ML20203G375: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:-=. _ _ -- | ||
. . | |||
~. | |||
Docket No. 50-029 JUL 2 31986 | |||
and 50-271 , | |||
Mr. A. Giordano, President | |||
Mass Alert | |||
52 Grinnell Street | |||
Greenfield, MA 01301 | |||
Dear Mr. Giordano: | |||
Your letter of June 17, 1986 to Commissioner Asselstine concerning the | |||
operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station and the Yankee Nuclear Power | |||
Station has been referred to me for response. In your letter you requested | |||
an immediate public hearing within the next 30 days on the operation of these | |||
two facilities. | |||
You stated that serious questions have been raised about the Vermont Yankee plant | |||
: and its management competency. The NRC in its Systematic Assessment of | |||
: Licensee Performance (SALP) Program, Report No. 50-271/85-99, dated March 21, | |||
1986, evaluated the Vermont Yankee management in nine functional areas. The | |||
facility performance was rated category 1 (highest) in five areas and category | |||
2 in the remaining four areas. In a review of SALP reports going back to May | |||
i | |||
' | |||
1983, the management retained this high level of performance. With regard to | |||
your concern about the plant design, the Vermont Yankee plant recently resumed | |||
operation following an outage to implement plant upgrades including replacement | |||
of recirculation piping. The licensee's activities were closely followed by the | |||
NRC staff; no unacceptable situations were identified. | |||
With respect to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, you expressed a concern | |||
regarding the adequacy of the containment structure. The structure was | |||
- designed to prevent the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere in the | |||
event of an accident. A vapor container leakage monitoring system is provided | |||
for continuously checking the integrity of the vapor container for leakage. | |||
Periodic leak tests at elevated pressure are also performed. | |||
NRC regulations regarding containment structures are included in Appendix A to | |||
; | |||
Part 50 of Title 10, " Energy," entitled " General Design Criteria for Nuclear | |||
Power Plants." In particular, the criteria state that a containment structure | |||
shall be provided to establish an essentially leaktight barrier against the | |||
uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment and that the structure | |||
shall be able to accommodate the calculated conditions resulting from any | |||
loss-of-coolant accident. | |||
8608010119 860723 | |||
PDR ADOCK 05000029 | |||
p PDR | |||
E | |||
k | |||
r ., m - - -, - | |||
- _ _ , . . . , - , ~ . .,m .. , ,,,,,.,_.-.r_,y.--. .m , | |||
- | |||
. o . | |||
, | |||
. | |||
Mr. Giordano -2- | |||
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to | |||
review the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and | |||
document their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was | |||
adequacy of the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent | |||
analyses were performed by staff contractors. The peak pressure, using | |||
present-day conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly higher than the | |||
initial design pressure. A structural integrity test of thc vapor container | |||
has been conducted at a pressure of 40 pounds per square inch gauge, which is | |||
25% higher than the initidl design pressure. This test pressure exceeds the | |||
peak calculated accident pressure. As part of SEP, the margins of safety | |||
for older structural design codes were also confirmed. Further, NRC experience | |||
with steel containments is that there is substantial margin to failure or | |||
leakage beyond the design pressure. The staff concluded that the vapor container | |||
provides an isolation barrier comparable to current criteria for Yankee and | |||
it is, therefore, acceptable for continued operation. | |||
I have also considered your request for a public meeting in the area. Several | |||
meetings open for public participation have already been conducted in the | |||
vicinity of the plants, most recently the June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee | |||
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP) | |||
meeting, concerning resumption of operation of Vermont Yankee, on June 17, 1986 | |||
in Brattleboro, VT. At this time, no new issues have been identified which | |||
