ML20236L805

Answer of State of Vermont to Applicants Petition for Review of ALAB-869.* State of Vermont Urges That Commission Deny Applicant Request for Review of Portion of Aslab Order That Affirmed Admission to Contention 1 in Proceeding

ML20236L805
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	11/05/1987
From:	Mullett D VERMONT, STATE OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20236L807	List: ML20236L805 ML20236L816
References
CON-#487-4774 ALAB-869, OLA, NUDOCS 8711110071
Download: ML20236L805 (2)

Text

'

~

b477f rj DCLKETED

^JbNHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY.. COMMISSION E ' W-6 '. P2 :46 0FFICE OF 5ECndi4py

- 00CXEllNG A SEif VICf'

=-

)

BRANCH In the Matter of

,}l VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR

)

Docket No. 50-271-OLA POhER CORPORATION'

)

(Spent. Fuel Pool j

.)

Amendment (Vermont Yankee Nuclear

<)

. October 22, 1987) j Power Station)

)

1

).

i AREFER OP-THE STATE OF VERMONT TO APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-869 1

1 The State of Vermont, participating =as an interested

.l state pursuant to 10 CFR S.2.715(c), respectfully: urges that the Commission deny the request of the applicant, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, for review of that= portion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal' Board's order which affirmed the Licensing Board's admission of contention 1 in.

]

this proceeding.

As aptly noted by the Appeal' Board in ALAB-669, the Licensing-Board's redrafting of' contention 1

.j was well within its discretion,' particiclarly where the j

l subject matter of the contention was in fact raised by an

]

intervenor.

See NECNP contention 3.

Appl; cant's assertion that the ist,ue could have been litigated in the'1977 spent 1

fuel expansion docket is also without merit.

Questions j

regarding-routine use or the RHR system for spent fuel' j

i cooling purposes were not put at issue by the Commission' I

ctaff's 1977 Safety Evaluation Report or by anything else in-the 1977 proceedings.

See May 26, 1987 of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (LBP 87-17) at 16.

Moreover, what is at 1

d. c,)

'8711110071 871105 PDR ADOCK 05000271 i

Q PDR

^V

~

c m d,,, P ;q ' $ '

" 104 3

,s

.i ,

'25 O'

'e' t,:

s issue'here are concerns overithe use_of:the.RHR. system to c

. coo 11a spent fueltpool.containing up_to:'2870' spent fuel 1 1

assemblies stoEed'in high density l racks.-lThe.1977 H

proceedings, which involved _ expansion:to only 2000' assemblies'

<t q

in racks less tightly spaced, certainly-dia not'giveLanyone'a 1

chance to. explore the extent-and effect'of,using the"RBR 1

system to cool the pool if thefcurrently proposed' amendment

'l 11s allowed.

Finally, applicant's claim that.the Commission i

l should grant-review'in order to determine, applicability'of.'

. [

1 the single failure criterion to' spent fuel pools.is notiwell-

]

s taken.

The definitionLof: systems-subject.:to the-' single 7

.y failure criterion of GDC'44 is'still under. development, L'BP-87-17 at 17,.and such development'can most intelligently 1

and appropriately occur through consideration ~of;these issues.

at the initial, fact-finding type.' stages _of the. hearing-N process.

For these reasons, the applicant's petiti'onlforcreview u

with respect to contention 1'should be denied'.'

l

.I Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this M,' day.'of November, 1987.

nespe fully:,u mitted By:__.

k 1

~

Dav; Mu:.le t't Special ' Ass;.stant Attorney General, Special Counsel l

Vermont Department:of Public Service-120 State Street' 1

Montpelier, VT 05602 (802).828-2811 Counsel for the State.of Vermont wa

---.1

--.---w__wx-am-_