[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47537-47539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22650]


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

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 
(VY) located in Vernon, Vermont.
    The proposed amendment would modify the operability requirements 
for the high pressure cooling systems--High Pressure Coolant Injection 
(HPCI), Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) and Automatic 
Depressurization System (ADS)--and the safety and relief valves, and 
add a time limitation for conducting operability testing of HPCI and 
RCIC.
    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.
    The changes proposed add clarity, additional limitations, and 
relaxation to operability requirements and also reflect current 
surveillance practices. The proposed changes do not change the 
function nor needed range of operability pressures for the affected 
systems. The revisions ensure the applicability of operating 
requirements consistent with the design and operational bases of 
these systems.
    The high pressure cooling systems (HPCI, RCIC and ADS) and the 
steam safety and relief valves do not initiate any accident 
considered in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. HPCI and ADS 
(with relief valves), as emergency core cooling systems, do function 
to mitigate accidents. Credit is not taken for RCIC in this regard. 
This change will not alter assumptions relative to the initiation or 
mitigation of any accident event.
    The less restrictive changes proposed to not require operability 
of HPCI, ADS (and safety and relief valves) and RCIC at reactor 
steam pressures below 150 psig when irradiated fuel is in the 
reactor vessel and do not affect the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated. These changes furthermore do not significantly 
increase the consequences of accidents previously evaluated since 
reliance on these systems is not assumed below 150 psig.
    The addition of required surveillance testing and completion 
times are intended to require a reduction in reactor pressure if 
HPCI and RCIC system operability requirements are not met. These 
additional Technical Specifications testing requirements and 
completion times are consistent with the current licensing basis and 
represent current practice.
    The proposed changes do not involve accident initiators, do not 
change the configuration or method of operation of any equipment 
used to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not alter 
any conditions assumed in the plant accident analysis. Therefore, 
operation in accordance with the proposed changes would not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated since there is no physical alteration 
of the plant configuration or relaxation of required setpoints or 
operating parameters.
    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.
    The proposed changes will not modify the physical plant or the 
modes of plant operation. The changes do not involve the addition or 
modification of equipment nor do they alter the design or operation 
of plant systems. These changes to operability requirements do not 
create any new or different kind of accident since they do not

[[Page 47538]]

involve any change in the physical configuration of the plant, nor 
relaxation of required setpoints or operating parameters. Operation 
and design of the subject high pressure cooling systems (and the 
steam relief function) are not altered by the proposed changes.
    The changes in operability requirements governing normal plant 
operation are consistent with the current safety analysis 
assumptions. These changes ensure adequate emergency core cooling 
system capability exists to mitigate the consequences of loss of 
coolant accidents without introducing new modes of operation.
    Therefore, 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 because the proposed changes are 
designed to clarify and add limitations to operation.
    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.
    The proposed changes involve adding clarity, additional 
restrictions, and less restrictive requirements to current Technical 
Specifications without changing the safety bases. The added 
restrictions require an operability demonstration of HPCI and RCIC 
within an acceptable period of time following plant startup when 
testing is required.
    These changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety because the assumptions used in analyses of postulated 
accidents are unchanged. The functional requirements of safety 
systems are also unaffected. Since equipment is expected to be 
operable, the delay (of up to 24 hours) in testing certain systems 
is acceptable based on the short time interval and is consistent 
with the allowable equipment out-of-service intervals.
    The proposed changes to raise the Technical Specification 
minimum reactor steam pressure for operability to a consistent 150 
psig for these systems do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety since these systems are not credited in the safety 
analyses to operate below 150 psig. The basis for any Technical 
Specification that is related to the establishment or maintenance of 
safety margins is not altered. Consequently, VY has determined that 
the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety since operation of the plant remains consistent 
with the plant's design and operational bases.

    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 September 30, 1999, 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. If a request for a 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

[[Page 47539]]

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 to 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).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 20, 1999, as supplemented August 
17, 1999, 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, Brattletoro, VT.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard P. Croteau,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-22650 Filed 8-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P