ML13004A326

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Email ML1026406740
ML13004A326
Person / Time
Site: Callaway Ameren icon.png
Issue date: 09/29/2010
From: Lawrence Criscione
NRC/RES/DRA
To: Andy Campbell
NRC/OE
Shared Package
ML130040225 List:
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0259
Download: ML13004A326 (2)
v • d • e


Text

Criscione, Lawrence From: Cdscione, Lawrence Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:29 PM To: Campbell, Andy Cc: Zimmerman, Roy; Thadani, Mohan; Bucholtz, Kristy; Leeds, Eric

Subject:

ML1026406740 Attachments: ML1026406741 .pdf

Andy, Thanks for meeting with me today. Attached is the 10CFR2.206 request that we discussed.

Although the passive shutdown of a large commercial reactor is undesirable, it is not a risk significant event. However, there are multiple aspects of the October 21, 2003 passive reactor shutdown at Callaway Plant which make it an event worthy of significant NRC attention:

1. Aen.A of the lie.see (notablyJ (b))(C) thej~x 7c during the shutdown and currently the 7 J I*b)(7)() lat Callaway Pladt) have implied in sworn testimony to the US NR* Offe of Investigations that the passive reactor shutdown was conducted deliberately. That is, in his testimonr(b) 7)(¢ claimed that.

reactor passively shutting down around 10:18 am, he was aware the passive shutdown would occum

[ dditionally claimed that the shutdown was not "inadvertent" - that is, he intentionally allowed the reactor to shut down.

2. Despite the fact that Callaway Plant's reactor shutdown procedure contains no provisions for intentionally allowing the reactor to passively shut down, Region IVof the US NRC has determined that the October 21, 2003 passive reactor shutdown was done in accordance with the reactor shutdown procedure.
3. AmerenUE has not reported the October 21, 2003 incident to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. In AmerenUE's eyes, the October 21, 2003 shutdown was conducted in accordance with the operating procedures and there is nothing requiring sharing the details of it with the broader nuclear industry.
4. 1tshouldIb evident to anyone who has ever operated a Pressurized Water Reactor that the testimony given by I(b)(7)(C) .on April 1, 2008 does not hold water.LL)(C) 1claims that the 106 minute delay in inserting the control banks was justified because "There was a lot of stuff going on." None of the "s ffL det iled by 1(b)(7)(c) in his testimony precluded the insertion of the control banks. The "stuff' detailed my1( 7 )(C) instead demonstrates that there was ample opportunity for a licensed reactor operator to insert the control banks; inserting the control banks was less Involved than many of the activities performed by the licensed ROs during that 106 minutes: raising letdown flow from 75 gpm to 120 gpm, placing Cooling Tower blowdown in service, securing an Intake pump, commencing containment minipurge, etc. It )(c) e evident to anyone who has ever operated a Pressurized Water Reactor that during his testimon ( 7 )-C) was neither completely honest nor forthcoming with the O investigator.
5. The (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) Inow the(7)(c) at Callaway Plant) was in the control room when the Source Range Nuclear Instruments energized at 11:25 am and failed to both ensure the control banks were promptly inserted and ensure the inadvertent reactor shutdown was prpr dcmented in the plant's corrective action program. Although there may be nothing illegal abouA bncompetence, he has failed to perform at the most basic level which the NRC assumes of an (at a licensee.

On April 27, 2010 1submitted a 10CFR2.206 request to address item 3 above. I requested that the US NRC draft an Information Notice to inform the broader nuclear industry of the incident. Although this request was "rejected" (i.e. it was determined not to be appropriate for the 10CFR2.206 process) I have been told that an Information Notice is currently being drafted. At this point I am merely waiting for a chance to review the IN.

On April 30, 2010 1submitted a 10CFR2.206 request to address item 2 above. I met with Kristy Bucholtz and Mohan Thadani today regarding that request. Although I believe that the NRC must, through some process, prevent licensees of 1

commercial reactor plants from intentionally conducting passive reactor shutdowns, after meeting with Ms Bucholtz today I accept her argument that the Technical Specifications is not the process which should be used. I am awaiting a written rejection of my request for a change to the Tech Spec and intend to submit a petition for rulemaking once I figure out that process.

With regard to item 4, I believe that (b)(7)(C) failed to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information during his April 1, 2008 sworn testimony. In order to validate this belief, I submitted a 10CFR2.206 request on September 17, 2010 requesting that the NRC issue a 10CFR2.204 Demand for information to AmerenUE 7

.Olarfvinv j

()(7)(C)b tatements made by )(C) 6b during his 2008 testimony. At this point, I am not prepared to formally accuse 7

  • of failing to provide the NRCw comlet and accurate information- I need additional clarification ofl*ri E ) tatements prior to making that claim.

Mohan Thadani informed me this morning that I am going to be given a chance to present my September 17, 2010 request to a Petition Review Board. He told me that one of the Deputy Directors for NRR/DPR (he told me the name, but I can't remember who it is) would be the chairman for the PRB.

I do not know anything about NRR's process for handling 10CRF2.206 petitions, so assigning a Deputy Director from DPR may be acceptable. However, if he was assigned because of a belief that my September 17, 2010 petition deals with rule making, then this is unacceptable. My 10CFR2.206 petition deals with the failure of a licensee to provide complete and accurate information and the failure of Region IV to do anything about it when brought to them through the allegation process. Although my April 30 request concerned rulemaking, my Sept 17 request has nothing to do with rulemaking.

I came to speak to you today because I believed my September 17, 2010 request was best suited for handling by either the Office of Enforcement or the Office of Investigations. It is not my place to tell the NRC whom to assign my 10CFR2.206 request to. If NRR is best suited to handle my September 17 request, then I can accept that it go there. My intention in meeting with you today and in sending this email is merely to ensure that some thought is placed towards whom to assign my request to. If my request is assigned to the wrong individual (i.e. to an individual in a division which does not have the authority to issue a 10CFR2.204 Demand for information) then that individual's focus will be to close my request to an argument as to why it doesn't apply to his/her division. This merely wastes their time and my time.

Thanks for your assistance with this. I've copied Eric Leeds on this email. Although I have not discussed my latest 10CFR2.206 Request with Mr. Leeds, I have discussed the October 21, 2003 shutdown with him so he should be aware of these issues.

Lawrence S. Criscione Reliability & Risk Engineer RES/DRAIOEGIB Church Street Building Mail Stop 2A07 (301) 251-7603 2

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13004A326&oldid=2088937"