ML072480532

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Letter from Richard Webster to Administrative Judge Hawkens Attaching Questions for the Board to Consider Asking Amergen and NRC Staff During Sepember Hearing and a Motion to Cross-Examine Peter Tamburro and for an Extension of Time.
ML072480532
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 08/24/2007
From: Webster R
Grandmothers, Mothers & More for Energy Safety, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, New Jersey Environmental Federation, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG), Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, RAS 14072
Download: ML072480532 (37)
v • d • e


Text

A5 /IA/ 070 R UTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LA W CLINIC 123 Washington Street Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Newark, NJ 07 102-3094 School of Law - Newark Phone: (973) 353-5695 Fax: (973) 353-5537 DOCKETED USNRC August 24, 2007 (4:32pm)

August 24, 2007 OFFICE OF SECRETARY VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Transmits Confidential Information Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Not for Public Disclosure pending release United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §2.1207(a)(3)

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Submittal of Proposed Questions Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(3) Regarding AmerGen and NRC Staff Initial and Rebuttal Testimony and Filing of Cross Examination Plan and Motion To Cross-Examine And For An Extension; AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (License Renewal Proceeding for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)

Docket No. 50-219

Dear Judge Hawkens:

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(3), Citizens are submitting the following confidential information:

1. the attached questions for the Board to consider asking AmerGen and NRC staff during the hearing in September. These questions are based on AmerGen and NRC staff initial and rebuttal testimony of July 20, and August 17, 2007, respectively.
2. Cross-examination plan for Peter Tamburro Citizens are also filing a Motion to Cross-Examine and for An Extension and some minor corrections to the previously submitted rebuttal testimony.

Respectfully Submitted, Richard Webster cc: Service List (with copy of nonconfidential information only)

Carter H. Strickland, Jr., Esq.+ Jul ia L. Huff, Esq.*+ Kathleen J. Shrekgast, Esq.# Richard Webster, Esq.+

Staff Attorney Sta ff Attorney Staff Attorney Staff Attorney cstrickland@kinoy.rutgsers.edu jhiuff@kinoy.rutgers.edu kshrekgast@kinoy.rutgers.edu rwebster@kinoy.rutgers.edu

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )

) ASLB No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for the Oyster Creek )

Nuclear Generating Station) ) Aupust 24, 2007

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard Webster, of full age, certify as follows:

I hereby certify that on August 24, 2007, I caused Submittal of Proposed Questions Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(3) Regarding AmerGen and NRC Staff Initial and Rebuttal Testimony and Filing of Cross Examination Plan and Motion To Cross-Examine And For An Extension to be served via email and U.S. Postal Service (as indicated) on the following:

Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Chair (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: erhCanrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Paul B. Abramson (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: pba(anrc.gov 1

i Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: aib5nanrc.gov Law Clerk Debra Wolf (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: DAWI @nrc.gov MOTION ONLY Secretary.of the Commission (Email and original and 2 copies via U.S Postal Service)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff E-mail: HEARINGDOCKETaNRC.GOV Office of General Counsel (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OGCMAILCENTER@NRC.GOV Mitzi Young (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-000l E-mail: may@,nrc.gov Mary C. Batty (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mcb I ,nrc.gov Alex S. Polonsky, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: apolonsky@morganlewis.com 2

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washint~on, DC 20004 E-mail: ksutton(nmorganlewis.com Donald Silverman, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: dsilvermannamorganlewis.com J. Bradley Fewell (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way, Suite 200 Kennett Square, PA 19348 E-mail: bradley.fewell(a!exceloncorp.com John Covino, DAG (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: john.corvino( ,dol.lps.state.ni .us Valerie Gray (Email)

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: valerie.gray@dol .lps.state.nj .us.

Paul Gunter (Email and U.S. Postal Service) c/o Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912-4446 E-mail: paulr&,beyondnuclear.org Edith Gbur (Email)

Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc.

3

3 364 Costa Mesa Drive. Toms River, New Jersey 08757 E-mail: aburl(comcast.net Paula Gotsch (Email)

GRAMMIES 205 6th Avenue Normandy Beach, New Jersey 08723 E-mail: paulagotsch.aAverizon.net Jeff Tittel (Email)

New Jersey Sierra Club 139 West Hanover Street Trenton New Jersey 08618 E-mail: Jeff.Tittel ksierraclub.org Peggy Sturmfels (Email)

New Jersey Environmental Federation 1002 Ocean Avenue Belmar, New Jersey 07319 E-mail: psturmfels(2acleanwater.org Michele Donato, Esq. (Email)

PO Box 145 Lavalette, NJ 08735 E-mail: mdonato@micheledonatoesq.com Signed: ardýAe RiSgdR Webster Dated: August 24, 2007 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )

)) ASLB No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for the Oyster Creek

) August 24, 2007

)

MOTION TO CROSS-EXAMINE PETER TAMBURRO AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME REGARDING NRC'S ERRATA PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc., Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation (collectively "Citizens") are filing this motion because the documents authored by Mr. Tamburro are inconsistent with each other and unclear.

Furthermore much of a sworn affidavit submitted by Mr. Tamburro on behalf of AmerGen Energy Co.

("AmerGen") was inconsistent with other testimony filed by AmerGen and a document generated by Mr. Tamburro on the same day that he swore the affidavit.

Despite his previously expressed concerns about many issues relating to the safety of the drywell, Mr. Tamburro's inconsistent affidavit enabled AmerGen to use arguments that were, at minimum, misleading in an attempt to induce the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the "Board") to I

grant summary disposition before it was in possession of critical new information authored by Mr.

