ML20042H005

Requests Withdrawal of NSHC Extending Expiration of License DPR-28 Until 120321,based on ASLB Ruling Admitting Contention VII

ML20042H005
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	05/09/1990
From:	Sterzinger G VERMONT, STATE OF
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9005170040
Download: ML20042H005 (2)

Text

y. - -

I f f., .y .

q

/.-

~

"e' t r .i STATE OF VERMORT DEPARTh0NT OF PUBLJC $ERVICE . .

120 UAE HREET -

MONTPELIERYT 05602 TEl. 8@828 2811 I FAX: 3G828-2M2 - t May 9,1990 ' '

License DPR-28, '

(Docket 50-271)l

'Dr. Thomas Murley, Director .

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555- i

Subject:

Request for Withdrawal of No Significant Hazards Consideration,54 -

FR 31120 (July 26,1989), Operating License Extension t

Dear Dr. Murley:

y We request your reconsideration and withdrawa1:of the proposed determination  ;

of no significant hazards for extension of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Operating License, published at 54 FR 31120.'-

On July 26, 1989,- a proposed determination of no significant hazards was published at 54 FR 31120, concerning the request of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation to extend the expiration date _ of the operating license for- the Vermont  ;

Yankee Nuclear Station from December 11,'2007 to March 21,' 2012. Subsequently, the . l State of Vermont requested that an Atomic ~ Safet _and Licensing Board (ASLB), be '

l established to consider the action and- filed contentions. The ASLB ruled on .the contentions on January;26,.1990 (LBP-90-6),. admitting Contention VII:

"The- application should be denied because the applicant!has failed' to-E demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that operation of the plant ,

beyond the date for which operation wasi originally approved will provide -

adequate protection to the pubib health and safety due.to the absence of i

.a sufficiently effective andicomprehensive/ program to maintain and/or .:

. determine and replace all' components found to have' aged to a point where 1 they no longer meet the safety standards applicable to this plant and upon '

which this plant was originallyfgranted its operating license."

U S Yl

)

[ ,

e 9005170040 900509 J..- ~ ~

0l [

R _ P; PDR ADOCK 05000271

-PDC f[O

_; ,, , _ _ , , 3

8 *%

, ... .e i

The ASLB, in its Memorandum and Order, states:

" Clearly, Contention VII calls to question the very mechanisms surveillance  ;

and maintenance- that the Licensee and the Staff assured us made the  !

" durability" and " time limit" views of Contentions V and VI untenable. We ,

find particularly troubling the Staffs report that the programs hinge heavily l upon persons carrying them out. If true, that could call to question the effectiveness of the programs in just the period of interest, for personnel attrition over 17 or more years can he substantial." (LBP-90-6, January 26, 1990, at 46) .

I It is apparent from the ASLB ruling that a safety consideration exists which will  ;

be resolved by the hearing. Therefore, the proposed determination of no significant  :

hazards must be reconsidered with the result that, until the conclusion of the hearing, the determination of no significant hazards cannot be made. In addition, since the proposed amendment does not take effect until December 11, 2007, there is no reason ,

to rnake the determination of no significant hazards before the outcome of the hearing.  ;

We appreciate your attention to this matter of State concern.

4 Sincot y, org f'0A

1 er Com ssi State Lia* m 4

i h I