Even though the NRC resident inspector didn’t tell the truth to the public at the 3/31 public meeting in Vernon, VT, today the NRC chairman issued a letter in response to the VT Public Service Board. Excerpts of the letter follow…( the entire NRC letter can be seen at NRC.gov)
“Over the past several months (at least since March, 15- GFV), the NRC has been developing a new engineering inspection program which we intend to pilot at selected plants. The NRC staff considered a number of factors, including the Board’s request for an independent engineering assessment, and concluded it is appropriate to conduct this engineering inspection at Vermont Yankee. This new engineering assessment inspection incorporates the best practices of the existing and past engineering inspections. The NRC will use this inspection to verify that design bases have been correctly implemented for a sampling of components across multiple systems and to identify latent design issues. The inspection process uses operating experience, risk assessment, and engineering analysis to select risk-significant components and operator actions, and will ensure that adequate safety margins exist. Although the specific sampling of components is still being developed, it will include components from multiple systems that are potentially affected by a power uprate such as the emergency core cooling systems, the containment system, power conversion systems, and auxiliary systems. The inspection will be performed by a team of approximately six inspectors, including some NRC inspectors who do not have recent oversight experience with Vermont Yankee and at least two contractors with design experience. Three weeks of on-site inspection and over 700 hours of direct inspection time will be conducted. This level of effort exceeds that of the biennial safety system design inspection. The Commission believes it is appropriate for addressing the NRC's oversight responsibilities and is also responsive to the Board’s concerns…
The NRC will not approve the Vermont Yankee uprate, or any proposed change to a plant license, unless the NRC staff can conclude that the proposed change will be executed in a manner that assures the public’s health and safety. In response to your request, the NRC staff has taken a close look at proposed inspections and technical reviews to ensure that they will identify and address potential safety concerns for operating at uprated power conditions. The staff has concluded that the detailed technical review, prescribed in the Extended Power Uprate Review Standard, coupled with the normal associated program of power uprate and engineering inspections, will provide the information necessary for the NRC staff to make a decision on the safety of operation of Vermont Yankee under uprated power conditions. The Commission believes that the results of NRC reviews and inspections, particularly the new engineering inspection, will assist in addressing the Board’s concerns regarding the future reliability of Vermont Yankee.”
Local NRC Resident Inspector, David Pelton is captured in print from a transcript of the 3/31 NRC public meeting called by Representatives Leahy and Jeffords… to whom the NRC said on March 29th that no engineering assessment was warranted at Vermont Yankee because the baseline inspections were adequate and robust enough…
(Hmmm, which is it ? Can we trust the NRC? I believe this warrants a call for extensive public oversight of the independent engineering assessment and the entire extended power uprate review process.. )
Within weeks of Mr. Pelton’s having said the below statements he looked in the spent fuel pool and Vermont Yankee became the only operating nuclear station to have lost some of the highly radioactive spent fuel rods.
“THE AHH MYSELF AND BETH MY OTHER RESIDENT INSPECTOR WE DID A FAIRLY DETAILED REVIEW OF THE SPENT FUEL PIT AT VERMONT YANKEE HERE
Where .. I look at it almost every day anyway.
AND WE LOOKED THROUGH HISTORICALLY THROUGH THE RECORDS FROM DAY ONE SINCE THEY PUT ANYTHING INTO THAT PIT AND WE VALIDATED THAT THERE’S A RECORD THAT ALL OF THE MATERIAL THEY SAID IS IN THERE STILL IS IN THERE
AND WE CHALLENGED THEM ON A NUMBER OF POINTS TO VALIDATE SOME AREAS THAT WE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND
THAT WE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY FOLLOWED THEIR PROCESS AND WE CHALLENGED EM ON THAT. THEY TOOK SOME ACTION AND INDEED WE DID VALIDATE IT”
Muted at tend
D. PELTON.—“WE VALIDATE THAT WE FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INVENTORY AND THAT EVERYTHING THAT THEY SAY IS IN THERE IS RIGHT WHERE IT BELONGS”
Isn’t this where the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chimes in to say once again, “We dropped the ball … it won’t happen again.” For the third time
1996 - NRC Chairman Shirley Jackson, speaking of Millstone, in Time Magazine “Clearly, NRC dropped the ball. We won’t do it again”
2004 - New NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, about Davis-Besse, said the agency "dropped the ball
Three dropped balls. Did Entergy strike out yet ? Did the NRC strike out yet and is the nuclear “safety” charade retire to the bench yet?
When does the VT public get a chance at bat?
Take me out to the ballgame…
The full dialogue from 3/31 is below…
Hello I am Nancy Burton and I came up here this evening with my father here from Connecticut. We came up here to support the independent safety assessment and to push for a nuclear free VT. Coming from CT we are familiar with our own Millstone where there were resident NRC inspectors during the period of time that somehow Northeast Utilities lost two spent fuel rods. I understand they are all still looking for them…. (Laughter throat clear)
We also know that Millstone has a is somewhat notorious for releasing radioactive radio isotopes into the air Well, coming up here to VT and given where we are tonight, here’s my question. since we are right across the street from an elementary school, I am assuming that the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant doesn’t release radiation into the air?
Question is that correct?
I am being facetious…
NRC inspector- Brian—I know you are. Somebody else I think at the earlier meeting, tried to get release off the website. It was an earlier comment You might not have been here then. Nuclear power plants are required on an annual basis to submit on the docket so that you can access both water borne and air borne releases. There are federal limits for those and it is something we inspect as part of the baseline.
Nrc on right of table(towards back of bldg- name not known—
Dave Pelton I know you have looked at their the accountability at the spent fuel pool. Umm.Would you care to address that question here at VT?
Brian – well accountability, she mentioned the Millstone plant that did have aahh aahh an issue with a fuel pin that was lost. There was an intense NRC inspection on that. A lot of early on, early on shipments were made from spent fuel pools and there is an NRC inspection report that talks about probable causes on that. Other other aspects were related to the NRC did an inspection following that to do a material accountability at all pools across the nation.
Dave Pelton-
Thanks Brian. That’s right and umm to address that specific part of your question just bear with me for a second.
THE AHH
MYSELF AND BETH MY OTHER RESIDENT INSPECTOR WE DID A FAIRLY DETAILED REVIEW OF THE SPENT FUEL PIT AT VERMONT YANKEE HERE
Where ( if) I look at it almost every day anyway.
AND WE LOOKED THROUGH HISTORICALLY THROUGH THE RECORDS FROM DAY ONE SINCE THEY PUT ANYTHING INTO THAT PIT AND WE VALIDATED THAT THERE’S A RECORD THAT ALL OF THE MATERIAL THEY SAID IS IN THERE STILL IS IN THERE AND WE CHALLENGED THEM ON A NUMBER OF POINTS TO VALIDATE SOME AREAS THAT WE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND
THAT WE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY FOLLOWED THEIR PROCESS AND WE CHALLENGED EM ON THAT. THEY TOOK SOME ACTION AND INDEED WE DID VALIDATE IT
Muted at tend
D. PELTON.--WE VALIDATE THAT WE FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INVENTORY AND THAT EVERYTHING THAT THEY SAY IS IN THERE IS RIGHT WHERE IT BELONGS.