ML050110255
| ML050110255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/07/2005 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | Blanch P, Gundersen A - No Known Affiliation |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 9136 | |
| Download: ML050110255 (13) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 January 7,
2005 DOCKETED USNRC SECRETARY Paul M. Blanch 135 Hyde Road Hartford, CT 06117 January 10, 2005 (2:25pm)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Arnold Gunderson 139 Kilarney Drive Burlington, VT 05401 SERVEDJanuary 10, 2005 Docket No. 50-271-OLA
Dear Messrs. Blanch and Gunderson:
On behalf of the Commission, I am writing in response to your letter of December 8, 2004.
In presenting your concerns, you included the request that the Chairman personally intervene in the Vermont Yankee power uprate application and that the Chairman and the Commission take related action concerning Vermont Yankee's design bases and compliance with applicable regulations.
As you know, the NRC staff has already responded to you by letter dated December 29,2004, from James E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The staff noted that you have separately requested that the staff treat your letter of December 8, 2004, as supplemental information in support of the petition you submitted, on July 29,2004, under 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
The staff advised that it would be addressing issues you raise as part of the response to your petition. It also noted that the staff was available to answer questions at the public meeting in Vermont on December 16, 2004.
Further, the staff invited submission of any specific information indicating a failure of Vermont Yankee to meet applicable regulatory requirements.
I must note that the licensee's application for a license amendment authorizing an increase in the maximum power level of Vermont Yankee is the subject of adjudication before an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and issues related to those stated in your letter have also been raised in that proceeding. In light of the Commission's role as final agency decision-maker in adjudicatory matters, it is not appropriate for the Commission to respond further to your letter.
Consistent with the Commission's rules of practice (10 C.F.R. 2.347 @)),I am serving a copy of your letter and this response on the parties in the proceeding and placing them in the public record of the proceeding.
Sincerely, tL~~-
Vr,~-v Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission
Nuclear Safety Advisors Paul M. Blanch Energy Consultanl 185 Hyde Road West Hartford. cr 06117 860-236-0326 pmbfanch(ci)comcast.net Arnofd Gundersen Nuclear Safety Consultanl 139 Killarney Drive Burlington. VT05401 802-865-9955 arnieQundersentQ:!saifchampfain. net Deccmbcr 8, 2004 Chaimlan Nils Dinz USNRC
\\Vashington DC 20005-0001 Via E-Mail
SUBJECT:
Vermont Yankec Nuclea.. IJo,,'cr Station (VYNPS)
Dear Chainuan Diaz:
Chainnan Diaz,we respectfully request that you personally intervene in Enlergy's application to increase Vermont Yankec's power to 120 percent of its qriginal design.
\\Ve are asking for your intervention to assurc thatby proper reconciliation of Vermont Yankee's designbases and applicable NRC regulation, your agency fulfills its Congressional mandate to protect public l1ealthand safety.
We note that inthe recent report issued by the NRC' delineating its inspection of Vermont Yankee,the NRC fails to provide any assurance of regulatory compliance either now or when the plant operates at its proposed 120%power increase. Given the significant safety issues involved, this is a considerablerisk and safety concern to all Ncw Englanders, notjust those residing within 50 miles of this aged nuclear power plant.
After completclyreviewing the results ofthe final inspection report we conclude that the NRC has not and is not willing to addressVennont Yankee's regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the NRC's continuedrefusal to address Vermont Yankee's I Letter from WayneLanning to Jay Thayer datcd, December2, 2004 "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Powcr Station NRC InspectionReport 0500027]12004008"
Ch:lirm:mDiaz-re: NRC oversiJ:hl VY 12-04 rage 2 of9 regulatory compliance leadstiSto believe that the agency is simply unable to do so.
Therefore, we believe tilat th~NRC is not e\\'en fully awnre of the design nnd licensing bases ofthe plnnt, and furthermore, this fact is confirmcd by recent communications as well as by your agency's lackof response to our July 2004 petition and the pertincnt questions we raised thercin.
\\Ve are not simply idle bystanders who have deeidcd to take issue with nuclear safety.
\\Ve are two of the foremost nuclear safety experts in tbe cOllntrywho for the last 18-months have been reviewing in detail the tecl~nicaland engineering aspects of Vermont Yankee's application to increase its power output. The more technical specifications and safety criteria we study, the more concerned we become about the snfety ofVennont Yankee. Yet, the NRC continues he~dlong toward licensing this 33-year-old nuclear renctor for the largest percentnge power increaseever proposed at nny nuclenr facility in the United States and quite possibly in the world.
For your information, we ha\\'e spent FOUR timesas manv hours as hns the NRC's entire inspcction tenm spent on its alleged special Engineering Jnspeetion, yet theNRC.
continues to turn a d~af ear toward our concerns. As you well know, eneh of us has been involved in the nuclear industry for more than 30 years, first as engineers and later as independent eonsul.tantsand expert witnesses. What you may not know, is that together we have spent more than 2800 hours0.0324 days <br />0.778 hours <br />0.00463 weeks <br />0.00107 months <br /> reviewing the technical, engineering, and safety analyses prepared for Vermont Yankee's application to increase (uprate) the power its reactor may produce.
On March 17,2004, the Vermont Secretary of theSenate wrote to you forwarding a resolution unanimously passed by the entire Vennont Scnate. This resolution requested the NRC conduct an inspection that:
- 1) Assesses the cOllformanceofthefaeilit}' to its design alld licensillgbases,for operatillg at both 100percellt alld J20percent of its original(\\' intelldedpower productiolllevel;
- 2) Identifies all de\\'iarions,exemptions and/ol'u'aiversfi'om (a) regulatol)'
requiremellt.r;applicable to Ve17110ntYankeeand (b) regulatoJ)'requirements
ChainnnnDiaz-re:NRCo\\'crsightVY 12-04 POIgc3 of9 applicable to a Ilew 11uclearreactor (i.e. today's safet)' l'eglllations) and verifies
. that adequate safet)' margins are retained despite the cZll11lIlati\\'eeffect of such deviations, exemptiolis, and/ol. waivers for both the present licensed power level
. and lindeI'theproposed e.r:tel1dedpower 'prate. "
On May 24, 2004, when James Dyer responded for you to the Secretary of the Vermont Senate, he stated:
"The Senate requested that all)' assessment afVermont Yankee assess the conformance ofthefacility to its design and licensillg bases, for operating at both J00 perce1l1 and 120 percent of its originally intended power prodllction level. 'Ve continually assess whether Entergy operates Ve17110ntYankee ill C0l1f01711allce with "ennont Yankee's design alld licensillg bases. Olle ofthefimctiolls ofolll" Reactor Oversight Process is to assess whether Enterg)' operates Vermont Yankee in accordance with the appropdate 11l1clearsafely reqtlireme11fs and standards.
The most recellt anllllal assessment of Ve17l10ntYankee concluded that the plant has been operating in a manner that preserved public health and safet)'. We hm'e a/so conducted inspectiolls beyond ollr 110111101 inspections that are specifically focl/sed on coqfo17nal1cewith design alld licensing bases. "
Chairman Diaz, please 110tethat the clever wording of this NRC rcsponse to the Vermont State Senate provides no assurance of regulatory compliance, either now or wbcn the plant operates at its proposed 20 percent power increase.
According to its own report, the NRC inspection team reviewed only 45 specific itcms and yet it still identified 8 cIear violations ofNRC regulation. Individually, white some of these violations may not be of high safety significance, taken colleetively, they indicate a severe breakdown of Vermont Yankee's Quality Assurance (QA) program.
These findings add significant concern to an alreadyproblematic application since Vennont Yankee's QA program is the very program that was implemented to assure regulatory compliance.
]n reviewing the inspection report issued by the NRC, we note that the conditionof Vermont Yankee was reviewed against its design drawings and specifications(USFAR),
operating procedures, calculations, Infon11ationNotices, Generic Letters, and Regulatory Guides, and it was not reviewed for compliance with NRC regulation includingthe
ChaimJimDiaz-rc: NRC oversight VY 12.04 Page4 of9 General Design Criteria2.
As noted in the inspection report written and issued by the NRC, the NRC conducted this inspection as a "pilot program" for the industry.
"The inspectiollll"as thefirst offOllr pl0lllled pilot inspections to be condl/cted throughout the COWltl)'to assist the NRC ill determining "whether changes should be made to its Reactor O,'ersight Process (ROP) to il11jJro\\'ethe ejJectiw!11essof its inspections and o\\:ersight in the design/engineering area. tI
\\Vhat a twist of words this "pilot program" has been passed off as the independent engineering assessment originally requested unanimously by the Vermont State Senate.
For instead of being the w1iquesafety-sensitive examination Vennont's Congressional Delegation, the State of Vermont, the Public Service Board and its vetted experts, and the Vermont State Senate all requcsted, this inspection was a one-size fits-nilprogram designed instead to assess the pcrfonnanee of theNRC Reactor Oversigl1tProcess (ROP).
By our reckoning, the NRC's pcrformance is sadly lacking when it conducts an inspection against gcneric communicationswhile ignoring the very inspection criteria it is statutorily obligated to evaluate. Except for brief discussions in this NRC issued report regarding 1° CFR Appendix Band 1° CFR 50.63, the NRC remains eerily silcnt about hundreds of other critical NRC safety regulations.
An inspection like the one NRCjust concluded at Vennont Yankee, and tl1llssummarized in its report, would be similar to one orus dcveloping a maintcnance program for our car (USFAR) by stating we would change the oil every50,000 miles, but simultaneously, we would never reference the owner"smanllal (NRC regulation). Therefore, by following NRC logic, as long as we changed the oil at this SO,OOO-mileinterval, wc would comply' with OUf"design bases" and OUfcar would opcrate safely. Let liStake tbis analogy one step further and point out that if we inspect our car the way the NRC continues to inspect Vermont Yankee, we will never detcct the underlying problem with our car's 2 The designbases incllltles sllchitems as the Updated Final Safely Analysis Report (lTFSAR),
Technical Specifications, Orders, elc. Wc havc prcviollsly pointed out 10the NRC that the UFSAR docs not reflect the design of the plant anelthat it fails to e"cn aUemptto address the most basic General Design Criteria (ODC). The use of thc UFSARas the bases for the inspection is therefore inadequate. The bases for the inspeclion needs to bc the NRC regulations.
ChOlinmm DiOlz-re: NRC oversight VY 12-04 PageS of9 maintenance program.
During this most recent inspection, the NRC-asscmbted inspection team renlly looked at Vermont Yankee's design control process and plant proce.duresand did not assess applicable NRC safety regulation, even though it is statutorily obligated to do so.
Thercfore, our single biggest concern remains that any inspection conducted at Vermont Yankee must usc the applicable NRC rcgulation including the Geneml Design Criteria (ODC) as the inspection norm. We notified the NRC of this critical nuclear safety concern in our 2.206 petition datcd July 29, 2004. Four and one-balf monthslater, the NRC still has not responded to this very reat nuclear safety issue.
Thc Atomic Energy Act of 1954,as amended, fonnulated at the inception oftt1c nuclear powcr industry, established "adequate protection" as a sound methodology and rule of law by which to ascertain the safety of an industry that relics upon atomic energy as its energy source. Tile "adequate protection" methodology was designed to protect the public from the inl1erentsafety risk involved in using such a lethal technologyto generate power in close proximity to cities and towns. It is tbe standard of safety upon whicb NRC regulation is based. "Adequate protection" means, "jf theNRC review detennines that the proposed changes would be jn compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, there is reasonable assurance that the proposed change is safe""
Certainly, we need not remind you and the other Commissioners that theNRC granted Vern10ntYankee's operating licenseon March 21, 1972 with the following provision.
"The Board has concluded that thefacility will operate in confonllity with the applicatioll, as amended, the provisiolls of the Act, and the nt/es and regulalions of the Commission and will not be inimical to the C011l1ll01l defense and security or to the health and safety of the public alld that Vermollt Yankee is technically alld financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by the operating license. The Board hasjin-ther concluded that the acti".it;es authorized by the license will not ha1'e a significant, ad,'erse impact all the quality of the em'irOIl111en/and that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.57 (c) hape been satisfied" According to this statement, NRC provided the public with the assurance thatthe
Chnim1an Di:l7.- rc: NRC oversig11t VY 12-04 P:lge6 of9 underpinning of "adequate protcction" would bc provided as long as the plant is in conformancc with "the mles and regulatio11s of the C0111mission".
The most rccent inspection a~d ollr extensh'e revicw ofVennont Yankee and NRC documcntation affirm our contention that the plant is definitely not in compliance with NRC regulation.
Moreover, it is also very clear tbat tIleNRC seems to be wholly unable to determine Vermont Yankee's compliance with NRC regulation. The entire so-called independent inspection was compromised as:
. The "independent" team was not independent, but was bandpicked by the NRC.
Qualified individuals were eliminated from consideration after the NRC "developed" arbitrary criteria for team members in order to solidify a team specific to NRC needs.
It is clear tl1atalthough the alleged "independent" team completed its inspection in five weeks, tbe report itself bas been groomed within the NRC for almost three months3. Clearly any illusion of independence has been removed from what is really a Reactor OversightProcess (ROP) '~piIotprogram" and industry prototype engineering assessment.
Even \\,..ithits total lack of indcpendence, this team still identitied eight areas of regulatory non-compliance, while reviewing less than one percent of the plant's systems. Therefore the "cockroach theory" would suggest that there must then be at least 800 more problems tlmt the NRC failed to discover.
Additionally, the inspection statcd that 9] "samples" were selected and that 45 of the original 91 samples were se]eeted for a more detailed review. From these 45 narrowly selected samples favored for detailed review, eight violations ofNRC regulation were identified.
Tbese 91 samples represent significantly less than 1% of the arcas impacting nuclear safety.
Even assuming tbat 1%is an accurate estimate, this means that by statistical assessment approximately 800 areas of regulatory non-compliance currently exist.
at Vcnnont Yankee.
The fact that statistically there arc more than 800 undetected violations ofNRC regulation is of great concern to 811New England residents.
3 The final report was not signed by lhe tcnm members until December 2, 2003
CI13inn3nDinz-re: NRC o\\'crsight VY 12-04 Page7 or9 Unless Vermont Yankee can demonstrate compliance with the NRC regulation, thcre is no assurance of the "adequate protection" under which the NRC has its statutory authority. Every plant in the country must comply with some type of General Design Criteria, just as when building a'house one must comply with.thc building codcs in effect whcn construction was begun. \\Ve arc in agreement with thc NRC that Vennont Yankee shouldcomplywith the70Draft GDCthatwerein effectwhcnitsconstructionbegan.
However, we have found absolllte(v 110refel'e17ceto Vermont Yankee's actual compliance with those 70 Draft General Design Criteria4 anywhere in the ofbundrcds of thousands of pages of Vermont Yankee licensing information we have re\\'iewed.
Vermont Yankee's NRC Project Manager infomled us that Vermont Yankee's written commitment to the GDC was in the USFAR. This is an NRC claim that we believe to be patently false. Without a clear statement under oath from Entergy that Vermont Yankee meets those criteria and all other NRC applicablcregulation, "adequate protection" to the gencral public cannot be assured.
Most importantlv. since there is no assurance and no record that VemlOntYankee has demonstrated it is presentlv in compliance with the NRC rC1!ulation.there is no assurance of "adequate protection" at the present power level and most certainly not at the proposed uDrntcdpower increase.
To meet the requiremcnts of The Atomic Encrgy ActSand provide assurance of "adequate protection" to tbe general public as mandated by law, the NRC must demonstrate that Vennont Yankee is in compliancewith its General Design Criteria (GDC) and other applicable regulations which arc the vcry foundationby which Vermont Yankeereceived its license to operate nndgenerate electricity within the State 4 Ourreviewofrevision18toVY'sUFSARonly discussescompliancewithtwoonhe ODC's,bothof these being the final GDC's rather th:1Ot11edraft GDC's. There nre no discussions within the UFSAR nddressing any oftt1e known devintions from the ODC's.
5The Atomic Energy Act c1arified that "adequate protection is presumptively assured by compliance with NRC requiremcnts".
Furthermore, according to the NRC'the August 27, 1997 NRC Staff Rcquirements Memorandum (SRM) staled lhat "complinnee simply menns meeling applicable regulatory requirements",
The August 27, )997 SRM qunlificd ils position, by staling that in "Ihe case for any proposed license nmendmcnt, the NRC stnffreview determines jfthe proposed changes would be in eompli:mee with the applicable regulatory requircments"
Chaim1:m Diaz - rc: NRC ovcrsight VY 12-04 Page8 of9 of Vermont. Further, thc NRC must provide assumnce that the plant will rcmain in complia'ncewith all NRC regulation should the 20% ttprate be approved.
Ovcr and over again, we have requcstcd that the NRC demonstrate to the general public that Vermont Yankee is in compliance with NRC regulation, thereby guaranteeing to the citizens of Vermont and its neighboring states that "adequate protection" is assured as is mandated by law. \\Ve Imvefiled a 10 CFR 2.206petition with the NRC requesting that Vermont Yankee identify its design bases. While tbis petition was filed in July 2004, we have yet to receive a final response from tbeNRC.
Short of a new and completely independent inspection that verifies that Vennont Yankee is in compliance with aUNRC regulation, there is no assurance that the public is adequately protected. \\Ve 1Ifl!ethe Commission.and particularly vou Chainnan Dia7~to direct tIleNRC StafTto issue a Demand For Infonnation (DFn letter to Vermont Yankee in order to clarifYits desien bases and identifv all deviations from any and all applicable reeulation. If theCommissionis unwillingto takethis action,werequestthat theNRC Staff provide lISwith all infonuation identifying Vennont Yankee Design Bases and aU appJicableNRC regulation including all areas in which Vermont Yankee deviates from.
NRC regulation.
Consequently, we expect that NRC will provide answers to the significant safety issues we Imveidentified. Additionally, we also expcct answers to these isslIcsat tIle VSNAPINRCmeeting Deccmber 16,2004 inBrattleboro, VennOl1t.
Furthermore, so there is no misinterpretation on anyone's part, wo are nuclear safety advocates who have worked unceasingly for morethan 15 years on critical nuclear safety issues in the pub1icarena both here and abroad. Least we remind YOll,that we are two of only several expert witnesses who were vetted to testify regarding the accident at Three Mile Island. Subsequently, each one or us has testified before establishments as diverse as the United States Senate, the Senate ofthe CzechRepublic, and the Vermont Public Scn'iceBoardaswen asnumerousotherstateandfederalquasi-judicialhearings.
Chninnnn Di3Z-rc:NRC oversight VY 12-04 Pnge9 of9 Finally, ChairmanDiaz, once again, we respectfully request that you personally intervene in order to assure that by proper reconciliation ofVerl11ontYankee's designbases and applicable NRC regulation, YOllragency fulfiJJsits Congressional mandate to protect public health and safety. Moreover, by doing so,we are certain that you will atso advance your agency's goats, not only those of adequately maintaining safety,but morc importantly at this critical juncture, the goal of increasing public confidence in the NRC's ability to create a safe nuc1e~1rpower environment. This is an area now sorely tried by the perception that the NRC ouly gives lip serviceto enforcing regulation.
Sincerely, tfZ;1i1./..L/
Paul M. Blanch for Arnie Glmdersen Cc: Senator Jeffords Senator Leahy Congressman Saunders
December 29, 2004 Paul M. Blanch 135 Hyde Road West Hartford, CT 06117 Arnold Gundersen 139 Killarney Drive Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Messrs. Blanch and Gundersen:
I am responding to your letter to Chairman Diaz, dated December 8, 2004, regarding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). In your letter, you raised concerns about Vermont Yankee's conformance with its design basis and compliance with applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Based on these concerns, you requested that the Chairman intervene in the licensee's application for a power uprate to ensure reconciliation of Vermont Yankee's design basis. You also sent an e-mail to Mr. Rick Ennis, the Vermont Yankee Project Manager, and requested that this letter be treated as supplemental information to the petition you submitted, dated July 29,2004, under the process specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206. Therefore, we will respond to the issues related to the design basis at Vermont Yankee in conjunction with the response to your petition.
In your letter, you expressed concerns about the engineering inspection conducted at Vermont Yankee earlier this year. NRC staff was available to answer questions regarding this inspection at the public meeting in Brattleboro, Vermont on December 16, 2004.
Furthermore, if you have identified any specific information indicating that Vermont Yankee does not meet applicable regulatory requirements, you are encouraged to provide that information to NRC so that we can evaluate the issue and take appropriate action. Thank you for taking the time to provide your concerns to us.
Sincerely, IRA by RBorchardt fori J. E. Dyer,Director Officeof NuclearReactorRegulation Docket No. 50-271
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C. )
and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
)
)
)
)
)
In the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
(Operating License Amendment)
Docket No. 50-271-0LA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LETTER FROM ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK TO PAUL M. BLANCH AND ARNOLD GUNDERSON RESPONDING TO THEIR 12/08/04 LETTER RE VERMONT YANKEE POWER UPRATE APPLICATION have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Brooke D. Poole, Esq.
Robert M. Weisman, Esq.
Marisa C. Higgins, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop -T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Lester S. Rubenstein Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Raymond Shadis New England Coalition P.O. Box 98
- Edgecomb, ME 04556
2 Docket No. 50-271-0LA LETTER FROM ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK TO PAUL M. BLANCH AND ARNOLD GUNDERSON RESPONDING TO THEIR 12/08/04 LETTER RE VERMONT YANKEE POWER UPRATE APPLICATION John M. Fulton, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.
Lyme, NH 03768 Sarah Hofmann, Esq.
Special Counsel Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.
Douglas J. Rosinski, Esq.
Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Jonathan M. Block, Esq.
94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10thday of January 2005