ML090080021
| ML090080021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/06/2009 |
| From: | Baty M NRC/OGC |
| To: | Gunter P Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS) |
| References | |
| Download: ML090080021 (3) | |
Text
January 6, 2009 Paul Gunter Nuclear Information Resource Service 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912
Dear Mr. Gunter,
I am writing in response to your letter of December 12, 2008 posing several questions regarding a preliminary notification (PNO) titled Results of Implementation of Oyster Creek License Renewal Commitments Related to the Drywell Primary Containment issued by NRC Staff on November 17, 2008. As you know, you and your organization, Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) are a party to the on-going license renewal proceeding. You, in fact, filed a notice of appearance on behalf of NIRS on July 23, 2007.
I have reviewed your questions. Although I am providing answers to your questions, your questions appear to be of an adversarial nature and are intended to obtain information for the on-going litigation. Presently, no discovery obligations are in force nor is the NRC staff subject to responding to discovery requests by parties in the Oyster Creek proceeding. You should be aware that you are not entitled to question the NRC staff through informal verbal or e-mail questioning (interrogatories) or formally through letters. With respect to current operating safety concerns, you are entitled to the same extent and methods of obtaining information as any member of the public (i.e. FOIA and reviewing publically available documents in ADAMS or in the NRCs Public Document Room).
Finally, at this point, the answers I am providing to the questions in your December 12, 2008 letter may not be definitive or comprehensive, and do not reflect the agency's official final inspection conclusions. Therefore, you should rely on the upcoming published inspection official report.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Mary C. Baty Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated.
Response to Questions
- 1.
The PNO states on page 2 at numeral 5 AmerGens activities to monitor and mitigate water leakage from the reactor refueling cavity onto the external surface of the drywell shell and into the sand bed regions are still under evaluation.
A.
Did NRC inspectors conduct an in-person walk down of the water collection containers installed to monitor water leakage into the sand bed region of the dry well liner?
Answer: Yes.
B.
If not, why not?
Answer: See answer question 1.A.
C.
If water is described in the collection containers was it analyzed and what was data did the analysis provide?
Answer: Assuming that the question is asking if the water found in the collection containers was analyzed and, if so, what were the results of the analysis, the answer to that question is that the water was not analyzed.
D.
If the in-person walk down was conducted, when is the inspection evaluation and other relevant findings to be made public and in what form?
Answer: The NRC Staff plans to issue a report no later than February 6, 2009.
E.
What circumstances following the sand bed region water monitoring and mitigation inspection precluded its evaluation from the PNO and the staffs stated determination that Based on the results of the NRCs inspection activities to date, the NRC staff concluded there were no safety significant conditions with respect to the drywell contain that would prohibit plant startup.
Answer: This question is not clear.
F.
Are the AmerGen activities to monitor and mitigate water leakage onto the drywell liner and into the sand bed region a current license condition?
Answer: No.
G.
If yes, why is NRC Region 1 directing public inquires to the Office of the General Counsel regarding an NRC inspection process specific to an Oyster Creek license condition?
Answer: See answer to question 1.F.
- 2.
The PNO further states on page 2 Small water puddles were identified in several sand bed bays. After the cavity was drained, AmerGen performed direct inspections of the sand bed bays, and no significant adverse conditions were identified.
A.
Does the NRC evaluation include a review of the adequacy of the mitigation effort in the sand bed region where the floors were reshaped and resurfaced so that water would not collect in the area and drain away from the seam and strippable seal around the concrete floor of the drywell liner?
Answer: The question requests pre-decisional information (i.e. what will be in the NRC Staffs report). Neither litigants nor members of the public are entitled to pre-decisional information. The NRC Staff plans to issue a report on the inspection no later than February 6, 2009.
B.
If not, why not?
Answer: See answer to question 2.A.
C.
Why is continued presence of water in the sand bed region not considered an adverse condition?
Answer: This question will likely be addressed in the NRC Staffs report, which will be issued no later than February 6, 2009.
D.
Given evidence of puddles or standing water in the sand bed region, what has AmerGen done to meet the commitment to mitigate water intrusion into the affected region?
Answer: This question will likely be addressed in the NRC Staffs report, which the Staff plans to issue no later than February 6, 2009.