[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8749-8751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4080]


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

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 delete the requirement to exercise 
main steam isolation valves (MSIVs) twice weekly by partial closure and 
subsequent re-opening. The quarterly full-stroke testing TS 
requirements are retained.
    Beginning with partial closure testing performed on January 17, 
2000, MSIV 80-C has exhibited slower than normal re-opening time during 
the test. Closing times and the quarterly full stroke testing of this 
MSIV in accordance with the inservice testing (IST) program have been 
acceptable. However, the re-opening time has continued to be erratic 
since the January 17 test and is trending up (i.e., taking longer to 
re-open). This is evidenced by two other tests indicating slower than 
expected re-opening times. If the MSIV were to fail to re-open and 
continue closing, a plant transient could result. Therefore, the 
licensee stated that exigent circumstances exist because continued 
partial-closure testing of inboard MSIV 80-C has the potential to 
induce an operational transient, considering the probable degraded 
condition of its test pilot valve. The test pilot valve is not used to 
test the safety function of the MSIV; its use is required to perform 
the twice-weekly partial closure exercise of the MSIV.
    Prior to January 17, 2000, there was no indication of degradation 
of MSIV partial-closure testing performance. A review of inservice 
testing data for all MSIVs since 1996 indicates all MSIVs have met 
acceptance criteria relative to demonstrating isolation (full closure) 
times within 3-5 seconds as required by Technical Specifications and 
assumed in accident analyses. The licensee could not have anticipated 
the need for processing this change under 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) since the 
circumstance described above is recently occurring and is only evident 
in three recent partial-closure tests. The situation was unavoidable 
considering the past reliable performance of the MSIVs and their 
pneumatic actuators. The subject test pilot valve was refurbished in 
1998 as part of scheduled preventive maintenance on the MSIV pneumatic 
actuator unit. Again, prior to January 17, 2000, VY had no indication 
of degradation of the suspected test pilot valve.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 frequency of MSIV testing is not assumed to be an initiator 
of any analyzed event. This change will not alter the basic 
operation of process variables, structures, systems, or components 
as described in the safety analyses. The twice-weekly exercise of 
MSIVs is not intended to verify the safety function of the MSIVs. 
The safety function testing will continue to be conducted during the 
quarterly, full-stroke fast closure MSIV test. However, eliminating 
unnecessary testing of the MSIVs may reduce the probability of 
occurrence of an inadvertent valve closure that could lead to a 
plant transient condition.
    Deleting the twice-weekly MSIV test is not considered to have 
any measurable effect on the reliability of the MSIVs to perform 
their safety function; therefore, the mitigating function of the 
MSIVs is maintained. The consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated will not be affected by this change because the 
surveillances to test MSIVs in accordance with the IST [inservice 
testing] program and Section XI of the ASME Code will still be 
performed, assuring that MSIVs will perform their intended safety 
function.

[[Page 8750]]

    Since reactor operation with the deleted surveillance 
specification is fundamentally unchanged, no design or analytical 
acceptance criteria will be exceeded. As such, this change does not 
impact initiators of analyzed events nor assumed mitigation of 
design basis accident or transient events.
    These changes do not affect the initiation of any event, nor do 
they negatively impact the mitigation of any event. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    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 change does not affect any parameters or conditions 
that could contribute to the initiation of an accident. The proposed 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new 
or different type of equipment will be installed). No new accident 
modes are created since the manner in which the plant is operated is 
fundamentally unchanged. This change to surveillance requirements 
does not affect the design or function of safety-related equipment, 
nor does it eliminate testing to verify a safety function. 
Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    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.
    Testing the MSIVs by full stroke closure on a quarterly basis is 
adequate to maintain reliability of the MSIVs to perform their 
safety function. This has been demonstrated through industry 
operating experience. Since frequency or method of MSIV testing is 
not specifically considered in any safety analysis, current safety 
analysis assumptions are being maintained. The reduction in testing 
from a twice-weekly exercise (partial closure and re-opening) while 
maintaining the quarterly full-stroke test is adequate to maintain 
the reliability of this safety function while reducing unnecessary 
valve wear and the potential for inducing an inadvertent transient. 
Consequently, margins of safety are maintained.
    There is no impact on equipment design or operation, and there 
are no changes being made to safety limits or safety system settings 
that would adversely affect plant safety because of the proposed 
changes. Since the changes have no effect on any safety analysis 
assumption or initial condition, the margins of safety in the safety 
analyses are maintained.

    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 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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 March 23, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 a 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

[[Page 8751]]

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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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 Mr. David R. Lewis, Shaw, Pitttman, 
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 February 11, 2000, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of February 2000.
    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. 00-4080 Filed 2-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P