ML051610042
| ML051610042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/15/2005 |
| From: | Dyer J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shadis R New England Coalition |
| Bailey S, NRR/DLPM, 415-1321 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML051610117 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20050360, TAC MC6958 | |
| Download: ML051610042 (25) | |
Text
June 15, 2005 Mr. Raymond Shadis Staff Technical Advisor New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556
Dear Mr. Shadis:
Your petition from the New England Coalition (NEC) dated May 3, 2005, and addressed to Mr. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission), has been referred to me pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, of the Commissions regulations.
Your petition requested that the NRC promptly restore reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety with regard to the fire barriers in electrical cable protection systems at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee), or otherwise to order a derate of Vermont Yankee until such time as the operability of the fire barriers can be assured.
Specifically, the petition requested that the Commission take the following actions:
1) promptly conduct a review at Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition, including a full inventory of the type, amount, application, and placement of Hemyc, and an assessment of the safety significance of each application; 2) require Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) to promptly provide justification for operation in nonconformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R; and 3) upon finding that Vermont Yankee is operating in an unanalyzed condition and/or that assurance of public health and safety is degraded, promptly order a power reduction (derate) of Vermont Yankee until such time as it can be demonstrated that ENVY is operating in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, and all other applicable regulations.
Your petition requested that, if NRC can not take prompt action through the 10 CFR 2.206 process, the NRC should order a power derate before screening NECs letter into the 2.206 process.
As a basis for your request, your petition cited NRC Information Notice 2005-007, Results of Hemyc Electrical Raceway Fire Barrier System Full Scale Fire Testing, which notifies licensees that the Hemyc electrical raceway fire barrier system (ERFBS) failed to protect electrical cables for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in fire tests that were performed to the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 119. Your request was also based on the following considerations:
- 1) Hemyc ERFBS is used to protect at least one Vermont Yankee safety-related system; 2) the fire tests, including the tests for initial qualification, indicate that the Hemyc ERFBS might not protect the cables for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />; and 3) you believe this constitutes an unanalyzed condition and a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R.
R. Shadis By teleconference on May 17, 2005, you provided information to the NRCs Petition Review Board (PRB) as further explanation and support for the NEC petition. The transcript of this teleconference is enclosed.
During the teleconference, the NRC staff commented that your first requested action (NRC will promptly conduct a review at Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition, including a full inventory of the type, amount, application, and placement of Hemyc, and an assessment of the safety significance of each application) did not constitute a request for enforcement action consistent with the 10 CFR 2.206 process. You requested that this action be modified such that the NRC will require the licensee (rather than the NRC) to conduct the review. You also requested that this action be modified to expand the scope of the review to all fire barriers at Vermont Yankee (i.e., not just the Hemyc ERFBS). Your basis for expanding the scope of the review was your concerns about the adequacy of other fire barriers (e.g., the adequacy of thermo-lag and proper installation of silicon penetrations), the history of fires and cable separation issues at Vermont Yankee, and the adequacy of the previous tests on the Hemyc ERFBS.
On May 17, 2005, following the teleconference, the PRB convened to evaluate whether the NEC petition should be reviewed under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. The NRC staff responsible for plant fire protection participated in the discussion. Based on the PRBs recommendation, I have decided to accept the following requested actions for review:
1)
Require ENVY to promptly conduct a review at Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition, including a full inventory of the type, amount, application, and placement of Hemyc, and an assessment of the safety significance of each application; 2)
Require ENVY to promptly provide justification for operation in nonconformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R; and 3)
Upon finding that Vermont Yankee is operating in an unanalyzed condition and/or that assurance of public health and safety is degraded, promptly order a power reduction (derate) of Vermont Yankee until such time as it can be demonstrated that ENVY is operating in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, and all other applicable regulations.
