ML042590143
| ML042590143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/17/2005 |
| From: | Dyer J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Blanch P, Gunderson J - No Known Affiliation |
| Skay D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1322 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML042870431 | List: |
| References | |
| G20050008, TAC MC5541 | |
| Download: ML042590143 (30) | |
Text
January 17, 2005 Paul M. Blanch 135 Hyde Road West Hartford, CT 06117 Arnold Gundersen 139 Killarney Drive Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Messrs. Blanch and Gundersen:
In your petition dated July 29, 2004, you raised issues regarding conformance of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) with the General Design Criteria (GDC) in view of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.s (collectively, the licensee) proposed power uprate and the pending engineering inspection. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) replied to you by letter dated August 20, 2004. In that letter, the NRC stated that because the staffs review of the uprate is ongoing, the appropriate venue for debating issues such as you raised then was the hearing process. For this reason, the staff did not address the request under the process specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206. We also stated our view that correspondence between the licensee and the NRC clearly indicates that Vermont Yankee is licensed to the draft GDC published in 1967. The purpose of our letter on August 20, 2004, was to provide the staffs assessment of whether your petition met the criteria of 10 CFR 2.206 for evaluation under that process, rather than discuss the specific merits of your request.
Subsequent to receipt of our August 20, 2004 letter, you requested a teleconference with the NRCs Petition Review Board (PRB), which was held on August 26, 2004. The transcript of this teleconference is enclosed.
On August 30, 2004, the New England Coalition filed a request for hearing related to the Vermont Yankee proposed power uprate. Among the contentions submitted was a contention that the licensee had failed to maintain adequate documentation to determine design basis conformance. This contention, for which Mr. Blanch provided a supporting statement, was similar to the concern raised in your 10 CFR 2.206 petition. By Order dated November 22, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board declined to admit this contention for hearing. The PRB subsequently reconvened to re-evaluate whether this concern should be reviewed under the 10 CFR 2.206 process.
Based on the PRBs recommendation, I have decided to accept your petition for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. Your petition is being reviewed by the Division of Licensing Project Management within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
You also submitted a letter via e-mail to Chairman Diaz on December 8, 2004. Mr. Blanch provided a copy of this letter via e-mail to Mr. Rick Ennis, the Vermont Yankee Project Manager, and requested that it be considered as supplemental information to the original petition. Accordingly, this letter will be considered in our review of the petition.
P. Blanch and A. Gundersen As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Donna Skay to be the petition manager for your petition. Ms. Skay can be reached at 301-415-1322. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
/RA/
J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Transcript of August 26, 2004, teleconference
- 2. Federal Register Notice Docket No. 50-271
P. Blanch and A. Gundersen As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. I have assigned Donna Skay to be the petition manager for your petition. Ms. Skay can be reached at 301-415-1322. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
/RA/
J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Transcript of August 26, 2004, teleconference
- 2. Federal Register Notice Docket No. 50-271 DISTRIBUTION: See Next Page Package: ML042870431 Incoming: ML050100055 Outgoing: ML042590143 OFFICE PDI-1/PM PDI-2/LA PDI-VY/SC OGC PDI/D DLPM/D ADPT NRR/D NAME DSkay CRaynor AHowe BPoole CHolden TMarsh BSheron JDyer DATE 1/13/05 12/22/04 12/23/04 12/30/04 1/07/04 1/14/05 1/14/05 1/17/05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: G20050008 PUBLIC PDI-2 R/F LReyes EMerschoff WKane MVirgilio PNorry WDean SBurns JDyer, NRR BSheron, NRR/ADPT OGC KCyr, OGC OPA OCA NRR Mail Room KGrimes LCox AHowe CHolden TKim, EDO DSkay REnnis CRaynor SCollins, RI CAnderson, RI GMatakas VBucci, OIG BPoole, OGC
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 MEETING OF 4
PETITION REVIEW BOARD 5
+ + + + +
6 THURSDAY 7
AUGUST 26, 2004 8
+ + + + +
9 DOCKET NO. 50-271 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting met via teleconference, Rick 12 Ennis presiding.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment 1 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com P R O C E E D I N G S 1
MR. ENNIS: Paul Blanche (phonetic) and Arnie 2
Gunderson (phonetic) are you on the line yet?
3 MR. GUNDERSON: Yes, we are.
4 MR. ENNIS: Are both of you in the same 5
location?
6 MR. GUNDERSON: No.
7 MR. ENNIS: Okay. Who from Entergy is on the 8
line?
9 MS. DeFLUCUS: You have Rhonda DeFlucus from 10 Vermont Yankee.
11 MR. ELMERS: John Elmers (phonetic) from the 12 White Plaines office.
13 (Inaudible.)
14 MR. ENNIS: Paul and Arnie do you have 15 everybody you need?
16 MR. GUNDERSON: Paul and Arnie only need Paul 17 and Arnie.
18 MR. BLANCHE: We are the participants. There 19 might be other people listening.
20 MR. ENNIS: Okay. Entergy, is everybody on 21 the line that youre expecting?
22 MS. DeFLUCUS: Yes, thank you.
23 MR. ENNIS: Okay, I guess at this point well 24 get started. My name is Rick Ennis (phonetic). Im the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com Project Manager at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, 1
2 Today Im acting as the Petition Manager 3
since Donna Skay, the Petition Manager for this specific 4
2.206 petition is out of the office.
5 At this point, Id like to turn it over to 6
Jim Lyons (phonetic), who is the Petition Review Board 7
Chairman.
8 (Inaudible.)
9 MR. LYONS: Im Jim Lyons. Im the Deputy 10 Director of the Division of Licensing Project Management 11 in the Office of NRR.
12 MR. WALKER: Chavone Walker (phonetic), just 13 sitting in.
14 (Inaudible.)
15 MR. BURKE: Gary Burke (phonetic), Project 16 Director, NRR.
17 MR. PETTIS: Bob Pettis (phonetic), Plant 18 Support Branch.
19 MR. HOLDEN: Cornelius Holden (phonetic),
20 Project Director, NRR.
21 MR. RULAND: Bill Ruland (phonetic), Project 22 Director, NRR, power up rate process only.
23 MR. ENNIS: NRC in Region I?
24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com MR.
ANDERSON:
Its Cliff Anderson 1
(phonetic), Branch Chief, Branch 5, with responsibility 2
for Vermont.
3 MR. SHAND: Leo Shand (phonetic), NRC Region 4
I, Public Affairs.
5 MR. ZELLIS: Ed Zellis (phonetic), NRC, 6
Region I, Branch 5.
7 MR. ENNIS: Once more, Entergy, could you 8
list everybody thats there?
9 MS. DeFLUCUS: Entergy, Rhonda DeFlucus at 10 Vermont Yankee.
11 MR.
McCULLOUGH:
Travis McCullough 12 (phonetic), in Pipeline.
13 MR. ELMERS: Chad Elmers (phonetic), White 14 Plaines.
15 MR. ENNIS: Okay. And Paul and Arnold?
16 MR. GUNDERSON: Right. Im on.
17 MR. BLANCHE: And Paul is here.
18 MR. ENNIS: Okay. Are there any other 19 interested parties that are on beside either Entergy, the 20 NRC, or the petitioners?
21 MR. ROCKBAUM: Dave Rockbaum (phonetic) with 22 the Union of Concerned Scientists.
23 MR. BLOCK: Jonathan Block (phonetic),
24 attorney for a number of the different organizations that 25 might be involved here.
26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com MR. ALEXANDER: Peter Alexander (phonetic) 1 with New England Coalition.
2 MR. WEI: Orlick Wei (phonetic), just a 3
private party.
4 MS. LAURI: Carolyn Lauri (phonetic) from the 5
Battleboro Reformer (phonetic).
6 MS. SMALL: Susan Small (phonetic) here from 7
the Rutland Herald (phonetic).
8 MR. SHADOWS: Ren Shadows (phonetic) with the 9
New England Coalition.
10 MR. ENNIS: Anyone else?
11 (No response.)
12 MR. ENNIS: Okay, at this point Id like to 13 turn it over to Jim Lyons.
14 MR. LYONS: Thank you, Rick.
15 The subject of this conference call is a 10 16 CFR 2.206 petition submitted by Mr. Paul Blanche and Mr.
17 Arnold Gunderson dated July 29th, 2004 pertaining to the 18 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
19 Petitioners have requested that the NRC take 20 enforcement action against Entergy, the licensee for 21 Vermont Yankee.
22 Specifically the petitioners requested that 23 the NRC issue a demand for information requiring Entergy 24 to provide information that clearly and unambiguously 25 describes how Vermont Yankee complies with the general 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com design criteria in 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, and Ill refer 1
to the general design criteria from now on as just GDC, it 2
just makes it a lot easier, or the draft GDC as published 3
in the Atomic Energy Commission in 1967.
4 The petition indicated that this information 5
was essential to the NRCs review of the proposed Vermont 6
Yankee power up rate and the NRCs engineering inspection 7
at Vermont Yankee. Both of these efforts are presently in 8
progress.
9 The NRC issued a letter to the petitioners 10 that the NRC will not treat this request under 10 CFR 11 2.206 process because these issues can be addressed 12 through the ongoing licensing proceeding for the proposed 13 power up rate.
14 This decision was based on the guidance in 15 the NRC Management Directive 8.11 review process for 10 16 CFR 2.206 petitions and its found in the Handbook, Part 17 3, in Sections 2.1.a.iii.
18 In addition, as discussed in our letter to 19 the petitioners, its clear that Vermont Yankee was 20 licensed to the draft GDC published by the Atomic Energy 21 Commission in 1967.
22 With respect to the Vermont Yankee power up 23 rate license amendment request, the licensee has provided 24 the information the NRC needs with respect to which GDC is 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com applied to each of the specific technical review areas 1
covered by the NRC review.
2 With respect to the engineering inspection 3
that is currently being performed, there are methods 4
available to the inspection team to obtain additional 5
information regarding the plant design and licensing basis 6
if we need it.
7 Therefore, that renders a
demand for 8
information unnecessary.
9 This teleconference is being held in response 10 to a request from the petitioners to address the Petition 11 Review Board. The purpose of this call is to allow the 12 petitioners to provide any additional or clarifying 13 information that could effect the NRCs decision not to 14 treat this request under the 10 CFR 2.206 process.
15 This is also an opportunity for the NRC staff 16 and the licensee to ask any clarifying questions.
17 The purpose of this teleconference is not to 18 debate the merits of the NRCs decision.
19 Following this phone call, the Petition 20 Review Board will meet to discuss the comments provided 21 during this call. A letter will be sent to the 22 petitioners documenting our review and dispositioning 23 their comments.
24 The teleconference is being transcribed so it 25 will help if anyone making a statement first state their 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com name clearly. The transcript will be made publically 1
available.
2 Only the petitioners, the licensee, and the 3
NRC may participate during this call. Other interested 4
parties are invited to listen in, however they may not 5
provide any comments or questions.
6 We request that the petitioners keep their 7
remarks to about 30 minutes. And so at point, Id like to 8
turn it over to Mr. Blanche and Mr. Gunderson.
9 MR. BLANCHE: Im going to -- at this point, 10 Im going to let Arnie start off. And then Im going to 11 pick up. And then Arnie will summarize at the end.
12 MR. GUNDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
13 This is Arnie Gunderson calling. The issue 14 is not which GDC applies, whether its the draft 70 or the 15 final 64. It really doesnt matter to us and we 16 understand that the draft GDCs do apply. So thats really 17 not on the table. And I think all parties are in 18 agreement on that.
19 We have received a rejection letter already 20 and its really broken into two parts. And Ill address 21 mainly one and Paul the other.
22 It is -- you suggest that we have the right 23 and the opportunity to file as part of the hearing process 24 on the up rate, which is open for another week 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com approximately. Its our position that the compliance with 1
the GDCs applies to the plant as it exists today.
2 And its exacerbated by the up rate but, in 3
fact, the issues dont go away with an up rate. We 4
simply, after a review of voluminous information, cannot 5
determine whether or not Vermont Yankee is in compliance 6
with the draft general design criteria.
7 So its a problem now, which is exacerbated 8
by the 400,000 extra horsepower that the plant will be 9
cranking out. But its clearly a problem of the existing 10 license.
11 So we will not be availing ourselves of the 12 hearing process.
13 On top of that, the hearing process for 14 individuals is costly and incredibly burdensome. And to 15 the best of my knowledge, theres been no individual who 16 has ever successfully intervened in the hearing process.
17 So that, you know, neither Paul nor I will be filing as 18 interveners in the -- before August 30th on this matter.
19 And again our position is pretty clear that 20 the general design criteria are vague, ambiguous -- the 21 compliance with the general design criteria are vague and 22 ambiguous right now. And are just exacerbated by the up 23 rate.
24 This is -- we really requested something that 25 I consider to be quite simple. And basically if the NRCs 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com right and that Vermont Yankee has clearly and 1
unambiguously addressed all the 70 of the draft general 2
design criteria, it should be simple for all parties to 3
clarify this situation.
4 You know a 15-minute letter from the NRC to 5
Vermont Yankee saying do you or do you not meet the 70 6
design criteria that applied when the plant was built.
7 And if Vermont Yankee, in fact, does have it, a simple 8
letter back saying yes we do and heres proof that we meet 9
the 70 draft design criteria or we take exemption to 10 certain ones for certain issues.
11 The best example we have of a plant, a pre-12 GDC plant doing just that is Prairie Island. Prairie 13 Island has a very good matrix of what the GDCs were --
14 what the draft GDCs were and their compliance. And we 15 just cant find anything similar to that on the docket.
16 So, again, Im going to hand it over to Paul 17 now to talk about the -- whether or not we view the 18 information as clear and unambiguous. But we certainly 19 saw this as a simple request and certainly not something 20 that should have taken all of the man hours that have 21 already been put in.
22 And if Vermont Yankee in fact did meet the 23 general design criteria, it would be simple for Vermont to 24 verify that as well.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com And, you know, Im sorry this is becoming a 1
monstrous issue but, in fact, its a simple question with 2
a simple solution.
3 Okay, Im going to turn it over to Paul now 4
who is going to talk about clear and unambiguous.
5 MR. BLANCHE: Yes, okay. This is Paul 6
Blanche. And Im going to be talking about a little more 7
than clear and unambiguous.
8 But just to clarify what Arnie just stated as 9
far as the response, what we are really looking for is how 10 does the plant comply with the 70 GDC and how does it 11 deviate? Or does it deviate from any of the general 12 design criteria, and especially General Design Criteria 13 41, which deals with the net positive suction head.
14 The NRC rejected our petition by stating 15 compliance with the GDCs is clear and unambiguous. We, 16 both Arnie and I, contend that this is an inaccurate 17 statement. Therefore, there is no basis for the 18 rejection. And we are requesting that you substantiate 19 this statement.
20 All we are requesting is that the NRC 21 identify to us where compliance and deviations from the 22 GDCs are addressed within the licensing basis.
23 So far the NRC has refused to provide us with 24 this vital information and has sent us around in circles 25 all leading to dead ends.
26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com How I got into this, I initially identified 1
problems with compliance with draft GDC 41 and Safety 2
Guide 1 dealing with the net positive suction head. Ive 3
searched through the entire FSAR, 2,229 pages, and could 4
not locate where this was addressed.
5 I asked Mr. Ennis where I could find 6
compliance with the general design criteria. Mr. Ennis, 7
in an e-mail, told me that compliance is addressed in 8
Appendix F to the UFSAR.
9 Appendix F, when you read it carefully, 10 states that "design conformance statements to the current 11 facility design has not be evaluated." And also that its 12 only in there for historic purposes. Appendix F has no 13 meaning whatsoever.
14 Both Arnie and I submitted the 2.206 as the 15 only means of obtaining this vital information. Last week 16 or the week before, I received a phone call from Rick 17 Ennis stating that the petition was going to be rejected.
18 Mr. Ennis also stated to me that Donna Skay 19 had offered us an opportunity to participate in a Petition 20 Review Board and that we declined this invite. I do not 21 recall ever having a conversation with Ms. Skay.
22 So 2.206 Petition impacts the present 23 compliance with the regulation and is not necessarily 24 impacted by the EPU or extended power up rate. However, 25 the extended power up rate should not be considered until 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com the NRC and the public are made aware of Vermont Yankees 1
regulatory compliance.
2 The NRC rejected our petition by stating that 3
compliance with the GDCs is clear and unambiguous. I 4
contend that this is an inaccurate statement. Therefore, 5
there is no basis for the rejection. And Im requesting 6
that you substantiate this statement.
7 All we are requesting that the NRC identify 8
to us where compliance and deviations from the general 9
design criteria are addressed. So far, the NRC has 10 refused to provide us with this vital information.
11 Ive reviewed the entire FSAR and I believe 12 it to be Revision 18, the latest proposed revision, and 13 only found discussions related to two of the GDCs. And 14 these discussions related to the final GDCs and not the 15 draft even though the final is supposedly not applicable 16 to the present design.
