ML071240290
| ML071240290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/2007 |
| From: | Lisa Clark NRC/OGC |
| To: | Poole R US Dept of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Div |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2007-0299 | |
| Download: ML071240290 (2) | |
Text
May 4, 2007 Richard Poole, Senior Trial Attorney Environmental Crimes Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 23985 LEnfant Plaza Station Washington, DC 20026-3985
Dear Mr. Poole:
In response to your letter of April 26, 2007, I am reporting on the status of the NRC staffs actions with regard to a report prepared by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and Altran Solutions Corporation (Exponent) under contract to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) concerning the head wastage event at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant to support an insurance claim filed by FENOC. In essence, the Exponent report concluded that the time line of the head wastage at Davis-Besse was much shorter than previously reported by FENOC in its root cause report. By a letter of April 2, 2007, the staff asked FENOC to provide a written response detailing its evaluation of the report and the implications of the report findings on FENOCs earlier evaluations of the root cause of the wastage event and on the corrective actions implemented in response to the event. On May 2, 2007, FENOC submitted the additional information requested in response to the staffs April 2, 2007, letter.
The staff also initiated an assessment of whether the findings in the Exponent report could present any safety implications for operation of U.S. pressurized water reactors. The staff determined that current inspection requirements are sufficient to detect degradation of a reactor pressure vessel head penetration nozzles prior to the development of significant head wastage even if the assumptions and conclusions in the report relating to the wastage of the head at Davis-Besse were applied to all pressurized water reactors. This assessment does not evaluate whether the assumptions, logic, analysis and conclusions of the exponent report are correct.
You should also be aware that on April 30, 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) submitted a Petition to the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.206, requesting that the staff take certain actions in response to the Exponent report prepared for FENOC. Among other things, UCS asked the staff to conduct an independent review of the report to determine (1) whether the current inspection scheme is sufficient to ensure that the type of damage that occurred at Davis-Besse cannot occur at any nuclear power plant, and (2) whether the findings in the report are valid and, if not, whether FENOC has submitted an inaccurate report to the NRC. Although a more complete response is being developed, the staff informed UCS that, as an initial matter, it has determined that no immediate action with respect to Davis-Besse or other nuclear power plant is warranted.
Richard Poole, Esq.
In addition, in an effort to reconcile an apparent inconsistency with respect to the full content of the Exponent report, the staff learned that FENOC had submitted to its insurer, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) an additional report prepared by a different contractor in support of its insurance claim, which NEIL, in its February 23, 2007 letter to FENOC, apparently failed to separately identify when characterizing the length of the Exponent report. The effect was to suggest that the Exponent report was longer than it actually is. On May 2, 2007, the staff requested that the additional report be promptly provided; FENOC agreed to provide the report by May 4, 2007. The staff will review these recent submissions to assess whether any additional review of the Exponent report should be undertaken. The staff expects to determine whether additional review will be undertaken by May 18, 2007. I will notify you as soon as a decision is reached.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Lisa B. Clark Senior Litigation Attorney