|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20195H1911999-06-15015 June 1999 Application of Montaup Electric Co & New England Power Co for Transfer of Licenses & Ownership Interests.Requests That Commission Consent to Two Indirect Transfers of Control & Direct Transfer ML20204H9901999-03-24024 March 1999 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.54(a)(3) Re Changes to Quality Assurance Programs ML20206T9731998-05-27027 May 1998 Citizens Awareness Network'S Formal Request for Enforcement Action Against Vermont Yankee.* Requests That OL Be Suspended Until Facility Subjected to Independent Safety Analysis Review,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20247G8501998-04-0909 April 1998 Petition Demanding That Commission Issue Order Stating That Administrative Limits of TS 88 Re Torus Water Temp Shall Remain in Force Until Listed Conditions Met ML20217P5481998-04-0606 April 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Changes to Industry Codes & Stds ML20199A3121998-01-20020 January 1998 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Monitors to Ensure That Personnel Would Be Alerted If Criticality Were to Occur During Handling of Snm.Exemption Granted ML20198L1791997-12-29029 December 1997 Final Director'S Decision DD-97-26 Pursuant to 10CFR2.206, Granting in Part Petitioners Request in That NRC Evaluated All of Issues Raised in Two Memoranda & Suppl Ltr Provided by Petitioner to See If Enforcement Action Warranted ML20217G7151997-10-0808 October 1997 Director'S Decision DD-97-25 Re J Block 961206 Petition Requesting Evaluation of 961205 Memo Re Info Presented by Licensee at 960723 Predecisional Enforcement Conference & 961206 Memo Re LERs Submitted at End of 1996.Grants Request ML20140C2511997-03-31031 March 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR170 & 171 Re Rev of Fee Schedules ML20134L5701996-12-0606 December 1996 Petition for Commission & EDO Evaluation of Encl Documents Pursuant to 10CFR2.206 to See If Enforcement Action Warranted Based Upon Info Contained Therein DD-93-23, Director'S Decision DD-93-23 Re M Daley & J M Block Requesting Per 10CFR2.206,that NRC Reconsider Civil Penalty Assessed Against Vynp for Operating Station Outside TS from 921015-930406.Request Denied1993-12-28028 December 1993 Director'S Decision DD-93-23 Re M Daley & J M Block Requesting Per 10CFR2.206,that NRC Reconsider Civil Penalty Assessed Against Vynp for Operating Station Outside TS from 921015-930406.Request Denied DD-93-19, Final Director'S Decision DD-93-19 Under 2.206.Denies Request That NRC Take Immediate EA to Require That Reactor at Plant Remain in Cold Shutdown Until Licensee Could Provide Proof That EDGs at Plant Meet Safety Function1993-12-14014 December 1993 Final Director'S Decision DD-93-19 Under 2.206.Denies Request That NRC Take Immediate EA to Require That Reactor at Plant Remain in Cold Shutdown Until Licensee Could Provide Proof That EDGs at Plant Meet Safety Function ML20057C1321993-09-16016 September 1993 Memorandum & Order (CLI-93-20).* Reverses Board Conclusion That NRC Staff Action Had Effect of Terminating Proceeding. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930916 ML20045H3741993-07-0909 July 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Operators Licenses.Proposed Change Would Eliminate NRC Requirement to Conduct & Supervise Individual Operator Requalification Exams During Term of Opeerator 6-yr License ML20128P9821993-02-24024 February 1993 Affidavit of Rd Pollard Re New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comments in Opposition to Proposed Finding of NSHC ML20128Q0101993-02-22022 February 1993 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Request for Hearing on Proposed Amend to Vermont Yankee OL ML20128Q0041993-02-22022 February 1993 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Comment in Opposition to Proposed Finding of NSHC BVY-91-106, Comments on NRC Proposed Amend to Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Consistent W/Mou,Util Established Position of State Liaison Engineer to Communicate W/State of VT1991-10-23023 October 1991 Comments on NRC Proposed Amend to Policy Statement Re Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Consistent W/Mou,Util Established Position of State Liaison Engineer to Communicate W/State of VT ML20085H8331991-10-23023 October 1991 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NRC Proposed Amend to Policy Statement Concerning Cooperation W/States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ML20082G8961991-08-0909 August 1991 Memorandum of State of Vermont Concerning Withdrawal of Contention.* Contentions Re Maint & Proferred late-filed Contention Re Qa.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G9071991-07-30030 July 1991 Withdrawal of Contention & Intervention.* Withdraws Contention,Motion (Pending) for Admission of late-filed Contention & Intervention ML20066G9981991-02-0808 February 1991 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance.* Requests Withdrawal of Jp Trout as Counsel for Applicant in Proceeding. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065U0421990-12-12012 December 1990 State of VT Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Fifth Motion to Compel.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis of NRC Misciting Cases.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062H6711990-11-0101 November 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion to File Reply.* Staff Believes That Matter Should Be Resolved as Soon as Possible & Not Defer Resolution of Matter Until After Not Yet Scheduled Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K4021990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion for Leave.* Unless State of VT Substantially Suppls,In Timely Manner,Prior Responses,Then Staff Citation to Stonewalling by Intervenors in Shoreham Proceeding Would Seem Well on Point.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K3961990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion to Compel (Document Request Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C2321990-10-22022 October 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Interrogatories,Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20062C2371990-10-18018 October 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Motion to Compel.* Alternatively, State Requests That Licensee Motion Be Included for Oral Arqument in Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0221990-10-12012 October 1990 State of VT Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set 3).* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059N8671990-10-0404 October 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (State of VT Set 3).* Requests That Board Enter Order Compelling Licensee to Give Proper Answers to Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M6461990-10-0202 October 1990 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Compel Production of Documents.* Supports Licensee Motion Due to State of VT Objections Not Well Founded.Notices of Appearance & Withdrawals & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20059M5591990-09-27027 September 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp Fifth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Issued So State Need Not Suppl Responses.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M5711990-09-26026 September 1990 Supplemental Response to Applicant Interrogatories by State of VT (Set 3).* W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20059M6301990-09-21021 September 1990 Transcript of 900921 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting Re Termination of Plant Proceedings & Motions on ALAB-919 & Amends to 10CFR40 in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-5 ML20059L8791990-09-21021 September 1990 Memorandum & Order.* Motion to Dismiss Proceeding Granted & Proceeding Terminated.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900921 ML20059M6221990-09-21021 September 1990 Notice.* Notifies That Encl Request for Clarification from Commission Will Be Reported in NRC Issuances. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 900924 ML20059L8721990-09-14014 September 1990 Responses of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to Document Requests Propounded by State of VT (Set 3).* Util Objects to Request on Grounds That Request Not Relevant to Admitted Contention.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20059L8241990-09-14014 September 1990 Answers of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to Interrogatories Propounded by State of VT (Set 3).* Supporting Info Encl.Related Correspondence ML20059L7241990-09-12012 September 1990 Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Set 1).* State of VT Should Be Compelled to Produce,In Manner Requested,Documents Requested in Util Requests 1-15 ML20059L7431990-09-12012 September 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensing Board Should Grant State Motion.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20059C4891990-08-28028 August 1990 Responses to Document Requests by State of VT to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp (Set 1).* Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20059C5341990-08-27027 August 1990 Memorandum & Order (Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories,Set 3).* State of VT Need Not Answer Interrogatories 1,5,14 or 15 Presently But Obligated To,If Further Info Develops.Served on 900827.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059C5931990-08-23023 August 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Answers to State of VT late-filed Contention.* Requests Permission to File Written Reply to Filings of Util & Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059C5471990-08-22022 August 1990 Stipulation Enlarging Time.* Parties Stipulate That Time within Which Licensee May Respond to State of VT Third Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents Enlarged to 900910.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A8641990-08-17017 August 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Fourth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion to Compel & Issue Protective Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A9151990-08-13013 August 1990 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Amend State of VT Suppl to Petition to Intervene & Accept & Admit Addl late-filed Contention.* Licensing Board Should Reject Proposed Contention X.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A9491990-08-13013 August 1990 Notice of Postponement of Prehearing Conference.* Conference Scheduled for 900821 & 22 in Brattleboro,Vt Postponed to Date to Be Determined Later.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 900814 ML20059A9031990-08-13013 August 1990 Responses to Interrogatories by State of VT to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp (Set 5).* Related Correspondence. W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B2221990-08-0808 August 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee to State of VT Motion for Leave to Submit late-filed Contention.* Motion of State of VT for late-filed Contention Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B2141990-08-0606 August 1990 Supplemental Responses to Applicant Interrogatories by State of VT (Set 2).* Clarification Re Scope of Term Surveillance Program as Used in Contention 7 Provided.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence 1999-06-15
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206T9731998-05-27027 May 1998 Citizens Awareness Network'S Formal Request for Enforcement Action Against Vermont Yankee.* Requests That OL Be Suspended Until Facility Subjected to Independent Safety Analysis Review,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20247G8501998-04-0909 April 1998 Petition Demanding That Commission Issue Order Stating That Administrative Limits of TS 88 Re Torus Water Temp Shall Remain in Force Until Listed Conditions Met ML20134L5701996-12-0606 December 1996 Petition for Commission & EDO Evaluation of Encl Documents Pursuant to 10CFR2.206 to See If Enforcement Action Warranted Based Upon Info Contained Therein ML20065U0421990-12-12012 December 1990 State of VT Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Fifth Motion to Compel.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis of NRC Misciting Cases.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062H6711990-11-0101 November 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion to File Reply.* Staff Believes That Matter Should Be Resolved as Soon as Possible & Not Defer Resolution of Matter Until After Not Yet Scheduled Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K3961990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion to Compel (Document Request Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20065K4021990-10-29029 October 1990 Answer to State of VT Motion for Leave.* Unless State of VT Substantially Suppls,In Timely Manner,Prior Responses,Then Staff Citation to Stonewalling by Intervenors in Shoreham Proceeding Would Seem Well on Point.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C2321990-10-22022 October 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Interrogatories,Set 3).* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc ML20062C2371990-10-18018 October 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to NRC Staff Response to Vermont Yankee Motion to Compel.* Alternatively, State Requests That Licensee Motion Be Included for Oral Arqument in Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0221990-10-12012 October 1990 State of VT Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set 3).* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059N8671990-10-0404 October 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (State of VT Set 3).* Requests That Board Enter Order Compelling Licensee to Give Proper Answers to Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M6461990-10-0202 October 1990 NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Compel Production of Documents.* Supports Licensee Motion Due to State of VT Objections Not Well Founded.Notices of Appearance & Withdrawals & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20059M5591990-09-27027 September 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp Fifth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Issued So State Need Not Suppl Responses.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059L7431990-09-12012 September 1990 NRC Staff Response to State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply.* Licensing Board Should Grant State Motion.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20059C5931990-08-23023 August 1990 State of VT Motion for Leave to File Reply to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Answers to State of VT late-filed Contention.* Requests Permission to File Written Reply to Filings of Util & Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A8641990-08-17017 August 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Fourth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion to Compel & Issue Protective Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059A9151990-08-13013 August 1990 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Amend State of VT Suppl to Petition to Intervene & Accept & Admit Addl late-filed Contention.* Licensing Board Should Reject Proposed Contention X.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B1741990-08-0202 August 1990 NRC Staff Motion to Enlarge Time within Which to Respond to State of VT Late Filed Contention.* Response Period Extended to 900813.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056B2101990-08-0202 August 1990 NRC Staff Motion to Enlarge Time within Which to Respond to State of VT Late Filed Contention.* Response Period Extended to 900813.Served on 900806.Granted for ASLB on 900803.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20056B1941990-08-0202 August 1990 Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Interrogatories Set 2).* Motion Should Be Denied Based on Listed Reasons.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20056B1981990-08-0202 August 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Set 4).* Util Moves That Board Enter Order Compelling State of VT to Give Proper Answers to Interrogatories Propounded by Util.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056A3731990-07-24024 July 1990 Motion to Suppl Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Document Requests,Set 1).* Util Moves That ASLB Grant Leave to Suppl Motion to Compel by Adding Encl as Howard Ltr.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058K7391990-06-26026 June 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set 1).* State Moves to Compel Licensee to Produce Documents Denied to State of VT Because of Licensee Limited & Improper Interpretation of Scope.W/Certificate of Svc ML20055D9211990-06-22022 June 1990 Response of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Enlarge Discovery Period.* Request for Indeterminate Enlargement of Discovery Period Fatally Premature & Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043H2921990-06-18018 June 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Third Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043H1931990-06-14014 June 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (State of VT Set 1).* Licensee Should Be Ordered to Give Proper Answers to Encl Interrogatories.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20043C7211990-06-0101 June 1990 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories,Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Set 3.