ML20247L056
| ML20247L056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1989 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8686, RTR-NUREG-1353 OLA, NUDOCS 8906020080 | |
| Download: ML20247L056 (4) | |
Text
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
\\
jfff,'
May 25, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hh,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSING AP8fAMAYB%RP12 :17 GP 10.
_ u.
)
.In the' Matter of
)
h!h[
)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Corporation
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA
)
(Spent-Fuel Pool)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power. Station)
)
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S MOTION'FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING SIGNIFICANCE OF RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS In its response to NECNP's Memorandum on NUREG-1353, Vermont Yankee asserts that two recent Supreme Court decisions, Marsh V.
Orecon Natural Resources Council, 57 U.S.
L.W.
4504 (May 1, 1989), and Robertson v. Methow Vallev Citizens Council, 57 U.S.L.W.
4497 (May 1, 1989), " cast considerable doubt on the validity of the Limerick decision."1 i'
To the contrary, these decisions have no bearing whatacever on the central. holding of Lierick;, which is that what'is remote and speculative must be the subject of careful considerations the j
NAC-esnnot define.certain accidents as remote and speculative.by means of a policy statement or by other non-regulatory pronounce-
.j ments.
Limerick Ecoloav Action. Inc.
v.
NRC, 869 F.2d 719, 741 (3rd Cir. 1989).
Similarly, the recent Supreme Court cases cited by Applicant have no bearing on the instant proceeding.
j 1
Response of Vermont Yankee to NECNP's " Memorandum on NUREG-l 1353" at 5, note 4.
8906020000 890525 DR ADOCK 050 1
P
,y 3:
L
=. '
s o Vermont. Yankee first assigns significance to the fact that in Robertson, the Court held that NEPA does not require a " worst case" analysis-in cases where the agency' lacks complete informa -
^
tion concerning a reasonably foreseeable impact.
57 U.S.L.W.
at 4502-3. This holding is irrelevant to the case at bar.
The issue before the Appeal Board is whether the impact of a spent fuel pool fire is reasonably foreseeable, and thus requires the prepa-ration of an EIS
-- not the nature of the analysis required once such a determination is made.
In a sentence so long and convoluted it is virtually unintelligible, Vermont Yankee also appears to argue that the Court's decision in Marsh required the Licensing Board to apply an " arbitrary and capricious" standard to the Staff's environmen-tal assessment in considering the admissibility of NECNP's con-tention.
No support can be found for this assertion.in Marsh, which concerned the standard of review that courts should apply to agency decisions after they have gone through a full merits review under NEPA.
In contrast, the NRC ha9 established proceed-ings by which Staff environmental analyses will be reviewed ab initig by the Licensing Boards, which have an independent respon-sibility to determine whether the requirements of NEPA have been l
met.
10 C.F.R. 59.50.104, 50.105.
Under this process, inter-venors must be allowed to litigate those issues that they plead with reasonable specificity and basis.
By the same token, Marsh does not condone the application of a " clearly erroneous" stan-dard to the evaluation of conflicting technical information at the contention admission stage.
i l
=-
,,. ~.
_a.b.y t x-s y3 f
t
.8 3_
Respectfully. submitted, 1
p Ot '
f
' Diane Curran.
HARMON,'_ CURRAN & TOUSLEY....
2001 "S"' Street N.W.-Suite'430.:
w
.. Washington, D.'C.
20009~
(202).328-3500
,May 25, 1989' r
i,.
o
'J
, n.
... 1)
)^.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I caused copies of the foregoing pIEading to be served on May 25, 1989, by first class mail or as otherwise indicated on all parties listed below:
'89 HAY 30 Pl2:17
- Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson
- Howard A.
Wilber Administrative Judge Administrative. Judge 115 Falcon Drive AtomicSafety%fyl,
Colthurst Licensing Appea1[. Boar.d Charlottesville, VA 22901 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Environmental Protection Bureau Atomic Safety and 25 Capitol Street Licensing Board Panel Concord, NH 03301-6397 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Jay Gutierrez, Esq.
Regional Counsel Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
USNRC, Region I Atomic Safety and 475 Allendale Road Licensing Board Panel King of Prussia, PA 19406 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 OR.
K.
Gad. III Esq.
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.,
Esq.
Dr. James H.
Carpenter Ropes & Gray Atomic Safety and One International Place Licensing Board Panel Boston, MA 02110 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard J.
Goddard, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary of the Commission Region II Attn:
Docketing and Service Section 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, GA 30323 Washington, D.C.
20555 f
George Dean, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeal Board Panel Department of the Attorney General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, MA 02108
- Ann Hodgdon, Esq.
George Young, Esq.
Office of the General i
Vermont Department of Public Service Counsel, Bethesda 120 State Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Montpelier, VT 05602 Washington, D.C.
20555 overnight mail I
OChristine N.
Kohl, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dean R.
Tousley
{
- - -