ML12272A287
| ML12272A287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/2012 |
| From: | Schneiderman E State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Marilyn Evans Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Document Control Desk |
| References | |
| Download: ML12272A287 (7) | |
Text
STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC T. SCHNEIDER.MAN DIVISION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU September 19, 2012 Michele G. Evans, Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 - 0001 Re: Violations of Federal Fire Safety Regulations at Indian Point Nuclear Reactors NRC Docket Nos.50-003, 50-247, 50-286
Dear Director Evans:
The State of New York Office of the Attorney General respectfully requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission consider the following comments concerning Entergy Corporation's August 1, 2012 comments ("Entergy's Comments") on the Director's Proposed Decision Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 and July 11, 2012 letter to NRC Region I that unilaterally revised the number and timing of Entergy's efforts to correct fire safety violations at Indian Point.1 This letter also responds to NRC Staffs September 6, 2012 email, inquiry to the State.
Entergy Effort to Recharacterize NRC Enforcement Entergy improperly seeks to recharacterize the Director's proposed decision. The proposed decision states, "the NRC is granting the [Attorney General's] request to identify violations of fire protection regulations at Indian Point and to take appropriate enforcement actions as part of planned inspection activities" and, "as specified above, the NRC is granting the Petitioner's request that the licensee be brought into compliance." Proposed Decision at p. 9, p.
- 10. Entergy states in its Comments (at p. 1) its "belief" that NRC "is not granting the [Attorney General's March 28, 2012 enforcement] request." Entergy wishes to minimize or re-characterize the proposed enforcement action; however, its invitation for revision is so thoroughly at odds with the plain language of the proposed decision that its request should be rejected.
Entergy's August 1, 2012 comments and its July I1, 2012 letter were both first made publicly available in ADAMS on August 9, 2012, over a week after this Office submitted comments on the Proposed Director's Decision.
120 Broadway, 26th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10271-0332
- Phone (212) 416-8446
- Fax (212) 416-6007
Entergy incorrectly contends that, rather than enforcing the fire safety regulations at Indian Point through a decision responsive to the Attorney General's petition, the NRC is merely "following the requirements and protocols established in the regulatory oversight process."
Entergy Comments, page 1. From this Entergy asserts that the final decision, which Entergy characterizes as a "letter," should "indicate that the [regulatory oversight process] is a mature process that provides guidance to the NRC and licensees." Id. What the "maturity" of the NRC's regulatory oversight process has to do with enforcing' the 1980 federal fire safety regulations is unclear, but Entergy's assertion that "the actions taken by the NRC would have been taken regardless of the NY State petition" is inconsistent with the record here.
The Attorney General respectfully submits that since NRC plainly stated that NRC was granting the Attorney General's petition, Entergy's "belief' that the federal regulator should recharacterize its proposed action provides no basis for such a change. The facts remain that for 10 years before the Attorney General's petition, Entergy operated two nuclear power reactors that did not comply with the federal fire safety regulations, and that NRC attributed its enforcement actions against the violations to the Attorney General's request.
New York Requested Identification and Correction of All Fire Safety Violations at Indian Point As this Office pointed out in its August 1, 2012 comments on the Director's proposed decision, the Attorney General's petition requested that NRC identify all fire safety violations at all Indian Point plants, enforce compliance by September 11, 2011, and hold an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate violations. On September 6, 2012 NRC Staff sent this Office an email that appears to be based on the assumption that the Attorney General's petition focused on NRC staff's review of the fire safety exemptions Entergy requested on March 6, 2009. See September 6, 2012 email from Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit, United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to John J. Sipos, New York State Attorney General's Office (copy attached). The Attorney General's petition did not focus exclusively on Entergy's March 6, 2009 exemption requests. Rather, it pointed to this exemption requests as among the several facts that NRC should examine in the course of a comprehensive identification and correction of Indian Point fire safety violations.
