ML12010A041
| ML12010A041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/2010 |
| From: | Conatser R NRC/NRR/DRA |
| To: | Adam Nielsen NRC/RGN-II/DRS/PSB1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2012-0020 | |
| Download: ML12010A041 (5) | |
Text
Nielsen, Adam From:
Conatser, Richard Sent:
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:00 PM To:
Nielsen, Adam -\\"-
Cc:
Bonser, Brian
Subject:
RE: FYI... Comments on The List of Tritium Leaks and Spills at Reactor Sites
- Adam, The information I originally reviewed when developing this list was more complete than what appeared in the 50.75(g) file. I'll have to pull up those documents again, but my recollection is that the licensee traced the leakage source to be the contents of the RWST, I'll see if I can locate those documents again. With the current information, I would be reluctant to revise the Vogtle data.
Although it was later remediated, that is not grounds (no pun intended) to remove Vogtle from'the list of historical spills,
- Thanks, Richard
................................. I............................................
I......
From: Nielsen, Adam Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:55-PM To: Conatser, Richard Cc: Bonser, Brian
Subject:
RE: FYI... Comments on The List of Trtium Leaks and Spills at Reactor Sites We might not be able to say that item 2 was >20,000pCi/L. Note that it was a leak from the RWST moat.
Given the vague description on the 50.75g form, I don't know if we can assume it was from the RWST itself. It might be just like item 5. rainwater washout, filling the moat, then leaking through at a weak point in the concrete (or overflowing the moat). Or, if it was from the RWST itself, it may have been diluted by rainwater to
<20,000 pCi/L. We just don't have enough info.
Something else to bear in mind - item number 2 was remediated. Don't know if that affects it being on the list or not, but if it's kept on there then we should acknowledge that it was remediated.
Thanks Adam
.............................................. _..__ I......................................................
From: Conatser, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:35 PM To: Nielsen, Adam Cc: Bonser, Brian
Subject:
RE: FYI... Comments on The List of Tritium Leaks and Spills at Reactor Sites
- Adam, Thanks for the references.
The Vogtle item that is on "The List" (>20,000 pCi/I in mid 1990s) is based on item 2 of their 50.75(g) file (see your attachment, "Leak from the RWST"). Although the licensee lists the tritium concentration in the RWST as "unknown," I have yet to see an RWST that is less than 20,000 pCi/I H-3. As a result, the Vogtle info appears to be correct and no changes to "The List" are required. Please check me to make sure I've got this right.
U~ff don in this record wa' deteted Ire acIoPdance==h. t"-
om, ofo i a.-
- Act, FOIA/PA L +/--
For Hatch, I plan to change the date of the 4E6 pCi/I spill to 2003.
- Thanks, Richard From: Nielsen, Adam Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:17 PM To: Conatser, Richard Cc: Bonser, Brian
Subject:
RE: FYI... Comments on The List of Tritium Leaks and Spills at Reactor Sites I heard you talked to I(b)(6) about the Hatch and Vogtle numbers. I assume she passed along the correct information. if you still nee the data, Hatch had the 4E6 pCi/L event in 2003 and Vogtle had a spill of 33,000 pCi/L in 2007 (<100 gallons though). For the Vogtle event, it was determined to be rain "washout" of gaseous effluents.
Relevant documents are attached.
Adam at Hatch (912) 367-9881 From: Conatser, Richard Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:17 PM To: Thorp, John; Brown, Frederick Cc: Garry, Steven; Cheok, Michael; Shoop, Undine; Bonser, Brian; Hayden, Elizabeth; Burnell, Scott; Screnci, Diane; Sheehan, Neil; Mitlyng, Viktoria; Chandrathil, Prema; Dricks, Victor; Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Boska, John; Lyon, Fred; Martin, Robert; Wilkins, Lynnea; Werner, Greg; White, John; Nielsen, Adam
Subject:
FYI... Comments on The List of Tritium Leaks and Spills at Reactor Sites John, Fred, Thanks for the into. I heard about the comments from Southern Company today. I have now received input from 5 plants concerning "the list." We'll make any changes that are necessary to ensure the list is accurate.
This list was based on 30+ years of data from more than 100 reactors. That is more than 3000 reactor years of data. With that much information involved, I expected some comments. Any changes that are necessary will be incorporated into the next update of the list. Here are the comments received thus far and the current progress toward resolution:
I will work with the project managers and the Regions on closure of each of these items. Because I'm out of the office today, I'll pursue this on Monday.
Best Regards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-415-4039 Richard.Conatser@oNRC.gov Plant I Comment NRC Resolution / NRC Comments Outside of Scope
-7 2
Outside of Scope V
I Vogtle Why is Vogtle on the list? The date doesn't appear to be correct.
TBD (but expect this will be denied). Records indicate Vogtle has recorded spills or leaks greater than 20,000 pCi/I. Based on the current information, no change to the list is necessary.
Licensee has been contacted This is still being researched.
Outside of Scope I
J Outside of Scope j
................................................. I.......................................................... I............................. -...................................
From: Thorp, John Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 11:33 AM To: Shoop, Undine Cc: Brown, Frederick; Garry, Steven; Conatser, Richard; Cheok, Michael
Subject:
FW: public document contains incorrect tritium data FYI, This might be something for you all to address.
John From: Leeds, Eric Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:31 AM To: Brown, Frederick; Cheok, Michael Cc: Thorp, John
Subject:
FYI: public document contains incorrect tritium data Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1270 From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:44 PM 3
To: Leeds, Eric
Subject:
FW: public document contains incorrect tritium data Eric: Christine Tucci is out until Monday. I think someone should look into this on Friday.
Thanks.
Eliot
-. 1.........
I.......................,..
From: Hannah, Roger Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:52 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Hayden, Elizabeth; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Ledford, Joey; McIntyre, David; Screnci, Diane; Sheehan, Nell; Mitlyng, Viktoria; Chandrathil, Prema; Dricks, Victor; Uselding, Lara
Subject:
FW: public document contains incorrect tritium data I'm not sure how the data was reviewed, but it appears that at least some of the information may be inaccurate. We have not heard from any other licensees - yet....
Roger Hannah, APR Senior Public Affairs Officer Region II -- Atlanta, Ga.
Office - 404-997-4417
ý(b)(6) roger.hannah @nrc.gov
< *US.NRC Prozecring Peopl and the Eavironn*met From: Nielsen, Adam Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:35 PM To: Bonser, Brian Cc: Dykes, Carmen; Gepford, Heather; Hamilton, Ruben; Kuzo, George; Loo, Wade; Hannah, Roger
Subject:
public document contains incorrect tritium data I just got a call from (b)(6) lat Southern Company Corporate. She wanted more information about a document titled, "A List of Historica eaks and Spills at US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants" which has recently been made public in ADAMS. She was concerned because the document contains inaccuracies regarding Southern Company sites. She got the document from Southern Company lawyers who received it from NEI. It looks like some sort of executive summary. I verified that some of the data is inaccurate.
Specifically, for Hatch and Vogtle the dates of the spills/leaks are incorrect.l(b)(6)
ýaid that Southern Company may be preparing a press release as a result of this document.
I don't know who put this report together, but it does not seem like something created for public consumption.
It might be part of the FOIA. Should probably pass it up to HQ to let them know some of the numbers are wrong.
Adam
'1
9/30/06 - Discussions with chemistry manager indicated that Southern Company is in the process of hiring a hydrologist to determine the optimum locations for groundwater monitoring wells. There are a handful of old wells onsite, not specifically designed to monitor groundwater. No indication of tritium above background has been identified.
Historical spills have been entered into the licensee's 10 CFR Part 50.75(g) file. Some of these spills have resulted in small amounts of tritium released into storm drains.
Southern Company Groundwater Protection
Contact:
I(b)(6 )