ML12305A165

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, ME8189 -G20120172/EDATS: OEDO-2012-0147 - e-mail from Additional Co-Petitioner, Bhalchandra K. Vaidya

ML12305A165
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	10/24/2012
From:	Bhalchandra Vaidya Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Azulay J Alliance for a Green Economy
References
2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2012-0147, G20120172, OEDO-2012-0147, TAC ME8189
Download: ML12305A165 (4)

Text

Vaidya, BhalchandraFrom: Vaidya, BhalchandraSent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:29 AMTo: 'Jessica Azulay'Cc: Russell, Andrea; Wilson, George; Lee, Samson; Lemoncelli, MauriSubject: RE: PRB Decision on Initial Recommendation Re: Your Petition under 10CFR2.206 Pertainingto the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant in Scriba, New York (TAC No. ME8189)Attachments: petitioner response toNRCFitzOct_11.pdfMs. Jessica Azulay,Regarding your e-mail dated October 11, 2012, in response to our communication to you dated October 4, 2012, about the PetitionReview Board's (PRB's) decision on its initial recommendation regarding your Petition under 10 CFR 2.206 pertaining to the James A.FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant in Scriba, New York, the following explanations are provided:(a) The following three issues are accepted for review:(1) FitzPatrick shall publicly document for independent review its post-Fukushima re-analyses for the reliability and capabilityof the FitzPatrick pre-existing containment vent system as previously identified as "an acceptable deviation" from NRCGeneric Letter 89-16 which recommended the installation of the Direct Torus Vent System and as outlined in the NRCSafety Evaluation Report dated September 28, 1992. The publicly documented post-Fukushima analysis shall include thereassessment of all assumptions regarding the capability and reliability of the pre-existing containment venting andspecifically address non-conservative assumptions regarding:(a) "unlikely ignition points" as claimed in the FitzPatrick pre-existing vent line system that would otherwise presentincreased risks and consequences associated with the detonation of hydrogen gas generated during a severeaccident.(2) The NRC inspection report [per TI-2515/183] identifies that FitzPatrick's "existing plant capabilities" and "currentprocedures do not address hydrogen considerations during primary containment venting" which is further identified as a"current licensinq basis vulnerability." The joint petitioners further reiterate that the NRC inspection finding thatFitzPatrick's "existing plant capabilities" as assumed by the Order are in fact negated by the finding that "FitzPatrick'scurrent licensing basis did not require the plant to have a primary containment torus air space hardened vent system aspart of their Mark I containment improvement program."(3) The additional identified "vulnerability" and the relatively remote and uncertain mitigation strategy places the public healthand safety unduly and unacceptably at risk by the continued day-to-day operations where "current procedures do notaddress hydrogen considerations during primary containment venting" and will not for nearly five (5) more years.(b) With regard to your request that the PRB reconsider the decision to allow FitzPatrick to operate during the pendency of theNRC Japan Lessons Learned Project regarding Mark I BWR reliable vents, the PRB reiterates its decision to deny the requestfor immediate action .Specifically, the PRB denied the requested immediate enforcement action to suspend the operatinglicense for FitzPatrick because there is no immediate safety concern to FitzPatrick, or to the health and safety of the public.(c) With regard to the other topics in your response dated October 11, 2012, MD 8.11 provides for the Acknowledgement Letter tobe sent to the Petitioners after the NRC staff has reached a decision on the "Final Recommendation" to accept or reject thePetition (or portions thereof), which would include the detailed itemized lists of the issues accepted and rejected with thePRB's explanations. The process in MD 8.11 offers the Petitioner(s) a 2nd opportunity to address the PRB to provideadditional or new information, if any, before the PRB makes the Final Recommendation. Since you have requested a 2opportunity to address the PRB and, thus, the staff has not yet made a Final Recommendation,, the details, such as theitemized lists in your request are pre-decisional and are not publicly released."(d) With respect to the date and time for the 2nd opportunity for the Petitioner(s) to address the PRB, please let us know whetheryou would like to have a Tele-Conference or a Public Meeting, along with your availability with respect to dates and times, aswell as the list of attendees and speakers. This will alljw us to make proper arrangements.Thank you for your quick response to our October 4, 2012, communication.Bhalchandra K. VaidyaLicensing Project Manager, Petition ManagerNRC/NRR/DORLILPL1 -1(301)-415-3308 (0) bha Ichand ra. va idyatcýn rc. aovFrom: Jessica Azulay [1]Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:44 AMTo: Vaidya, BhalchandraSubject: Re: PRB Decision on Initial Recommendation Re: Your Petition under 10CFR2.206 Pertaining to the James A.FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant in Scriba, New York (TAC No. ME8189)Bhalchandra K. Vaidya,Please find attached our response to your October 4 communication.Sincerely,Jessica AzulayOn 10/4/2012 9:22 AM, Vaidya, Bhalchandra wrote:Ms. Jessica Azulay,On May 17, 2012, May 29, 2012, and July 19, 2012, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition and to make the initialrecommendation. The PRB's initial recommendation is to partially accept the petition for review because portions of the petition meetthe criteria for review under the 2.206 process.The PRB's initial recommendation is to accept, in part, and hold in abeyance three of the issues of the petition addressing containmentventing under severe accident conditions and the design of vent systems being able to accommodate hydrogen gas. The NRC staffnotes that these concerns are undergoing NRC review as part of the lessons-learned from the Fukushima event. Even though theCommission has issued the Order concerning reliable hardened vent for accident prevention, the NRC staff is conducting further reviewof additional aspects of the hardened vent system, such as venting under severe accident conditions. In addition, the staff is evaluatinghydrogen control and mitigation measures. Since these issues will take longer than the target timeframe for reaching a decision on apetition, the NRC plans on accepting those issues, and holding them in abeyance.In addition, the PRB's initial recommendation is to reject all other issues in the petition because they do not meet the criteria for reviewunder 10 CFR 2.206 process described in MD 8.11.Also, please let me know, ASAP, if the Petitioners would like a second meeting to address the Petition Review Board as described inMD 8.11, the process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions.Thank you,Bhalchandra K. VaidyaLicensing Project ManagerNRC/NRR/DORL/LPL1-1(301)-415-3308 (0)bhalchandra.vaidva'nrc.gov2 AGREE New York2013 E. Genesee St., Syracuse, NY 13210 I info@agreenewyork.org 1 (315) 480-1515Bhalchandra K. VaidyaLicensing Project ManagerU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001Email: bhalchandra.vaidya~nrc.govBhalchandra K. Vaidya:As the point of contact, I received your communication dated October 4, 2012, regarding theNRC Petition Review Board (PRB) initial recommendation to partially accept for review the2.206 petition filed by joint petitioners Alliance for a Green Economy (AGREE) and BeyondNuclear. On behalf of the joint petitioners, I would like to request additional information.You wrote that the "PRB's initial recommendation is to accept, in part, and hold in abeyancethree of the issues of the petition addressing containment venting under severe accidentconditions and the design of vent systems being able to accommodate hydrogen gas."We request that the PRB provide us an itemized list detailing which portions of our petitionhave been accepted. Additionally, we request that the PRB provide us an itemized listdetailing which portions of our petition you propose to reject, and that the PRB provide anexplanation as to why those portions do not meet the criteria for review under the 10 CFR2.206 process. We request that this justification be entered into the public record.We hereby request another opportunity to address the PRB, however, we believe that it isessential that you provide the above requested detail of the PRB recommendation beforescheduling this hearing.We are aware that the issues raised in our petition are related to concerns that are undergoingreview by the NRC's Japan Lessons Learned Project. However, given that there are noassigned timelines for addressing or concluding much of this work, we are concerned aboutthe issues we raised, including hydrogen generation and detonation, being held in abeyance.We reiterate that our communities surrounding the FitzPatrick reactor are currently at risk andwill continue to be at risk until the FitzPatrick reactor is shut down or is required to have atruly reliable containment.We, therefore, ask that you to reconsider the PRB's decision to allow FitzPatrick to operateduring the indefinite process of the NRC Japan Lessons Learned Project regarding Mark IBWR reliable vents. NRC's own documents show that the FitzPatrick reactor does not have areliable containment, nor does it have a reliable vent that protects the public and workers fromradiation exposure or is free from the possibility of hydrogen over-pressurization andexplosions. An over-pressurization accident cannot currently be ruled out as impossible, andthere is no assurance that an accident would wait until after the NRC's process regarding MarkAlliance fora GreenEconomyCitizensAwarenessNetwork ofCentral NewYorkCitizensEnvironmentalCoalitionCitizens forHealthEnvironmentand JusticePeace ActionCentral NewYorkPeace ActionNew York StateSierra ClubAtlanticChapterSyracuse PeaceCouncil AGREE New York2013 E. Genesee St., Syracuse, NY 13210 1 info@agreenewyork.org 1 (315) 480-1515I reactors is concluded and required plant modifications are completed. Allowing FitzPatrick to operateindefinitely in the meantime is an unacceptable risk.The Petitioners point out that power operations at FitzPatrick are currently ceased for refueling. We askthat power operations at FitzPatrick remain suspended until the NRC can provide public assurance,through full disclosure of Entergy and NRC safety analyses, that operations at the plant do not pose anundue public health and safety risk. It is our contention that if the PRB is to reject our request for anemergency suspension of power operations at FitzPatrick while it considers our petition on an indefiniteand indeterminate time-frame, it must provide transparency by publicly releasing its safety analysis inrefutation of our concerns regarding the present risk posed to the public by the FitzPatrick reactor in itscurrent design.Therefore, we ask that the PRB publicly release its safety evaluations and justification for the reliability ofcurrent venting operations for FitzPatrick's pressure suppression containment system in its current statewithout the requested modifications for the Direct Taurus Vent System in Generic Letter 89-16, includingits justification of continued operation with the "beyond design and licensing bases vulnerability" asdescribed in the post-Fukushima inspection report referenced in our petition. This analysis must also takeinto account FitzPatrick's unique plan to vent high temperature and pressure steam and potentially highradiation and explosive gases at the ground level. .We further request that the NRC publicly release a safetyevaluation that rules out potential hydrogen ignition points in the Standby Auxilliary Gas TreatmentBuilding currently as relied upon by FitzPatrick operations. We further request that the NRC makepublicly available the safety evaluation for the current FitzPatrick vent plan that could render theFitzPatrick nuclear site dangerous or inaccessible for site personnel activity precisely at a time whenworkers would need greatest access to all parts of the site. To date, neither NRC nor the FitzPatrickoperator has publicly released any safety analysis of the impact of a ground-level release on worker accessto the site, worker health and safety, or public health and safety.We thank you and the PRB for the serious manner in which you are treating our concerns regarding theFitzPatrick reactor. We look forward to a more detailed response from you.Sincerely,Jessica Azulay Chasnofffor the PetitionersAlliance for a Green Economy (AGREE) works for safe, affordable energy and the development of a green economy inNew York State. Our goal is a prosperous, safe, and healthy New York, fulfilling the promise of conservation, energyefficiency, and safe, clean renewable energy sources to end our state's reliance on wasteful and environmentallydestructive forms of energy. The Alliance works to promote this transition to a carbon-free and nuclear-free future andeducates the public about alternatives that can revitalize the economy and safeguard human health and the environment.