ML14182A136
| ML14182A136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/2014 |
| From: | Office of Information Services |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2013-0332 | |
| Download: ML14182A136 (11) | |
Text
Group FOIA/PA NO:
CGz3-3 RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART The following types of information are being withheld:
Ex. 1 :[- Records properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526 Ex. 2:E] Records regarding personnel rules and/or human capital administration Ex. 3 :-1 Information about the design, manufacture, or utilization of nuclear weapons DlInformation about the protection or security of reactors and nuclear materials ElContractor proposals not incorporated into a final contract with the NRC FlOther Ex. 4:E-- Proprietary information provided by a submitter to the NRC
-'Other Ex. 5:[-E Draft documents or other pre-decisional deliberative documents (D.P. Privilege)
El Records prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation (A.W.P. Privilege)
E] Privileged communications between counsel and a client (A.C. Privilege)
Ml Other Ex. 6:Eggency employee P11, including SSN, contact information, birthdates, etc.
[]Third party PII, including names, phone numbers, or other personal information Ex. 7(A):']Copies of ongoing investigation case files, exhibits, notes, ROI's, etc.
[]Records that reference or are related to a separate ongoing investigation(s)
Ex. 7(C):DSpecial Agent or other law enforcement PIH
'-PII of third parties referenced in records compiled for law enforcement purposes Ex. 7(D):E-- Witnesses' and Allegers' PIH in law enforcement records EliConfidential Informant or law enforcement information provided by other entity Ex. 7(E): [--Law Enforcement Technique/Procedure used for criminal investigations El Technique or procedure used for security or prevention of criminal activity Ex. 7(F): [] Information that could aid a terrorist or compromise security Other/Comments:
i Tifft, Doug From.
Conte, Richard Sent Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:54 AM To:
Debbie Grinnell; Sandra Gavutis Cc Raymond, William; Tifft Doug; Dacus, Eugene; McNamara, Nancy Subject RE: Information Request September 6th is incorrect IT WAS FOR SEPTEMER 5th.
Attachments:
FW: Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1: Confirmatory Action Letter Follow-up Inspection -
NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2012009 Here is the report we issued, it went Into ADAMS this morning for immediate release but that takes time, so not sure it is available yet.
This afternoon you will have the answers to your previous questions in which this report is referenced and the response to the 9/13/12 letter which is also being sent to UCS.
From: Debbie Grinnell [MM1JfQ(b) (6)
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:17 AM To: Sandra Gavutis; William Raymond Cc: Conte, Richard; Dionne, Bruce
Subject:
. Re: Information Request September 6th is incorrect IT WAS FOR SEPTEMER 5th.
Dear Bill,
I called the NRC and requested information on September 5th after C-10 got an alert andhad and had higher readings at several sites on our network. We need to make clear that our request for Seabrook's on-site data and any activities that would have or could have entailed a radioactive release into the environment was for the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before the alert and of most concern for the AM hours of September 5th. Our alert and higher network read-outs were from 9:46AM to 10:29AM. We did see an increase In the data at about 5:30AM. Our request is and has been for any possible scheduled or unscheduled vent at Seabrook or any activities 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before the C-10 alert that could have entailed a release to the environment before and during our network alert.
You have indicated that you investigated plant activities for September 6th which is incorrect We are waiting for you to answer these questions was there a vent on September 5th In the early AM or any plant activities that could have entailed a release to the environment.
When we receive a report from you with factual information, we will answer your questions concerning our network. The Ma DPH knows that our process is to investigate on-site plant information through the NRC when we have an alert. They are also waiting for your response to our request.
Thank you, Debbie Original Message From: WilliamR Raymond To: Deborah Grinnell Cc: bruce.dionne*,nrc.,ov ; richard.conteenrc.,ov Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject:
RE: Information Request September 6th
- Debbie, I am still working this with an assist from Region I.
Would you please provide me with:
9 the web address link that provides the satellite map view of the detectors;
- the approximate compass-point locations of the detector(s) that went into alert; a the background levels and maximum values seen on those detectors; and,
- the date/times the reading were above background.
I would be glad to talk directly with Bernadette if that would facilitate communications.
