[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
