ML022070377
| ML022070377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/2002 |
| From: | Norris J - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Vito D NRC Region 1 |
| Sands, S, NRR/DPLM/LPD III-2, 415-3154 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB5287, Y020020164 | |
| Download: ML022070377 (1) | |
Text
JACK NORRIS 3302 Kessler BJvd., East Drive Indianapodis, IN 46220-5106 il:dnnristom caLt *t 317.840.3101 May 16, 2002 David J. Vito. Sr. Allegation Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Dear Mr. Vito; Thank you for your response to my letter of March 16.
The 2t paragraph of your letter quotes the applicable ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and states "This subsection requires 100% visual inspection examination of the entire accessible containments surfaces. The Code also requires augmented inspection of inaccessible areas which are susceptible to degradation from environmental factors such as corrosion."
I talked with Mr. Barry J. Elliot yesterday and confirmed he wrote that pant of your letter, and indicated my concerns were not his problem in that he only wrote the requirements and was riot responsible for ensuring that they were met. 'That was up to the regions.'
I can't be any more direct that this: In the case of Davis-Besse somebody was signing documents that were not true, and there is a legal term for that. If the paper were true, there wouldn't be a 7" cavity in the reactor vessel pressure head. In the military they call it "pencil whipping the paper."
All that I am asking is that the staff address three systemic questions:
- 1. Does the existing paper trail irdicate that all is OK in the primary containment areas?
- 2. Has the paper been audited and found to be in good bureaucratic order?
- 3. Is there extensive corrosion such as that found at Davis-Besse and Oconee in critical areas in other plants including the boiling water reactors?
- 4. If the answers to 1, 2 and 3 is 'Yes," than I submit to you that the system is broken.
Your ENCLOSURE 1 is incorrect. 'You Indicated about 5 years ago' should read. 'you indicated over 5 years ago.*
I think you are looking at the licensee(s) to satisfy just your bureaucratic requirements and there is there kicking the tires and checking the dipstick.
J. J. Nor-is TOTRL P.02