Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Notices 53845

engineering design inspections,

including an inspection to verify

portions of the Licensee’s design control

process and maintenance of the

Licensees’s FSAR commitments. The

results of the NRC design inspection

conducted at Vermont Yankee were

reported in Inspection Report 97–201

dated August 27, 1997.

With respect to CAN’s conclusion that

the Licensee needs to correct serious

deficiencies in its design change control

process and should undertake a

historical review of its design control

documentation to verify its accuracy,

the NRC staff has taken action as noted

in the discussion related to LER 96–20

with respect to identifying and

correcting design change control process

deficiencies. In the October 9, 1996

letter to all licensees, including

Vermont Yankee, the NRC staff

requested information to verify, among

other things, the adequacy of the design

change control process and to determine

the rationale for concluding that designbasis requirements are properly

translated into operating, maintenance,

and testing procedures. As also noted in

the discussion related to LER 96–20, the

Licensee has undertaken a review of the

fire protection design bases to search for

the type of problems involved in LER

96–20, and believes that the current

modification programs are adequate to

prevent similar problems.

With respect to CAN’s conclusion that

the Licensee should perform a global

evaluation to determine how many

modifications have been inadequately

tested since startup, as noted in the

discussion related to LER 96–20, the

Licensee has been required to provide

verification of the design change control

process, including among other things

the rationale for concluding that design

basis requirements are translated into

testing procedures.

With respect to CAN’s conclusion that

the Licensee needs to initiate a thorough

retraining program to review and

emphasize the underlying safety

purposes of TSs, the FSAR, design bases

and NRC regulations in relation to

routine operation of the Vermont

Yankee facility, emergency

preparedness, and practical

implementation of the NRC’s ‘‘defense

in depth’’ philosophy, the NRC staff

disagrees. In the discussion related to

LER 96–22, the NRC staff addresses

CAN’s assertion that the Licensee

misconstrues the purposes of TS LCO as

part of a ‘‘chronic pattern of

misunderstanding’’ of TS, FSAR design

bases and NRC regulations. The NRC

staff finds no basis to require such a

retraining program.

Finally, CAN strongly recommends

that the Licensee’s Vermont Yankee staff

receive training on the proper use of the

‘‘Single Failure Criterion.’’ In the

discussion related to LER 96–25, the

NRC staff addresses what seems to be

the basis for CAN’s recommendation:

i.e. the perception that the Licensee

failed to properly apply the Single

Failure Criterion in assessing the

significance of a leaking isolation valve

in LER 96–25. Compliance with Section

50.73 does not require that the

assessment consider an additional

single failure. The enforcement

conference related to the minimum flow

valves concerned a problem in

implementation of the Single Failure

Criterion; not a misunderstanding of the

requirements of the Single Failure

Criterion. Because the Licensee did not

err in the instance described in LER 96–

25 and the Petition provides no other

instances in which problems were

caused by a misunderstanding of the

Single Failure Criterion, the NRC staff

finds no basis for requiring additional

training.

III. Conclusion

The NRC staff has reviewed the

information submitted by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner’s request is granted in

that the NRC staff has evaluated the

majority of issues and LERs raised in the

Memoranda provided by the Petitioner

to see if enforcement action is warranted

based on the information contained

therein. The NRC staff has discussed

each Memorandum above and described

any related enforcement action taken for

those issues and LERs which are closed.

The NRC will continue the same process

and consideration for the LERs that

remain open and documentation of any

inspection and/or enforcement action

will be consistent with agency practices

and will also be the subject of a Final

Director’s Decision.

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 become the final action of the

Commission 25 days after issuance,

unless the Commission, on its own

motion, institutes review of the Decision

in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Original signed by

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–27417 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company, Haddam Neck Plant; Notice

of Meeting Regarding Post-Shutdown

Decommission Activities Report

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) previously published a Notice of

Receipt (62 FR 46783, dated September

4, 1997) of the Post-Shutdown

Decommissioning Activities Report

(PSDAR), dated August 22, 1997, for the

Haddam Neck Plant (HNP) located in

Middlesex County, Connecticut, Town

of Haddam.

In that previous Federal Register

Notice, the NRC stated that it would

hold a public meeting in the vicinity of

the Haddam Neck Plant within 60 days

of that notice. The purpose of this

informational meeting is to (1) describe

the licensee’s planned activities, (2)

describe the regulatory process for

decommissioning, (3) hear public

comments regarding health and safety,

and protection of the environment

during decommissioning, and (4)

provide an opportunity for State and

local representatives to participate. The

licensee, Connecticut Yankee Atomic

Power Co., will discuss their plans to

decommission the Haddam Neck Plant.

The NRC will discuss the PSDAR and

the license termination process, and

describe the program for future plant

oversight. The public will have an

opportunity to comment on the PSDAR

and the meeting will be transcribed by

a court reporter.

The meeting is scheduled for Monday,

October 27, 1997 from 6:30 pm to 10:00

pm in the auditorium of the Haddam

Killingsworth High School on Little City

Road in Higganum, Connecticut.

The PSDAR is available for public

inspection at the local public document

room located in the Russell Library, 123

Broad Street, Middletown, CT 06457,

and at the Commission Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Program Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–27416 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7950–01–P