[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52774-52777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26283]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-271]


Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation; Notice of Consideration 
of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-28 issued to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the 
licensee) for operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 
located in Vernon, Vermont.
    The proposed amendment would increase the spent fuel storage 
capacity of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool from 2,870 to 3,355 fuel 
assemblies.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Vermont Yankee has determined that the proposed change to 
increase the spent fuel pool capacity does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The installation of new storage racks of 
similar design to the existing racks does not increase the 
probability or consequences of a fuel handling accident. Fuel 
handling equipment is not affected by the proposed amendment and the 
top of the new racks will be at the same elevation as the existing 
racks to prevent operator difficulties during fuel handling.

[[Page 52775]]

    VY's proposed storage expansion method consists of installing up 
to three additional freestanding racks of a design similar to the 
existing proven design. Vermont Yankee has performed nuclear, 
thermal-hydraulic, mechanical, and structural analyses of normal and 
abnormal conditions which could create potential hazards. These 
include criticality considerations, seismic and mechanical loading, 
spent fuel pool cooling, and long-term corrosion and oxidation of 
fuel cladding.
    Additionally, the neutron poison and rack structural materials 
were evaluated and shown to be compatible with the pool environment. 
The probability and occurrence of potential abnormal conditions and 
accident scenarios initiated either by external events (such as a 
seismic event) or by failure of an engineered system (such as 
dropping a fuel assembly) are not affected by the racks themselves; 
thus, the reracking does not increase the probability of these 
conditions and accidents. Cask handling and installation of the new 
racks will meet the applicable NUREG 0612 guidance, therefore the 
proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    The radiological consequences of a fuel handling accident have 
been previously analyzed and remain unchanged by the proposed new 
rack installation. Radiological shielding analyses are unaffected by 
the proposed new rack installation. Installing additional racks on 
the east end of the spent fuel pool does not increase the 
consequences of a fuel handling accident.
    2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment, will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    VY has determined that the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. VY has evaluated the proposed additional racks 
in accordance with the NRC paper, ``NRC Guidance on Spent Fuel Pool 
Modification Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and 
Handling Applications (April 14, 1978 with revision January 18, 
1979),'' as well as appropriate NRC Regulatory Guides, appropriate 
NRC Standard Review Plan sections which were used for guidance and 
appropriate industry codes and standards.
    In addition, VY has reviewed the NRC Safety Evaluation Report 
for the previous VY spent fuel rack replacement application and for 
other prior spent fuel pool rerackings. The proposed storage 
expansion method consists of installing up to three new racks of 
similar design to the existing racks with a previously approved and 
proven design. The credible accidents and consequences evaluated 
have been found to be conservatively bounded and no new categories 
or types of accidents have been identified.
    3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in 
accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    VY has determined that the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The issue of ``margin 
of safety'' when applied to a reracking modification, includes the 
following considerations:
    a. Nuclear criticality considerations,
    b. Thermal-hydraulic considerations,
    c. Mechanical, material and structural considerations.
    The margin of safety that has been established for nuclear 
criticality considerations is that the effective neutron 
multiplication factor (Keff) in the spent fuel pool is to 
be less than or equal to 0.95, including all reasonable 
uncertainties and under all postulated conditions. The criticality 
analysis for the proposed modification which analyzed both the new 
and existing racks concluded that for all bounding normal and 
abnormal storage conditions, the subcritical multiplication factor 
(Keff) was verified to be less than the criticality 
criterion of 0.95 at the 95/95 probability/confidence level under 
all postulated conditions. The proposed reracking does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety for nuclear 
criticality.
    The margin of safety that has been established for the thermal-
hydraulic considerations is that fuel pool cooling be capable of 
maintaining spent fuel pool water temperatures at or below the 
Technical Specification limit of 150 deg.F with maximum postulated 
pool heat load. Analyses performed verify that the installed fuel 
pool cooling equipment can maintain spent fuel pool water 
temperature during the maximum decay heat load assuming full core 
discharge during the Fall, 2008 refueling outage.
    The maximum heat load predicted for a full pool with the 
proposed additional racks, remains within the design capacity of 
existing equipment. It has also been demonstrated that if the Spent 
Fuel Pool Cooling System is lost for any reason, there is sufficient 
time and make-up capacity available to maintain pool water level. 
Thus, the proposed additional storage racks do not involve a 
significant reduction in any thermal-hydraulic margins of safety.
    The racks are designed in accordance with applicable NRC 
Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans used as guidance, position 
papers and appropriate industry codes and standards, as well as to 
Seismic Category I requirements. All materials selected are 
corrosion-resistant. The materials utilized for the proposed new 
racks are compatible with the exiting spent fuel racks, the spent 
fuel pool and the spent fuel assemblies. The conclusion of the 
analyses is that the margin of safety is not significantly reduced 
by the proposed reracking.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of 
written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By November 2, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, 
Brattleboro, VT 05301. If a request for a

[[Page 52776]]

hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, 
the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by 
the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the 
Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will 
issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the 
subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to 
intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene 
or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without 
requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first 
prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended 
petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and Mr. David R. Lewis, Shaw, Pittman, Potts 
and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037-1128, attorney 
for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on 
an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of 
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of 
any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with 
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in 
controversy among the parties.'' The hybrid procedures in section 134 
provide for oral argument on matters in controversy, preceded by 
discovery under the Commission's rules and the designation, following 
argument of only those factual issues that involve a genuine and 
substantial dispute, together with any remaining questions of law, to 
be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings 
are to be held on only those issues found to meet the criteria of 
section 134 and set for hearing after oral argument.
    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under 
those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing 
procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for 
oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be 
filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing 
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely 
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely 
request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the 
requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing 
the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If 
the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing 
held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid 
hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time 
available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to 
determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument, 
and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the 
usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 4, 1998, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local 
public document room located at the Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main 
Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301.


[[Page 52777]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of September 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard P. Croteau,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-26283 Filed 9-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P