ML12191A329
| ML12191A329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML12191A329 (3) | |
Text
1 Davis-BesseNPEm Resource From:
Galloway, Melanie Sent:
Friday, June 22, 2012 10:44 PM To:
Lehman, Bryce Cc:
Morey, Dennis; Harris, Brian; Marshall, Michael; Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource
Subject:
RE: Summary of Conference Calls w/ Representative Kaptur and Kucinich's Staff - Davis-Besse Shield Building Great summary. Thanks, Bryce.
From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: Galloway, Melanie Cc: Morey, Dennis; Harris, Brian; Marshall, Michael; Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource
Subject:
Summary of Conference Calls w/ Representative Kaptur and Kucinich's Staff - Davis-Besse Shield Building
- Melanie, Today Michael Marshall, Dennis Morey, Brian Harris and myself listened in on two separate conference calls between Region III and Representative Kapturs staff and Representative Kucinichs staff. The calls were to brief the representatives staffers on the shield building root cause inspection report being issued tomorrow and to answer their questions on the root cause report. No direct license renewal questions were asked and one indirect question was fielded successfully by the regional staff (the question regarded what forces the licensee to re-establish the design basis and it is discussed further below). A brief summary of each call is provided below. If you have questions or would like additional information please let me know and I will stop by to briefly discuss.
- Thanks, Bryce Call w/ Kapturs Staff (1st Call):
Mel Holmberg (NRC - lead inspector) summarized the root cause and the related inspection. The root cause was the lack of moisture barrier on the Shield Building walls, coupled with the extreme 1978 blizzard and unique design features of the Shield Building.
Mel noted that the NRC had no findings in the inspection report; however, several weaknesses were identified during the inspection. These issues were categorized as weaknesses b/c the NRC staff did not believe they affected the final outcome of the root cause evaluation. All of the weaknesses were related to adequate documentation in the root cause report and the majority of the underlying technical issues were addressed/explained while the inspection team was on-site. To address the observations by the NRC, the licensee voluntarily submitted a revised root cause analysis on May 16th, which will be reviewed as part of a future inspection.
at the request of Ryan Steyer (Kaptur staffer), Mel walked through all 9 weakness.
David Hills summarized additional future actions including:
o An upcoming public meeting to discuss the root cause o A review of the licensees revised root cause report o Ongoing inspection activities to review the licensees actions to re-establish the design and licensing basis Ryan Steyer asked additional questions about one weakness in particular; the lack of confirmatory core bore inspections on safety-related buildings other than the Shield Building that originally had a moisture barrier.
o David Hills (RIII BC) agreed that this was a weakness and noted that this would be reviewed in the upcoming inspection that would cover the revised root cause report.
2 Call w/ Kucinichs Staff Mel provided the same intro and summary as the previous call Howard Schulman (Kucinich Chief Legal Counsel) asked how wind-driven moisture penetrating the concrete during a blizzard could be responsible for cracking around the entire building. He believed the degradation would only appear on the windward side of the building.
o Mel and other NRC staffers explained that they reviewed this issue while on-site and based on what they reviewed they thought this root cause was reasonable Vic Edgerton (Kucinich Chief of Staff) asked what it meant that the building was operable but outside the design basis and if the only thing that would force the licensee to re-establish the design basis would be applying for relicensing (this was the indirect LR question).
o David Hills noted that the building is safe and operable but outside the design basis and that a plan to re-establish the design basis would be submitted by December 2012. He further explained that relicensing was not the only thing that would force the licensee to re-establish the design basis. This has to be done under the current license in Part 50 space, within a reasonable timeframe.
o Vic Edgerton asked what was meant by a reasonable timeframe.
o David explained that there was no set definition and that this was something the NRC staff was always reviewing. During the initial review of the Shield Building operability, December was found to be reasonable to provide a plan. Once the plan is provided, the NRC will review it to ensure it contains a reasonable timeline for re-establishing the design basis.
David summarized future actions similar to the previous call Bryce Lehman NRR/DLR/RASB (301) 415-1626
Hearing Identifier:
Davis_BesseLicenseRenewal_Saf_NonPublic Email Number:
3850 Mail Envelope Properties (4AD1A659C92C8546AA34BFB9D10564E47524EEDDA8)
Subject:
RE: Summary of Conference Calls w/ Representative Kaptur and Kucinich's Staff
- Davis-Besse Shield Building Sent Date:
6/22/2012 10:44:15 PM Received Date:
6/22/2012 10:44:15 PM From:
Galloway, Melanie Created By:
Melanie.Galloway@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Morey, Dennis" <Dennis.Morey@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Harris, Brian" <Brian.Harris2@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Marshall, Michael" <Michael.Marshall@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Davis-BesseHearingFile Resource" <Davis-BesseHearingFile.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Lehman, Bryce" <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4766 6/22/2012 10:44:15 PM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: