|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20148M6511997-06-18018 June 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Suppl to Bulletin 96-001 That Would Request Licensees to Take Action to Ensure Continued Operability of Control Rods L-95-045, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors1995-10-19019 October 1995 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors ML20080M1121995-02-27027 February 1995 Comment Re Proposed Suppl 5 to GL 88-20 IPEEE for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities. Proposed GL Suppl Should Indicate That Licensees Can Use Llnl Hazard Results of NUREG-1488 Re Revised Hazard Estimates Instead of NUREG/CR-5250 ML20073M0751994-09-23023 September 1994 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,70 & 72 Re Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements. Permitting Access to Funds Only on Semiannual Basis Seems Unnecessarily Restrictive ML20069L5291994-06-13013 June 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rulemaking 50-60 Re Petition for Rulemaking & Changes to 10CFR50.54 ML20029D8251994-04-29029 April 1994 Comment Supporting Elimination of Proposed 5-yr Implementation Schedule & Believes That Current Programs Adequate to Maintain Containment Integrity ML20044G1971993-05-24024 May 1993 Comment Supporting Draft Insp Procedure Re Commercial Grade Procurement & Dedication ML20044E5721993-05-19019 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Ltr for Relocation of TS Tables on Instrument Response Time Limits ML20044D3271993-05-0707 May 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed GL Availability & Adequacy of Design Bases Info ML20125B6141992-12-0303 December 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,app a Re GDC-2 & 10CFR50.49 Re Environ Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants ML20095J6881992-04-23023 April 1992 Comment Opposing Draft Reg Guide DG-1022, Emergency Planning & Preparedness for Nuclear Power Plants ML20077R5161991-08-14014 August 1991 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-20-20 Re Reduced Total Effective Dose Equivalent to Individual Members of Public from 0.5 Rem (5 Msv) to 0.1 Rem (1 Msv) ML20235N8531989-02-14014 February 1989 Comment Supporting Chapter 1 Re Policy Statement on Exemptions Below Regulatory Concern.Policy Development for Criteria for Release of Radioactive Matl Needed for Development of Consistent Waste Mgt Practices ML20235P3311989-02-0808 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ML20236P5851987-11-0909 November 1987 Transcript of 871109 Briefing in Washington,Dc Re Facility Steam Generator Tube Rupture Event.Pp 1-56.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20138N5311985-11-0101 November 1985 Memorandum & Order Affirming ASLB 850903 Initial Decision Authorizing Director of NRR to Issue License Amend for North Anna to Permit Receipt & Storage of 500 Spent Fuel Assemblies from Surry Power Station.Served on 851101 ML20133K7171985-10-18018 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133K6801985-10-18018 October 1985 Forwards Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding. Requests Svc List Be Revised to Include Client Under Listed Address.W/O Encl ML20133F4241985-10-0909 October 1985 Order Stating That ASLB 850903 Initial Decision Authorizing NRR to Amend OL to Permit Receipt & Storage of Spent Fuel Should Not Be Deemed Final,Pending Further Order. Served on 851009 ML20138A9521985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134N6981985-09-0303 September 1985 Initial Decision LBP-85-34 Authorizing NRR to Issue Amends to Licenses NPF-4 & NPF-7 to Permit Receipt & Storage of 500 Spent Fuel Assemblies from Surry.Initial Decision Effective Immediately.Served on 850904 ML20134N4381985-09-0303 September 1985 Order Granting Licensee 850621 Request to Correct Transcript.Proposed Transcript Corrections & Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 850904 ML20129K1251985-07-18018 July 1985 Brief in Support of NRC 850718 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of Amend to Licenses NPF-4 & NPF-7 to Permit Receipt & Storage of 500 Spent Fuel Assemblies ML20129K1281985-07-18018 July 1985 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Initial Decision Authorizing NRR to Issue Amend to Licenses NPF-4 & NPF-7 to Permit Receipt & Storage of 500 Spent Fuel Assemblies ML20129F8231985-07-12012 July 1985 Reply Opposing Concerned Citizens of Louisa County post- Hearing Brief.Licensee Proposed Findings of Sabotage & Human Error Not Addressed.Challenge of NRC EIS Conclusion Unnecessary.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209F0021985-07-0808 July 1985 Post-hearing Brief Re Issues Raised at ASLB 850521 & 22 Evidentiary Hearings.Nrc Required by NEPA to Evaluate Alternative of Constructing & Operating Dry Cask Storage Facility,But Failed to Perform Even Cursory Review ML20209F2041985-07-0808 July 1985 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Application for Amend to Ol,Authorizing Licensee to Ship 500 Spent Nuclear Fuel Assemblies from Surry Power Station to North Anna Station.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20128H0791985-07-0808 July 1985 Order Granting Concerned Citizens of Louisa County 850627 Motion for 7-day Extension Until 850708 to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Served on 850708 ML20128G9471985-06-27027 June 1985 Motion for Extension of 850701 Deadline to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Addl Wk Required Due to Addl Legal Duties.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127F0511985-06-21021 June 1985 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Util 820713 Application to Amend Ol,Authorizing Receipt & Storage of Up to 500 Spent Nuclear Fuel Assemblies.Unsigned,Undated Order & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127F0451985-06-21021 June 1985 Post-hearing Brief Requesting Board Find in Util Favor Re Proposed OL Amend Authorizing Receipt & Storage of Up to 500 Spent Nuclear Fuel Assemblies.No Basis from Sabotage or Human Error Considerations for Denying Proposed Amend ML20128A7731985-05-22022 May 1985 Transcript of 850522 Hearing in Charlottesville,Va.Pp 313-364.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20125C4081985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-H-11,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph H ML20125C3601985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-B-5,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph B ML20125C4221985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-J-13,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph J ML20125C3471985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-3,consisting of SAND82-2365, Assessment of Safety of Spent Fuel Transportation in Urban Environs, Dtd June 1983 ML20125C4301985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-K-14,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph K ML20125C3941985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-F-9,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph F ML20125C4361985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-L-15,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph L ML20125C3101985-05-21021 May 1985 Staff Exhibit S-1,consisting of Undated Environ Assessment & Finding of Proposed No Significant Impact Re 820713 & 0820 Applications for Amends to Licenses DPR-32,DPR-37,NPF-4 & NPF-7,allowing Receipt & Increased Storage of Spent Fuel ML20125C3411985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-2,consisting of 830915 Procedure 1-OP-4.19, Receipt & Storage of Spent Fuel TN-8L Shipping Cask Unloading & Handling Procedures ML20125C3291985-05-21021 May 1985 Staff Exhibit S-3,consisting of Forwarding NMSS Apr 1985 Environ Assessment Re 821008 Application for Authority to Construct & Operate Dry Cask ISFSI at Surry Power Station ML20125C4001985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-G-10,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph G ML20125C3381985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-1,consisting of 831104 Procedure OP-4.3, Shipping of Spent Fuel TN-8L Shipping Cask Loading & Handling Procedures, for Surry Power Station ML20125C3711985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-C-6,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph C ML20125C3791985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-D-7,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph D ML20125C3821985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-E-8,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph E ML20125C3501985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-A-4,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph a ML20125C3191985-05-21021 May 1985 Staff Exhibit S-2,consisting of Undated Safety Evaluation Re Increasing Spent Fuel Storage Capacity.Proposed Mods to Spent Fuel Pool & Transshipment/Storage of Spent Fuel Acceptable ML20125C4131985-05-21021 May 1985 Applicant Exhibit A-I-12,consisting of Undated,Untitled Photograph I 1997-06-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20129F8231985-07-12012 July 1985 Reply Opposing Concerned Citizens of Louisa County post- Hearing Brief.Licensee Proposed Findings of Sabotage & Human Error Not Addressed.Challenge of NRC EIS Conclusion Unnecessary.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20209F0021985-07-0808 July 1985 Post-hearing Brief Re Issues Raised at ASLB 850521 & 22 Evidentiary Hearings.Nrc Required by NEPA to Evaluate Alternative of Constructing & Operating Dry Cask Storage Facility,But Failed to Perform Even Cursory Review ML20128G9471985-06-27027 June 1985 Motion for Extension of 850701 Deadline to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Addl Wk Required Due to Addl Legal Duties.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127F0451985-06-21021 June 1985 Post-hearing Brief Requesting Board Find in Util Favor Re Proposed OL Amend Authorizing Receipt & Storage of Up to 500 Spent Nuclear Fuel Assemblies.No Basis from Sabotage or Human Error Considerations for Denying Proposed Amend ML20116L2471985-04-29029 April 1985 Motion for 6-day Extension of Time for Submittal of Prefiled Testimony in Proceeding.Parties Plan to Agree on Submittal of Exhibits by 850509.No Postponement of Hearing Necessary. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116G4661985-04-26026 April 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850509 to File Testimony.Addl Info Required from Util Re Costs of Dry Cask Storage Methods.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094A7971984-10-31031 October 1984 Motion for 1-day Extension to File Appeal of ASLB 841015 Decision ML20076F0271983-08-22022 August 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830805 Motion for Directed Certification of ASLB 830610 Assumption of Jurisdiction. Motion Misapplies Principles Governing Interlocutory Review of Preliminary ASLB Rulings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076E9661983-08-22022 August 1983 Memorandum Opposing Util Motion for Directed Certification. Issue at Hand Political & Has No Effect on Proceeding.Util Did Not Show Why Exception Should Be Granted from Rule Forbidding Interlocutory Appeal.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E3981983-08-0505 August 1983 Motion for Directed Certification of Licensee 820713 Application for Amend to OL Authorizing Receipt & Storage at North Anna of 500 Spent Fuel Assemblies.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J1511982-12-22022 December 1982 Answer in Opposition to Louisa County,Va 821210 Motion for Stay of Proceeding Until Completion of Waste Confidence Rulemaking.Delay Would Be Inconsistent W/Nrc Regulations & Would Prejudice Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J2041982-12-22022 December 1982 Answer in Opposition to Louisa County,Va 821210 Motion for Stay of Proceeding Until Completion of Waste Confidence Rulemaking.Delay Would Be Inconsistent W/Nrc Regulations & Would Prejudice Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070C6021982-12-10010 December 1982 Motion to Stay Proceedings on Applications for License Amends to Allow Receipt & Storage of Surry Spent Fuel. Proceeding Should Be Stayed Until Commission Completes Waste Confidence Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070C6121982-12-10010 December 1982 Motion to Stay Proceedings on Applications for License Amends to Expand Spent Fuel Pool.Proceeding Should Be Stayed Until Commission Completes Waste Confidence Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19344B3631980-08-21021 August 1980 Request to Intervene in Potomac Alliance Vs Nrc.Petitioner Is Party in Interest Whose Interests Will Be Affected If NRC Decision Affirming Issuance of Amend to OL Reversed ML19316A8651980-04-28028 April 1980 Answer in Opposition to Intervenors Potomac Alliance & Citizens Energy Forum 800414 Petition for Review of ALAB- 584.Matter Does Not Affect Environ,Health & Safety,Common Defense & Security or Public Policy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19309E9611980-04-14014 April 1980 Petition for Review of ALAB-584 on Grounds of Being Erroneous as Matter of Law.Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Pool Should Not Be Permitted Prior to Consideration of Effects Subsequent to OL Expiration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260A2581979-10-26026 October 1979 Motion to Submit Untimely Brief on Exceptions.Counsel Involved in Matters in Federal Courts.Delay in Brief Submittal Has Not Resulted in Prejudice to Licensee ML19262A0971979-09-10010 September 1979 Amended Statement of Exceptions Re ASLB 790806 Decision,Aslb 790817 Order Denying Intervenors Motion to Amend Petition to to Intervene & 790824 Order Granting VEPCO Motion for Summary Disposition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209C4931979-09-0404 September 1979 Reply to Intervenor Arnold & State of VA 790820 Petitions Re Proposed Findings.Changes Proposed by State & Arnold for Facility Tech Specs Are Not Supported by Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209B9201979-08-27027 August 1979 Response to Intervenors 790821 Statement of Exceptions. Agrees That Time for Appeal Should Begin When ASLB Serves Final Decision.Intervenors Should Not Be Given Addl Time to Request Stay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209C0061979-08-21021 August 1979 Statement of Exceptions to ASLB 790806 Decisions,Submitted by Intervenors Citizens Energy Forum & Potomac Alliance. Util 790511 Motion for Summary Disposition Should Be Denied. Request to Amend Petition to Intervene Should Be Granted ML19249F0251979-08-20020 August 1979 Memorandum of Proposed Findings Re Svc Water Pumphouse Settlement,Submitted on Behalf of Intervenor G Arnold. Applicant Survey Method Endangers Health & Safety of Public. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19254D3111979-08-20020 August 1979 Memorandum of Proposed Findings Per Aslab 790621 Order. Predictions of Amount of Settlement Cannot Be Accurately Made.Tech Spec Limit on Amount of Settlement Is Acceptable.Nrc Should Review Operator Training Program ML19209C3941979-07-26026 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Petitioners Potomac Alliance & Citizens Energy Forum,Inc,For Motion to Reply to Util & NRC Answers to Petitioners Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene ML19209C3981979-07-26026 July 1979 Response,Submitted by Petitioners Potomac Alliance & Citizens Energy Forum,Inc to Util & NRC Answers to Petitioners Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19322B8951979-07-23023 July 1979 Second Supplemental Answer in Opposition to VEPCO 790505 Motion for Summary Disposition.Radioactive Emission,Missile Accidents & Other Issues Are Subj to Major Factual Gaps. W/Pleading Pages on Matl Integrity & Other Related Matters ML19249D6481979-07-23023 July 1979 Memorandum of Proposed Findings Re Settlement of Svc Water Pumphouse & Probability of Unacceptable Damage from Turbine Missiles,Per ALAB-529.OL May Be Issued.Sys Are Protected from Turbine Missiles.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19249D9211979-07-23023 July 1979 Second Supplemental Answer to Util 790505 Motion for Summary Disposition Submitted by Intervenors Potomac Alliance & on Behalf of Citizens Energy Forum.W/Affidavit & Prof Qualifications of Weitzman ML19242B3311979-07-0505 July 1979 Response Submitted by Util to Intervenors Potomac Alliance & Citizens Energy Forum,Inc 790615 Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene.Requests Denial of Seismicity Contention & Mod of Issues Re Spent Fuel Pool ML19322B8941979-06-25025 June 1979 Supplemental Answer in Opposition to VEPCO 790505 Motion for Summary Disposition.Urges ASLB to Apply Stds Encouraging Courts to Be Liberal Re Opportunity for Full Development of Factual Bases & Arguments.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19225C8371979-06-20020 June 1979 VEPCO Objections to 790601 Interrogatories from Potomac Alliance & Citizens Energy Forum.Potomac Alliance Format & Questions 21 & 44-47 Are Too Broad.Citizens Energy Forum Question 5-1 Requests Proprietary Drawings ML19246B7751979-06-18018 June 1979 Request by Util That ASLB Authorize Immediate Installation of high-density Spent Fuel Storage Racks for Use in Storage of Up to 243 Spent Fuel Assemblies.Interim Relief Is Requested Until Issues Are Resolved.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19241B5141979-06-15015 June 1979 Requests to Amend Petition to Intervene Submitted by Potomac Alliance & Citizens Energy Forum.Seeks Addition of Contention Re Ability of Spent Fuel Pool to Withstand Seismic Events.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19261E7551979-06-0909 June 1979 Opposition to Util 790618 Motion for Interim Relief. ASLB Lacks Authority to Grant Relief.Nrc Regulations Demand Denial.Exemption to Regulations Should Not Be Granted. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246B4031979-06-0707 June 1979 Errata to Potomac Alliance Answer to Util Motion for Summary Disposition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19225A2961979-06-0707 June 1979 No Opposition by Util to Citizens Energy Forum & Potomac Alliance Motion for Consolidation.Util Reserves Right to Oppose Future Motion Necessitated by Consolidation,If Motions Appear to Delay Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19322B8921979-06-0505 June 1979 Answer in Opposition to VEPCO 790505 Motion for Summary Disposition.Full Exploration of Issues Needed for Appropriate Relief ML19322B8931979-06-0505 June 1979 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Re VEPCO Motion for Summary Disposition. Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19261E4291979-06-0505 June 1979 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is Genuine Issue to Be Heard,Submitted by Citizens Energy Forum.Discusses Issues Re Thermal Effects,Emissions & Corrosion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224C7821979-06-0505 June 1979 Statement of Matl Facts to Which There Is Genuine Issue to Be Heard in Response to Util 790505 Motion for Summary Disposition.Affidavit of JB Dougherty & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224C7721979-06-0505 June 1979 Responds to Util 790505 Motion for Summary Disposition. Requests That ASLB Refuse Application or Order Continuance to Reply.In Alternative,Seeks Denial of Motion.Affidavits Cannot Present Facts Essential to Opposition to Motion ML19261E4251979-06-0505 June 1979 Requests Denial of Util 790511 Motion for Summary Disposition.Citizens Energy Forum States Motion Is Premature & Ignores Unresolved Issues Re Proposed Mod ML19225A0851979-06-0101 June 1979 Request for Documents Identified by NRC in Response to Potomac Alliance 790601 Interrogatory.Includes Request for Util FSAR & Tech Specs Applicable to Operations of Plant ML19225A0801979-06-0101 June 1979 Potomac Alliance Motion to Obtain Answers to Interrogatories to NRC ML19246B3301979-05-30030 May 1979 Opposition by Util to Postponement of 790626 Prehearing Conference & Evidentiary Hearing.In Alternative,Requests ASLB to Commence Hearings by 790609.Affidavit of EA Baum & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246B8071979-05-25025 May 1979 Motion Submitted by Citizens Energy Forum Requesting ASLB to Allow Consolidation W/Potomac Alliance.Consolidation Will Avoid Delay in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19269E3721979-05-18018 May 1979 Requests That ASLB Postpone 790626 Prehearing Conference to 790724.Addl Time Necessary for Discovery & Filing of Motions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246B6851979-05-17017 May 1979 Answers by Util to Potomac Alliance 790502 Objections & Citizens Energy Forum 790503 Objections to ASLB 790421 Order Granting Intervention.Seeks Denial of Intervenor Requests for Mod of Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246B6901979-05-17017 May 1979 Motion by Util for Interim Tech Spec Change.Allowable Pump House Settlement Limits Should Be Increased Or,In the Alternative,Raised to Level in 10CFR2.717(b).Affidavit of EA Baum & Certificate of Svc Encl 1985-07-08
[Table view] |
Text
""
Q j~f o
s? - APR 161930 > :11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O!I D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMbLSSION N Branch 64P BEFORE THE COMMISSION _
4 g u.
In atter of ) Docket Nos.50-338SP
. )50-339SP VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO. ) (Proposed Amendment to
) Operating License NPF-4 (North Anna Nuclear Power ) to Permit Storage Pool Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Modification)
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD IN ALAB-584 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.786(b), the Potomac Alliance and Cit-izens' Energy Forum, Inc. ("Intervenors") petition the Commission for review of the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") in the above-captioned proceeding, ALAB-584, on the grounds that the decision is erroncaus as a matter of law and policy.
(1) Summary of decision ALAB-584 affirms the decision of the Atomic Safety and Lic-ensing Board (" Licensing Board") 1 / authorizing expansion of the capacity of the spent fuel storage pool (SFP) 3t the North Anna Power Station. The proceeding was initiated in May, 1978, when the Virginia Electric and Power Co. ("VEPCO") applied to the Commission for an amendment to the North Anna operating license (OL) permitting the capacity of the SFP to be increased from 400 to 966 fuel assemblies. This was to be done by replacing the exist- r ing fuel racks with more closely spaced, or "high-density" racks.
Intervenors filed timely petitions to intervene and were made par-ties to the proceeding; 2 / they were subsequently consolidated into a single party. ,
--1/ The Licensing Board's decision was entered in decisions dated August 6, 24, and 25, 1979.
2_/ The Licensing Board's denial nf the petitions to intervene was reversed by the Appeal Board on January 26, 1979, ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54 (1979).
8 0 0 428 0 CE lr l ~.
\ G-
The brief but fitful history of this proceeding is outlined in Intervenors' Brief on Exceptions to the Appeal Board.
1 / On May 11, 1979, VEPCO moved for summary disposition of all outstand-ing issues;.its motion was supported by the NRC Staff, opposed by Intervenors, and grantcC, by the Licensing Board. 2/ Install-ation of the new high-density racks commenced August 18, 1979.
Spent fuel was first placed in the SFP on October 17, 1979.
In ALAB-584 the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's conclusion that there existed no litigable issue of fact material to the issues before it and that VEPCO was entitled to summary dis-position as a matter of law.
The Appeal Board rejected Intervenors' claim that the erratic scheduling of the proceeding had prevented them from presenting their case effectively. In addition, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of Intervenors' request that the issues in the proceeding be modified to encompass matters relating to the long-term management and environmental effects of spent fuel storage at North Anna.
Issue presented for review and treatment below Intervenors request only that the Commission grant review of ,
a single question:
whether the Appeal Board erred in concluding that prior to issuing an OL amendment allowing SFP modification the Commission is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3 / to consider fully the health, safety and environ-mental consequences which may result from the action subsequent to the expiration of the OL.
Intervenors contend that this kind of 1_/ Brief on Exceptions at 1-4.
2/ See p. 1, note 3, supra.
3_/ 42 U.S.C. S4323-4361.
long-term analysis is required under NEPA as interpreted by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit in Minnesota v. NRC 1/
but was not performed in this case. Thus, the OL amendment was issued contrary to law and must be withdrawn.
On June 15, 1979 Intervenors moved the Licensing Board to modify the contentions at issue in order to bring within their ambit the long-term environmental and safety implication of the proposed OL amendment. The motion argued, among other things, that such a re-focusing of the contentions was mandated by Minnesota.
The motion was opposed by both the NRC Staff and by VEPCO. 2/
Intervenors later filed a reply memorandura elaborating on their previous arguments. 3/ The motion was denied by the Licensing Board on August 17, 1979, some 11 days after it had terminated the proceeding by granting VEPCO's motion for summary disposition.
! Intervenors challenged this ruling before the Appeal Board and briefed it and argued it as some length. 4/ In ALAB-584, the Appeal Board ruled in favor of VEPCO and the Staff, concluding that acceptance of Intervenors' position was precluded by previous decisions of the Commission.
Identification of error In the NRC proceedings which were reviewed by the court in 1_/ 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
2_/ See NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene, July 5, 1979; VEPCO's Answer Opposing Intervenors' Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene, July 5, 1979.
--3/ See Intervenors' Reply to VEPCO's and the NRC Staff's Answers to Intervenors' Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene, July 26, 1979.
4_/ See' Brief on Exceptions at 22-31.
L
[ ,
Minnesota, the NRC Staff had refused to extend to scope of its safety and environmental analyses to address operation of the SFPs following expiration of the respective OLs.The intervenors challenged the Staff's position, arguing that since it was reasonable to expect that the SFP might have to be pressed into service beyond the ex-pected useful lives of the reactors, NEPA required analysis of the feasibility and environmental consequences of the possible extended use of the SFPs. Their view was that the time frame used in the environmental analyses must be coe'xtensive with the period for which the fuel is reasonably expected to be stored in the SFPs.
Thus, if the SFPs were reasonably expected to be needed only for 20 years it would be necessary to conform the time frame of the anal-yses only to that 20-year period. But if the SFPs were expected to be used for 40 years it would be impermissible to limit the envir-onmental analyses to a 30-year period on the arbitrary ground that the OLs would expire in that period.
Both the Appeal Board in ALAB-455 and the court in Minnesota were in complete agreement with this reading of the Act. Neverthe-less, the Appeal Board upheld the Staff's limited analyses on the basis that the SFPs in question would be taken out of service and replaced with alternative spent fuel disposal methodologies prior to the expiration of the OLs.
Its confidence that alternative tech-niques would be developed was based entirely on a stray remark made by the Commission in another context, where it had said that it had
" reasonable assurance that methods of safe permanent disposal of s
high-level wastes can be available when they are needed." l /
1_/ 42 Fed. Reg. at 34391 (1977).
In Minnesota, however, the court of appeals found this state-ment unsupported by an administrative record and hence totally inadequate as a basis on which to limit the environmental inquiries required undei NEPA.
It ordered the Commission to conduct an admin-istrative proceeding with the objective of determining a date aft er which the availability of alternative fuel disposal methods was reasonably assured.
Only after such a date had been determined could the Commission establish a time frame over which to analyze the environmental and technical implications of continued use of SFPs .
The Commission has recently commenced a generic proceeding to make the determinations ordered by the court of appeals. 1/
Intervenors submit two alternative theories in support of their contention that ALAB-584 was erroneously decided . First, it was wrong to infer from the Commission's announcement of the gen -
eric proceeding an intent to sanction continued SFP modifications during the pendency of that proceeding. The wording of that notice simply forbad licensing boards from entertaining, within" individual proceedings, ,
issues more appropriately resolved generically. 2/
That notice does not show, explicitly or otherwise, an intent on the Commission's part to end-run Minnesota by permitting SFPom dif -
ication proceedings to be concluded and the license amendme ns t to issue as if NEPA were inapplicable. Moreover, the fact that in the generic proceeding the Commission denied a petition seeki ng suspension of all pending SFP proceedings should not have been read by the Appeal Board to control the outcome in ALAB-584 .
Intervenors have not sought suspension of this proceeding , but rather postponement of the final issuance of the OL amendment in l_/ See 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (October 25, 1979).
2_/
See 44 Fed. Reg. at 61373 (October 25, 1979).
order to utilize the findings reached in the generic proceeding.
