ML101170328
| ML101170328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/2009 |
| From: | Brendan Collins NRC/RGN-II |
| To: | Marvin Sykes NRC/RGN-II |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0116 | |
| Download: ML101170328 (1) | |
Text
Franke, Mark From:
Collins, Brendan Sent:
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:40 AM To:
Sykes, Marvin Cc:
Franke, Mark
Subject:
Thought on the containment at Crystal River
- Marvin, Typically, I think when people mention Part 21, the mental image that comes with it is some small part or component (bolts, pumps, breakers, etc.) that's been provided from a vendor, so I doubt anyone would think "Crack in containment...Part 21." That said, here's my thought:
If they're going to do a root cause, hopefully that will flush out whether this was a process issue or a design issue. Did they pour the concrete wrong, or was the design inadequate in some way? Obviously there aren't really Part 21 implications for a concrete pour, but what I was thinking was that if the design is wrong, it's possible that same design was used at other plants. Maybe just Progress fleet, or maybe even broader than that. With 104 units, I'd think that at least a couple were of the same design.
Chances are, it's not an issue, and even if it was, maybe they deal with it through OE rather than Part 21.
Since I don't know how a concrete bio-shield fits into safety-related space, I'm not sure which would be more appropriate, but I thought I'd at least bring up the potential extent of a design issue from that perspective. I know they're not there yet, but just something for all of us to keep in mind (since EB3 will continue to be involved, I say "us").
Brendan (i
232