore, there is no effective petition to intervene or request for a hearing by NECNP before the Commission. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, to the extent that it might be considered a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, YAEC responds to the letter as follows:
9803180231 980311 PDR ADOCK 05000029 0
PDR 3 503
]
s 1.
Standing. The Commission's rules for standing to intervene are well defined.
The NECNP Letter does not demonstrate standing to intervene on the part of NECNP as an organization (nor does NECNP claim to have ever acquired organizational standing in any prior proceeding). Likewise, the NECNP Letter does not contain the information, and is not accompanied by the instruments, necessary to demonstrate that NECNP may exercise standing on behalf of one or more of its members. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC 402,404 (1979); Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-79-1,9 NRC 73,77 (1979). Consequently, any request in the NECNP letter for leave to intervene and for a hearing must be denied.8 2.
Aspects of the Proceeding. Under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(2), a petitioner for leave to intervene must identify "the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." The NECNP Lener appears to have identified the following " aspects" that do not constitute a part of the
" subject matter of [this) proceeding:"
Conduct of the Public Meeting. The conduct by the Staff of the public L
a.
meeting is not an issue litigable in an adjudicatory licensing proceeding.
Louisiana. Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
ALAB-812, 22 NRC 5, 56 (1985), quoting Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777, 807, review declined, CLI-83-32,18 NRC 1309 (1983).
l b.
Spent Fuel Storage. The LTP is not application by YAEC for any addi-tional authority for the storage of spent fuel at YNPS. YAEC already possesses authority under its Part 50 licen,e for storage in the spent fuel pool.
Likewise, the stated concerns about the storage of spent fuel in dry casks l
under either YAEC's existing authority perforce 10 C.F.R. $ 72.210 or under
'It is sometimes the practice of the Commission and its Boards to allow oversight in standing documentation to be cured after objection has been lodged. However, Yankee respectfully submits that NECNP is not a novice in this area, and it is therefore not entitled to a relaxation of the Commission's well-known (and well known to NECNP) Rules of Practice.
2
l i
authority for which YAEC may someday in the future apply is not within the scope of the LTP proceeding. Nor is the LTP approval an appropriate proceeding by which to complain about the provisions of 10 C.F.R. $ 72.210.
"No Significant Hazards" Considerations. Whether or not a "no signi-c.
ficant hazards" finding should be made under 10 C.F.R. $ 50.91(a)(2) is not a topic litigable in an adjudicatory license amendment proceeding. 10 C.F.R.
$ 50.58(b)(6).2 "There is no right to appeal the 'no significant hazards determination' itself to the licensing boards or any other body within the agency." Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating I
Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-89-15,29 NRC 493 (1989), citing Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-12,
)
24 NRC 1,4 (1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1986).
3.
Contentions. As NECNP has not yet submitted any contentions, no re-sponse as to whether any admissible contentions have been proffered can be made.
WHEREFORE YAEC says that, insofar as it constitutes a petition for leave to intervene and request for a hearing, the NECNP Letter should be denied in its entirety for lack of standing and denied in part insofar as it has identified non-litigable subjects in respect of which NECNP desires to intervene.
sespectful
.b:
t g
Thomas G. Di an,Jr.
R. K. Gt.d HI Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 951-7000 Dated: March 11,1998.
L 8"No petition or other request for review of or hearing on the staff's significant hazards consideration determination will be entertained by the Commission. The staff's determination is final, subject only to the Commission's discretion, on its own initiative, to review the determination."
3
DOCKETED ficoor (CF.RTIFICAIOF SkRVICE)
Y[
I, Robert K. Gad n!, one of the attorneys for Yankee Atomic Electric Co%)
hereby certify that on March 11,1998, I served the within pleading in this matter by United States Mail (=
" A * " 5c'-
N.-.-
' -0 as follows: gppy Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers, Com khy :
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
lAFF h
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Greta J. Dieus, Commissioner Dr. Nils Diar., Commissioner j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
l Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner Jonathan M. Block, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisdon Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Box 566 Putney, Vermont 05346 FAX: 802-387-2667 Mr. Ae 'n L.aipson, Chairman Mr. James L. Perkins
(
Franklin Regional Planning Board 8
Presic ent of the Board 425 Main Street New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollu-Greenfield, Massachusets 01301 tion, Inc.
Post Office Box 545 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302 Mr. Paul Gunter Anne B. Hodgdon, Esquire Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office of the General Counsel
]
142416th St., NW U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 404 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.
FAX: 301-415-3725 Phone:
202-328-0002
)
Fax:
202-462-2183 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudica-Office of the Secretary tion U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 yq-1672 l.'
~ W l
R. K. Gad In
/
i i
1
- J