The fact is that the Commission has never stated directly that licensing boards may continue to permit SFP modifications prior to the conclusion of the generic proceeding.
Secondly, regardless of whether the Appeal Board based its decision on its obligation to follow " precedent" or its indep-endent interpretation of the law, the result conflicts with NEPA.
NEPA's application to NRC decisions is governed by a rule of reason. 1/ This means that the Commission must consider reason-able alternatives to proposed courses of action and must analyze the reasonable forseeable environmental consequences of its lic-ensing decisions. As shown by both the Appeal Board in ALAB-455 and the court in Minnesota, the rule of reason requires the Comm-ission, before permitting SFP modifications, to determine how i long the SFP in question will likely be utilized and to conform the scope of its environmental and technical reviews accordingly.
With respect to this' proceeding, nntil it can be predicted how long the North Anna SFP will likely be used, there can be no way of conducting a meaningful review of the OL amendment. Therefore, the amendment may not legally issue until the completion of the generic proceeding.
Much has been made of the fact that in Minnesota the court did not reverse the issuance of the OL amendments (which would have required one or both plans to shut down immediately) but instead simply remanded them. From a legal standpoing, however, the court's choice of remedies"is essentially irrelevant to its interpretation
-~1 / See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972). See also Natural Resources Defense Council
- v. NRC, 547 F.2d 633, 639 (D.C. Cir. 1976); In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta.), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831 (1973).
l L
)
of NEPA's requirements. It would have " bordered on the Kafkaesque" for the court to impose costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per day upon users of the electricity generated by those plants solely because the NRJ Staff had selected an improper time frame for its environmental analyses. In its role as a court of equity, it recognized its obligation to tailor its remedy to insure fair-ness to all concerned.
Yet to seize upon the grace of the court in Minnesota as evidence that it will braok continued ncncompliance with NEPA in this and future cases is to court summary reversal. The Commission should bear in mind that as recently as last summer there was not a gram of spent fuel in the North Anna SFP. Reversal of this OL amendment would not affect the generation of power at the plant and would entail little or no economic impact upon VEPCO's cust-5 omers. There is thus little to prevent the court from using this case to drive home its view that OL amendments of this type must be predicated on an assessment of how long SFP storage will likely be relied upon.
Why the Commission should exercise review of ALAB-584 Of the approximately 21 applications for OL amendments per-mitting expansion of SFP capacity now pending before the Commission, VEPCO's is the first to arise in the wake of Minnesota. The result in this proceeding will play a pivotal role in the disposition of the rest. A clear statement of whether the Commission reads Minn-esota to permit continued issuance of such OL' amendments has yet to be made; such a statement would be of invaluable assistance to licensing and appeal boards. It would also crystallize the Commis-sion's position for purposes of judicial review.
_a_
The issue of the ultimate disposition of spent fuel, once left by default to a later generation for resolution, has now sprung'upon us with alarming immediacy. President Carter's
~
latest plan'for high-level waste disposal does not anticipate the construction of even a test facility until the mid-1990s. 1/
This uncomfortably close to the time at which many current OLs will expire.
If the Commission were to deny review of ALAB-584 - and thereby to confess that it intends to proceed with business-as-usual despite the warning of the D.C. Circuit in Minnesota and despite growing public concern over the waste disposal issue-it be tantamount to abdication of the Commission's regulato'ry responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA. Even if it disagrees with the views of Intervenors on the merits it I
should at least provided a reasoned explanation of its position to the public, the courts, and to NRC adjudicatory panels.
Respectfully submitted,
)
<,/
Ta6es B. Doughenfy Counsel for Intervenors Dated: April 14, 1980 1416 S St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 452-9600 A
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD IN ALAB-584 were served, by deposit in the United States Mail this 14th day of April, 1980, to the following
Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety Hunton & Williams and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW Richmond, VA 22212 Washington, DC 20036 Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Mr. Ernest Hill Office of the Executive Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Legal Director University of California U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 800, L-123 Washington, DC 20555 Livermore, CA 94550 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. Quentin J. Stober Board Panel L Fisheries Research Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Washington Washington DC 20555 Seattle, WA 98195 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Serice Section
?
./
Jah6's B. DoughertyP ~T Counsel for the Intervenors r\ 4D / -)
Ui >iM .
s' A?asc:::3.prr k Olk u f16 s::r e.y e ..
'/ u m'544 ,
ll \ ** *