|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML22235A7862022-08-23023 August 2022 Acceptance Review: Exemption Request from 10 CFR 20, Appendix G, LLW Shipping Investigation Requirements ML21181A1882021-06-30030 June 2021 E-mail from S. Johnston, Holtec, to A. Snyder and F. Bower, NRC - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Readiness Status for ISFSI Only Inspection ML21175A2092021-06-24024 June 2021 E-mail from A. Sterdis to P. Longmire - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station: ISFSI-only Physical Security Plan (Stating Implementation Intent) ML21162A3602021-06-11011 June 2021 E-mail Response from the State of New Jersey Regarding the Pending Revision to the Emergency Plan to Reflect Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Status ML21162A1172021-06-11011 June 2021 E-mail to HDI: Acceptance Review - FOF Exemption ML21168A0172021-06-10010 June 2021 E-mail from HDI: RAI Response ML21161A2572021-06-0707 June 2021 State Consultation: ISFSI-only Physical Security Plan (Email Response) ML21175A0712021-06-0202 June 2021 Issuance of Request for Additional Information: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Request for Amendment to Technical Specifications ML21148A0562021-05-27027 May 2021 E-mail to State of New Jersey Informing of the Pending Revision to the Emergency Plan to Reflect Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Status ML21132A3182021-05-12012 May 2021 E-Mail from V. Gubbi, DEP to Z. Cruz, NRC - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - State of New Jersey Response to the Pending Revision to the Defueled Technical Specifications to Reflect Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only ML21132A0312021-05-11011 May 2021 E-mail to State of New Jersey Informing of the Pending Revision to the Physical Security Plan to Reflect Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Status ML21119A1422021-04-28028 April 2021 E-mail to State of New Jersey Informing of the Pending Revision to the Emergency Plan to Reflect Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Status ML21113A0742021-04-23023 April 2021 Acceptance Review Email - April 20, 2021 Oyster Creek Request for Exemption from 10 CFR Part 73 Requirements Due to Covid ML21099A0382021-04-0808 April 2021 Email from Z. Cruz to A. Sterdis - Request for Additional Information - HDI Request for Approval of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Facility Only Emergency Plan ML21085A4872021-03-26026 March 2021 E-mail from Z. Cruz to A. Sterdis - Acceptance Review: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Request for Approval of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications ML21064A2432021-03-0505 March 2021 Email from Z. Cruz to A. Sterdis Acceptance Review_ Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Request for Approval of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Facility Only Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme ML21064A2392021-03-0202 March 2021 E-mail from Z. Cruz to A. Sterdis Acceptance Review - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Request for Approval of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Physical Security Plan ML20345A1462020-12-0909 December 2020 E-mail - Response to Request for Additional Information: HDI Request for One-Time Exemption from Part 73, Appendix B FOF Requirements ML20335A3112020-11-30030 November 2020 Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for a one-time Exemption from Part 73, Appendix B Requirements for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ML20332A1472020-11-24024 November 2020 Acceptance Review: November 20 2020 Exemption Request from 10 CFR Part 73 Appendix B Requirements for Oyster Creek ML20297A2372020-10-22022 October 2020 Request for Additional Information - HDI Fleet Decommissioning Quality Assurance Program ML20279A5082020-10-0505 October 2020 Email to Holtec - Response to Notification of Oyster Creek Onsite Property Insurance Coverage ML20266G4032020-09-22022 September 2020 Acceptance Review Email - Request for Approval of HDI Fleet Decommissioning Quality Assurance Program, Revision 0 ML20134H8742020-05-12012 May 2020 Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Temporary Exemption from Part 73, Appendix B Requirements ML20133J9182020-05-11011 May 2020 Acceptance Review Email - Oyster Creek Request for Exemption from Part 73 Qualification Requirements ML20120A0252020-04-22022 April 2020 NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Oyster Creek Sea Turtle Handling and Conservation Recommendation Obligations NRC-2019-0073, Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-30-2019 R Discenza2019-10-30030 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-30-2019 R Discenza ML19344C8022019-10-20020 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-20-2019 a Dressler ML19344C8002019-10-0909 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-09-2019 W Mcmullin ML19344C7982019-10-0909 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-09-2019 M Noto ML19344C7992019-10-0909 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-09-2019 s Feldman ML19344C7932019-10-0909 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-09-2019 C Bischoff ML19344C7962019-10-0909 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-09-2019 G Adams ML19344C7912019-10-0808 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-08-2019 J Branciforte ML19344C7902019-10-0808 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-08-2019 Anonymous ML19344C7892019-10-0505 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-05-2019 P Dressler ML19263D1222019-09-20020 September 2019 for Your Action Request for Additional Information Hdi Oyster Creek PSDAR ML19214A0452019-08-0202 August 2019 NRC to NMFS, Revised Proposed Action for Oyster Creek Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation ML19182A3422019-07-0101 July 2019 Transaction ML19178A0702019-06-26026 June 2019 Email to State of New Jersey - Oyster Creek - Request Comments on Proposed Amendment to Remove Reference to the Oyster Creek Cyber Security Plan and Update License Condition 2.C.(4) in the Renewed Facility License ML19196A3422019-06-20020 June 2019 Email: Courtesy Notice on the Issuance of the Oyster Creek License Transfer and Exemption (Sierra Club) ML19196A3342019-06-20020 June 2019 Email: Courtesy Notice on the Issuance of the Oyster Creek License Transfer and Exemption ML19162A2242019-06-11011 June 2019 NRC to NMFS, NRC Responses to NMFS Requests for Additional Information for Oyster Creek ESA Section 7 Consultation NRC-2018-0237, Comment from Paul Dressler of the Concerned Citizens for Lacey Coalition, Regarding the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant License Transfer Application2019-06-0707 June 2019 Comment from Paul Dressler of the Concerned Citizens for Lacey Coalition, Regarding the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant License Transfer Application ML19155A1182019-06-0404 June 2019 Incoming E-mail from State of New Jersey on the Oyster Creek Exemption for Reduced Insurances and Use of Decommissioning Trust Fund for Spent Fuel Management and Site Restoration ML19155A1192019-06-0404 June 2019 State of New Jersey Comments - Oyster Creek Conforming Amendment Associated with the Oyster Creek Generating Station License Transfer Application ML19154A0582019-05-31031 May 2019 E-mail Response from State of New Jersey Dated May 31, 2019, Notification-and-Request-Oyster Creek License Transfer Application L-2018-LLM-0002 ML19158A2912019-05-30030 May 2019 NRR E-mail Capture - Oyster Creek ESA Consultation: Information Requests from NMFS ML19158A2772019-05-28028 May 2019 NRR E-mail Capture - Oyster Creek ESA Consultation: Information Requests from NMFS ML19148A4392019-05-24024 May 2019 NMFS to NRC, Requests for Additional Information to Support Oyster Creek Reinitiated Section 7 Consultation 2022-08-23
[Table view] |
Text
John Richmond From: Richard Conte Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:25 AM To: John Richmond
Subject:
FW: CONSENSUS BUILDING +++ FW: Characterization of Inadequate Implementation at OC Attachments: OC Exit Meeting RESULTS on Next Steps.doc Fruedian slip, how could I forget you.
Dave will be talking to me at 100pm, please come over.
From: Richard Conte Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:32 AM To: David Pelton; Mary Baty Cc: Darrell Roberts; Ronald Bellamy; Timothy Kobetz; Ross Telson; Paul Bonnett; Brian Holian; Samson Lee; Karl Farrar; Scott Barber
Subject:
CONSENSUS BUILDING +++ FW: Characterization of Inadequate Implementation at OC This is for our discussion today at 330 - Region I people to gather in Public Meeting Room.
(b)(5)
From yesterday, DIRS was instrumental in helping us build process concensus when we decide on the technical issues.
Dave and Mary - really would like to talk beforehand.
.You all should have Revision 6 of the exit notes.
From: Michael Modes Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:29 PM To: David Pelton Cc: Mary Baty; Richard Conte
Subject:
Characterization of Inadequate Implementation at OC (b)(5)
Infoatlon inthis record was deWletdw M with theEeedom of lnfomaton Ac
.,Exempions, F-OWA O0 (y c,- ao 7 ?75
Pages 2 through 3 redacted for the following reasons:
(b)(5)
Received: from R1CLSTRO0 .nrc.gov ([148.184.99.7]) by R1 MS01 .nrc.gov
([148.184.99.10]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:25:30 -0500 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary From: Richard Conte <Richard.Conte@nrc.gov>
To: John Richmond <John. Richmond@nrc.gov>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:25:28 -0500
Subject:
FW: CONSENSUS BUILDING +++ FW: Characterization of Inadequate Implementation at OC Thread-Topic: CONSENSUS BUILDING +++ FW: Characterization of Inadequate Implementation at OC Thread-Index: AclfxV6eAJTLb2BQRDGw6oeHIgisGgBXzTCAAAIIG8A=
Message-ID: <2856BC46F6A308418F033D973BBOEE72AA5D20809E@R1CLSTR01.nrc.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
<2856BC46F6A308418F033D973BB0EE72AA5D20809E@R1 CLSTR01 .nrc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
1 OYSTER CREEK COMMITMENT INSPECTION Per IP 71003 - App. C MC 2515, Infrequent Procedures STATUS AND NEXT STEPS (As of 12/18/08)
DISCUSSION:
Because of a lack of consensus among key NRC staff stakeholders on the exit notes for the subject inspection, the Deputy Division Director of DRS assigned EB 1 action in order to build consensus in this area by developing and implementing an action plan.
ISSUES:
- 1. SER App. A No. 27 item (2) (p20): "A strippable coating will be applied to the reactor cavity liner to prevent water intrusion into the gcap between the drywell shield wall and the drywell shell during periods when the reactor cavity is flooded."
- a. The strippable coating initially limited leakage into the cavity drain trough at < 1 gpm.
- b. On Nov 7, the leakage rate took a step change to 4 to 6 gpm. Water was subsequently identified in 4 sand bed bays (the sand bed bays are air connected to the area between the drywell shield wall and the drywell shell itself).
- c. This.is viewed by the inspector as self revealing.
- d. NEW INFORMATION:
- i. Action leakrate calc. did not consider channeling of all flow in one area of the trough causing spill over (-60gpm) as what apparently did occur.
ii. Plausible cause - a filtration system was placed in the pool and care was not made to ensure discharge of pump was not aimed at the area where the strippable coating first gave way.
iii. In reviewing multiple sections of the SER, it is clear the staff suspected that the strippable coating would NOT prevent leakage AND water WOULD get into the gap for varying reasons, so additional measures were asked for and obtained for additional coating and UT inspections should water in the gap occurred.
iv. It is not clear why the statement of future action survived as a lone item on the App. A list of the SER.
- v. The inspector remains firm that the item was NOT met with minimal to no impact on safety.
- 2. SER App. A No. 27 item (3) (p20): "The ... drywell sand bed drains will be monitored (daily during refueling outages) ... if leakage is detected, procedures will be in place to determine the source of leakage and investigate and address the impact of leakage on the drywell shell including verification of the condition of the drywell shell coating and moisture barrier (seal) in the sand bed region and performance of UT examinations of the shell in the upper regions...."
- a. Daily, the sand bed drains were remotely monitored by checking poly bottles, attached via tygon tubing to funnels hanging below the drain lines.
- b. The drain lines were not directly observed and in fact, 2 of the 5 tygon tubing became disconnected from the funnels for a period of time which include the leakage period in which the strippable coating started to come loose. The drains to funnel to tygon tubing interface were not readily visible to those monitoring the poly bottles.
- c. This is viewed by the inspector as licensee identified.
- d. NEW INFORMATION:
2
- i. None - The inspector remains firm that the item was NOT met with minimal to no impact on safety.
- 3. SER App. A No. 27 item (3) (p20): "The reactor cavity seal leakage trough drains .... will be monitored for leakage (periodically)," ... it then continues with same statement above on "if leakage is detected..."
- a. The drain line for the trough drain was found isolated during a boroscope examination to verify no line blockage.
- b. When the drain line was monitored at certain times in the outage, the valve was shut.
When the strippable coating started to give way, the drain line had been clear with the valve open in order to perform its function and it was being periodically monitored satisfactory.
- c. NEW INFORMATION:
- i. When they choose to monitor (periodically), the path was not clear at a certain time in the outage (it is by happenstance that the strippable coating had not broken through during the problem).
ii. The completed boroscope was done a second time after the cavity had been filled since first boroscope was not completed fully (jam in the last bend) - the frequency for boroscoping is once a refueling cycle, so frequency was met but poorly implemented.
iii. This is viewed by the inspector as licensee identified ??? (the boroscope method will always identify the issue of the closed valve albeit an inefficient method to identify)??? Not based on timing of when the scoping is done.
NEW INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO ALL THREE ABOVE ISSUES:
The cavity fill procedure using core spray was obtained from the resident inspectors. None of the above conditions are listed in the procedure. Other work instructions apparently cause the actions needed to meet the statements of future action. A debrief on these observation was not done with Ameroer{. (b)(5)
(b)(5)
LEVEL OF CONSENSUS:
(b)(5)
Fage-U_ bers_-_throughb_7 _regdacted for the following reasons:
(b)(5)