Tamburro. The critical new information authored by Mr. Tamburro shows that there is a reasonable technical justification for Citizens' position that the margins for the drywell shell are, at best, much smaller than AmerGen has claimed to date. Mr. Tamburro is the crucial fact witness in this case, and it is therefore critical that Citizens be granted an opportunity to learn the truth about his actions and assessments of the drywell. Unless Citizens are able to cross-examine Mr. Tamburro individually, rather than in a panel, it will be impossible to make him explain the inconsistencies. Without individual cross examination, Citizens will be unable to learn whether Mr. Tamburro is actually sure that the drywell shell meets the safety requirements. Thus, Citizens are moving to cross-examine AmerGen's expert, Peter Tamburro under IQ C.F.R. § 2.3 10(b)(3) in this case.

In addition, Citizens are requesting an extension of the deadline to file motions and questions related to the NRC errata, which was filed after 5 pm on August 23, 2007 (yesterday). Because Citizens' counsel is going on vacation at 4 am tomorrow until Labor Day, Citizens request that the deadline to submit questions and motions relating to the NRC errata be extended to the deadline for the submission of questions and motions regarding sur-rebuttal (September 18, 2007).'

ARGUMENT I. Legal Standard For Granting Cross-Examination 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b) authorizes the Board to allow any party to cross-examine a witness when "it is necessary for the development of [an] adequate record for a sound decision or is required for a full and true disclosure of the facts." In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 60 N.R.C. 686, 689 (2004). The basis for granting a motion to cross-Citizens have contacted AmerGen and NRC Staff about these motions. Citizens understand that AmerGen objects to the Motion for Cross Examination, but does not object to the motion for an extension. NRC Staff would only agree to an 2

examine experts "is not restricted to those situations described in 10 C.F.R. § 2.3 10(d)" relating to credibility of witnesses. Id. at 690. Instead, cross-examination under Subpart L is broader and "can encompass any issue that is relevant to the findings of fact that a Board or presiding officer must make in order to render a decision." Id. The breadth of this ability to cross-examine witnesses arises out of the fact that the opportunity for cross-examination under Subpart L has been judicially determined to be equivalent to that same opportunity under 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). See id. at 710 (citing CAN v. United States, No. 04-1145, 2004 WL 2827697 (1st Cir. 2004). In particular, the Board has recognized the appropriateness of supplemental cross-examination in instances where decisions hinge on "expert opinions, technical and scientific facts," recognizing that the Board "is not experts in all disciplines nor as well versed in the nuances of some issues as some of the litigats." Id. at 711.

Finally, Commission proceedings are governed by a cardinal rule of fairness that each side must be heard. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Gnerating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565, 10 N.R.C. 521, 524 (1976). It would be unfair to Citizens if AmerGen were able to support its position with a grossly inconsistent witness and effectively deny Citizens the ability to find out why he has been so inconsistent by breaking up questioning on his testimony into a number of witness panels.

I. Peter Tamburro's Documents and Testimony Are Inconsistent With Each Other AmerGen Ex. 16, authored by Mr. Tamburro in March 2007, but only provided to Citizens on June 1, 2007, revealed that AmerGen's own assessment shows that there is, at minimum, a reasonable technical argument that the assured remaining margin in the drywell is 0.022 inches or less. This directly contradicts an affidavit sworn by Mr. Tamburro, which was submitted by AmerGen in support of summary disposition. In addition, Citizens Ex. 3, also authored by Mr. Tamburro, shows that he had extension to August 31, which not have allowed Citizens' counsel to deal with the matter. Thus NRC Staff object to the motion for an extension, but expressed no position on the motion for cross-examination.

3

serious concerns about the safety justification for the drywell shell, which he subsequently decided to overlook. Because Citizens and the Board need to understand the motivation behind Mr. Tamburro's changes in position and inconsistent testimony, and such understanding will be impossible to obtain if Mr. Tamburro provides his evidence as a member of a number of witness panels, Citizens respectfully request the opportunity to cross-examine Peter Tamburro individually pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b).

A. Mr. Tamburro's Assessment Of 2006 External Results Supported Citizens' Arguments That Margins Were Less Than 0.021 Inches On June 1, 2007, Citizens received from AmerGen a copy of C-1302-187-5320-24 revision 2, AmerGen Ex. 16. Mr. Tamburro prepared this document on March 26, 2007. This document assesses whether the external UT results taken in October 2006 comply with the current licensing basis of the plant. On page 5 it contains a helpful summary table which shows the various acceptance criteria and the actual thickness for each bay. For the local buckling criterion, the table shows that in Bay 13, Mr.

Tamburro assessed the limiting local thickness as 0.658 inches, compared to an acceptance criterion of 0.636 inches, Id. at 5. Thus, the derived margin was, at least arguably, 0.022 inches. Similarly, in Bay 17, Mr. Tamburro found the limiting local thickness to be 0.663 inches, id., yielding a margin of 0.027 inches.

Considering the document in greater detail, it states that the local wall criteria for buckling requires that the 12 irich by 12 inch center of a 36 inch by 36 inch evaluation area must be 0.636 inches thick or greater. Id. at 10. It also requires that the area within the evaluation area surrounding the center square must be "on average thicker than the transition from 0.636" to 0.736."" Id.

The evaluation of the surrounding area for Bay 1, illustrated graphically that the margins are extremely narrow. Id. at Figure 1-5. Reading from the graph, the margin shown is of the order of 4

0.005 inches to 0.01 inches. Id. The text also confirms that the thinnest 12 inch by 12 inch area in Bay 13 is 0.658 inches, id. at 61, and the thinnest 12 inch by 12 inch area in Bay 17 is 0.663 inches. Id. at

83. Thus, the document provides technical support for an argument that the most limiting margins derived from the external results taken in 2006 are between 0.005 inches and 0.027 inches.

B. Mr. Tamburro's Affidavit Contradicts Mr. Tamburro's Assessment Of The 2006 External Results On the same day that Mr. Tamburro completed his draft of the evaluation of the 2006 external UT results, he also swore an affidavit, which AmerGen submitted as part of its Motion for Summary Disposition. Directly contradicting his evaluation discussed above, Mr. Tabmurro swore that the local acceptance criterion includes a one square foot area that must be greater than 0.536 inches. Affidavit of Peter Tamburro, dated March 26, 2006 ("Tamburro Aff.") at ¶¶ 20, 22, 24. In fact, as discussed above, in the draft evaluation Mr. Tamburro used 0.636 inches as the correct local area acceptance criterion.

