ML041890159
| ML041890159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/30/2004 |
| From: | Leahy P US SEN (Senate) |
| To: | Madden T Office of Congressional Affairs |
| Shared Package | |
| ML042170015 | List: |
| References | |
| G20040443, LTR-04-0406, TAC MC3699 | |
| Download: ML041890159 (9) | |
Text
...
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 07/22/04 EDO CONTROL: G20040443 DOC DT: 06/30/04 FINAL REPLY:
Senator Patrick J. Leahy TO:
Madden, OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF
ROUTING:
Vermont Yankee (Arnold Gundersen/Paul Blanch)
Reyes Norry Virgilio Kane Collins Dean Burns/Cyr Miller, RI Rathbun, OCA DATE: 07/06/04 ASSIGNED TO:
NRR CONTACT:
Dyer SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Add Commission on for review response prior concurrence.
Commission to to dispatch.
"7--paqWe". szc_14)11
Soft bS'. seey-1
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Jul 02, 2004 17:01 PAPER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
LTR-04-0406 EDO LOGGING DATE: 07/01/2004 AUTHOR:
AFFILIATION:
ADDRESSEE:
SUBJECT:
ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
LETTER DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGED.
SPECIAL HANDLING:
-REP Patrick Leahy SEN Tom Madden Concerns Vermont Yankee Signature of EDO RF, OCA to Ack 06/21/2004 No Commission to review response prior to dispatch NOTES:
FILE LOCATION:
ADAMS DATE DUE:
07/26/2004 DATE SIGNED:
EDO - -G20040443
6-JUN. 30. 2004 SEN LEAHY WASHINUIUN NU. 64J F. I PA.TRICK J. LEAHY VERMONT WASHINGTON, DC 20510 COMM1rrEES:
AGRICULTURE NUTFRMON,-
AND FORESTRY APPROPRIATIONS JUDICIARY Iz4 )l/
/1)i TO:
OF:
_/
-(
,Z:
f FROM' l I 7
6 frc
'e/
OF:
DATE:
TIME:
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) 411'02 e
-A Vkev v
'I bN' e
e
,~
JU69
" A' I
0,-
L~d W
~ &2 7'W 7kea
~
f.
p s g~
rl * {'
W~h
~b0761 LX-'
&by t pt'zA
"/Z62-
~C6A
,V W
VERMONT OFFICES. COURTHOUSE PLAZA, 199 MAIN STEET, BURLINGTON 8625 FEDERAL BUILDING, ROOM 338, MONTPEUER 229-059 OR DIALTOLL FREE 1-850AG42-193
juii, juJ. Luuq z:))rm Ot II L t A 1`1 T VIA) 1`1 IN U I VII Wd. 09,J
- r.
Z JUN.28. 2004 10:54AM LEAHY MONTPELIER NO. 005 P. 2 Personal letter from Arnie Gundersen, 139 Millarney Drive Burlington, VT 05401 -802-865-9955 Paul Blanch, 135 Hyde Road, West lIarlford, CT 06117 - 860-236-0326 June 28, 2004
Dear Chairman Dworkin,
Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, and Congressman Sanders, We are writg to you as two indepandent uuclear experts not affiliated with any group or organiztion. Each one of us has more than 30-ye of experience in the nucler power industry, and individually each of us is an intirtationnhly acknowledged expert and advocate for the safe operation of nuclear power reactors. As an expert witness retained by the New England Coalition, Aariie Gundersen has spent mom than 1100 hours0.0127 days <br />0.306 hours <br />0.00182 weeks <br />4.1855e-4 months <br /> reviewing and assessing critical safety Issues at Vermont Yankee in response to its petition to increase its power output by more than 20 percnt. Paul Blanch, who begm working as an expert witness in this review process in December, has spent more than 300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> reviewing Safety Analysis Reports (SAR), technical specifications, compliance issues, and NRC regulations as they relate to the uprate of power at Vermont Yankee.
Together we have spent more than 1400 hours0.0162 days <br />0.389 hours <br />0.00231 weeks <br />5.327e-4 months <br /> reviewing sensitive documents critical safety criteria, and the technical and ngineering calculations for Entergy's requested prate ofthis 32-yearxold nrclear powerplant We have also evaluated Vermont Yankee's compliance with current regulations as well as its design criterin at the terreut operaing level of 100 percent power and compared those benchmarks to the technical and safety specifications required by the expanded power uprate to 120 percent that Entergy isrequcsting. At 32-years-old, Vermont Yankee is the oldest plant to eer request an uprate of tiis nagnitude. And, by its original enginoeeng design and fabrication, Vermont Yankee is due to be retired when it reaches age 40 in the year 2012.
As we have previously expressed, wv remain ezormously concerned that the proposed uprate at Vermont Yanke= is creating a p)=t that is significantly less safe and noticeably less reliable than it is now.
Put in its simplest terms, we axe convinced that the proposed uptate uwil make Vermont Yankee significantly less safe than it is today, and we are also convinced that the NRC has trned a deaf ear on the irrefutable facts that support this powerful statement As we have independently and jointly reviewed events at the NRC relating to licening the Vermont Yankee power uprate, our concns have deepened. Recent cowrespondence from the NCR Icads us to believc that the NRC will not even review the obvious reductions in safety margias that we have identified.
Critiquing the NRC and proving that it was not properly condueting its regulatory oversight duties is not new territory for ither one of us. Both of us had to separately tum to the Inspector General's Office in 1993 and in order to force the NRC to perform thejob it is statutorily obligatedto do by Congress.
- Subsequently, in 1993 Committee Chairman Senator Jobn Glenn queried then NRC Chairman Ivan Selin regarding Mr. Gundersen's 06/28/2004+ 11 :51AM
JUN. iU.
2004 2:bM SN LEAY WAtilNWUN NV. 01i
- r. j JUN.30-2004 2:56PM
LN LLAHY WAMNUM JUN. 28.2004 10:54AM LEAHY MONTPELIER NO. 805 P. 3 Page 2 of 6 nuclear safety allegations. NRC Chairman Selig responded by saying
"... it is true. Everything Mr. Gundersen said was absolutely right; he performed quite a service.,"
And in 1993 Senator Joe Liebermnaz as Chairman of the Seni=
Subcommittee responsible forNRC oversight referred to Paul Blanch as the "Henry Aaron of nuclear whistleblowers" for tdi role he took in coercing Connecticut's Noxtheast Utilides and the NRC to be in compliance with significant safety regulations and operating procedures.
Chairman Dworkn, Coumsionc, and members of V ont's Congressional Delegations, please contrast the above statements lauding our contributions to nuclear safety ethics with the following attempts by Entergy and its attorneys to discredit, intimidate, add slander us.
On April 22, on WPTV coverage of Vermont Yankee's loss of nuclear foel, Entergy's Rob Williams said, "Arnie Gunderse's statements are completely iresponsible. He's trying to use this as an opportunity to unnncessmIy &cae the public and further an agenda Safety and security rernain Entergy's top priority."
- On March 117 2004, Entergy conducted a closed press conference for the sole purpose of slandering Mr. Blanch by stating he did not understand the regulations and that he was only 'an electrical engincer, not a nuclear errgxneer.s
- And, on September 17, 2003, Entergy's own attornmys attempted to impish Mr. Gundersen's sworn testimony in from of the Public Service Board by presenting him with evidence that they had refused to provide during the legitimate discovery process. May we remind you that in response to this attempt to manipulate the legal system, on October 7, the Vermont Public Scrvice Board imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $51,000 upon FEntergy for, "failure to provide timely and complete discovery"?
We have given significantly of our expertise and time, not for may personal gamn as Entergy has alleged, for no one in their rIt mind would take this type of public abuse and do haurs of volunteer work for some sort of perverse public recognition r.
Gundersen is a current Vermont resident and a high school math and physics teacher committed to Vermont's youth, while Mr. Blanch is a former Vermont resident who graduated from high school in Vermont, enlisted in the Navy and served in the Navy reerves in Vermont And, whIle Mr. Blanch is a Connecticat resident, his siblings and nieces and nephews continue to reside here in Vermont Our efforts to bring these critical s
zty issues forward arise from our sincere apprehension for the Vermonters who depend upon Vermont Yankee for a reliable source of electricity end our genuine concern for the safety of all Venmonters in what we believe will be an increased risk of a significant nuclear power plant accident.
In our in-depth review of Vermont Yankee's proposed uprate, there are at least three specific areas where Vermont Yankee's safety margins will be significantly reduced.
06/28/2004 11:51AM
JUN. 30. 2004 2:56PM SEN LEAHY WASHINUIUN NU. 64J M. 4 JUN.28.2004 10:55AM LEAHY MONTPEIlER NO.805 P. 4 Page 3 of 6 The tecniical terms for these three criteria are defense in depth, protection against single failures and the independence of the three barriers preventing the release of RadIoactive material in the event of an acident. All of these Criteria ae specrified within 10 CFR 50 and the NRC's interpretations of these requirements are provided within various Regulatory Guides, NRC Generic Letters and other generic communicatlon1 issued by the NRC.
The NRC has provided you and the residents of Vcrmont with verbal assurance that the Vermont Yankee power uprate will address all of these requirements. However our review of RS-OO I "Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates" shows that this NRC intzrnal review guide falls to address evcn these aforementioned most basic safety requirements. It is our belief that the NRC has intentionally omitted these regulations from its review criteria for the Vermont Yankee power uprate Aith the full knowledge that if these regulatory criteria were imposed upon Vermont Yankee (VY) it would not be economically feasale for Entefgy to increase VY's power output to 120 percent Indeed these abovementioned rcgulatory criterions, which have becn deleted fxom -the review process by the NRC, are statutory obligations in the NRC's promulgated regulations snctioned by Congress. For example, wie not explicitly alkmowledging this change, Yermont Yankee is altering its licensing basis. In order to uprato in the maner it desires, Vermont Yankee has made no menton to the Public Service Board or interested parties that it Will no longer be in compliance with Generic Letter 97-04 which prohibits takin&
credit for toms overpressure. This is a significant safety concern that has not been adequately reviewed by the NRC nor noticed to the Public Service Board in the ensuing accelerated review process.
NRC's Chairman Diaz has provided your offices and the offices of other elected officials assurances that the proposed uprate will be fhoroughly reviewed '"against its lifeasing basis and applicable regulations, providing the NRC with an understanding of the overall condition of the plant" to assure that the plant "does not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and special cimstances are prcsent" While these words appear to indicate that the plant will be in compliance with all NRC regulations, a careful review indicates otherwise. In tuth, Vermont Yankee wvill not be reviewed for compliance with current NRC safety and licensing regulations.
So, while the NRC has stated that the plant will be reviewed against its liconsing basis, it has not provided any assurance that the licensing basis will be in complete compliance with all NRC regulations. Nor has Chairman Diaz publicly acknowledged that the smfety margins for the proposed uprate of Vermont Yankee are lower than those currendy observed at Vermont Yankee. In other words; if Vermont Yankee is permitted to add 40Q,000 additional horsepower to its 32-year-old plant, it will be with a significantly reduced operating safety margin.
I N-RC tegubtory Guide 1.1NctPositive Suction Hcad forEmexcncy Core Cooling zmd CovtaincntHea:
FRneovi Systm PiP3 (Sfe GMidc 1) MOOM9925)
NAC teguqatory Guide 1474 An ApprotLh £or Using Probabilic Fisk Assesen2 in Rsr-Infbrrmed Decisions On PM=-SiecL;it C
chEns o the Us tBsis NRC G crieLttLctr 7O4 Assurc of Sui1cieatNet Posdev Sueoi' Head lbr Enerrecy Corm Coolinr and Conbliarnz Rat Remoynl Punps 06/28/200'4 11 :51AiM
JUN.~~~~~~~ ~ ~
~
~
~
30 204 25P L IH ASI-INN.b3 r
JUN.30.2004 2:56FM SEN LEAHY WASHINUION NU. 643 F. 5 JUN.28.2004 10:55AM LEAIY MONTPELIER NO. 805 P. 5 Page 4 of 6 Moreover, while the NRC's recent letter to Entergy dated May 28, 2004 purportedly requests additional technical information from Entergy's engineers, it fails to mention or even discuss compliance with the regulations or the NRC's own interpretation of those regulations.
If the NRC is allowed to continue with its present approach, NRC officials will be able to trutifully state that the plant is in compliance with "its licensing basis and applicable regulations". However, in reality, Vermonters 'will have a plant that is slgnificantly less safe as well as one that does not conform to critical safety regulations including both pre and post Three Mile Island standards. And, the NRC rill never be able to assure Vermont officials and its citizens that the plant is in compliance %ith either the NRC' s overall regulations or its own written interpretation of these regulations As recently as Juno 25, 2004, Rick Ennis, the NRC Project Manager for Vermont Yankee responded to a question as to the appliability of the Ceneral Design Criteria for Vermont Yankee with a complete public misstatement Mr. Ennis said, "The VY UFSAR, Appendix F, addresses conformance to the 70 AEC General Design Criteria (proposed GDCs)."
Similarly, on June 16, 2004, William Sherman, Vermont's StateNuclear Engineer, said, "Appendi F of Vermont Yankee's Updated FSAR addresses conformance with the GDC."
On the surface, these two statements by authorized regulatory agents appear to indicate that the conformance to the General Design Criterion can be located in this Appendix.
Additionally, these statemedits also indicate that any non-compliance with theCeneral Design Criteria (GDC) would be expected to be addressed within this specific Safety Analysis Report.
