ML20234D128

NRC Staff Brief in Opposition to Brief of Applicant.*

ML20234D128
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	06/25/1987
From:	Hodgdon A, Robert Weisman NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#387-3931 OLA, NUDOCS 8707070108
Download: ML20234D128 (36)

Text

..

O

+

9f.)pl h[h r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION '87 JLN 29 P12 :30 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD >;

$cI.; w l In the Matter of )

)

VERMONT.. YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA  !

POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )

Station)- )

NRC STAFF'S' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE BRIEF OF APPLICANT Ann P. Hodgdon 9

Counsel for NRC Staff Robert M. Weisman Counsel for NRC Staff June 25,1987 8707070108 870625

{DR ADOCK 05000271 PDR

/

J

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD in the Matter of )

)

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )

. Station) )

NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN.

OPPOSITION TO THE BRIEF OF APPLICANT l 1

i

. Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff  ;

t Robert M. Weisman Counsel for NRC Staff June 25,1987 i

TABLE OF QNTENTS P, age TA B LE O F AU TH O R I T I ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 I 1

1. I N T R O D U CT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. STATEMENT O F TH E CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Ill. STATEMENT. OF THE ISSUE ON APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. ARGUMENT......................................................4 A. Co n t e n t i on 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. The Staff's Review of the Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5  :

2. The Doctrines of Repose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. The Single Failure Criterion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. C o n t e n t i on 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. C o n t e n t io n 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 V. CONCLUSION...................................................19

. 4-a h=ame ==,m- si i . . . . . ... . . . . . - . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .

- ll -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d .i i

1268 (9th Cir.1986) .......................................... 14 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), vacated in part and reh'g en banc granted on other groundi, 760 Dd 1320 TD . U~~C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, (remanded on other grounds, C L l-74 -12 , 7 A . E . C 2 0 3 ( 19 7 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Carolina Power and Light Company, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) , A LAB-837, 23 N . R.C 525, 537 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Carrol County Site), ALAB-601,12 N.R.C j 18, 24 (1980)................................................... 8 i q

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), )

A LA B -2 2 6 , 8 A . E . C . 3 81 ( 19 7 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

]

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Nuclear Station) , CLI-74-28, 8 A. E.C . 7 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

C L I -f3 -19 , 17 N . R . C . 1041 ( 19 83 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project Units 1 and

. 2 ) , C Li-77-13, 5 N . R . C 1303, 13 21 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-27,10 N.R.C 563, 566 (1979), aff'd ALAB-575, 1 1 N . R . C 14 ( 19 8 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 andV, CLI-86-12, 24 N.R.C 1 (1986) ....... 13,14, 16 l l

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam  !

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, I 9 N . R . C 2 91 ( 19 7 9 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

+

-ill -

i i

Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear' Plant), ALAB-534, 9 N . R . C 2 8 7, 2 8 9-29 0, n . 6 ( 19 79 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Public Service of indiana, (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 N.R.C 167,170 (1976): . . . . . . 8 Public Service of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 ) , C L1-78-1, 7 N . R. C 1, 2 7 ( 19 78 ) ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating S tation, Units 2 and 3) , A LAB-673, 15 N. R.C 688 (1982 ); . . . . . . . . . . 10 Toledo Edison Co. (Davis- Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 a nd 3 ) , A LAB-378, 5 N . R . C 5 5 7 (19 77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Vermont Yankee Power Cor:> oration (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBF-87-17, N.R.C

( M a y 2 5 , 1 9 8 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim REGULATIONS 1 0 C . F . R . s e c . 2 . 71 4 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,19 10 C . F . R . s ec . 2 . 7 6 0 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,18 10 C . F . R . s ec . 2 .1 10 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,3 1 0 C . F . R . s e c . 51 . 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 t o C.F.R. Part 50, App. A, General Design Criteria 44 . . . . . . . . . . . 5,7,11,12 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. A, General Design Criteria 62 . . . . . . . . . . . 12 I MISCELLANEOUS Bi-weekly Notice of Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses involving No Significant Hazard Conside.ation, 5 1 Fe d . R e g . 2 2 , 2 2 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Severe Accident Policy Statement, 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138

( A ug u s t 8 , 19 8 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1

_]v -

Stuadard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition), NUREG-0800 (July 1981).. 7,12 Vermont Yankee Power Corp; Consideration of issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing, 51 Fed. Reg. 47,324 (December 31, 1986)....................... .. 2,8 t

4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS3 ION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD in the Matter of )

)

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment) I

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )

Station) )

NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE BRIEF OF APPLICANT

l. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Appeal Board on the appeal pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714a of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, from the Licensing Board's Prehearing Conference Order of May 26, 1987, 1 granting a hearing on Vermont Yankee's application to expand the storage capacity of its spent fuel pool. The Prehearing Conference Order from which the Appilcant 2_/ appeals admitted for litigation three contentions derived from contentions proposed by New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and redrafted by the Licensing Board.

e 1/

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-87-17, N.R.C. (May 26,1987).

2/ The Licensing Board explained in the Prehearing Conference Order that it preferred to refer to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation as the " Applicant" rather than the " Licensee." ~

Id.

at 2. The Staff adopts this convention to avoid confusion.

2-

11. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 31, 1986, the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission published in the Federa! Register (51 Fed. Reg. 47,324) a notice entitled , "\ermont Yankee Power Corp.: Consideration of issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing." The notice concerned Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation's April 26, 1986 application for an amendment to its operating license for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

, Station, located near Vernon, Vermont. The proposed amendment would revise the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications to authorize the I

Applicant to increase the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool from 2000  :

to 2870 bundles.

The notice also stated that on June 18, 1986, the Commission had issued a Bi-weekly Notice of Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses involving No Significant Hazards Consideration (51 Fed.

Reg. 22,226), which included notice concerning the proposed amendment of the Vermont Yankee license. The notice of June 18, 1986, included the Commission's proposed determination that the requested amendment involved no significant hazards consideration, offered an opportunity for comments on the Commission's proposed determination and offered an opportunity for the Applicant to request a hearing on the amendment and for persons whose interest migh t be affected to petition for leave to intervene. It failed , l bowever, to provide the notice required by the Commission's regulation j l

implementing Section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, i.e. l 1

10 C.F.R. 5 2.1107. Section 2.1107 requires that the notice of proposed action published in the Federal Register concerning an application for an amendment to allow expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity identify I

l l

the availability of hybrid hearing procedures. The Commission's notice of December 31, 1986, supplied the information required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.1107 and stated that any person whose interest might be affected and who wished to invoke the hybrid hearing procedures should file a written petition for leave to intervene.

Three petitioners, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth) and the State of Vermont, timely filed hearing requests in response to the December 31,

, 1986 notice. Subsequently, pursuant to a Licensing Board Order of February 27, 1987, the three petitioners filed contentions. The Applicant and the NRC Staff opposed all of the contentions, arguing that they lacked the requisite basis and specificity and that they did not fall within the scope of the proceeding. Following a prehearing conference on April 21-22, 1987, the Licensing Board issued the Prehearing Conference Order from which the Applicant has appealed. In that order, the Licensing Board rejected the contentions proposed by the State of Vermont. It also rejected the contentions of NECNP and the Commonwealth as proposed. However, it admitted three contentions, which it stated were derived from N EC N P's Contentions 3 and 5 and the Commonwealth's Contentions I and 11. U See LBP-87-17 at 12-20, 21-38.

On June 10, 1987, the Applicant filed an appeal. In its brief on appeal the Applicant argues that: 1) none of the contentions drafted by the Licensing Board is admissible in this amendment proceeding; 2) the Licensing Board failed to follow the procedures required for sua sponte 3/ The full text of these contentions as proposed appears in Appendix A.

o

h

_4_

issues; and 3) the Licensing Board abused its discretion in redrafting and supplying basis for the contentions proposed by the petitioners.

Ill. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ON APPEAL Whether any of the contentions on appeal either. as redrafted by the Licensing Board or as proposed by Intervenors is admissible in this proceeding.

. IV. ARGUMENT q Contention 1 as admitted fairly reflects NECNP Contention 3 and ' is acceptable in this proceeding . Contention 2 as admitted is not acceptable. Contention 3 as admitted, while acceptable on its face,  ;

does not fairly characterize Intervenors' contentions on which it is l based, and, therefore, should not have been admitted in this proceeding.

A. Contention 1 The Licensing Board admitted the following as Contention 1:

The spent fuel pool expansion amendment should be denied because, through the necessity to use one train j of the reactor's residual heat removal system (RHR) in addition to the spent fuel cooling system in order to  ;

maintain the pool water within the regulatory limits of ~

140 F, the single failure criterion as set forth in the General Design Criteria, and particularly Criterion 44, will be violated. The Applicant has not established that its proposed method of spent fuel pool cooling ensures that both the fuel pool cooling system cooling system

• a single failure proof. 2pnd the reactor i

l r 4/ LB P-87-17 at 44.

A

1. The Staff's Review of the Amendment The Staff does not support the Applicant's appeal of the Licensing Board's admission of Contention 1 as redrafted. Contention 1 as admitted concerns whether the RHR and spent fuel cooling systems meet the single failure criterion of General Design Criterion 44, - and reflects NECNP's Contention 3, which questions whether the RHR and spent fuel  ;

pool cooling systems meet the " single failure criterion" without reference to GDC 44. Although the Staff originally opposed N ECN P's Contention 3 i concerning the operation of the RHR as not within the scope of the l amendment, the Staff's review of the requested amendment revealed that the I

current Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station . Technical Specifications (TS) do not ensure redundancy in the spent fuel pool cooling system, b As .a result of the Staff's review of the operation of the spent fuel pool cooling system , and after discussions with the Staff, the Applicant agreed to i submit a new TS that would obligate the Applicant to ensure redundant spent fuel pool cooling systems. U This appeal will determine whether the Licensing Board's recasting of NECN P's Contention 3 accurately reflects the proposed contention and was otherwise appropriate. While not binding on the Appeal

, Board, one Licensing Board has held that it could recast contentions to 5/ General Design Criterion 44, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. A (1987).

6/ Affidavit of Mr. John N. Ridgely, attached as Appendix C.