Even more seriously, the entire first part of Mr. Tamburro's opinion is that "Citizens Allegation of 0.026" Remaining Margin Is Technically Unsupportable." Tamburro Aff. at 4. Further Mr.

Tamburro specifically stated that "Citizens' assertion that the margin above the acceptance criteria is as low as 0.026 inches, therefore, is not supported by the data." Id. at ¶ 25. As demonstrated above, Mr.

Tamburro's contemporaneous evaluation of the 2006 UT results showed precisely the opposite. There is a technically supportable argument that the data actually showed that the margin above the acceptance criteria was in some instances even lower than 0.026 inches. Far from being technically unsupportable, Citizens' allegation was in fact supported by a document authored by Mr. Tamburro, that was not then in Citizens' possession.

5

C. Mr. Tamburro Expressed Concerns That He Subsequently Disregarded In March 2006 Mr. Tamburro authored a memorandum that pointed out many deficiencies in C-1302-187-5320-24 rev. 0, which was "the only safety related calculation that demonstrates that the 1992 as left Drywell Vessel Thicknesses in the former sandbed meets design basis." Citizens' Ex. 3 at 1.

As Citizens pointed out in their initial statement of position, Mr. Tamburro saw the need to either justify that the full cut out trays modeled by GE could be use as a local area acceptance criterion, or revise the acceptance criteria to a more stringent requirement. Citzens' Initial Statement at 6-7. The subsequent revisions to C-1302-187-5320-24 took the route of using more stringent acceptance criteria rather than justifying the 9.5% reduction in buckling strength that the full cut out would cause. Id.

However, in his testimony to the Board, Mr. Tamburro has stated that the local area acceptance criterion is based on the full cut out, not the revised criteria used in the subsequent revisions to C-1302-187-5320-24. Similarly, Citizens wish to examine Mr. Tabmurro about his concerns relating to other items, including the correction applied to the 1992 external data, and how to decide whether Bays with more than one area that is thinner than 0.736 inches are acceptable.

D. Mr. Tamburro's Assessment Of The 2006 External Data Shows That The Drywell Violates The Acceptance Criteria Calculation C- 1302-187-5320-24 Rev 2, authored by Mr. Tamburro, shows that the acceptance criteria are probably being violated. Citizens Rebuttal Statement at 16. Mr. Tamburro chose to ignore that fact when he authored the document and has continued to rhaintain that the drywell meets the acceptance criteria. Because the data presentation in calculation C-1302-187-5320-24 Rev 2 is unclear and at times misleading, counsel for Citizens has spent considerable time annotating the document and trying to understand how various figures relate to the underlying data. Citizens respectfully maintain 6

that the Board would find it very difficult to ask probing questions about this document, simply because it is so unclear. Instead of allowing AmerGen to take advantage of the hinderence produced by Mr. Tamburro's opaque presentation of the data, the Board should allow counsel for Citizens to cross examine Mr. Tamburro on this aspect of his testimony.

III. Cross Examination By Citizens Should Be Permitted In the case of the testimony of Mr. Tamburro, supplemental cross-examination by Citizens should be allowed, because the inconsistencies in his testimony and the lack of clarity in the documents he has authored do not allow Citizens to offer to the Board a full and complete cross-examination plan that the Board could reasonably be expected to follow. In addition, cross-examination of Mr.

Tamburro on the various inconsistencies requires a nuanced understanding of a myriad of documents in the record. Moreover, in the absence of this motion being granted, Citizens' questions for Mr.

Tamburro would be divided among three panels. This has two adverse consequences. First, questions about a single document, such as Citizens Ex. 3, would have to be spaced out in time, reducing the intensity of the focus on the document. Second, other witnesses on the panels may seek to prevent Mr.

Tamburro from fully expressing his views. For example, Michel Gallagher, who is on panel two with Mr. Tamburro is a vice president of Exelon, while Mr. Tamburro is a senior engineer at Oyster Creek.

Thus, because Mr. Gallagher outranks Mr. Tamburro, Mr. Tamburro may feel obliged to follow Mr.

Gallagher's lead in responding to certain questions. Thus, without individual cross-examination of Mr.

Tamburro by Citizens' counsel,. it is unlikely the Board will be able to identify the inconsistencies in Mr. Tamburro's work and effectively probe into Mr. Tamburro's motivation for allowing those inconsistencies to develop and persist. Therefore, in order to develop an adequate record for decision 7

in this case, Citizens respectfully request that the Board grant this motion to allow Citizens to cross-examine Mr. Tamburro.

CONCLUSION For all of the forgoing reasons, the ASLB should grant Citizens' motion to cross-examine Mr.

Tamburro pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.310(b). In addition, the Board should grant Citizens request that the deadline to submit questions and motions relating to the NRC errata be extended to the deadline for the submission of question sur-rebuttal (September 18, 2007). Furthermore, this Board may grant such further relief as it sees fit.

Respectfully submitted, Richard Webster, Esq.

RUTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC Attorneys for Citizens Dated: August 24, 2007 8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )

) ASLB No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for the Oyster Creek )

Nuclear Generating Station) ) August 24, 2007

.)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karen Hughes, of full age, certify as follows:

I hereby certify that on August 24, 2007, I caused a revised exhibit list, revised exhibit 47, new exhibit 52 and renumbered Hausler testimony to be served via email and U.S. Postal Service (as indicated) on the following:

Secretary of the Commission (Email and original and 2 copies via U.S Postal Service)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(d)NRC.GOV Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Chair (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop- T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: erh(anrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Paul B. Abramson (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: pbagnrc.gov I

Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ajb5( nrc.!ov Law Clerk Debra Wolf (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: DAW I nnrc.gov Office of General Counsel (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OGCMAILCENTER2,NRC. GOV Mitzi Young (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mavknrc.gov Mary C. Batty (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mcbl @nrc.gov Alex S. Polonsky, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, &Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: apolonskyvd~morganlewis.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: ksutton(a-,morganlewis.com 2

Donald Silverman, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: dsilverman(2amorianlewis.com J. Bradley Fewell (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way, Suite 200 Kennett Square, PA 19348 E-mail: bradley.feweil~exceloncorp.com John Covino, DAG (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: johnmcorvino(dol.lps.state.nj.us Valerie Gray (Email)

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: valerie.gray@dol .lps.state.nj.us.

Paul Gunter (Email and U.S. Postal Service) c/o Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912-4446 E-mail: paulhbeyondnuclear.org Edith Gbur (Email)

Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc.

364 Costa Mesa Drive. Toms River, New Jersey 08757 E-mail: gburl@,comcast.net Paula Gotsch (Email)

GRAMMIES 205 6th Avenue Normandy Beach, New Jersey 08723 E-mail: paulaotsch@verizon.net 3

I Jeff Tittel (Email)

New Jersey Sierra Club 139 West Hanover Street Trenton New Jersey 08618 E-mail: Jeff.Tittel(asierraclub.or2 Peggy Sturmfels (Email)

New Jersey Environmental Federation 1002 Ocean Avenue Belmar, New Jersey 07319 E-mail: psturmfels(cleanwater.org Michele Donato, Esq. (Email)

PO Box 145 Lavalette, NJ 08735 E-mail: mdonato@micheledonatoesq.com Signed: Gjt--'

Karý Hughes Dated: August 24, 2007 4

Renumbered Hausler Rebuttal Testimony thinner point than 0.49 inches would have been observed. Thus, I believe that there is a significant chance that the drywell shell Bay 13 currently fails the very local area acceptance criterion in.

Q18. To take account of the alleged bias in the external UT measurements, AmerGen has applied a correction technique to some of the measurements. Do you believe this correction technique is appropriate?

Al&__, No,. it is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, it was derived usingonly ................. Deleted: 9 measurements in Bay 13. Because the visual inspection shows that Bay 13 is atypical, even if this technique were appropriate for Bay 13, it would not be appropriate for the other Bays.

Second, the technique is not even appropriate for Bay 13, because it is not based on any viable physical or statistical theory. Instead, the operator appears to have selected a correction factor that is larger than the average surface roughness.

Q Since.

._ submitting your initial- test-imony have you refined your assumptions about the -(Deleted: 8 interior corrosion rate?

Deleted: 8 A1e Ye.s... NRC Staff have confirmedthatUT data taken in the trenches have show.tha.t, a ..........

corrosion rate of approximately 0.002 inches per year occurred between 1986 and 2006. The interpretation of these results is very difficult. AmerGen's explanation that the thinning is caused by exterior corrosion seems unlikely, because Bays 5 and 17 are the least corroded Bays and the estimated corrosion rate in Bay 17 was not significant or was very small (no corrosion rate was even estimated for Bay 5). AmerGen Ex. 23. Indications are that corrosion on the interior could occur at outages or when water flows to the interior during operation. Thus, it is likely that the 2 mils per year average represents a situation where interior corrosion occurred in fits and starts over the years. Considerably higher short term corrosion rates have probably occurTed. In the absence of any good information on this issue, I believe it would be prudent to allow for an interior corrosion rate that is a multiple of 0.002 inches per year, if new water is introduced onto the interior floorby repairs to control rod drives, use of the containment spray, or other sources.

8

Deleted: 19 Q20 ___Has AmerGen or NRC Staff shown that water cannot be present in the exterior of the drywell shell?

A2_*0_. No. At various times in the past there has been leakage onto the exten.or.of the.drywell

  • Deleted: 19 shell because the drywell cavity liner leaks and the trough that was provided to catch general leakage is very shallow, has only one drain, and was damaged. Citizens' Ex. 15 at 134-35; Citizens' Ex. 24 at 222-23; AmerGen Testimony Part I at A.20; AmerGen Testimony Part 3 at A.5. More recently, during the 1994 and 1996 refueling outages, the committed mitigation measures were not used and water leaked into the exterior sandbed region. AmerGen Testimony Part 4 at A.8-9; AmerGen Testimony Part 5 at A. 14. Therefore, water could flow onto the exterior of the drywell shell in the sandbed region if a forced outage occurred that required the reactor cavity to be flooded without having the leakage mitigation measures applied. In addition, AmerGen has acknowledged that it has been unable to devise a means of stemming the leakage from the reactor cavity during refueling. Citizens' Ex. 24 at 219-21. In the 2006 outage around one gallon per minute of leakage was observed even after the required tape and strippable coating were applied to the fuel cavity liner. AmerGen Testimony Part 4 at A.9. However, the trough is still subject to high temperatures that could cause the concrete to deteriorate and the condition of the trough was seen to be far from ideal in the most recent outage. Citizens' Exs.

48-49. In addition, quite serious leaks have been observed in the past even after taping and strip coating. Citizens' Ex. 50. Furthermore, the intended function of the trough is to act as a backup for other components. Citizens' Ex. 24 at 220. Thus, if the trough degraded further, mitigating measures were not as effective as in 2006, or leakage was observed in other components, water could enter the drywell again, even without a forced outage. Finally, AmerGen acknowledges that use of the drywell chillers, which are used during refueling and other outages when access to the drywell is needed, could lead to condensation. AmerGen Testimony Part 4 at A.15. The potential for condensation is apparently confirmed by an analysis of water that had drained from the exterior of the sandbed region before March 2006, which showed no activity. Citizens' Ex.

23. This is consistent with the source being condensation.

Q2 I. s.there achance that some of the exterior of te_.dr. 1 shell is not.covered by a ".1Deleted: 18 protective epoxy coat?

