[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15835-15836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8029]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-271]


Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation; Correction Notice

    On February 25, 1999, the NRC published (64 FR 9360) ``issuance of 
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.'' The text of the actual 
Director's Decision should have followed the notice but did not. The 
text of ``Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-99-04) 
follows this notice.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day of March 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elinor G. Adensam,
Director, Project Directorate 1-2, Division of Licensing Project 
Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

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

In the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

Docket No. 50-271

License No. DPR-28

(10 CFR 2.206)

 Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

    By a Petition submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 on April 9, 1998, 
Michael J. Daley, on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear 
Pollution, Inc., (Petitioner), requested that the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) take immediate action with regard to the 
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) operated by the Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (licensee or Vermont Yankee).
    The Petitioner requested that the NRC issue an order requiring that 
the licensee's administrative limits, which were in effect at the time 
and precluded VYNPS from operating with a torus water temperature above 
80  deg.F or with a service water injection temperature greater than 50 
 deg.F, shall remain in force until certain conditions are met. The 
conditions listed include a complete reconstitution of the licensing 
basis for the maximum torus water temperature, submittal to the NRC of 
a technical specifications (TSs) amendment request establishing the 
correct maximum torus water temperature, and completion of NRC's review 
of the amendment request.
    On May 13, 1998, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation informed the Petitioner that he was denying the request for 
immediate action at VNYPS, that the Petition was being evaluated under 
10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations, and that action would be 
taken in a reasonable time.
    The NRC staff's review of the Petition is now complete. For the 
reasons set forth below, the Petitioner's remaining requests have been 
approximately addressed. The conditions associated with the 
Petitioner's request have been completed, including establishment of 
the correct licensing basis for the maximum torus temperature, 
submittal of a TS amendment request establishing the correct maximum 
torus water temperature limit, and completion of the NRC's review of 
the amendment request.

[[Page 15836]]

II. Background

    In support of these requests, the Petitioner raised concerns about 
the licensee being unable to demonstrate an ability to either justify 
the operational limits for the maximum torus water temperature or to 
maintain operations within existing administrative limits (torus water 
temperature is critical to the proper functioning of the containment). 
The Petitioner asserted that since 1994, events have caused the 
licensee to question VYNPS's maximum torus water temperature limits 
four times, leading to the self-imposed administrative limits 
previously noted. The Petitioner stated that the NRC must move from a 
``wait and see'' posture to active intervention, with immediate 
imposition of the order recommended by the Petitioner as a first step.
    The staff notes that the limits proposed by the Petitioner were in 
effect at VYNPS on an interim basis while the licensee determined the 
correct maximum torus water temperature limits since it was determined 
that the TS limit of 100  deg.F was incorrect. The licensee 
subsequently completed the analysis and determined that the correct 
limit for the maximum torus water temperature is 90  deg.F. This 
administrative limit was then established at 90  deg.F and a TS 
amendment request was submitted to establish this as the maximum torus 
water temperature.

III. Discussion

    As indicated in the May 13 letter, Petitioner's request for 
immediate action was denied. 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 enforcement action (Notice of 
Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty of $55,000 dated 
April 14, 1998), there was insufficient basis for concluding that the 
limits proposed by the Petitioner must be imposed on the licensee while 
the NRC reviewed the associated TS amendment request. The NRC took 
several actions in this area, including performing a design inspection 
and conducting several meetings with the licensee on this issue. The 
NRC concluded that the licensee's actions to resolve this issue were 
acceptable.
    In May and June 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 its design and licensing basis 
for selected systems, and the consistency of the as-built configuration 
and system operations with the final safety analysis report. The team 
concluded that although some concerns were identified, the systems 
evaluated were capable of performing their intended functions and the 
design engineers had excellent knowledge and capabilities. The report 
findings were documented in NRC Inspection Report Number 50-271/97-201, 
which was provided with our May 13 letter to the Petitioner.
    One of the concerns identified during the inspection was associated 
with the licensee's previous handling of the torus water temperature 
issue and resulted in enforcement action being taken on April 14, 1998, 
because of 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 NRC 
considered the licensee's actions, once the violations were identified, 
to be prompt and comprehensive.
    At the NRC's request, several public meetings were conducted to 
discuss issues, including the licensee's analysis to determine the 
appropriate torus water temperature limit. As a result of discussions 
with the licensee during public meetings on March 5, March 24, and 
April 7, 1998, the NRC concluded that the licensee was taking the 
appropriate actions to resolve this issue and to ensure that the 
appropriate maximum torus water temperature was specified in the TS and 
administratively controlled while the TS amendment was being 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  deg.F, which is an input value to the containment analysis 
calculations, before restart. The calculations supporting the amendment 
request were subjected to the licensee's formal quality process for 
assuring accuracy and completeness and provided additional assurance 
that the 90  deg.F limit is correct. The more restrictive 
administrative limits (80  deg.F torus water temperature and 50  deg.F 
service water injection water temperature) were put in place by the 
licensee, while the detailed analysis was performed to verify that 90 
deg.F was the correct limit.
    The licensee proposed a TS amendment to establish a maximum torus 
water temperature limit of 90  deg.F by letter dated May 8, 1998, as 
supplemented on July 10 and October 2, 1998. The NRC reviewed the 
licensee's analysis and concluded, for the reasons specified in the 
safety evaluation, that the appropriate maximum torus water temperature 
is 90  deg.F. Therefore, imposition of the more restrictive 
administrative limits specified in the Petition are not necessary.

IV. Conclusion

    The NRC staff has evaluated the information provided by the 
Petitioner as its basis for the actions requested. As indicated in the 
May 13 letter to the Petitioner, the NRC has concluded that issuing an 
immediate order, as requested, was unnecessary since the licensee took 
appropriate actions to determine the proper limit on torus water 
temperature, sought a TS amendment to impose the correct torus water 
temperature, and administratively implemented the limit while the NRC 
reviewed the analysis in support of the TS amendment. Although the NRC 
denied Petitioner's request to take immediate action to issue an order 
imposing certain limits on VYNPS, the conditions associated with the 
request have been completed, including establishment of the correct 
licensing basis for the maximum torus temperature, submittal of a TS 
amendment request establishing the correct maximum torus water 
temperature limit, and completion of the NRC's review of the amendment 
request.
    Since the conditions listed in the Petition have been met and the 
NRC had previously addressed Petitioner's immediate request for 
imposition of an order, all actions associated with the request are 
complete. For the reasons contained in the safety evaluation, we have 
concluded that the appropriate limit for maximum torus water 
temperature is 90 deg.F, making the limits requested in the Petition 
unnecessary. Accordingly, the staff has addressed the issues raised by 
the Petitioner and has completed its actions relating to the Petition.
    As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review. 
This Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 
days after issuance unless the Commission, on its own motion, 
institutes review of the Decision within that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of February 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-8029 Filed 3-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M