ML20044B722
| ML20044B722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1980 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290F683 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-089, SECY-A-80-89, NUDOCS 9303030234 | |
| Download: ML20044B722 (8) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUDICATORY ITEM SECY-A-80-89 June 27, 1980 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Commissioners From:
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel
Subject:
PIVIDi OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON 2.206 REQUEST (VERMONT YANKEE NDCLEAR PG4ER CORPOPATION ) DD-80-20.
Facilitv:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
To inform the Commiss' ion of-a Director!s
~
Purnose:
Denial of a request for license revocation and public hearings at vermont Yankee.
Review Time Excires:
July 15,1980 Discussion:
On April 29, 1980, Sandra Freed Thomas wrote a brief letter to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation requesting that the Vermont Yankee operating license be revoked and public him.:S:n in tms te::d. n t.ad heat ogs be held on decommissioning the a 2:::-i.n: a
- .; F. :c. d ".:rrui.cn plant.
Her request was based on generalized f.
concerns over the safety of nuclear
- ,(n p:.,s and belief in the viability of pgg, 9 7 _ c;/yj-
- power,
-~
" safe, renewable energy" options, and concern particularly about. "the failure to have safe disposal of waste."
The Director chose to treat Ms. Thomas '
1etter as a,,etition under 10 CFR 2.206 W
TJ and issued a denial on June 11, 1980.
NTACT:
Harbaugh, OGC
+
a
'24 9303030234 921125 PDR FOIA OILINSK92-436 PDR
a t
i f
2 1
i The proper standard of review of Directors' l
Denials under S2.206 is the abuse of discretion standard set forth in the Indian Point decision.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian i
Point, Units 1, 2 and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 175 (1975).
F-l
/
9x 6
4 As the Director f
points out, waste disposal is currently the subject of a generic proceeding.
See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
" storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste,"
44 Fed. Reg. 61,373 (Oct. 25, 1979).
This proceeding was initiated as a-result of State of Minnesota v. NRC, 602 l
F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979), also cited by the Director.
The court remanded that case to the NRC for reconsideration in light of generic proceedings on the waste disposal issue but did not require the licensing proceedings to be suspended pending the outcome of those proceedinas.
l t
...y The decision also asserted that Ms.
Th om a s ' letter raised no other issues which would govide a basis for license revocation.'
i S V. (7
-Gv L f
1
i
~
3 i
2 i
r i
J Y. :
St. b Pecommendation:
/ /.:D-(
,f i
/. -v Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel Attachments :
i
- 1. Petition for review
- 2. Director's Denial Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Monday, July 14, 1980.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT July 7,1980, with an infonnation copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and corraent, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comissioner Offices Secretariat
.,f.,
'.s
.3,.503072
'~..
. f ^^.
. /; x.,:..<"
80 Birch Street
. 01301
'Greenfield, t'.a s s.
f April 29, 1980
...p Mr. Harold Denten Di. rector of Office 'cf Nuclear Reacter Regulation U.S.N.R C.
Washington, D.C.
20555
~T s.
Dear Mr. D en t on ~ '.....?.N.
r I 1.ive in the region of the Verment Yankee Nuclear Power
.Q [ :'[;
Plant.
After reading, much'research, and listening to "both sides" of nuclear. power, I do not feel safe living this close
. f y i.;.. -~
~ ~ to a n~dclear reactor I truly believe we can decrease, over a
~ -~.50. --y=
hg_.~.r_..
..~ period of years, our dependence on nuclear power, in favor
. t ir, :..
. of safe, renewable energy (i.e. solar, vind, harnessing the
.~,.;3-E J 2--
- tid e s,, etc.).
.I a:: fully aware this will mean sacrafice on the 7
- part of our citizens.
However, knewing the harards of nuclear
.7..~~
- waste, I do not feel this is much of a sacrifice.
power,.and particularly the failure to have safe disposal of Please revoke the operating license and hold public h 2arings here in cur area en the decc==issioning of Vermont Yankee.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
- W%
Nd.
l%nu Sandra Treed S.cmas Kco; Sl
/Q 1
i
.* So ci, s
UNITED STATES
.E
~
h*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
W ASHING ton. D. C. 20555 3
l
%,..... /
June 11,1980 Docket No. 50-271 Ms. Sandra Freed Thoms 80 Birch Street Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301
Dear Ms. Thoms:
l 1
In your letter to me of April 29, 1980, you asked that I revoke the Verront Yankee operating license and institute public hearings l
on the decomissioning of the Verront Yankee plant.
Your request has been treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
10 CFR 2.206", your request has been denied..
For the reasons stated in the attached " Director's Decision under A copy of this decisicq will be filed with the Secretary for the i
Cox.ission's review in accordance with 10 tFR '2.206(c).
Sincerely.
l 4/ Y f n
Harold R. Denton, Director l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~
Attachment:
Director's Decision under i
10 CFR 2.206 Io l
i i
i
DD-80-20 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 MISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION MAROLD R. DEhTON, DIRECTOR In the Matter of
?
i YEP 33NT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER h
Docket No. 50-271 CORPORATION h
(VermontYankeeNuclearPower
/
Station)
?
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 In a letter dated April 29, 1980, Sandra Freed Thm.as of Greenfield, Massachusetts, requested the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to revoke the operating license for the Yemont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Station and to hold public hearings on the decomissioning of the facility. Ms. Thras believes that the nation "can decrease, over a period of years, our dependence on nuclear power, in favor of safe, reneeble energy...."
Ms. Thomas cites the " failure to have
,, ~
safe disposal of waste" as a particular basis for her requested action. The staff has treated Ms. Thcrnas' letter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
Although the Comission does not have responsibility for the selection of energy alternatives as part of the nation's energy strategy, the Ctvrnission is responsible for assuring that there is reasonable protection of public health and safety in the use of nuclear energy and raterials. Accordingly, the Canmission has responsibilities with regard to storage and disposal of nuclear waste. The Comission is currently conducting a generic proceeding on the waste disposal issue.
See Notice of Proposed Rulenaking, " Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste", 44 Fed.
~ ~ ' ' "
~
i i
I
~
Reg. 61,373 (Oct. 25, 1979). The purpose of this proceeding is
[
r "to assess generically the degree of assurance now available that radioactive waste can be safely disposed of, to deter-mine when such disposal or off-site storage will be available.
and to detemine whether radioactive wastes can be safely stored on-site past the expiration of existing facility 11-censes until off-site disposal or storage is available."
l Jd.at61,373.
l 1
Suspension or revocation of the Yemont Yankee license pending the outcome-i of the proceeding on waste disposal is not mandated by law. E.Stateof j
Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412, 418 (D.C. Cir.1979), in which the court did not I
vacate or stay the Verront Yankee spent fuel pool expansion amencbents pending the Comission's consideration on remand of the waste disposal issue. The i
Comission stated its policy that during the waste disposal proceeding "the issues
[
being considered in the rulemaking should not be addressed in individual licensing l
proceedings" and affimed that "the court in the State of Minnesota case by remanding...
I to the Comission but not vacating or revoking the facility licenses involved, has supported the Comission's conclusion i
that licensing practices need not be altered during this i
Iwaste disposal) proceeding." 44 Fed. Reg. at 61373.
l r
In view of the Comission's detemination not to alter licensing practices, or indeed operation of reactor facilities, during the conduct of the generic pro-ceeding on the waste disposal issue, I do not find it appropriate to institute-proceedings to consider suspension or revocation of the Vermont Yankee license on-l the basis of the waste disposal issue.
No other health or safety issue is raised l
in Ms. Thomas' letter which would provide a basis for taking such action. Accord-ingly, Ms. Thomas' request to revoke the Yemont Yankee licensee is denied.
j 1
l i
I i
j i
A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Comission's l
review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).
Copies will also be filed in the l
Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, j
and the local public document room at the Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main i
1 Street, Brattleboro, Vemont 05301.
This decision will constitute the final action of the Cermiission 20 days after the date of issuance, unless the Comission on its o.m motion institutes review of this decision within that time.
AY
_w fiirold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Fethesda, Maryland this 11 cay of June, 1930.
1 l
l
-