7/ Letter dated June 11, 1987, from Warren P. Murphy, Vice President and Manager of Operations, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, to V. L. Rooney, Senior Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

8,/

. make them acdeptable, in its discretion, but need not do so. in Susquehanna, the Licensing Board stated:

[ A] Board is not required to recast contentions to make them acceptable. We are also not precluded from doing so. In this instance, such a course commended itself to us because of the similarity of different contentions, the commingling in some contentions of certain extraneous, irrelevant, or legally unacceptable statements, and the desirability of defining issues simply and directly, while including therein all matters raised by the petitioners which are suitable for litigation in this proceeding. gj Susquehanna reflects the general authority of licensing board to focus and

, clarify contentions admitted for hearing in licensing proceedings. On the other hand Commission and Appeal Board decisions preclude licensing boards from shifting the focus of intervenors' contentions to matters the intervenors did not raise E (except under special circumstances). E Moreover, licensing boards are not required to rewrite intervenors' contentions to render them acceptable. Indian Point and Zion make clear that hearing proceedings should focus on the matters raised by the intervenors' contentions; licensing boards may consider matters not raised by the parties only under the ambit of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.760a. Thus, the issue posed by the Licensing Board's revision of NECNP Contention 3 is whether Contention 1 as admitted fairly characterizes the matters raised by NECNP's contention.

8/

~

Pennsylvania Power c Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), L83P-79-6, 9 N.R.C. 291 (1979).

9/ Id. at 295-96 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

-10/ Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-74-28, 8 A.E.C. 7 (1974); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station., Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 A.E.C. 381, 406-7 (1974).

1_1/ See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.760a (1987).

in the instant proceeding, the Licensing Board recast NECNP's Contention 3 to narrow its focus. NECNP Contention 3 merely alleged that the proposed amendment would involve the Applicant's use of the RHR and spent fuel pool cooling systems in violation of the single failure critorion. NEC N P's Contention 3 reads, "[t]he spent fuel pool expansion amendment should be denied because it violates the single failure criterien. " The Licensing. Board sharpened the focus of the NECNP Contention 3 from the " single failure criterion" to General Design Criterion

44. 5 Contention 1 as admitted questions whether the Applicant's proposed method of spent fuel pool . cooling ensures that both the fuel pool cooling system and the reactor cooling system are single failure proof.

Contention 1 as admitted seeks to assess spent fuel pool cooling performance

( in terms of keeping within " regulatory limits of 140oF" whereas NECNP Contention 3's basis speaks in terms of maintaining design limits of 150 F.

This temperature difference, however, does not go to the substance of

~

NECNP Contention 3, but affects how that conterttien should be evaluated.

The Licensing Board's more stringent temperature .restrictica is consistent with the ' issue that' HECNP raised, but char'ges the manner in which the

. Licensing Board propdsed to evaluate; it. Moreover, the Licensing Board's ,

Order (at 20) indicates that the ' Licensing Board is aware, despite the word (ng of Contention 1, that 140 F is not a regulatory limit, but rather l

. the guioance of the Standard Review Plan. The Licensing Board indicates that 140 F would be used "unless the applicant can demonstrate why some  !

other temperature should be controlling." Accordingly, the Staff believes

<t 1

., 12/ General Design Criterion 44, 10 C.F.R., Part 50, App. A (1987). J l

l e ,

i

)

that Contentiod 1 as admitted fairly characterizes NECNP's. Contention 3, even though it refers to a different spent fuel pool temperature limit.

2. The Doctrines of Repose The Applicant asserts that litigation concerning augmentation of the. spent fuel pool cooling system by one train of the RHR is precluded by the doctrines of repose -- res judicata and collateral estoppel.

(Applicant's Brief at 14). The principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel may be applied in NRC licensing proceedings. Public Service

, of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 N.R.C.

1, 27 (1978); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2), C LI-77-13, 5 N.R.C. 1303, 1321 (1977); Toledo Edison Co.

(Davis-Beste Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-378, 5 N.R.C. 557 (1977); Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, remanded on other grounds, CLl-74-12, 7 A.E.C. 203 (1974). However, the NRC staff does not agree that these principles are applicable to the case at bar.

Before reaching the question of estoppel, the Staff addresses the jurisdiction or authority of a licensing board designated to preside over an amendment proceeding. The notice of opportunity for hearing in this case (51 Fed. Reg. 47,324) specifically provides that "(clontentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under considera-tion." b 13/ See also Public Service of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 N.R.C.167,170 (1976); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Carrol County Site), ALAB-601, 12 N.R.C. 18, 24 (1980); Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 N.R.C. 287, 289-290, n.6 (1979).

l

_9_

The thrust of the NRC staff's initial opposition to NECNP Contention 3 was that the proposed amendment did not involve a change in RHR performance and thus the contention did not fall within the scope -of matters raised by this amendment request. E Subsequently, during the course of the Staff review, the Staff recognized that due to the 10-15% increase in heat load associated with the proposed amendment EI it would be important to assure that there were explicit. requirements governing actions to be taken in the event that the spent fuel cooling trains were not able to satisfy the cooling requirements. El The Staff discussed this concern with the Applicant and the Applicant subsequently proposed a modification of its amendment request to include such a condition.