9

- Deleted: 18

_ _._Yes._es Internal documents we have recei ved from AmerGen indicate that areas of the shell in the sandbed region were not coated with epoxy because they are inaccessible. Citizens' Exs.

40-41.

Q_2...D~oou be!eye t hat AmerGen has used valid methods to evaluate the potential for *-1 Deleted: 19 external corrosion?,

A2-- N.__AmerGen makes a number of critical errors in its approach to estimating exterior N.___ - Deleted: 19 aprc e

...... .t -o_atn ------

corrosion. Most obviously, Mr. Gordon fails to consider the situation where the plant is forced to fill the drywell cavity in a forced outage. AmerGen Testimony Part 5 at A.13. Mr. Gordon also fails to allow for other forced outages, which could lead to condensation on the exterior of the drywell surface. In addition, Mr. Gordon has not used a reasonable approach to estimate the time in which any water on the exterior of the shell would evaporate, because he has used an equation which applies to pools or open ponds. Id. at A.19. Thus, the equation inherently assumes that the evaporation of the water does not affect the air into which it is evaporating (steady state equation). This assumption is invalid for the exterior of the sandbed region which has very limited air exchange. It is therefore likely that in the event of water leakage into the region, the air in the sandbed region would become fully saturated during the outage (transient phenomenon). It would then have very limited capacity to absorb moisture as the temperature increased with plant start up. Then, after the air becomes saturated at the operating temperature, it would not absorb more moisture unless air is being exchanged with the outside. The ability of new air to reach the sand pocket has been reduced by the 1lacement of tubes leading to polysterene bottles in the sandbed drains. Thus, it is likely that any moisture on the exterior of the shell would evaporate slowly. I do not have access to sufficient information to provide a quantitative estimate of the rate of evaporation.

.. Deleted: 0 Q23._ _In summa.ryare ou .con.vineed tha.t.th-e.dryw.1 w!! meet safety requirements.

during any extended period of operation?

A2*,. No. NRC Staff and AmerGen have created a miasma of uncertainty, which makes it . Deleted: 0 difficult to show what the current situation is or how it could change in the future. However, I believe that the contour plots coupled with the visual observations show that it is likely that the corrosion goes beyond the envelope of the shapes modeled by GE. Furthermore, based on my 10

statistical analyses I believe there is a significant chance that the thinnest area of the drywell is thinner than the required amount (0.49 inches). In addition, the lower 95% confidence intervals of the external data are close to or below the criterion for mean thickness (0.736 inches). For example, based on raw UT data, I believe that Bay 15 could have a mean thickness of less than 0.736 inches at the lower 95% confidence limit and the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean thickness of Bay 13 in 1992 was 0.741 inches, a mere 0.006 inches above the requirement.

There is also tremendous uncertainty in the potential corrosion rates for both interior and exterior corrosion. Thus, I believe the Board should not allow the proposed relicensing because AmerGen cannot demonstrate with any certainty that the drywell shell in the sandbed region can meet the ASME code at the start of any period of extended operation. If the Board decides to grant the license, it should ensure that AmerGen has provided an estimate of the thickness margin above each acceptance criterion that is reasonably certain. The UT monitoring frequency should be based on the smallest margin available. That frequency would be considerably less than once every four years because available margins are, at best, razor thin and such margins could be reduced to nothing in a matter of months.

. Deleted: 1 Q24._. Have you _n.o-w completed your .rebuttal Iteslti*mony? ................................ -- 1 A 2 1 ----

Y e s .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................

..-. Deleted: I 11

CITIZENS' EXHIBIT LIST No. Exhibit Other Reference 1 GPU Nuclear, Drywell Steel Shell Plate Thickness Reduction (July 21, 1995). Citizen's Exhibit NC 8 2 Partial Cross Section of Drywell and Torus. Citizen's Exhibit NC 10 3 Memorandum from Peter Tamburro on the Unclear Documentation of Calculation C-1302-187-5320-024 (AR 00461639 Report) (Mar. 30, 2006). Exhibit ANC 8 4* Exelon Nuclear, Calculation C-1302-187-5320-024 Revision 1: O.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed (Jan. 12, 1993). AmerGen's Exhibit 3 5* Exelon Nuclear, Calculation C- 1302-187-E310-041 Revision 0: Statistical Analysis of Drywell Vessel Sandbed Thickness Data 1992, 1994, 1996, and 2006 (Dec. 12, 2006). Exhibit SJA 1 6 Affidavit of Peter Tamburro, Mar. 26, 2007.

7 AmerGen, NRC Information Request: Audit Question Numbers AMP-141, 210, 356 (Apr. 5, 2006). Citizen's Exhibit NC I 8* AmerGen, Passport 00546049 07 (AR A2152754 E09): Water Found in Drywell Trench 5 - UT Data Evaluation (Nov. 7, 2006). Exhibit SJA 2

  • Citizens understand that these exhibits marked with a
  • will be provided by AmerGen, however, if ArnerGen fails to submit these exhibits as anticipated they will be submitted by the Citizens at a later date.

9 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., Statistical Analysis of Oyster Creek Drywell Thickness Data (Jan. 4, 2007). AmerGen's Exhibit 4 10 AmerGen, NRC Information Request: Audit Question Numbers AMP-357, 356, 210 (Jan. 24, 2006 and Feb. 16, 2006). Citizen's Exhibit NC 2 11 Email from Peter Tamburro to Ahmed Ouaou (June 6, 2006, 14:03 EST). OCLROOO13624-13625 12 Memorandum from Dr. Rudolf Hausler, Apr. 25, 2007 (Redacted).

13 Memorandum from Dr. Rudolf Hausler, July 19, 2007.

14 AmerGen, Reference Material to the ACRS: Photograph of the Sand Bed Region (1992). Exhibit SJA 3 15 Transcript of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proceedings, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal Oyster Creek Generating Station (Jan. 18, 2007) (Excerpted Pages: p. 1-10, p. 132-1 4 4, p.207-22 4 ,

p. 353-358).

16 Transcript of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proceedings, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of Plant License Renewal Subconmnittee (Oct. 3, 2006) (Excerpted Pages: p. 1-8, p.59-63).

17 Email from Steven Hutchins to John Hufnagel Jr., with Drywell White Papers attachm-ient (Sept. 18, 2006, 16:51 EST). OCLR00013714 - 13734 18 Affidavit of Jon R. Cavallo, Mar. 26, 2007.

19 AmerGen, Action Request: Determine the Proper Sealant for Drywell Sandbed Floor Voids (Oct. 23, 2006). Exhibit ANC 5 20 Letter from Richard J. Conte, Chief Engineering Branch 1, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Richard Webster, Esq., Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic (Nov. 9, 2006). Exhibit ANC 6 21 Letter from J.C. Devine, Jr., Vice President of Teclmical Functions, GPU Nuclear, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Dec. 5, 1990)

(Attachment 3; GPUN Detailed Summary Addressing Water Intrusion and Leakage Effects Related to the Oyster Creek Drywell). OCLR00029270-29283 22 GPU Nuclear, Clearing of the Oyster Creek Drywell Sand Bed Drains (Feb. 15, 1989). OCLR00028912-28918 23 AmerGen, Disclosed Document Relating to Drywell Leakage. OCLRO0013354 24 Transcript of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proceedings, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 539th Meeting (Feb. 1, 2007)

(Excerpted Pages: p.1-3, p. 172-177, p. 217-224).

25 Letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to C. Crane (Jan. 17, 2007)

("Inspection Report"). ML070170396 26 Email from Steven Dunsmuir, FIN/Operations RO, Exelon Corp., to Howie Ray, et al. (Oct. 22, 2006, 04:52 EST). OCLR0014454-14455 27 Email from Tom Quintenz to Kevin Muggleston, et al. (Feb. 1, 2006, 17:02 EST). OCLROO13629 28 GPU Nuclear, Evaluation of February 1990 Drywell UT Examination Data (Mar. 8, 1990). Citizen's Exhibit NC 9

29 Affidavit of Gordon, Mar. 26, 2007.

30 Letter from Jill Lipoti, Director Division of Environmental Safety and Health, New Jersey Dept. of Enviromnental Protection, to Dr. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Director Division of License Renewal, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Apr. 26, 2007).

31* AmerGen, Calculation Sheet C-1302-187-5300-01.

32* GPU Nuclear, Calculation Sheet C-1302-187-5320-024 Revision 0: Oyster Creek Drywell Exterior Evaluation in Sandbed (1993). Citizen's Exhibit NC 3 33* Exelon Nuclear, Calculation C- 1302-187-5320-024 Revision 2: O.C.

Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed (Mar. 18, 2007).

34* ACRS Information Packet (Dec. 2006). Exhibit ANC 2 35 Letter from AmerGen to the NRC (2103-06-20426) (Dec. 3, 2006)

(Excerpted Pages: Dec. 3, 2006 Letter, p.1-3, p. 9-15, p. 17-24). Exhibit ANC 1 36 Email from Caroline Schlaseman, MPR Associates, Inc., to Howie Ray (Nov. 2, 2006, 12:09 EST). OCLR00015433-15434 37 Background and Statement of Facts Attachment 5 to Hausler Initial Testimony 38 Memorandum from Dr. Rudolf Hausler,

Subject:

Response To The Questions About Statistics (Aug. 16, 2007).

39 Memorandum from Dr. Rudolf Hausler,

Subject:

Further Discussion of the Nature of the Corroded Surfaces and The Residual Wall Thickness of the Oyster Creek Dry Well (Aug. 16, 2007).

40. Email from William Russell to Frederick Polaski, et al.,

Subject:

Challenge Board #1 additional comment (Nov. 30, 2006, 9:48 EST), attached to email from John Hufnagel Jr. to Al-uned Ouaou, et al. (Nov. 30, 2006 10:41 EST).

41. GPU Nuclear, Technical Functions Safety/Environmental Determination and 50.59 Review (Jan. 5, 1993).
42. Email from Peter Tamburro to Ahmed Ouaou, Cc Howie Ray, et al.,

Subject:

Surface Are (sic) of the Drywell in the sand bed (Apr. 3, 2006 3:24 PM).

43. Email from John O'Rourke to Michael Gallagher, et al.,

Subject:

External Inspections of DW in Sandbed Region (Oct. 10, 2006 8:08 AM), attached to email from John Hufnagel to John O'Rourke (Oct. 10, 2006 8:10 AM).

44. Memorandum, GPU Nuclear from K. L. Whitmore, Civil/Structural Mgr. to J. C. Flynn, Manager, Special Projects, Engineering Projects,

Subject:

Inspection of drywell sand bed region and access holes (Jan. 28, 1993).

45. AmerGen Technical Evaluation 330592-27-27 (Apr. 20, 2007).
46. Email from John O'Rourke to Marcos Herrera, Cc Michael Gallagher et al.,

Subject:

Oyster Creek Drywell Thickness to be Used for Base Case Analysis, with OYSTER CREEK DRYWELL THICKNESSES, Rev2.doc attachment (Feb. 28, 2007 7:20 PM).

47. Issue # 00557180, Exelon Nuclear Issue - Statement of Confirmation, Originator: Kathy Barnes (Nov. 13, 2006).
48. Email from Tom Quintenz to John O'Rourke,

Subject:

Notes of video inspection results of trough area with Video Inspection of Concrete Trough Notes November 1996 with attachment (Oct. 10, 2006 2:26 PM).

49. GPU Nuclear, Material Nonconformance Report (Oct. 27, 1986).
50. Memorandum, GPU Nuclear from R. Miranda, Engineer, Technical Functions to Distribution,

Subject:

14R Reactor Cavity Leak Detection Effort (Feb. 1, 1993).

51. Sketches showing ultrasonic and "Echo to Echo" techniques, and explanations of sketches.
52. E-mail from Tom Quintenz to Almued Ouaou & John Hufnagel, Jr. (September 20, 2006 2:02 EST) OCLROO13796 AR 00547236 Report OCLROOO13846

Exhibit 47 Print Close window Create another New Issue F_ Create another Issue from '00557180'

    • AS REQUIRED, PRINT ISSUE REPORT AND PROVIDE TO YOUR SUPERVISOR**

Note: This is your only notice. You will not have an opportunity to print this confirmation later.

Exelon Nuclear Issue - Statement of Confirmation November 13, Issue #: 00557180 Originator: KATHY BARNES Submit Date: 2006 2006 Basic Information Affected Facility: Oyster Creek Dscv Date: 11/07/2006 11:00 How Discovered Code: H02 Event Date: 11/07/2006 11:00 Affected Unit: NA Affected Sys:

Subj ect: COMMITMENTS MADE FOR GL 87-05 ARE NOT IN THE RA DATABASE Required Information Condition

Description:

Commitments were made as a result of the GL 87-05 as well as other correspondence, meetings, etc. concerning our Drywell Corrosion Monitoring and Water Intrusion mitigation plans. The correspondence covers the time period of 1986 through present. A check of the Lotus Notes database presently used for commitment tracking did not indicate any commitments have been made. Based on limited research an SER was issued with subsequent correspondence, which committed us to a corrosion monitoring activities and leakage monitoring activities for the Drywell. The correspondence was used to formulate what is thought to be the present commitments-for leakage monitoring. That information was utilized as an input to the outage leakage monitoring activities to determine the steps necessary to meet the present commitments and the License Renewal commitments for leakage monitoring. The documents were annotated with reference to the correspondence for the present commitments and to Passport commitment tracking numbers for the License Renewal commitments.

Subsequent research determined other correspondence exists which indicated we initiated "preventive maintenance to clear the sand bed drains periodically". There were no preventive maintenance activities prior to this outage to clear the sand bed drains. It is not known at this time whether this is a commitment by virtue of it being in our correspondence with the NRC.

IR 547236 documents the existence of debris in the sand bed drains, when perfonning the first known formalized maintenance activity to inspect the.

drains. Although the debris did not affect the capability to monitor the leakage from the sand bed drains, there is a question of where did the debris came from and when should be the next time we inspect the drains, and on what frequency. An ACIT was issued to address these concerns. No OCLROO01 5508

frequency is presented in the previous correspondence found, but there may*

be other correspondence, which did make commitments to a frequency, or removed this activity. Without having a commitment tracking system for these historical commitments renders the site to potential repeat occurrences of missed commitments from a current license basis perspective.

Immediate actions taken: License renewal assembled a partial list of documents retrieved from the correspondence database that had been assembled to support the License Renewal Project. Correspondence was discovered relevant to the water intrusion measures including the monitoring of the sand bed drains.

Regulatory Assurance was notified of the finding.

This JR was submitted.

Recommendation for action: 1. Perform a complete review of all correspondence relative to the GL 87-05, and the drywell corrosion monitoring and water intrusion mitigation plan for legitimate commitments. Review these commitments for confirmation of implementation. For commitments that are determined to no longer be appropriate, disposition those commitments in accordance with the corporate commitment management procedures.

Assure documents are annotated properly for commitments, which will be retained. Enter those commitments into the commitment tracking system with cross-references to the implementing documents for retrieval purposes.

This is required to answer an existing question for the NRC Inspection 2006-13 Report, which is ongoing.

2. Considering the risks associated with missing commitments (examples being: failure to perform leak-age monitoring for the sand bed drains, potentially failure to perform periodic clearing of the sand bed drains, etc.)

evaluate the need to initiate efforts to retrieve historical commitments, and confirm formal implementation mechanisms exist for those items determined to be legitimate commitments, and that they are being tracked and annotated in accordance with corporate commitment tracking requirements. This would be a significant manpower effort and probably require outside support.

3. Develop and expand the correspondence data base similar to the one which was provided to regulatory assurance from the license renewal project for easy retrieval of the basis documents which provide an input to our Current License Basis (CLB). This would also be beneficial for those performing 50.59 evaluations, which rely on the determination of our CLB.

Supervisor Verbally Contacted J. Kandasamy Optional Additional Informnation What activities, processes, or procedures were involved? During I1R21, NRC Inspections of the drywell water intrusion activities prompted a more extensive search for related correspondence.

Why did the condition happen? The age of OC has resulted in an enormous volume of regulatory correspondence that had not OCLRQOO015509

been reviewed in searching for prior commitments. Commitments were not tracked in a database for all teh years of OC operation.

Changes of ownership and changes in definition of what constitutes a commitment has resulted in inadequate understanding of what this older correspondence requires.

What are the consequences? Without having a commitment tracking system or proper disposition of these historical commitments renders the site to potential repeat occurrences of missed commitments from a current license basis perspective.

Any procedural requirements impacted? LS-AA- 110 provides requirements for managing commitments in current regulatory correspondence. This issue report is related to historical commitments made by GPUN.

Identify any adverse physical conditions: There was no PM established to periodically clear the sand bed drains of clogs.

List of Knowledgeable individuals: T.Quintenz, H.Ray, P.Tamburro, J.Huffnagel, J.Kandasamy, D.Helker Is this a repeat or similar condition? Yes. There have been other recent examples of missed commitments from "old" correspondence that had not been captured in the OC commitment tracking database. IR 348545 (Tell-tale Drains -

Poly bottles not having a PM to monitor DW leakage)

Routing Owed To Group: ACAPALL Routed to Group: CR-OSC OCLROO01 5510

Exhibit 52 From: Quintenz, Tom <Tom. Quintenz@exeloncorp.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:02 PM To: Ouaou, Ahmed <u999ao2@ucm.com>; Hufnagel Jr, John G

<u000jgh@ucm.com>

Cc: Tamburro, Peter <u777p0t@ucm.com>; Warfel Sr, Donald B

<uOOldbw@ucm.corn>; O'Rourke, John F. <t925jfo@ucm.com>

Subject:

RE: Inspection of Sand Bed Drain Lines I am responding to my action item from Dave Ryan that this is not a commitment, but must remain in scope for the outage.

--- Original Message---

From: Ouaou, Ahmed Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:36 PM To: Quintenz, Tom; Hufnagel Jr, John G Cc: Tamburro, Peter; Warfel Sr, Donald B; O'Rourke, John F.

Subject:

RE: Inspection of Sand Bed Drain Lines I'll discuss with Don and John 0' during turn over. I also think it is a good idea to look at the drains and sandbed floor for debris that could get into the drains when the coating in the bays with drains is inspected. It is not a commitment to check the drains; but we would not look good if we flood the sandbed because the drains are plugged

--- Original Message---

From: Quintenz, Tom Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:36 PM To: Hufnagel Jr, John G Cc: Ouaou, Ahmed; Tamburro, Peter

Subject:

RE: Inspection of Sand Bed Drain Lines With regard to the suggested check of the configuration, suggest that we agree on the change and have the KS program engineer issue a revision to the appropriate recurring task(s) to implement the requirement.

--- Original Message----

From: Hufnagel Jr, John G Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:03 PM To: Quintenz, Tom Cc: Ouaou, Ahmed; Tamburro, Peter

Subject:

RE: Inspection of Sand Bed Drain Lines I agree with your assessment. I also reviewed the June 20, 2006 letter which responded to NRC concerns outlined in the June 1 Public meeting, and as expected, found no commitment to inspect the sand bed drain lines for blockage.

As a separate but related point, do we have a recurring task to ensure that the tubing that goes from the sand bed drain to the poly bottles is intact? It seems we should verify the integrity of this configuration on some regular interval, even if it is not a commitment.

- John.

OCLROO013796

--- Original Message---

From: Quintenz, Tom Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:29 PM To: Hufnagel Jr, John G Cc: Ouaou, Ahmed; Tamburro, Peter

Subject:

Inspection of Sand Bed Drain Lines John, Please confirm the following conclusion relative to the sand bed drain line inspection. This is needed to satisfy an action item I received from an outage planning meeting this week. Thanks.

.Conclusion: It appears the inspection of the sand bed drain lines for blockage is not currently a commitment.

This is based on my review of the current A.5 table of commitments, review of the July 7, 2006 letter to the NRC, and discussions with Ahmed Ouaou. Examination of the trough drain for blockage is a commitment and is contained in our table of commitments and is specifically listed in the July 7, 2006 letter. I have attached a copy of the letter for your reference if needed.

<< File: 2130-06-20358 Additional Appendix A Clarifications 7-06.pdf >>

OCLROO013797

AR - Assignment Report Page 3 of 5 AR 00547236 Report Aft Fac: Oyster Creek AR Type: CR Status: APPROVED Aft Unit: NA Owed To: ACAPALL Due Date: 11/20/2006 Aft System: 187 Event Date: 10/21/2006 CR Level/Class: / Disc Date: 10/21/2006 How Discovered: H02 Orig Date: 10/21/2006 WR/PIMS AR: Component #:

Action Request Details

Subject:

DEBRIS LOCATED IN BAYS 7 AND 11 SANDBED DRAIN LINES

Description:

Originator: PETER TAMBURRO Supv Contacted: Howie Ray Condition

Description:

Inspection of the Sandbed Drain Lines in accordance with Specification 15-328227-004 Rev. 13 showed that the drain line in bay 7 has debris, which could cause blockage of this line. The debris looks like loose concrete. This does not meet the acceptance criteria in the specification per section 3.2.5.2.

In addition the inspection of the drain line in bay 11 shows some loose debris in the bottom of the line directly downstream of the first elbow.

However the line is not blocked and meets the acceptance criteria.

Operability The purpose of the drain lines is to route water in the sandbed from the drywell vessel. At this time the remaining 4 lines are capable of performing this function. In addition since the line in bay 7 is not completely blocked it too would partially perform its function by draining the sandbed. So far in 1R21 no water has entered the sandbed.

Engineering has inspected the S bottles every day since the beginning of the outage (R2088495). To date no water has been found in any of the bottles or on the floor outside the sandbed bays.

Also Engineering and/or NDE have Inspected all 10 Drywell Sandbed bays. To date no water or moisture has been observed in these bays and the coating is in good condition..

Engineering will continue to monitor (on a daily basis) the trough drain line for changes in flow rate and the five polyvinyl bottles for water.

Immediate actions taken:

Informed Howie Ray and the Engineering Control Center RecommendedActions:

1) Continue to monitor the five poly bottles and trough drain line daily per our commitments
2) Recommend cleaning the drain lines in bays 7 and 11.

Operable Basis:

http:Hcccrnva0 I.ceco.coni:6 i 23/cap/servlelRcportARServlct 10/21/2006 OCLROO013846

AR - Assignment Repost Page 4 of 5 Reportable Basis:

Assignments Assign #: 01 Assigned To: Status: AWAIT/C Aft Fac: Oyster Creek Prim Grp: ACAPALL Due Date: 10/26/2006 Assign Type: TRKG Sec Grp: Orig Due Date: pp/ilJ/pppp Priority:

Schedule Ref:

Unit Condition:

Subject/Description: DEBRIS LOCATED IN BAYS 7 AND 11 SANDBED DRAIN LINES hIttp://ccci-nva() I.ceco.cori: 61 23/cap/servlct/ReportARSei-vlet 10/21/2006 OCLROO013847

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML072480532&oldid=2574619"