ML20217F562

Response to Yankee Atomic Electric Co Answer to Request for Hearing of Franklin Regional Planning Board.* Franklin Board Says That Request for Public Hearing Should Be Approved.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20217F562
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	03/25/1998
From:	Laipson A FRANKLIN COUNTY, MA
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20217F559	List: ML20217F556 ML20217F562
References
LA, NUDOCS 9804010049
Download: ML20217F562 (7)

Text

,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 50-029-LTP (Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

RESPONSE TO YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY'S ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR HEARING OF FRANKLIN REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD On knuary 28,1998, the Commission published a notice of oppodunity for hearing under 10 C.F.R. S. 2.105 in respect to 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 27,1998, Franklin Regional Planning Board ("FRPB") mailed a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Commission and the oflice of the General Counsel, with a copy to counsel for YAEC.

This letter (the " Planning Board Letter") requested the granting of a hearing on the LTP, which is presently before the Staff for approval under 10 CFR S. 50.82 (a)(10). On March 11,1998, YAEC answered through its counsel to the FRPB's request for hearing.

This is FRPB's response to YAEC's Answer:

9004010049 980325 I gDR ADOCK 05000029 PDR

9 Motion to intervene: A review of our filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC") will clearly demonstrate that the FRPB never requested intervenor status in the proceeding FRPB has only requested that e public hearing be held on the License Termination Plan ("LTP"). Both the Notice in the Federal Register dated January 28,1998 and 10 C.F.R. S. 2.714 give a party that option. "If a request for a hearing or (emphasis supplied) petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, ..., will rule on the request and/or (emphasis supplied)((page 4309)) petition;...."3 A request for a hearing or (emphasis supplied) a petition for leave to intervene...."2 The petition and/or (emphasis supplied) shall be filed not later than the time...."3 It is FRPB's intent, upon being granted a hearing, to consider the option to file for intervenor status under the applicable niles.

Consequently, FRPB has not identified any " aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding...,"' nor has it filed any contentions', as it has not formally petitioned to intervene. YAEC's argument that certain " aspects" are not valid is thus non-meritorious as they constitute FRPB's comments as allowed under the notice in the Federal Register.

Therefore, the Atomic Safet'y and Licensing Board (ASLB) hasjurisdiction to address l

FRPB's concerns including but not limited to funding, due process considerations,

' NRC Notice in 63 Fed. Reg. 4308-4330 (January 28,12998) at 4308.

8 lbid. at 4309 8

to C.F.R. S. 2,714 (a)(1) third sentence

' 10 C.F.R. S. 2.714 (a) (2) s 10 C.F.R. S. 2.714 (b) (1) 2

. dismantling questions, relative to the LTP, spent fuel storage pertaining to the LTP and the issue of"no significant hazards considerations". .

Standing:

At S. 7.2.1 of the FRCOG charter, the Planning Board is "to promote sustainable economic development ... and to protect... the natural and cultural resources of the Regional Planning District." These organizational interests and mandates assume not only the people and property located at the nuclear plant site in Rowe, Mass., but also the people and property within the ten-mile evacuation zone, the Deerfield River Basin, and

- the entire regional area dowmvind or othenvise are within the sphere ofits duties. The Planning Board cannot carry out its governmental mandate to protect the "public health, safety and welfare," as stated in the purpose clause of the FRCOG Charter', would be derelict in its duties, and bring harm to its organizational interests, were it not to seek formal public hearings on this matter.

The FRPB enjoys standing under CFR 2.715 (c) because the Planning Board is an interested County body or agency thereof and:

a. is recognized by the federal government as the Regional Planning Agency (RPA) through which many actions of the FRCOG must pass;

b. is a municipal (regional) governmental body acknowledged to exist under the Massachusetts enabling legislation which created it, along with the Franklin Regional

' FRCOG Charter Art. 7 S. 7.2.1 3

Council of Governments (FRCOG) as a replacement of the former Franklin County .

Commission (see S. 5 '& 7 of Chapter 151 of Acts of1996);

c. raises and expends the vast majority ofits own budget through grants from local, state and federal sources; 1

d. enjoys the right to elect its own representative to the FRCOG Executive Committee (see S; 7.2.6 of the FRCOG Charter); and

e. is a stand-alone governmental body, with its own bylaws, budget, voting rights, organization, and general and specific authority and responsibility (see generally Art. 7 of tho FRCOG Charter).

