ML20248E080

Memorandum (Response to Motion to Compel).* Requests NRC to Explain in Response to New England Coalition on Nuclear Interrogatories Why second-round Questions Do Not Flow from Interrogatory 3(c).W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890406

ML20248E080
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	04/05/1989
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#289-8390 87-547-02-LA, 87-547-2-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8904120121
Download: ML20248E080 (5)

Text

_-

i 8390 e

q ' "t (if UNITED STATES OF~ AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '89 APR -5 P4 :11 Before Administrative Judges: cp i, .

Datr.i ~ m : . <.c Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman W Dr. Japes H. Carpenter Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

EERVED APR 06196 I i' In the Matter of ,

)

) .

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR iDocket No. 50-271-OLA l))

POWER CORPORATION l lASLBP No. 87-547-02-LA (Vermont Yankee Nuclear I))

Power Station)

) April 5, 1989

)

j-MEMORANDUM (Resoonse to Motion to ComDel) l l

l By motion dated March 2'9, 1989, NECNP requested us to order the NRC Staff to re'spond to Interrogatories 2 (b)-(j) of NECNP's third set of inte'rro'gatories to the staff. The

]

Staff's response is not yct'd'.te to be filed.

The interrogatories in c'uestion all related to the

. statement in the Staff's Environmental Assessment to the I

effect that the dry cask storage alternative "could not be implemented in time to meet the need for additional capacity".

l They focus on the delineation of the time clement for which the expansion is needed, and for implementation of the dry cask storag's alternative. The Staff declined to answer these second-round interrogatories on the ground that they were "new question [s] not flowing from the Staff's responses to Interrogatories 2a-b."

h HM86M"?Mljp G

Y t  ;

2 At this point, we express no opinion on whether or not the second-round interrogatories in question must " flow from" any particular first-round answer, or from the first-round answers generally. We request the Staff, however, to explain in its response why the second-round questions do not flow directly from the Staff's answer to Interrogatory 3(c). That interrogatory reads as follows'[ emphasis supplied):

Did NRC or its contractors prepare or use any analysis, study or other document that compares the time it would take to design and construct a dry cask storage facility at VY with the time it would take to develop and install all equipment necessary to implement the proposed action, including the time necessary to design and install a spent fuel pool system that meets current NRC regulatory requirements? If yes, please provide a copy of any documents containing such analysis. JJLnot, clease exclain the basis for the EA's conclusit" that dry cask l storace installation could not be oesioneo and I

constructed capacity.

in time to meet VY's need for additional The Staff answered the first portion of this interrogator in the negative. For the second portion, it referred to its past experience in reviewing and approving dry cask facilities but, insofar as we can ascertain, made no mention whatsoever of any basis for its calculation of VY's need. That being so, we believe it to be important for the Staff to explain why the second-round questions to which it is objecting do not flow directly from the Staff's answer to (or failure to answer, as the case may be) Interrogatory 3(c).

l In its response, we also request that the Staff indicate a time frame under which it could respond to Interrogatories l

l l

l

-* l

. , j i

3 2(b)-(j), assuming we were to rule that the Staff should answer those interrogatories.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A r ls o u d Charles Bechhoefer ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ~ /

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of April, 1989 l

1 1

i

w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I i

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR F0WER  !

Docket No.(s) 50-271-OLA CORPORATION I (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 1 Station) i I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of the foreacina MEMO (RESPONE MOTION TO COMPEL have been served upon the f ollowina persons by U.S. matl. first class, except as otherntse noted and in accordance with the reautrements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judoe Administrative Judae Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensina Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensina Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washinoton, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judoe Administrative Judoo Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Gustave A. Linenbercer, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensino Board Atomic Safety and Licensina Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclsar Reculatory Commission Washinaton, DC 20555 Washincton, DC 20555 Administrative Judae Administrative Judae James H. Caroenter W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licenntna Board ASLAB U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission 115 Falcon Drive. Colthurst Washinaton. DC 20555 Charlottesville. VA 22901 Ann P. Hodadon, Eso.

Andrea C. Ferster. Esa.

Office of the General Counsel Harmen. Curran & Tousley U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission 2001 S Street. N.W., Suite 430 Washington, DC 20555 Washincton, DC 20009 Thomas G. Dianan. Jr.. Esc. R. K. Gad III. Esauire Ropes & Gray Rope's & Grev One Internat'onal Place One Internationsi Place Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02110

Docket No.(s)S0-271-OLA MEMO (RESPONE NOTION TO COMPEL Georoe B. Dean, Eso. Samuel P. oress, Esc.

Office of the Attorney General Special Musistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place. 19th Floor Vermont Department of Public Service Boston, MA 02108 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Richard J. Goddard, Esa. Jay M. Gutierrez, Esc.

U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Region !! Region I 101 Marietta Street. St'.ite 2900 631 Park Avenue Atlanta, GA 30323 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 6 day of April 1989 Officerof the Secretary of the Commission

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - a