ML20206G945
| ML20206G945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1987 |
| From: | Dignan T ROPES & GRAY, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3083 OLA, NUDOCS 8704150203 | |
| Download: ML20206G945 (5) | |
Text
50$b DOCHETED USNHC Dated:
April 9, 1987 1P MH 13 P3 ' 8 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GFFIE R~ H u LAn<
00C6ETihti A M;Virl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRAtrM before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO THE CONTENTION OF THE STATE OF VERMONT Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (" Vermont Yankee"), the Licensee herein, responds to the Contentions of the State of Vermont as follows:
Vermont's first contention is set out at Page 5 of its filing in heading III, and reads:
"The proposed amendment is not of the type as to which a no significant hazard determination can properly be made."
The issue of whether a proposed operating license amendment involves a significant hazards consideration is one to be decided solely by the Staff, subject only to review, on its own motion, by the Commission itself; this' Board has no jurisdiction over the proposed contention.
llj4150203B7o4o9 g
ADOCK 05000271 f0y t
PDR D
't i
t 10 CFR $ 50.58(b)(6), as added, 51 Fed. Reg. 7744, 7765 (March 6, 1986); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon 1
i Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-86-12, 24 NRC 1 (1986), reversed other grounds, San Luis Obispo Mothers for
~
i Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1986).
See also Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 & 4),
t
{-
Vermont's second contention is set out on page 13 of its filing as heading IV, and reads as follows:
i "The application for expansion of the spent fuel pool cannot be granted absent preparation of an environmental impact
[
statement."
The Commission has recently stated:
"The Commission is not automatically obligated to issue an EIS simply because j
the amendment at issue involves reracking.
See 10 CFR $ 51.20 (1986).
l Instead, the Commission Staff must l
consider the matter on a case-by-case basis as required by NRC regulations j
implementing NEPC." 10 CFR 55 51.25.35 (1986).
Furthermore, in order to i
challenge the Staff's decision, the petitioners must allege some specific i
deficiency in the environmental evaluation itself, not just a generalized disagreement with the Staff's conclusion that reracking does i
not pose a 'significant impact' to the i
environment."
CLI-86-12,' supra, 24 NRC at
- CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. 1 30,974 i
at 32002-03.
i In its filing Vermont gives as its essential basis for this contention an argument that the assumption that-1 long-term storage will be available has been " severely 1
i i
4 undermined".
Prescinding from the correctness of that allegation, it is, in fact, a non-permissible challenge to a regulation of the Commission, 10 CFR 5 51.23, and as such is not to be heard as a contention in the proceeding.
10 bER 5 2.758.
Vermont's third contention is set out on Page 15 of its filing as heading V and reads as follows:
" Expansion of the spent fuel pool may exacerbate the effects of a severe accident."
If the issue raised by the above-quoted contention has any vitality at all, it is as an issue to be resolved in deciding whether or not a "no significant hazards consideration determination" can be made.
As noted earlier, Page 1 supra, this is a matter which is committed solely to the Staff with review by the Commission as its own motion and therefore is beyond the juricdiction of this Board.
CONCLUSION The contentions of Vermont should be rejected.
Respectfully submitted, W.... # / W#1 Tho W G.Wignan, Jr.
Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100 counsel for the Licensee __
i I
DOCKETED USNiiC w APR 13 P3:48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~
FFI6E N h "LiAP I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., hereby certify that o OCKETING A WPVICI.
April 9, 1987, I made service of the within document by ORM)CH depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to:
i Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire, David J. Mullet, Esquire Chairman Vermont Department of Administra*:ive Judge Public Service Atomic Safaty and Licensing 120 State Street Board Panel Montpelier, VT 05602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission East West '."owers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, 1,lD 20814 e
Mr. Glenn O. Bright Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Administrative Judge Harmon & Weiss Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 430 Board Panel 2001 S Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20009 Commission i
East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. James H. Carpenter Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection i
Board Panel Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Department of the Attorney General i
Commission
(
One Ashburton Place 1
East West Towers lluilding Boston, MA 02108 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire Board Panel Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building Tenth Floor 4350 East West Highwty 7735 Old Georgetown Road l
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 i
a l
L I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building
~
4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
~
i
, /,
,/
Tfr6m(s GT D K Jr.
{
l 1
i i
4 a
.i I
4 I
4,
i
. - -,,. - -