The NRC Staff's mistaken assumption that the Attorney General's petition focused on review of the fire safety exemptions Entergy requested on March 6, 2009 apparently has caused Staff to recommend that the final decision address only violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix R, Paragraph III,G. Id. Such a result would not be responsive to the Attorney General's explicit request that the NRC identify and correct both Paragraph III, F and Paragraph III, G violations at Indian Point. State of New York Attorney General's March 28, 2011 petition,
- p. 22. Indeed, NRC staff acknowledges that the Attorney General requested enforcement of both Paragraph II, F and Paragraph ILL, G at Indian Point. See September 7, 2012 Monthly 10 CFR 2.206, "Requests for Action Under This Subpart," Status Report, p. 6 (ML12244A060).
Entergy may well have requested exemptions only from Paragraph III, G. See id. However, Entergy cannot change and has not changed the scope of the Attorney General enforcement petition -which also included the Paragraph III, F requirements.
2
The NRC Staff's mistaken assumption that the Attorney General's petition focused on Entergy's March 6, 2009 fire safety exemption requests apparently has also caused Staff to recommend that the final decision ignore violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix R, Paragraph III, F at Indian Point. In its September 6, 2012 email to State of New York Attorney General's Office, NRC Staff proposed that the final decision "clearly stat[e]" that the final decision "does not discuss violations of Paragraph III.F." September 6, 2012 email from Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit, United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to John J. Sipos, New York State Attorney General's Office. Such a result would be inconsistent with the Attorney General's request that all Indian Point fire safety violations be expeditiously identified and corrected. Instead of ignoring Paragraph III, F violations, the final decision should direct that all such violations at Indian Point be corrected as soon as possible.
Identification and Correction of All Fire Safety Violations at Indian Point Is Needed The need for the comprehensive identification and correction of Indian Point fire safety violations that the Attorney General requested is confirmed by Entergy's recent acknowledgement of the existence of Indian Point fire safety violations the company did not mention in its March 9, 2009 exemption requests. In a July 11, 2012 letter to the NRC Entergy states (at p. 2) that certain operator manual actions ("OMAs") at Indian Point Unit 2 "were inadvertently omitted from the exemption request process were added to Fire Area/Zone F/7A as OMAs 20 and 21 ." July 11, 2012 Letter from John A. Ventosa, Site Vice President Administration, Indian Point Energy Center, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, to William M. Dean, Regional Administrator, USNRC Region I (ML12220A006). Thus, there is no question that fire safety violations are more extensive than the limited number which Entergy asked be exempted in March 2009.
The September 6, 2012 NRC staff email office notes that in its March 6, 2009 fire safety exemptions requests 2 the Entergy Corporation did not request exemption from the requirements of ¶ III.F of Appendix R - Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979 to 10 CFR Part 50. Given the need for comprehensive identification and correction of Indian Point fire safety violations, Entergy's failure to request exemption of violations of¶ III.F of Appendix R has no significance.
New Indian Point Fire Safety Violations Identified The July 11, 2012 Entergy letter states (at p. 2 of 3) that certain operator manual actions
("OMA") at Indian Point Unit 2 that "were inadvertently omitted from the exemption request process were added to Fire Area/Zone F/7A as OMAs 20 and 21." These new additions to the public information about fire safety violations at Indian Point reinforce the Attorney General's request for identification of all existing Indian Point fire code violations.
2 Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Paragraph III.G.2 for Use of Operator Manual Actions for Indian Point Unit No. 2 (availableat ML090770151) and Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Paragraph III.G.2 for Use of Operator Manual Actions for Indian Point Unit No. 3 (availableat ML090760993).
3
Although Entergy makes no mention of the way its fire safety violation oversights were discovered, it seems clear that NRC, and not the company, identified the fire safety violations associated with OMAs 20 and 21. See August 16, 2012 letter from John Rogge (NRC) to John Ventosa (Entergy) and Inspection Report and Notices of Violation (ML12229A128). The fire safety violations associated with OMAs 20 and 21 have existed since at least-June 30, 2006. Id at Enclosure I - Notice of Violation - Indian Point Unit 2.
Confirmation of Indian Point Unit 1 Involvement in Fire Safety Violations The Director's Proposed Decision states at page 5 that "systems, structures, and components for [Indian Point] Unit No. 1 are not applicable to" the Attorney General's petition requesting identification and elimination of Indian Point fire safety violations. The Attorney General's August 1, 2012 Comments on the proposed decision pointed out (at p. 4) that there are fire safety violations at Indian Point Unit No. 1. Entergy confirms the existence of fire safety violations at Indian Point Unit No. I when it requests modification of the proposed decision on the grounds that:
The IP2 Appendix R/SBO diesel generator is in Fire Zone 360 in Fire Area J and Entergy requested exemptions for OMAs in other fire zones (17, 19, 25, 39A, 43A, 45A, 46A, 47A, 50A, 270) that are also in Fire Area J. The OMA in Fire Zone 17 was approved but this zone is far distant from Fire Zone 360 - Fire Zone 360 is located on the 33' elevation of the Unit 1 Turbine Building and Fire Zone 17 is located on the 15' elevation of the Unit 2 Turbine Building, North end (Turbine Lube Oil Reservoir).
August 1, 2012 Entergy Comments on Proposed Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206, at I (emphasis added). To the extent that any electrical cable necessary for the safe shut down of Unit 2 or Unit 3 runs through any Unit I building or structure, those cables are within the scope of the Attorney General's petition.
Unjustified Delay in Eliminating Indian Point Fire Safety Violations On page 1 of its August 1, 2012 Comments on the proposed decision, Entergy states:
Exceptions to projected completion involve plant modifications for Indian Point Units No. 3 and No. 2, which will not be completed until the spring 2013 and 2014 refueling outages respectively because those modifications involve ... activities that require plant outages to install said modifications.
However, Entergy does not justify the continued delay in remedying these long-standing fire safety violations for two years until it is convenient for Entergy.
In an attempt to justify its less-than-prompt compliance, Entergy mentions that it is 4
However, Entergy does not justify the continued delay in remedying these long-standing fire safety violations for two years until it is convenient for Entergy.
In an attempt to justify its less-than-prompt compliance, Entergy menitions that it is working on engineering studies, but the pace of such work is entirely under Entergy's control and apparently Entergy is in no rush - and under no pressure - to end the violations. If the engineering studies are not yet completed, those at risk from an Indian Point fire deserve expeditious completion of such preparatory efforts and the prompt elimination of these long-standing violations. The Indian Point facilities have been out of compliance with the federal fire safety regulations for far too long; New Yorkers should not have to wait for the next regular reftieling outage at each reactor for the facilities to come into compliance with the federal fire regulations that were issued back in 1980.
Conclusion If it does not have a comprehensive list of Indian Point fire safety violations, NRC should take the actions necessary to create and publish such a list expeditiously. If NRC does have a comprehensive list of Indian Point fire safety violations, this fact should be stated in the final decision, the list should be made public, and NRC should correct all such violations as soon as possible.
Very t uy yours, etc.
Charlie Donaldson John Sipos Assistant Attorneys General cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 (NRC Docket Nos.50-003, 50-247, 50-286)
Referenced Correspondence:
NL-12-093; July 11, 2012 Letter from John A. Ventosa, Site Vice President Administration, Indian Point Energy Center, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, to William M. Dean, Regional Administrator, USNRC Region I, 2100 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 100, King of Prussia, PA 19406-2713
Subject:
Revision to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Operator Manual Actions (ML12220A006) 5
- Comments on Proposed Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 to NL-12-109; August 1, 2012 Letter from Robert Walpole, Licensing Manager, Indian Point Energy Center, Entergy Nuclear Northeast (sic), to U.S. NRC,
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 dated July 2, 2012.regarding March 28, 2011 petition from New York State on compliance with fire protection regulations (ML12219A307)
August 1, 2012 State of New York Attorney General's Comments on Proposed Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 August 16, 2012 letter from John F. Rogge, Chief, Engineering Branch 3, Division of Reactor Safety, NRC Region I, to John Ventosa, Site Vice President, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Indian Point Energy Center,
Subject:
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 - NRC Inspection Report and Notices of Violation (ML12229A128)
September 6, 2012 email from Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit, United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to John J. Sipos, New York State Attorney General's Office September 7, 2012 Monthly 10 CFR 2.206, "Requests for Action Under This Stibpart," Status Report (ML12244A060) 6
STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 120 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10271-0332 ' :A56 $ 01-100 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 02 71 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 it1,11111!
1111111 i i'l 111111111 1.111 1, it11
- 11tv! it,,Nifri;