ML20236E621
| ML20236E621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1987 |
| From: | Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E625 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4103 OLA, NUDOCS 8708030029 | |
| Download: ML20236E621 (5) | |
Text
_
COLFEiEr July 21,1987 UVWC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,87 JU. 24 A8 :25 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board cn DUR
)
In the Matter of
)
)
l Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Corporation
)
Docket No. 5 0-271-OLA
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
NECNP'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES l
AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION The instructions and definitions contained in NECNP's Pirst Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests are incorporated herein.
1.
Is it VY's view that both trains of the spent fuel pool cool-ing system are capable of removing the total heat load generated by a normal (1/3 core) discharge such that the pool temperature is always kept below 150*F throughout the lifetime of tho pro-posed amendment?
Explain the bases for your response and identify all calculations, analyses or other documents which sup-port it.
l 2.
Answer question il above, but substitute 140*F for 150*F.
l l
3.
With regard to specification A. of 5 3.14 of the proposed new Limiting Condition for Operation attached as Appendix B to the "NRC Staff's Brief In Opposition to the Brief of Applicant," June 25, 1987, for how many days af ter discharge of a normal 1/3 core will compliance with this Specification require the reactor to be shut down?
k[ fbo
})
0 1
G
S 1 4.
What is the length of past refueling outages for Vermont Yankee?
5.
What is the current average daily cost of replacement power when VY is shut down for refueling?
2 i
G 6
Is is VY's view that a location for a dry cask stor, age area cannot be found on the site of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant?
k g[
7.
Please describe in detail any " difficulty in selecting a suitable on-site location for the cask storage area" which VY considers substantial.
(" Licensee's Responses to NECNP's First Set of Interrogatories", hereinaf ter " Licensee's First Response",
la, p. 3).
Y 8.
Please identify all " utilities and vendors involved in alternative fuel storage development projects" with which VY or its contractors had meetings or discussions.
(Licensee's First
?
Response, la, p. 3).
9.
Identify all documents reflecting communications between VY or its contractors and any " utilities and vendors involved in alternative fuel storage development projects."
- 10. What is VY's best estimate of the total cost of dry cask storage, including the casks and any necessary facility modifica-tions as listed in Licensee's First Response, 3, p. 6?
Identify all documents supporting your re ponse and provide them.
- 11. What is VY's best estimate of the cost of an independent wet storage pool at VY, including all elements listed in Licensee's 1
First Response,11, p.107 Identify all documents supporting j
2 your response and provide them.
j
- 12. Identify and provide all calculations, analyses or any other documents which support VY's assertion that its " previous history
. and... calculations indicate that there is no need to augment spent fuel pool cooling."
(Licensee's First Response, 2 3, p.
20).
- 13. Describe how VY's calculations of the combined heat load to s
be removed from the pool and core are affected by the change from i
an annual to an 18 month refueling schedule.
Identify and pro-h vide all documents which support your response.
- 14. Does the heat load of 17.3 MBtu/hr given at page one of the June 11,1987 letter from Mr. Murphy to Mr. Rooney ( FVY 87-65) include the assumption of a change from an annual to an 18 month l
l refueling schedule?
Does the heat load of 18.26 MBtu/hr for i
2,870 assemblies include the assumption of an 18-month refueling I
schedule?
I
- 15. Identify and provide the evaluation of a fuel pool tempera-ture transient to 200*F referred to at page 3 of Mr. Murphy's letter (FVY 87-65).
l
- 16. Identify and provide the evaluation which concluded that each of the spent fuel pool cooling subsystems are capable of opera-l tion at a fluid temperature of 200*F, referenced at page 3 of Mr.
I Murphy's letter.
( FV Y 87-65).
- 17. Specify the original design basis for the spent fuel pool cooling system and its components.
Identity and provide the
~
l documents which support your response.
- 18. Counsel for VY s tated the following at the Prehearing Confer-ence of April 21, 1987:
l But the point I am getting at this plant, the mistake NECNP makes is on page 6 of their original filing and they start out af ter giving their basis for Contention 3, "should this amendment be approved it would be necessary under certain
a
- 9 i conditions to use one train of the reactor's residual heat removal system RHR in addition to the spent fuel cooling j
system in order to maintain the pool water within the design j
limits of 150 degrees Fahrenheit."
That is true, it's true today...
This new amendment does not for the first time require I
the utilization of RHR...
)
Prehearing Conference, Tr. 59.
j Are the underlined statements accurate?
- 19. Please provide the following documents to be picked up by a representative of NECNP at a mutually ccnvenient time no later than August 10, 1987:
a.
The preliminary cost and schedule estimates for rerack-ing, dry cask storage and fuel pin compaction, June 7,1982, l
identified in Licensee First Response la.
b.
Any minutes or other documents reflecting the substance of the meetings of July 26, 1982, December,1982 and January, 1983 identified in Licensee's First Response, la.
c.
The December 2,1982, status report identified in l
Licensee's First Response, la.
l d.
The detailed status report, of August 18, 1983, identified in Licensee's First Response, la.
e.
The " technical evaluations" identified at page 3, line 13 in Licensee's First Response, la.
f.
All documents responsive to Interrogatory 5 (Licensee's First Response,
- p. 7).
g.
All documents responsive to Interrogatory 11 (Licensee's First Response, p. 10).
h.
All documents responsive to Interrogatory 13 (Licensee's First Response, pp. 10-11.
1 l
. 1.
All documents responsive to Interrogatory 19 (Licensee's First Response, p. 16).
j.
All documents responsive to Interrogatory 23b (Licensee's First Response, p. 21).
By 6Iwl'bO Ellyn J. Weiss j
EARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street, N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 2 0009
)
(202) 328-3500 I
Counsel for NECNP L
l l
i A
$