ML20234D022
| ML20234D022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1987 |
| From: | Mullett D VERMONT, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#387-3918 LBP-87-17, OLA, NUDOCS 8707070070 | |
| Download: ML20234D022 (8) | |
Text
I-1 3
qQlb a
r e.. s.t. ic UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSSION
'87 JUN 29 R2 :2i t ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD GF' Before Adm in i s t r a t iv e Judges Dot Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Gary J.
Edles Howard A.
Wilber l
In the Matter of
)
j
.)
i VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
')
Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
1 ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO 10 CFR I 2.714a FROM A PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER, LBP-87-17, ISSUED MAY 26, 1987 BRIEF OF THE STATE OF VERMONT l
On May 26, 1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) issued an order in this matter admitting three i
contentions.
Order of 5-26-37 at 44-45.
The applicant, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee),
has appealed pursuant to 10 CFR 5 714(a), and asserts that the Board erred in admitting any contentions at all.
The State of Vermont asserts that the contentions accepted are properly within the scope of this proceeding, and that the i
order appealed from should be affirmed.
Perhaps the dominant theme of the applicant's brief is
(
that the Board somehow exceeded its authority in " rewriting" B707070070 870629 7
So>
PDR ADOCK 05000271 G
PDR r
i
2 certain contentions submitted to the Board by the appropriately made in response intervenors.
Two points are to these assertions.
First, as noted by the Board, the sounder practice in proceedings of this type is to consider issues on their merits, and not to avoid them on technicalities.
Houston Liebting and Pover Co.,
9 NRC 644, 649 (ALAB 1979).
At a time when such things as the Brookhaven report, the Reed report and the proposed amendment to the federal government'u Mission Plan suggest that spent fuel expansion requests need to be scrut inized with extra care, the doctrine enunciated in Houston Ligh t ing and Power Co. and other cases should hardly be downplayed or d i.s c a r d e d.
Second, the contentions which the Board did accept were hardly pulled out of thin air.
NECNP contention 5 specifically discussed the need for examination of the alternatives of dry cask and independent pool storage. /
1 and the contention numbered by the Board as contention 3 is not materially different.
The contentions numbered 1 and 2 by the Board similarly reflect matters plainly put at issue by the ire t e r v eno r s, the RMR issue having been presented by NECNP in its c on t e n t io n 3,1 snd the severe accident concerns which are the subject Board contention 2 having been raised in some fashion by all of the intervenors.
- Indeed, i
I Massachusetts contention 1 specifically identified and l
l I
l 1/
- NECNP contentions of March 30, 1987 at pp. 9-10.
l l
/
2 NECNP contentions of March 30, 1987 at pp.
6-7.
l I
r
0 3
discussed'the hydrogen detonation accident scenario which is the subject of contention 2 as accepted by the Board.3/
The contentions offered by the intervenors were certainly adequate to show that they applied to the Vermont Yankee facility, and they contained sufficient foundation to warrant further consideration.
This was enough to justify the acceptance of these contentions, Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2), 23 NRC 849, 852 (1986),
and the fact that the Board regrouped some of these contentions for organizational purposes does not make the Board's acceptance of them incorrect.
The additional reasons assigned by the applicant in support of its position are likewise unpersuasive.
With respect to the RHR-related contention accepted by the Board, applicant argues that NECNP is precluded by the doctrines of repose from pursuing it.
As aptly noted by the Board, however, the public is entitled to know in clear terms what issues are being resolved in the NRC staff's safety evaluation report, and nothing in the 1977 SER gave parties a fair chance to challenge the proposed routine use of the RHR system for the purpose of cooling the Vermont Yankee spent pool. /
4 fuel Nor can it be overlooked that knowledge regarding the importance of decay heat removal has evolved l
/
j 3
Massachusetts contentions of March 30, 1987 at pp.
1-2.
/
l 4 May 26, 1987 order at p.
16, citing Gulf States Utilities Co.
(River Bend Station), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 774-75 (1977).
t
a 4
since 1977, and is still evolving.
- See, e.g.,
the Brookhaven report.
There is certainly no reason to unduly stretch the concepts of res judicates and collateral estoppel in order to eliminate what can be considered in matters involving public safety, and applicant's invitation to do so here must be I
L declined.
Equally without merit is the claim that there is no nexus between the accident scenario posited in contention f
bar.5/
2 and the amendment at The Board can cert ainly no t-l say, at this stage of the proceeding, that there is no substance to the claim that more spent fuel in the pool would result in a greater radiological release should the posited accident occur. /
6 For these reasons, the May 26, 1967 order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should be affirmed.
Respectf ly submitted,
/
J, h
David J. MuKlett Specia l Asqistant Attorney General Special Counsel, Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828-2811 Counsel for State of Vermont This claim is set forth at pages 25 and 26 of applicant's brief.
/
6 See Massachusetts contention I.
i
' r.
5 e
'.*,{:
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'87 JUN 29 P12 :28 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BOARh[ci ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL Before Administrative Judges Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Gary J.
Edles Howard A.
Wilber In the Matter of
)
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO 10 CFR $ 2.714a FROM A PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER, LBP-87-17, ISSUED MAY 26, 1987 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE The undersigned counsel hereby files this notice of appearance in this proceeding.
Name:
David J.
Mu11ett Address:
120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 C
i Telephone No.:
802-828-2811 J
Admissions:
State of Illinois State of Missouri State of Vermont U.S.
Dist. Ct. for the Southern District of Illinoic I
+
2 e
Party Represented:
State of Vermont Respectfully spbmitted, S
\\
./
1,
\\
By:
/1
!f)
Dav$'d J ett Speciah.Mul Assistant Attorney General Special Cou sel Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street l
Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828-2811 cc:
Parties 1
l I
l l
l
f 2.c.
9....
87 JUN 29 R2:28 UNITED STATES OF AMERTCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CFr.,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B O ARD00C '
\\
Before Administrative Judges Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Gary J.
Edles Howard A.
Wilber In the Matter of
)
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 5 2.714a FROM A PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER, LBP-87-17, ISSUED MAY 26, 1987 CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE I,
David J.
Mu11ett, hereby certify that on June 25, 1987, I made service of the within brief and entry of appearance in accordance with the rules of the Commission by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, to the following:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire, Ellyn R.
Weiss, Esquire Chairman Harmon & Weiss Adninistrative Judge Suite 430 Atomic Safety and Licensing 2001 S Street, N.W.
Board Panel Washington, DC 20009 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Mr. Glenn O.
Bright Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Board Panel Division U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Department of the Attorney Commission General Washington, D.C.
20555 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Mr. James H.
Carpenter Ann P.
Hodgdon, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esquire Board Panel Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Panel Washington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Three copies)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
Appeal Panel Kathryn A.
Selleck U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Ropes & Gray Commission 225 Franklin St.
Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02110 (Three copies) j Geoffrey M.
Huntington, Esquire l
Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau j
State House Annex 25 Capitol Street j
Concord, NH 03301-6397
)
h (nl l/ /
+
1 Dav i/l J Md1 ett Special Coun el l