ML20236P889

Answer of State of VT to Applicant Petition for Review of ALAB-869.* Petition for Review Re Contention 1 Should Be Denied

ML20236P889
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	10/22/1987
From:	Mullett D VERMONT, STATE OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20236P885	List: ML20236P883 ML20236P889
References
ALAB-869, LBP-87-17, OLA, NUDOCS 8711190055
Download: ML20236P889 (2)

Text

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

~

!. /

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of -)

.)

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

. POWER CORPORATION ) (Spent Fuel Pool

) Amendment (Vermont Yankee Nuclear <) October 22, 1987)

Power Station) )

)

ANSWER OF THE STATE OF VERMONT TO APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-869 The State of Vermont, participating as an interested 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 J this proceeding. As aptly noted by the Appeal Board in ALAB-869, the Licensing Board's redrafting of contention 1 i was well within its discretion, particularly where the subject matter of the contention was in fact raised by an intervenor. See NECNP contention 3. Applicant's assertion that the issue could have been litigated in the 1977 spent l fuel expansion docket is also without merit. Questions regarding routine use of the RHR system for spent fuel cooling purposes were not put at issue by the Commission  !

staff's 1977 Safety Evaluation Report or by anything else in the 1977 proceedings. See May 26, 1987 of the Atomic Safety 1

and Licensing Board (LBP 87-17) at 16. Moreover, what is at '

8711190055 871105 PDR ADOCK 05000271 O pop

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

i c

i y  :..

1 issue;here are concerns over'the use of the RHRLsystem to.

~

cool a; spent l fuel pool containing up to 2870 spent fuel  !

.I assemblies stored'in high density. racks. The 1977 proceedings, which; involved expansion.to only 2000 assemblies in racks less tightly spaced, certainly~did.not'.give anyone a chance to. explore'the extent and effect.of using the RER system to cool the pool if the currently proposed amendment-is allowed. Finally, applicant's claim'that the Commission should grant review in order,to determine applicability of the' single failure. criterion to spent fuel pools is not well-taken. The definition of. systems subject'to the single failure criterion'of GDC 44-is.still under development, LBP-87-17 at 17,'and such development can:most intelligently and appropriate 1y' occur through' consideration of these issues I

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

For these reasons, the applicant's petition for review with respect to contention 1 should be denied.

Dated at Montpelier, Vormont this - day of November, 1987.

Respe fully .u itted By: in N ')

~

Dav. f J. Mu:.let't )

Special Asspstant Attorney General j Special Counsel I Vermont Department of Public Service

~

120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 J (802) 828-2811 1 Counsel for the State of Vermont

- _ - _ - _ i

+

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

. BEFORE THE

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

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

) Amendment (Vermont ~ Yankee Nuclear V

) November 5, 1987)

Power Station) -)

)

State of Vermont's Answer to NECNP and Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petitions for Review of ALAB-876 For the reasons stated in the petitions.for review filed by NECNP and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of

-Vermont, participating as an interested state pursuant to.10 CFR 2.715(c), urges that the Commission grant review and  ;

i reverse the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's rejection of contention 2. It is NEPA itself which sets the standard for determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared, see 42 U.S.C. S4321 et Egg, and contention 2, as redrafted by the Licensing Board, properly recognizes the existence of a factual question as to whether the proposed expansion of the pool constitutes "a major i

federal action significantly affecting the quality of the j human environment." Moreover, in view of the final 1

Brookhaven report's conclusions regarding the possibility of l 8

I self-propagating cladding fires in the pool, and the specific relationship between storage in high density racks and such .

i Ol 'P

_4,4, .

L

[ potential incidents, this factual question isicertainly L

-one_of. significance in assessing,.the impact of the proposed amendment-ontthe health, safety and welfareof the citizens of1 Vermont and the surrounding states. Because this constitutes the first spent. fuel expansion proceeding in:

which the i conclusion'in the Brookhaven report can be i

evaluated through the hearing' p'rocess, questions regarding.

. contention 2 raise important issues of public policy,'and should be reviewed under the. authority of.10 CFR, S2.786 (b) (4) (1) .

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this day of November, 1987.

Re ectfully bmitted',

~

.? ]

Day /id J. Mullett Special Assistant Attorney ,

General Special Counsel Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street l Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 828-2811 Counsel for State of l Vermont See " Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in Support of Generic Safety Issue 82," Brookhaven National Laboratory, July 1987 (recommending a two year interval between the i discharge of freshly discharged fuel and its storage in high density racks).

l

{