ML19332D480
| ML19332D480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1989 |
| From: | Hodgdon A, Patricia Jehle NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9442 GL-88-16, GL-88-20, GL-89-04, GL-89-20, OLA-4, NUDOCS 8912040027 | |
| Download: ML19332D480 (23) | |
Text
~'
~
^
~
~
X?
a w-y NOV.-I 8.198Bl "l
Q N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
$;N'U NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
BEFORE THE-ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING BOARD--
'*89 NOV.14 P4112 InkheMatterof p g.
~
00CKE1 x i Tlb g -
VERMONT. YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER Docket,No. 50-271-OLA-4 tutu CORPORATION 4
Shu-
-(VermontYankeeNuclearPower Station)-
4 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO STATE OF VERMONT'S SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE p.
I.
INTRODUCTION On October 30, 1989, the State of Vermont filed a supplement to its
,i
, petition to intervene, in which it proposed nine contentions for litigation-H j
.in any hearing that might be held on Vermont Yankee Nuclear-Power of:.
Corporation's application to extend its operating license to a full forty
- years, thus recapturing the time required to construct the Vermont Yankee
's Nuclear Power Station. The Staff's response is set forth below.
II. DISCUSSION A.
Standards Applicable to Proposed Contentions
. c.
In order for petit' loners' contentions to be admitted as matters in t-controversy, they must satisfy the Consnission's requirement that the basis e
l L
for the contention be set forth with reasonable specificity.
10 C.F.R.
l'2.714(b). Also, proposed contentions must fall within the scope of the 8912040027 891113 PDR ADOCK 05000271 0
PDR 3 50'
~.
m
-1,.
-4 issuesset:forthintheNoticeofHearinginitiatingtheproceeding.1/
The purposes of the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 are (1) to assure that the contention in question raises a matter appropriate for adjudicationinaparticularproceeding,2/(2)toestablishasufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the assertion and, (3) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "..
so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Sy Peach Bottom, at 20.
From the standpoint-of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition to detail the evidence that will be offered in support of each contention.
Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). Furthermore, in examining the contentions 1/
Public' Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1and2),ALAB-316,3NRC167,170(1976).
See also
-Commonwealth Edison-Company (Carroll County Site), ALAB-601, 12 NRC 18, 24 (1980); Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287. 289-290, n. 6 (1979).
2,/
A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication
)
in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or 1
(e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Pottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
o$
3.:
~...
and their bases, a licensing board should not reach the merits of the
- contentions.- Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 548 (1980);
Duke Power Co. -(Amendment-to Materials License SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent' Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528,9NRC146,151(1979); Peach Bottom, supra, at 20;
. Grand Gulf,' supra, at 426.
As the Appeal Board instructed in Alabama Power Company (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Power. Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216-217 (1974), in asserting the acceptability of a ~ contention as a basis for granting intervention:
[t]he intervention board's task is to determine, from a scrutiny of what appears within'the four corners of the contentionasstated,whether(1)therequisite specificity exists; (2) there has Deen an adequate delineation of the basis for the contention; and (3) the issue sought to be raised is cognizable in an individual licensing proceeding.
(Footnotes omitted).
If a contention meets these criteria, the contention provides a foundation for admission " irrespective of whether resort to extrinsic evidence might establish the contention to be insubstantial." Farley, supra, 7 AEC at 217. 3/ The question of the contention's substance is for later resolution - either by way of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.749 sumary d+sposition prior to the evidentiary hearing
... or in the initial decision following the 3/
However, the proposed contention should refer to and address relevant documentation available in the public domain.... See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, (Perry (NucleaDower Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175, 181-185 1981).
W 3
b l.
L '
1-l I
conclusion of such a hearing." Farley, supra, 7 AEC at 217. Thus, it is L
B incumbent upon petitioners to set forth contentions supported by bases that l
[
'are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the-issues they l
O purport to raise are admissible, i
i B.
The State's Proposed Contentions l
l The State of. Vermont has proposed nine contentions for adjudication in 1
1' relation to Vermont Yankee's application to extend its license to recapture the time required to construct the facility. The Staff addresses them j
below.
2 1.
Proposed Contention I In its Contention I, Vermont alleges that 4
l' "it would be illegal to compel the State of Vermont to accept the generation of any low-level. radioactive i
waste from the operation of the Vermont Yankee facility beyond the date originally authorized in its operating license permit."
AsbasisforContentionI,VermontcitesSection5(d)(2)(c)ofthe Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) concerning the obligations that statute places on the State of Vermont l-regarding low-level radioactive waste generated in Vermont.
Vermont cites the State's lack of success in negotiating a compact agreement and its unwillingness to accept its obligations under the statute. None of the i
State's bases provides any support for Contention I.
The obligations l
placed on Vermont by the LLRWPAA are independent of the NRC's licensing l
responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act.
In Contention I, Vernont has j
not stated an admissible contention.
I
R 2.
Proposed Contention II In Contention II, Vermont states that granting Vermont's application would violate 10 C.F.R. 6 50.51. Vermont misreads 6 50.51 and confuses license extension by amondment, which the licensee is seeking, and license renewal, an option which the licensee might pursue upon the expiration of-its operating license.
Vermont reads 6 50.51 as requiring "that operation of any plant for longer than the term originally requested in the application or longer than forty years con only be accomplished by filing a request for renewal of an operating license." The Comis;;on's regulations in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.51 state that an operating license may be issued for a fixed period of time not to exceed forty (40) years from issuance.
The amendment request is consistent with this regulation. The Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.90 set forth the procedures that must be followed when amending an operating license.
Nothing in the regulations precludes Vermont Yankee's request to recapture the period of construction by amendment.
In fact, the Commission has already granted some twenty-six construction permit recapture amendments to licensees where the originally requested operating licenses were issued for a period less than forty years.
Vermont's proposed Contention II does not raise a litigable issue.
It should not be admitted.
3.
Proposed Contention III In its Contention III, Vermont contends that granting the extension sought would constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. i 4332(2)(c) for which an environmental impact statement is required and for which an environmental report must be submitted by the applicant.
O.
With regard to Basis (a), Vermont does not provide a basis for concluding that the recapture of the construction period for Vermont Yankee should be considered a major federal action.
Furthermore, the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. I 51.20(b) list the types of actions requiring the l
preparation of an environmental impact statement. Amendment of an operating license to allow for recapture of the time required to construct the facility and to allow operation for a full forty years as contemplated by 10 C.F.R. I 50.51 is not listed as one of these actions.
For actions not requiring an EIS pursuant to 5 51.20(b) or not categorically excluded by 6 51.22(c), 10 C.F.R. 6 51.21 requires an environmental assessment.
Thus, an environmental assessment is all that is required by the Commission's regulations in Part 51 for an action such as the one proposed here. Basis (b) also fails to provide support for this contention.
Because environmental reports are required only for actions where environmental ipsact statements are required by the Commission's regulations, Vermont's basis raoarding the necet,sity for Vermont Yankee to submit an environmental report is simply mistaken and provides no support for Contention III, 4.
Proposed Contention IV Contention IV states:
Even if the proposal to extend the operating life of the Vermont Yankee plant for an additional four years and three months is not a major federal action, it nonetheless involves " unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources" for which NRC must " study, develop and describe alternatives" within the meaning of 4E U.S.C. I 4332(2)(E) and for which the applicant must submit such a study as part of its environmental report pursuant to 10 CFR 6 51.45.
l
[.
P,
An analysis of the applicable Commission regulations and NEpA provisions is necessary to respond to Vermont's Contention IV. Section 51.45 of the Commission's regulations is applicable only to actions for i
which an environmental impact statement is required by 5 51.20(b). The request at issue is not such an action. Because the request at issue is not listed in i 51.20(b) as an action requiring an environmental impact statement nor listed in 5 51.22(c) as categorically excluded, 6 51.21 M and, thus, 6 51.30, are applicable.
