ML061740099: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML061740099
| number = ML061740099
| issue date = 06/22/2006
| issue date = 06/22/2006
| title = 2006/06/22-NRC Staff Answer to Town of Marlboro'S Request for Hearing
| title = NRC Staff Answer to Town of Marlboros Request for Hearing
| author name = Hamrick S
| author name = Hamrick S
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1 See Letter from William F. Maguire, Entergy, to the NRC Document Control Desk, "VermontYankee Nuclear Power Station, License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271), License Renewal Application,"dated January 25, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ("ADAMS") AccessionNos. ML060300082, ML060300085, ML060300086).June 22, 2006UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
{{#Wiki_filter:1 See Letter from William F. Maguire, Entergy, to the NRC Document Control Desk, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271), License Renewal Application, dated January 25, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML060300082, ML060300085, ML060300086).
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,)Docket No. 50-271-LR   LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR)   OPERATIONS, INC.)ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
June 22, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))NRC STAFF ANSWER TO TOWN OF MARLBORO'S REQUEST FOR HEARINGINTRODUCTIONPursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission("Staff") hereby answers the "Request for Hearing in Entergy Vermont Yankee License Extension Request" ("Request") filed by the Selectboard of the Town of Marlboro, Vermont, dated April 27, 2006. As discussed below, Marlboro's request should be denied because it fails to include written contentions, as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(a) and (f). BACKGROUNDBy letter dated January 25, 2006, as supplemented March 15 and May 15, 2006,Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy" or "Applicant") submitted an application, under 10 C.F.R. Part 54, to renew OperatingLicense No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station ("VYNPS").
)
1 The renewalwould extend the license for an additional 20 years beyond the current expiration date of midnight on March 21, 2012 to midnight on March 21, 2032. 2 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Notice ofAcceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal ofFacility Operating License No. DPR-28 for an Additional 20-Year Period, 71 Fed. Reg. 15,220 (March 27,2006). 3 On May 31, 2006, the Staff project manager for Vermont Yankee (who has been out of the officethe previous two weeks) discovered a letter dated April 27, 2006 (addressed to him and postmarked May15, 2006) from the Town of Marlboro, VT, requesting a hearing on that application. The Office of the GeneralCounsel immediately forwarded a copy of the letter to the Office of the Secretary. Although Marlboro'sRequest indicates that a copy was sent to the Office of the General Counsel, our office has no record of priorreceipt of the letter. Accordingly, the Staff has determined its response to this Request is due to theLicensing Board within 25 days from the actual receipt of the letter on May 31. See "Letter from Mitzi A.Young, Counsel for NRC Staff, to the Rulemaking and Adjudicatory Staff, Office of the Secretary," datedJune 1, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061600089).
)
4 See "Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board," dated June 6, 2006. 71 Fed. Reg.34,397 (June 14, 2006).On March 27, 2006, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of acceptancefor docketing and opportunity for a hearing.
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,
2 In response to this notice, the Town of Marlborotimely filed its request.
)
3 On June 8, 2006, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("LicensingBoard") was established to preside over the proceeding.
Docket No. 50-271-LR LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR
4DISCUSSIONThe Commission's rules of procedure allow any person whose interest may be affectedby a proceeding to file a written request for hearing. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). The Town of Marlboro's Request asserts that it has a right to a hearing because part of the town falls within the ten-mile radius of VYNPS. Request at 1. Because of its proximity to the facility, the Staffdoes not oppose the Town of Marlboro's standing to request a hearing.
)
See Florida Power &Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), LBP-01-6, 53 NRC 138, 146(2001), aff'd on other grounds, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001) (The proximity presumptionprinciple "presumes a petitioner has standing to intervene without the need specifically to plead injury, causation, and redressability if the petitioner lives within, or otherwise has frequentcontacts with, the zone of possible harm from the nuclear reactor or other source of radioactivity."). However, in addition to demonstrating standing, a request for hearing must also includea specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). Contentions must be set forth with particularity, meaning they must, among other things, provide a specific statement of the issue the person wishes to raise, provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention, demonstrate that the issue raised iswithin the scope of the proceeding, and show that a genuine dispute exists with theapplicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f). Marlboro's request for hearing must be denied because it contains no specific contentions. Instead of asserting specific contentions, Marlboro's Request expresses generalizedconcerns about emergency planning. Emergency planning is not within the scope of a license renewal proceeding, which is generally limited to those issues involving plant structures, systems, or components that are subject to age-related degradation during the extendedrenewal period. See Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station,Units 2 and 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 560-61 (2005); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 640 (2004); FloridaPower & Light, (Turkey Point Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4) CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 9-10(2001).The Commission has various regulations establishing standards for emergency plans.
OPERATIONS, INC.
See 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.47, 50.54(s)-(u); Part 50, Appendix E. These requirements areindependent of license renewal and will continue to apply during the renewal term. TurkeyPoint, 54 NRC at 9, (citing Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 56 Fed. Reg.64,943, 64,966 (Dec. 13, 1991)). They include provisions to ensure that the licensee'semergency plan remains adequate and continues to meet performance objectives.
)
Id. TheCommission ensures that existing plans are adequate throughout the life of any plant,accounting for changing demographics and other site-related factors through mandated periodic reviews and emergency drills. Id. Therefore, emergency planning and other issuesthat are the subject of ongoing regulatory processes are not within the scope of theCommission's safety review at the license renewal stage.
ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
Id.CONCLUSIONBased on the foregoing, the Staff respectfully submits that Marlboro's request forhearing should be denied because it fails to include contentions as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a) or to specify any areas of concern within the scope of a license renewal proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii). Respectfully submitted,/RA/Steven C. HamrickCounsel for NRC StaffDated at Rockville, Marylandthis 22nd day of June, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
)
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,)Docket No. 50-271-LR   LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR)   OPERATIONS, INC.)ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of the "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO TOWN OF MARLBORO'SREQUEST FOR HEARING" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRC's internal mail system or, asindicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this 22nd day of June 2006.Administrative JudgeAlex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.govAdministrative JudgeThomas S. Elleman*
)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101 Raleigh, NC 27612 E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.eduOffice of Commission AppellateAdjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.govAdministrative JudgeRichard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.govOffice of the SecretaryAttn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.govSarah Hofmann, Esq.* Director of Public Advocacy Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us Diane Curran, Esq.*Harmon, Curran, Spielberg
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO TOWN OF MARLBOROS REQUEST FOR HEARING INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby answers the Request for Hearing in Entergy Vermont Yankee License Extension Request (Request) filed by the Selectboard of the Town of Marlboro, Vermont, dated April 27, 2006. As discussed below, Marlboros request should be denied because it fails to include written contentions, as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(a) and (f).
BACKGROUND By {{letter dated|date=January 25, 2006|text=letter dated January 25, 2006}}, as supplemented March 15 and May 15, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy or Applicant) submitted an application, under 10 C.F.R. Part 54, to renew Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS).1 The renewal would extend the license for an additional 20 years beyond the current expiration date of midnight on March 21, 2012 to midnight on March 21, 2032.
2 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for an Additional 20-Year Period, 71 Fed. Reg. 15,220 (March 27, 2006).
3 On May 31, 2006, the Staff project manager for Vermont Yankee (who has been out of the office the previous two weeks) discovered a {{letter dated|date=April 27, 2006|text=letter dated April 27, 2006}} (addressed to him and postmarked May 15, 2006) from the Town of Marlboro, VT, requesting a hearing on that application. The Office of the General Counsel immediately forwarded a copy of the letter to the Office of the Secretary. Although Marlboros Request indicates that a copy was sent to the Office of the General Counsel, our office has no record of prior receipt of the letter. Accordingly, the Staff has determined its response to this Request is due to the Licensing Board within 25 days from the actual receipt of the letter on May 31. See Letter from Mitzi A.
Young, Counsel for NRC Staff, to the Rulemaking and Adjudicatory Staff, Office of the Secretary, dated June 1, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061600089).
4 See Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, dated June 6, 2006. 71 Fed. Reg.
34,397 (June 14, 2006).
On March 27, 2006, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of acceptance for docketing and opportunity for a hearing.2 In response to this notice, the Town of Marlboro timely filed its request.3 On June 8, 2006, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) was established to preside over the proceeding.4 DISCUSSION The Commissions rules of procedure allow any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding to file a written request for hearing. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). The Town of Marlboros Request asserts that it has a right to a hearing because part of the town falls within the ten-mile radius of VYNPS. Request at 1. Because of its proximity to the facility, the Staff does not oppose the Town of Marlboros standing to request a hearing. See Florida Power &
Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), LBP-01-6, 53 NRC 138, 146 (2001), affd on other grounds, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001) (The proximity presumption principle presumes a petitioner has standing to intervene without the need specifically to plead injury, causation, and redressability if the petitioner lives within, or otherwise has frequent contacts with, the zone of possible harm from the nuclear reactor or other source of radioactivity.).
However, in addition to demonstrating standing, a request for hearing must also include a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing.
10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). Contentions must be set forth with particularity, meaning they must, among other things, provide a specific statement of the issue the person wishes to raise, provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention, demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding, and show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f). Marlboros request for hearing must be denied because it contains no specific contentions.
Instead of asserting specific contentions, Marlboros Request expresses generalized concerns about emergency planning. Emergency planning is not within the scope of a license renewal proceeding, which is generally limited to those issues involving plant structures, systems, or components that are subject to age-related degradation during the extended renewal period. See Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 560-61 (2005); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 640 (2004); Florida Power & Light, (Turkey Point Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4) CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 9-10 (2001).
The Commission has various regulations establishing standards for emergency plans.
See 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.47, 50.54(s)-(u); Part 50, Appendix E. These requirements are independent of license renewal and will continue to apply during the renewal term. Turkey Point, 54 NRC at 9, (citing Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 56 Fed. Reg.
64,943, 64,966 (Dec. 13, 1991)). They include provisions to ensure that the licensee's emergency plan remains adequate and continues to meet performance objectives. Id. The Commission ensures that existing plans are adequate throughout the life of any plant, accounting for changing demographics and other site-related factors through mandated periodic reviews and emergency drills. Id. Therefore, emergency planning and other issues that are the subject of ongoing regulatory processes are not within the scope of the Commissions safety review at the license renewal stage. Id.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff respectfully submits that Marlboros request for hearing should be denied because it fails to include contentions as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a) or to specify any areas of concern within the scope of a license renewal proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Steven C. Hamrick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of June, 2006
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,
)
Docket No. 50-271-LR LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR
)
OPERATIONS, INC.
)
ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFF ANSWER TO TOWN OF MARLBOROS REQUEST FOR HEARING in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system or, as indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this 22nd day of June 2006.
Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Thomas S. Elleman*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101 Raleigh, NC 27612 E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.edu Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Sarah Hofmann, Esq.*
Director of Public Advocacy Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us Diane Curran, Esq.*
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg
  & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
  & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street, NW., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.comRonald A. Shems, Esq.*Karen Tyler, Esq.
1726 M Street, NW., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com Ronald A. Shems, Esq.*
Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 E-mail: rshems@sdkslaw.com Ktyler@sdkslaw.comCallie B. Newton, ChairGail MacArthur Lucy Gratwick Marcia Hamilton Town of Marlboro Selectboard
Karen Tyler, Esq.
 
Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 E-mail: rshems@sdkslaw.com Ktyler@sdkslaw.com Callie B. Newton, Chair Gail MacArthur Lucy Gratwick Marcia Hamilton Town of Marlboro Selectboard P.O. Box 518 Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: cbnewton@sover.net marcialynn@ev1.net Marcia Carpentier, Esq.
P.O. Box 518 Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: cbnewton@sover.net marcialynn@ev1.netMarcia Carpentier, Esq.Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mxc7@nrc.govJmr3@nrc.govAnthony Z. Roisman, Esq.* National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mxc7@nrc.gov Jmr3@nrc.gov Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.*
Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.comMatthew Brock, Esq.*Assistant Attorney General Office of the Massachusetts Attorney     General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108-1598 E-mail: matthew.brock@ago.state.ma.usDan MacArthur, DirectorTown of Marlboro Emergency Management
National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.
 
Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com Matthew Brock, Esq.*
P.O. Box Box 30 Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: dmacarthur@igc.orgDavid R. Lewis, Esq.*Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108-1598 E-mail: matthew.brock@ago.state.ma.us Dan MacArthur, Director Town of Marlboro Emergency Management P.O. Box Box 30 Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: dmacarthur@igc.org David R. Lewis, Esq.*
    /RA/                                                                     Steven C. HamrickCounsel for NRC StaffDated at Rockville, Maryl and,this 22nd day of June 2006}}
Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com
/RA/
Steven C. Hamrick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 2006}}

Latest revision as of 08:20, 15 January 2025

NRC Staff Answer to Town of Marlboros Request for Hearing
ML061740099
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 06/22/2006
From: Hamrick S
NRC/OGC
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
S C Hamrick, NRC, OGC, 301-415-4106
References
50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, RAS 11861
Download: ML061740099 (6)
v • d • e


Text

1 See Letter from William F. Maguire, Entergy, to the NRC Document Control Desk, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271), License Renewal Application, dated January 25, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML060300082, ML060300085, ML060300086).

June 22, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,

)

Docket No. 50-271-LR LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR

)

OPERATIONS, INC.

)

ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

)

NRC STAFF ANSWER TO TOWN OF MARLBOROS REQUEST FOR HEARING INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby answers the Request for Hearing in Entergy Vermont Yankee License Extension Request (Request) filed by the Selectboard of the Town of Marlboro, Vermont, dated April 27, 2006. As discussed below, Marlboros request should be denied because it fails to include written contentions, as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(a) and (f).

BACKGROUND By letter dated January 25, 2006, as supplemented March 15 and May 15, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy or Applicant) submitted an application, under 10 C.F.R. Part 54, to renew Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS).1 The renewal would extend the license for an additional 20 years beyond the current expiration date of midnight on March 21, 2012 to midnight on March 21, 2032.

2 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for an Additional 20-Year Period, 71 Fed. Reg. 15,220 (March 27, 2006).

3 On May 31, 2006, the Staff project manager for Vermont Yankee (who has been out of the office the previous two weeks) discovered a letter dated April 27, 2006 (addressed to him and postmarked May 15, 2006) from the Town of Marlboro, VT, requesting a hearing on that application. The Office of the General Counsel immediately forwarded a copy of the letter to the Office of the Secretary. Although Marlboros Request indicates that a copy was sent to the Office of the General Counsel, our office has no record of prior receipt of the letter. Accordingly, the Staff has determined its response to this Request is due to the Licensing Board within 25 days from the actual receipt of the letter on May 31. See Letter from Mitzi A.

Young, Counsel for NRC Staff, to the Rulemaking and Adjudicatory Staff, Office of the Secretary, dated June 1, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061600089).

4 See Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, dated June 6, 2006. 71 Fed. Reg.

34,397 (June 14, 2006).

On March 27, 2006, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of acceptance for docketing and opportunity for a hearing.2 In response to this notice, the Town of Marlboro timely filed its request.3 On June 8, 2006, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) was established to preside over the proceeding.4 DISCUSSION The Commissions rules of procedure allow any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding to file a written request for hearing. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). The Town of Marlboros Request asserts that it has a right to a hearing because part of the town falls within the ten-mile radius of VYNPS. Request at 1. Because of its proximity to the facility, the Staff does not oppose the Town of Marlboros standing to request a hearing. See Florida Power &

Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), LBP-01-6, 53 NRC 138, 146 (2001), affd on other grounds, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001) (The proximity presumption principle presumes a petitioner has standing to intervene without the need specifically to plead injury, causation, and redressability if the petitioner lives within, or otherwise has frequent contacts with, the zone of possible harm from the nuclear reactor or other source of radioactivity.).

However, in addition to demonstrating standing, a request for hearing must also include a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). Contentions must be set forth with particularity, meaning they must, among other things, provide a specific statement of the issue the person wishes to raise, provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention, demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding, and show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f). Marlboros request for hearing must be denied because it contains no specific contentions.

Instead of asserting specific contentions, Marlboros Request expresses generalized concerns about emergency planning. Emergency planning is not within the scope of a license renewal proceeding, which is generally limited to those issues involving plant structures, systems, or components that are subject to age-related degradation during the extended renewal period. See Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 560-61 (2005); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 640 (2004); Florida Power & Light, (Turkey Point Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4) CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 9-10 (2001).

The Commission has various regulations establishing standards for emergency plans.

See 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.47, 50.54(s)-(u); Part 50, Appendix E. These requirements are independent of license renewal and will continue to apply during the renewal term. Turkey Point, 54 NRC at 9, (citing Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 56 Fed. Reg.

64,943, 64,966 (Dec. 13, 1991)). They include provisions to ensure that the licensee's emergency plan remains adequate and continues to meet performance objectives. Id. The Commission ensures that existing plans are adequate throughout the life of any plant, accounting for changing demographics and other site-related factors through mandated periodic reviews and emergency drills. Id. Therefore, emergency planning and other issues that are the subject of ongoing regulatory processes are not within the scope of the Commissions safety review at the license renewal stage. Id.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff respectfully submits that Marlboros request for hearing should be denied because it fails to include contentions as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a) or to specify any areas of concern within the scope of a license renewal proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

Respectfully submitted,

/RA/

Steven C. Hamrick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of June, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,

)

Docket No. 50-271-LR LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR

)

OPERATIONS, INC.

)

ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFF ANSWER TO TOWN OF MARLBOROS REQUEST FOR HEARING in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system or, as indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this 22nd day of June 2006.

Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Thomas S. Elleman*

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101 Raleigh, NC 27612 E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.edu Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Sarah Hofmann, Esq.*

Director of Public Advocacy Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us Diane Curran, Esq.*

Harmon, Curran, Spielberg

& Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street, NW., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com Ronald A. Shems, Esq.*

Karen Tyler, Esq.

Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 E-mail: rshems@sdkslaw.com Ktyler@sdkslaw.com Callie B. Newton, Chair Gail MacArthur Lucy Gratwick Marcia Hamilton Town of Marlboro Selectboard P.O. Box 518 Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: cbnewton@sover.net marcialynn@ev1.net Marcia Carpentier, Esq.

Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mxc7@nrc.gov Jmr3@nrc.gov Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.*

National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.

Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com Matthew Brock, Esq.*

Assistant Attorney General Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108-1598 E-mail: matthew.brock@ago.state.ma.us Dan MacArthur, Director Town of Marlboro Emergency Management P.O. Box Box 30 Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: dmacarthur@igc.org David R. Lewis, Esq.*

Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com

/RA/

Steven C. Hamrick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 2006

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML061740099&oldid=5362423"