would warrant the commitment of NRC staff resources to support a further meeting. | |||
As you know, the licensing proceedings for both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee | |||
plants are part of the public record and are available to anyone for review in the | |||
local public document rooms. | |||
I appreciate your concern in this matter and hope that your questions have been | |||
answered. | |||
Sincerely, | |||
DristnalSitad W | |||
Q.LDestaqJ | |||
Harold R. Denton, Director | |||
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | |||
*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE | |||
Office: PM/ PAD #1 PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 OGC DD/PWR-A | |||
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *Glear *VRooney *DMuller *RBachmann *TNovak | |||
Date: 07/09/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/11/86 07/17/86 | |||
Office: | |||
Surname: | |||
D/PWR-A | |||
HThompson | |||
BWD0 | |||
RBernero | |||
Dh | |||
RYonmer | |||
NRRC 6 | |||
HDeRon | |||
Date: 07/17/86 07/18/86 07/Pf86 | |||
0] gt /86 | |||
. _-- - . - __ - . . _ . . _ - . _ _ . | |||
- | |||
. . . | |||
, | |||
. | |||
Mr. Giordano -2- | |||
' | |||
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review | |||
; the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and document | |||
1 | |||
their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was adequacy of | |||
the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent | |||
analyses were performed by staff contractors. The peak pressure, using | |||
present-day conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly higher than the | |||
initial design pres \ure. A structural integrity test of the vapor container | |||
has been conducted a a pressure of 40 pounds per square inch gauge, which is | |||
25% higher than the in'tial design pressure. This test pressure exceeds the | |||
: peak calculated acciden pressure. As part of SEP, the margins of safety for ) | |||
! | |||
older structural design c es were also confirmed. Further, NRC experience l | |||
with steel containments 1s hat there is substantial margin to failure or | |||
leakage beyond the design pr ssure. The staff concluded that the vapor container | |||
1 provides an isolation barrier omparable to current criteria for Yankee and is, I | |||
therefore, acceptable for conti ued operation. | |||
l | |||
I have also considered your reque t for a public meeting in the area. Several | |||
meetings open for public participa ion have already been conducted in the | |||
vicinity of the plants, most recent the June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee | |||
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and the V AP meeting, concerning resumption of | |||
operation of Vermont Yankee, on June , 1986 in Brattleboro, VT. At this | |||
, time, no new issues have been identifi which would warrant the commitment | |||
of NRC staff resources to support a fur er meeting. | |||
! As you know, the licensing proceedings fo both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee | |||
plants are part of the public record and a available to anyone for review | |||
in the local public document rooms. ' | |||
I appreciate your concern in this matter and ope that your questions hsve been | |||
answered. | |||
i | |||
Sincerely, | |||
l | |||
Harold R. Denton Director | |||
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | |||
*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE | |||
Office: PM/ PAD #1 PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 j BWD2 OGC DD/PWR-A D/PWR-A | |||
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *Glear *VRooney *DMuller *RBachmann *TNovak *HThompson | |||
Date: 07/09/86 07/1f86 07/10/86 07/10/87 07/11 /86 07/17/86 07/17/86 | |||
, n 2 1pP | |||
' | |||
Office: BWD0 DD NRR0 | |||
Surname: RBernero RVollmer HDenton | |||
Date: 07//8/86 07/ /86 07/ /86 | |||
-~ _ __ _ ._ _. . . . . _ - . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ | |||
. | |||
. | |||
Mr. Giordano -2- | |||
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review | |||
the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and docwent their | |||
safety. One of the issues considered in this program was adequacy of the con- | |||
tainment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent analyses were | |||
perforred by staff contractors. The peak pressure, using present-day | |||
conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly hig)dr than the initial design | |||
pressure. AstructuralintegritytestofthevaporfontainerhasLcen | |||
conducted at a pressure of 40 pounds per square in9h gauge, which is 25% higher | |||
than the initial design pressure. This test pres tre exceeds the peak | |||
calculated accident prqssure. As part of SEP, t margins of safety for older | |||
structural design codesNwere also confimcd. F ther, NRC experience with | |||
steel contairrents is that there is substantial margin to failure or leakage | |||
beyond the design pressurb The staff conclud .d that the vapor container | |||
provides an isolation barriqr comparat,le to ci rent critiera for Yankee and is, | |||
therefore, acceptable for cc inued operation | |||
I have also considered your request fcr a pu ic meeting in the area. Several | |||
meetings cpen for public partici atien have Tready been conducted in the | |||
vicinity of the plants, mcst rec tly the J.no 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee | |||
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and th VGAP n cting, concerning resunption of | |||
creration of Vemont Yankee, en Juge 17,186 in Brattict.oro, VT. At this tint, | |||
no new issues have been identified hich culd warrant the conmitnent of NRC | |||
staff resources to support a further mee ng. | |||
As you know, the 1icensing proceedings for both the Yankee and Vemont, Yankee | |||
plants are part of the public record a are available to anyone for review | |||
in the local public document races, | |||
I appreciate your concern in this m,atter nd hope that your questions have | |||
' | |||
been answered. / | |||
Sinct ely, | |||
, | |||
' | |||
Harold R Denton, Sl M r | |||
p Office of iuclear Reactor Regulation | |||
\ | |||
/ | |||
Enclosure: , | |||
As Stated / | |||
/ | |||
*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE l | |||
Office: PM/ PAD #1 PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 OGC DD/PWR-A | |||
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *GLear *VRooney *DNuller *RBachmann TNovak l | |||
Date: 07/09/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/11/86 01/17/86 | |||
Office: | |||
/ 1 | |||
D/PWR-Ak BWD0 DD NRR0 l | |||
Surname: HThompson RBernero RVollmer HDenton | |||
Date: 07/17/86 07/17/86 07/17/86 07/17/86 | |||
- | |||
o | |||
) | |||
I | |||
-2- | |||
! | |||
l The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review | |||
the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and document | |||
their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was' adequacy of | |||
the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Inf6 pendent | |||
analyses were. performed by staff contractors. The peak prpssure, using | |||
present-day conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly higher than the | |||
initial design pressure. A structural integrity test of the vapor container | |||
hasbeenconductedatapressureof40poundspersquafeinchgauge,whichis | |||
s | |||
25% higher than the\ initial design pressure. This 14st pressure exceeds the | |||
peak calculated accident pressure. As part of SEP | |||
older structural design codes were also confirme#,( the margins | |||
Further, of safety for | |||
NRC experience | |||
with steel containmentsi \ s that there is substapi.ial margin to failure or | |||
leakage beyond the design'\ pressure. Therefore | |||
thevaporcontainerprovidesanisolationbarp/,thestaffhasconcludedthat | |||
ier comparable to current | |||
criteria for Yankee and is therefore ac; cept ble. | |||
I have also considered your r\ for | |||
equest public meeting in the area. Several | |||
meetings open for public participation ve already been conducted in the | |||
vicinity of the plants, most recently e June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee | |||
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and theg VS AP meeting, concerning resumption of | |||
operation of Vermont Yankee, on Jun 17, 1986 in Brattleboro, VT. At this | |||
time, no new issues have been iden fied which would warrant the commitment | |||
of NRC staff resources to support a further meeting. | |||
Asyouknow,thelicensingprocedings\for both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee | |||
plants are part of the public ecord and'are available to anyone for review | |||
in the local public document coms. | |||
I appreciate your concern i this matter an hope that your questions have been | |||
answered. | |||
Harold R. Denton, Director | |||
Office of Nuc' lear Reactor Regulation | |||
Enclosure: | |||
As Stated | |||
, T a va (C | |||
*SEE PREVIOUS CONC RENCE 7/ | |||
Office: PM/ PAD #)/ PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 OGC A $D/PWR-A | |||
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *Glear *VRooney *DMuller *RBachmann HThompson | |||
Date: 07/09/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/10/87 07/11 /86 07/ /86 | |||
Office: BWD0 DD NRR0. | |||
Surname: RBernero RVollmer HDenton | |||
Date: 07/ /86 07/ /86 07/ /86 | |||
l | |||
l | |||
J | |||
.. . . - -. . | |||
- . | |||
. . | |||
, | |||
. | |||
O | |||
-2- | |||
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review | |||
the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and document | |||
.their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was adequacy of | |||
the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent | |||
analyses were performed by staff contractors. The peak press 6re, using | |||
present-dayconservativeanalysiscriteria,wasonlys;ightfyhigherthanthe | |||
initial design pressure. A structural integrity test 01 the vapor container | |||
hasbeenconductedata.pressureof40poundspersquare/nchgauge,whichis | |||
25% higher than the initial design pressure. This test /prissure exceeds the | |||
peak calculated accident pressure. As part of SEP, th6 ma gins of safety for | |||
older structural design codes were also confirmed. Furthe , NRC experience | |||
with steel containments is that there is substantial margii to failure or | |||
leakage beyond the design pressure. Therefore, the staff qas concluded that | |||
the vapor container provi es an isolation barr1 9r comparable to current | |||
criteria for Yankee and is therefore acceptable. | |||
I have also considered your re. Several | |||
meetingsopenforpublicpartikuestforapbicmeetinginthearea. | |||
pation hav already been conducted in the | |||
vicinity of the plants, most recently the June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee | |||
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and thhxVSNAP meeting, concerning resumption of | |||
j operation of Vermont Yankee, on June s ip,1986 in Brattleboro, VT. At this | |||
time, no new issues have been identif ed which would warrant the commitment | |||
of NRC staff resources to support a ur'ther meeting. | |||
N | |||
As you know, the licensing proceedings for both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee | |||
plants are part of the public re ord and are 'available to anyone for review | |||
in the local public document r ms. | |||
' | |||
i In summary, I conclude that ou have not set forth any substantive issue or | |||
condition that would warrapt a public hearing or mee' ting. I appreciate your | |||
concern in this matter an hope that your questions hdve been answered. | |||
\ | |||
\ | |||
Harold R. Denton, Direc' tor | |||
Office of Nuclear Reactoh Regulation | |||
x | |||
Enclosure: ' | |||
As Stated | |||
H4// | |||
Office: JMgg PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 AD/PWR-A | |||
Surname: EMcKenna/tg Glear[k- VRo ey DMuller d3xhmtna TNovak j | |||
Date: 07/9/86 07/f0/86 07/go /86 07 g /87 07/// /86 07/ /86 | |||
! | |||
Office: BWD0 DD NRR0 | |||
Surname: RBernero RVollmer HDenton | |||
Date: 07/ /86 07/ /86 07/ /86 | |||
! | |||
._ __ _ _ . - _ . . _ . - . . _ . . . _ . . -_. _ _ . . . ~ . , _ _ . | |||
- | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
Distribution Copies: | |||
Docket File | |||
NRC PDR | |||
Local PDR | |||
MBridgers (ED0#001885) | |||
EDO.r/f | |||
EMcKenna | |||
Glear | |||
Peggy Shuttleworth | |||
VRooney | |||
DMu11er | |||
0GC | |||
TNovak | |||
RBernero | |||
RVo11mer | |||
HDenton | |||
PBaker(2) | |||
PPAS | |||
0 ELD | |||
DMossburg/ Toms (w/ ticket & incoming) | |||
Glainas | |||
CRossi | |||
DCrutchfield | |||
SKent, OCA (w/cy of incoming) | |||
PAD #1 Green Ticket File (w/cy of incoming) | |||
PAD #1 r/f | |||
i | |||
l | |||
l | |||
, | |||
' | |||
1 | |||
l | |||
. | |||
r | |||
. '. - | |||
d 'o UNITED STATES | |||
-~,, | |||
8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
5. .E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 | |||
%' ~ C* $ | |||
***** . | |||
Q [3 I i | |||
EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL | |||
_ _ _ _ _ _- -_- ---- | |||