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20043C2881990-05-22022 May 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Second Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion & Issue Protective Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043A6961990-05-16016 May 1990 Reply of Vermont Yankee to State of VT Answer in Opposition to Motion to Compel & Motion for Leave to File Same.* Std Lament Featured in State of VT Final Note Has Already Been Authoritatively Rejected. W/Certificate of Svc ML20042G8281990-05-0909 May 1990 State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20012F7021990-04-13013 April 1990 Motion for Reconsideration (CLI-90-04).* Reconsideration of Remand to Obtain Factual Info Requested Due to Proposed Contention Lacking Sufficient Basis & Remand Found Unnecessary & Inappropriate.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q7081989-09-25025 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Necnp Request to Set Briefing Schedule.* Request Opposed on Basis That Briefing Would Only Serve to Rehash Arguments Already Addressed at Length.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20247Q4501989-09-20020 September 1989 Response of Licensee,Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,To Necnp Ltr of 890828.* ALAB-919 Should Be Summarily Affirmed or Referral Declined,Unless Aslab Misperceived Commission Policies on NEPA Undertakings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247B4771989-07-19019 July 1989 Necnp Motion for Leave to Amend Environ Contentions 1 & 3.* Amended Basis of Contentions Should Be Admitted & Held in Abeyance Until Aslab Ruling.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20245D6251989-06-19019 June 1989 Necnp Reply to Opponents Motions to Strike Vermont Yankee Motion to Dismiss Environ Contention 3.* Board Need Not Await Aslab Decision in Order to Find That NRC Erred in Recommending Spent Fuel Pool Expansion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245A4641989-06-12012 June 1989 NRC Staff Response to Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20244D3661989-06-0909 June 1989 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Reply to NRC Staff,Vermont Yankee & Questions of Board on Environ Contention 3.* Alternative of Dry Cask Storage Must Be Considered Due to Unresolved Conflicts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245A7771989-06-0909 June 1989 NRC Staff Motion to Strike Testimony of G Thompson.* Thompson Testimony Considered Irrelevant & Immaterial to Any Issue in Proceeding.Testimony Should Be Stricken & Environ Contention 3 Dismissed ML20245A7881989-06-0909 June 1989 NRC Staff Reply to Briefs of Necnp & Vermont Yankee on Environ Contention 3.* NRC Has Met Proof on Environ Contention 3 & Entitled to Decision in NRC Favor on Contention as Matter of Law ML20244D5231989-06-0909 June 1989 Memorandum of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp in Support of Motion to Strike & to Dismiss & in Response to Board Questions.* Facts Demonstrate That Environ Contention 3 Deemed Invalid & Should Be Dismissed ML20244D5401989-06-0909 June 1989 Motion to Strike Necnp Testimony Submitted on Environ Contention 3 & to Dismiss Environ Contention 3 for Lack of Contest.* ML20245A7981989-06-0909 June 1989 NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board Memoranudm (Issued for Consideration at 890621 Oral Argument), .* Discusses Environ Contention 3.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247K8171989-05-25025 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Necnp Memorandum on NUREG-1353 & NRC Staff Response to Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memorandum on NUREG-1353.* LBP-89-06 Should Be Reversed Due to Necnp Argument Reiterating Other Arguments.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247L0561989-05-25025 May 1989 Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions.* Recent Cases Cited by Applicant Have No Bearing on Instant Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247K9671989-05-25025 May 1989 Necnp Motion for Leave to File Memo Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions.* Requests Leave to File Memorandum Addressing Significance of Recent Supreme Court Decisions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247F3871989-05-23023 May 1989 Advice to Board Re Commonwealth of Ma Position Re Dry Cask Storage.* Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Joins in Arguments in Necnp 890523 Summary of Facts & Arguments That Will Be Relied on Re Environ Contention 3.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247F4841989-05-23023 May 1989 NRC Staff Brief & Summary of Relevant Facts & Arguments on Which Staff Intends to Rely at Oral Argument on Necnp & Commonwealth of Ma Environ Contention 3.* No Issue of Matl Fact in Contention Exists.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247F6131989-05-23023 May 1989 Necnp Brief & Summary of Relevant Facts & Arguments on Which Necnp Intends to Rely at Oral Argument on Environ Contention 3.* ML20247L5151989-05-23023 May 1989 Memorandum of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp on Existence of Genuine & Substantial Question of Fact Re Environ Contention 3.* Contention Considered Invalid & Should Be Dismissed ML20246H4781989-05-10010 May 1989 Necnp Memorandum on NUREG-1353.* Addresses NUREG-1353 Applicability to Case in Response to Applicant & NRC Arguments.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-05-27
[Table view] |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
L)
L i
May 23, 1989 'TC L KG !:{; I U960 '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a ~, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
.BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD. :
OFF r. t L ' .j ,o 00CKOi% 6 n 1.F
) u%'
In the Matter.of )
) !
Vermont Yankee' Nuclear .)
Power. Corporation' ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA
) (Spent Fuel Pool)- y
-(Vermont Yankee Nuclear ) 1 Power Station) ) l
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S BRIEF AND
SUMMARY
OF RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ON WHICH-L NECNP INTENDS TO RELY AT ORAL ARGUMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTION 3' INTRODUCTION The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (" Vermont Yankee" or " Applicant") seeks the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's n . permission to increase by 378% the amount of spent fuel it was originally licensed to store there. The Applicant has already installed new storage racks for the purpose of densely packing the 2' 870 spent fuel assemblies in the pool.
In its Environmental Assessment ("EA") regarding the pro-posed license amendment, the NRC Staff gave scant consideration to alternative methods of spent fuel storage such as dry cask.
The Staff rejected the dry cask alternative out of hand, on the j l
basis that design, construction and licensing would be too time-consuming to meet the Applicant's needs, and that the pool's expansion capacity "is a resource that should be used.nl l L1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
. Impact'By the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Spent Fusl Pool Facility Operating License No. DPR-28...",
dated July, 1989.
.8905300115 890523 PDR ADOCK 05000271 0 PDR
E i K
L ,
As discussed below-~and in the accompanying " Testimony of h Gordon Thompson Regarding the Proposed Expansion of Capacity of L
i' the Spent Fuel Pool at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station" (Attachment 1), it is resoundingly clear _that the spent fuel pool should not be used far additional spent fuel storage at' Vermont Yankee. Given the characteristics of the racks and the dense configuration of the rods in the pool, a total or even partial loss of_ water from the' pool would almost inevitably result in an exothermic steam-zirconium or air-zirconium reaction that could lead to a release to the environment of a substantial amount of the long-lived radioactivity in the fuel. Release of the cesium alone could significantly ctataminate 19,000 square miles of land. The substantially increased accident risk posed by the reracking and fuel compaction could be totally avoided by use of low-density storage within the pool, with placement of the remainder of the spent fuel into an alternative form of on-site storage, such as dry cask storage, Moreover, the costs of achieving confidence in the safety of spent fuel storage through dry cask are very reastnable. For these reasons, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") asks the Licensing Board to_ find that the Staff erred in finding that the proposed rerack-ing was the preferred alternative under NEPA, to recommend the alternative of dry cask storage, and to reject Vermont Yankee's license amendment application on the ground that it is i
)
inconsistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Background and Procedural History On June 18, 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pub-lished a notice of no significant hazards determination regarding Vermont Yankee's application of April 25, 1986, for a license amendment increasing the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool from 2000 to 2870 assemblies. 51 Fed. Reg. 22,245. NECNP filed an objection and two suppleme.ntal responses to the NRC's no sig-nificant hazards determination.2 Among other things, NECNP argued that any proposal by NRC to permit expanded spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee should be accompanied by an environmen-tal impact statement or environmental assessment.3 NECNP also requested a hearing on the license amendment.4 2 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Objection to Proposed Finding of No Significant Hazards Consideration, Request for Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act, and Request for Opportunity to Comment on Application to Increase 1 Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Sta-tion, dated July 21, 1986; New England Coalition on Nuclear Pol-lution's Supplemental Response to Vermont Yankee Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Request, dated September 19, 1986; and New England l Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Second Supplemental Response to l Vermont Yankee Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Request, dated November l 19, 1986.
l l
l 3 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Objection to l Proposed Finding of No Significant Hazards Consideration, Request for Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act, and Request for Opportunity to Comment on Application to Increase
} Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Sta-l tion, dated July 21, 1986, at 3.
