ML042120147
| ML042120147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/2004 |
| From: | Blanch P, Gundersen A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Reyes L NRC/EDO |
| Shared Package | |
| ML042180408 | List: |
| References | |
| G20040511 | |
| Download: ML042120147 (6) | |
Text
V1b EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM: DUE: 09/02/04 EDO CONTROL: G20040511 DOC DT: 07/29/04 FINAL REPLY:
Paul M. Blanch West Hartford, Connecticut Arnold Gundersen Burlington, Vermont TO:
Reyes, EDO FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO:
Dyer, NRR DESC: ROUTING:
2.206 - Vermont Yankee - Enforcement Action for Reyes Clarification to 10CFR50, Appendix A Norry Virgilio Kane Collins Dean DATE: 07/28/04 Burns Miller, RI ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: Cyr, OGC Skay, NRR NRR Dyer Goldberg, OGC SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
LkGJ OLOOt E'- - Ibs I r--Xbob
Xahy aers.- PMBAG V 6 f -- -i Nuclear Safety Advisors Paul M. Blanch Arnold Gundersen Energy Consultant Nudear Satety Consultant 135HydeRoad 139 Klllarney Drive West HartfordCT 06117 Burlington, VT 05401 860-236-0326 802.865-9955 pmblanchdcomcast.net arniegundersenesaildiamplaln.net July 29, 2004 Luis Reyes, Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS)
Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 Enforcement Action for Clarification to 10 CFR 50 Appendix A
Dear Mr. Reyes:
Pursuant to §2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Mr. Paul Blanch and Mr.
Arnold Gundersen petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to take expedited and Immediate enforcement action against Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.. the licensee for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). We, the petitioners, seek enforcement action In the form of a Demand for Information (DFI) requiring Entergy to provide the NRC with information that clearly and unambiguously describes how VYNPS complies with the General Design Criteria specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix A or the draft General Design Criteria previously published by the Atomic Energy Commission In 1967.
As detailed later in this petition, the explicit definition of this information is essential to two NRC regulatory activities at VYN PS: (1) the agency's review of Entergy's application for extended power uprate, and (2) the agency's pending engineering assessment. Just as a highway patrol officer with a radar gun Is handicapped at traffic enforcement without also knowing what the posted speed limits are, NRC reviewers and Inspedors are handicapped at VY NPS because GDC applicability Is not clearly defined nor articulated even though all NRC promulgated rules and regulations are required by statute to be definitive and unambiguous.
Proceeding with either the agency's review of Entergy'sapplication for extended power uprate or the agency's pending engineering assessment without adequately addressing this major discrepancy makes any NRC review or assessment a sham and window dressing created In an effort to obfuscate the truth and placate the Vermont's Congressional Delegation, its Governor, Legislators, Commissioners, and its citizens by pretending to adequately review and address the major safety and reliability issues confronting a 32-year-old nuclear power plant like Vermont Yankee in Its pursuit of the largest power Increase in the history of the nuclear Industry.
Furthermore, we demand an expedited 2.206, so that the NRC meets its statutory obligations.
EDO -- G20040511
Cathy Jaegers.- PMB-AG VY 2206.pdf Page 21 Page 2 of 5
Background
The NRC (then the Atomic Energy Commission or AEC) Issued draft criteria proposed as Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 on July 11,1967.1 The AEC Issued Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-36 to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee's original owner) five months later, on December 11, 1967.2 The AEC adopted Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 on February 10, 1971, which went Into effect 90 days after being published In the Federal Register on February 20,1971.3 The A EC stated:
The ' General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants' added as Appendix A to Part 50 establish the minimum requirements for the principal design criteria for water-cooled nuclear power plants...
The AEC issued Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation on March 21, 1972, or 305 days after Appendix A to Part 50 became effective on May 21, 1971.' In Issuing the operating license, the A EC stated:
The Coarnission's regulatory staff has Inspected the facility and has determined that, for operation as authorized by the license, the facility has been constructed In accordance with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-36, and Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations On January 31, 2004, Entergy's Vice President, Jay Thayer's sworn statement to the NRC reported:
Because VyNPS is a pre-GDC plant (licensed In March 1972), and Its current licensing basis Is the 70 proposed General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits (hereinafter referred to as 'draft GD C") published In the Federal Register on July 11, 1967 (32FR10213), NRC's template SE for EPU requires modification for application to VYNPSs licensing basis Appendix F of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report describes the applicability of the draft GDC to VYNPS5 UFSAR Appendix F has a history of Its own. On July 20, 1982, Vermont Yankee's owners notified the NRC of a revision to UFSAR Appendix F that explicitly Indicated how each and Federal Register, Vol. 32, Page 10213, July 11. 1967.
2 Letter dated December 11, 1967, from Peter A. Morris, Director - Divisi on of Reactor Licensing, Atomic Energy Commission, to Roger J. Coe. Vice President, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation.
3 Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 35, Saturday, February 20.1971.
'Letter dated M arch 21, 1972, from Peter A. Morris, Director - Division of Reactor Licensing, Atomic Energy Commission, to Albert A. Cree, President, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation 5 Letter dated January 31, 2004, from Jay K. Thayer, Ste Vice President, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 'Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station I License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) /Technical Specification Proposed Change No. 263 -Supplement No. 4/ Extended Power Update - NRC Acceptance Review.' Attachment 4, *Revised Safety Evaluation Template for GDC,- response to Item 2 - General Design Criteria
Cathy Jaegers- PMB-AG VY 2206.pdf Page 31 Page 3 of S every one of the final (not draft) General Design Criteria were met at Vermont Yankee.6 Seventeen years later, Vermont Yankee's owner notified the NRC that It planned to undo Its 1982 revision to Appendix F and reinstall the original Appendix F narrative explaining how the facility complied with the draft (not final) General Design Criteria.' Our review of Revision 18 to the Vermont Yankee UFSAR noted a footnote on every page of Appendix F stating:
Appendix F.2 Is HISrORICAL-references to other UFS4R sections may no longer apply.
Thus, Appendix F of the UFSAR 'describes the applicability of the draft GDC to VYN PS, but it Is neither a meaningful nor useful description given the footnote disclaimer on every page of Appendix F. The uselessness of UFSAR Appendix F is illustrated by Attachment 4 to Entergy's aforementioned January 31, 2004, letter to NRC. This attachment provided a template for the NRC reviewersto use In accepting the license amendment for extended power uprateat Vermont Yankee. For example, Section 2.1.1 of the Entergy templatewould havethe NRC reviewers state:
The NRC's acceptance criteria are based on (1) draft General Design Criterion (GDC)- 9, Insofar as It requires that the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) be designed and constructed so as to have an exceedingly low probability of gross rupture or significant leakage, (2) draft GDC-33, Insofar as It requires that the RCPB be capable of accommodating without rupture, and with only limited allowance for energy absorption through plastic deformation, the static and dynamic loads imposed on any boundary component as a result of any Inadvertent and sudden release of energy to the coolant; (3) draft GDC-34 Insofar as It requires that the RCPB be designed to minimize the probabilityof rapidly propagatingtype failures;.... '
Insofar as the petitioners can tell, Appendix F 'describes the applicability of the draft GDC to VYNPS' as Entergy claims, but that description is neither meaningful nor useful. Plant workers and NRC inspectorstreviewers cannot rely on UFSAR Appendix F to determine how Vermont Yankee conforms with the draft GDC without first having to do considerable homework to ascertain whether its "Historical' information is relevant today. This isa heavy and undue burden for workers and NRC staffers.
The Summary Description, Section F.1 of A ppendix F clearly states:
The applicabi//ty of the histor/c design criteria conformance state'ents to the current facility design has not been evaluated, jernphasisadded) and as such should not be considered current design configuration. Refer to Information elsewhere in the UFS4R and In other design basis documentation to determine current design configuration.
Letter FVY 82-84 dated July 20,1982, from Vermont Y ankee N uclear Power Corporati on to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Accession No. 8207220305.
