ML11056A013

Y020100294 - Compliance with Federal Regulation 10 CFR 50.9, Completeness and Accuracy of Information - Response

ML11056A013
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek, Robinson, FitzPatrick
Issue date:	02/28/2011
From:	Frederick Brown Division of Inspection and Regional Support
To:	Lochbaum D Union of Concerned Scientists
Cartwright W
Shared Package
ML11056A015	List: ML11056A013
References
Y020100294, TAC ME5211
Download: ML11056A013 (3)

Text

February 28, 2011

David Lochbaum Director, Nuclear Safety Project Union of Concerned Scientists Post Office Box 15316 Chattanooga, TN 37415

SUBJECT:

Response to your letter dated December 6, 2010, "Compliance with Federal Regulation 10 CFR 50.9, Completeness and Accuracy of Information."

Mr. Lochbaum:

Thank you for your interest in potential 10 CFR 50.9 compliance issues. In your letter, you quoted three examples where you suggest that licensee documents violated 10 CFR 50.9, and that there were differences in how the NRC staff treated similar issues.

When revised or incorrect documents are received by the NRC they receive a review by staff to determine if additional assessments are necessary, based upon potential impacts to regulatory decisions. These expectations are part of the NRR technical qualification program. To reinforce our performance we will formalize 10 CFR 50.9 guidance in our review processes.

This will include ensuring that licensees take the appropriate actions in their corrective action processes.

For situations that require further review, our Office of the General Counsel has legal staff available for more in depth assessments of potential violations of 10 CFR 50.9, and how they should be handled.

We have reassessed the examples that you quoted, and believe that our original conclusions are still valid. A summary of each of the examples you quoted follows:

HB Robinson Nuclear Plant (ADAMS ML09170067), 10 CFR 50.9 violation

In this example, the licensee provided inaccurate information that was used in part to determine a subsequent regulatory action. In the Notice of Violation it was stated that:

The third finding involves an NRC-identified apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.9(a), for which final severity level is to be determined, related to materially inaccurate information provided to the NRC in Licensee Event Report (LER) 05000261/2009-001. This information was material to NRC because it was used, in part, as the basis for determining whether the licensee's response to the degraded condition was adequate and whether additional compensatory actions or NRC review would be necessary.

Thus this violation was material as it had an impact on a regulatory decision.

February 28, 2011

Fitzpatrick Revisions to their Annual Effluent Report (ADAMS ML101970366), no violation This document corrected an incorrect dose assessment factor that is used to calculate the potential radiological dose impact to the public from fission and activation gasses. Apparently a factor that was used in the licensee's software was not correctly updated.

The NRC has described how licensees should make such changes to their effluent reports in Regulatory Guide 1.21. The licensee correctly followed the regulatory guide process for making such revisions. After the corrections, the revised values were two orders of magnitude below the licensee's regulatory limits

The conclusions from the assessment of this revision were:

1. The licensee did not deliberately state incorrect information. 2. No potential or actual regulatory decisions were affected.

3. The licensee followed the established regulatory process for revising their annual effluent report.

Oyster Creek to their Annual Effluent Report (ADAMS ML102950279), no violation

The revision to this annual assessment report incorporated additional groundwater monitoring information that was not required by regulation or license condition. The additional information was provided voluntarily.

The conclusions from the assessment of this revision were:

1. The licensee chose to add additional information that was not required by regulations, thus the original document met regulatory expectations. 2. No potential or actual regulatory decisions were affected. 3. The licensee followed the established regulatory process for revising their annual effluent report.

Hopefully the explanations for these examples help your understanding of why one of these cases was treated as a violation, and the other two were not.

There is different NRC guidance for different document types. For example, the enforcement manual has guidance for situations when licensees report incorrect performance indicator information as this data is used in the reactor oversight process.

Sincerely,

/RA/ Frederick D. Brown, Director Division of Inspection and Regional Support Nuclear Regulatory Commission

February 28, 2011 Fitzpatrick Revisions to their Annual Effluent Report (ADAMS ML101970366), no violation This document corrected an incorrect dose assessment factor that is used to calculate the potential radiological dose impact to the public from fission and activation gasses. Apparently a factor that was used in the licensee's software was not correctly updated.

The NRC has described how licensees should make such changes to their effluent reports in Regulatory Guide 1.21. The licensee correctly followed the regulatory guide process for making such revisions. After the corrections, the revised values were two orders of magnitude below the licensee's regulatory limits The conclusions from the assessment of this revision were:

1. The licensee did not deliberately state incorrect information. 2. No potential or actual regulatory decisions were affected. 3. The licensee followed the established regulatory process for revising their annual effluent report.

Oyster Creek to their Annual Effluent Report (ADAMS ML102950279), no violation The revision to this annual assessment report incorporated additional groundwater monitoring information that was not required by regulation or license condition. The additional information was provided voluntarily.

The conclusions from the assessment of this revision were:

1. The licensee chose to add additional information that was not required by regulations, thus the original document met regulatory expectations. 2. No potential or actual regulatory decisions were affected. 3. The licensee followed the established regulatory process for revising their annual effluent report.

Hopefully the explanations for these examples help your understanding of why one of these cases was treated as a violation, and the other two were not.

There is different NRC guidance for different document types. For example, the enforcement manual has guidance for situations when licensees report incorrect performance indicator information as this data is used in the reactor oversight process.

Sincerely, /RA/ Frederick D. Brown, Director Division of Inspection and Regional Support Nuclear Regulatory Commission DISTRIBUTION: Y020100294 RidsNRRMailRoom RidsNRROD ADAMS Accession #: ML11056A015; - Package; ML013610398 - Incoming; ML11056A013 - Letter OFFICE: NRR/DIRS/TA NRR/DIRS/D NAME: WBCartwright FDBrown DATE: 02/ 25 /11 02/ 28 /11 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY