ML13086A633: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 04/10/2013
| issue date = 04/10/2013
| title = G20120955 - Response to 2.206 Petitioner Michael Mulligan Vermont Yankee
| title = G20120955 - Response to 2.206 Petitioner Michael Mulligan Vermont Yankee
| author name = Muessle M C
| author name = Muessle M
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DPR
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DPR
| addressee name = Mulligan M
| addressee name = Mulligan M
Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 10, 2013 Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box 161 Hinsdale, NH 03451  
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 10, 2013 Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box 161 Hinsdale, NH 03451


==Dear Mr. Mulligan:==
==Dear Mr. Mulligan:==


Your letter dated December 5, 2012, addressed to Mr. R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations, has been referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206. In your petition, you requested a number of actions including immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) because you state that "the NRC and Entergy can't keep their nuclear safety paperwork and documents (Licensee Event Reports (LERs) and NRC Inspection Reports) accurate and up-to-date." The Petition Review Board (PRB) met on December 20, 2012, and denied your request for immediate action to shutdown VY. The PRB determined that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant or to the public health and safety justifying the immediate shutdown of VY. On December 21,2012, you were informed of the PRB's decision on the immediate action and you requested to address the PRB prior to its initial meeting to provide supplemental information for the PRB's consideration.
Your letter dated December 5, 2012, addressed to Mr. R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations, has been referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
By teleconference on January 9, 2013, you addressed the PRB to discuss your petition.
Section 2.206. In your petition, you requested a number of actions including immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) because you state that "the NRC and Entergy can't keep their nuclear safety paperwork and documents (Licensee Event Reports (LERs) and NRC Inspection Reports) accurate and up-to-date."
The Petition Review Board (PRB) met on December 20, 2012, and denied your request for immediate action to shutdown VY. The PRB determined that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant or to the public health and safety justifying the immediate shutdown of VY.
On December 21,2012, you were informed of the PRB's decision on the immediate action and you requested to address the PRB prior to its initial meeting to provide supplemental information for the PRB's consideration. By teleconference on January 9, 2013, you addressed the PRB to discuss your petition.
On January 23, 2013, the PRB held its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation, in accordance with the criteria provided in Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions." The PRB's decision was to reject the petition on the grounds that all the items requested in the petition either did not meet the criteria for review or met the criteria for rejection.
On January 23, 2013, the PRB held its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation, in accordance with the criteria provided in Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions." The PRB's decision was to reject the petition on the grounds that all the items requested in the petition either did not meet the criteria for review or met the criteria for rejection.
As support for the PRB's initial recommendation, there was an initial LER in 2010 for which a supplemental LER was submitted on March 2011, which did correct the information that was found to be faulty. The cause of the safety relief valve (SRV) seal material failure was corrected from defective seal material to thermal degradation.
As support for the PRB's initial recommendation, there was an initial LER in 2010 for which a supplemental LER was submitted on March 2011, which did correct the information that was found to be faulty. The cause of the safety relief valve (SRV) seal material failure was corrected from defective seal material to thermal degradation. You refer to an error stating a 2009 refueling outage in the NRC Inspection Report 0500027112012004 dated October 31,2014, which was actually a 2010 refueling outage. You were correct that this was an error, but there was no safety concern associated with the error.
You refer to an error stating a 2009 refueling outage in the NRC Inspection Report 0500027112012004 dated October 31,2014, which was actually a 2010 refueling outage. You were correct that this was an error, but there was no safety concern associated with the error. The SRVs now have fully qualified seal material installed in the actuators, i.e. Viton, installed during the 2011 refueling outage. There is no safety concern at this time which would justify the immediate shutdown of VY.
The SRVs now have fully qualified seal material installed in the actuators, i.e. Viton, installed during the 2011 refueling outage. There is no safety concern at this time which would justify the immediate shutdown of VY.
Mulligan -Your requests as you state in the petition are listed below, each followed by the PRB recommendation. Request Vermont Yankee be fined $10 million for not keeping required federal "comic book" documents fully accurate, current and up-to-date.
 
M. Mulligan                                     - 2 Your requests as you state in the petition are listed below, each followed by the PRB recommendation.
: 1. Request Vermont Yankee be fined $10 million for not keeping required federal "comic book" documents fully accurate, current and up-to-date.
This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. Vermont Yankee has submitted the LER in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) as an operation or condition prohibited by Technical Specifications.
This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. Vermont Yankee has submitted the LER in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) as an operation or condition prohibited by Technical Specifications.
Further, there was an initial LER in 2010 for which a supplemental LER was submitted which did correct information that was found to be faulty. The only further difference between the 2010 LER and the NRC Inspection Report is a reference to local temperature in the LER versus the NRC inspection report making a more general statement of material not being qualified for the temperature. Request a Department of Justice/FBI investigation of these events. In accordance with MD 8.11, this request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. However, the petition and the transcript have been forwarded to the NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Request an investigation nationwide with equipment and components not being accident qualified in any nuclear plant containments especially max temperatures and radiation.
Further, there was an initial LER in 2010 for which a supplemental LER was submitted which did correct information that was found to be faulty. The only further difference between the 2010 LER and the NRC Inspection Report is a reference to local temperature in the LER versus the NRC inspection report making a more general statement of material not being qualified for the temperature.
You stated that the NRC allowed the plants to operate knowingly with unsafe components with inoperable safety functions.
: 2. Request a Department of Justice/FBI investigation of these events.
However, this request does not meet the criteria for review per MD 8.11 because you did not provide sufficient information to support the claims. However, the petition and the transcript have been forwarded to the NRC's OIG. The NRC has a rigorous Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) in which inspections are conducted throughout the year to ensure that power reactor facilities are operated safely and the licensee activities do not pose an undue risk to public health and safety. Request the formation of a local public oversight panel around every plant. This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. This request does not meet the criteria for a 2.206 petition. Formation of an emergency NRC senior official oversight panel with the aims of reforming the ROP. This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. This request does not meet the criteria for a 2.206 petition.
In accordance with MD 8.11, this request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. However, the petition and the transcript have been forwarded to the NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
: 3. Request an investigation nationwide with equipment and components not being accident qualified in any nuclear plant containments especially max temperatures and radiation.
You stated that the NRC allowed the plants to operate knowingly with unsafe components with inoperable safety functions. However, this request does not meet the criteria for review per MD 8.11 because you did not provide sufficient information to support the claims.
However, the petition and the transcript have been forwarded to the NRC's OIG. The NRC has a rigorous Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) in which inspections are conducted throughout the year to ensure that power reactor facilities are operated safely and the licensee activities do not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
: 4. Request the formation of a local public oversight panel around every plant.
This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. This request does not meet the criteria for a 2.206 petition.
: 5. Formation of an emergency NRC senior official oversight panel with the aims of reforming the ROP.
This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. This request does not meet the criteria for a 2.206 petition.
: 6. Formation of a national NRC oversight panel of outsiders.
: 6. Formation of a national NRC oversight panel of outsiders.
Mulligan -3 This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. The Inspector General, who provides oversight of NRC actions, reports directly to the U.S. Congress.
 
Any further oversight would have to be authorized by the U.S. Congress. Request massive reforms within the 2.206 system and their directives.
M. Mulligan                                     -3 This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. The Inspector General, who provides oversight of NRC actions, reports directly to the U.S. Congress. Any further oversight would have to be authorized by the U.S.
The system doesn't serve the public and their communities.
Congress.
This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. Request a comprehensive extent of cause/condition outsider professional investigation over the environmental temperature qualification of the SRV leaking pneumatic actuator.
: 7. Request massive reforms within the 2.206 system and their directives. The system doesn't serve the public and their communities.
This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. The NRC has a rigorous ROP in which inspections are conducted throughout the year to ensure that power reactor facilities are operated safely and the licensee activities do not pose an undue risk to public health and safety. Stated the outcome of this half truth environment and inspection report is truth gaming, the employees will turn off all their nuclear safety equipment and fill up all these plants with cheap defective components in the name of doing good and altruism.
This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206.
This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. Request a detailed report on the new 400 degree Viton material installed.
: 8. Request a comprehensive extent of cause/condition outsider professional investigation over the environmental temperature qualification of the SRV leaking pneumatic actuator.
This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. On March 21, 2013, you were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation.
This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. The NRC has a rigorous ROP in which inspections are conducted throughout the year to ensure that power reactor facilities are operated safely and the licensee activities do not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
You requested a second opportunity to address the PRB to provide additional information in support of the petition request. On April 2, 2013, you addressed the PRB by teleconference.
: 9. Stated the outcome of this half truth environment and inspection report is truth gaming, the employees will turn off all their nuclear safety equipment and fill up all these plants with cheap defective components in the name of doing good and altruism.
You did not provide any additional information; therefore the PRB's initial recommendation became final.
This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206.
M. Mulligan -4 The PRB's final determination is to reject your petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it does not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. Sincerely, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271 cc: Distribution via Listserv M. Mulligan The PRB's final determination is to reject your petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it does not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206. OFFICE LPL 1-1/PM LPL 1-1/LA R1/BC* DPR/PM LPL 1-1/BC(A)
: 10. Request a detailed report on the new 400 degree Viton material installed.
DPRIDD NAME JKim KGoldstein RBeliamy MBanic SMeighan MMuessle DATE 04/03/13 03/28/13 04/02/13 04/09/13 04/10/13 04/1 VI I':> Docket No. 50-271 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:
This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry.
G20120955 PUBLIC LPL 1-1 RlF RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsOeMailCenter RidsOiMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn 1 MailCenter RidsOcaMailCenter RidsNrrLAKGoldstein RidsNrrMailCTR RidNrrPMMillstone RidsNrrPMVermontYankee RidsNrrOd RidsEDOMailCenter MBanic, NRR JBillerbeck, NRR MRazzaque, NRR RBellamY,RI LCox, NRR P ac k age: ML13086A623 I ncommg: Sincerely, Ira! Mary C. Muessle, Deputy Division of Policy and Office of Nuclear Reactor ML 12347A153 R esponse: ML 13086A633
On March 21, 2013, you were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation. You requested a second opportunity to address the PRB to provide additional information in support of the petition request. On April 2, 2013, you addressed the PRB by teleconference. You did not provide any additional information; therefore the PRB's initial recommendation became final.
*V*laem ail OFFICIAL RECORD COpy}}
 
M. Mulligan                                   -4 The PRB's final determination is to reject your petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it does not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
Sincerely,     ~
                                            ~ueSSle,            Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271 cc: Distribution via Listserv
 
M. Mulligan                                   -4 The PRB's final determination is to reject your petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it does not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
Sincerely, Ira!
Mary C. Muessle, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: G20120955 PUBLIC LPL1-1 RlF RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsOeMailCenter RidsOiMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn 1MailCenter RidsOcaMailCenter RidsNrrLAKGoldstein RidsNrrMailCTR RidNrrPMMillstone RidsNrrPMVermontYankee RidsNrrOd RidsEDOMailCenter MBanic, NRR JBillerbeck, NRR MRazzaque, NRR RBellamY,RI LCox, NRR Pac kage: ML13086A623 Incommg: ML12347A153                    Response: ML13086A633 *V*l aem ail OFFICE LPL1-1/PM         LPL 1-1/LA   R1/BC*         DPR/PM         LPL1-1/BC(A) DPRIDD NAME     JKim           KGoldstein   RBeliamy       MBanic         SMeighan     MMuessle DATE     04/03/13       03/28/13     04/02/13       04/09/13       04/10/13     04/1 VI I':>
OFFICIAL RECORD COpy}}

Latest revision as of 21:11, 4 November 2019

G20120955 - Response to 2.206 Petitioner Michael Mulligan Vermont Yankee
ML13086A633
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 04/10/2013
From: Mary Muessle
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
To: Mulligan M
- No Known Affiliation
Kim J
Shared Package
ML13086A623 List:
References
G20120955, TAC MF0366
Download: ML13086A633 (5)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 10, 2013 Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box 161 Hinsdale, NH 03451

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

Your letter dated December 5, 2012, addressed to Mr. R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations, has been referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Section 2.206. In your petition, you requested a number of actions including immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) because you state that "the NRC and Entergy can't keep their nuclear safety paperwork and documents (Licensee Event Reports (LERs) and NRC Inspection Reports) accurate and up-to-date."

The Petition Review Board (PRB) met on December 20, 2012, and denied your request for immediate action to shutdown VY. The PRB determined that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant or to the public health and safety justifying the immediate shutdown of VY.

On December 21,2012, you were informed of the PRB's decision on the immediate action and you requested to address the PRB prior to its initial meeting to provide supplemental information for the PRB's consideration. By teleconference on January 9, 2013, you addressed the PRB to discuss your petition.

On January 23, 2013, the PRB held its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation, in accordance with the criteria provided in Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions." The PRB's decision was to reject the petition on the grounds that all the items requested in the petition either did not meet the criteria for review or met the criteria for rejection.

As support for the PRB's initial recommendation, there was an initial LER in 2010 for which a supplemental LER was submitted on March 2011, which did correct the information that was found to be faulty. The cause of the safety relief valve (SRV) seal material failure was corrected from defective seal material to thermal degradation. You refer to an error stating a 2009 refueling outage in the NRC Inspection Report 0500027112012004 dated October 31,2014, which was actually a 2010 refueling outage. You were correct that this was an error, but there was no safety concern associated with the error.

The SRVs now have fully qualified seal material installed in the actuators, i.e. Viton, installed during the 2011 refueling outage. There is no safety concern at this time which would justify the immediate shutdown of VY.

M. Mulligan - 2 Your requests as you state in the petition are listed below, each followed by the PRB recommendation.

1. Request Vermont Yankee be fined $10 million for not keeping required federal "comic book" documents fully accurate, current and up-to-date.

This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. Vermont Yankee has submitted the LER in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) as an operation or condition prohibited by Technical Specifications.

Further, there was an initial LER in 2010 for which a supplemental LER was submitted which did correct information that was found to be faulty. The only further difference between the 2010 LER and the NRC Inspection Report is a reference to local temperature in the LER versus the NRC inspection report making a more general statement of material not being qualified for the temperature.

2. Request a Department of Justice/FBI investigation of these events.

In accordance with MD 8.11, this request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. However, the petition and the transcript have been forwarded to the NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

3. Request an investigation nationwide with equipment and components not being accident qualified in any nuclear plant containments especially max temperatures and radiation.

You stated that the NRC allowed the plants to operate knowingly with unsafe components with inoperable safety functions. However, this request does not meet the criteria for review per MD 8.11 because you did not provide sufficient information to support the claims.

However, the petition and the transcript have been forwarded to the NRC's OIG. The NRC has a rigorous Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) in which inspections are conducted throughout the year to ensure that power reactor facilities are operated safely and the licensee activities do not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.

4. Request the formation of a local public oversight panel around every plant.

This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. This request does not meet the criteria for a 2.206 petition.

5. Formation of an emergency NRC senior official oversight panel with the aims of reforming the ROP.

This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. This request does not meet the criteria for a 2.206 petition.

6. Formation of a national NRC oversight panel of outsiders.

M. Mulligan -3 This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. The Inspector General, who provides oversight of NRC actions, reports directly to the U.S. Congress. Any further oversight would have to be authorized by the U.S.

Congress.

7. Request massive reforms within the 2.206 system and their directives. The system doesn't serve the public and their communities.

This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206.

8. Request a comprehensive extent of cause/condition outsider professional investigation over the environmental temperature qualification of the SRV leaking pneumatic actuator.

This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. The NRC has a rigorous ROP in which inspections are conducted throughout the year to ensure that power reactor facilities are operated safely and the licensee activities do not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.

9. Stated the outcome of this half truth environment and inspection report is truth gaming, the employees will turn off all their nuclear safety equipment and fill up all these plants with cheap defective components in the name of doing good and altruism.

This request is not an enforcement-related action and is not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206.

10. Request a detailed report on the new 400 degree Viton material installed.

This request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry.

On March 21, 2013, you were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation. You requested a second opportunity to address the PRB to provide additional information in support of the petition request. On April 2, 2013, you addressed the PRB by teleconference. You did not provide any additional information; therefore the PRB's initial recommendation became final.

M. Mulligan -4 The PRB's final determination is to reject your petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it does not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Sincerely, ~

~ueSSle, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271 cc: Distribution via Listserv

M. Mulligan -4 The PRB's final determination is to reject your petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it does not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR 2.206.

Sincerely, Ira!

Mary C. Muessle, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271 cc: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: G20120955 PUBLIC LPL1-1 RlF RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsOeMailCenter RidsOiMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn 1MailCenter RidsOcaMailCenter RidsNrrLAKGoldstein RidsNrrMailCTR RidNrrPMMillstone RidsNrrPMVermontYankee RidsNrrOd RidsEDOMailCenter MBanic, NRR JBillerbeck, NRR MRazzaque, NRR RBellamY,RI LCox, NRR Pac kage: ML13086A623 Incommg: ML12347A153 Response: ML13086A633 *V*l aem ail OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL 1-1/LA R1/BC* DPR/PM LPL1-1/BC(A) DPRIDD NAME JKim KGoldstein RBeliamy MBanic SMeighan MMuessle DATE 04/03/13 03/28/13 04/02/13 04/09/13 04/10/13 04/1 VI I':>

OFFICIAL RECORD COpy

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13086A633&oldid=2065784"