FROM: DUE: 07/14/86 EDO CONTROL: 001885 | |||
DOC DT: 06/17/86 | |||
AL OIORDANO FINAL REPLY: | |||
MASSACHUSETTS ALERT | |||
TO: | |||
. | |||
COMM. ASSELSTINE | |||
FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GREEN ** SECY NO: 86-649 | |||
V | |||
CUNNINGHan * | |||
DESC: ROUTING: | |||
REQUEST HEARING ON OPERGTION OF VERMONT YANKEE DENTON | |||
MURLEY | |||
DATE: 06/26/86 y | |||
ASSIGNED TO: ICLC CONTACT: N INNINOMAli /JM | |||
..g() .- - -- - - - | |||
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: | |||
NRR RECEIVED: 07/C'/96 . | |||
ACTION: ..DPLB I E ' l Al . | |||
I | |||
NRR ROUTING: DENTON/VOLLMER | |||
PPAS | |||
MOSSBURG/ TOMS | |||
* | |||
8 to,012 | |||
1 | |||
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ | |||
' * | |||
. | |||
, | |||
.% . . | |||
, l | |||
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | |||
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET | |||
I | |||
PAPER NUMBER: CRC-86-0949 LOGGING DATE: Jun 25 86 | |||
ACTION OFFICE: EDO | |||
AUTHOR: A. Giordano | |||
AFFILIATION: MA (MASSACHUSETTS) | |||
LETTER DATE: Jun 17 86 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Vermont Yankee | |||
SUBJECT: Req public hearing on the oper of the Vermont | |||
Yankee nuc sta | |||
ACTION: Appropriate | |||
DISTRIBUTION: | |||
SPECIAL HANDLING: None | |||
NOTES: | |||
DATE DUE: | |||
SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED: | |||
AFFILIATION: | |||
l | |||
\ | |||
w.npl. ' | |||
Rec'd Off. E0 | |||
Date b J b ' N :- l | |||
Time _} .Y | |||
EDO -- 031885 | |||
_ | |||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 17:36, 31 December 2020
ML20203G375 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Vermont Yankee, Yankee Rowe, 05000000 |
Issue date: | 07/23/1986 |
From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
To: | Giordano A MASS ALERT (MASSACHUSETTS ALERT) |
Shared Package | |
ML20203G380 | List: |
References | |
NUDOCS 8608010119 | |
Download: ML20203G375 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000271/1985099
Text
-=. _ _ --
. .
~.
Docket No.50-029 JUL 2 31986
and 50-271 ,
Mr. A. Giordano, President
Mass Alert
52 Grinnell Street
Greenfield, MA 01301
Dear Mr. Giordano:
Your letter of June 17, 1986 to Commissioner Asselstine concerning the
operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station and the Yankee Nuclear Power
Station has been referred to me for response. In your letter you requested
an immediate public hearing within the next 30 days on the operation of these
two facilities.
You stated that serious questions have been raised about the Vermont Yankee plant
- and its management competency. The NRC in its Systematic Assessment of
- Licensee Performance (SALP) Program, Report No. 50-271/85-99, dated March 21,
1986, evaluated the Vermont Yankee management in nine functional areas. The
facility performance was rated category 1 (highest) in five areas and category
2 in the remaining four areas. In a review of SALP reports going back to May
i
'
1983, the management retained this high level of performance. With regard to
your concern about the plant design, the Vermont Yankee plant recently resumed
operation following an outage to implement plant upgrades including replacement
of recirculation piping. The licensee's activities were closely followed by the
NRC staff; no unacceptable situations were identified.
With respect to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, you expressed a concern
regarding the adequacy of the containment structure. The structure was
- designed to prevent the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere in the
event of an accident. A vapor container leakage monitoring system is provided
for continuously checking the integrity of the vapor container for leakage.
Periodic leak tests at elevated pressure are also performed.
NRC regulations regarding containment structures are included in Appendix A to
Part 50 of Title 10, " Energy," entitled " General Design Criteria for Nuclear
Power Plants." In particular, the criteria state that a containment structure
shall be provided to establish an essentially leaktight barrier against the
uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment and that the structure
shall be able to accommodate the calculated conditions resulting from any
loss-of-coolant accident.
8608010119 860723
PDR ADOCK 05000029
p PDR
E
k
r ., m - - -, -
- _ _ , . . . , - , ~ . .,m .. , ,,,,,.,_.-.r_,y.--. .m ,
-
. o .
,
.
