ML053490030
| ML053490030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/05/2006 |
| From: | Richard Ennis NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLB |
| To: | Kansler M Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Ennis R, NRR/DLPM, 415-1420 | |
| References | |
| %dam200606, TAC MC0761 | |
| Download: ML053490030 (14) | |
Text
January 5, 2006 Mr. Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION - EXTENDED POWER UPRATE, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (TAC NO. MC0761)
Dear Mr. Kansler:
Enclosed is a copy of a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination related to your application for an amendment dated September 10, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated October 1, and October 28 (2 letters), 2003, January 31 (2 letters), March 4, May 19, July 2, July 27, July 30, August 12, August 25, September 14, September 15, September 23, September 30 (2 letters), October 5, October 7 (2 letters), December 8, and December 9, 2004, and February 24, March 10, March 24, March 31, April 5, April 22, June 2, August 1, August 4, September 10, September 14, September 18, September 28, October 17, October 21 (2 letters), October 26, October 29, November 2, November 22, and December 2, 2005, for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). The proposed amendment would allow an increase in the maximum authorized power level for VYNPS from 1593 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1912 MWt.
This notice has been forwarded to the Office of Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
Mr. Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION - EXTENDED POWER UPRATE, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (TAC NO. MC0761)
Dear Mr. Kansler:
Enclosed is a copy of a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination related to your application for an amendment dated September 10, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated October 1, and October 28 (2 letters), 2003, January 31 (2 letters), March 4, May 19, July 2, July 27, July 30, August 12, August 25, September 14, September 15, September 23, September 30 (2 letters), October 5, October 7 (2 letters), December 8, and December 9, 2004, and February 24, March 10, March 24, March 31, April 5, April 22, June 2, August 1, August 4, September 10, September 14, September 18, September 28, October 17, October 21 (2 letters), October 26, October 29, November 2, November 22, and December 2, 2005, for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). The proposed amendment would allow an increase in the maximum authorized power level for VYNPS from 1593 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1912 MWt.
This notice has been forwarded to the Office of Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC CRaynor TAlexion LPL1-2 Reading REnnis STurk, OGC DRoberts OGC VBucci, OIG CHaney/CHolden ACRS CAnderson, RGN-I ADAMS Accession Number: ML053490030 OFFICE LPL1-2/PM:EO LPL1-1/LA OGC LPL1-2/BC NAME REnnis SLittle STurk DRoberts (VNerses for)
DATE 1/04/06 1/04/06 1/04/06 1/05/06 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
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 Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Mr. David OBrien, Commissioner Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Mr. James Volz, 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. 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, Licensing 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. Oscar Limpias Vice President, Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Christopher Schwartz 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. Travis C. McCullough 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. James H. Sniezek 5486 Nithsdale Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 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 Mr. Michael D. Lyster 5931 Barclay Lane Naples, FL 34110-7306 Ms. Charlene D. Faison Manager, Licensing 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
DOCKET NO. 50-271 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, issued to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) located in Windham County, Vermont.
The proposed amendment would change the VYNPS operating license to increase the maximum authorized power level from 1593 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1912 MWt. This change represents an increase of approximately 20 percent above the current maximum authorized power level. The proposed extended power uprate (EPU) amendment would also change the VYNPS Technical Specifications (TSs) to provide for implementing uprated power operation.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staffs analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
First Standard Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No As discussed in the licensees application dated September 10, 2003, the VYNPS EPU analyses, which were performed at or above EPU conditions, included a review and evaluation of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that could be affected by the proposed change. The licensee reviewed plant modifications and revised operating parameters, including operator actions, to confirm acceptable performance of plant SSCs under EPU conditions. On this basis, the licensee concluded that there is no increase in the probability of accidents previously evaluated.
Further, as also discussed in the licensees application, while not being submitted as a risk-informed licensing action, the proposed amendment was evaluated by the licensee from a risk perspective. Using the NRC guidelines established in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, and the calculated results from the VYNPS Level 1 and 2 probabilistic safety analyses, the best estimate for the core damage frequency (CDF) increase due to the proposed EPU is 3.3 E-7 per year (an increase of 4.2 percent over the pre-EPU CDF of 7.77 E-6 per year). The best estimate for the large early release frequency (LERF) increase due to the proposed EPU is 1.1 E-7 per year (an increase of 4.9 percent over the pre-EPU LERF of 2.23 E-6 per year). The NRC staff concludes, based on review of the licensees risk evaluation and the acceptance guidelines in RG 1.174, that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The NRC staffs evaluation of the proposed amendment included review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed change. This review included evaluation of plant modifications, revised operating parameters, changes to operator actions and procedures, the EPU test program, and changes to the plant TSs. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there is reasonable assurance that the SSCs important to safety will continue to meet their intended design basis functions under EPU conditions. Therefore, the staff concludes that there is no significant change in the ability of these SSCs to preclude or mitigate the consequences of accidents.
The NRC staffs evaluation also reviewed the impact of the proposed EPU on the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents for VYNPS. The staffs review concluded that dose criteria in 10 CFR 50.67, as well as the applicable acceptance criteria in Standard Review Plan Section 15.0.1, would continue to be met at EPU conditions.
The NRC staff concludes, based on review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed amendment and review of the radiological consequences, that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Second Standard Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No As stated above, the NRC staffs evaluation of the proposed amendment included review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed change. This review included evaluation of plant modifications, revised operating parameters, changes to operator actions and procedures, the EPU test program, and changes to the plant TSs. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the proposed amendment would not introduce any significantly new or different plant equipment, would not significantly impact the manner in which the plant is operated, and would not have any significant impact on the design function or operation of the SCCs involved. The staffs review did not identify any credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the VYNPS design and licensing bases. Consequently, the staff concludes that the proposed change would not introduce any failure mode not previously analyzed.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Third Standard Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No As discussed in the licensees application, continuing improvements in analytical techniques based on several decades of boiling-water reactor safety technology, plant performance feedback, operating experience, and improved fuel and core designs, have resulted in a significant increase in the design and operating margin between the calculated safety analyses results and the current plant licensing limits. The NRC staffs review found that the proposed EPU will reduce some of the existing design and operational margins. However, safety margins are considered to not be significantly reduced if: (1) applicable regulatory requirements, codes and standards or their alternatives approved for use by the NRC, are met, and (2) if safety analysis acceptance criteria in the licensing basis are met, or if proposed revisions to the licensing basis provide sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e.,
fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB), and containment) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the fission product barriers as discussed below.
The NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU to assure that acceptable fuel damage limits are not exceeded. This included consideration of the VYNPS fuel system design, nuclear system design, thermal and hydraulic design, accident and transient analyses, and fuel design limits. The evaluation included an assessment of the margin in the associated safety analyses supporting the proposed EPU. The staffs evaluation found that the licensees analysis was acceptable based on use of approved analytical methods and that the licensee had included sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty. In addition, the licensee will continue to perform cycle-specific analysis to confirm that fuel design limits will not be exceeded during each cycle. The staffs evaluation concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft General Design Criteria (GDC) 6, 7, and 8; and 10 CFR 50.46).
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that fuel cladding integrity would be maintained within acceptable limits under the proposed EPU conditions.
The NRC staff further evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the RCPB. The evaluation included an assessment of overpressure protection; structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports; and structural integrity of the reactor vessel. With respect to overpressure protection, the staff found that the licensee had used an NRC-approved evaluation method, had used the most limiting pressurization event, and had determined that the peak calculated pressure would remain below the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) allowable peak pressure. With respect to structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports, the staff found that the licensee had performed its evaluation using the process and methodology defined in NRC-approved topical reports. The staffs evaluation concluded that RCPB structural integrity would be maintained at EPU conditions. With respect to structural integrity of the reactor vessel, the staff found that the licensee had implemented an acceptable reactor vessel materials surveillance program in a previously-approved amendment that was based on neutron fluence values acceptable for VYNPS at EPU conditions. In addition, the staff found that the existing pressure-temperature limit curves contained in the TSs would remain bounding for EPU conditions. The staff also found that the methodology used by the licensee to evaluate the loads on the reactor vessel was consistent with an NRC-approved methodology and that the maximum stresses and fatigue usage factors for EPU conditions would be within ASME Code allowable limits. The staffs evaluation regarding the RCPB concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft GDC 9, 33, 34, and 35; 10 CFR 50.60; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices G and H). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that RCPB structural integrity would be maintained under the proposed EPU conditions.
Finally, the NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the containment.
The staff found that the licensees analysis used acceptable calculational methods and conservative assumptions and that the containment pressure and temperature under EPU conditions would remain below existing design limits. The staff also evaluated the licensees proposed change to the licensing basis to credit containment accident pressure to meet the net positive suction head (NPSH) requirements for the emergency core cooling system pumps.
The staff found that the licensees analysis was performed using conservative assumptions and that the credited pressure remains below the containment accident pressure that would be available under EPU conditions. The staffs evaluation regarding the containment concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft GDC 10, 41, 49, and 52; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that containment structural integrity would be maintained under the proposed EPU conditions.
In summary, the NRC staff has concluded that the structural integrity of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, RCPB and containment) would be maintained under EPU conditions. As such, the proposed amendment would not degrade confidence in the ability of the barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Conclusion Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making a final determination.
The Commission previously published a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing for the proposed VYNPS EPU amendment in the Federal Register on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 39976). This Notice provided 60 days for the public to request a hearing. On August 30, 2004, the Vermont Department of Public Service and the New England Coalition filed requests for hearing in connection with the proposed amendment. By Order dated November 22, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted those hearing requests and by Order dated December 16, 2004, the ASLB issued its decision to conduct a hearing using the procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications. No additional opportunity for hearing is provided in connection with this notice.
In accordance with the Commissions regulations in 10 CFR 50.91, if a final determination is made that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding submission of adverse comments or a request for hearing. In that event, any required hearing would be completed after issuance of the amendment; however, if a final determination is made that the proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, the amendment would not be issued prior to completion of the hearing.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensees application dated September 10, 2003, as supplemented on October 1, and October 28 (2 letters), 2003, January 31 (2 letters), March 4, May 19, July 2, July 27, July 30, August 12, August 25, September 14, September 15, September 23, September 30 (2 letters), October 5, October 7 (2 letters), December 8, and December 9, 2004, and February 24, March 10, March 24, March 31, April 5, April 22, June 2, August 1, August 4, September 10, September 14, September 18, September 28, October 17, October 21, 2005 (2 letters), October 26, October 29, November 2, November 22, and December 2, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 2006.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation