ML20247G760

Responds to to Jackson.Determined That Request Should Be Considered as Petition Pursuant to 10CFR2.206. Concludes That Issuing Immediate Order Unnecessary Since Licensee Taking Actions Re Torus Water Temperature Limit

ML20247G760
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	05/13/1998
From:	Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Daley M NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
Shared Package
ML20247G764	List: ML20247G760 ML20247G794 ML20247G850
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9805200335
Download: ML20247G760 (5)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

Co- z 7/

jv"% i g UNITED STATES g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. - aaai 4

9...*..

May 13, 1998 Mr. Michael J. Daley Trustee and Legislative Representative New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc.

P. O. Box 545 Brattleboro, VT 05302

Dear Mr. Daley:

I am responding to your letter of April 9,1998, to Dr. Shirley Jackson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc. We have determined that your request should be considered as a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. Your Petition requests that we issue an order requiring that the licensee's administrative limits, which preclude Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) {

from operating with a torus water temperature above 80 Y or with service water injection temperature greater than 50 T, shall remain in force until certain conditions are met. The conditions you list include a complete reconstitution of the licensing basis for the maximum torus water temperature, submittal to the NRC of a technical specifications (TS) amendment request establishing the correct maximum torus water temperature, and completion of NRC review of the amendment request.

As arounds for your request you state that the licensee has been unable to demonstrate an aNty to eitherjustify the operational limits for the maximum torus water temperature or maintain operations within existing administrative limits (torus water temperature is critical to the <

proper functioning of the containment). You assert that since 1994 events have caused the I licensee to question Vermont Yankee's maximum torus water temperature limits four times,  !

leading to the self-imposed administrative limits noted above. You state that the NRC must move from a " wait and see" posture to active intervention, with immediate imposition of the order you recommend as a necessary first step.

Your request for immediate action at Vermont Yankee station is denied for the following j reasons. Although the NRC identified concerns regarding the licensee's handling of the torus '

water temperature issue in the past, as evidenced by the NRC's recent enforcement action (Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty of $55,000 dated April 14,1998),

there is insufficient basis for concluding that the limits you specify must be imposed on the  !

licensee while the NRC reviews the associated TS amendment request. The NRC has taken I l several actions in this area including performing a design inspection and conducting several I l meetings with the licensee on this issue. Wa have concluded that the licensee's actions to l resolve the issue are acceptable. '

in May and June of 1997, the NRC performed a design inspection to evaluate the capability of selected systems to perform their intended safety function as described in design basis documentation. Also, the NRC assessed the licensee's adherence to their design and licensing basis for selected systems, and the consistency of the as-built configuration and system g operations with the final safety analysis report. The team concluded that, although some i

9805200335 990513 PDR ADOCK 05000271 5PN%m%

L 2- NuiG! !J ;UV G PDR 'W &

, a M. Daley 2 i

concems were identified, the systems evaluated were capable of performing their intended j functions and the design engineers had excellent knowledge and capabilities. The report '

L findings were documented in NRC Inspection Report Number 50-271/97-201, which is L enclosed.

l l One of the concems identified during the design inspection was associated with the licensee's

. previous handling of the torus water temperature issue and resulted in enforcement action l

taken on April 14,1998, due to a failure to 1) properly translate the design basis of the plant into specifications, procedures, and instructions and 2) promptly correct design deficiencies once they were identified. However, credit was warranted for corrective actions because the

! licensee's actions, once the violations were identified, were considered prompt and comprehensive.

At the NRC's request, several public meetings were recently conducted to discuss issues including the licensee's analysis to determine the appropriate torus water temperature limit. As l

a result of discussions with the licensee during public meetings on March 5, March 24, and l April 7,1998, we have concluded that the licensee is taking the appropriate actions to resolve this issue and to ensure that the appropriate maximum torus water temperature is specified in the TS and administratively controlled while the TS amendment is reviewed by the NRC.