As for your request that the licensee review fire barriers beyond the Hemyc ERFBS, you did not provide adequate information to justify expanding the scope of the review. In its inspections of fire protection at Vermont Yankee, which included the review of numerous fire barriers and penetrations, the NRC did not identify any safety concerns other than the unresolved item related to Hemyc ERFBS (NRC Inspection Report 05000271/2001-003, July 27, 2001, ADAMS Accession No. ML012080293).
As for your request for immediate action (i.e., order a derate before screening NECs letter into the 10 CFR 2.206 process), the NRC has already determined that immediate action was not necessary. When the Hemyc test results became available, the staff examined whether there was an immediate and significant risk to safety. Because fire detection, prevention, and suppression measures are already in place to minimize both the probability of occurrence and consequences of a fire that could prevent the performance of safe shutdown functions, the staff
R. Shadis concluded that continued plant operation while corrective actions are implemented will not pose an undue risk to public health and safety. In addition, the NRC staff has confirmed that fire watches have been implemented at Vermont Yankee as a compensatory measure until the corrective actions are completed (i.e., replacement of the Hemyc ERFBS). Guidance regarding resolution of nonconforming or degraded conditions, including taking compensatory measures until corrective actions are completed, is discussed in Generic Letter 91-18, Revision 1, Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions.
On June 13, 2005, the NRC staff notified you that, based on the recommendations of the PRB, your request for immediate action and your request to expand the scope to cover additional fire barriers were denied.
Your petition is being reviewed by the Division of Licensing Project Management within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I have assigned Stewart Bailey to be the petition manager for your petition. Mr. Bailey can be reached at 301-415-1321. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication regarding your petition. Additionally, I have enclosed a copy of Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions, and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, Public Petition Process, prepared by the NRC Office of Public Affairs.
Sincerely,
/RA by R. W. Borchardt for/
J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 2. Transcript of May 17, 2005, teleconference
- 4. NUREG/BR-0200 cc w/encls:
Licensee (w/copy of incoming 2.206 request)
See next page
R. Shadis concluded that continued plant operation while corrective actions are implemented will not pose an undue risk to public health and safety. In addition, the NRC staff has confirmed that fire watches have been implemented at Vermont Yankee as a compensatory measure until the corrective actions are completed (i.e., replacement of the Hemyc ERFBS). Guidance regarding resolution of nonconforming or degraded conditions, including taking compensatory measures until corrective actions are completed, is discussed in Generic Letter 91-18, Revision 1, Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions.
On June 13, 2005, the NRC staff notified you that, based on the recommendations of the PRB, your request for immediate action and your request to expand the scope to cover additional fire barriers were denied.
Your petition is being reviewed by the Division of Licensing Project Management within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I have assigned Stewart Bailey to be the petition manager for your petition. Mr. Bailey can be reached at 301-415-1321. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication regarding your petition. Additionally, I have enclosed a copy of Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions, and the associated brochure NUREG/BR-0200, Public Petition Process, prepared by the NRC Office of Public Affairs.