10 C.F.R. I 51.30(a)(11) states:
(a) An environmental assessment shall identify the proposed action and include:
(ii) Alternatives as required by 102(2)(E) of NEPA; Sectioni102(2)(E)ofNEPAprovides:
(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall (E) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternatives uses of available resources; (emphasis addedl.
The Commission's regulations require that an environmental assessment include a i 102(2)(E) evaluation only in the case of unresolved conflicts concerning alternative use of available resources.
On first examination, i 102(2)(E) appears to mandate that federal agencies consider in detail appropriate alternatives to proposed actions. The analysis, however, must not end at this point. On closer examination it is clear the language of i 102(2)(E) conditions an agency's investigation of alternatives to proposed actions on there being unresolved conflicts concerning 4/
10 C.F.R 5 51.21 provides that unless (1) an environmental impact statement is required or (2) categorically excluded, an environmental
~
assessment must be prepared.
?
i i
^
i alternative uses of available resources." Absent unresolved conflicts j
concerning alternative uses of tvailable resources, there is no requirement under NEPA nor the Comission's regulations to consider alternatives to a proposed plan in any detail.
The State of Vermont does not state what it believes the available resources in this amendment are. However, it is imperative that the "available resources" be identified and analyzed to ensure a proper interpretation of the Commission's regulations and NEPA. Although the NRC staff has not yet completed its environmental assessment, it is clear that the only available resources involved in the proposed action are the Vermont Yankee plant and the land on which it is situated. More specifically, these resources are the Vermont Yankee plant and all the I
materials used in construction of the plant, the materials required to maintain the safe operation of the plant, including fuel and replacement parts, and the land occupied by the plant. The physical plant and the land on which it is situated represent the comitted resources involved in the instant amendment request. Alternatives to using the facility for the purpose for which it was designed include terminating operation of the Vermont Yankee plant and using the plant and its grounds for another purpose.
The State of Vermont should have identified both the available resources involved in the amendment and conflict over alternative uses of the resources to state an admissible contention under the Comission's regulationsimplementingi102(2)(E)ofNEPA. Vermont has not met this requirement; instead it merely lists concerns that are unrelated to the amendment. Supplement at 18. The comitment of land resources in Vermont
c P ;
E to dispose of low-level radioactive wastes cannot be viewed as a resource commitment related to the amendment at issue. As is discussed above, the state has an obligation under federal law to assume responsibility for the disposal of lom level radioactive waste regardless of whether or not the Vermont Yankee plant operates beyond 2007. Moreover, the commitment of land for a high-level radioactive waste repository does not concern an "available resource" in relation to this amendment request.
The State of Vermont proposes other methods of energy production as
" feasible and realistic alternatives to the proposed action." However, there is no need for the Licensee or the Staff to identify and to evaluate alternatives to the proposed action because no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of the Vermont Yankee facility (the available resources)havebeenidentified.
The Licensee's amendment application states correctly that alternative uses of available resources need not be considered because the action does 4
not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES), dated July 1972, which relates to Vermont Yankee. When addressing environmental considerations in a license amendment proceeding, a licensing board should not reassess the environmental issues which have been thoroughly considered and decided in the initial proceeding.
Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-11, 7 NRC 381, 393 (1978); Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-291, 2 NRC 404, 415 (1975); see also Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-40, 8 NRC 717, 744-45(1978), aff'd, ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287 (1979).
~ ~.
r l
Vermont also states that a Comprehensive Energy Plan has been authorized and will be available January 1, 1991. Supplement at 22-23.
The Commission's rules and regulations do not contemplate the NRC staff's delaying its review of amendment requests until the independent -- and unrelated -- studies of other agencies are available.
