ML20059F668

Comments on Review of Amend 115 to License DPR-28,including Safety Evaluation.Requests Explanation of Statement in NRC Re How NRC Considers Comments & What Resolution Could Be for Each Util Comment in

ML20059F668
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	08/22/1990
From:	Sterzinger G VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	Fairtile M NRC
References
NUDOCS 9009110309
Download: ML20059F668 (2)

Text

'

i. ;w.

r <

-oc 5 o

[f

• x.y = !.

l STATE OF YERMOVr DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC $ER\1CE 120 STA1T STRELT MONTP!2RA\T 0%02 TD. 802 828-2811 FAX: 802 828-2342 August 22, 1990 License DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)

Morton-Fairtile, Project Manager U;S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

' State Comments in Accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 50.91

Reference:

(1) NRC Letter dated September 7, 1989, " Issuance 1 of Amendment 115 to Facility Operating License No. DPR Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (2) Vermont Letter dated February 9, 1989,

" Comments on Proposed Modification to Appendix ~

A ofLthe operating License.-- Valve' Testing

Dear Mort:

We ' have completed our review of Amendment 115 as described in Reference (1).. .We.are concerned that our comments, provided in

' Reference (2), appear not to have been addressed. The cover lett'er

~

of; Reference (1) includes.the following statement "Bf letter dated February 9, 1989, the State of Vermont

- mt.de comments on the proposed license amendment. The NRC .

. s.;aff ~ considered' these comments in their review. ~

Our t.nclosed Safety Evaluation. reflects this consideration of the State's' comments." ,

j

, . . . 4 l

However, a review of the "enclosedLl Safety Evaluation" does not yield, even by.the most-generouscinterpretation, any inkling that the State's comments have"been-addressed.

00109 i ,

^

o

ok E82'2iB8s38888!72

.P, PNV q I '

i  ;

'

• 4

.o ,, ,

As you know, the State Const .t ation provisions of 10 C.F.R.- S 50.91

=t- .are an important component of the State / Federal interface in the area of radiological health and safety. We are keenly aware that the State consultation procedures do not give the State the right to veto the Commission's proposed or final determination (10 C.F.R.

S 50.91(c)). Yet without thoroughly and clearly resolving comments when provided, a State is left with litigation as the only alternative for resolution of its concerns.

We feel our comments in Reference (2) are well-founded, serious.

g concerns regarding the proposed amendment and the NRC staff's control of primary containment isolation valve testing on the subject pages of the amendment, and we have yet to be informed regarding the resolution of these comments. Consequently, we request an explanation of the statement from Reference (1): How did "[t]he NRC staff consider () these comments in their review"?

Further, what is the resolution of each of Vermont's comments in Reference (2)?

We appreciate your attention regarding this important matter.

Should you have questions please call Mr. William Sherman of our staff.

Sincrely,

/7 ,

e,.

..- ,/ '.

q Ge ommig,orgc,iopr tep i ger State Lia/ston Officer