I 4 Id. at 4. .
l 1
-4 -
1 Six months later, the NRC published a new notice' stating that "[d]ue to oversight," its original notification-had failed to state, as required by 10 C.F.R. $ 2.1107, that Yankee's request falls within Section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, permitting any interested party to request a hearing and invoke the hybrid hearing procedures described in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K. 51 Fed. Reg. 47,324 (December 31, 1986). Upon the filing of petitions to' intervene and hybrid hearing requests from
.NECNP,-the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the State of Ver-mont, the Licensing' Board convened this proceeding.5 On March 30, 1987, NECNF filed a set of contentions, includ-ing Ccntention 5, which charged that the proposed amendment should be accompanied by an environmental impact statement-or assessment, and that the environmental a..alysis should consider the alternative of dry cask storage.6 The Licensing Board admitted the contention,7 but was reversed by the Appeal Board on the ground that it was premature and must await filing of the Staff's environmental assessment.8 More than two years after receiving Vermont Yankee's license amendment application, the Staff issued its environmental assess-5 Memorandum and Order, dated February 27, 1987.
6 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to Board Order of February 27, 1987: Statement of Contentions and Standing. Similar contentions were filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Vermont. See LBP-87-17, 25 NRC 838, 852 (1987).
7 LBP-87-17, 25 NRC 838 (1987).
8 ALAB-869, 26 NRC 13 (1987).
l
[
l 6
- f ment on July 25, 1988. NECNP refiled its environmental conten-tions, including Contention 3
The NRC has failed to give adequate consideration to the alternative of dry cask storage, and has thus not complied with the provisions of the National Environ-mental Policy Act, nor of its own rules in 10 C.F.R.
Part 51.
The contention was admitted by the Licensing Board in LBP-88-26, 28 NRC 440, 448-451 (1988).
ARGUMENT I. STA}iDARD FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION AND BURDEN OF PROOF The purpose of the briefing and oral argument provided for in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.1113 is to dispose of any legal or undisputed factual issues and to designate factual disputes for an adjudicatory hearing.9 The regulations favor summary disposition unless a strong showing can be made that there are genuine material issues in dispute.
9 Subsection (b) of S 2.1115 provides that:
No issue of law or fact shall be designated for resolu-tion in an adjudicatory hearing unless the presiding officer determines that:
(1) There is a genuine and substantial dispute of fact which can only be resolved with sufficient accuracy by the introduction of evidence in an adjudicatory hear-ing; and (2) the decision of the Commission is likely to depend in whole or in part on the resolution of that dispute.
_ = _ _ _ _ _ -
i The applicant traditionally bears the burden of proof in NRC l
licensing proceedings.10 However, where applications of NEPA are l involved, the Licensing Board may not base its decision on the applicant's evidence alone; the NRC Staff carries the independent and primary burden of demonstrating that it has conducted an ade-quate analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Bos-ton Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2),
ALAB-479, 7 NRC 774, 794 (1978).11 Thus, the Board Lay not rule in favor of Vermont Yankee here, without also finding that such a ruling is supported by the Staff's environmental evaluation, and that this evaluation fully conforms with NEPA.
II. ROLE OF LICENSING BOARD IN NEPA CASES While the NRC Staff has primary responsibility for the prearation of an environmental assessment or impact statement, the Licensing Board is empowered and obligated by NRC regulations to make its own " independent" judgments regarding "the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate, action to be taken." 10 C.F.R. S 51.105 (a) (2) . The Board must also 10 See, e.a., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three hi e Island l Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-697, 16 NRC 1265, 1271 (1932).
l 'Eee also 10 C.F.R. 5 2.732, Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham j Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-87-32, 26 NRC 479, 496-97 (1987), aff'd, ALAB-900, 28 NRC 275, 296 (1988).
l l
L 11 As the Board held in the Pilarim case, regardless of the quality of the applicant's evidence, "it cannot be taken as a substitute for the appraisal of the staff." Id. at 794, auctina
{ Texas Utilities Generatina Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-260, 1 NRC 51, 55 (1975).
i L_ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
H, '
-7 -
"(d]etermine, after weighing the environmental, economic, techni-cal, and other benefits against environmental and other costs,
-and-considering reasonable alternatives, whether the construction permit.or license to manufacture should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to_ protect environmental values." 5 4
51.105 (a) ( 3 ) .