In direct opposition to the above statements by regulatory authorities, our rcview of this Appcndix clearly shows that conformance (and non-conformance) -with today's or the 1967 draft GDC is not considered within this Appeadi:c to the Uprate Safety Analysis Report CUSAR).
'What's more, a cmsory review of this Appendix to the latest rcvision to the Vermont Yankee Uprate Fmal Safety Aalysis Report (VY UFSAR) and tbe staterents made before the Public Service Board, Vermont Yankee is not in adherence with critical and basic design benchmarks. By their sttements, the NRC and Vermont's State Nuclear Engineer convey to Public Service Board's Commissioners, Vermont's Cbngressioba Delegation, and the general public that the design standards are addressed in this Appendix when in actuality there are major deviations in the design with respect to the General Design Criterion.
Each of us, Arnie Gundersen and PauW 131mnb, have provided sworn testimony beforc the Public Service Board, have responded to inquiries from the Congressional Delegations, 06/28/2004 11 :51AM
JUN. 30.2004 2:57PM SIN LEAHY WASHINUIUN NU. bqj r.
JUN. 28. 2004 10:56AM LEAHY MONTPELIER NO, 805 P. 6 Page 5 of 6 and have tined over documents to the Office of the Inspector General regarding lihe proposed power uprate at Vermont Yankee. We can not and will not continue to accept intentionally misleading words from the NRC that the plant will bc reviewed 'against its licensing basis and applicable regulations, providing the NRC with at utdersandin of the overall condition of the plant" when in truth the NRC itself has no idea as to what regulations are applicable. We believe that the Public Service Board Commissioners, the Congressional Delegation, and the Lencral public are intentionally being misled by these erroneous statements from the NRC and by Vermont's State Nuclear Engineer.
We inplore the Vermont Public Service Board and Vermont's Congressional Delegation to take whatever steps are necessary to force the NRC and Entergy to make Vermont Yankee comply with all design regulations. Our concern is real and very pressing. We will not accept intentionally misleading and deceptive statements like compliance with
'Its licens1ig basis and applicable regulations". The NRC refuses to provide ICformation as to what are the "applicable regulations" thereby proving that they are not fulfilling their statutory duty and regulatory obligations.
Frankly, as private citidzs, the NRC has turned a deaf ear towamd us and towerd our legiiate safety concerns. It is our hope that all of you in concert will force the NRC to comply with its statutory obligations as wl as its own promulgated regulations. We believe the NRC has a public obligation to identifyr all 'applicable regulations" along with those regulations that are not deemed to be "applicable."
To se idy these concerns, we offer =r tcnical epertise to this Commission and Vermont's Congressional Delegation to assist you in your efforts to formulate and draft legitimate technical questions of the NRC regarding the reduced safety margins of the proposed uprate design. Statutorily you will be within your regulatory auhoriy to demand the answer to said questions put before the NRC. And of course we would offer our assistance in the critical analysis of the NRC's answers to your technical and regulatory questions.
Ouw fitent is to clearly idenfy that safety margi t ham been reduced at Vermant Yankee. From the documents we have read and our review of NRC regulations, we are aware fltat Vermont Yankee considered and rejected minor techmical changes to The plant that would regain this lost margin and protect tht health and safety of all Vernonters.
Entergy has chosen instead to try to license the plant at reduced safety margins rather tha to invest in its safety.
Entergy and the NRC have made much ado about our personal motives. May we remind this commission that neither one of us has anything to gain in pursuing the safe operation of nuclear power reactors. However, should Entergy and the NRC once again attempt to malign us and impinge our credibility, may we remind you that Entergy will make an additional S20 million dollars per year in profit after uprate from energy sold outside of the State of Verront And, should our questions and the NRC's answers become a matter of public record, the NRC itself may bc forced by other stalts to reconsider all the previously granted extended power uprates and license extensions through the 06/28/2004 11:51AM
JUN; 30;2004 2 :5 7PM SEN LEAHY WASHINUIUN NU. b4J
- r. /
JUN. 28.2004 10:56AM LEAHY MONTPELIER NO. 805 P. 7 Page 6 of 6 appropriate regulstory lens. Clearly both Entergy and the NRC have substantial motives to play by their own unique set of rules.
Our motive is simple. We want Vermont to remain a safe place to live, with its image of ptrity and cleanliness iuact, and we believe that tbis Commission and the Congressional Delegation share this goal. Please help us in our pursuit of a safe and reliable energy source for all Vernonters and help us to maintain tho pristine Vermont environment upon which our agriculture businesses and tomism industry depend.
Sincerely, Axnold Gnmdersen Ordgl s vned 1y bohpartfes.
Paul Blanch 06/28/2004 11:51AM