|
---|
Category:Legal-Motion
MONTHYEARML15251A6782015-09-0404 September 2015 Motion for Leave to Intervene by First Energy Nuclear Operating Company ML15132A5152015-05-12012 May 2015 Certificate of Service of Beyond Nuclear Reply to Oppositions to Motion to Admit New Contention ML15128A2912015-05-0808 May 2015 Beyond Nuclear'S Motion to Amend Nepa Placeholder Contention in License Renewal Proceeding for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant ML15132A1972015-05-0808 May 2015 Certificate of Service for Beyond Nuclear'S Motion to Amend NEPA Placeholder Contention, Filed May 8, 2015 ML15128A2982015-05-0808 May 2015 Reply by Beyond Nuclear, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Seed Coalition and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy to Oppositions by Applicants and NRC Staff to Motions to Admit New Contentions ML15112B2012015-04-22022 April 2015 Beyond Nuclear'S Hearing Request and Motion to Intervene ML15112B1992015-04-22022 April 2015 Beyond Nuclear Motion to Reopen Record of License Renewal Proceeding ML15112B2022015-04-22022 April 2015 Standing Declaration of Victoria Clemons ML15065A2222015-03-0606 March 2015 FENOC Motion for Clarification Regarding Termination of Proceeding ML14364A4052014-12-30030 December 2014 Intervenors' Second Motion to Supplement Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate Amps in Shield Building Monitoring Program ML14335A7802014-12-0101 December 2014 Joint Proposed Corrections to the Transcript of the Oral Argument Held on November 12, 2014 ML14315A0492014-11-11011 November 2014 Notice of Filing of Riley Email (Exhibit a to Contention No. 7) ML14311A9892014-11-0707 November 2014 Petitioners and Intervenors Consolidated Reply to Answers to Petitions to Suspend Final Reactor Licensing Decisions, Motions to Admit a New Contention, and Motions to Reopen the Record ML14255A0302014-09-12012 September 2014 Erratum to Intervenors' Motion to Amend and Supplement Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate AMPs in Shield Monitoring Program ML14252A8982014-09-0909 September 2014 Unopposed Motion to Establish Consolidated Briefing Schedule for Proposed Contention 7 Admissibility Filings ML14251A6092014-09-0808 September 2014 Intervenors Motion to Amend and Supplement Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate AMPs in Shield Building Monitoring Program ML14245A6562014-09-0202 September 2014 Intervenors' Motion for Admission of Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate Amps in Shield Building Monitoring Program ML14144A0002014-05-23023 May 2014 Intervenors' Reply in Support of Motion for Admission of Contention No. 6 on Shield Building Concrete Void, Cracking and Broken Rebar Problems ML14112A0072014-04-21021 April 2014 Motion for Admission of Contention No. 6 on Shield Building Concrete Void, Cracking and Broken Rebar Problems ML14112A0082014-04-15015 April 2014 Exhibit 7 - Request for Additional Information (Rai), April 15, 2014 ML14113A0012014-04-14014 April 2014 Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Victoria Clemons ML14058A6822014-02-27027 February 2014 Certificate of Service of Petition to Suspend ML14058A6832014-02-27027 February 2014 Petition to Suspend Reactor Licensing Decisions and Reactor Re-Licensing Decisions Pending Completion of Rulemaking Proceeding Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Pool Storage of Spent Fuel and Mitigation Measures ML14112A0092014-02-19019 February 2014 Exhibit 1 - Preliminary Notice of Event or Occurrence, February 19, 2014 ML14112A0032014-02-15015 February 2014 Exhibit 2 - Toledo Blade Article, Davis-Besse Had Air Gap in Shield Building, February 15, 2014 ML13277A7252013-10-0303 October 2013 Intervenors' Memorandum in Opposition to 'Fenoc'S Petition for Certification of Waste Confidence-Related Question to the Commission Pursuant to 10CFR2.323(f)(2).' ML13266A4322013-09-23023 September 2013 Fenoc'S Petition for Certification of Waste Confidence-Related Question to the Commission Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.32.(f)(2) ML14112A0042013-09-20020 September 2013 Exhibit 6 - Preliminary Notice of Event or Occurrence, September 20, 2013 ML13192A2842013-07-11011 July 2013 Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S Answer Supporting the NRC Staff'S Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioners Reply ML13192A5052013-07-11011 July 2013 Petitioners' Reply in Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Strike ML13190A2162013-07-0808 July 2013 Petitioners' Reply in Opposition to FENOC 'Motion to Strike' ML13182A4792013-07-0101 July 2013 NRC Staff Motion to Strike Portions of Joint Petitioners Reply or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Reply ML13179A4032013-06-28028 June 2013 Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioners' Reply ML13173A0012013-06-21021 June 2013 Petitioners' Reply in Support of Petition to Intervene and for an Adjudicatory Public Hearing of FENOC License Amendment Request ML14112A0062013-05-20020 May 2013 Exhibit 8 - Expert Witness Report of Arnold Gundersen, 50-246-LA ML12334A2602012-11-29029 November 2012 Joint Proposed Corrections to the Transcript of the Oral Argument Held on November 5-6, 2012 ML12304A0652012-10-30030 October 2012 Motion to File Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB Order Granting Fenoc'S Motion to Strike Nunc Pro Tunc ML12297A3532012-10-22022 October 2012 Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB Order Granting Fenoc'S Motion to Strike Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis-Source Terms) ML12278A0402012-10-0404 October 2012 Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Fenoc'S Motion to Strike 'Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis - Source Terms).' ML12268A3762012-09-24024 September 2012 Fenoc'S Motion to Strike Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis - Source Terms). ML12258A7772012-09-14014 September 2012 Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to 'Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (Sama Analysis - Source Terms).' ML12237B1972012-08-24024 August 2012 Intervenors' Combined Reply to NRC and FENOC Answers to Inervenors' Third and Fourth Motions to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking) Information Notice 2010-12, Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Contain2012-08-17017 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Containment Liner Cor Information Notice 2010-12, Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notic2012-08-17017 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Containment Liner Cor Information Notice 2010-12, Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Con2012-08-17017 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Containment Liner Cor ML12230A0032012-08-17017 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-49 Through B-50) ML12230A0022012-08-17017 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-44 Through B-48) ML12230A0012012-08-17017 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-39 Through B-43) ML12230A0002012-08-17017 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Response (B-33 Through B-38) ML12229A5872012-08-16016 August 2012 Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix III: NRC FOIA Responses (B-24 Through B-26) 2015-09-04
[Table view] |
Text
Riley (OCA), Timothy From: Riley (OCA), Timothy Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 5:02 PM To: 'Steyer, Ryan'; 'DougBabcock@brown.senate.gov'; 'nick-butterfield@portman. senate.gov';
'Schulman, Howard'
Subject:
NRC Inspection Report for Davis-Besse Attachments: Davis Besse Shield Building Operability and Licensing Basis Inspection Report ML12128A4430.pdf Good afternoon, Please see the attached Davis Besse Shield Building Operability and Licensing Basis Inspection Report.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns regarding this inspection report; there's significant nuance to how these are written and they won't win awards for Plain Writing.
This report documents the NRC's actions from July 18, 2011 to April 17, 2012 to make sure the shield building at Davis-Besse could operate with an opening during the reactor vessel head replacement process; the discovery of the cracks in the shield building; the wide range of actions after the discovery of the cracks to evaluate the shield building safety; and how the determination was made that the shield building was capable of fulfilling its safety function.
Nearly all of this was discussed at the January 5, 2012 Public Meeting.
One section I would like to call attention to in this report is on page 10 of the report (PDF page 13):
Therefore, the [NRC] inspectors, after consultation with the NRC technical review team, questioned if laminar cracking in proximity to the outer face reinforcement was a condition not in conformance with the current design basis. The inspectors noted that revised calculations provided on December 1, 2011, did not include such a claim, and instead the licensee continued to review the previous conclusion.
After additional evaluation and interactions with the inspectors, the licensee concluded in its.Shield.Building Root Cause Report dated February 27,;:2012,that the SB [Shield Buiiding], with thelaminar cracking in its walls, was operable but non-conformriing to the current design and licensing bases with regard to the design stress analysis methodology, and the tornado allowable stress values.
9 Davis-Besse's Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 3.8.2.2.5 and Design Criteria Manual (DCM)
Section II.H.2.5.1.5 specified the analysis methodologies used for the SB design. These documents stated that the SB wall was designed using, "Analysis of Spherical Shells" from Section III of the 1968 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Inthe initial condition assessment, Calculations C-CSS-099.20-054 and C-CSS-099.20-056 used the "ANSYS" computer software to study the effect of the laminar cracks on the function of the SB.
- The USAR Section 3.8.2.2.6 and Design Criteria Manual (DCM)Section II.H.2.5.1.5 defined the load combinations and allowed stresses for the SB design. Study Calculation C-CSS-099.20-056 documented that the calculated stress for the tornado wind and differential pressure load exceeded the allowable stress value in the design and licensing basis, but was within the allowable limit using the alternative differential pressure design load of Regulatory Guide 1.76, "Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1.
The inspectors noted that any future calculations used to evaluate the SB with the concrete laminar cracking will have to conform to the design and licensing bases. The licensee documented in its Root Cause Report its intentiontosgenrate an engineering plan by December 1,2012, to re-establish the SB licensing basis.
What is significant about these highlighted 'Pieces is that a) since the public meeting FENOC has concluded that the shield building does not meet design basis [at the time of the public meeting, this issue was disputed I
between NRC and FENOC] and b) FENOC has proposed corrective action to return the Shield Building to licensing basis.
The root cause report referenced above is currently under review (with accompanying inspections). The NRC response (Davis Besse Shield Building Root Cause and Corrective Action inspection Report) is expected to be completed within two months.
Please contact me with questions, Timothy Riley Congressional Affairs Officer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Congressional Affairs Phone: 301-415-8492 Blackberry: (b)(6) 2