Mr. Giordano -2-
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to
review the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and
document their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was
adequacy of the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent
analyses were performed by staff contractors. The peak pressure, using
present-day conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly higher than the
initial design pressure. A structural integrity test of thc vapor container
has been conducted at a pressure of 40 pounds per square inch gauge, which is
25% higher than the initidl design pressure. This test pressure exceeds the
peak calculated accident pressure. As part of SEP, the margins of safety
for older structural design codes were also confirmed. Further, NRC experience
with steel containments is that there is substantial margin to failure or
leakage beyond the design pressure. The staff concluded that the vapor container
provides an isolation barrier comparable to current criteria for Yankee and
it is, therefore, acceptable for continued operation.
I have also considered your request for a public meeting in the area. Several
meetings open for public participation have already been conducted in the
vicinity of the plants, most recently the June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP)
meeting, concerning resumption of operation of Vermont Yankee, on June 17, 1986
in Brattleboro, VT. At this time, no new issues have been identified which
would warrant the commitment of NRC staff resources to support a further meeting.
As you know, the licensing proceedings for both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee
plants are part of the public record and are available to anyone for review in the
local public document rooms.
I appreciate your concern in this matter and hope that your questions have been
answered.
Sincerely,
DristnalSitad W
Q.LDestaqJ
Harold R. Denton, Director
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
Office: PM/ PAD #1 PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 OGC DD/PWR-A
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *Glear *VRooney *DMuller *RBachmann *TNovak
Date: 07/09/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/11/86 07/17/86
Office:
Surname:
D/PWR-A
HThompson
BWD0
RBernero
Dh
RYonmer
NRRC 6
HDeRon
Date: 07/17/86 07/18/86 07/Pf86
0] gt /86
. _-- - . - __ - . . _ . . _ - . _ _ .
-
. . .
,
.
Mr. Giordano -2-
'
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review
- the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and document
1
their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was adequacy of
the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent
analyses were performed by staff contractors. The peak pressure, using
present-day conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly higher than the
initial design pres \ure. A structural integrity test of the vapor container
has been conducted a a pressure of 40 pounds per square inch gauge, which is
25% higher than the in'tial design pressure. This test pressure exceeds the
- peak calculated acciden pressure. As part of SEP, the margins of safety for )
!
older structural design c es were also confirmed. Further, NRC experience l
with steel containments 1s hat there is substantial margin to failure or
leakage beyond the design pr ssure. The staff concluded that the vapor container
1 provides an isolation barrier omparable to current criteria for Yankee and is, I
therefore, acceptable for conti ued operation.
l
I have also considered your reque t for a public meeting in the area. Several
meetings open for public participa ion have already been conducted in the
vicinity of the plants, most recent the June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and the V AP meeting, concerning resumption of
operation of Vermont Yankee, on June , 1986 in Brattleboro, VT. At this
, time, no new issues have been identifi which would warrant the commitment
of NRC staff resources to support a fur er meeting.
! As you know, the licensing proceedings fo both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee
plants are part of the public record and a available to anyone for review
in the local public document rooms. '
I appreciate your concern in this matter and ope that your questions hsve been
answered.
i
Sincerely,
l
Harold R. Denton Director
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
Office: PM/ PAD #1 PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 j BWD2 OGC DD/PWR-A D/PWR-A
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *Glear *VRooney *DMuller *RBachmann *TNovak *HThompson
Date: 07/09/86 07/1f86 07/10/86 07/10/87 07/11 /86 07/17/86 07/17/86
, n 2 1pP
'
Office: BWD0 DD NRR0
Surname: RBernero RVollmer HDenton
Date: 07//8/86 07/ /86 07/ /86
-~ _ __ _ ._ _. . . . . _ - . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _
.
.
Mr. Giordano -2-
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review
the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and docwent their
safety. One of the issues considered in this program was adequacy of the con-
tainment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent analyses were
perforred by staff contractors. The peak pressure, using present-day
conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly hig)dr than the initial design
pressure. AstructuralintegritytestofthevaporfontainerhasLcen
conducted at a pressure of 40 pounds per square in9h gauge, which is 25% higher
than the initial design pressure. This test pres tre exceeds the peak
calculated accident prqssure. As part of SEP, t margins of safety for older
structural design codesNwere also confimcd. F ther, NRC experience with
steel contairrents is that there is substantial margin to failure or leakage
beyond the design pressurb The staff conclud .d that the vapor container
provides an isolation barriqr comparat,le to ci rent critiera for Yankee and is,
therefore, acceptable for cc inued operation
I have also considered your request fcr a pu ic meeting in the area. Several
meetings cpen for public partici atien have Tready been conducted in the
vicinity of the plants, mcst rec tly the J.no 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and th VGAP n cting, concerning resunption of
creration of Vemont Yankee, en Juge 17,186 in Brattict.oro, VT. At this tint,
no new issues have been identified hich culd warrant the conmitnent of NRC
staff resources to support a further mee ng.
As you know, the 1icensing proceedings for both the Yankee and Vemont, Yankee
plants are part of the public record a are available to anyone for review
in the local public document races,
I appreciate your concern in this m,atter nd hope that your questions have
'
been answered. /
Sinct ely,
,
'
Harold R Denton, Sl M r
p Office of iuclear Reactor Regulation
\
/
Enclosure: ,
As Stated /
/
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE l
Office: PM/ PAD #1 PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 OGC DD/PWR-A
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *GLear *VRooney *DNuller *RBachmann TNovak l
Date: 07/09/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/11/86 01/17/86
Office:
/ 1
D/PWR-Ak BWD0 DD NRR0 l
Surname: HThompson RBernero RVollmer HDenton
Date: 07/17/86 07/17/86 07/17/86 07/17/86
-
o
)
I
-2-
!
l The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review
the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and document
their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was' adequacy of
the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Inf6 pendent
analyses were. performed by staff contractors. The peak prpssure, using
present-day conservative analysis criteria, was only slightly higher than the
initial design pressure. A structural integrity test of the vapor container
hasbeenconductedatapressureof40poundspersquafeinchgauge,whichis
s
25% higher than the\ initial design pressure. This 14st pressure exceeds the
peak calculated accident pressure. As part of SEP
older structural design codes were also confirme#,( the margins
Further, of safety for
NRC experience
with steel containmentsi \ s that there is substapi.ial margin to failure or
leakage beyond the design'\ pressure. Therefore
thevaporcontainerprovidesanisolationbarp/,thestaffhasconcludedthat
ier comparable to current
criteria for Yankee and is therefore ac; cept ble.
I have also considered your r\ for
equest public meeting in the area. Several
meetings open for public participation ve already been conducted in the
vicinity of the plants, most recently e June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and theg VS AP meeting, concerning resumption of
operation of Vermont Yankee, on Jun 17, 1986 in Brattleboro, VT. At this
time, no new issues have been iden fied which would warrant the commitment
of NRC staff resources to support a further meeting.
Asyouknow,thelicensingprocedings\for both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee
plants are part of the public ecord and'are available to anyone for review
in the local public document coms.
I appreciate your concern i this matter an hope that your questions have been
answered.
Harold R. Denton, Director
Office of Nuc' lear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As Stated
, T a va (C
- SEE PREVIOUS CONC RENCE 7/
Office: PM/ PAD #)/ PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 OGC A $D/PWR-A
Surname: *EMcKenna/tg *Glear *VRooney *DMuller *RBachmann HThompson
Date: 07/09/86 07/10/86 07/10/86 07/10/87 07/11 /86 07/ /86
Office: BWD0 DD NRR0.
Surname: RBernero RVollmer HDenton
Date: 07/ /86 07/ /86 07/ /86
l
l
J
.. . . - -. .
- .
. .
,
.
O
-2-
The Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is an NRC initiated program to review
the designs of older operating nuclear power plants to reconfirm and document
.their safety. One of the issues considered in this program was adequacy of
the containment for postulated post-accident conditions. Independent
analyses were performed by staff contractors. The peak press 6re, using
present-dayconservativeanalysiscriteria,wasonlys;ightfyhigherthanthe
initial design pressure. A structural integrity test 01 the vapor container
hasbeenconductedata.pressureof40poundspersquare/nchgauge,whichis
25% higher than the initial design pressure. This test /prissure exceeds the
peak calculated accident pressure. As part of SEP, th6 ma gins of safety for
older structural design codes were also confirmed. Furthe , NRC experience
with steel containments is that there is substantial margii to failure or
leakage beyond the design pressure. Therefore, the staff qas concluded that
the vapor container provi es an isolation barr1 9r comparable to current
criteria for Yankee and is therefore acceptable.
I have also considered your re. Several
meetingsopenforpublicpartikuestforapbicmeetinginthearea.
pation hav already been conducted in the
vicinity of the plants, most recently the June 12, 1986 meeting on the Yankee
Emergency Exercise in Rowe and thhxVSNAP meeting, concerning resumption of
j operation of Vermont Yankee, on June s ip,1986 in Brattleboro, VT. At this
time, no new issues have been identif ed which would warrant the commitment
of NRC staff resources to support a ur'ther meeting.
N
As you know, the licensing proceedings for both the Yankee and Vermont Yankee
plants are part of the public re ord and are 'available to anyone for review
in the local public document r ms.
'
i In summary, I conclude that ou have not set forth any substantive issue or
condition that would warrapt a public hearing or mee' ting. I appreciate your
concern in this matter an hope that your questions hdve been answered.
\
\
Harold R. Denton, Direc' tor
Office of Nuclear Reactoh Regulation
x
Enclosure: '
As Stated
H4//
Office: JMgg PD/ PAD #1 BWD2 BWD2 AD/PWR-A
Surname: EMcKenna/tg Glear[k- VRo ey DMuller d3xhmtna TNovak j
Date: 07/9/86 07/f0/86 07/go /86 07 g /87 07/// /86 07/ /86
!
Office: BWD0 DD NRR0
Surname: RBernero RVollmer HDenton
Date: 07/ /86 07/ /86 07/ /86
!
._ __ _ _ . - _ . . _ . - . . _ . . . _ . . -_. _ _ . . . ~ . , _ _ .
-
.
.
.
Distribution Copies:
Docket File
NRC PDR
Local PDR
MBridgers (ED0#001885)
EDO.r/f
EMcKenna
Glear
Peggy Shuttleworth
VRooney
DMu11er
0GC
TNovak
RBernero
RVo11mer
HDenton
PBaker(2)
PPAS
0 ELD
DMossburg/ Toms (w/ ticket & incoming)
Glainas
CRossi
DCrutchfield
SKent, OCA (w/cy of incoming)
PAD #1 Green Ticket File (w/cy of incoming)
PAD #1 r/f
i
l
l
,
'
1
l
.
r
. '. -
d 'o UNITED STATES
-~,,
8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
5. .E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%' ~ C* $
- .
Q [3 I i
EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
_ _ _ _ _ _- -_- ----
FROM: DUE: 07/14/86 EDO CONTROL: 001885
DOC DT: 06/17/86
AL OIORDANO FINAL REPLY:
MASSACHUSETTS ALERT
TO:
.
COMM. ASSELSTINE
FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GREEN ** SECY NO: 86-649
V
CUNNINGHan *
DESC: ROUTING:
REQUEST HEARING ON OPERGTION OF VERMONT YANKEE DENTON
MURLEY
DATE: 06/26/86 y
ASSIGNED TO: ICLC CONTACT: N INNINOMAli /JM
..g() .- - -- - - -
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
NRR RECEIVED: 07/C'/96 .
ACTION: ..DPLB I E ' l Al .
I
NRR ROUTING: DENTON/VOLLMER
PPAS
MOSSBURG/ TOMS
8 to,012
1
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _
' *
.
,
.% . .
, l
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
I
PAPER NUMBER: CRC-86-0949 LOGGING DATE: Jun 25 86
ACTION OFFICE: EDO
AUTHOR: A. Giordano
AFFILIATION: MA (MASSACHUSETTS)
LETTER DATE: Jun 17 86 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Vermont Yankee
SUBJECT: Req public hearing on the oper of the Vermont
Yankee nuc sta
ACTION: Appropriate
DISTRIBUTION:
SPECIAL HANDLING: None
NOTES:
DATE DUE:
SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
l
\
w.npl. '
Rec'd Off. E0
Date b J b ' N :- l
Time _} .Y
EDO -- 031885
_