In short, since undertaking the review of the requested amendment, the change in heat load associated with the amendment request focused the Staff's attention on the need to assure by license condition that the RHR would be available to act as backup to the spent fuel pool cooling i system , i.e. , that the reactor would be shut down if one or both of the spent fuel cooling trains were not able to provide adequate spent fuel pool i

. 1 H/ NRC Staff Response to Contentions of the State of Vermont, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and New England Coalition on Nuclear

. Pollution, April 13,1987, at 18.

15/ Affidavit of John N. Ridgely, Mechancial Engineer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Attached as Appendix C.

,16/ The proposed technical specification provides that (1) no reliance is to be placed on RHR for spent fuel pool cooling before plant may be started after refueling, and (2) the reactor is to be shut down in 30 days in the event that one train of spent fuel pool cooling is not capable of providing adequate cooling or promptly in if both trains are not capable of providing such cooling. Shutdown would enable one train of RHR to be used to provide spent fuel cooling.

cooling. Thus, the Staff no longer asserts that there is no nexus between the proposed amendment and RHR performance as backup to the spent fuel pool cooling system.

The Appeal Board has held that the following elements must I exist to find collateral estoppel: (i) the entity against whom estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the earlier litigation; (ii) the issue must be the same as that involved in the prior proceeding and it must have been actually raised, litigated and adjudged; and (iii) the issue must have been material to disposition of the first action, b Applicant asserts that while the matter was not explicitly litigated in 1977, everyone was on notice that augmentation of the spent fuel pool cooling system by RHR would be required under certain circumstances.

~

The Applicant cites portions of the NRC staff SER to demonstrate that the Staff intended to require the RHR to be used as backup to the spent fuel pool cooling system in the case of full core offloads. The applicant argues that it makes no legally significant difference that such backup may be called upon more often as a result of the amendment. (Applicant's Brief at 18).

However, what Applicant points to in the 1977 SER are statements dealing with the issue of use of the RHR to back up the spent fuel pool cooling system in the case of full core offloads -- a condition in which there is little need for RHR capacity for reactor cooling because .all

~

17/ Carolina Power and Light Company, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) , ALAB-337, 23 N.R.C.

Davis-Besse); See also Southern525, 537 (1986)

California (citing Edison Farley (and Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), A LA B-673, 15 N.R.C. 688 (1982); Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2), LB P-79-2 7, 10 N.R.C. 563, 566 (1979), aff'd, ALAB-575,11 N.R.C.14 (1980).

I fuel has been removed from the reactor. EI The Staff SER did not make clear that the licensee was permitted to use one train of RHR to provide supplemental spent fuel pool cooling in cases of normal refueling (1/3 core offloads) If needed to maintain spent fuel pool temperature below 1500F.

The difference. between the use of RHR to back up spent i fuel cooling for full core offloads, when there is essentially no need for reactor cooling, and. the use of the RHR to provide supplemental cooling for normal offloads, when there is a need for reactor residual heat removal capability, is not merely a matter of how often the RHR is used. Rather, the distinction calls for consideration of procedures to assure RHR ]

availability to cool the spent fuel pool when needed. While similar considerations might apply even at the lower heat load associated with the 1

current authorization , the amendment request at issue requires specific license conditions (technical specifications) that would govern the use of the )

RHR for these purposes and the Staff has requested them. E In this light, the Staff believes that the proposed contention i i

raising issues relating to the use of the RHR to provide supplemental spent I fuel pool cooling is not precluded by doctrines of repose.

3. Single Failure Criterion

. The Staff contends that the single failure criterion applies to the spent fuel pool cooling system. GDC 44 applies to "[a] system to Important to sa fe ty. " 0/ The transfer heat from [a] structure [] ...

Applicant argues that GDC 44 applies only to fluid systems. The Staff

/ ~ See Ridgely Affidavit, Appendix C.

g/ See Ridgely Affidavit, Appendix C. ]

20/ General Design Criterion 44, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. A (1987).

)

.J

l l

l agrees, but netsa that the spent fuel pool cooling system is a fluid sy. stem. )

While CDC 61 SI applies to all components and systems that are associated with the spent fuel pool, CDC 44 places more stringent design criteria on j the spent fuel pool cooling system. The Applicant argues that if two rules are inconsistent, the more specific rule controls. The Applicant reasons, therefore, that GDC 61 applies to the spent fuel pool cooling system to the exclusion of GDC 44. The Staff, however, believes that GDC 44 is consistent with CDC 61. Therefore, the general rule of statutory l , construction does not require coding GDC 61 to exclude application of CDC 44.

Moreover, the Staff evaluates spent fuel pool cooling system design according tc, the Staff's Standard Review Plan (SRP). 2_3/ The SRP identifies GDC 44 as an applicable acceptance criterion for spent fuel pool cooling system. E While the SRP is not a regulation and does not have the force and effect of law, the SRP does reflect the Staff's long-standing application of GDC 44 requirements to spent fuel pool cooling systems. As also required by the SRP, EI the Applicant designed the spent fuel pool to seismic Category 1. The spent fuel pool can withstand a design basis earthquake and prevent release of radioactive spent fuel to the environment. Thus, the spent fuel pool's design reflects that it is a 21/ General Design Criterion 61, 10 C.F.R Part 50, App. A (1987).

22/ Applicant's brief at 19.

-23/ Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition), NUREG-0800 (July 1981).

24/ Id. S 9.1.3-4.

25/ Id. 6 9.1.3-3.

structure impor'fant to safety as described in GDC 44. Accordingly, the single failure criterlon of GDC 44 applie.s to spent fuel pool cooling systems.  ;

B. Contention 2 As redrafted and admitted by t'he Licensing Board, Contention 2 reads as follows:

The proposed amendment would create a situation. In which consequences and risks of a hypothesized accident

'(hydrogen detonation in the reactor building): would be

. greater . than those previously 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 quality of the human 1 environment" and requiring preparation and issuance of i an Environmental Impact Statement prior to approval of the amendment.

I On appeal the Applicant argues that an increase in spent fuel pool inventory always involves a potential for increase in the consequences q of an accident involving the spent fuel pool. This being the case, the Commission would .have required the preparation of an EIS on every spent fuel pool expansion application had the Commission thought this potential i increase in environmental impact to be so significant as to require an environmental impact statement. Applicant's Brief at 25-26. The Staff agrees. Spent fuel pool reracking is not listed in 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20 as an action requiring the preparation of an EIS. As the Applicant argues (Brief l

^

at 22-25), the Commission's regulations in Part 51 contemplate an environmental assessment on a case-by-case basis to allow the appropriate  !

'NRC staff director to decide whether to prepare an EIS or make a finding  ;

I of no significant impact on actions not specifically listed in 5 51.20 as requiring an EIS. The Commission has spoken to the issue in Diablo l 1

Canyon:

l The Commission is not automatically obligated to issue an  !

EIS simply because the amendment at issue involves j reracking. See 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20 (1986) . Instead, the l

l i

I J

Commission Staff must consider the matter on a case-by-case basis as required by NRC regulations implementing NEPA. 10 C.F.R. 9 51.25 .35 (1986). Furthermore, in order to challenge the Staff's decision, the petitioners must allege some specific deficiency in the environmental evaluation itself, not Just a generalized failure to pre-pare a EIS or a generalized disagreement with the Staff's '

conclusion that reracking not pose a "significant impact" to the environment.

The Staff agrees with the Applicant that the Commission's regulations do not require the preparation of an EIS on a routine spent fuel pool reracking application. A contention on the need for an EIS should at

, a minimum prov!ae a basis for asserting that the amendment at issue poses an impact that is significant. This contention provides no such basis. It proposes a comparative assessment of risks involving spent fuel pools for a chain of unlikely events for which no basis is provided. Contrary to the Licensing Board's assumption on which it based redrafted Contention 2, the environmental consequences of hydrogen detor:ation in the reactor building have never been evaluated for Vermont Yan kee, b Nor did the consequences need to be evaluated, because the interim Policy of June 13, 1980, requiring that FESS prepared on construction permit and operating license applications address the consequences of accidents beyond the design basis, was discretionary and not mandated by NEPA and was not imposed on licenses issued before July, 1980. See, San Luis Obispo

-26/ Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, .

Units 1 and 2), CLi-86-12, 24 N . R . C. 1, 11-12 (1986), reversed on other groundt, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1986).

-27/ Pursuant to the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138' (August 8,1985), Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power j Corporation prepared a Containment Safety Study issued in August, 1986. However, that study does not include a discussion of radioactive source term releases. Thus, it does not provide a basis for the comparison that Contention 2 contemplates.

i Mothers for Peate v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1300-01 (D.C. Cir. 1984),

vacated ,in part reh'g en banc granted on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (1985). See, NRC Staff Response to Contentions of the State of Vermont, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, April 13,1987 at 12, fn.10.

The Licensing Board relies on language in the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement, in which the Commission states its intention to continue its policy regarding Class 9 environmental reviews and

, hearings announced in its interim Policy Statement of June 13, 1980, for the proposition that Contention 2 is admissible in this proceeding. (See, LB P 17, Slip op. at 28). The Licensing Board ignores the language in the Interim Policy Statement limiting the requirement for a probabilistic assessment of the risks of Class 9 accidents to applications for construction permits and operating licenses submitted after July 1, 1980. Vermont Yankee received its operating license before the Commission published its Interim Policy Statement, it was not required to supplement its Environmental Report to comply with the Interim Poli:y. See, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, supra. It would be anomolous to apply a rule of reason to the preparation of a final EIS but require a supplemental EIS for a limited amendment to a license to address remote ard highly improbable consequences when there is no basis for asserting that environmental risks

^

would be significant. This would lead to the result of a continuing agency I requirement to supplement its EISs with consideration of effects that were j

not significant enough to require preparation of an EIS in the first place.

Id. l q

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ U

i Contention 2 as redrafted by the Licensing Board is not an admissible contention. Nor are NECNP Contention 5 and Commonwealth Contention 1 from which it is derived admissible.

The Staff opposed NECNP's Contention 5 on the same basis that it objected to the State of Vermont's Contention il and the Commonwealth's Contention 11. The Staff argued that it was preparing an environmental assessment and that the Commission's regulations did not require more, in support of its argument, the Staff pointed to the Commission's decision in

, Diablo Canyon, supra , where the Commission stated that in order to challenge a Staff decision not to issue an EIS, petitioners were required to allege something more than a generalized failure to prepare an EIS. For the reasons argued to the Licensing Board, the Staff continues to believe that NECNP's Contention 5 does not state an admissible contention.

By moving the Commonwealth's Contention I to the environmental side and combining it with NECNP's Contention 5, the Licensing Board finds an acceptable contention. However, as discussed above, Contention 2 as redrafted does not state an admissible contention.

C. Contention 3 As redrafted by the Licensing Board, Contention 3 states:  ;

~

The Applicant has failed to submit an adequate analysis of alternatives to the proposed action, as required by SS 4332(C) and 4332(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act , 42 U.S.C. $5 4332(C) and 4332(E), and 1 implementing NRC regulations or guidelines.

Specifically, the Applicant has failed to analyze .

adequately the alternatives of. (1) dry cask storage and 3 (2) independent pool storage. Both of these alternatives i are available options and provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal.

The Licensing Board states that Contention 3 is derived from N ECN P's Contention 5 and the Commonwealth's Contention II. LBP-87-17 at 45. The Staff opposed both of these contentions on the basis that they 1

r alleged nothing~ fnore than that the Staff should prepare an EIS or an EA.

The Staff had not at that time and has not yet prepared its environmental documents. The Licensing Board's version of the contention focuses on the Applicant's cocuments, not the Staff's, and the failure of the application to give adequate consideration to alternatives to the proposed action. The Applicant argues on appeal that Contention 3 as redrafted by the Licensing Board is inadmissible, because on the environmental side the focus is on the adequacy of. the Staff's analysis. Applicant's Brief at 27. Although it is

, true that the obligation of complying with NEPA is the Staff's and not the Applicant's, the Commission has stated that, in an operating license proceeding, the filing of an environmental concern based on an applicant's environmental report will not be deferred simply because the Staff may subsequently provide a different analysis in its DES. Duke Power Co.

(Catawba Nuclear S tation , Units 1 and 2), CLi-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, 1049 (1983).

Thus, the Staff disagrees with the Applicant and regards Contention 3 as rewritten by the Licensing Board to be in acceptable form to be admitted in inis proce0 ding. However, in the Staff's view, in the instance of Contention 3 the Licensing Board did more than merely refine a poorly drafted contention. Rather, the Licensing Board focused on the Applicant's documents, while the Intervenors focused on the Staff's documents. The Licensing Board's contention changed the focus of tt)e .

contention from Staff documents to licensee documents. This is not a minor )

l clarification but a change in the target of the contention.

Had intervenors themselves proposed such a change the late-filed contention standards would apply.

/

The Cicensing Board admitted Contention 3 on matters different from those raised by the Intervenors. The Commission's regulations allow licensing' boards to consider their own contentions only after making special findings. - Section 2.760a states in relevant part:

. . . In a contested proceeding on an application for an operating license . . . , the presiding officer shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the matters put into controversy by the parties . . . . Matters not put into controversy by the parties will be examined and

. decided by the presiding officer only where he or she determines that a serious safety, environmental, 2N common defense and security. matter exist'-

The Licensing Board's Prehearing Conference Order contains no determination that "a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists." Accordingly, Licensing Board Contention 3 should not be admitted in the proceeding; nor should NECNP Contention 5 or Commonwealth Contention 11.

Both of these intervenor contentions focused on the Staff's documents, which, as stated above, are not yet prepared. In objecting to the Commonwealth's Contention 11, the Staff stated:

At this state of the proceedings the Commonwealth's ,

contention should be directed to any perceived deficiency in the Licensee's environmental report and not to the Staff's yet to be issued document. Commission cases i construing 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a) regarding late-filed i contentions make it clear that the filing of an environmental concern based on an applicant's )

l environment report will not be deferred simply because j

. the Staff may subsequently provide a different analysis in its DES. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, j Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, 1049 (1983). I Further, the unavailability of a licensing-related document does not establish good cause for filing a ,

contention late if information was publicly available early l enough to provide the basis for the timely filing of that "

28/ 10 C.F.R. 6 2.760a (1987).

29/ ld. l

/

contention. Catawba, supra , at 1045, 1048. Staff's Response at 15-16.

Although these contentions should have focused on Applicant's documents, they did not and, thus, are not properly admissible as submitted by intervenors.

V. CONCLUSION

. For the reasons discussed, the Staff opposes the Applicant's appeal.

The Appeal Board should sustain the Licensing Board's admission of Contention 1. Even though not contemplated by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714a, in the 4 interest of judicial economy the Appeal Board should reverse the Licensing Board's admission of Contentions 2 and 3.