Sincerely,
/RA by R. W. Borchardt for/
J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 2. Transcript of May 17, 2005, teleconference
- 4. NUREG/BR-0200 cc w/encls:
Licensee (w/copy of incoming 2.206 request)
See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page Package: ML051610117 Incoming: ML051370182 Response and Enclosures 1 and 2: ML051610042 : ML041770328 : ML013600445 OFFICE PD1-2/PM PDI-2/PM PDI-2/LA PDI-2/SC PDI/D(A)
DLPM/D NRR/OD NAME SBailey REnnis CRaynor DCollins for DRoberts RLaufer for JUhle CHolden for TMarsh RBorchardt for JDyer DATE 6/15/05 6/15/05 6/15/05 6/13/05 6/13/05 6/14/05 6/15/05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Subject:
Raymond Shadis, the New England Coalition, Ltr Re: 2.206 - Degraded Fire Protection Systems at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Dated: June 15, 2005 DISTRIBUTION: G20050360 PUBLIC PDI-2 R/F RidsEDOMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter RidsRgn1MailCenter RidsNrrOd RidsNrrAdpt RidsOpaMail RidsOcaMail RidsNrrWpcMail DSkay KJohnson LCox DRoberts JUhle REnnis MOBrien CRaynor DFrumkin CPatel JBoska RKuntz SBailey CAnderson, RI JLongo, OGC JGoldberg, OGC HBerkow JLyons TMarsh CHolden VBucci, OIG BPoole, OGC LReyes MVirgilio WKane JSilber WDean SBurns SCollins, RI KCyr, OGC
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, Potts & Trowbridge 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 7590-01-P U.S. 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 May 3, 2005, the New England Coalition (NEC or the petitioner) has requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) take action with regard to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). The NEC petition requested that the NRC promptly restore reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety with regard to the fire barriers in electrical cable protection systems at Vermont Yankee, or otherwise to order a derate of Vermont Yankee until such time as the operability of the fire barriers can be assured. Specifically, the petition requested that the Commission take the following actions: (1) require Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) to promptly conduct a review at Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition, including a full inventory of the type, amount, application, and placement of Hemyc, and an assessment of the safety significance of each application; (2) require ENVY to promptly provide justification for operation in nonconformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R; and (3) upon finding that Vermont Yankee is operating in an unanalyzed condition and/or that assurance of public health and safety is degraded, promptly order a power reduction (derate) of Vermont Yankee until such time as it can be demonstrated that ENVY is operating in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, and all other applicable regulations.
The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, of the Commissions regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time.
Mr. Raymond Shadis, in his capacity as the petitioners Staff Technical Advisor, participated in a telephone conference call with the NRCs Petition Review Board (PRB) on May 17, 2005, to discuss the petition. The results of that discussion were considered in the PRBs determination regarding the petitioners request for action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. During the May 17, 2005, PRB conference call, the petitioner requested that the licensee review fire barriers beyond the Hemyc electric raceway fire barrier system. This request will not be accepted under the 2.206 process because the petitioner did not provide adequate information to justify expanding the scope of the review.
A copy of the petition and the transcript of the telephone conference call are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the NRCs 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 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML051370182 and ML051610042). 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/
R. W. Borchardt, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 15th day of June 2005.
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
PRB Meeting on 2.206: Degraded Fire Protection Systems at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Docket Number:
50-271 Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Work Order No.:
NRC-408 Pages 1-14 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION OFFICE 4
5
x 6
IN THE MATTER OF: :
7 PRB Meeting on 2.206: : Docket No. 50-271 8
Degraded Fire Protection :
9 Systems at Entergy Nuclear :
10 Vermont :
11
x 12 Tuesday, May 17, 2005 13 14 NRC Headquarters Operations 15 Center 16 Recorded Phone Line 17 18 19 20 21 The above-entitled interview was conducted 22 at 10:00 AM.
23 24
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
MS. SKAY: Good morning. Is there anyone 2
else on the bridge?
3 MR. SHADIS: Good morning. Ray Shadis is 4
here.
5 MS. SKAY: Hello, Ray. Do we have anybody 6
from the region? I think we'll wait for a few more 7
minutes. We'll wait for some more people to call in.
8 MR. ANDERSON: This is Cliff Anderson from 9
the region.
10 MS. SKAY: Hi, Cliff. Nobody from 11 Entergy?
12 MS. FAISON: Yes. This is Charlene Faison 13 from Entergy in White Plains, New York.
14 MS. SKAY: Okay. Good morning.
15 MS DAFLUCAS: Ronda Daflucas at Vermont 16 Yankee.
17 MS. SKAY: Are you waiting for anybody 18 else to join, Mr. Shadis?
19 MR. SHADIS: No, I'm not.
20 MS. SKAY: Okay. We're waiting for one 21 more person here and then we'll be ready for 22 introductions including the NRC.
23 MR. GUNTER: And Paul Gunter with Nuclear 24 Information and Resources on monitoring the PRB.
25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. SKAY: Good morning, Mr. Gunter.
1 Okay, I think we have everybody here. This is Donna 2
Skay, I am the NRC 2.206 coordinator.
3 MR. BERKOW: Herb Berkow, NRR.
4 MR. FRUMKIN: Daniel Frumkin, Fire 5
Protection NRR.
6 MR. LYONS: Jim Lyons, I'm the petition 7
manager, or petition --
8 PARTICIPANT: Chairman.
9 MR. LYONS: Chairman, thank you.
10 MS. LONGO: Jenny Longo. Office of 11 General Counsel.
12 MR. HOLDEN: Cornelius Holden, Project 13 Directorate One.
14 MR. BOSKA: John Boska, project manager.
15 MR. ROBERTS: Darrell Roberts, section 16 chief, projects.
17 MR. PATEL: Chandu Patel, lead project 18 manager for fire protection.
19 MR. KUNTZ: Robert Kuntz, projects.
20 MS. SKAY: Okay. And Chandu Patel will be 21 the petition manager for this petition.
22 MR. SHADIS: Pardon me. I didn't get the 23 last name.
24
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. SKAY: Chandu Patel, P-A-T-E-L. He 1
will be your petition manager and your primary contact 2
on this petition.
3 MR. SHADIS: Thank you.
4 MS. SKAY: Is there anybody else from 5
Vermont? If they could introduce themselves?
6 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, this is Cliff 7
Anderson, Region One.
8 MS. SKAY: All right. Then I will turn it 9
over to Jim Lyons, the PRB chairman.
10 MR. LYONS: Thank you Donna. The subject 11 of the this teleconference is the 2.206 petition 12 submitted by Mr. Raymond Shadis for the New England 13 Coalition, dated May 3, 2005. The petition pertains 14 to Hemyc fire wrap at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 15 Station.
16 The petition -- the petitioner has 17 requested that the NRC require that Entergy Nuclear 18 Vermont Yankee promptly provide justification for 19 operation in non-conformance with 10 CFR, Part 50, 20 Appendix R. And upon finding that Vermont Yankee is 21 operating in an unanalyzed condition and/or that 22 assurance of public health inspection has degraded, 23 NRC promptly order a power reduction or de-rate, of VY 24 until such time that it can be demonstrated that ENVY 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 is operating in conformance with 10 CFR, Part 50, 1
Appendix R and all other applicable regulations.
2 The purpose of this teleconference is to 3
allow the petitioner to address the petition review 4
board. This is an opportunity for the petitioner to 5
provide additional explanations or support for this 6
petition. This is also an opportunity for the staff 7
and licensee to ask any clarifying questions. The 8
purpose of this teleconference is not to debate the 9
merits of this petition.
10 Following this phone call, the PRB, 11 Petition Review Board, will meet today to determine 12 whether the NRC accepts the petition under the 2.206 13 content or whether it will be dealt with under another 14 mechanism. The PRB meeting today will not determine 15 whether we agree or disagree with the content of the 16 petition.
17 The teleconference is being transcribed, 18 so it will be helpful if anyone makes a statement to 19 first state their name clearly. The transcript will 20 become a supplement to the petition and will be made 21 publicly available. We requested that the petitioners 22 keep their remarks to approximately 30 minutes.
23 If the PRB decides that the petition will 24 be considered under 2.206, then the NRC will issue an 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 acknowledgement letter to the petitioner. The 1
petition manager will keep the petitioners and the 2
licensees periodically informed of the progress of the 3
staff's review.
4 With that, Mr. Shadis, if you would please 5
provide us with whatever information you want us to 6
hear.
7 MR. SHADIS: Thank you, Mr. Lyons. And 8
this is Ray Shadis. The first thing in, and just a 9
minor point here, in your summation of the 2.206 -- I 10 may have had a senior moment, but I did not hear, in 11 our request for enforcement action point one, which 12 was that the NRC conduct a review to determine extent 13 of condition, including full inventory of the type, 14 amount, application, and placement of Hemyc and an 15 assessment of the safety significance of each 16 application.
17 This is particularly important to us, with 18 respect to Vermont Yankee. As we stated in our 19 petition, this licensee was available, excuse me, this 20 licensee was aware of the dubious nature of their fire 21 protection barriers dating back to 2001 in the 22 triennial fire inspection. And at that time it was 23 pointed out that the test conducted on the fire 24
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 barrier in the early 1980s were not up to the standard 1
that was required by NRC in Generic Letter 86-10.
2 So what we have is a situation where the 3
licensee has been sitting on this issue aware of the 4
potential for failure of the fire barriers. We 5
understand now that the licensee has identified that 6
there are approximately 50 linear feet of coverage but 7
that, that coverage does include safety significant 8
components. Given their understanding of that, we 9
think it really is important to confirm the full 10 extent of the use of this particular fire barrier.
11 And I think we were unclear in our petition that we 12 are also concerned about the state of fire barrier 13 protection at Vermont Yankee overall. Not just 14 including the Hemyc.
15 It is, we think, important to focus on 16 this at Vermont Yankee because the plant has had a 17 number of fires, two in the last year. So, you know, 18 we see that as a probability of two in 52 weeks or 19 four percent a week. This is not a situation where 20 you can claim that a fire is unlikely.
21 In addition to that, there have been 22 several instances cited in inspection reports over the 23 last few years of cable separation issues, including 24 issues where cable tray covers, or conduit covers, 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 have been left off. And so where one of the primary 1
concerns is to protect electrical cables and one of 2
the sources of fire is damaged cables or shorted 3
cables, we see it as an aggravated situation.
4 And so, you know, we really want to point 5
NRC to examining this question at Vermont Yankee as a 6
-- also as question of whether or not there is a 7
systemic issue.
8 And I think that, by and large, I think 9
that concludes my arguments. Other than that I think 10 the 2.206 can stand on its own.
11 MR. LYONS: Okay, thank you Mr. Shadis.
12 I just wanted to clarify -- the reason that, when we 13 were putting together this summary, we didn't include 14 your number one is that number one is not really a 15 request for enforcement action, which is what 2.206 16 requires -- that you ask for enforcement action. So 17 I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't that were 18 ignoring that, it was just that it wasn't picked up as 19 part of the 2.206.
20 MR. SHADIS: I see. Well, in -- I see. In 21 the interest of moving things along, I would file an 22 amendment to alter that request and, you know, we 23 could also, if the PRB is willing to do it now, 24
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 basically change number one to say that NRC will 1
require the licensee to conduct a review.
2 MR. LYONS: Yes, they're okay. We can do 3
that. And we will certainly look into that aspect of 4
it anyway as we look into this petition, as to the 5
extent of the condition and the --- so I think that 6
would help clarify that.
7 MR. SHADIS: And I appreciate that. And 8
I think that you would understand that what we're 9
looking for here is a full review to determine extent 10 of condition. In other words, not a limited extent of 11 condition review but one that encompasses the recent 12 history of operations, the cable separation issues, 13 other fire protection issues that have arisen and the 14 frequency of fires at Vermont Yankee.
15 MR. LYONS: All right. I'm looking around 16 the room here. Is there anyone here who has any 17 questions of Mr. Shadis?
18 MS. SKAY: This is Donna Skay. I just 19 wanted to clarify, Mr. Shadis, that you're changing 20 number one to asking that the NRC require the licensee 21 to conduct a review of all fire protection 22 applications at Vermont Yankee?
23 MR. SHADIS: Yes.
24 MS. SKAY: Okay, including the Hemyc?
25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SHADIS: Yes.
1 MR. LYONS: Okay.
2 MR. SHADIS: Yes. You know, we see the 3
thermo-lag issues as still of concern. The silicon 4
penetration questions -- I know that technically some 5
of these things have been resolved at NRC, but, in 6
application, what is found at licensees on examination 7
is that these materials have not been properly 8
applied.
9 And so it is of concern to us given that 10 the licensee was aware of the Henyc issue and aware of 11 the dubious character of their tests and did not act 12 in the last three years on this, that I think they 13 needed an incentive. The licensee needs an incentive 14 to take a hard look. And it's appropriate, given the 15 situation, that they take a hard look at their fire 16 protection.
17 MS. SKAY: Mr. Shadis, this is Donna Skay 18 again.
19 MR. SHADIS: Yes.
20 MS. SKAY: I guess to clarify further.
21 Your concern is on the fire barriers themselves as 22 opposed to other fire protection systems. Is that --
23 MR. SHADIS: Well, yes. And we're not 24 talking about sprinkler systems or anything.
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. SKAY: Okay.
1 MR. SHADIS: But with respect to the fire 2
barriers, if there is any intent to substitute 3
operator actions or some other human intervention for 4
these engineered barriers, you know, I think that 5
there needs to be a realistic analysis of the chances 6
of successfully protecting these electrical cables 7
from fire.
8 Although I say electrical cables, but 9
electrical cables and of course, other components.
10 MS. SKAY: Okay. Can you hold on one 11 moment please?
12 MR. SHADIS: Certainly.
13 (BREAK) 14 MS. SKAY: Mr. Shadis, the discussion 15 we're having here is that it appears that the scope of 16 the petition has been expanded quite a bit. And we 17 would like to ask for additional information basis for 18 going beyond the Hemyc issue--
19 MR. SHADIS: Sure.
20 MS. SKAY: -- from you. If you have 21 something that would greatly help us. And if you 22 wanted to discuss it now or provide something in 23 writing.
24
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SHADIS: Well, you know, the only 1
thing that we have immediately that would serve as a 2
reason for, as you stated, expanding on the Hemyc 3
issue is the, what we have in the petition for the 4
history of the behavior of the licensee with respect 5
to an identified safety issue, the potential 6
inadequacy of their previous tests on fire barriers.
7 We have a situation, that, where the 8
safety aspects are aggravated because we don't have an 9
emergency notification system in place that has been 10 certified operable. And we had these two fires over 11 the last year and we've had these cable separation 12 issues. So when, I guess when we're talking about 13 examining the extent of condition, we're really 14 talking about the extent of conditions, the conditions 15 that allowed this application of Hemyc to remain in 16 place.
17 And so not only, you know, the Hemyc 18 itself but how, given notice back in 2001, it remained 19 in this condition. I don't know if that helps, or if 20 that makes it any more clear to you.
21 MS. SKAY: Okay, thank you. Are there any 22 other questions here at headquarters?
23 (Break.)
24
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Does the region have any questions or 1
comments?
2 MR. ANDERSON: Nothing from Region One.
3 MS. SKAY: Okay, thank you, Cliff. And any 4
questions of the petitioner from Entergy?
5 MS. FAISON: Entergy has no comment.
6 MS. SKAY: Okay. Mr. Gunter, do you have 7
any questions?
8 MR. GUNTER: I just have a comment on, in 9
response to your e-mail today --
10 MS. SKAY: Yes.
11 MR. GUNTER: -- that the petitioners who 12 filed on May 12, who consolidated 13 other sites into 13 a petition. We have requested that a petition review 14 board be convened to look at, not only inoperable 15 Hemyc fire barriers at those sites but additionally 16 the MT three hour fire barrier applications that are 17 not in Vermont Yankee.
18 MS. SKAY: Okay. We will be contacting 19 you separately to arrange a time and date for that.
20 MR. GUNTER: Thank you.
21 MS. SKAY: Okay.
22 MR. LYONS: Okay. With that, if there are 23 no other questions or comments, I'd like to thank you 24 Mr. Shadis for providing us with this information and 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 PRB will consider this as we move forward to determine 1
whether or not we're going to accept this as a 2.206 2
petition. And we'll be getting back with you on that 3
in a short period of time.
4 MR. SHADIS: Thank you, Jim. Thank you, 5
everyone.
6 MR. LYONS: All right, thank you very 7
much.
8 MS. SKAY: Thank you.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 10 adjourned.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24