ML071140104
| ML071140104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/07/2007 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC/EDO |
| To: | Lochbaum D Union of Concerned Scientists |
| White J | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML071130005 | List: |
| References | |
| G20070236, OEDO-2007-0137 | |
| Download: ML071140104 (4) | |
Text
May 7, 2007 Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington DC 20006-3919
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
This is in reply to your letter of April 10, 2007 and the supplement letter of April 26, 2007. In your letter of April 10, 2007, you indicated that Amergen/Oyster Creeks letter dated July 31, 2006, which provided voluntary information to the NRC as part of the Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEI) Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative (GPI), was not complete and accurate. Since you asserted a matter of impropriety relative to an NRC-regulated activity, we screened your assertion through our allegation process.
Specifically, you noted that NEIs GPI Survey Item No. 5 asked the licensees to, Briefly describe any remediation efforts undertaken or planned to reduce or eliminate levels of radioactivity resulting from plant operations in soil or groundwater onsite or offsite. You asserted that Amergen/Oyster Creeks response, There have been no station events requiring remediation efforts at Oyster Creek, was not accurate and complete as required by Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.9 (10 CFR 50.9), Completeness and accuracy of information. The regulation requires that information required to be provided pursuant to statute, Commission regulations, orders, or license conditions be complete and accurate in all material respects.
Your assertion was based on the fact that on November 23, 1982, the licensee filed a Licensee Event Report (LER)/Reportable Occurrence No. 50-219/82-51/03L, which detailed the licensees September 21, 1982, identification of an unmonitored release of radioactive liquid to the soil from a leak in the waste surge tank and subsequent excavation of the soil to mitigate the condition. We found that NRC inspection reports (Inspection Report Nos. 50-219/82-22, dated December 7, 1982; and 50-219/82-29, dated January 18, 1983) detail NRCs follow-up inspection efforts on this matter. Further, as you pointed out, in response to Survey Item No. 2, the licensee described a groundwater monitoring network that was installed in 1983 but did not connect this action as a corrective measure to the Reportable Occurrence.
As you acknowledged, the letter to the NRC was voluntary and not as a result of any NRC requirement. In this regard, the GPI voluntary data collection effort was conducted by NEI to establish a common set of baseline information between the nuclear industry and NRCs Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons-Learned Task Force (LLTF). To this end, NEI requested the industry to provide its responses to the survey to the NRCs LLTF by July 31, 2006, for information only, and indicated that the responses would not be considered as submittals on licensing dockets and not considered to make or imply any licensing commitments.
D. Lochbaum NRCs LLTF interest in the survey responses was to gain a general perspective on the extent of existing groundwater contamination at nuclear facilities and the range of monitoring and remedial actions that were applied. In recognition of the actual or potential for such conditions and the associated impact on public confidence, the LLTF was established to evaluate the extent of the condition in the industry. The LLTF reviewed a cross-section of industry events that represented different causes, pathways of liquid release, impacts to the environment, and corrective actions to remediate. The events chosen for review were generally identified by members of the LLTF based on knowledge from LERs and NRC inspections. As documented in the final report dated September 1, 2006, the LLTF concluded that although there have been a number of industry events where radioactive liquid was released to the environment in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, no instances were identified where the health of the public was impacted.
In our view, Amergen/Oyster Creeks omission of the reference to the 1982 LER had no regulatory consequence since the matter was previously disclosed, corrected by the licensee, and thoroughly inspected by the NRC at the time. Accordingly, while the information in response to Survey Item No. 5 did not expressly refer to the 1982 LER, the omission was not material in any respect, i.e., the NRC used the survey to inform its general knowledge of current groundwater conditions and not to effect or address any essential or consequential aspect of a NRC-regulated activity. Your supplement letter of April 26, 2007, does not change the above determination.
In summary: (1) Amergen/Oyster Creeks response to the survey was voluntary; (2) the survey responses were not required by statute, Commission regulations, orders, or license conditions; and (3) the historical information concerning leakage from the waste surge tank was reported as required and subsequently inspected by NRC almost 25 years ago. In that matter, the licensee established and implemented corrective measures, which included excavation of the affected area and subsequent groundwater monitoring of the site. The omission of this information was not material in any respect to NRCs decision-making process affecting the purpose and intent of the LLTF, or any aspect affecting NRC-regulated activities. We expect licensees to always provide accurate and complete information to the NRC. In this case, the criteria with respect to materiality for determining non-conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.9, Completeness and accuracy of information, were not met. Accordingly, we plan no further action in this matter.
We do appreciate your interest in this matter, and thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Sincerely,
/RA M. Virgilio Acting for/
Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations
D. Lochbaum NRCs LLTF interest in the survey responses was to gain a general perspective on the extent of existing groundwater contamination at nuclear facilities and the range of monitoring and remedial actions that were applied. In recognition of the actual or potential for such conditions and the associated impact on public confidence, the LLTF was established to evaluate the extent of the condition in the industry. The LLTF reviewed a cross-section of industry events that represented different causes, pathways of liquid release, impacts to the environment, and corrective actions to remediate. The events chosen for review were generally identified by members of the LLTF based on knowledge from LERs and NRC inspections. As documented in the final report dated September 1, 2006, the LLTF concluded that although there have been a number of industry events where radioactive liquid was released to the environment in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, no instances were identified where the health of the public was impacted.
In our view, Amergen/Oyster Creeks omission of the reference to the 1982 LER had no regulatory consequence since the matter was previously disclosed, corrected by the licensee, and thoroughly inspected by the NRC at the time. Accordingly, while the information in response to Survey Item No. 5 did not expressly refer to the 1982 LER, the omission was not material in any respect, i.e., the NRC used the survey to inform its general knowledge of current groundwater conditions and not to effect or address any essential or consequential aspect of a NRC-regulated activity. Your supplement letter of April 26, 2007, does not change the above determination.
In summary: (1) Amergen/Oyster Creeks response to the survey was voluntary; (2) the survey responses were not required by statute, Commission regulations, orders, or license conditions; and (3) the historical information concerning leakage from the waste surge tank was reported as required and subsequently inspected by NRC almost 25 years ago. In that matter, the licensee established and implemented corrective measures, which included excavation of the affected area and subsequent groundwater monitoring of the site. The omission of this information was not material in any respect to NRCs decision-making process affecting the purpose and intent of the LLTF, or any aspect affecting NRC-regulated activities. We expect licensees to always provide accurate and complete information to the NRC. In this case, the criteria with respect to materiality for determining non-conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.9, Completeness and accuracy of information, were not met. Accordingly, we plan no further action in this matter.
We do appreciate your interest in this matter, and thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Sincerely,
/RA M. Virgilio Acting for/
Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION: G20070236/OEDO-2007-0137 L. Reyes, EDO J. Silber, DEDIA M. Virgilio, DEDMRS W. Kane, DEDR J. Dyer, NRR V. Ordaz, AO J. Lamb, OEDO K. Cyr, OGC S. Burns, OGC B. Jones, OGC A. Pessin, OGC J. Lubinski, NRR S. Richards, NRR S. Collins, RI M. Dapas, RI M. Gamberoni, RI J. White, RI R. Bellamy, RI R. Urban, RI RidsEdoMailCenter C. Carpenter, OE C. Montgomery, OE L. Jarriell, OE L. Trocine, OE SUNSI Review Complete: JRW (Reviewers Initials)
ADAMS ACCESSION NO. ML071140104 After declaring this document An Official Agency Record it will be released to the Public.
OFFICE RI:DRS RI:DRS NRR OGC RI:RA OE EDO NAME JWhite MGamberoni SRichards (via telecon 4/23/07 w/EHG)
BJones (via email to EHG 4/23/07)
SCollins/SJC CCarpenter LReyes DATE 04/22/07 04/22/07 04/23/07 04/23/07 04/23/07 04/26/07 04/ 07/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY