ML061090117
| ML061090117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/2006 |
| From: | Reyes L A NRC/EDO |
| To: | Donelan C J State of MA, House of Representatives |
| Shoop U | |
| References | |
| G20060344, LTR-06-0161 | |
| Download: ML061090117 (10) | |
Text
April 27, 2006The Honorable Christopher J. DonelanState Representative The Commonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives State House Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Donelan:
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am writing in response to your letterto NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, of March 22, 2006, in which you expressed concerns about theimplementation of the extended power uprate (EPU) at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation (Vermont Yankee). Specifically, your letter requested that the NRC conduct acomprehensive independent safety assessment of Vermont Yankee.I am enclosing a copy of a letter that Chairman Diaz sent to the Vermont Public Service Board(PSB), dated May 4, 2004, explaining the NRC's approach in response to the PSB's request foran independent engineering assessment of Vermont Yankee. As noted in the letter, the NRCstaff concluded that its detailed technical review of the proposed amendment, combined with the inspections prescribed by the reactor oversight process, as enhanced by an improved engineering inspection, was determined to be the most effective method of informing the staff decision on whether Vermont Yankee could operate safely under uprated power conditions.On March 2, 2006, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation documenting the results of thetechnical review for the power uprate. A copy of this 335 page report is available on the NRC'sWeb site at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm by searching for accession numberML060050028. Section 1.6 of the safety evaluation discusses the engineering inspection thatwas completed in September 2004. The NRC staff spent over 11,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the technicalreview of the proposed power uprate. In addition, over 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> were spent on the engineering inspection effort. We believe that the Vermont Yankee engineering inspection responds appropriately to requests to conduct an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee.The NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the engineeringinspection results in the context of its evaluation of the Vermont Yankee power uprate request.
The ACRS is a statutory committee that reports directly to the Commission and is structured to provide a forum where experts representing many technical perspectives can provide advice that is factored into the NRC's decision-making process. The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates held a meeting on November 15 and 16, 2005, in Brattleboro, Vermont to receive input from the public, Entergy, and the NRC staff regarding the proposed power uprate. During thismeeting the NRC staff provided the results of the engineering inspection, including a discussionof all relevant inspection findings. Many members of the public asked for a more extensive inspection, similar to that performed at the Maine Yankee plant. In a letter to NRC Chairman Diaz dated January 4, 2006, the ACRS recommended approval of the Vermont Yankee poweruprate. As noted in the letter, the ACRS concluded that based on the results of the inspectionthat was performed and the performance of Vermont Yankee as determined by the NRC'sreactor oversight process, a more extensive inspection is not warranted. The NRC's approval of the Vermont Yankee EPU included a license condition that provides formonitoring, evaluating, and taking prompt action in response to potential adverse flow effects as a result of power uprate operation on structures, systems, and components (includingverifying the continued structural integrity of the steam dryer). The license condition is implemented through the procedural steps, performance criteria, and required actions specified in the Vermont Yankee steam dryer monitoring plan and power ascension test procedure.On March 4, 2006, Entergy began slowly increasing reactor power at Vermont Yankee followingthe NRC's approval of the EPU amendment on March 2, 2006. Since that time, the plant hassuspended the power ascension twice (at 105% and 112.5% of original licensed thermal power) when administrative limits specified in the steam dryer monitoring plan were reached. When an administrative limit is reached, the monitoring plan requires that an engineering evaluation beperformed prior to further increases in power. As documented in the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation for the EPU, Entergy formally committed to not increase power above the applicable hold point, if any safety concerns were identified during the NRC staff's review of the powerascension data. The NRC staff reviewed the evaluation and the power ascension data at105%, 110%, 112.5%, and 115% to determine if it had any safety concerns. On April 25, the
NRC approved continued ascension to 120% power level.Your letter also raised a concern regarding an unexpected plant shutdown at Vermont Yankeerelated to failure of a transformer. This event received significant scrutiny by the NRC. On June 18, 2004, an electrical fault on the 22 kilovolt (kV) electrical system forced the reactor toautomatically shut down from 100% power. Arcing and heat generated during the fault causeda main transformer fire. The fire was extinguished through the combined efforts of the automatic fire suppression system, the site's fire brigade, and the local volunteer firedepartment. The NRC's resident inspectors immediately responded to the event, and theRegion I Incident Response Center was staffed to support the residents and follow Entergy's response to the fire. The fire caused no damage to safety systems and Entergy restarted theplant on July 6, 2004, after making necessary repairs. In its November 8, 2004, quarterly inspection report, the NRC discussed Entergy's failure to incorporate operating experience intopreventive maintenance of the 22 kV electrical system. Entergy is managing this issue throughits corrective action program. Your letter also referenced the views expressed by Commissioner Jaczko in a memorandum tohis fellow Commissioners, concerning the Vermont Yankee EPU. The memorandum reflects the views of Commissioner Ja czko and not the entire Commission's view on any particularmatter. On March 3, 2006, the Commission declined to stay the issuance of the requested EPU amendment, pending completion of the adjudicatory proceeding on this application; Commissioner Jaczko concurred in that decision.The NRC's primary mission is to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. TheNRC will not approve any proposed change to any plant license unless our technical staff canconclude that it has reasonable assurance that adequate protection of public health and safety will be ensured. We have taken great care in conducting the technical reviews and inspections regarding the Vermont Yankee power increase in order to ensure that these reviews andinspections will identify and address any potential safety concerns for operating the plant atuprated power conditions. We will continue to closely monitor the Vermont Yankee powerascension process and will take any actions deemed appropriate for continued protection ofpublic health and safety. I trust that this letter addresses your concerns.Sincerely,/RA/Luis A. ReyesExecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated Identical letters sent to:The Honorable Stan RosenbergCommonwealth of Massachusetts Senate Boston, MA 02133The Honorable Andrea NuciforoCommonwealth of Massachusetts Senate Boston, MA 02133The Honorable Denis GuyerCommonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives Boston, MA 02133The Honorable Stephen KulikCommonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives Boston, MA 02133The Honorable Daniel BosleyCommonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives Boston, MA 02133 April 27, 2006The Honorable Stan Rosenberg State Senator The Commonwealth of Massachusetts SenateState House Boston, MA 02133
Dear Senator Rosenberg:
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am writing in response to your letterto NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, of March 22, 2006, in which you expressed concerns about theimplementation of the extended power uprate (EPU) at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation (Vermont Yankee). Specifically, your letter requested that the NRC conduct acomprehensive independent safety assessment of Vermont Yankee.I am enclosing a copy of a letter that Chairman Diaz sent to the Vermont Public Service Board(PSB), dated May 4, 2004, explaining the NRC's approach in response to the PSB's request foran independent engineering assessment of Vermont Yankee. As noted in the letter, the NRCstaff concluded that its detailed technical review of the proposed amendment, combined with the inspections prescribed by the reactor oversight process, as enhanced by an improved engineering inspection, was determined to be the most effective method of informing the staff decision on whether Vermont Yankee could operate safely under uprated power conditions.On March 2, 2006, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation documenting the results of thetechnical review for the power uprate. A copy of this 335 page report is available on the NRC'sWeb site at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm by searching for accession numberML060050028. Section 1.6 of the safety evaluation discusses the engineering inspection thatwas completed in September 2004. The NRC staff spent over 11,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the technicalreview of the proposed power uprate. In addition, over 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> were spent on the engineering inspection effort. We believe that the Vermont Yankee engineering inspection responds appropriately to requests to conduct an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee.The NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the engineeringinspection results in the context of its evaluation of the Vermont Yankee power uprate request.
The ACRS is a statutory committee that reports directly to the Commission and is structured to provide a forum where experts representing many technical perspectives can provide advice that is factored into the NRC's decision-making process. The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates held a meeting on November 15 and 16, 2005, in Brattleboro, Vermont to receive input from the public, Entergy, and the NRC staff regarding the proposed power uprate. During thismeeting the NRC staff provided the results of the engineering inspection, including a discussionof all relevant inspection findings. Many members of the public asked for a more extensive inspection, similar to that performed at the Maine Yankee plant. In a letter to NRC Chairman April 27, 2006The Honorable Andrea Nuciforo State Senator The Commonwealth of Massachusetts SenateState House Boston, MA 02133
Dear Senator Nuciforo:
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am writing in response to your letterto NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, of March 22, 2006, in which you expressed concerns about theimplementation of the extended power uprate (EPU) at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation (Vermont Yankee). Specifically, your letter requested that the NRC conduct acomprehensive independent safety assessment of Vermont Yankee.I am enclosing a copy of a letter that Chairman Diaz sent to the Vermont Public Service Board(PSB), dated May 4, 2004, explaining the NRC's approach in response to the PSB's request foran independent engineering assessment of Vermont Yankee. As noted in the letter, the NRCstaff concluded that its detailed technical review of the proposed amendment, combined with the inspections prescribed by the reactor oversight process, as enhanced by an improved engineering inspection, was determined to be the most effective method of informing the staff decision on whether Vermont Yankee could operate safely under uprated power conditions.On March 2, 2006, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation documenting the results of thetechnical review for the power uprate. A copy of this 335 page report is available on the NRC'sWeb site at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm by searching for accession numberML060050028. Section 1.6 of the safety evaluation discusses the engineering inspection thatwas completed in September 2004. The NRC staff spent over 11,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the technicalreview of the proposed power uprate. In addition, over 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> were spent on the engineering inspection effort. We believe that the Vermont Yankee engineering inspection responds appropriately to requests to conduct an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee.The NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the engineeringinspection results in the context of its evaluation of the Vermont Yankee power uprate request.
The ACRS is a statutory committee that reports directly to the Commission and is structured to provide a forum where experts representing many technical perspectives can provide advice that is factored into the NRC's decision-making process. The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates held a meeting on November 15 and 16, 2005, in Brattleboro, Vermont to receive input from the public, Entergy, and the NRC staff regarding the proposed power uprate. During thismeeting the NRC staff provided the results of the engineering inspection, including a discussionof all relevant inspection findings. Many members of the public asked for a more extensive inspection, similar to that performed at the Maine Yankee plant. In a letter to NRC Chairman April 27, 2006The Honorable Denis GuyerState Representative The Commonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives State House Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Guyer:
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am writing in response to your letterto NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, of March 22, 2006, in which you expressed concerns about theimplementation of the extended power uprate (EPU) at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation (Vermont Yankee). Specifically, your letter requested that the NRC conduct acomprehensive independent safety assessment of Vermont Yankee.I am enclosing a copy of a letter that Chairman Diaz sent to the Vermont Public Service Board(PSB), dated May 4, 2004, explaining the NRC's approach in response to the PSB's request foran independent engineering assessment of Vermont Yankee. As noted in the letter, the NRCstaff concluded that its detailed technical review of the proposed amendment, combined with the inspections prescribed by the reactor oversight process, as enhanced by an improved engineering inspection, was determined to be the most effective method of informing the staff decision on whether Vermont Yankee could operate safely under uprated power conditions.On March 2, 2006, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation documenting the results of thetechnical review for the power uprate. A copy of this 335 page report is available on the NRC'sWeb site at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm by searching for accession numberML060050028. Section 1.6 of the safety evaluation discusses the engineering inspection thatwas completed in September 2004. The NRC staff spent over 11,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the technicalreview of the proposed power uprate. In addition, over 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> were spent on the engineering inspection effort. We believe that the Vermont Yankee engineering inspection responds appropriately to requests to conduct an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee.The NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the engineeringinspection results in the context of its evaluation of the Vermont Yankee power uprate request.
The ACRS is a statutory committee that reports directly to the Commission and is structured to provide a forum where experts representing many technical perspectives can provide advice that is factored into the NRC's decision-making process. The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates held a meeting on November 15 and 16, 2005, in Brattleboro, Vermont to receive input from the public, Entergy, and the NRC staff regarding the proposed power uprate. During thismeeting the NRC staff provided the results of the engineering inspection, including a discussionof all relevant inspection findings. Many members of the public asked for a more extensive inspection, similar to that performed at the Maine Yankee plant. In a letter to NRC Chairman April 27, 2006The Honorable Stephen KulikState Representative The Commonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives State House Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Kulik:
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am writing in response to your letterto NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, of March 22, 2006, in which you expressed concerns about theimplementation of the extended power uprate (EPU) at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation (Vermont Yankee). Specifically, your letter requested that the NRC conduct acomprehensive independent safety assessment of Vermont Yankee.I am enclosing a copy of a letter that Chairman Diaz sent to the Vermont Public Service Board(PSB), dated May 4, 2004, explaining the NRC's approach in response to the PSB's request foran independent engineering assessment of Vermont Yankee. As noted in the letter, the NRCstaff concluded that its detailed technical review of the proposed amendment, combined with the inspections prescribed by the reactor oversight process, as enhanced by an improved engineering inspection, was determined to be the most effective method of informing the staff decision on whether Vermont Yankee could operate safely under uprated power conditions.On March 2, 2006, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation documenting the results of thetechnical review for the power uprate. A copy of this 335 page report is available on the NRC'sWeb site at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm by searching for accession numberML060050028. Section 1.6 of the safety evaluation discusses the engineering inspection thatwas completed in September 2004. The NRC staff spent over 11,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the technicalreview of the proposed power uprate. In addition, over 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> were spent on the engineering inspection effort. We believe that the Vermont Yankee engineering inspection responds appropriately to requests to conduct an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee.The NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the engineeringinspection results in the context of its evaluation of the Vermont Yankee power uprate request.
