ML20151C537
| ML20151C537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1988 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP., VERMONT, STATE OF |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6763 87-567-04-OLA, 87-567-4-OLA, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8807220027 | |
| Download: ML20151C537 (9) | |
Text
g
- ,3 7 (o r
.000KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
$ff Ki [ :,sc Before Administrative Judges DOCE Ok:, ~ 5;,g.i r um Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter SERVED JUl. 1 9 1988 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-OLA-2
)
(Testing Requirements for VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
POWER CORPORATION (ASLBP No. 87-567-04-OLA)
(VermontYankeeNuclear Power Station)
July 18, 1988 PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Rulings on Contention and Schedules)
On June 28, 1988, the Licensing Board held a prehearing conference in Brattleboro, Vermont, in this proceeding in which Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Applicant) is seeking to change certain of the technical specifications applicable to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, a boiling water reactor located in Verron, Vermont.1 L
l Specifically, the Applicant is seeking a change in the testing requirements applicable to remaining train (s) of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) and the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System, I
The conference was announced by a Notice of Prehearing Conference dated May 24, 1988, published at 53 Fed. Reg. 19836 (May 31, 1988).
n 8807220027 080718 V
PDR ADOCK 05000271 0
PDR o
2 9
whenever one train has a component out of service. As set forth in our Memorandum and Order (Intervention Requests and Prehearing Confarence),
dated May 24, 1988, timely intervention requests were filed by the State of Vermont and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In that Memorandum and' Order, we found both petitioners to have standing to participate in this proceeding, and we established a schedule for the filing of contentions.
On June 13, 1988, tha two petitioners submitted a single joint contention. By response dated June 22, 1988, the NRC Staff supported admission of the proposed contention. Through its June 23, 1988 l
response, the Applicant viewed the contention as a challenge to NRC regulations. As explained by the petitioners at the prehearing conference, however, the Applicant withdrew its objection to the contention, subject to a minor rewriting of the contentic,n to indicate clearly that it was premised on current NRC regulatory requirements.
Although we express no view on whether the original contention constituted an impermissible challenge to NRC requirements, we admitted the rewritten contention, which (along with a slightly revised basis) is set forth in Attachment A to this Memorandum and Order.
Accordingly, the two petitioners were admitted as Intervenors to the proceeding. We are itsuing a Notice of Hearing, in the form set l
forth in Attachment B hereto.
The Board established a discovery schedule.
Between the Intervenors and Applicant it extends for approximately 90 days, expiring on September 30, 1988. Discovery against the Staff will not commence
3 I
3-until issuance of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which is currently scheduled for early October,1988. Discovery against the Staff will extend for 45 days following service of the SER. As suggested by the parties, we will plan on a prehearing conference following the conclusion of discovery, assuming that such a conference would prove useful or desirable. Tne conference'should take place in late November, but we will not announce a precise date at this time.
At ine conference, the Board outlined the following matters which should se considered by the parties and included in the direct testimony or, the accepted contention:
1.
Do any of the ASME inservice testing provisions from which the Applicant was granted relief, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 50.55a(g), in 1980 (as being "impractical") relate to testing of ECCS or SLC components (Tr. 13-14, 40)?
2.
For each component for which tests are proposed to be eliminated, what are the testing intervals under the ASME inservice testing program (Tr. 40)?
3.
Are there any differences in.the types of tests carried out under the ASME inservice testing program and the tests which are proposed to be eliminated (Tr. 40-41)?
4.
What is the historic out-of-service frequency for each valve or component for which testing is proposed to be eliminated (Tr. 41)?
l 5.
What is the projected service life, in both time and number of occasions used, for each valve or component for which testing is l
proposed to be eliminated (Tr. 41)?
r l
9
.,9 4
6.
Are any of the valves for which test.ing.is proposed to be -
eliminated check' valves", within the meaning of ISE Bulletin 83-03 '
(March 10, 1983) (Tr. 41)?
IT IS-S0 ORL5 RED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y&
t.Av Charles Bechhoefer
/
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of July, 1988.
l l
i.
i
5 Attachment A Joint Contention Contention The license amendment proposed by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee) is inconsistent with the protection of the public health and safety and of the environment and is inconsistent with governing NRC regulatory requirements.
Basis for Contention The basis for the conteation is the fact that the confidence in the reliability of safety systems is adversely affected if the testing of the operable components is eliminated..Whenever there*is a failure of a component in a safety system, the reliobility of that system is adversely affected. This decrease in reliability is compensated for by frequent testing of the remaining significant safety components.
If those components are not tested, this eliminates the compensating effect, and results in a decreased level of reliability of the safety i
systems and, correspondingly, & decrease in the level of safety provided by the engineering safety systems of the plant. Nor should it be overlooked that abolition of daily testing in this context virtually l
guarantees that common mode failure will not be detected.
The increase in risk of failure of the subject systems occasioned by the proposed elimination of testing is not outweighed by any l
l C
7 6
reduction in risk attributable to the testing changes proposed by the amendment. Vermont Yankee has not provided any quantitative support for its assertion that testing the components adversely affects their
-reliability.
Nor has Vermont Yankee provided any quantitative support to justify its reliance on other testing programs to provide ;he assurance that the remaining safety components will operate as intended.
There has also been no showing that components cennot be feasibly designed to enable them to be tested without either shutting them down or posing undue challenges to those components. Finally, it has not been established that less drastic proposals, such as maintenance of direct communication between the control room and the testing areas, would not better ensure the protection of public health and safety than would the proposed amendment.
In sum, testing done on specific key safety components performed following a failure clearly provides a greater degree of assurance that those corponents will function' than any tests done prior to the failure on a generic basis.
J' r
7 Attachment B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL I
Before Adminis+.rative Judges Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter
)
~
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-0LA-2 (Testing Requiremtnts for VERM0'4T YANKEE NUCLEAR 2CCS and SLC Systems)
P0bER CORPORATION (ASLBPNo. 87-567-04-0LA)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation)
July 18, 1988
)
NOTICE OF HEARING On January 26, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity for hearing with respect to a' proposed operating-license amendment which would change the Technical Specifications applicable to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, located in Vernon, Vermont, approximately five miles south of Brattleboro, Vermont, to elimin te the present requirements to test the remaining train (s) of the ECCS and SLC Systems when one train has a component out of ser 1:e (53 Fed. Reg. 2114). Two requests for a hearing and petitic1s for leave to intervene were recetied. On March 9, 1988, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established to rule upon
,,c.
.-,y p,
p-w _ -
8 these requests / petitions and to preside over the proceeding in the event that-a hearing were ordered.
After holding a prehearing conference on June 28, 1988, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granted the requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene of the State of Vermont and of James M.
Shannon, Attorney Gencral of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This ruling was memorialized by a Prehearing Conference Order dated July 18, 1988(unpublished).
Please take notice that a hearing will be conducted in this proceeding. The Atomic Stfety and Licensing Board designated to preside over this proceeding consists of Glenn 0. Bright, Dr. James H.
Carpenter, and Charles Bechhoefer, who will serve as Chairman af the Board.
During the course of the proceeding, the Licensing Board may hold one or more additional prehearing conferences pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.752. The public is invited to attend all prehearing conferences and any evidentiary hearing which may be held. The Board will establish the senedules for any such sessions at a later date, through notices to be published in the Federal Register and/or made available to the public at the Public Document Rooms.
Supplementing the opportunity afforded at the initial prehearing conference, during some or all of these sessions, and in accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.715(a), any person, not a carty to the proceeding, will be permitted to make a limited appearance statement either urally or in writing, setting forth his or her position on the issues. These
9 statements do not constitute testimony or evidence but may assist the Board and/or parties in the definition of issues being considered. The number of persons making,ral statements and the time allotted for. each
. statement may be limited depending upon the time available at various sessions. Written statements may be submitted at any time. Written statements, and requests to make oral statements, should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Decketing and Service Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North,11155 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. A copy of such statement or request should also be served on the Chairman of the Licensing Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (EWW-439), Washington, D.C. 20555.
Document relating to this application arc on flie at the Local Public Document Room, located at the Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301, as well as at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoefer ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of July,1988.
-