ML040850076

G20040206/LTR-04-0168 - Ltr. Rep. Michael Dworkin Independent Safety Asessment of Vermont Yankee

ML040850076
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	03/15/2004
From:	Dworkin M State of VT, Public Service Board
To:	Diaz N Document Control Desk, NRC/OCM
References
G20040206, LTR-04-0168, Y020040075
Download: ML040850076 (5)

Text

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM: DUE: 04/06/04 EDO CONTROL: G20040206 DOC DT: 03/15/04 FINAL REPLY:

Michael H. Dworkin Vermont Public Service Board State of Vermont Chairman Diaz FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO: 04-0168 Dyer, NRR DESC: ROUTING:

Independent Safety Assessment of Vermont Yankee Travers Norry Paperiello Kane Collins Dean DATE: 03/24/04 Burns Miller, RI ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: Cyr, OGC NRR Dyer SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

Ref. G20040176, G20040203.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed:Mar23, 2004 15.55 PAPER NUMBER: LTR-04-0168 LOGGING DATE: 03/23/2004 ACTION OFFICE: EDO/OC AUTHOR: Michael Dworkin AFFILIATION: VT ADDRESSEE: Nils Diaz

SUBJECT:

Vermont Public Service Board Request for Independent Engineering Assessment of Vermont Yankee ACTION: Signature of Chairman DISTRIBUTION: SECY to Ack. Cy RF.

LETTER DATE: 03/1512004 ACKNOWLEDGED No SPECIAL HANDLING: ADAMS for Immediate Release via SECY/OGC/DPC NOTES:

FILE LOCATION: ADAMS DATE DUE: 04/06/2004 DATE SIGNED:

EDO -- G20040206

112 Soa~ Sact AJTrY/FDD (VT): 1400-734-8390 Drawer 20 Fax: (80) 828-3351 Mnrelr. VT 0Si02O.1701 E.MaIl: clerpsbsce.vaus TU.: (802) 828-2358 inteet: htxp:Iwwsw-vLuzsb State or Vcrnont Public Service Board March 15, 2004 Mr. Nils J. Diaz, Chairman United State; Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 ATTN: Dumuincut Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Vermont Public Service Board Request for Independent Engineering Assessmcnt of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR -28 (Docket 50-271)

Technical Specification Proposed Change No. 263 Extended Power Ulprate

Dear Chairman Diaz:

As you know, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (CEntergy"), is seeking approvals from both the United States Nuclear Kegulatory Commission ("NRC") and the Vermont Public Service Board

("Board") in regard to a proposed 20 percent power uprate at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station ("Vermont Yankee"). We noted in your February 20, 2004, letter to Michael Kansler, President of Entergy, that your staff has determined that Vermont Yankee's extended power uprate ("uprate") application is now acceptable for review, and that your review is expected to be completed over the next 12 months.I Entergy has also submitted a request to the Board for a Certificate of Public Good permitting Vermont Yankee to increase electrical generation by up to 20 percent. In determining whether Entergy should receive a Certificate of Public Good, the Board must consider several statutory crteria, including economic impacts upon the people of Vermont.

Because of this statutory standard, assessing the reliability effects of the proposed uprate upon Vermont Yankee's expected output is critical to our review. Very few nuclear plants (and even fewer of Vermont Yankee's age) have seen uprates in the 17 20 percent range. Among those

1. Leter to Michael Kaansler, President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (TAC No. MC0761).

few, reductions in output havc bccn morc than incidental. From Vermont's perspective, the proposed uprate raises serious engineering questions that only the NRC appears qualified to independently assess. Thus, we are writing to ask the NRC to augment its scheduled review of Vermont Yankee along the lines set out below.

During our investigation of Entergy's request, we heard testimony as to the need for an independent review of the proposed extended power uprate. We also heard testimony from Entergy, State officials, and advocates describing the NRC's review process, and the role of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS). Testimony identified the ACRS as independent of the NRC staff who conduct the initial review of the technical aspects of the proposed changes, and the importance of an independent review of its staffs findings and conclusions.

We understand that, under certain circumstances, the NRC has agreed to sponsor a more detailed review of certain engineering aspects of a nuclear plants operation in order to establish tbe cffectivcness of regulatory oversight In 1996, for example, the NRC conducltd such a review at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station ("Maine Yankee"), where there were concerns about the analysis supporting an increase in the rated thermal power at which Maine Yankee could operate. We understand that the review undertaken at Maine Yankee was performed by a "team comprised of staff who were independent of any recent or significant regulatory oversight responsibility"2 for Maine Yankee, and that it was coordinated with the State to facilitate participation by the State representatives consistent with NRC policy. We also recognize and greatly appreciate that the Commission has subsequently incorporated into its current uprate review process much of what was developed during the 1996 Maine Yankee assessment.

We ask that, as the NRC conducts its current uprate analysis of Vermont Yankee, it do so in a way thai will provide Vermunt with a lcvel of assurance about reliability equivalent to asn independent engineering assessment Such an assessment contains the following features:

• It would be independent in the same sense as the independent safety assessment of Maine Yankee, i.e., it should be performed by experts "independent of any recent or significant regulatory oversight responsibility" related to Vermont Yankee. 3

• The assessment would be a vertical slice review of two safety-related systems and two Maintenance Rule, non-safety systems affected by the uprate. The level of effort necessary for this work has been described to us in testimony as requiring about four experts for about four weeks. 4 This will provide a valuable check of the reliability of the systems that are reviewed and allow for correction of any problems.

• The independent engineering assessment should (as we believe is expected) be reviewed by the ACRS in the context of their evaluation of the power uprate.

2. Independent Safety Assessment of Maine Yankee Atonic Power Company, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission, October 1996; Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 6812, exb. NEC-DL-3 at 1.

3. Id.

4. Lochbaum pf. 12/18/03 at 8-9; tu.1/13/04 at 110-1I (Locbbaum).

We are making this unusual request of the NRC because Vermont must be reasonably assured that Vermont Yankee - a resource for which two of the state's largest retail electricity providers have contracted nearly one third of their power for thelljex LFIJ veals - conthiucs to be a reliable source of electricity. While the reliability of Vcrn ont Yankee has always been of great concern to the Board, it is especially important in the case of this proposed 20 percent extended power uprate. Thus, we request this review, as set out above, because the record presented in our proceeding strongly suggests that an uprate of the magnitude proposed here raises significant reliability issues upon which the NRC's assessment will be of extraordinarily high value.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. We would welcome a response at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Michael H. Dworkin for Vermont Public Service Board Michael H. Dworkin, Chairman David C. Coen, Board Member John D. Burke, Board Member Cc: Mr. Ledyard B. Marsh, Director Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-8ElA Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 MT. Richard 1D. Ennis, Proj oct Managcr Licensing Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-8B-1 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001