The Licensee has proposed to use the Vermont Yankee plant for the full forty years contemplated by the Atomic Energy Act. The alternative "use" of the Vermont Yankee (the "available resource") is abandonment of the facility in 2007. The State of Vermont's preference that the Vermont Yankee facility be closed does not constitute a conflict involving the alternativeusesofavailableresourcesunderi102(2)(E)ofNEPA. Thus, Vermont has not identified conflicts regarding available resources so as to e
invokei102(2)(E)ofNEPA.
Vermont's Conter. tion IV should not be admitted, as it lacks the requisite basis.
5.
Contention V Proposed Contention V states:
The application should be denied because the applicant
- 1) has not evaluated the cifference between the Vermont Yankee licensing basis and the current licensing basis for p)lants originally licensed to operate through 2012, and 2 has not demonstrated the effect on the environment and public health and safety of each difference. One example of this is that the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Codes and quality assurance requirements for reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) pressure vessels, piping and pumps and valves and the codes to which it has been constructed are inadequate foe extended operation beyond 2007.
There is no basis for the assertion that the Licensee "has not evaluated the difference between the Vermont Yankee licensing basis and the
P i
11 current licensing basis for plants originally licensed to operate through 2012." Supplement at 23. Vermont's assertion is incorrect. The Licensee states that a comparison of these licensing bases was conducted in response to questions raised by the Staff in a " Request for Additional Information (RAI)4.4." " Licensee's Response to Proposed Contentions," dated November 10, 1989 at 29. The Licensee's analysis was provided to the Staff by letter dated January 15, 1971, and was incorporated in the Final Safety Evaluation Report.
The State of Vermont bases this contention on an incorrect understanding of the Commission's regulations on codes and standards.
Vermont Yankee was not designed, constructed, and inspected according to outdated versions of ASME codes and standards. Nuclear power plants are licensed under the Commission's regulations that are in effect at the time of issuance. The codes and standards requirements are set forth in a number of the Commission's regulations; for example,10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix A sets forth general design criteria; 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix H provides reactor vessel material surveillance program requirements; 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix J details the requirements for primary reactor i
containment leakage testing for water-cooled reactors; 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix K sets forth standards and requirements for emergency core cooling system (ECCS)evaluationmodels;and10C.F.R.950.55aspecifically delineates ASME codes and standards requirements.
It is significant that all the regulatory requirements identified above include provisions for aging. The State of Vermont has incorrectly concluded that the Commission's regulations do not adequately monitor the effects of aging on nuclear power plants.
Furthermore, the Commission's rules require the use
i i
)
of updated codes where this is necessary for the safe operation of the plant pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 50.55a. Staff inspections are conducted under the applicable codes and standards to ensure operational readiness is maintained for safety-related components and structures at Vemont Yankee.
The State of Vermont has mischaracterized the nature of ASME codes and i
standards revisions.
Revisions are made as necessary to account for changes in the use and availability of materials in the industry to meet industry specifications, and to incorporate knowledge gained from industry experience and research. Updates of codes do not necessarily result in more stringent requirements being imposed on licensees. Code changes often reflect relaxation of requirements based on the determination that earlier revisions are unnecessarily stringent.
Vermont Yankee is in full compliance with all applicable Commission rules, including the codes and standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 650.55(a)(g). The State of Vermont directly challenges the Comission's l
rules and regulations in its contention that Vermont Yankee's operation should be based on codes and standards that differ from those provided in 10C.F.R.550.S5a(g). The contention constitutes an attack on the Commission's regulations and may be pursued only according to the proceduresin10C.F.R.52.758(b). Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon HarrisNuclearPowerPlant)ALAB-837,23NRC525,544(1986).
6.
Contention VI Proposed Contention VI states:
The application should be denied because the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that operation of the plant beyond the date for which operation was originally approved will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety due
L i
I '
to the excessive aging of safety significant components i
and the absence of any effective and comprehensive program to detect the presence of such excessive aging.
