ML20247L044

Memorandum (Issues for Consideration at 890621 Oral Argument).* Requests Parties Address Listed Questions Re Environ Contention 3 in Response to Be Filed by 890609 or at Oral Argument.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890526

ML20247L044
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	05/25/1989
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
References
CON-#289-8671 87-547-02-LA, 87-547-2-LA, LBP-89-06, LBP-89-6, OLA, NUDOCS 8906020078
Download: ML20247L044 (6)

Text

_ - _ __ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ . _ _ _

v. ,.  ;,-

ll[b7 tatkrin?

, USNkC

'89 MAY 26 A10:48 UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA 0FH:M,~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  : DUCN ig 1 ATOMIC SAFETY:AND' LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: SERVED MAY 261989-Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. James H.. Carpenter Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

In the Matter'of Docket No. 50-271-OLA.

VERMONT. YANKEE NUCLEAR (Spent Fuel Pool-POWER CORPORATION- Amendment)

.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear ASLBP No. 87-547-02-LA j Power' Station') '

May 25, 1989 MEMORANDUM

.L '(Issues for Consideration at 6/21/89 Oral Argument) .j

-On the basis of~a preliminary examination'of the' Lj testimony filed May 23, 1989 on Environmental Contention 3, {

the Board requesta the parties (to the extent applicable to i

.their testimony) to be prepared to address the following questions, either in their responses to be filed by H l

June 9, 1989 or at oral argument. I

1. Does NECNP's claim concerning the environmental superiority of dry-cask storage rest solely on severe-accident considerations?

8906020078 890525 PDR ADOCK 05000271 G- PDR D SO%

- - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - -- - -- ---A

V-s .-

-a. If so, may we take those considerations into account ~ prior ~to the' Appeal Board's granting. authority for us toLeonsider the severe-accident basis to this contention, which we admitted in-LBP-89-6, 29 NRC 127 (February 2, 1989)-

but concerning which we deferred effectiveness pending Appeal Board action on our referral of the ruling? -

Do.we have to defer any consideration of such a claim until after

.the Appeal Board's decision on LBP-89-6? Should we defer any ruling on Environmental Contention 3 pending the Appeal Board's determination on our referred ruling?

b. If not, what other environmental attributes.of dry cask. storage should we take into account in assessing that alternative and addressing Environmental Contention 3?-

c.- Apart from the Appeal Board's ruling on the i referred ruling,- are the severe-accident risks propounded by.

NECNP a permissible response to the Staff's discussion of i i

severe accidents in its Environmental Assessment (EA) {

.(at p.'11)'and hence to the adequacy of the EA?

f

2. The copies of Dr. Gordon Thompson's testimony i

}^ provided to the Board by NECNP failed to include any of the i

l l Exnibits referenced therein. If NECNP wishes us to take  ;

into account those exhibits, it should provide copies to the Board and parties as soon as possible. In addition, NECNP  ;

should clarify whether its model of low-density racks corresponds to.the racks at Vermont Yankee immediately prior l

1 I

to the current application (at which time VY had authority to store 2000 elements) or prior to VY's previously approved use of high density racks (at which time it had authority to store 600 elements)?

3. Because of the applicability to this proceeding of the so-called Sholly rules, and because physical reracking was authorized under those rules prior to the resolution of various issues in this proceeding, are we or are we not required to consider the impacts of reracking de novo, rather than merely the incremental impacts yet to be experienced (as apparently advocated by the Applicant)?

4. Assuming we were to determine that the EA must include a brief description of the environmental impacts of dry cask storage, are the descriptions provided by the parties in their testimony adequate for this purpose?

a. In that connection, in what manner, if at all, do (

they factor in the benefits attributable to the passive nature of dry cask storage and the attendant operational benefits, as set forth in the proposed rulemaking on dry cask storage (54 Fed. Reg. 19379, 19380 (May 5, 1989))

(provided by NECNP as Attachment 2 to its filing)'

b. In what manner, if at all, do the descriptions of dry cask storage factor in a comparison of potential accidents, both within and beyond design basis, comparable l

to that appearing on p. 11 of the EA with respect to the proposed expansion of pool storage?

FOR Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD n efD.u -

A ff $

Charles Bec'hhoefer, fAairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland May 25, 1989 l

I

UNITED STATES OF AMERfCA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION In'the Matter of I L t VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER I Docket No.(s) 50-271-OLA CORPORATION I (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power i Station) 1 l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that contes of the forecoino LB MEMORANDUM DATED 5/25/89 have been served ucon the followino persons by U.S. mail. first class, exceot as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judae Administrative Judae Christine N. Kohl. Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washinoton. DC 20555 Washinoton. DC 20555 Administrative Judae Administrative Judoe Charles Bechhoefer. Chairman Gustave A.-Linenberoer. Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensino Board Atomic Safety and Licensino Board U.S. Nuclear Raoulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washinoton, DC -20555 Washinoten. DC 20555 Administrative Judae Administrative Judas James H. Carpenter W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensino Board ASLAB U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission 115 Falcon Drive. Colthurst Washinoton. DC 20555 Charlottesville. VA 22901 Ann P. Hodadon, Eso. Diane Curran. Esc.

Office of the General Counsel Harmen. Curran & Tousley U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission 2001 S Street. N.W., Suite 430 Washinoton. DC 20555 Washinaton. DC 20009 i

Thomas G. Dianan. Jr., Esc. R. K. Gad !!!, Escuire Ropes & Gray Ropes k Grav One International Place One International Place Boston. MA 02110 Boston. MA 02110 l

.. - 4 Docket No.(s)50-271-OLA LB MEMORANDUM DATED 3/25/89 John Traficonte. Esc. Samuel H. Press. Esc.

Office of the Attorney. General- Special Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place. 19th Floor Vereont Department of Public Service Boston MA 02108 120 State Street Montpelier. VT 05602 Richard J. Goddard. Esc. Jay M. Gutierrez. Esc.

U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission.

U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission I Rooton II Rooton I  ;

101 Marietta Street. Suite 2900 631 Park Avenue i Atlanta GA 30323 Kina of Prussia. PA 19406 Dated at Rockville. Md. this 26 day of May 1989 p

{,,

BifiisiiisiisiFiiFiiiisiEiiiiiiiin.

I i

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ -