NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. I-04-057 December 16, 2004

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC FINDS VIOLATIONS OF LOW SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE

AT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

 During a special engineering inspection at Vermont Yankee, the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) found eight violations of very low safety significance, all of which must be

addressed by the plant operator, Entergy.

In remarks prepared for delivery at an evening meeting of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory

Panel (V-SNAP), NRC official Wayne Lanning noted that the eight findings in the special inspection

would not affect plant safety.

Lanning also rebutted claims by critics of the inspection that hundreds of violations would be

found if a broader inspection were undertaken. The NRC examination looked at key safety systems in

the plant, with the Vermont State Engineer observing.

And the NRC official reported to the panel on an earlier inspection that examined how two

pieces of spent nuclear fuel were missing but were later found.

"Both teams found problems and issues, and because we insist on stringent safety standards,

these problems must be corrected," said Lanning, director of the Reactor Safety Division in the NRC’s

Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa.

Speaking of the eight findings in the roughly 1,000-hour hands-on inspection, Lanning said they

were "very important because the utility should have identified and corrected them, particularly the

ones related to the power uprate. Vermont Yankee must now ascertain why they did not identify the

problem, evaluate the reason for the problem, correct it, and then determine if a similar issue exists

elsewhere in the plant."

Vermont Yankee’s owner, Entergy, has asked the NRC to permit it to increase the power output

of the plant by 20 percent, to 1,912 megawatts thermal. The NRC expects to decide on the request

sometime next year, and the special inspection was conducted in response to a request from Vermont’ s

Public Service Board for an independent engineering assessment.
2

Lanning said this effort was "not an inspection to determine whether the NRC should approve

Entergy’s power uprate application." He described it as "a comprehensive evaluation of the most

risk-significant components and systems in the plant and, when taken in combination with other NRC

evaluations, helped determine that sufficient margin exists in the design and operation of the Vermont

Yankee facility to ensure public health and safety."

In challenging claims that a broader inspection would turn up significantly more violations at

the 30-year-old plant, Lanning said, "I do not agree with that. Our experience shows there is some

correlation between the number of inspectors, the scope of the inspection and the number of areas of

non-compliance that are found. But we do not believe there are hundreds of violations at Vermont

Yankee waiting to be found. Even larger design inspections at troubled plants like Maine Yankee and

Millstone did not turn up hundreds of violations."

The next step for the NRC is to inspect Entergy’s corrective actions and there will be additional

review of the application for a power uprate.

On the missing spent fuel, the NRC found that poor recordkeeping and inventories dating back

to 1980 was responsible for the belief that two pieces of fuel were missing. The penalty for Entergy

could result in increased NRC oversight, a violation without a fine or a violation and a fine.

 ###