ML072760605
| ML072760605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/2007 |
| From: | Martinelli S, Penstinger R Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) |
| To: | Klein D NRC/Chairman |
| Boska J, NRR, 301-415-2901 | |
| References | |
| EDATS: SECY-2007-0416, G20070699, LTR-07-0666, SECY-2007-0416 | |
| Download: ML072760605 (11) | |
Text
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE:
/
EDO CONTROL: G20070699 DOC DT: 09/28/07 FINAL REPLY:
Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA TO:
Chairman Klein FOR SIGNATURE OF :
GRN CRC NO: 07-0666 DESC:
ROUTING:
Indian Point (EDATS: SECY-2007-0416)
Reyes Virgilio Kane Ash Ordaz Cyr/Burns
- Collins, RI DATE: 10/03/07 ASSIGNED TO:
NRR CONTACT:
Dyer SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
For Appropriate Action.
EDATS Number: SECY-2007-0416 Source: SECY GnrlInfrmtin Assigned To: NRR Other Assignees:
Subject:
Indian Point
==
Description:==
OEDO Due Date: NONE SECY Due Date: NONE CC Routing: Region I ADAMS Accession Numbers - Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE Ote nomto Cross Reference Number: G20070699, LTR-07-0666 Related Task:
File Routing: EDATS Staff Initiated: NO Recurring Item: NO Agency Lesson Learned: NO Roadmap Item: NO Action Type: Appropriate Action Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Signature Level: No Signature Required Urgency: NO OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions: For Appropriate Action.
Originator Name: Sherwood Martinelli Date of Incoming: 9/28/2007 Originating Organization: FUSE USA Document Received by SECY Date: 10/2/2007 Addressee: Chairman Klein Date Response Requested by Originator: NONE Incoming Task Received: E-mail Page 1 of I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Oct 01, 2007 16:31 PAPER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
LTR-07-0666 ED/GC LOGGING DATE:
10/01/2007 AUTHOR:
AFFILIATION:
ADDRESSEE:
SUBJECT:
Sherwood Martinelli NY Dale Klein Comments on proposed NRC actions ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
LETTER DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING:
Appropriate Chairnman, Corers, OGC 09/30/2007 No Made publicly available in ADAMS via EDO/DPC NOTES:
FILE LOCATION:
ADAMS DATE DUE:
DATE SIGNED:
EDO -- G20070699
Page 1 of 5 CHAIRMAN - Comments on proposed NRC actions.
From:
<RoycePenstinger@aol.com>
To:
<chairman@nrc.gov>, <fxc@nrc.gov>, <rsbl @nrc.gov>, <nas@nrc.gov>
Date:
09/30/2007 4:29:33 PM
Subject:
Comments on proposed NRC actions.
CC:
<gerishapiro@clinton.senate.gov>, <Palisadesart@aol.com>, <ulrich@ulrichwitte.com>, <acer8sac@comcast.net>,
<deb@nukebusters.org>, <info@ctgreenscene.org>, <garyfromvermont@yahoo.com>, <remyc@prodigy.net>,
<ipsecsteer@yahoogroups.com>, <crotonshaw@optonline.net>
Dear NRC:
It has just come to my attention that the NRC intends to mutate an already existing exemption for the Indian Point 3 nuclear reactor...specifically, the proposed action would revise the January 7, 1987 safety evaluation (SE) to reflect.that the installed Hemyc electrical raceway fire barrier system (ERFBS) configurations provide either a 30-minute fire resistance rating, or in one case a 24-minute fire resistance rating, in lieu of the previously stated 1-hour fire resistance rating. As Vice President of FUSE USA, I first and foremost disagree with the NRC's contention that said action of altering and already existing exemption poses no significant environmental affects. Any time a plant is allowed to LOWER it's safety level and/or standards, there is a quantum increase in the level of risk to human health and the environment. In this case, we have the NRC wanting to further lower standards that are already lower than those required by NRC Regs.
- 1. The January 7, 1987 SE granted Indian Point has already reduced safety margins, and contrary to the NRC's claims that post-fire-shutdown capability remains materially the same is'not telling the WHOLE STORY.
- 2. Entergy was/is required as a part of their LRA to summit to the NRC a full list of all exemptions they wish to carry over into their new license should their License Renewal Application be granted. As a part of that list, Entergy was/is required to include a full and complete analysis justifying why they feel said exemption should be carried over into a new superceding license.
A) They have not abided by this section of the 10 CFR Part 54 rules fully and completely.
B) With each of these new alterations, such as this proposed exemption, the LRA gets more and more complicated. As example, I have only recently found out that the NRC granted Entergy a significant amendment to their license that substantially changes the DB as represented in their LRA. (Change of Tech Specs amendment is almost 400 pages in length.)
C) The exemption that the NRC is considering granting lowers and already lowered standard as relates to public health and safety, and the protection of our environment. It is necessary to gauge this change or alteration to the existing exemption not against the exemption now in place, but by the rule the exemption pertains too. If you look at the rule itself, and compare the exemption change to that, it becomes quite substantial.
D) No exemptions or relief should be granted any licensee during the period of LRA review, as it changes significantly the entire weighing process the public is going through in preparing our contentions, on what is or is not important moving forward with our considerations about plant safety, and license renew. We as stakeholders cannot hit a constantly moving target, and every relief, every amendment to the license, every exemption granted affects the whole, not just a singular part of it.
- 3. NRC Bulletin 92-01 further identifies that under certain fire conditions, the thermal degradation of inoperable electrical raceway fire barrier systems could lead to both trains of safe shutdown systems being damaged by fire. These inoperable fire barriers clearly include Thermo-Lag, HEMYC and MT fire barrier systems that are widely deployed throughout Indian Point.
NRC Bulletin 92-01 concludes that these practices may significantly affect the plant's ability to achieve and maintain hot standby/shutdown conditions.
The continued existence of such conditions is in violation of the Indian Point 3 Current Licensing Basis. The already existing exemption has 1P3 in violation of their CLB, and is and issue that MUST BE ADDRESSED before the site can be relicensed.
This condition DOES affect the licensee's ability to safely shutdown and maintain the reactor, and this exemption mutation/alteration would further impinge on Entergy's ability to fulfill their obligation to have adequate safeguards in place too successfully and safely bring the reactor to a cold shut down, and that reality, the fact they are OUTSIDE OF THEIR CLB makes this alteration of the currently existing exemption worthy of and EIS.
Entergy, instead of seeking the required NRC safety analysis and approval through the exemption process, has substituted inadequate compensatory measures, such as unanalyzed, unapproved and therefore illegal operator manual actions that do little to reasonably and reliably assure that, in a manner consistent with other safety requirements, the probability and effects of 0
file://C:\\ternp\\GW}OOO0l.HTM 1 0/01/2007
Page 2 of 5 fire have been minimized to protect plant workers and the public when the safe shutdown of the plant is required in emergency situations. More disturbing, the NRC has in effect simply BORROWED, word for word from and EPRI study on this issue in creating their supposed justification for granting a change to the already existing exemption for the plant.
Contrary to promulgated regulations that Entergy is already EXEMPT FROM, in the event of a fire, these exemption changes, coupled with the original exemption allow for fire damage to destroy Entergy's ability to control the safe shutdown and maintenance of the reactor from the control room, and instead, attempt to compensate for this by expecting plant workers throughout the reactor complex to react perfectly, and to respond heroically..The workers would be, at every step of the way, hindered or halted by smoke, fire, radiation, or security risks and be required to manually operate circuit breakers, fuses and valves that are vital to safe shutdown and maintaince of the reactor. In many instances, the poorly thought out and granted current exemption at Indian Point, in the case of a fire will involve multiple actions requiring tools, keys, ladders and other equipment in critically time-sensitive and potentially life threatening situations where only heroic actions can prevent significant reactor core damage.. This proposed action by the NRC, and the claim it presents no significant environmental risk is the perfect example of NRC licensees pocketbooks being given priority over human health, public safety and the environment.