'Letter dated September 28,1999, from Don M. Leach, Vice President - Engineering. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 'Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station I License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) I Vermont Yankee Position Regarding the General Design Criteria'
'Letter dated January 31, 2004, from Jay K. Thayer, Ste Vice President, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 'Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station ) License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) /Technical Specification Proposed Change No. 263 - Supplement No. 4 / Extended Power Update - NRC Acceptance Review.' Attachment 4, *Revised Safety Evaluation Template for GDC," response to Item 2- General Design Criteria
Cathy Jaegers - PMB-AG VY 2206.pdf Page 4, Page 4 of 5 A complete review of Revision 18 to the UFSAR clearly demonstrates this'. . elsewhere In the UFSAR. . . to be an unsupported and inaccuratestatement astheGeneral Design Criteria are not discussed In the UFSAR other than in Appendix F. By Its own admission, Entergy appears to be misleading the NRC using circular logic that leads nowhere.
The petitioners do not assert that Vermont Yankee must conform to the draft GDC instead of the final GDC, or vice-versa. The petitioners assert that 'the mini munm requirements for the principal design criteria' applicable to Vermont Yankee and how the facility's design conforms to or deviates from those requirements must be clear and unambiguous.
Absent clear and unambiguous definition of the applicable requi rements, It Is extremely di fficult
- if not impossible - for anyone to determine whether Vermont Yankee currently complies with the requirements. Likewise, it Is equally challenging for anyone to determine whether Vermont Yankee will remain within compliance with the requirements if proposed changes are adopted.
Thus, it Is Impossible for the NRC's pending engineering assessment and Its ongoing review of Entergy's extended power uprate application to ascertain critical safety and reliability issues unless the appropriate regulatory acceptance criteria are clearly established and uniformly applied.
Vermont Yankee's applicability and non-conformance to the General Design Criteria may be just the 'tip of the iceberg' In that there are numerous other regulatory criterion within 10 CFR 50 that do not seem to have been either reviewed nor addressed such as Bulletins, Orders, Regulatory Guides, Independence of barriers, and compliance with the single failure criteria.
The petitioners request that the NRC take enforcement action against Entergy In the form of a Demand For Information (DFI) seeking a clear and unambiguous definition of the General Design Criteria applicable to Vermont Yankee and how the facility's design conforms with or deviates from the 70 draft or the 62 final General Design Criteria. Entergy's response to the DFI should be a docketed submittal or It should be a docketed update to the facility's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to replace the 'lHistorical Appendix F with a meaningful, useful, and applicable Appendix F.This final review and update to the FSAR must address compliance with and deviations from all of the GDC' swhether It be the draft or the final versions.
The NRC has recently announced that it will be conducting an Engineering Inspection of Vermont Yankee and NRC states on Itsweb site:
The NRC will use this Inspection to verify that design bases have been correctly Implemented for a sampling of components across multiple systems and to Identify latent design Issues Until the design bases are clearly Identified, any Inspection or assessment Istotally meaningless.
The petitioners believe that the enforcement action being sought by this 2.206 Is straightforward, and therefore, we do not request an opportunity to present additional or clarifying Information to the NRC staff In a pre-Petition Review Board meeting or teleconference. However, if the NRC staff or the licensee needs additional or clarifying Information about the petition at that time, we are most willing to participate and will provide all the Information we have available to assure regulatory compliance and adherence to all safety criteria by both NRC and Entergy in the Interest of public safety and the continued rdiability of Vermont Yankee as a key energy provider In the State of Vermont.
I 11- 1 I1Cathv
- 7---_-1'1 Jaeaers - PMB-AG VY 2206.Ddf Page 5 1 Page 5of 5 We therefore formally request expedited action to this 2.206 as It Is clearly Impossible for the NRC to conduct a meaningful Inspection on any level unless the agency, Its reviewers, the Vermont PSB, the Vermont Legislature, Its Governor, and the State's Congressional Delegates have specific criteria and performance indicators against which to measure your proposed analysis. The design bases must be accurately reflected in the docketed Information. Anything less Is simply window dressing done to make the public and its representatives feel good and obfuscate the real safety and reliability issuesthat clearly exist at Vermont Yankee.
Sincerely,
[Original signed by] [Original signed by]
Paul M. Blanch Arnold Gundersen Energy Consultant Nuclear Safety Consultant