|
---|
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD j Before Administrative Judges Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilbcr In the Matter of )
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool
) Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )
l Power Station) ) l
)
MEMORANDUM OF THE STATE OF VERMONT IN SUPPORT I OF MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE j COMMONWE?.LTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE NEW '
ENGLE.ND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION In an order entered on May 26, 1987, the Atomic Safety i and Licensing Board appointed in this proceeding admitted
]
three contentions. The Applicant, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee) appealed, and on July 21, !
1987, this Board entered an order affirming the admission of contention I, and reversing the Licensing Board's decision with respect to. contentions II and III. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts) and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) , both of which had been admitted as parties to the proceeding, filed subsequent motions asking this Board to reconsider its rejection of contention 2. The State of Vermont, participating as an interested state pursuant to 10 CPR S2.714, hereby joins in 1
8709030068 B70821 PDR l
G ADOCK0500((1
3 2
l the motions for re. consideration filed by Massach'usetts and NEC NP.
I. 10 CPR S2.714(a) DOES NOT GIVE AN APPEAL BOARD -
AUTHORITY TO RULE ON ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS ONCE A SINGLE CONTENTION IS FOUND ADMISSIBLE Under the provisions'of 10 CFR S2.714a(c), Vermont l
l Yankee was entitled to appeal the Licensing Board's decision only "on the question whether the petition and/or the request for a hearing should be wholly denied." It is axiomatic that the words used in a statute or regulation are to be accorded j their plain meaning, and the word " wholly," as used in 10 CPR S2.714a(c), means " entirely," or " completely." American Heritage Dictionary, Second Edition at 1380; Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1972 ed. at 1019. Thus, i
when this Board concluded that contention 1-was properly admitted, it necessarily concluded that the Licensing Board j i
acted correctly in not " wholly denying" all petitions for !
1 intervention. In view of the plain language of section 2.714a(c), and in view of prior cases adopting the specific l interpretation of that section proffered herein, see Mississippi Power and Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, l
Units 1 and 2)J ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423 (1973); NECNP petitiQn for reconsideration herein at pp. 3-4, it was not proper for this Board to consider contention 2 once it had determined
3 that contention 1 was properly admitted'.1/
Finally in th.is regard, Vermont would note its agreement ,
l with NECNP's assertion that there is no reason whatsoever to relax this rule in the context of the hybrid hearing procedure which has been involved here. See 10 CF'R Part 2, subpart K. The admission of a contention at this stage does q l
not necessarily mean that there will be a full adjudicatory i hearing on that contention, given the Licensing Board's l authority to dispose of contentions, where appropriate,
'following written submissions and an oral argument. 10 CPR S2.1115. Considerations of administrative economy thus do i not significantly support this Board's consideration of the I merits of contention 2 at this time,2/ and this Board should set aside those portions of its July 21, 1987 order rejecting contention 2.
I l
I!The same rationale. applies with respect'to the Board's
' consideration and reversal of contention 3. Vernont agre's e with NECNP, however, that.no.immediate prejudice results in that the NRC staff has yet to submit its Environmental Assessment. When such an assessment is offered, interveners, ,
including Vermont, will be in a position to formulate l contentions regarding alternatives if such contentions are deemed appropriate. 4 l
A! Indeed, administrative economy would be negatively affected if, following written submission and oral argument on only contention I as per the July 21, 1987 order, it'was later determined on review that contention 2 should in fact have been admitted.
l
l 4
II. THIS BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT CONTENTION'2 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IS ERRONEOUS 1
Contention 2, as admitted by the Licensing Board, is as j follows:
The proposed amendment would create-a situation in which consequences and risks of a hypothesized accident (hydrogen detonation in the reactor l building) would be greater than those previously l evaluated in connection with the Vermont Yankee reactor. This risk is sufficient to constitute the.
proposed, amendment as a " major federal action significantly affecting the qualify of the human r
environment" and requi'ing preparation and is-cuance of an Environmental Impact Statement prior to approval of the amendment.
After properly rejecting the arguments advanced by applicant in opposition to contention 2,1! this Board-nonetheless reversed the admission of contention 2 l essentially on the ground that, as argued by the staff, the accident postulated in the contention was remote, speculative and beyond ,the design bas.is for the plan't.S! As apt'ly I l
pointed out by NECNP, the conclusion that an accident is I beyond the design basis, and therefore remote and speculative by definition, is a factual one which must be supported by {
l something more than blanket assertions.E! Even if it be assumed that the' probability of an accident involving , ;
l hydrogen detonation in the reactor building is
! Order of July 21, 1987 at 25-26.
Id. at 27-29.
W NECNP motion for reconsideration at 7-9. !
l l
e l
I l
5
. low, however,E! it does not follow that any increased risks connected with,such.an accident,.as potentially exacerbated by the presence of an increased number-of spent fuel units .
more closely racked,1! are not significant enough to make-this proceeding one involving a " major federal action L
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" under NEPA.E! Moreover, the CEQ NEPA rules specifically I
recognize that potential events having catastrophic ;
)
consequences constitute reasonably foreseeable, significant adverse impacts on the human environment, even when the-probability of such events is low.E! Contention 2 simply sets forth the claim that the consequences and risks of an
! accident involving hydrogen detonation in the reactor building would be greater if the spent fuel pool is' expanded
'l then they are now. This issue cannot be disposed
.gj .
oint which is not established.at this . juncture by A '
anyt ing in the record, and n~ot conceded her,ein.