(b)'(6)
- cell or 603-773-7037 office On an unrelated topic, NRC is looking for locations in the Newburyport MA or surrounding area suitable for a public meeting in the December time frame. As stated during NRC's April 23rd meeting with NextEra, the purpose of the public meeting would be to discuss the ASR issue in Seabrook structures. We have checked into the Firehouse and High School. Is there another conference-center type place down there that you would recommend we consider?
- Thanks, Bill From:(b)-(6)
To: (b).(6)
Subject:
Re: Information Request September 6th Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:59:35 -0400
- Bill, It has been two days since we called to report alert level readings. We had a large Beta spike at one site and bell curved reading. between 6AM-lOAM. We have asked for the NRC to look at plant data and Investigate the logs to investigate. We RARELY ask. I can think of three times since 1995. Why don't you know yet?
The Ma. DHP was ready to send someone out with detectors as we RARELY have alerts. We told the DPH we called them and you which Is our process when we have alerts...call the NRC Inspector. We told them you were checking on-line monitor read-outs and to see If monitors were all functioning and if there was a routine vents or unscheduled one or work details that would have required radiation areas to been cleared for workers.
We are waiting to hear from you.
Debbie On Sep 6, 2012, at 3:55 PM, William Raymond wrote:
2
- Debbie, I am still checking into this but my Initial review did not identify a plant activity that would cause an elevated radiation reading offsite. I will be back tomorrow with more information.
a understand you spoke with Katrina as well - I need to speak with her to get her input.
Talk to you Friday.
Bill 3
Barkley, Richard From:
Lamb, John Sent Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:21 AM To:
Khanna, Meena CC.
Jennerich, Matthew; Cataldo, Paul; Dentel, Glenn Subject?.
FYI: Seabrook's ASR follow-up Attachments.
C-10-UCSMarch20l3commentary.doc From: Trapp, James Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:11 AM To: Cook, William; Floyd, Niklas; Raymond, William; Sheikh, Abdul; Buford, Angela; Lamb, John
Subject:
FW: Seabrook's ASR follow-up If I missed anyone, please pass this along to potentially interested parties. Thanks I am willing to provide the results of the mortar bar testing (they were in the last inspection report), not sure where the "release" came from.
I did suggest we talk directly with their expert - since the middle person communication was not very efficient.
Adul - C-10 was very complementary of your knowledge in this area, so I may tap you to participate in this call.
Thanks to all for your continued support of the ASR Task Force.
From: Debbie Grinnell [1]
Sent, Monday, April 29, 2013 1:48 PM To: Debbie Grinnell; Trapp, James Cc: 'Sandra Gavutis'; Sean Meyer; Paul Brown
Subject:
Re: Seabrook's ASR follow-up Hello Jim, I appreciated your call last Friday on route to Pilgrim and willingness to provide us with the test values from Seabrook's Mortar Bar Testing. We are encouraged by your stated willingness to release Seabrook's ASR test results for expert review. As I expressed, in 2010 NRC reports Included actual data results, but since the NRC has not reported ASR test data results with values in publicly released documentation. I have shared with UCS and our expert that you are as the SAITT team reviewing all test data and the selection and location of samples taken. I have discussed your interest to consult directly with our expert with UCS's Sean Meyer and our expert, Paul Brown, on a conference call. Both have agreed that I can send to you Paul's contact information.
Please feel free to contact Paul Brown via his e-mail (b) (6) t or via phone @ (b)(6)
Please find attached Paul Brown's latest commentary requested bu UCS and C-10 on "Seabrook Station: Impact of Alkali-Silica Reaction on Concrete Structures and Attachments" for your SAITT charter review.
My Best, Debbie
_T-7
Debbie Grinnell Research Manager C-10 Foundation 44 Merrimac Street Newbo 0 50
ýTel. 978-465-6646,
'--.gtraT-esVs age From: Debbie Grinnell To: james traoo@.nrc..ov Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:57 PM
Subject:
Seabrook's ASR follow-up Hello Jim, In NextEra's Response to Confirmatory Action Letter (SBK-L-1 3027) they state:
In reference 2, the NextEra Energy Seabrook requested deletion of CAL action 7, as the results of the Mortar Bar Expansion Testing obviated the need for long-term expansion testing."
As we discussed, our expert recommended a Prism Test which the NRC also required to be done. Could you provide us the results of the Mortar Bar Expansion test and the rational from NextEra as to why It is now considered unnecessary.
I also asked you, Jim, for the # Ib/y3 of alkali present.
Also, where are the test results from Seabrook's ASR affected walls and basemat intheir CEVA and containment areas submerged In 6 feet of water since construction. Whatre the core results? Do we have results from sections on the Interior and exterior surface above grade and from sections below grade to compare affected to unaffected areas in the same areas of containment?
Thank you, Debbie Debbie Grinnell Research Manager C-10 Foundation 44 Merrimac Street Newburyport, Ma. 01950 Tel. 978-465-6646 2
Chaudhary, Suresh From:
Conte, Richard Sent:
Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:08 PM To:
Ali, Syed; Buford, Angela; Cartwright, William; Chaudhary, Suresh; Cline, Leonard; Cook, William; Cruz, Holly; Erickson, Alice; Floyd, Niklas; Fuhrmann, Mark; Graves, Herman; Hogan, Rosemary; Hughey, John; Khanna, Meena; Kobetz, Timothy; Lamb, John; Manoly, Kamal; Marshall, Michael; Merzke, Daniel; Milano, Patrick; Morey, Dennis; Murphy, Martin; Ott, William; Philip, Jacob; Raymond, William; Schroeder, Daniel; Sheikh, Abdul; Sircar, Madhumita; Stuchell, Sheldon; Thomas, George; Trapp, James
Subject:
FW: SAITT Note the request to have documents publicly available similar to Davis Besse project. I knew this day would come; perhaps the best approach is to not challenge the FOIA system and agree to do something.
The position papers that the group is reviewing can easily be classified a pre-decisional now and on a FOIA request.
The working group conference calls, agenda/minutes has some sensitive information that may or may not be predecisiional. For the most part we might be able to release the first page agenda's but not the talking points. Most likely the talking points will be FOIA'd There are also status call notes with NextEra and Weekly Status reports which can be release since they are factually based - they will need to be reviewed for SUNSI.
If we have any past drafts for the recently issued inspection reports, those can most likely will be released since the decision on the report has already been made.
The are other documents on Region l's LAN that would need to be carefully reviewed as to If they are currently predecisional vs. past predecisional. For Region I folks they are at:
G:\\DRS\\Seabrook Concrete I will make this a topic for the working group on Tuesday Jan. 9. Jim please note that a reply is to be coordinated with the front office.
Whatever we will release can be uploaded to the NRC's web page now that we have one dedicated to Seabrook ASR.
From: Dean, Bill Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:18 PM To: Lew, David; Conte, Richard; Miller, Chris; Roberts, Darrell; Clifford, James; Wilson, Peter Cc: Trapp, James
Subject:
FW: SAITT FYI, request from UCS for access to documents, on behalf of Debbie Grinnell. Would be interested in our reply.
From: Dave Lochbaum [mailto: DLochbaum@ucsusa.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:55 PM To: Trapp, James Cc: Leeds, Eric; Dean, Bill; Grinnell, Debbie
Subject:
SAMT 158 2,3
Hello Jim:
iThe SAITT charter (ML12270A060) indicated that you were chairing this team. If that's incorrect or no longer
- the case, please forward this inqury along to the chair and accept my apology for the inconvenience.
Debbie Grinnell asked me about the documents collected by the SAl'r. More specifically, she asked about public access to those documents.
The Functional Responsibilities section on page 2 of the charter indicates that an action item tracking system will be established and maintained and that periodic reports will be made to the Region I Administrator and the NRR Office Director.
A search of ADAMS did not return any such records in the public arena.
UCS could seek these records under with a FOIA request. If so, we'd likely widen the request to all SAITT and ASR-related records just to make sure we didn't miss anything.
Another option, perhaps easier for NRC and us, would be for the agency to place those records in ADAMS that it feels address the issue without revealing pre-decisional, proprietary, etc. information. Following the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head degradation event, the NRC voluntarily placed documents from its Manual Chapter 0350 team (e.g., meeting minutes, action item tracking lists, etc) along with a monthly status report from Region III OPA into ADAMS.
Will the SAIT-r make publicly available as many records as is appropriate?
Or is our submitting a FOIA the best way for this material to be accessed by the public?
- Thanks, Dave Lochbaum Director, Nuclear Safety Project Union of Concerned Scientists PO Box 15316 Chattanooga, TN 37415 (423) 468-9272 office (b) (6)
- cell dlochbaum(aucsusa.orR
-!,C 159
Brkley, Richard From:
Lamb, John Sent Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:21 AM To:
Khanna, Meena Cc:
Jennerich, Matthew, Cataldo, Paul; Dentel, Glenn
Subject:
FYI: Seabrook's ASR follow-up Attachments:
C-10-UCSMarch20l3commentary.doc From: Trapp, James Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:11 AM To: Cook, William; Floyd, Niklas; Raymond, William; Sheikh, Abdul; Buford, Angela; Lamb, John
Subject:
FW: Seabrook's ASR follow-up If I missed anyone, please pass this along to potentially interested parties. Thanks I am willing to provide the results of the mortar bar testing (they were in the last inspection report), not sure where the "release" came from.
I did suggest we talk directly with their expert - since the middle person communication was not very efficient.
Adul - C-10 was very complementary of your knowledge in this area, so I may tap you to participate in this call.
Thanks to all for your continued support of the ASR Task Force.
From: Debbie Grinnell [2]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 1:48 PM To: Debbie Grinnell; Trapp, James Cc: 'Sandra Gavutis'; Sean Meyer; Paul Brown
Subject:
Re: Seabrook's ASR follow-up Hello Jim, I appreciated your call last Friday on route to Pilgrim and willingness to provide us with the test values from Seabrook's Mortar Bar Testing. We are encouraged by your stated willingness to release Seabrook's ASIR test results for expert review. As I expressed, in 2010 NRC reports included actual data results, but since the NRC has not reported ASR test data results with values in publicly released documentation. I have shared with UCS and our expert that you are as the SAITT team reviewing all test data and the selection and location of samples taken. I have discussed your interest to consult directly with our expert with UCS's Sean Meyer and our expert, Paul Brown, on a conference call. Both have agreed that I can send to you Paul's contact information.
Please feel free to contact Paul Brown via his e-mail (b) (6).
or via phone @ (b) (6)'_.'.
Please find attached Paul Brown's latest commentary requested bu UCS and C-10 on "Seabrook Station: Impact of Alkali-Silica Reaction on Concrete Structures and Attachments" for your SAITT charter review.
My Best, Debbie I
Deblie Grinnel!
Research Manager C-10 Foundation 44 Merrimac Street Newb 0
"1i 50 Tel. 978-465-6646 Tssge-
-From: Debbie Grinnell To: iames.trappenrc.qov Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:57 PM
Subject:
Seabrook's ASR follow-up Hello Jim, In NextEra's Response to Confirmatory Action Letter (SBK-L-1 3027) they state: "In reference 2, the NextEra Energy Seabrook requested deletion of CAL action 7, as the results of the Mortar Bar Expansion Testing obviated the need for long-term expansion testing."
As we discussed, our expert recommended a Prism Test which the NRC also required to be done. Could you provide us the results of the Mortar Bar Expansion test and the rational from NextEra as to why it Is now considered unnecessary.
I also asked you, Jim, for the # Ib/y3 of alkali present.
Also, where are the test results from Seabrook's ASR affected walls and basemat intheir CEVA and containment areas submerged In 6 feet of water since construction. Whatre the core results? Do we have results from sections on the interior and exterior surface above grade and from sections below grade to compare affected to unaffected areas in the same areas of containment?
Thank you, Debbie Debbie Grinnell Research Manager C-10 Foundation 44 Merrimac Street Newburyport, Ma. 01950 Tel. 978-465-6646 2
1-ifft, Doug From:
Sent To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Conte, Richard Monday, March 18, 2013 9:22 AM Dean, Bill; Lew, David; Miller, Chris; Clifford, James Cook, William; Dacus, Eugene; Dentel, Glenn; Floyd, Niklas; McNamara, Nancy; Sheehan, Neil; Screnci, Diane; Tifft, Doug; Trapp, James FW: Thank you Latest Questions from Feb. 27, 2013 RE: Seabrook The attached is what we sent her. It was vetted with the working group and with Chris Miller.
Received the below response. I feel we haven't heard the end of it but we will wait and see.
Original Message---
From: Deborah Grinnell [mailto:(b)(6) -
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:30 PM To: Conte, Richard
Subject:
Thank you Hello Richard, Thank you. I will read it thoughtfully and thoroughly.
Debbie Iv_-