ML042180311
| ML042180311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/20/2004 |
| From: | Dyer J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Blanch P, Gundersen A - No Known Affiliation |
| Skay D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1322 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML042180408 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, FOIA/PA-2004-0369, G20040511, TAC MC3892 | |
| Download: ML042180311 (7) | |
Text
August 20, 2004 Paul M. Blanch 135 Hyde Road West Hartford, CT 06117 Arnold Gundersen 139 Killarney Drive Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Messrs. Blanch and Gundersen:
Your petition dated July 29, 2004, and addressed to the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 2.206 of the Commissions regulations. You requested that the NRC issue a Demand for Information requiring Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) to provide information that clearly and unambiguously describes how Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) complies with the General Design Criteria (GDC) specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, or the draft GDC published by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1967. As the basis for your request, you state that this information is essential for two NRC regulatory activities at Vermont Yankee: (1) the NRC's review of Entergys application for an extended power uprate, and (2) the NRC's engineering assessment. You state that until the design bases are clearly identified, any inspection or assessment is meaningless. Our Petition Review Board has completed its review of your submittal as discussed in the following paragraphs.
Based on information available in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), and letters submitted to the NRC by the licensee, the NRC staff asserts that the design bases of Vermont Yankee are clear and unambiguous. Correspondence between the licensee and the NRC clearly indicate that Vermont Yankee is licensed to the draft GDC published in 1967.
The apparent confusion regarding the design bases arises from wording in Appendix F to the UFSAR. The purpose of Appendix F was to document how Vermont Yankee conformed to the proposed GDC published by the AEC in July of 1967. Vermont Yankee was issued a construction permit in December 1967. In 1971, the AEC published the final version of the GDC as Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. In approving the final GDC, the Commission stressed that they were not new requirements, but were promulgated to more clearly articulate the licensing requirements and practice in effect at that time. In 1982, the licensee for Vermont Yankee submitted an update of the UFSAR to the NRC, including revisions to Appendix F.
The purpose of the 1982 revision of Appendix F to the UFSAR was to document how the design and construction of Vermont Yankee met the intent of the final GDC, since NRC guidance was not clear at the time regarding treatment for plants with construction permits issued prior to issuance of the final GDC. In a subsequent letter dated September 28, 1999, the licensee clarified that Vermont Yankee was explicitly licensed to the requirements of the draft GDC.
This letter was prompted by a Commission decision in 1992 that staff will not apply the final GDC to plants with construction permits issued prior to May 21, 1971. With the
Messrs. Blanch and Gundersen clarification by the Commission that pre-GDC plants, such as Vermont Yankee, do not need exemptions to the final GDC, the licensee stated that it intended to reinstate the original version of the UFSAR. As stated in UFSAR Appendix F, the information in this appendix is retained for historical significance and should not be considered current design configuration. The information in Appendix F was developed during the construction phase of the facility. Changes have been made to the facility over time and, in some instances, the NRC has imposed new regulations on Vermont Yankee based on the substantial increase in safety that would be provided. Information regarding current design configuration is found elsewhere in the UFSAR and in other design basis information.
More recently, the licensee has provided information to assist the staff in understanding the requirements applicable to Vermont Yankee related to the proposed power uprate. Entergys letter dated October 1, 2003, provides a matrix between the draft GDC and the final GDC in Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. In addition, in Attachment 4 to their January 31, 2004, letter, Entergy provided a revised safety evaluation template for extended power uprate reviews that replaces the GDC in RS-001 with Vermont Yankee design criteria based on the current licensing basis. Therefore, the staff does not see a need for, or benefit in, requesting the licensee to submit additional information demonstrating how it meets the draft GDC.
For the purposes of performing the inspection, the design basis of Vermont Yankee, as described above, is the design basis that will be used by the engineering inspection team as it evaluates Vermont Yankee. It is also important to note that there are methods available to the inspection team for obtaining additional information regarding the licensing basis for specific components or systems that it is evaluating, rendering a Demand for Information unnecessary.
Notwithstanding the position discussed in this response, I remind you that the application for an extended power uprate provides the public with an opportunity to request a hearing on any issues relevant to the uprate. The time period during which a hearing may be requested will be open until August 30, 2004. Because the staffs review of the uprate is ongoing, the appropriate venue for debating issues such as these is the hearing process. For this reason, the staff will not treat this request under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because these issues can be addressed through the ongoing licensing proceeding (See Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions, Handbook Part III, Section (C)(1)(a)(iii)).
However, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(1)(2), if a petition to intervene and request a hearing in a licensing proceeding does not satisfy the legal requirements for a hearing or intervention, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or the Presiding Officer may refer the request to the 10 CFR 2.206 process, in which case, we would accept it for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely,
/RA/
J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271
Messrs. Blanch and Gundersen clarification by the Commission that pre-GDC plants, such as Vermont Yankee, do not need exemptions to the final GDC, the licensee stated that it intended to reinstate the original version of the UFSAR. As stated in UFSAR Appendix F, the information in this appendix is retained for historical significance and should not be considered current design configuration. The information in Appendix F was developed during the construction phase of the facility. Changes have been made to the facility over time and, in some instances, the NRC has imposed new regulations on Vermont Yankee based on the substantial increase in safety that would be provided. Information regarding current design configuration is found elsewhere in the UFSAR and in other design basis information.
More recently, the licensee has provided information to assist the staff in understanding the requirements applicable to Vermont Yankee related to the proposed power uprate. Entergys letter dated October 1, 2003, provides a matrix between the draft GDC and the final GDC in Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. In addition, in Attachment 4 to their January 31, 2004, letter, Entergy provided a revised safety evaluation template for extended power uprate reviews that replaces the GDC in RS-001 with Vermont Yankee design criteria based on the current licensing basis. Therefore, the staff does not see a need for, or benefit in, requesting the licensee to submit additional information demonstrating how it meets the draft GDC.
For the purposes of performing the inspection, the design basis of Vermont Yankee, as described above, is the design basis that will be used by the engineering inspection team as it evaluates Vermont Yankee. It is also important to note that there are methods available to the inspection team for obtaining additional information regarding the licensing basis for specific components or systems that it is evaluating, rendering a Demand for Information unnecessary.
Notwithstanding the position discussed in this response, I remind you that the application for an extended power uprate provides the public with an opportunity to request a hearing on any issues relevant to the uprate. The time period during which a hearing may be requested will be open until August 30, 2004. Because the staffs review of the uprate is ongoing, the appropriate venue for debating issues such as these is the hearing process. For this reason, the staff will not treat this request under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because these issues can be addressed through the ongoing licensing proceeding (See Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions, Handbook Part III, Section (C)(1)(a)(iii)).
However, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(1)(2), if a petition to intervene and request a hearing in a licensing proceeding does not satisfy the legal requirements for a hearing or intervention, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or the Presiding Officer may refer the request to the 10 CFR 2.206 process, in which case, we would accept it for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely,
/RA/
J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271 DISTRIBUTION: See Next Page Package: ML042180408, Incoming: ML042120147, Accession: ML042180311 OFFICE PDI-1/PM PDI-2/LA PDI-VY/SC PDI/D DLPM/D NRR/D NAME DSkay CRaynor AHowe CHolden TMarsh JDyer DATE 8/16/04 8/10/04 8/16/2004 8/17/2004 8/18/2004 8/20/04 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC PDI-2 R/F LReyes EMerchoff WKane CPaperiello PNorry WDean SBurns MVirgilio JDyer, NRR BSheron, NRR/ADPT OGC KCyr, OGC JGoldberg, OGC OPA OCA NRR Mail Room (EDO# G20040511)
KGrimes LCox AHowe CHolden DSkay REnnis CRaynor SCollins, RI CAnderson, RI WRuland JStang SRichards JJacobson VBucci, OIG
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Mr. David R. Lewis Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Ms. Christine S. Salembier, Commissioner Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Mr. Michael H. Dworkin, Chairman Public Service Board State of Vermont 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 Chairman, Board of Selectmen Town of Vernon P.O. Box 116 Vernon, VT 05354-0116 Operating Experience Coordinator Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 320 Governor Hunt Road Vernon, VT 05354 G. Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6937 Chief, Safety Unit Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Ms. Deborah B. Katz Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 Ms. Carla A. White, RRPT, CHP Radiological Health Vermont Department of Health P.O. Box 70, Drawer #43 108 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05402-0070 Mr. James M. DeVincentis Manager, Licensing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Resident Inspector Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 176 Vernon, VT 05354 Director, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency ATTN: James Muckerheide 400 Worcester Rd.
Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Jonathan M. Block, Esq.
Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 Mr. John F. McCann Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Gary J. Taylor Chief Executive Officer Entergy Operations 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Mr. John T. Herron Sr. VP and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Danny L. Pace Vice President, Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Brian OGrady Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael J. Colomb Director of Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. John M. Fulton Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Jay K. Thayer Site Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Mr. Kenneth L. Graesser 38832 N. Ashley Drive Lake Villa, IL 60046 Mr. James Sniezek 5486 Nithsdale Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 Mr. Ronald Toole 1282 Valley of Lakes Box R-10 Hazelton, PA 18202 Ms. Stacey M. Lousteau Treasury Department Entergy Services, Inc.
639 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Mr. Raymond Shadis New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 Mr. James P. Matteau Executive Director Windham Regional Commission 139 Main Street, Suite 505 Brattleboro, VT 05301 Mr. William K. Sherman Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601