This contention should be excluded because it lacks adequate basis and specificity. The State of Vermont sets forth many details as support for i
its proposed contention; however, these details are unconnected to the proposed action. The contention lacks a regulatory basis and adequate specificity.
The State of Vennont has not pointed out any regulatory requirements that the Licensee has failed to meet or will be unable to meet in the future. This contention is based upon incorrect information regarding the design, inspection and maintenance of nuclear power plants and a misunderstanding of " aging" in plants. The State of Vermont reiterates its view that once a plant is designed and constructed that plant is not inspected or maintained but simply left to deteriorate. An examination of the Commission's regulations indicates that this is not the i
case.
The Commission's regulations provide for the effects of aging on safety-related components and equipment in 10 C.F.R 6 50.49, which addresses the environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants and in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.55a(g), which sets forth the requirements a licensee must meet in its in-service inspection program. The regulations that deal with effects of aging on mechanical components were discussed in relation to Proposed Contention V.
These rules require all nuclear power plants to demonstrate that all safety-related components are qualified and remain qualified throughout their service life to operate in the extremes of a Loss of Cooling Accident (LOCA) or in other accident conditions.
s--
,,,---,,y w
-w.--.s.
e g
i i The NRC staff continually addresses aging issues related to the operation of nuclear power plants through rulemaking and the issuance of Generic Letters or Bulletins.
In addition, the Licensee's Technical 4
Specifications contain surveillance programs for all safety-related equipment. The Staff's inspection found has judged the Vermont Yankee maintenar:ce programs to be adequate. The programs ensure that the Licensee maintains all safety-related components in an operational condition and replaces components as appropriate. The Licensee is in compliance with NRC rules and has complied with NRC Generic Letters and Bulletins dealing with i
aging-related matters, including " Guidance on Developing Acceptable Inservice Test Program" (TAC No. 74800), dated April 3, 1989. See Letter to L. A. Tremblay from M. Fairtile " Licensee Confirmation of Implercentation of Generic letter 89 Guidance on Developing Acceptable Inservice Test Program," dated October 31, 1989.
The Licensee has complied with 10 C.F.R. Il 50.49 and 50.55a(g).
Compliance with these regulations, in conjunction with the Vermont Yankee maintenance and surveillance, ensures that the effects of aging on safety-related equipment has been accounted for at Vermont Yankee.
Furthermore, Vermont Yankee will be required to maintain the same level of compliance with Commission regulations for the four year and three month period under consideration.
The NRC staff recently conducted an intensive maintenance inspection at Vermont Yankee and reported the results of the inspection in Inspection Report No. 50-271/89-80, dated June 1989. The Staff concluded that:
[g]eneral plant housekeeping and control of maintenance work areas, equipment, tools and material were well suited for accomplishing maintenance work during the l
I a,, -.
~,
,+
i
~
>. i
(_
refueling outage. Observation of work in progress and review of completed work indicated that maintenance is being performed by skillful, knowledgeable, and competent plant personnel and contractors. Maintenance work is well supervised and indicates that the standard quality of maintenance work is high. This quality is reflected in the relatively low rework rate for maintenance and repairs on plant systems. Good housekeeping and knowledgeable maintenance personnel are a strength in the licensee's maintenance program.
Inspection Report No. 50-271/89-80.
The infomation set forth above undercuts the State's bases for its Contention VI. Based on the above, the State of Yemont has not provided a basis for this contention and this contention should be excluded..
i 7.
proposed Contention VII Contention VII states:
The application should be denied because the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that operation of the plant beyond the date for which operation was originally approved will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety due to the absence of a sufficiently effective and comprehensive program to maintain and/or determine and replace all components found to have aged to a point where they no longer meet the safety standards applicable to this plant and upon which this plant was originally granted its operating license, i-This contention should be excluded for the lack of legal basis and specificity. The bases set forth are unconnected to the amendment request at issue. The State of Yemont claims, as it did in Proposed Contention VI, that the Licensee does not have adequate in-service inspection, l
. testing, surveillance, maintenance and replacement programs in place at Vermont Yankee. The implication is that the Licensee has failed to comply withtherequirementsof10C.F.R.650.55a(g)oftheCommission's regulations. The State of Vermont, however, has not cited a specific
. ~.