The ACRS is a statutory committee that reports directly to the Commission and is structured to provide a forum where experts representing many technical perspectives can provide advice that is factored into the NRC's decision-making process. The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates held a meeting on November 15 and 16, 2005, in Brattleboro, Vermont to receive input from the public, Entergy, and the NRC staff regarding the proposed power uprate. During thismeeting the NRC staff provided the results of the engineering inspection, including a discussionof all relevant inspection findings. Many members of the public asked for a more extensive inspection, similar to that performed at the Maine Yankee plant. In a letter to NRC Chairman April 27, 2006The Honorable Daniel BosleyState Representative The Commonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives State House Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Bosley:
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am writing in response to your letterto NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, of March 22, 2006, in which you expressed concerns about theimplementation of the extended power uprate (EPU) at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation (Vermont Yankee). Specifically, your letter requested that the NRC conduct acomprehensive independent safety assessment of Vermont Yankee.I am enclosing a copy of a letter that Chairman Diaz sent to the Vermont Public Service Board(PSB), dated May 4, 2004, explaining the NRC's approach in response to the PSB's request foran independent engineering assessment of Vermont Yankee. As noted in the letter, the NRCstaff concluded that its detailed technical review of the proposed amendment, combined with the inspections prescribed by the reactor oversight process, as enhanced by an improved engineering inspection, was determined to be the most effective method of informing the staff decision on whether Vermont Yankee could operate safely under uprated power conditions.On March 2, 2006, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation documenting the results of thetechnical review for the power uprate. A copy of this 335 page report is available on the NRC'sWeb site at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm by searching for accession numberML060050028. Section 1.6 of the safety evaluation discusses the engineering inspection thatwas completed in September 2004. The NRC staff spent over 11,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the technicalreview of the proposed power uprate. In addition, over 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> were spent on the engineering inspection effort. We believe that the Vermont Yankee engineering inspection responds appropriately to requests to conduct an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee.The NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the engineeringinspection results in the context of its evaluation of the Vermont Yankee power uprate request.
The ACRS is a statutory committee that reports directly to the Commission and is structured to provide a forum where experts representing many technical perspectives can provide advice that is factored into the NRC's decision-making process. The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates held a meeting on November 15 and 16, 2005, in Brattleboro, Vermont to receive input from the public, Entergy, and the NRC staff regarding the proposed power uprate. During thismeeting the NRC staff provided the results of the engineering inspection, including a discussionof all relevant inspection findings. Many members of the public asked for a more extensive inspection, similar to that performed at the Maine Yankee plant. In a letter to NRC Chairman regarding the Vermont Yankee power increase in order to ensure that these reviews andinspections will identify and address any potential safety concerns for operating the plant atuprated power conditions. We will continue to closely monitor the Vermont Yankee powerascension process and will take any actions deemed appropriate for continued protection ofpublic health and safety. I trust that this letter addresses your concerns.Sincerely,/RA/Luis A. ReyesExecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution
- PUBLICSECY RidsEdoMail CenterRidsNrrOd UShoopRidsNrrPMREnnisRidsOgcRpRidsOpaMail RidsOcaMailCenterRidsRgn1MailCenterRidsAcrsAcnwMailCenterADAMS Incoming: ML060900056; ADAMS Letter: ML061090117; ADAMS Enclosure ML041170438; ADAMS Package: ML061090168Identical Letters Sent to: See Next page OFFICEOEDOOGC EDO NAMEU Shoop/sbKWindsbergL Reyes DATE04/20/0604/21/0604/27/06