ML091190728

E-mail from M. Gamberoni of USNRC to M. Dapas of USNRC, Regarding Summary of Meeting to Discuss Nj Inspector Concerns with Oc Pn

ML091190728
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	11/18/2008
From:	Gamberoni M NRC Region 1
To:	Dapas M NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2009-0070
Download: ML091190728 (3)

Text

i: Darrell Roberts From: Marsha Gamberoni C4-Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:56 PM To: Marc Dapas Cc: Darrell Roberts

Subject:

FW: Summary of Meeting to discuss NJ inspector concerns with OC PN As discussed we are working this issue. It came up this afternoon.

Talked to Marjey late -Pat still owes her a call back. Karl ireviewed and didn't see this as needing to go to IG.From: Doug Tifft Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:22 PM To: Doug Tifft; Marsha Gamberoni; John Richmond; Marjorie McLaughlin; Nancy McNamara; Darrell Roberts; David Pelton; Scott Barber; Robert Summers; Richard Barkley; Karl Farrar Cc: Diane Screnci; Neil Sheehan; Richard Conte; Ronald Bellamy; Stephen Pindale; Jeffrey Kulp; Justin Heinly; Richard Conte

Subject:

Summary of Meeting to discuss NJ inspector concerns with OC PN At 3pm on Tuesday, November 18 we held a meeting to discuss comments made by NJ state engineers to one of our regional inspectors. (See summary of conversation below) Attendees were: Marsha Gamberoni, John Richmond, Diane Screnci, Bob Summers, Scott Barber, Marjey McLaughlin, Doug Tifft, and Rich Barkley.The following actions came out of the meeting:* Call State of NJ DEP management to determine if the concern the engineers raised to our inspector was shared NJ DEP management.

o IN PROGRESS:

Patrick Mulligan, Chief NJ DEP BNE. (supervisor of inspectors J. Richmond spoke to) Pat had not heard the concerns from the inspector and doesn't expect these issues will be elevated.

Pat will talk to the engineers to better understand their issues. Pat will call back Marjey later today or tomorrow.

Marjey will followup with Doug and John tomorrow." Notify Karl Farrar of the email for potential IG considerations:

o COMPLETE" Marjey, Doug, and John discuss response from NJ DEP management to determine if additional actions are necessary and report back to Marsha.o INCOMPLETE Thanks,-Doug From: Doug Tifft Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:45 PM To: Marsha Gamberoni; John Richmond; Marjorie McLaughlin; Nancy McNamara; Darrell Roberts; David Pelton; Scott Barber; Robert Summers; Richard Barkley Cc: Diane Screnci; Neil Sheehan; Richard Conte; Ronald Bellamy; Stephen Pindale; Jeffrey Kulp; Justin Heinly

Subject:

RE: OC Update to NJ DEP We have the DRS conference room at 3PM today to discuss.-Doug From: Marsha Gamberoni Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:58 PM To: John Richmond; Doug Tifft; Marjorie McLaughlin; Nancy McNamara; Darrell Roberts; David Pelton Cc: Diane Screnci; Neil Sheehan; Richard Conte; Ronald Bellamy; Stephen Pindale; Jeffrey Kulp; Justin Heinly

Subject:

RE: OC Update to NJ DEP John Please get a comm team meeting together late this afternoon?

Thanks Marsha From: John Richmond Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:55 PM To: Doug Tifft; Marjorie McLaughlin; Nancy McNamara; Darrell Roberts; Marsha Gamberoni; David Pelton Cc: Diane Screnci; Neil Sheehan; Richard Conte; Ronald Bellamy; Stephen Pindale; Jeffrey Kulp; Justin Heinly

Subject:

OC Update to NJ DEP I provided an Update to Rich Pinney and Ron Zak this morning. They are the NJ state inspectors for OC.They strongly expressed "concern" that our issued PN had withheld important and significant information from the public!As examples, they cited the fact that the PN did NOT discuss: 1. Strippable coating de-lamination

2. disconnected tubing from sand bed drain line poly bottles 3. 1/2 inch deep standing water in the sand bed bays 4. no confidence

[sic] in AmerGen's monitoring of sand bed drains, while the plant is on-line (e.g., water could enter a sand bed bay and go undetected)

5. brightly rust colored water found in bay 17, on Friday 11/14 [in other bays, the water was not described as brightly rust colored]6. no proof that there is not large [entire surface] areas of rust under the epoxy coating (e.g., the issue may have been mischaracterized as only a small area of one identified blister, versus significant corrosion that has not been evaluated)

7. corrosion rate of steel shell, in a broken blister, would be the same as uncoated steel, and will be significantly higher that the predicted corrosion rate of the same steel inside an unbroken blister, because in the past, the sand bed region experienced the loss of at least 1/2 inch of steel due to corrosion They also expressed concern for the long time to get the inspection report issued (mid Jan, based on an exit date of 1st week of Dec). They said that "kept a gag order" on them, and prevented them from informing the public!We also discussed whether two specific commitments had been met (i.'e., strippable coating to prevent water leakage, and monitoring of sand bed drains). They characterized both issues as clear examples of AmerGen's failure to meet LR commitments.

We also discussed the ROP program concepts for documenting performance deficiencies, findings versus NCVs (violations), the more-than-minor thresholds typically used in ROP*inspections, and inspection observations (separate from a finding).I cautioned them, that our discussions were pre-decisional, and that there has been no discussion with the licensee regarding any potential report observations, findings, or conclusions of inadequate commitment implementation.

Of the 7 examples they cited above, there is an element of fact in each statement, but for the most part, they've attempted to inflate the significance of an item, by taking facts out of context or changing the circumstances.

A few of things they said. were just plain and simple, factually wrong.Any thoughts on where we go next with the State?2 John R.3