IR 05000271/2004009

EA-04-173, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Final Significance Determination for a White Finding (NRC Inspection Report 05000271-04-009)

ML050340252
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	02/02/2005
From:	Collins S Region 1 Administrator
To:	Thayer J Vermont Yankee
References
EA-04-173, IR-04-009
Download: ML050340252 (6)

Text

ary 2, 2005

SUBJECT:

FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A WHITE FINDING (NRC Inspection Report 05000271/2004009)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Dear Mr. Thayer:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the final results of our significance determination for the preliminary White finding identified at Vermont Yankee during an inspection completed on October 12, 2004. The results of the inspection were discussed with Mr. R. Wanczyk, Nuclear Safety Director, and other members of your staff during exit meetings on July 30 and October 12, 2004. The inspection finding was assessed using the significance determination process and was preliminarily characterized as White, a finding with low to moderate importance to safety that may require additional NRC inspections. The basis for this preliminary White finding was explained in our letter dated November 12, 2004, which transmitted the subject inspection report.

This preliminary White finding involved the failure to establish a means to provide early notification and clear instruction to a portion of the populace within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ), as required by the Vermont Yankee Emergency Plan.

Specifically, a portion of the populace that was within the Vermont Yankee EPZ, but outside of siren coverage, was not issued tone alert radios so that they could be notified in case of an emergency.

In our letter dated November 12, 2004, the NRC provided you an opportunity to either request a regulatory conference to discuss this finding, or to explain your position in a written response.

On December 8, 2004, Mr. R. Wanczyk of your staff informed Mr. R. Conte of NRC, Region I, that Entergy declined the opportunity to discuss this issue in a Regulatory Conference, but would provide a written response.

In your response dated December 15, 2004, you stated that sirens and tone alert radios were the two primary means to notify the populace within the EPZ of an emergency, and that you concurred with our assessment that Vermont Yankee did not provide adequate active measures to positively assure distribution of tone alert radios. However, you believed that the safety significance of this condition was substantially mitigated by the fact that other means of notification were available, including radio and television broadcasting, use of automatic telephone dialing/notification systems, pagers, and cell phones.

Mr. Jay After considering the information developed during the inspection and the information provided in your letter, the NRC has concluded that the inspection finding is appropriately characterized as White, an issue with low to moderate increased importance to safety that may require additional inspections. The issue is White because an emergency preparedness risk significant planning standard, namely, the ability to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, was degraded. Although sirens provided coverage for most of the EPZ, a portion of the EPZ population outside of the siren coverage area did not have tone alert radios because Entergy did not have a reliable best effort process in place to offer them tone alert radios. The NRC recognizes that some of the individuals who were not issued tone alert radios may be notified via other various informal and unplanned methods. However, as described in your response dated December 15, 2004, you do not take credit for these other methods of notification in your Alert and Notification System design.

Therefore, the NRC can not assume that these methods would be successful.

You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staffs determination of significance for the identified White finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit only if they meet the criteria given in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.

The NRC has also determined that not establishing the means to provide early notification and clear instruction to a portion of the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ is a violation of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5), as cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding the violation are described in detail in the subject inspection report.

In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, this Notice of Violation is considered escalated enforcement action because it is associated with a White finding. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.

Because plant performance for this issue has been determined to be in the regulatory response band, we will use the NRC Action Matrix to determine the most appropriate NRC response for this event. We will notify you by separate correspondence of that determination.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter, its enclosure and your response will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/

Samuel J. Collins Regional Administrator Docket No: 50-271 License No: DPR-28 Enclosure: Notice of Violation

Mr. Jay