During the April 7 meeting, the licensee committed to submit the TS amendment request to limit the torus water temperature to 90 'F, which is an input value to the containment analysis calculations, prior to restart. The calculations suppo'rting the amendment request will have been subjected to the licensee's formal quality process for assuring accuracy and ,

completeness and will, therefore, provide additional assurance that the 90 F limit is correct. l The more restrictive administrative limits (80 'F torus water temperature and 50 'F service water injection water temperature) were put in place by the licensee, while the detailed analysis i was performed to verify that 90 0F was the correct limit. I

! NRC can and has in the past allowed licensees to institute administrative controls when a TS is found to be in error if the licensee has adequately demonstrated that the affected systems remain operable and the licensee pursues a TS amendment to correct the TS. In addition to l

the TS, the licensee must meet the design basis for the facility. The licensee will continue to i meet the design basis by administratively controlling torus water temperature below the design input value while they seek a correction to the TS. The licensee's design basis value is legally binding and the licensee cannot change it without following processes specifically prescribed by our regulations. These processes are subject to inspection and, if necessary, enforcement.  ;

In summary, we have concluded that issuing an immediate order, as you requested, is unnecessary since the licensee is taking appropriate actions to determine the proper limit on torus water temperature, seeking a TS amendment to impose the correct torus water temperature limit, and administratively implementing the limit while the NRC reviews the analysis in support of the TS amendment. Moreover, as stated above, based on our design ir spection we have concluded that the design engineers have excellent knowledge and capabilities. However, if the licensee fails to establish the proper limits on torus water ,

temperature or maintain it within acceptable limits, further enforcement actions may be

warranted.

i i

_.___________._______.m

p. ,

9 ,. ..

r A r Y 7 M. Daley c

( - >

'3 As provided by Section'2.206, action will be taken on your request within a reasonable period of time. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Registar for publication. - I have also enclosed for your information a pamphlet on the public petition process (Section 2.206).

' Sincerely, briginal signed by:

I Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice l' 2. Pamphlet on the Public Petition Process

(. 3. NRC Inspection Report-No.. 50-271/97-201 l cc w/encis: See next page f

l l.

" DOCUMENT NAME: G:\CROTEAU\NEC_ltr.49

• PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE To rcceive'a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" - Copy without

attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy 0FFICE PDI 3/PM _A' l PDI 3/LA 3 J [] 1 lf TECH ED* lN Region I C (b,gt) TS8 #. l NAME RCroteau #73W TCterk L ) h V BCalure Pw Tde c.Wh_ W8eckner DATE 04/ P /98' ' 04/,$4 /98 04/17/98- 06/ $ /98 04/'2.h /98

0FFICE' SRX8 # l SCSB -l l l l' I NAME TColLins C8er1 inner 4 A I DATE 01'/ b /98 04/ 17, /98 04/ /98 04/ /98 04 V /96) I

/x /

OFFICE. PDI-)/D f l E. PDI3//A)>"1/ -l OGOU'QLk.Wf., -l' ADP/A 9-1 ,_l MR/D .'f l l Nape CT M ' / JauctGrekiF j/N W'AA- 88oger M #/49f h/Scollins DATE O W /98 flGr V /98 'W/ ' " /98 Of Ef /98 '- M B /98 I' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Pg h

M. Daley 3  !

i

'As provided by Section 2.206, action will be taken on your request within a reasonable period of 1 time. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. I have also enclosed for your information a pamphlet on the public petition process (Section 2.206).

Sincerely,

, muel olkns, irector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice

2. Pamphlet on the Public Petition Process  :

3. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-271/97-201 cc w/encis: See next page ,

1 i

)

y _ _ _ _ _ . __.

Distnbution-

,.. E, Docket File Winc/ro

' PUBLIC (w/inc.)

EDO #G980233 L. Callan H. Thompson A. Thadani P. Nony

- J. Blaha S. Collins S. Bums H. Miller, RI C. Paperiello, NMSS K. Cyr, OGC J. Goldberg, OGC B. Boger PDI-3 Rdg. (w/inc.)

J.- Zwolinski B. Gleaves 3

R. Laskin (RSL) 1 OGC OPA OCA NRR Mail Room (EDO #G980233 w/inc.)

N. Olson R. Croteau (w/inc.)

T. Clark C. Hehl, RI ,

i j

j l

l 1

('

- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . -- -.