Respectfully sutmltted,

/

\\

Q lb Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for PEC Sta f f Nc Robert M. Weisman Counsel for PEC Staff

, Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of June,1987 9

/

L

): j Appendix A NECNP's proposed Contention 3 states:

l The spent fuel pool expansion amendment should be  !

denied because it violates the single failure criterion. 1 NECNP offered the following basis for its Contention 3:

Should this amendment be approved, it would be 4

7 necessary under certain conditions to use one train of j the reactor's residual heat removal system (RHR) in l addition to the spent fuel pool cooling system in order to I maintain the pool water within the design limits of 150 F. j (See Vermont Yankee Spent Fuel Storage Rack RepTacement Report, April,1986, at 56-59 and Response to Request for Additional information-Proposed Change No.133, Spent Fuel Pool Expansion, November 24, 1986, responses to questions 16 and 17). The heat load in the i pool after a normal fuel discharge is roughly 50% greater than the design capacity of both trains of the spent fuel cooling system. While Applicants assert that the two pumps in one RHR train are single active failure proof, they have not demonstrated that there is no single failure in the RHR system components and power supplies that would not disable the single train of RHR.

Moreover, under conditions where one RHR train is needed for spent fuel pool cooling, there is only one train available for decay heat removal from the core.

Applicants have not estabilshed that this leaves a single failure proof method of cooling the core.

In surrmary, Applicants have not established that their proposed method of spent fuel pool cooling ensures that I both the fuel pool cooling system and the reactor cooling  ;

, system are single failure proof. I NECNP's Contention No. 5 states:

The NRC has not complied with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act nor of its own rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 51.

In its basis for its Contention 5, NECNP reasserts its bases for Contentions 1-4 and further states:

l The National Environmental Policy Act requires the l preparation of an environmental impact statement detailing, inter alla, the environmental impact of the i' proposal and considering alternatives, for any " major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the

i human environment." 42 U.S.C. 9 4332(C). The proposed amendment, which would substantially increase the risk to public health and safety associated with operation of the Vermont Yankee plant, is such an action. NRC has not prepared an environmental impact statement, as required by law and by 10 C.F.R. 51.20.

NRC rules (10 C.F.R. 51.21) require the preparation of an environmental assessment for all licensing and regulatory actions except those identified as requiring an impact statement (Listed in 10 C.F.R. 51.20(b) or categorically excluded in 5 51.22(c)). This proposed amendment is listed in neither section and thus requires at a minimum the preparation of an environmental assessment. That document has not been prepared.

, While NECNP expects to change this contention at such time that NEPA - related documents are issued by NRC, it can state preliminarily that two areas of specific concern to it are the consideration of alternatives to the proposed action and consideration of the increased risk to public health and safety. In particular, serious consideration should be given to the alternatives of dry '

cask storage and independent pool storage, both of which provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal. On July 2, 1986, the NRC licensed an independent spent fn storage installation using dry casks for the two Surry plants in Virginia.

The Commonwealth's Contention i states:

The Commonwealth contends that the license amendment t proposed by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation

(" Licensee") is inconsistent with the protection of the public health and safety and the environment.

As a basis for this contention, the Commonwealth stated:

1. Probalistic risk studies of boiling water reactors indicate that the expected frequency of severe accidents at such reactors is non-negligible.

2. In the event of a severe accident, a significant quantity of hydrogen gas could be generated and such gas could, through containment leakage or l failure, be released into the reactor building. )

l

3. The hydrogen gas which could be released into the l reactor building as a result of a severe accident would likely burn or detonate and would thereby generate pressure which would threaten the '

structural integrity of the containment building.

l l

I

i

4. . 'The spent. fuel pool of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is so located that in the event of a severe accident resulting in hydrogen gas being released into the reactor building, it is possible that either: (a) spent fuel cooling' systems will be damaged and rendered inoperable with restricted access . to the building preventing their repair; or (b) the. structural integrity of the spent fuel pool will be breached.

5. Inadeqate cooling of fuel in the spent fuel pool or a breach in the structural integrity or the spent fuel pool can result in a radiological release.

6. Allowance of the proposed license amendment would increase the amount of spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool and, thereby, increase the magnitude of the possible radiological release that could occur in the event of a severe accident.

The Commonwealth's Contention 11 states: j The Commonwealth contends that the NRC has failed to comply with its own rules and, as a result, has failed to consider alternatives to the proposed action such as the  ;

construction of a dry spent fuel storage facility of an  !

in-ground spent fuel pool.

As a basis for Contention 11, the Commonwealth stated:

1. The basis for Contention I is incorporated herein.

2. NRC. regulations (10 C.F. R. 5 51.21) mandate that an environmental assessment be prepared for all i licensing and regulatory actions except those.which require an environmental impact statement pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 51.20(b) or which are categorically excluded in i 51.22(c).

3. No environmental assessment has been prepared and the proposed amendment is not an action identified 3

, in either 10 C.F.R. 6 51.20(b) or 5 51.22(c).

1 i

)

Appendix B 3.14 LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION Fuel Pool Cooling System Applicability:

Applies to the operability of the fuel pool cooling system prior to a reactor startup from the cold shutdown condition and during reactor power operation.

Objective To assure that adequate cooling is available for heat removal in the spent fuel pool.

Specification A. Both fuel pool cooling subsystems shall be operable and capable of maintaining the fuel pool temperature below 150 F prior to a reactor startup from the cold shutdown condition.

B. From and after the date that one of the fuel pool cooling subsystems is made or found inoperable and the remaining subsystem is capable of maintaining the fuel pool temperature below 150oF, then the reactor shall be in cold shutdown condition within thirty days unless such subsystem is sooner made operable. l l

l

\

I l

C. From and after the date that both fuel pool cooling subsystems are made or found inoperable or the fuel pool temperature cannot be maintained below 150oF, the ' reactor shall be in a cold shutdown condition prior to the fuel pool temperature exceeding 200 F.