17 I have copied the FSAR electronically and I 18 am reasonably sure of the results of my search. I have 19 reviewed many other FSARs, including the Prairie Island, 20 the Millstone, and many others, and find that each and 21 every one of them that Ive reviewed contain a section 22 addressing compliance and deviations from the GDCs and 23 regulatory compliance.
24 We formally request the NRC grant our 25 petition and if rejected, provide us with accurate 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com information as to where the regulatory compliance is 1
addressed.
2 Unless Vermont Yankee can clearly demonstrate 3
compliance with the most basic safety criteria, there is 4
little assurance that the residents around Vermont Yankee 5
are protected by anything more than the intentionally 6
misleading NRCs statements provided to us.
7 I firmly believe that the NRC has a statutory 8
responsibility to provide assurance to the public that 9
Vermont Yankee is in compliance with all regulations. And 10 by rejecting this petition, it is failing to fulfil this 11 vital responsibility.
12 If you believe compliance with the GDCs is 13 clear and unambiguous, I would like you now to provide me 14 an example of where I could locate where compliance with 15 GDC, for example, GDC 45, 47, and 48 could be located. I 16 am not able to locate it in any of the searches of ATOMS 17 (phonetic) or any of the other documents that I have.
18 And we just need some clear and unambiguous 19 answers to our questions. And thats all I have to say 20 right now.
21 MR. GUNDERSON: This is Arnie Gunderson 22 again.
23 I think the one last item that needs to be 24 mentioned is that in the text of your rejection letter, 25 you pin your hopes on Appendix 4, Attachment 4 to the 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com January 23rd letter from Vermont Yankee. And its got a 1
BDY number and Im on Acrobat now trying to find it.
2 But on January 31st, Attachment 4, Vermont 3
Yankee re-filed for the up rate. And they put -- they 4
gave you -- its called Attachment 4. And theres an 5
Insert 1, which is the BWR Template Safety Evaluation.
6 And they modified the BWR Template Safety Evaluation to 7
address not the GDC but the draft GDC. And thats all 8
well and good.
9 However, what that attachment is is an NRC 10 document which has been fed back to the NRC with a 11 different GDC number in it. There is no statement on the 12 record that states that Vermont Yankee meets that GDC.
13 So whats happening in Attachment 4 is that 14
-- to the January 31st letter, is that Vermont Yankee has 15 fed back to the NRC the NRCs very own document. And is 16 expecting now for the NRC to pour holy water on an NRC 17 document.
18 Theres no statement in Attachment 4 to the 19 January 31st letter which states that Vermont Yankee 20 complies with the GDC. And, in fact, again, if you go 21 back to the appendix in the UFSAR, they state that the 22 GDCs have not been evaluated. I needed to close the loop 23 on that.
24 MR. BLANCHE: Yes, and I want to just add one 25 more comment. What Entergy is doing, or Vermont Yankee is 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com doing, is they want the NRC to state that they are in 1
compliance with the GDCs without them ever stating that 2
they are in compliance.
3 And Id like to hear from Entergy and the NRC 4
as to the statements with respect to compliance with the 5
general design criteria.
6 MR. GUNDERSON: So Insert 1 and Insert 2 are 7
an NRC template safety evaluation. And what Entergy has 8
done as been to revise an NRC template and put different 9
GDCs in to reflect the draft versus the final.
10 And, again, it really doesnt matter to 11 either Paul or I which GDC is in there. The fact of the 12 matter is that we can find nothing in the UFSAR or in the 13 January 31st letter which says that they comply with the 14 70 general design criteria.
15 And, again, if you go to a perfect example of 16 one that we feel works is Prairie Island, which 17 specifically in their UFSAR, they specifically say they 18 comply. And when they dont comply, they note what the 19 exception is.
20 There is nothing on this entire docket which 21 allows us -- you know were not exactly lay people here 22 guys -- to review it to see if the plant meets the draft 23 GDCs. And, in fact, when we do review what is on the 24 docket, we come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com That, in fact -- and Ill use Vermont 1
Yankees last few words here as Im pretty much done, in 2
the UFSAR, Vermont Yankee says -- and we had this in the 3
text of our letter, too, which surprises us that you guys 4
would say its clear and unambiguous when Vermont Yankee 5
is telling you, "the applicability of historic design 6
criteria conformance statements to the current facility 7
design has not been evaluated."
8 Vermont Yankee has not evaluated its existing 9
design -- forget the up rate -- its existing design to see 10 if it meets the GDCs. And yet you are allowing them to 11 leverage that onto the up rate, which is certainly going 12 to exacerbate any problems which may have occurred 13 earlier.
14 MR. BLANCHE: And again this is Paul Blanche.
15 I dont have the verbatim words but somewhere in Appendix 16 F it states that compliance with the general design 17 criteria is addressed in the body of the UFSAR. I was 18 unable to locate anywhere in that document where 19 compliance with other than two new GDCs is even addressed.
20 MR. GUNDERSON: And again, its fascinating.
21 Even the ones that Vermont Yankee does address, they dont 22 compare to the old draft GDCs but therein discussing how 23 they comply with the new GDCs.
24 So in the two examples weve been able to 25 find where Vermont Yankee addresses compliance with GDCs, 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com they talk about the new GDCs. In all of the other -- we 1
have 2,200 pages in the computer and we searched for the 2
GDCs. And we cannot find, you know, I guess 68 of the 70 3
GDCs being specifically addressed to see if they meet 4
them.
5 MR. BLANCHE: The only GDCs that are 6
addressed in the body are Criteria 19, which is control 7
room habitability, and General Design Criteria 12, and Im 8
not sure what that is. But thats all Ive been able to 9
find.
10 MR. GUNDERSON: I really have nothing to 11 summarize. You know weve got -- I think our petition was 12 pretty clear. And I think weve certainly been able to 13 expand on that by speaking to you guys for about 20 14 minutes.
15 But, again, just to summarize, its a simple 16 problem. Its a letter from the NRC. It takes 15 minutes 17 to write. Do you guys comply with the GDCs? Yes? No?
18 Tell us where.
19 And given that the NRC feels that its clear 20 and unambiguous that Vermont Yankee does comply, it should 21 be a 15-minute letter back from Vermont Yankee saying yes 22 we comply with the 70 general design criteria.
23 But after a thorough review by two relatively 24 competent guys here, we cant prove that the existing 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com design, let alone the up rate, complies with the general 1
design criteria.
2 MR.
BLANCHE:
And this engineering 3
inspection, I dont know how meaningful that could be if 4
the NRC itself doesnt know how the plant was designed, 5
which is clear from the misinformation Ive been getting 6
from the NRC.
7 So any meaningful inspection of the facility 8
would have to know what its design basis is. And the 9
general design criteria is the foundation of all the 10 regulations.
11 MR. GUNDERSON: Okay, Im off. Paul, I have 12 nothing else to say. Do you?
13 MR. BLANCHE: No, Id like to hear a response 14 from Entergy and the NRC.
15 MR. ENNIS: This is Rick Ennis. Does Entergy 16 have any questions or comments they would like to make?
17 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, Rick. This is Jim 18 Davidson (phonetic) at Entergy Nuclear Operations. We 19 have no comments.
20 (Inaudible.)
21 MR. GUNDERSON: So I guess now, as I 22 understood your opening -- this is Arnie Gunderson -- as 23 I understood your opening remarks, I guess you will 24 respond, either reopening our 2.206 or rejecting our 2.206 25 based on this conversation?
26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com PARTICIPANT: Yes, thats what we will do.
1 MR. ENNIS: This is Rick Ennis and Id like 2
to ask a question from petitioners. How do your concerns 3
relate to specific regulatory requirements for a licensee 4
to provide information in the FSAR or to provide 5
information to the NRC with respect to a license amendment 6
request?
7 MR. BLANCHE: Okay. I believe, I could be 8
wrong, but 50.71E requires accurate information to be 9
provided in periodic updates to the FSAR, and NEI 9803 and 10 Regulatory Guide 1.81.
11 MR. GUNDERSON: No, Paul, its Regulatory 12 Guide 1.181.
13 MR. BLANCHE: Right.
14 MR. GUNDERSON: It was issued in September of 15
- 99. And the objective on the top of the second page of 16 Regulatory Guide 1.81 states:
17 "The objectives of 10 CFR 50.51E are to 18 ensure that licensees maintain the information in the 19 UFSAR to reflect the current status of the facility," the 20 current status of the facility, "and address new issues as 21 they arise so that the UFSAR can be used as a reference 22 document in safety analysis."
23 And its our position that based on that reg 24 guide, we cant use the UFSAR as a reference document in 25 a safety analysis. And were pretty smart dudes. And it 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com looks to us like Entergy, the existing UFSAR -- forget the 1
up rate -- the existing UFSAR as well as any new issues 2
which theyre attempting to install, the up rate on the 3
plant, have not been addressed in the UFSAR. So we cannot 4
use it as a reference document in safety analysis.
5 MR. BLANCHE: And Id like to state something 6
for the record that the laughter that was heard in the 7
background did not come from myself and I dont believe it 8
came from Mr. Gunderson either.
9 MR. GUNDERSON: No, it wasnt me either.
10 MR. LEWIS: This is Steve Lewis. We really 11 didnt -- were not influenced by any laughter that was 12 taking place. So dont be concerned about that.
13 MR. BLANCHE: I just wanted to make sure that 14 were not laughing. This is not a joking matter to me.
15 MR. LEWIS: No, were not laughing here 16 either.
17 MR. GUNDERSON: Okay, Paul, I have nothing 18 else to say. Are you clear?
19 MR. BLANCHE: I have nothing else to say.
20 NRC? Anything else?
21 MR. ENNIS: We have nothing else. Thank you 22 very much --
23 MR. BLANCHE: Are we going to get a call or 24 a letter on this?
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com MR. ENNIS: -- for the information that you 1
provided today. And the Petition Review Board will 2
consider that as we continue to deliberate.
3 MR. BLANCHE: Okay. Thats all I have. I 4
thank you very much for your time.
5 MR. GUNDERSON: Thank you.
6 MR. ENNIS: Thank you.
7 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter was 8
concluded.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
7590-01 P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 50-271 License No. DPR-28 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
RECEIPT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated July 29, 2004, as supplemented on December 8, 2004, Mr. Paul Blanch and Mr. Arnold Gundersen requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). The petitioners request that the NRC issue a demand for information requiring Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to provide the NRC with information that clearly and unambiguously describes how Vermont Yankee complies with the General Design Criteria (GDC) specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix A or the draft GDC previously published in 1967, and to identify all deviations from any and all applicable NRC regulations.
As a basis for this request, the petitioners state that Appendix F of the Vermont Yankee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) is neither a meaningful or useful description of the applicability of the draft GDC to Vermont Yankee given the disclaimer that marks it as historical. In addition, the petitioners state that the GDC are not described elsewhere in the UFSAR and, therefore, it is difficult to determine whether Vermont Yankee complies with the requirements.
The petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commissions regulations. The petition has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. Mr. Blanch and Mr. Gundersen participated in a telephone conference with the Petition Review Board (PRB) on August 26, 2004, to discuss the petition. The results of that discussion have been considered in the PRBs determination regarding the Petitioners request for action. Copies of the petition and the supplement are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (Accession numbers ML042120147 and ML042520152). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 17th day of January, 2005.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Mr. David R. Lewis Shaw, Pittman, LLP-2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Ms. Christine S. Salembier, Commissioner Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Mr. Michael H. Dworkin, Chairman Public Service Board State of Vermont 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 Chairman, Board of Selectmen Town of Vernon P.O. Box 116 Vernon, VT 05354-0116 Operating Experience Coordinator Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 320 Governor Hunt Road Vernon, VT 05354 G. Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6937 Chief, Safety Unit Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Ms. Deborah B. Katz Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 Ms. Carla A. White, RRPT, CHP Radiological Health Vermont Department of Health P.O. Box 70, Drawer #43 108 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05402-0070 Mr. James M. DeVincentis Manager, Licensing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Resident Inspector Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 176 Vernon, VT 05354 Director, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency ATTN: James Muckerheide 400 Worcester Rd.
Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Jonathan M. Block, Esq.
Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 Mr. John F. McCann Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Gary J. Taylor Chief Executive Officer Entergy Operations 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Mr. John T. Herron Sr. VP and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Danny L. Pace Vice President, Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Brian OGrady Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael J. Colomb Director of Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. John M. Fulton Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Jay K. Thayer Site Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Mr. Kenneth L. Graesser 38832 N. Ashley Drive Lake Villa, IL 60046 Mr. James Sniezek 5486 Nithsdale Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 Mr. Ronald Toole 1282 Valley of Lakes Box R-10 Hazelton, PA 18202 Ms. Stacey M. Lousteau Treasury Department Entergy Services, Inc.
639 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Mr. Raymond Shadis New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 Mr. James P. Matteau Executive Director Windham Regional Commission 139 Main Street, Suite 505 Brattleboro, VT 05301 Mr. William K. Sherman Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601