ML20234F490
| ML20234F490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1987 |
| From: | Murphy W, Selleck K ROPES & GRAY, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| References | |
| CON-#387-3942 OLA, NUDOCS 8707080241 | |
| Download: ML20234F490 (25) | |
Text
_ _ _-___ -_ ___ _-__- _-_
i [AIlb i
gt.tM tb GOKRWONM E
ETr
- 00... y Dated: $lyjll-6198722
)
rir U
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA l
POWER CORPORATION
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSES TO NECNP'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO._1 VY states that the five (5) methods for increasing on-site storage listed on page 3 of FVY 86-34 (Apr. 25, 1986) were " considered."
The following questions relate
- thereto, a.
Describe in detail the process by which this consideration took place.
For instance, was a committee established, an analysis done, a contractor hired, etc.?
Were there meetings, deliberations, etc.?
During what period of time?
b.
Provide all documents used in or generated by j
the process of this " consideration" of alternatives.
c.
Name and identify by job title and address all persons (including contractors) involved in the consideration of alternatives.
l 8707030241 870701
) g)3 P
I PDR ADDCK 05000271 1
Q PDR
l i
3 O
d.
Provide all evaluations, analyses or other documents in the possession of VY, whether or not they were used in VY's consideration of alternatives, relating to the cost, feasibility and/or risk of on-site alternatives to the requested re-racking.
e.
When did VY begin the process of considering how to store fuel assemblies in excess of the current license limit of 2000?
Who was put in charge of this task?
RESPONSE
a.
Vermont Yankee requested an evaluation of options available for increasing spent fuel storage from Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) on April 8, 1982.
In response, YAEC provided on June 7, 1982 preliminary cost and schedule estimates for reracking, dry cask storage, and fuel pin compaction.
Additionally, YAEC recommended a course of action to Vermont Yankee which included requesting site visits by dry cask vendors and not relying on any federal away-from-reactor storage possibilities.
A meeting was subsequently held on July 26, 1982 at Vermont Yankee's Brattleboro office at which time VY and YAEC representatives discussed the evaluation.
Action items were assigned to invite dry
]
cask vendors to the Vermont Yankee site, to talk to another utility in a similar situation to discuss their plans, and to prepare a reracking bid specification in parallel.
YAEC provided a status report on December 2,
- 1982, wherein site visits by two dry cask vendors were summarized.
Each vendor suggested that a special, l
tailor-made cask be developed for Vermont Yankee at a cost of $1.0 to $1.2 million per cask (minimum of three casks per reload batch).
In addition, each vendor felt I
l that there would be difficulty in selecting a suitable on-site location for the cask storage area.
Subsequently, meetings were held during December 1982, and January 1983, to discuss work status and appoint a technical task force within YAEC to address' additional technical consideration.
On August 18, 1983, YAEC issued a detailed status report indicating results of work to-date and providing recommendations for continuing efforts.
The report included results of technical evaluations related to reracking and cask handling and also included the final results of the three cask vendor visits (cost and schedule estimates, cask details).
Additionally, the report recommended price quotations be received from fuel rack vendors in parallel with further investigation into the industry's technical and licensing experience with alternatives.
These recommendations were approved 1
by Vermont Yankee on November 2, 1983.
l 1
After several meetings and further discussions with utilities and vendors involved in alternative fuel storage development projects, and since there were no proven and previously licensed alternatives available, VY chose to rerack the spent fuel pool.
As a result, on j j
r June 5, 1984, YAEC issued a bid specification for new spent fuel storage racks to seven prospective vendors.
b.
Documents used and generated during the consideration of alternatives will be made available at-the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
l c.
Individuals involved in the consideration of alternatives were:
VYNPC, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 R.W. Burke - operations Support Manager (left VY 7/84)
W.P. Murphy - Vice President and Manager of Operations S.A. Vekasy - System Engineer B.R.
Buteau - R&CE Supervisor j
l YAEC, 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01701 l
1 S.R. Miller - Engineering Manager to 1/86
)
R.M. Grube - Director, Fuel Management Department L.D. Marsolais - Project Manager to 8/83 M.J. Marian - Project Engineer R.W.
Capstick - Licensing Engineer l
J.M.
Buchheit - Fuels Engineer l
d.
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree..
e.
Vermont Yankee began the process of considering how to store fuel assemblies in excess of the current license limit during April, 1982.
Vermont Yankee's Operations Support Department, headed by R.W. Burke, was in charge of this task.
This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO.
2.
Is it VY's position that dry cask storage is not a technically feasible method for spent fuel storage at the VY site?
Provide the reasons for your answer and any documents or facts in support thereof.
RESPONSE
No.
It is VY's position that dry cask storage is a technically possible method for spent fuel storage.
When compared to the proposed reracking, dry cask storage is considered less technically feasible (i.e., reasonable) in that it requires additional facility design features, operating practices and cost.
Among these are the siting and construction of the cask storage area and heavy haul road modifications on a relatively small site, possible construction of a shielded structure enclosing the cask i
storage area, the purchase of casks and additional fuel handling and transfer equipment, and the additional fuel l
handling operations required.
This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Is it VY's position that dry cask storage is too costly a method for spent fuel storage at the VY site?
Provide the reasons for your answer and any documents or facts in 5-
support thereof including but.not limited to your estimate of the cost.
RESPONSE
It is VY's position that dry cask storage is a more costly method for spent fuel storage at VY than the proposed 1
reracking.
In addition to several million dollars per operating cycle for storage casks, additional millions would be required for facility modifications related to spent fuel handling and transfer, cask handling, and cask storage.
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
This answer developed by M.J. Marian,. Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4 l
l Is it VY's position that dry cask storage poses safety risks greater than those associated with VY's proposed action?
Describe these risks in detail and provide any supporting documentation.
RESPONSE
l It is VY's position that the safety risks associated with dry cask storage are comparable to those associated with the proposed reracking.
However, because VY chose to rerack the spent fuel pool during the time frame wherein reracking was the only proven and licensed fuel storage option, a detailed assessment of the risks related to dry cask storage was not performed.
This answer developed by M.J.
Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Provide all documents in the possession of VY which compare the cost, technical feasibility and/or risks of dry cask storage to the cost, technical feasibility and/or risks of VY's proposed action.
RESPONSE
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
l INTERROGATORY NO. 6 What is the cost of each of the proposed new racks and how many will be required to completely re-rack the pool to accommodate 2870 spent fuel assemblies?
RESPONSE
1 Vermont Yankee ordered 10 racks of various sizes for a total contracted price of $2,130,752.00.
The pricing was not broken down by the vendor on a per rack basis.
The ten racks will accommodate 2,870 spent fuel assemblies.
This response was developed by D.K. McElwee, Engineering Program Manager, Vermont Yankee, Brattleboro, Vermont.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7 What is the cost of removing the racks currently in place? i
__J
l
RESPONSE
Vermont Yankee has awarded a contract to remove, consolidate, decontaminate and dispose of old racks for
$722,998.00 In addition to the contracted price, it is estimated an additional $50,000.00 will be incurred for VY/YNSD support activities.
l This answer developed by D.K. McElwee, Engineering Program Manager, Vermont Yankee, Brattleboro, Vermont.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8 What is the method and cost of disposal of the racks currently in place?
RESPONSE
The eighteen existing racks will be mechanically volume reduced to a burial volume of 3300 cubic feet, packed, shipped to and buried at the low level waste burial facility at Barnwell, South Carolina.
The cost of this is estimated 1
to be $230,000.00.
This answer developed by D.K. McElwee, Engineering Program Manager, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Brattleboro.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9 What is the estimated total radiation dase for removing l
the current racks, installing the new racks and emplacing the spent fuel?
Provide the same information for the
~
l alternatives listed on page 3 of EVY 86-34.
8-
RESPONSE
Vermont Yankee has estimated a total of 19.5 man-rems would be the total exposure received.
As indicated in the
]
responses to Questions 2, 10, and 14, VY chose to increase spent fuel storage by reracking its existing spent fuel pool.
Based on this decision, detailed radiation exposure estimates for implementing and operating any of the storage alternatives were not developed.
This answer developed by D.K. McElwee, Engineering Program Manager, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Brattleboro, with input from J. McCarthy, ALARA Coordinator at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Vernon,
)
Vermont, and from M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
{
INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Is it VY's position that an independent wet storage pool is not a technically feasible method for spent fuel storage at the VY site?
Provide the reasons for your answer and any documents and facts in support thereof, including but not limited to your estimate of the cost.
RESPONSE
No.
It is VYs position that an independent wet storage pool is a technically possible method for spent fuel storage.
When compared to the proposed reracking, an independent pool is considered less technically feasible (i.e.,
reasonable) in that it requires additional facility design features, operating practices, and cost.
Among these are the siting and construction of the independent wet storage pool on a relatively small site, the construction of a shielded structure enclosing the pool, the possible purchase and installation of cooling and cleanup system hardware servicing the new pool, the purchase of additional fuel handling and transfer equipment and the additional fuel handling operations required.
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available l
at the corporate officer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Is it VY's position that an independent wet storage pool is too costly a method for spent fuel storage at the VY site?
Provide the reasons for your answer and any documents and facts in support thereof, including but not limited to your estimate of the cost.
RESPONSE
No.
It is VY's position that an independent wet storage i
pool is a more costly method for spent fuel storage at VY
]
1 I
than the proposed reracking.
In addition to costing many millions of dollars for construction of a building and purchase of support system components for the new wet i
storage pool, funds would also be required for facility I
modifications and equipment procurement related to spent i
I fuel handling and transfer.
10 -
i l
l I
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer,
)
I Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
J INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Is it VY's position that an independent wet storage pool poses risks greater than those associated with VY's proposed action?
If so, describe those risks in detail and provide any supporting documentation.
RESPONSE
It is VY's position that the safety risks associated with an independent storage pool are comparable to those associated with the proposed reracking.
However, because VY l
chose to rerack the spent fuel pool during the time frame i
wherein reracking was the only proven and licensed fuel l
l storage option, a detailed assessment of the risks related to fuel storage in an independent wet storage pool was not performed.
This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Provide all documents in the possession of VY which j
compare the cost, technical feasibility and/or risks of an j
independent wet storage pool to the cost, technical I
feasibility and/or risks of VY's proposed action.
j i I
l l
1
RESPONSE
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power i
Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific 3
times as counsel may mutually agree.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Is it VY's position that independent air-cooled vault storage is not a technically feasible method for spent fuel storage at the VY site?
Provide the reasons for your answer and any facts and documents in support thereof.
RESPONSE
)
Objection.
Air-cooled vault storage is not an l
alternative included within the scope of contention No. 3 or any other contention and therefore any answer to this interrogatory would not be relevant nor does the interrogatory appear to be in any way calculated to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence.
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but expressly insisting on the same, the Applicant answers to the interrogatory as follows:
No.
It is VY's position that an independent air-cooled vault storage is a technically possible method for spent fuel storage.
When compared to the proposed reracking, an independent air-cooled vault is considered less technically feasible (i.e. reasonable) in that it requires additional facility design features, operating practices, and cost.
Among these are the siting and construction of the independent vault on a relatively small site, the purchase i
of the fuel transfer cask, additional fuel handling and transfer equipment, and the additional fuel handling operations required.
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Is it VY's position that independent air-cooled vault storage is too costly a method for spent fuel storage at the VY site?
Provide the reasons for your answer and any facts and documents in support thereof, including but not limited to your estimate of the cost.
RESPONSE
Objection.
Air-cooled vault storage is not an j
1 alternative included within the scope of contention No. 3 or any other contention and therefore any answer to this i
i interrogatory would not be relevant nor does the interrogatory appear to be in any way calculated to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence.
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but expressly insisting on the l
same; the Applicant answers to the interrogatory as follows:
No.
It is VY's position that independent air-cooled vault storage is a more costly method for spent fuel storage at VY j l J
1 l
than the proposed reracking.
In addition to costs related to the construction of an independent air-cooled vault, funds would also be required for facility modifications and equipment procurement related to spent fuel handling and transfer.
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power l
l Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during i
1 1
regular businees hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
This answer developed by M.J.
Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
i INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Is it VY's position that independent air-cooled storage poses risks greater than those associated with VY's proposed I
action?
Describe those risks in detail and provide any supporting documentation.
RESPONSE
Objection.
Air-cooled vault storage is not an alternative included within the scope of contention No. 3 or any other contention and therefore any answer to this interrogatory would not be relevant nor does the interrogatory appear to be in any way calculated to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence.
Without waiving i
the foregoing objection, but expressly insisting on the same, the Applicant answers to the interrogatory as follows:
j It is VY's position that the safety risks associated with 14 -
independent air cooled storage are comparable to those associated with the proposed reracking.
However, because VY chose to rerack the spent fuel pool during the time frame wherein reracking was the only proven and licensed fuel storage option, a detailed assessment of the risks related to fuel storage in an independent air cooled vault was not i
performed.
l Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
l This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, l
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17 l
Provide all documents in the possession of VY which l
compare the cost, technical feasibility and/or risks of l
independent air-cooled vault storage to the cost, technical feasibility and/or risks of VY's proposed action.
RESPONSE
Objection.
Air-cooled vault storage is not an alternative included within the scope of contention No. 3 or any other contention and therefore any answer to this interrogatory would not be relevant nor does the interrogatory appear to be in any way calculated to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence.
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but expressly insisting on the l
1 l
same, the Applicant responds to the interrogatory as l
follows:
Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear l
Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
l INTERROGATORY NO. 18 1
Assuming that permission is granted to VY to store up to
{
2870 spent fuel assemblies in the current pool:
(a) what would be the total number of curies in the fuel stored in the pool after each refueling from 1987 forward?
(b) what percentage of this total curie content after each refueling is cesium?
(c) what percentage is strontium?
(d) what i
percentage is plutonium?
RESPONSE
I See Attachment A.
This answer was developed by C.
D.
Thomas, Radiological Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric l
Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
j i
INTERROGATORY NO. 19 l
l l
Provide all documents in possession of VY and not already provided to the parties which contain any evaluation, analysis and/or description of the " safety hazards associated with spent fuel pool expansion" (FVY 86-34 p. 3), and in particular, the VY proposal.
l
RESPONSE
I Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regular business hours on such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
l l
4 l
l INTERROGATORY NO. 20 l
I Provide all documents on which you rely or intend to l
rely during this proceeding which support VY's position on l
each of the admitted contentions.
This includes but is not-limited to all documents relating to answers to interrogatories and preparation of written presentations.
RESPONSE
1 The Applicant has not yet selected what documents it l
l t
will rely upon to support its position on any of the
(
contentions.
The documents relied upon in answering these i
interrogatories which are not publicly available from other sources will be made available at the corporate offices of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, l
Brattleboro, Vermont, upon such dates and at such specific
]
t times as counsel may mutually agree.
I l
INTERROGATORY NO. 21 1
I I
Identify by name, job title and address all persons on whose factual knowledge, opinions or expertise you rely or intend to rely for VY's position on each of the admitted contentions.
RESPONSE
As of this time, the names, job titles, and addresses of l
persons whose factual knowledge, opinions, or expertise VY may rely on regarding the admitted contentions are as follows:
VYNPC, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 D.A.
Reid - Operations Support Manager D.K. McElwee - Engineering Program Manager J.T. Herron - Technical Program Manager G.D. Weyman - Senior Environmental Program Manager YAEC, 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01701 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
S.R. Miller - Project Manager J.R. Hoffman - Principle Engineer R.M.
Grube - Director, Fuel Management Department P.A. Bergeron - Manager, Transient Analysis P.S.
Littlefield - Manager, Radiological Engineering M,J. Marian - Project Engineer D.E. Yasi - Lead Systems Engineer J.R. Chapman - Manager, Nuclear Evaluation and Support R.W.
Capstick - Licensing Engineer i
C.D.
Thomas - Radiological Engineer
)
i This answer developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, l
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, Massachusetts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22 i
Identify by name, job title and address all persons who will prepare or assist in the preparation of VY's written l
presentation and oral argument under 10 CFR $ 2.1113.
Describe the subject matter of their participation and its
)
substance and provide the documents or portions thereof upon I
which they will rely for factual matter or other support of their presentations.
RESPONSE
I As of this time, the names, job titles, and addresses of l
1 l
persons who may prepare or assist in the preparation of VY's j
written presentation and oral argument, other than counsel, and the subject matter of their participation are listed below.
l Such documents as exist, if any, will be made available l
at the corporate offices of Vermoat Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, during regula:- business hours on such dates and at such specific times at counsel may mutually agree.
VYNPC. Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 W.P.
Marphy - Vice President & Manager of Operations D.A. Reid - Operations Support Manager 18 -
i j
i D.K. McElwee - Engineering' Program Manager j
J~T. Herron - Technical Program Manager VYNPC,' Governor Hunt Road, Vernon, Vermont 05301 1
J.P. Pelletier Plant Manager R.J. Wanczyk - Operations Superintendent l
R.D. Pagodin - Technical Services Superintendent i
P.J..Donnelly - Maintenance Superintendent j
W.L. Wittmer - Construction Superintendent j
H.M. Metell - Engineering Support Supervisor T.C. Trask - Mechanical Engineer B.R.-Buteau -R&CE Supervisor R.P.
Lopriore - Maintenance Supervisor T.A. Watson - I&C Supervisor B.N.
Leach - Radiation Protection Supervisor S.P.
Skibniowsky - Chemistry Supervisor G.A.
Johnson - Operations Supervisor The respective job titles indicate the area of expertise l
which might be called upon.
l YAEC, 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 02701 S.R.
Miller -
Project Manager (Contentions, Plant Design & Operation)
J.R. Hoffman -
Principal Engineer (Contentions, Fabrication)
R.M. Grube -
Director, Fuel Management Department (Alternatives)
P.A. Bergeron -
Manager, Transient Analysis (Thermal Hydraulics, Severe Accident)
P.S.
Littlefield - Manager, Radiological Engineering (Severe Accident, Fission Product Inventory)
M.J. Marian -
Project Engineer (Contentions)
D.E. Yasi -
Lead Systems Engineer (Cooling Systems, Plant Design and Operation)
J.R. Chapman -
Manager, Nuclear Evaluation and Support (Severe Accidents, Risk Assessment) 19 -
-_=
i
)
l This response was developed by M.J. Marian, Project Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Framingham, MA.
I INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Assume that VY is shut down for refueling, the spent fuel has been discharged and it is within the period of time that one train of the RHR system is required to augment spent fuel pool cooling:
a.
How will VY assure adequate cooling of both the core and the spent fuel pool in the event of failure of one RHR train?
Explain your answer in detail and provide any documents in support thereof.
b.
Provide all plant operating or emergency procedures which would be used by the operators should one train of RHR fail.
RESPONSE
a.
The assumption that one train of the RHR system is required to augment spent fuel pool cooling during refueling shutdowns is erroneous.
Our previous history and our calculations indicate that there is no need to augment spent fuel pool cooling.
During a shutdown for refueling, the entire cavity area is flooded to allow refueling activities to take place.
In this mode, the spent fuel pool gates are opened.
Although not required specifically for spent I
fuel pool cooling, this configuration provides a flow path such that in the event of a failure of one RHR train, the redundant train can be utilized to provide adequate cooling of the core and the spent fuel pool simultaneously.
The flow path would involve an RHR pump,
_-_-___--_---_.____-____D
taking suction from the reactor vessel and discharging to the spent fuel pool.
b.
All plant operating or emergency procedures which would be used by the operators should one train of RHR fail are available for inspection during regular business hours at the corporate offices of Vermont
)
Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, Vermont, upon such dates and at such specific times as counsel may mutually agree.
1 This answer developed by D.A.
Reid, Operations Support j
Manager, Verment Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, l
Brattleboro, l
l t
As to answers g
Y warren Ni STATE or VERMONT July 1, 1987 Windham, es.
Then appeared before me the above-subscribed Warren P.
y and made oath that he was an officer of Verment Mu e Nuclear Corporation authorised to execute the Ya foregoing responses to interrogatories on its behalf, that a diligent incairy had been made to obtain such infestation in response to the said interrogatories and that to the best of his knowledge and belief such information as the corporation j
har is set forth in the foregoing answers.
Before me, t?
d Notary Publdo My commission expires: A fl8 fl As to objectione lDL
~
TTionias/ 0. Dignan, Jr.
Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Streat Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 --
ATTACHMENT A l
l VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION PROJECTED SPENT I'UEL POOL ACTIVITY l
l Number of Refueling Assemblies Total Activity Percentage Activity i
Year Discharged in Pool (Curies)
Cs Sr IN l
1987 136 4.6E+08 3.9 5.5 3.6 1989 132 4.5E+08 4.1 5.7 3.8 1990 128 4.6E+08 4.4 5.7 4.0 1992 132 4.6E+08 4.5 5.9 4.1 1993 128 4.7E+08 4.7 5.8 4.3 1995 132 4.7E+0B 4.8 6.1 4.4 5.0 6.0 4.5 1996 128 4.8E+08 1998 132 4.7E+08 5.1 6.2 4.6 1999 128 4.9E+0B 5.3 0.2 4.7 1
1 2001 132 4.8E+08 5.3 6.4 4.7
)
2002 128 4.9E+0B 5.5 6.3 4.8 2004 132 4.9E+0B 5.6 6.5 4.9 l
l
)
(1) Assumes asse=blies dischar9ed seven days after shutdown
s i
e i ' i. '
22 f
g g -6 P4:
l
-Ji CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE tw/ '
I, Kathryn A.
Selleck, hereby certify that on July 1, 1987, I made service of the within document in accordance with the rules of the Commission by mailing a copy thereof postage prepaid to the following:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire, David J. Mullet, Esquire Chairman Vermont Department of Administrative Judge Public Service Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 State Street Board Panel Montpelier, VT 05602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 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 j
Washington, DC 20555 Mr. James H. Carpenter 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 General Commission One Ashburton Place Washington, DC 20055 Boston, MA 02108 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 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555 l
l l
Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau State House Annex 25 Capitol Street 1
Concord,IE 03301-6397 a
Khthfyn A.
Selleck l
l
~2-b