4.14 SURVEILLANCE Fuel Pool Cooling System Applicability:

Applies to the periodic monitoring of the fuel pool condition.

Objective To verify the operability of the fuel pool cooling subsystems.

l Specification l

A. Surveillance of the fuel pool cooling subsystem shall be as follows:

1. Fuel pool temperature and level shall be monitored and recorded once per eight-hour shift.

2. Fuel pool temperature and level indicators shall be calibrated and functionally tested once per operating cycle.

W-,---.--_-------..,___.___----.----_---.-.-.--_-- . - ~ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ , _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ -_

B. When it is determined that one of the fuel pool subsystems is inoperable, fuel pool temperature shall be monitored and ' recorded once per four hours until fuel pool temperature stabilizes.

In the letter, the Applicant stated that it would observe this TS during its -1987 refueling outage.

4 e

e

Appendix C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD in the Matter of )

)

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )

. Station) )

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN N. RIDGELY I, John N. Ridgely, state as follows:

1. I am employed as a Mechanical Engineer in the Plant Systems Branch of the Division of Engineering and System Technology in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory {

1 Commission.

2. As a Mechanical Engineer in the Plant Systems Branch, one of  ;

my responsibilities is to review the thermal-hydraulic aspects of !!censees' applications to expand the storage capacity of spent fuel pools. In this l I

regard I have reviewed the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation  !

l application to expand its spent fuel pool storage capacity at its Vermont Yankee facility to accommodate 2870 spent fuel bundles.

. 3. During the course of my review, I reviewed the capability of the spent fuel pool cooling system to remove the decay heat to be generated by the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool . This review i considers that the spent fuel pool is filled with normal refueling offloads as well as the abriormal case of a full core discharge filling the pool.

The maximum heat load is for the full core offload; however, for this case '

I

2-the RHR systein is available to cool the pool and there is no problem satifying the single failure criterion since all fuel has been removed from the reactor. Therefore the worst case for removing the heat load is the normal discharge case where the pool is filled. In this case, the RHR system would not normally be available and the spent fuel pool cooling system needs to meet the single failure criterion and maintain the pool water temperature below the Technical Specification maximum poc.l water temperature, which in this case is 150 degrees F.

During the course of this review, I performed routine independent calculations, which indicated that one train of spent fuel pool cooling would not remove the decay heat generated by a normal offload that would fill the spent fuel pool. Furthermore, using both' trains of the spent fuel pool coaling system is inadequate for this case. Thus, one train of the RHR system would be needed to operate in the spent fuel pool cooling mode to maintain the spent fuel pool water temperature below the Technical Specification limit until the decay heat had reached a level where the RHR was no longer needed. For a spent fuel pool temperature limit of 150 degrees F, the RHR system will be required for approximately 68 days after the reactor is shut down until one train of spent fuel pool 4

cooling would be caoable of supplying adequate heat removal capability.

For this reason the NRC staff has requested the applicant to provide Technical Specifications to assure that supplemental spent fuel poo,I cooling capacity can be provided by the RHR system, if needed.

4. While similar considerations apply to the current authorization, it was the increased heat load associated with the amendment request (approximately 10 to 15%) that results in a maximum heat load exceeding

the capacity of'both spent fuel pool cooling trains that focused the Staff's attention on the need to explicitly assure the availability of supplemental cooling capacity for the spent fuel pool.

5. Although the NRC staff in its Response to Contentions referred to the . applicant's answers to the Sta ff's questions to show that the amendment did not affect the operation of the RHR system, the Staff's review of the amendment application was not complete at that time.

Subsequently, the staff's review has progressed to the point that we can i

. now conclude that the applicant's responses do not agree with the results of our independent analysis. Thus, our preliminary assessment, as stated in the Staff's Response to Contentions, is no longer applicable.

I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I l

ohn N. Ridgey J Subscribed and sworn to before me thisgday of June,1987 d'

~

Notarpublic g[/ .

My' commission expires: O / Mfd pj' .

e.

M

coc cirr UMfr ?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 JuH 29 P12':30 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 1

nh In the Matter of )

)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA Power Corporatian ) (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )

Station)

~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF.'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE' BRIEF OF APPLICANT" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 25th day of June,1987:

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Mr. Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*

Dr. James H. Carpenter George Dana Bisbee Administrative Judge Senior Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Concord, NH 03301-6397 Atomic Safety and Lice.nsing Board Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harmon 6 Weiss

. Washington, D.C. 20555* 2001 S Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009 David J. Mullett, Esq. Carol S. Sneider, Esq.

Special . Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Vermont Depart, of Public Service Office of the Attorney General 120 State Street One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Montpelier, VT 05602 Boston, MA 02108 John A. Ritscher, Esq. Jay Gutierrez Ropes and Gray Regional Counsel 225 Franklin Street USNRC, Region i Boston, MA 02110 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406*

2-Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Docketing and Service Section Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*

[M Anh P. Hodgcon

/ 10 h k Counsel for NRC Staff e

se a

l

.