1/
The increased risk, of course, stems from increased consequences of an accident involving the expanded pool, i since risk is the product of both probability and consequences of an accident. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. N.R.C._, 751 F.2d 1287, 1304 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
8/ 42 U.S.
S$4331 et seg.
9L
' ~
See 40 C.F.R. S1502.22; NENCP motion for reconsideration
6 of as a matter of law.1E! In admitting contention 2, the Licensing Board simply and properly recognized that protection of the public safety required further inquiry into the relationship between high density racking and the postulated accident. Certainly this Board should recognize nothing less.
Lastly, this Board at page 26 of its order relies on the l fact that the accident scenario described in contention 2 has never been evaluated for the Vermont Yankee facility, and was not required to be evaluated previously. This point is irrelevant. It is this proposed action - expansion of the fuel pool storage capacity to accommodate 2870 assemblies -
which must be evaluated here. Prior proceedings involving the spent fuel pool at this facility did not consider the potential changes in risk associated with high density racking of the type proposed here, for the simple reason that there was no need 3 to do so. Nor should it be overlooked that much of the information raising concerns about high density l racking has LE! This is particularly true given the recent conclusions in the Brookhaven report concerning the risks and consequences of hydrogen detonation accidents in spent fuel pools with high density racking. "Beyond Design-Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools," Brookhaven National Labolatory, draf t of January,1987.
7 only come to light recently. It is the responsibility of those involved in this proceeding to resolve today's questions based on today's information, and t,he Licensing Board's admission of centention 2 constitutes an express recognition of that obligation. .
CONCLUSION For these reasons, the State of Vermont joins Massachusetts and NECNP in asking this Board to vacate that portion of its July 21, 1987 order which reversed the i
Licensing Board's admission of contention 2.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 21st day of August, 1987.
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE Respectfully ubmitted, h v) 9 Dav[IdJ.Mulletf Special Assistant Attorney General l Special Counsel l
See, e.g., the Brookhaven draft report, wh'ch i was only published in January of 1987.
.g.
J 'k k
.e
.s c
ct ,
kv[' / ;(
_.. 7p ,,3 3 '
, 9i " *
.r.- A , l i
,53 % .i 1 im N
., j *87 AUS 24 An 35
!s w Ul{ITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCTEAR v REGULATORY COMMISSION. ' .
v i.r. \
- - ATdMIC SAFETY'AND ,1 CENSING APPEAL'; BOARD W '
Before-Administrative Judges t
,,. Christine N. Kohl, Chairman 1,, 'c n Gary J. 9dles iMy 1)Foward A. Wilber g b y
',3 .In the Matter of )
3 ,
I ,. . )
- iERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR . n ) Docket . No. 50-271-OLA i
POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel.. Pool i %
N
) Amendment) g
~~ (Ver'mont Yankeei $ucleh M )
Power Stebs bn). , -. )
-- 4 I i '
4
, E CEZfIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David J. $4u] 2,ett , her by certify that on August 21,
+
l
\_ t y 1987, I made service'of the within documents entitled Answer of I . .\r
.>itit State of VermontiirJ Support of Motions for Reconsideration A, +,
s* Filed By The s Commonwe,ilti?o'f Massac'husetts a and the New England L. !g Coalition on, Nuclear Pollution and: Memorandum of-the State of c, . , -
Vermont in support ol'Hotions for Reconsideration Filed by the j s
)
(i Commenwealtle'of Massachusetts and the New England Coalition on
~
a, g ./ "s / , ,
j
- l. Dis' Nucleary Pollution by 61 ailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, 1
to the followirig: 5 ,
1 ,u j s
Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire, \ George B. Dean l Chairman -
4 John Traficonte i Adm'inistrative Judge Assistant Attorneys General Atomis Safety and Licensing Nuclear Safety Unit Board Par,el .
U Dept. of the Attorney D.S. Bui' lea'r < Regulatory General i
Commission One Ashburton Place
! ,,,1 , s Washington, D.C. 20555 , Boston, MA 02108 l
4 l 1 % g
[ %, 'i / ' s g' %q s s.
h, k k he k ej "g <
- g. *
. g' \ \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
2
't Mr. Glen.n O. Brigh't Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire I Administrative Judge Harmon.& Weiss Atomic Safety,and Licensing ]
Suit e .4.3 0 J Board Panel 2001 S Street, N . W. -
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washingt'on, DC 20009 Commission Washington, D.C.' 20555 Mr. James H. Carpenter- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Administrative Judge Ropes & Gray.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 2R5 Franklin Street Board Panel Boston, MA 02110 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
)
)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire Board Panel -
Office of the General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Counsel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esquire Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Chairman Environmental Protection Bureau Atomic Safety and Licensing 'l State House Annex Appeal Panel 25 Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Concord, NH 03301-6397 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Howard A. Wilber Appeal Panel Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission. Appea.1 Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 q
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Gary J. Edles Administrative Judge f Administrative Judge Atomic Safety'and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panell' Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
< w. Nt rN ,L) n)
Da%i[d J. Mullett c
Spe~ial Counsel Dated: August 21, 1987
_______