. The Planning Board not only represents the interests ofits various constituent boards and its et-large members, but also the individual citizens of the municipalities within the Planning Board's region. By their vote of February 26,1998, the individual members of the Planning Board granted their derivative authority to the Planning Board Executive Committee through its Chairman to represent their interest before the NRC ASLB.

Funding:

The granting of funding is necessary and appropriate under the present circumstances confronted by the Planning Board.

a. It Would be unjust nnt to grant funding to the Planning Board to make an effective and substantively useful appearance.

9 4

b. 5 USC 504 is wrongfully cited and does not cover this funding issue -- rather, the statute cited regards the " awarding of fees and other expenses" in a " adversary adjudication," yet,

1. the Planning Board is not required by CFR 2.715(c)"to take a position with respect to the issue," and

2. wants and requested a full, fair and open proceeding and not an adversarial one.

c. Funding a Planning Board independent review of the petitioner's application could well '

confirm most of the scientific findings and procedures, thus quickening and not delaying YAEC's proposed work.

d. Substantivejustice and an open, thorough, and believable review process militates for granting the Planning Board participation funding. j

e. Funding indigent intervenors is not without precedent.

/

The request for funding in the amount of $100,000 to underwrite FRPB's involvement in this proceeding would be a small portion of the millions of dollars held in trust to fund decommissioning activities and would ensure fair and full participation by the region's residents.

No Sinnificant Hazards: l L

{

YAEC contends that a "no significant hazards" finding under 10 C.F.R. Section 50.91 (a)

'(2) is not a litigible topic in a license amendment proceeding 10 C.F.R. Section 50.58 (b)

' (6). However, a review of this determination by the Commission is within its own

e discretion, on its own initiative.10 C.F.R. Section 50.58 (b) (6). Therefore, YAEC's argument against the inclusion of this issue within the parameters of this proceeding is not

)

1 100% accurate as the subject matter of this proceeding still clearly lies within the discretion of the Commission. Furthermore, the Federal Register notice, at V. 63, no.18, dated January 28,1998, at page 4309 clearly states:

"If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held."

And as the NRC staff filing, dated March 16,1998, at page 6 under footnote 3 also states:

"The staff determination is final, subject only to the Commission's discretion, on its own initiative, to review the determination."

The FRPB strongly urges and requests the Commission exercise their discretion and critically review said staff determination. In addition, the FRPB has demonstrated in its filing that several issues do exist that refutes or negates a no significant hazards consideration. Thus, the Commission should not allow YAEC to proceed under this status.

WHEREFORE, the Franklin Regional Planning Board says that the request for a public hearing should be approved.

Respectfully submitted, Adam B. Laipson & A Chair, Franklin Reg onal P Board March 25,1998 6

00CKETED neunn CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE" + ' %+M2W ^

• I, Adam Laipson, Chair of the Franklin Regional Planning Board, dolerkcNif[ tham March 25,1998, I served the within pleading in this matter by United States Mail as follows: OFFICE OF SFCRRIARY Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogerpy@ijnissio'nep 'figg US Nuclear Regulatary Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Greta J. Dicus, Commissioner Dr. Nils Diaz, Commissioner US Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jonathan M. Block, Esquire Edward McGamgan, Jr., Commissioner Main Street US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post 05ce Box 566 Washington, DC 20555 Putney, VT 05346 FAX: 802-387-2667 Mr. R.K. Gad, III, Esquire Mr. James L. Perkins Ropes & Gray President of the Board One Internationa! Place New England Coalition on Nuclear Boston, MA 02110-2624 Pollution, Inc.

Post Omce Box 545 Brattleboro, VT 05302 Mr. Paul Gunter Nuclear Information and Resource Senice Anne B. Hodgdon, Esquire 142416th St., NW 05ce of the General Counsel Suite 404 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Phone 202-328 0002 FAX: 301-415-3725 FAX: 202-462-2183 Omce of Commission A,rpellate Omce of the Secretary Adjudication US Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 FAX: 301-415-1672

/

Y W '

V

"/ greidippn '

7