III. THE STAFF'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VIOLATES NEPA.
A. Requirements of National Environmental Policy Act The Commission is charged, under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), with the weighty responsibility of carrying out NEPA's far-reaching' policies, i.e., to " fulfill'the responsibilities of each generatien as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations," to " attain the widest range of bene-ficial uses of the environment without degradation....", and to
" enhance the quality of renewable resources." Consolidated
-Edison Co. of New York, (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-399, S'NRC 1156, 1169 (1977). In partial fulfillment of this policy, Section 102 (2) (E) of NEPA requires that the Commissior must " study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. 5 4332(2) (E) . This section is supplemental to and more extensive in its commands than the requirement of 102 (2) (c) (iii) [ study of alterna-tives in environmental impact statements). It was intended to emphasize an important part of NEPA's theme that all change was not progress and to insist that no major _ federal project should be undertaken without intense consideration of other more ecologically sound courses of action, including shelving the entire pro-I
-8 -
i ject or of accomplishing the same result by entirely different means..
The scope of alternatives to be conside_ red includes "all appropriate methods of accomplishing the aim of the action, including those without the area of the agency's expertise and regulatory control as well as those within it." Id i, auctina L Environmental Defense Fund v. Coros of Encineers, 492 F.2d 1123, 1135 (4th Cir. 1974). Even if the impacts of the proposed action a
are considered insignificant, less harmful alternatives that are feasible must be considered. River Road Alliance v. Cores'of Encineers. 764 F.2d 445, 452 (7th Cir. 1985).12 B. The Proposal to Increase the Number of Fuel Assemblies Stored in the VY Spent Fuel Pool Involves Unresolved Conflicts Concerning Alternative Uses of Available Resources.
As this Board noted in admitting Environmental Contention 3, "Where the objective of an action 'can be achieved in one of two or more ways that will have differing impacts on the environ-ment,' the 5102 (2) (E) requirement comes into play." Vermont I
13nkee Nuclear' Power Corn. (Vermont Yankee Nuc] ear P7wer Sta-tion), LBP-88-26, 2b NRC 440, 449 (1988) [ citations omitted]. In this case, Vermont Yankee's objective of obtaining additional spent fuel storage capacity could as well be achieved by dry cask storage as by increasing the capacity of the spent fuel pool.
.Moreover, the proposed reracking and dens ifi cat i on of spent fuel
[
in the pool create a significant risk of a zircaloy cladding fire 1
12 See also Viroinia Electric Power Co. (North Anna Power Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-34, 22 NRC 481, 490 (1985).
l l
l 1
that would result in extensive contamination of the environ- '
ment.13 See Thompson Testimony at 8-9. The appropriate use of ;
1 the spent fuel pool is for low-density fuel storage,'with place- !
ment of the remainder of the spent fuel in dry casks. Id. at 11-
- 12. This solution would completely eliminate the risks posed by high-density storage in the spent fuel pool. Id.
C. The Staff Violated NEPA By Failing to Give Adequate Consideration to the Alternative of Dry Cask Storage.
In its discussion of alternatives to reracking, the Staff gave only passing mention to the alternative of dry cask storage, rejecting that option on the grounds that it would require "new site specific design and construction, including equipment for the transfer of spent fuel," as well as NRC licensing review.
The Staff concluded that [t]here is little likelihood that this effort could be completed in time to meet the need for additional capacity..." EA at 4.
In preparing its EA, the Staff "did not perform a site-specific evaluation of a dry cask independent spent fuel storage installation alternative with respect to the Vermont Yankee proposal "14 .por did the Staff perform any generic assessments of I 13 As has been discussed extensively in connection with NECNP's Environmental Contention 2, NECNP considers that this risk war-rants the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Alternatives to the proposed action must also be considered in an EIS, pursuant to 5 102 (2) (C) of NEPA.
14 NRC Staff Response to NECNP's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents to the NRC Staff on the Staff's Environmental Assessment, dated December 8, 1988, at 2.
L dry cask storage. EA at 4. Rather, the Staff's evaluation was .;
based on a generic environmental assessment of expanded spent
. fuel-pool storage. Id . - Thus, the EA is supported by no docu- f mented' eval'uation of the comparative benefits of dry cask storage.
The EA contains no discur-ion whatsoever as to whether the dry cask alternative is prefc1 ale to expanded wet storage. In failing to do so, the Staff appears to rely on the conclusion ,
that wet storage has.an insignificant impact. EA at 4. As dis-cussed in note 13, suora, NECNP strongly disputes that conclu-2 l
sion. In any event, however, the alleged insignificance of the impacts of Vermont Yankee's proposal does not excuse the NRC from !
i the obligation to determine whether there exist environmentally preferable alternatives and to give them serious and thorough ;
consideration. River Road Alliance v. Corps of Enaineers, suora, l'
764 F.2d at 452.
D. The Staff Erred When it Failed to Recommend the Dry Cask Alternative.
i In another reracking case, the Appeal Board held that in 1~
l order to reject the applicant's proposal it would have to be I determined both that "(1) at least ane of the. alternatives was ;
environmentally superior; and (2) that environmental superiority' was not outweighed by other considerations such as comparative i
cost." .Vircinia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power i Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 458 (1980). ]
1 As demonstrated in the Thompson affidavit, dry cask storage
'1 is-unquestionably an environmentally preferable alternative to
m - -
p ,
n
.g "
expansion of wet storage in the spent fuel pool. The character-listics of the new racks and.the increased density of the rods in.
the pool render the spent fuel assemblies extr'emely vulnerable to fire in the event of a partial or total loss of water from the
[ pool. The cesium likely to be released as a result of such a
-fire could significantly contaminate 19,000 square miles of land,
- with concomitant health effects and damage to the environment.
The substantially increased accident risk posed by reracking and compacting an increased number of fuel rods in the pool could be totally avoided by use of low-density storage within the pool, with placement of the' remainder of the spent fuel into an alternative form of on-site storage, such as dry cask storage.
The NRC itself has recognized the advantages of dry cask storage
-in its recent proposed rule, which encourages the implementation-of dry cask through immediate licensing of dry cask storage.15 Moreover, in light of the potential health damage and cleanup costs resulting from a spent fuel pool fire affecting a o
large portion of New England, the costs of dry cask storage (estimated by Vermont Yankee at $19-22 million for cask storage equivalent to the proposed capacity increase of the pool) a rca "not out of proportion to the environmental advantages to be M gained." ALAB-584, supra, 11 NRC at 456.
n Finally, as noted in the Thompson affidavit at 10, there is no fundamental reason for extended delay in the licensing of dry f
'15 See Proposed Rule: " Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRO-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites," 54 Fed.
Reg. 19,379, 19,380, Col. 3 (May 5, 1989), attachment 2.
L L
L _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _
i cask storage, which is a relatively simple technology. The NRC is also in the process of simplifying the process of dry cask storage approval, and ha~s recently proposed to issue generically a " general license" that would allow licensees to store spent fuel in certified dry casks upon completion of a discrete set of submittals.16 In any event, the Staff should not be permitted to discount an environmentally preferable alternative for timing reasons alone, when the delay was caused in large part by the Staff's own neglect. The Staff should have been aware from the time that Vermont Yankee's application was filed -- the spring of 1986 --
that et t minimum, an environmental assessment would be required to support this project. Interveners also repeatedly insisted that this requirement must be met. Nevertheless, it took the-
, Staff over two years to prepare the EA. Moreover, that time was not taken up with any extensive site-specific or even generic study -- in fact, the Staff relied only on a generic environmen-tal asGessment prepared in 1979,17 augmented only by a general reference to its experience with licensing of dry cask storage.
Had the Staff prepared its EA in a tinely manner and given the dry cask alternative the consideration it deserved, licerising of dry cask storage might be well underway now.
l l
16 See Attachment 2.
( 17 NUREG-0575, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel,"
Volumes 1, 2, and 3.
r 1
'I
- - n CONCLUSION In preparing its environmental assessment regarding spent fuel ~ storage expansion at Vermont Yankee, the NRC Staff virtually ignored the environmentally preferable alternative of dry. cask.
L storage, and rejected it on the sole ground that its implementa-tion would be too time-consuming. Had the Staff given the dry cask alternative the timely, serious consideration that it deserved, it would have concluded, as the Board must conclude here, that dry cask storage is an environmentally preferable alternative whose costs are well justified in light of its environmental and safety benefits. For these reasons, the Board should find that the Staff's environmental assessment fails to comply with the. requirements of NEPA, reject Vermont Yankee's application to expand the capacity of its spent fuel pool, and-recommend implementation of the dry cask storage alternative.
Respectfully submitted,
S .
M -- ;
lane Curran A HARMON, CUR 7'AN & TOUSLEY 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430
";"s*"?!";s; '
q
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __