ML071210421
| ML071210421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/20/2007 |
| From: | Webster R Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic |
| To: | Conte R Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| References | |
| Download: ML071210421 (6) | |
Text
RUTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07 102-3094 Phone: (973) 353-5695 VIA E-MAIL AND US MAIL Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of Law - Newark Fax: (973) 353-5537 The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 ATTENTION: Mr. Richard J. Conte, Chief Engineering Branch 1 March 20,2007 Re:
Follow Up Regarding Violations of NRC Regulations at Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant
Dear Mr. Conte:
On behalf of my clients, the Coalition to Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek (STROC), I am following up on my letter of March 2,2007 regarding potential violations. This is because some additional relevant information has come to light that adds to our concerns about the licensees actions regarding its failure to implement its water monitoring commitments. First, in contrast to the statements of American Energy Company (AmerGen) to the NRC, the motivation for emptying the bottles was because three of them were full. Second, AmerGen first identified the missed commitment in June 2005, at least eight months before it was allegedly self-reported. Third, contrary to the account offered to NRC inspectors, the emptying of the bottles was not something that AmerGen technicians took it upon themselves to do and AmerGen appears to have taken samples of the water in the bottles prior to their emptying.
In legal terms, a violation of 10 C.F.R 8 50, Appendix B occurs when a licensee fails to take appropriate corrective action to resolve a significant condition adverse to quality. Furthermore, licensees and their employees have a duty to promptly provide to the NRC complete and accurate information and avoid making material false statements.
18 U.S.C. 9 1001; 10 CFR 50.9; 10 C.F.R. 9 53.13(a).
Your letter of November 9,2006 states:
Carter H. Strickland, Jr., Esq.+
cstrickland@kinoy.rutgsers.edu jhuff@kinoy.rutgers.edu kshrekgast@kinoy.rutgers.edu rwebster@kinoy.rutgers.edu Julia L. Huff, Esq.*+
Kathleen J. Shrekgast, Esq.#
Richard Webster, Esq.+
Staff Attorney Acting Director Staff Attorney Staff Attorney
- Admitted in New Jersey Pursuant to 1:21-3(c)
+ Also admitted in New York
- Also admitted in Pennsylvania
RUTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC During the inspection, the NRC inspection team overheard an AmerGen technician talking about cleaning the torus room for the NRC walkdown and emptying some bottles he found. AmerGen told the NRC that a member of AmerGens staff was sent into the torus room, on the day before the NRC inspection team entered, in order to make sure the area was safe for the NRC inspection team walkdown. The AmerGen staff took it upon themselves to empty the collection bottles into the floor drains... before the [NRC]
team entered the torus room.
Because the bottles were emptied prior to any sampling, the source of the water was not determined and there was no determination about whether the water contained any radioactivity... The technician responsible for emptying the bottles was asked about over-flow and indicated that only two of the five bottles were filled with water, and that no water was flowing out of the filled bottles.
This account is contradicted by several documents. First, AR 00470325, dated March 24,2006, (attached) states that while performing a routine walkdown Robert Barbieri observed that three of the five bottles were full, but were not overflowing. He suggested that the bottles should be emptied and monitored for further leakage.
According to the same document, after review by two other staff members, AmerGen emptied the bottles five days later to allow trending of sand bed leakage.
Thus, it appears that contrary to the AmerGens statements reported in your Novermber 9,2006 letter, the bottles were not emptied to ensure the safety of the inspectors, they were not found during a special clean up of the torus room one day before the NRC walkdown, and AmerGen staff did not take it upon themselves to empty the water. In addition, it appears that three bottles were full, not two as AmerGen reported during the inspection.
Furthermore, AR 00348545, dated June 29,2005 shows that AmerGen first noticed the missed commitment in June 2005. Follow up action in that AR shows that AmerGen decided in August 2005 that the event was not reportable, even though the commitment to carry out routine walkdowns of the sand bed drains was added to UFSAR in April 1997 and was therefore part of the design basis documentation.
Finally, an e-mail from Tom Quintenz to Robert Barbieri and others, dated May 19,2006 (attached) states that there were actions taken to collect the water from the poly bottles some time ago for the reason to analyze the water... The e-mail asks about the status of the analysis and further states that the Senior Resident participated in the retrieval of the samples.
Thus, it appears that AmerGen failed to notify the NRC about the missed commitment for at least six months and, in contrast to the statements in your letter, the water in the poly bottles was actually sampled prior to the bottles being emptied.
2
RUTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC Because there was not an adequate system to track the water in the bottles or trace the source of the water by the time the inspection occurred, we believe AmerGen failed to take prompt corrective action in violation of NRCs regulations. Please review this matter and let us know whether you agree.
Even more seriously, the major discrepancies between the account offered in your letter and AmerGens own documents raise troubling questions about the veracity of the information supplied by AmerGen to the NRC about this incident. Given the documents, it is hard to see how the statements of AmerGen employees referred to in your letter could have been entirely truthful. Please add this issue to the issues I raised in the March 2, 2007 letter and let us know whether NRC believes AmerGen gave complete and accurate information to the NRC during the March 2006 inspection. If so, please resolve the discrepancies in the accounts offered. If not, please advise what action NRC intends to take.
Thank you for your further consideration. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely, Richard Webster, Esq.
Rutgers Environmental Clinic cc:
Mitzi Young, Esq.
D. Silverman, Esq.
Jill Lipoti, New Jersey DEP Attachments 3
6099114545
' AR - Assignment Report 1 I 08 30 a rn 03 30 2006 2 i3 Page 1 of 2 AR 00470325 Report Aff Fac:
Oyster Creek AR Type:
CR status:
APPROVED Aff Unit:
01 Owed To:
ACAPALL Due Date:
04/23/2006 Aff System:
187 Event Date:
03/24/2006 CR LevsUCtass: 4/0 DISC Dete:
03/24/2006 How H02 Orlg Date:
03/24/2006 Discovered:
WWBIMS AR:
Component #:
TORUS M a n Request Details Sub]sct:
Descrlptlon:
TORUS/TORUS ROOM MINOR DEFICIENCIES Originator: ROBERT I BARL)IElU S pv Contacted: H. Rsy 1 Condltlon
Description:
While performlng a routine walkdown, the following minor deffclencles were noted:
- 1. Three of the five buckets which collect water from the sandbed drains were full. There is no leakage currently as there was no water on the floor or evidence of flow in the lines. However, the buckets should be emptled and monitored for possible future leakage.
- 2. Most of the baseplate supports were in excellent condition. However there was one which should be cleaned and coated. This Is not a major concern at thls tlme but needs to be captured in a PIMS AR.
- 3. There were some mld bay supports which should be cleaned and coated.
This should Include the vertical members. Thk condition Is not a major concern at thls tlrne but should be captured In a PIMS AR.
- 4. There was a chlp In the coating on a mid-bay strap. Thls chip is located near the floor drain rlser. It is not an Immediate concern and can be petformed later.
- 5. Some of the radlatlon barrier ropes and signs were down, but the barrier perlrneter could be identified. All ropes and signs should be restored and the contarninatlon and high radlatlon areas should be clearly marked. Viis should Include the areas under and behlnd the Torus, This is of partlcular importance so that routine Inspections can be made and which Includes all areas behind the Torus.
- 6. There were some mlnor housekeeplng items whlch should be removed, such as a screw driver and pllen under the TONS.
Immediate actions taken:
Verified that all conditions noted were minor In nature and were not an immediate concern.
Recommended Actlons:
Create PIMS AR/s to Include the following:
- 1. Empty all buckets in the Toms room and ensure that tubing is properly connected after buckets are ernptled.
- 2. Perform coating repalrs to all supports and mid bay strap. All areas should be cleaned and recoated In accordance wlth existing procedures.
- 3. Perform necessary radiation surveys and restore all slgns and barriers as appropriate.
- 3. Perform a housekeeping tour of the area a remove all unnecessary debrls.
P hnp://cccmvdOl.cec0.c0rn:6l23/caplservletmeportARServlet 3/30/2006 OCLR00016375
c,
609971 4545
' AR - Assignment Report 11 0 8 5 7 a m Operable Basis:
GRH: The primart containment is not impacted by any of these demcencies, they are all minor in nature, and do not affect any SSC.
Reportable Bask not reportabte.
Reviewed by: GLENN R Hurron&!4/2006 13:16:18 CST Reviewer Comments:
no comments.
SOC Reviewed by: Y M q s A WWEU>3/30/2006 05:48:42 CSf SOC Comments:
3/26/06 t i s Close to PlMS AR for coating 3/27/06 ARJ - To follow up for the IR that talked about radlologlcal postlngs within the toms room. RPTs made an lnspectlon and updated /
straightened up the radiological postlngs. It should be noted that "there were no ropes or signs found down in the torus Rm as the IR had stated.
At one spot the rope was moved Inward so that work support could recoat a sectlon of the torus and the rope had to be lowered to the floor where the torus wall drops to near floor level".
Followup Engineering 3/29/06 TAP - buckets have been emptied to allow trendlng of sand bed leakage. Close to PIMS AR.
Followup Engineering 3/30/06 TAP - TONS leak monltorlng activities are being tracked on IR 348545. Close to PlMS AR.
0 3 ~
30-LO06 3 13 Page 2 of 2
\\sslgnments Assign It:
AWAlTfC 01 Aselgned To:
SbtU8:
Aff Fac:
Oyster Creek Prlm Grp:
ACAPALL Due Date:
03/24/2006 Asalgn Typ:
TRKG Sec Grp:
Orlg Due Date PV/VP/IJWV Prlorlty:
Scheduk Ref:
Unit Condltlon:
jubjact/Dewriptlon: TORUSflORUS ROOM MINOR DEFICIENCIES I
hrtp://cccmvdO 1.ceco.~om:6123/cap/servlet/ReportPlRServlet OCLROOOI 6376
From:
Quintenz, Tom <Tom. Quintenz@exeloncorp.corn>
Sent:
To:
cc:
Friday, May 19,2006 4:55 PM Barbieri, Robert J <u777rj b@ucm.com>; Hutchins, Steven P
<uOO lshO@ucm.com>; Frank, James E <u777Jef@ucm.corn>
O'Rourke, John F. <t925jfo@ucm.com>; Ray, Howie <uOOlfi@ucm.corn>;
Tamburro, Peter <na379@ucrn.com>; Hufnagel Jr, John G
<uOOOjgh@ucm.com>; Ouaou, Ahmed <u999ao2@ucm.com>; Warfel Sr, Donald B <uOO 1 dbw@ucm.com>; Polaski, Frederick W <uOOOfwp@ucm. corn>
Leakage Monitoring for DW Corrosion Concerns.
Subject:
Just got a phone call from John Hufnagel. He talked to Don Ashley our project manager for License Renewal today. The subject of the Poly Bottles for the monitoring of leakage from the sand bed came up.
John is of the opinion based on the discussion, the NRC is going to be interested in hearing about our leakage monitoring program for the DW corrosion concern.
The lack of a formal program was documented previously in an IR, and some actions have been initiated to formalize the program and start the monitoring. I believe the message here is: We will be going to Public meetings in June with the NRC, specifically concerning the DW Corrosion concerns, and it would be good for us to be able to say we have a formal program which meets are present commitments (those made back in the 1995 time frame). I would expect also that we would like to be able to say that it has been implemented (completion of leakage monitoring activities in the field) and we know whether there is any leakage or not.
In addition, there were actions taken to collect the water from the poly bottles some time ago for the reason to analyze the water to determine if the source of the water could be determined, and whether the water was "old water" from leakage years ago, or whether the water was recent leakage. I do not know the status of this analysis. I also understand the Senior Resident was the person who participated in the retrieval of the samples.
Sorry for putting this in an e-mail today, but it appeared personnel were either not here or consumed by other activities today. Otherwise I would have had a face to face with you.
This is to serve as a way to formulate a discussion on this subject, and agree on a plan, which would benefit us in the upcoming discussions with the NRC and the Public.
OCLROOOI 3628