~
instance of the Licensee's failure to meet regulatory requirements. An NRC six-man inspection team conducted an intensive two-week long inspection in which it identified areas of weakness where Licensee improvement efforts were to be focused.
See Inspection Report No. 50-271/89-80. The purpose of such staff inspections is to ident'ify any problems, both serious and minor, in nuclear power plant operations. As is clear from a reading of the entire inspection report and its conclusions, no serious problems were identified and the standard quality of maintenance work at Vermont Yankee was found by the inspection team to be high.
As discussed above, the Staff concluded in its inspection report that maintenance programs at Vemont Yankee are conducted at a-high perfonnance level and that regulatory requirements were met. One Severity Level 5 violation was noted.
This contention attacks the Comission's regulations by asserting that the Licensing Board should impose requirements on the Licensee that exceed the Comission's regulatory requirements. Such an attack on the Commission's regulations may be pursued only according to procedures in 6 2.758(b).
8.
Proposed Contention VIII In its proposed Contention VIII, the State of Vermont alleges that:
Applicant has not demonstrated the capability of the Mark I containment used in this plant to withstand and mitigate design basis and severe accidents during the proposed period of extended operation. The most significant factor which has not been adequately analyzed by the applicant is the impact of aging during construction and during the proposed extended operation on the Mark I containment.
E Vermont references various NRC staff documents as bases for its contention.
It is clear from the mere listing of these documents that the Commission initiative regarding the vulnerability of Mark-I containments to severe accident challenges is an initiative that is not related to the Mark I's ability to meet current regulatory requirements. The application quotes the statement of Dr. Thomas Murley, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that:
... the safety improvements stemming from the Yemont Yankee [ containment safety) study provide the Yemont Yankee plant with a level of containment safety that goes beyond present staff requirements."
There is no basis for Vermont's allegation that Vermont Yankee must demonstrate a level of safety that goes beyond what is required by the Comission's regulations.
Further, there is no basis for Vermont's conclusion that aging during construction is the most significant factor in assessing the ability of the Mark I containment to withstand accidents.
Vermont has offered no basis for its allegation that Vemont Yankee must demonstrate the capability of the Mark I containment to mitigate severe accidents.
The contention should be rejected because it does not relate to any regulatory requirement.
To provide some context for the scattered references Vermont makes to documents relating to the Mark I initiative, the Staff provides the following information. On January 23, 1989 the Comission issued a policy statement, SECY-89-017. " Mark I Containment Perfomance Improvement Program." SECY-89-017 states that although the Mark I containment is not a l
risk outlier relative to other designs, reduction of risk for this containment could be readily achieved.
Four improvements are suggested:
i i
j j
1.
Hardened vent capability 2.
Reactor pressure vessel depressurization system 3.
Alternate water supply to reactor vessel and drywell sprays, and 4.
Extended emergency procedures and training.
The Licensee has completed items 2 and 3 and has committed to items 1 and 4.
These improvements will be in place years before the current license expires. As a basis for its Contention VIII, Vermont references NRC Generic Letters 88-16 and 88-20. The commitment of the Licensee to the four items above satisfies the Generic Letters.
SECY-89-017, in estimating the benefits of these improvements, considered an average remaining plant life of 25 years for Mark I plants. With 4 years 3 months additional license period, Vemont Yankee would have a remaining life of 18 years, well within the 25 years considered by the NRC staff. This contention should be rejected because it lacks the requisite basis and specificity.
9.
Proposed Contention IX In its Contention IX, Vermont asserts that:
The Applicant cannot obtain an extension of its existing operating license until it satisfactorily completes a probabilistic risk assessment ("PRA")
for this plant and determines and identifies in that PRA all modifications necessary for risk o
reduction of a severe accident during extended operation of the plant, commits to implementation L
of these modifications before the beginning of the l
extended period and incorporates the cost of such modifications into economic evaluations.
The short answer to Yemont's Contention IX is that the State of Vermont is mistaken; Vermont Yankee can obtain the amendment without preparing a PRA.
l
.. Generic Letter 89-20, concerning individual plant examinations (IPEs) for severe accident vulnerabilities, requested each licensee to perfom a systematic examination to identify any such vulnerabilities. The NRC l
identified three approaches to this systematic examination; a PRA is one of the three. Vermont Yankee may select one of the other two methodologies.
In brief, a PRA is not a requirement, as alleged by the State of Vermont.
As a PRA is not required and Contention IX is based on an assumption that a PRA is required, the Licensing Board should find that Contention IX l
lacks a basis in the regulatory requirements governing this amendment request. The contention is, therefore, inadmissible.
IV CONCLUSION The Licensing Board should find that Vermont has submitted no contentions that meet the contentions requirements as stated in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) regarding basis and specificity. The Licensing Board should reject all of the proposed contentions and dismiss the proceeding.
l Respectfully submitted.
l G
r j p 1
C k
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff CcMil k Patricia Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff l
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day of November, 1989.
r.
,a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 NOV 14 P4 :12 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g r g-Occh, '
.. i.
i ' i 1. :
In the Matter of VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION (VermontYankeeNuclearPower Station)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter.
Inaccordancewith62.713(b),
10 C.F.R., Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name:
Ann P. Hodgdon Address:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Telephone Number:
301-492-1587 Admissions:
D.C. Court of Appeals Name of Party:
NRC Staff i
Respectfully submitted, DcoYOQ/
Ahn R. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of November, 1989.
(
,-,,,..e.g.-..-.
,,w
,,e-
-.n,
m i
w 7
- cutie!
- <m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.gg gjy ja p4 :12 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
tg,
'( [
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.:rio:
Outh 4
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION i
(VermontYankeeNuclearPower Station)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter.
In accordance with 6 2.713(b),
10 C.F.R., Part 2, the following information is provided:
f Name:
Patricia Jehle Address U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Telephone Number:
301-492-1535 Admissions:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Name of Party:
NRC Staff Respectfully submitted, f
LLN O
/
Patricia Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of November, 1989.
Id
,o
'0h '
.w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 WOV 14 P 4 32 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD YbCYi Y,
In the Matter of VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 POWER CORPORATION (VermontYankeeNuclearPower Station)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO STATE OF VERMONT'S SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE" AND " NOTICES OF APPEARANCE" for ANN H0DGDON and PATRICIA JEHLE in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following hv facsimile, or as indicated by an asterisk by hand-delivery or as indicated by a double asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 13th, day of November,1989:
. Robert M. Laro, Chairman
- Jerry Harbour
- Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Frederick J. Shon*
James Volz, Esq.
Administrative Judge Vermont Department of Public Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 120 State Street o
Panel Montpelier, VT 05602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 R. K. Gad, III, Esq.
Ropes and Gray Atomic Safety and Licensing Board One International Place Panel (1)**
Boston, MA 02I10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary **
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comission Appeal Panel (5)**
Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attn: Docketing and Service Section Washington, D.C. 20555 i
.1
's.
2-
[-.
Anthony Z. Roisman Esq.
Office of the Secretary (2)**
Cohen, Milstein & Hausfeld U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Suite 600 Washington, DC 20555 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Attn: Docketing and Service Section Washington, DC 20005 l
l Adjudicatory File **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 7
d W
Ann'P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff 3 gj ROUTING - REQUEST bacan b HANDLE O *eenovt
.mo b FoRWARo O neruaw O xtee on oisexao
.0: noview wits us -
3 Date From f +-
r
-,--e r