- 4. Spurious-of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED b : of a deceitful nature or quality <spurious excuses>
I post this dictionary meaning of the word spurious for a reason. In and EPRI document on this very subject, they state, not once but twice (as relates to guidance for the industry) they (EPRI) are giving guidance and suggested analysis to help do a post fire analysis based upon such factors as spurious use of equipment.
What and interesting, and extremely disturbing choice of verbage on the part of EPRI. Here is the entire skinny on EPRI's suggested guidelines from this stakeholders perspective. If you know particular circuits and/or wiring systems are problematic, figure out a formula whereby you can justify removing them from the matrix that counts toward meeting your fire requirements.
It takes me back to college. I had professors who would allow us, after the tests had been graded, to argue our answers or his, and if we presented a good case, the question would be thrown out, thus raising our own grade. I am very good at presenting sound arguments, even when it was obvious what the right answer was. As a result, the few questions I missed in a test I was able to have successfully tossed. The difference here is simple...I was arguing toget and A+ instead of and A on a test, while Entergy is trying to toss out safeguards meant to protect human health and safety.
- 5. On July 16th, 2004 as a part of the NRC changes to their fire protection requirements, it was decided that ANY CHANGES to a licensees fire protection plans would require a "Change Evaluation". A change in any aspect of a licensees fire plan (including exemptions) changes literally every aspect of the fire protection plan and schematics. In short, the proposed change would require that the licensee conduct a change evaluation on their ENTIRE FIRE PROGRAM at the Indian Point plant, and this issue has not been adequately addressed.
NEI 04-02 attempts to mitigate NRC's requirement of a "Change Evaluation" by writing guidance that narrows the scope of when a licensee must conduct a "Change Evaluation". However, the NRC's 2004 edict states otherwise. It specifically states, that a "Change Evaluation" is required for any change or modification to and already approved part of a licensee's fire plan. As the Proposed Action announcement points out, the NRC wants to grant a modification to-and already granted/approved part of Entergy's fire plan for IP3. Therefore, it is imperative before such a change is granted, that Entergy must conduct a full and complete "Change Evaluation" of their entire fire plan for IP3 with full and complete public involvement in the process.
Therefore, we contest the NRC's view that this exemption change would not constitute a significant environmental risk, would not significantly elevate risk scenarios as relates to and incident involving a fire at Indian Point. We therefore request the following actions be granted in part or whole in this action.
- 1. The exemption be denied, and/or
- 2. Entergy be ordered to complete and full and complete "Change Evaluation of their entire Indian Point Fire Plan before this exemption be considered ripe for action on the part of the NRC, and/or
- 3. The NRC order a complete EIS as relates to this proposed action.
Respectfully, Sherwood Martinelli Vice President of FUSE USA 351 Dyckman Street Peekskill, New York 10566 914 293-7458 For those on this CC list. I have taken the liberty of pasting below the NRC notice on this action. We have only TEN DAYS to oppose, it. So, please post this to any and all of your email trees and list serves.
file://C:\\temp\\GW} 00001.HTM 10/01/2007
Page 3 of 5 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Friday, September 28, 2007; Posted: 08:50 AM Sep 28, 2007 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) -- ETR I charts I news I PowerRating -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of a revision of existing exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, appendix R, "Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979," for Fire Areas ETN-4 and PAB-2, issued to Entergy Nuclea r Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3),. located in Westchester County, NY. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action Would revise the January 7, 1987 safety evaluation (SE) to reflect that the installed Hemyc electrical raceway fire barrier system (ERFBS) configurations provide either a 30-minute fire resistance rating, or in one case a 24-minute fire resistance rating, in lieu of the previously stated 1-hour fire resistance rating. The licensee states that a Hemyc ERFBS fire resistance rating will provide sufficient protection for the affected raceways, with adequate margin, to continue to meet the intent of the original requests for exemption and conclusions presented in the NRC's January 7, 1987, SE. The licensee concludes that the revised fire resistance rating of the Hemyc ERFBS does not reflect a reduction in overall fire safety, and presents no added challenge to the credited post-fire safe-shutdown capability which remains materially unchanged from the configuration originally described in previous letters and as credited in the January 7, 1987, SE.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated July 24, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated April 30, May 23, and August 16, 2007.
The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed revision of existing exemptions from 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, is needed in response to NRC Information Notice 2005-07. The information notice provided licensees the details of Hemyc ERFBS full-scale fire tests conducted by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The test results concluded that the Hemyc ERFBS does not provide the level of protection expected for a 1-hour rated fire barrier, as originally designed. The proposed revision to existing exemptions would revise the fire resistance rating of Hemyc ERFBS configurations.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its SE of the proposed action and concludes that the configuration of the fire zones under review
- provide reasonable assurance that a severe fire is not plausible and the existing fire protection features are adequate. The details of the staffs SE will be provided in the exemptions that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption. Based on the presence of redundant safe-shutdown trains, minimal fire hazards and combustibles, automatic cable tray fire suppression system, manual fire suppression features, fire barrier protection, existing Hemyc configuration, and the installed smoke detection system, the NRC staff finds that the use of this Hemyc fire barrier in these zones will not significantly increase the consequences from a fire in these fire zones.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site.
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no significant increase 'in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
file://C:\\temp\\GW} 00001.HTM 10/01/2007
Page 4 of 5 Enironmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the "no-action" alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for IP3, dated February, 1975.
Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on February 13, 2007, the NRC staff consulted with the New York State official, Alyse Peterson of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the.human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated July 24, 2006, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML062140057, as supplemented on April 30, 2007, ADAMS accession number ML071280504, May 23, 2007, ADAMS accession number ML071520177, and August 16, 2007, ADAMS accession number ML072400369. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
[Page Number 55255]
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of September 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-19245 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P Vol. 72, No. 188
[Docket No. 50-286]
file://C:\\temp\\GW}00001.HTM 10/01/2007
Page 5 of 5 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepacge.
file://C:\\temp\\GW} 00001.HTM 10/01/2007
Mail Envelope Properties (4700071E.7A8 : 5:26536)
Subject:
Comments on proposed NRC actions.
Creation Date Sun, Sep 30, 2007 4:28 PM From:
<RoycePenstinger(aol.com>
Created By:
RoycePenstinger(aaol.com Recipients nrc.gov kplpo.KPDO NAS (Neil Sheehan)
RSB1 (Richard Barkley) nrc.gov OWGWPOO1.HQGWDOO1 FXC (Francis Cameron) nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 CHAIRMAN optonline.net crotonshaw CC yahoogroups.com ipsecsteer CC prodigy.net remyc CC yahoo.com garyfromvermont CC ctgreenscene.org info CC nukebusters.org deb CC comcast.net acer8sac CC ulrichwitte.com
I...........................................................
T M P.......
P.......g e...
2..
cAtempýGW)O0001.TMP
_ plýýQýý 2,11 ulrich CC aol. com Palisadesart CC clinton. senate. gov geri shapiro CC.
Post Office kplpo.KPDO OWGWPOO1.HQGWDOO1 OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 Route nrc.gov nrc.gov nrc.gov optonline.net yahoogroups.com prodigy.net yahoo.corn ctgreenscene.org nukebusters.org comcast.net ulrichwitte.corn aol.com clinton. senate. gov Files MESSAGE TEXT.htrn Mime.822 Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
Size 18098 28719 50453 Date & Time Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:28 PM None
.Standard No None No Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled
ro:\\ternp\\Gý/}OOOO1.TMP Page 3ý Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled