ML062540044

Email: (PA) Vermont Yankee Contention Input

ML062540044
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	06/09/2006
From:	Rowley J NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLB
To:	Ashar H, Dudley N, Johnny Eads, Emch R, Fair J, Hartzman M, Hoffman S, Kaihwa Hsu, Jeng D, John Ma, Morgan M, Palla R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC MD2297
Download: ML062540044 (4)

Text

Robert Palla -Vermont Yankee contention input i-age 1 1 From:

Jonathan Rowley To:

David Jeng; Hansraj Ashar; John Fair; John Ma; Kaihwa Hsu; Mark Hartzman; Michael Morgan; Richard Emch; Robert Palla Date:

06/09/2006 12:i6:38 PM

Subject:

Vermont Yankee contention input The staff has recently received numerous petitions to intervene in the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station license renewal process. These contentions need to be addressed by the audit team and technical staff in their areas of expertise. Input is need by OGC so that each contention can be properly and appropriately responded.

Below is a list of the contentions and associated parties.

NEC Contentions

1. Entergy failed to assess impacts to water quality.

2. Entergys license renewal application does not include a plan to manage aging due to metal fatigue during the period of extended operation.

3. Entergy's license renewal application does not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage aging of the steam dryer during the period of extended operation.

4. Entergy's license renewal application does not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage aging of plant piping due to flow-accelerated corrosion during the period of extended operation.

5. The license renewal application does not state an adequate plan to manage and monitor aging of the condenser.

6. Primary containment corrosion including, but not limited to, the dry well.

State of Massachusetts Contention

1. The environmental report for renewal of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant fails to satisfy NEPA because it does not address the environmental impacts of severe spent fuel pool accidents.

State of Vermont Contentions

1. The application must be denied because the applicant has failed to provide the necessary information with regard to the age management of primary containment concrete in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 such that the Commission cannot find that 10 CFR 54.29(a) is met.

2. The application must be denied because the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) (iv) by falling to include new and significant information regarding the substantial likelihood that spent fuel will have to be stored at the Vermont Yankee site longer than evaluated in the GElS and perhaps indefinitely and thus has failed to provide the necessary environmental information with regard to onsite land use in accordance with 10 CFR 54.23 such that the Commission cannot find that the applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 50 have been satisfied (10 CFR 54.29(b)).

3. The application must be denied because the applicant has failed to fully identify plant systems, structures and components that are non-safety-related systems, structures, and components in the security area whose failure could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of any of the functions of safety-related systems, structures and components in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2), such that the Commission cannot find that 10 CFR 54.29(a) is met.

I ask that Rich Emch address NEC contention #1 and the Mass. attorney general contention.

Robert Palla - Vermont Yankee contention input Page.2 Robert Hsu, I ask that you address NEC contention #2,#3, and #4.

Mark Hartzman and John Fair, I ask that you address NEC contention #2 in conjunction with Robert.

Mike Morgan, I ask that you address NEC contention #5 and Vermont contentions #2 and #3.

Robert Palla, I ask that you address the Mass. AG contention in conjunction with Rich and VT contention

1. 2 in conjunction with Mike. Both appear to be SAMA related and could use you vast knowledge of that area.

John Ma, I ask that you address NEC contention #6, as you where assigned to review the portions of the VY LRA related to the drywell.

Hans Ashar and David Jeng, I ask that you address Vermont contention #1 as you are our experts in primary containment.

Attached are pdf files of each letter submitted. I can and will provide hard copies of whatever file is requested, along with any supplemental items referenced in the petitions you may need.

Jonathan Rowley, Project Manager License Renewal Branch B Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-4053 CC:

Jacob Zimmerman; Johnny Eads; Mitzi Young; Noel Dudley; Stephen Hoffman

c:\\temp\\GW}00001.TMP r'age I I Mail Envelope Properties (44899EE6.502: 12 : 35182)

Subject:

Vermont Yankee contention input Creation Date 06/09/2006 12:16:38 PM From:

Jonathan Rowley Created By:

JGR@nrc.gov Recipients nrc.gov ATLPO.ATLDO MJM2 (Michael Morgan) nrc.gov OWGWPO01.HQGWDOO1 HGA (Hansraj Ashar) nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 JHE CC (Johnny Eads)

JRF (John Fair)

KRH2 (Kaihwa Hsu)

MXH (Mark Hartzman)

RLE (Richard Emch)

STH CC (Stephen Hoffman) nrc.gov OWGWPOO3.HQGWDOO1 NFD CC (Noel Dudley) nrc.gov OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 DCJ (David Jeng) nrc.gov TWGWPO01.HQGWDOO1 JSM1 (John Ma) nrc.gov TWGWPO03.HQGWDOO1 RLP3 (Robert Palla) nrc.gov TWGWPOO4.HQGWDOO1

c:\\temp\\GW}O0001.TMP, Page 2 1 JIZ CC (Jacob Zimmerman)

MAY CC (Mitzi Young)

Post Office Route ATLPO.ATLDO nrc.gov OWGWPO01.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov OWGWPO02.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov OWGWPOO3.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov OWGWPOO4.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov TWGWPO01.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov TWGWPO03.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov TWGWPO04.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 6009 06/09/2006 12:16:38 PM 1266 DC 5-26-06 Vermont Yankee hearing request etc.pdf 160782 06/08/2006 1:30:32 PM PetlnterveneFINAL.pdf 64338 06/08/2006 1:33:02 PM NEC Petition for VY.pdf 4412432 05/30/2006 1:06:38 PM Options Expiration Date:

None Priority:

Standard ReplyRequested:

No Return Notification:

Send Notification when Opened Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is not eligible for Junk Mail handling Message is from an internal sender Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled