Eric' .uncan -NEIL L•titer

From: Eric DuncandTo: ExponentReportGroup'Date: 04/04/2007 1:31:21 PMSubject: NEIL Letter

To all,

As you may be aware, FENOC has recently decided to formally provide us with the NEIL letter and willrequest that this letter be entered into ADAMS and made publicly available.

We expect to receive this request today.

In advance of this action, I have attached the subject letter for your information.

Eric.

cAternpNGW)00001.TMP Pagýi-iI c:\ternp\GW}OOOO I :TMF' Page 1 'I

Mail Envelope Properties (4613EEF9.F3A : 4 : 3672)

Subject: NEIL LetterCreation Date 04/04/2007 1:31:21 PMFrom: Eric Duncan

Created By: ERD@nrc.gov

Recipients Actiocomcast.net TransPM

vmitlyng

mac.com TransPM

jan (Jan Strasma-home)

nrc.govchpo.CHDO Deliv

PMATB (Anne Boland) Open

PMCDP1 (Cynthia Pederson) Open

PMDEH (David Hills) Open,

PMGEG (Geoffrey Grant) Open'

PMDelet

PMEmpt

PMGLS (Gary Shear) Open'

PMDelet

PMJER7 (John Rutkowski) Open,

PMJLC1 (JamesCaldwell) Open

PMDelet

PMEmpt

AM

nferred

ferred

ered

ed

ed

ed

ed

ed

ied

ed

ed

ed

ed

ed

ied

Date & Time04/04/2007 1:31:51

04/04/2007 1:31:51

04/04/2007 1:31:37

04/05/2007 7:22:03

04/04/2007 2:25:15

04/04/2007 2:23:46

04/04/2007 3:24:43

04/04/2007 3:25:20

05/01/2007 1:59:44

04/04/2007 2:33:53

04/24/2007 12:23:54

04/04/2007 2:19:19

04/05/2007 7:53:30

04/05/2007 7:53:41

04/10/2007 1:10:27

Sc:\tenp\GW}O0001 .TMP Page 2,1

KSW (Steven West)PM

MAS (Mark Satorius)PM

RJS2 (Jan Strasma)AM

RML2 (Roland Lickus)PM

AMSAM9 (Sheri Minnick)

PM

AMSLS CC (Sharon Sama)

PMVTM (Viktoria Mitlyng)

PM

PM

nrc.govOWGWPO01 .HQGWDO01

PMSRB3 (Scott Burnell)

PMTEB (Tamara Bloomer)

PMWHB (Bill Bateman)

PM

PM

nrc.govOWGWPO02.HQGWDO01

PMJAG (John Grobe)

PM

PMMGE (Michele Evans)

PMRAGI (Russell Gibbs)

PM

Opened

Opened

Opened

Opened

SharedEmptied

Opened

SharedEmptied

Opened

Opened

Replied

04/04/2007 2:38:57

04/04/2007 6:13:32

04/05/2007 9:05:40

04/04/2007 2:24:06

05/07/2007 7:30:35

04/04/2007 1:32:30

04/05/2007 9:29:27

04/04/2007 1:32:02

04/04/2007 1:33:06

04/04/2007 1:33:30

Delivered

Opened

Opened

Opened

Deleted

Delivered

Opened

Deleted

Opened

Opened

Emptied

04/04/2007 1:31:40

04/04/2007 1:31:39

04/04/2007 1:31:42

04/04/2007 2:03:07

04/04/2007 2:03:19

04/04/2007 1:31:39

04/04/2007 2:38:44

04/04/2007 2:39:51

04/04/2007 3:27:49

04/04/2007 2:38:52

05/07/2007 9:06:22

cAtetnp\GW)00001.TMP paa-6'-flI c:\temp\GW}OO001 .TMP Paae 3

AM

nrc.govOWGWPO03.HQGWDO01

PMJXC (Jay Collins)

PM

PM

AM

nrc.govOWGWPOO4.HQGWDOO1

PMJKH3 (Jared Heck)

PM

nrc.govTWGWPO02.HQGWDO01

PMUSS (Undine Shoop)

PM

PM

nrc.govTWGWPO03.HQGWDOO1I

PMAXP 10 (Amy Powell)

PM

nrc.govTWGWPO04.HQGWDOO1

PMTJW2 (Thomas Wengert)

PM

Post Office

chpo.CH_DOOWGWPO01 .HQGWDO01OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01OWGWPOO3.HQGWDOO1

Delivered

Opened

Forwarded

Forwarded

Delivered

Opened

Delivered

Opened

Forwarded

Delivered

Opened

Delivered

Opened

Delivered

04/04/200704/04/200704/04/200704/04/2007

04/04/2007 1:31:40

04/04/2007 1:42:47

04/04/2007 1:48:15

04/24/2007 7:13:42

04/04/2007 1:31:41

04/04/2007 1:55:48

04/04/2007 1:31:39

04/04/2007 1:40:20

04/04/2007 1:40:52

04/04/2007 1:31:39

04/04/2007 2:25:48

04/04/2007 1:31:39

04/04/2007 1:35:45

Routecomcast.netmac.com

1:31:37 PM nrc.gov1:31:40 PM nrc.gov1:31:39 PM nrc.gov1:31:40 PM nrc.gov

cAternp\GVV)00001.TMP c:\teinp\GW}OOOO1 .TMP Page4~

OWGWPOO4.HQGWDOO1TWGWP002.HQGWDOO1TWGWPO03.HQGWDOO1TWGWPO04.HQGWDOO1

04/04/2007 1:31:41 PM04/04/2007 1:31:39 PM04/04/2007 1:31:39 PM04/04/2007 1:31:39 PM

Date & Time04/04/2007 1:31:21 PM04/04/2007 1:29:06 PM

nrc.govnrc.govnrc.govnrc.gov

FilesMESSAGENEILLetter.pdf

OptionsAuto Delete:Expiration Date:Notify Recipients:Priority:ReplyRequested:Return Notification:

Concealed Subject:Security:

To Be Delivered:Status Tracking:

Size818702170

NoNoneYesStandardNoNone

NoStandardi,.

ImmediateAll Information

.71,7753 Eiiko & Me~.enzUSAP

Fax: 1 2.2 31 1 .0

Az~o

~

E~ir~i- &MI~k L~

~

MU'~r~

s~ -~t~

v~.

~

~

S~n ~

Tel: + 1 212 891 318Dav~dZasjovwsky Cbakernet.9onm

Via E-Mail

FebrUary 23 , 2007

Thomnas A. Schimutz, Esq.Morp-n. Lewis & Bockius LLPI I I ýPennsy'Ivania Avenue, NWWaishington, DC 20004

R-E: ~Davis-Besse - Exponent Report

Dear Tomn,

.1 arn sending 'to youfor your information the cop), fa letter, sent e'arlier today by DavidRip'orni to Gary Leidich. At Mr. Leidichsreqtest~ saending a copy to David Jenkins

fl: t~.RIi ii i•?!:~ •i::• ii • ::: : ~ i:~::i

David Zaslowvsky

Cc: Ken Manne (by e-tnail)J~ohn H. O'Neill (by e-mail)Dav'id Jenkins (by e-m~ail)

NY 'CDMS11031945 1

~ker & McK~m~e LLPi~ ~i r mber & ~ker & MeInt&~r:Sds5;Vererfl.

... . .......... - ................. . --- ----------- --- .

N~uclear Electric Insunnce Umirned!!i!i!!i!iiii

N E I LDavid B, Hipsom

302 888-31109 1lrceuI's~ _*83000 Te~l

:6~$4 4CullFebruary 23, 2007

Ila emad and First ClassAfi

Mr. Gary R~. LeidichPresident and Chief Nuclear~ OfficerFirs Ener- Nuclear Operating Company76 South Main St-reetAlaron, Ohio 44308

R~e: Potential Safety Concern Arisli ng From Exponent Failure Analysis Associates and AltrantSolutions Corporation, December 15, 2006 Report entitled "Review and Analysis of the Davis-Besse March 2002dReactor Pressure' Vessel Head Wastage Event"

Dear Gary:

I a riting as a followutp to our teleph~one converation earlier today. Under ordinary circumstances, Iwould not be contacting you regarding matters associated with a pending claim. However, we identified apotential saifety concern that has ariseni out of the filings made by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Companyj("FENOC") in the arbitration with NEIL on the Davis-Besse claim. The matter has been discussed with NEILBoard members (two -with nuclear operating experience) and with former senior NRC officials. Because theConcern has potential impact on Members other than FENOC, and because NEIL, as a mutual company, musttake Into consideration the concerns of all its Members (not to mention potential underwriting risks for NEILjtslt), it was agreed that I shoul.1d contact you directly.

On December 15, 2006, FENOC, through its counsel, submitted to NEIL a report prepared by Exponent failureAnalysis Associates and Altran Solutions Corporation, entitled "Review and Arnalysis of the Davis-Besse March2002 Re~actor Pressure Vessel Head Wastage Event" ("Exponent Report"). The Exponent Reportidisagrees in aflumibi'K'of ways wkith the analysis presented Inthe R~oot Cause Analj'sis Repo~rt entitled "Significant Degradationof the Rteactor Pressure Vessel Bead" '(CR 2002-0891l) that FENOC submitted to the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission ("NRiC"). As just two examples, the Exponent Report states that the cr~ack growth rate wassignificantly higher than that stated in the Root Cause R~eport ahnd suggests higher metal removal rates underceriain thermal hydraulic conditions than that presented in the Root Cause Report.

Indeed, in a number of places, the Exponent Report contains statements that directly call into questionFENO C's conclusions in the Root Cause Report (and other submissions by FENOC to the NRC) with regard tothe cause and timeline of the damage to the Davis-Bese reactor pressure vessel head. As an example, FENOCstated on page 24 of die Root Cause Report (August 27, 2002) that "the corrosion rate began to increasesignificantly starting at about 11I RFO 1Apr11 19981 and acted for a four year period of time," In contrast, theExponent Report stated as follows:

.Hal

JMr, Gary R. LeidikhlFebruary 23,,2007Page 2

0wMe-have concluided that the large wastage cavity found during thie 13RFTOinspection in March 2002~'at:Nozzle 3could have6formed 'in as little as a.fwwesi h xrm fcmlt li utn9othe headL" Exponent Report at 2-14. ewesnteerneo ope d i ,f

0 11i he'd evelopmCnr of the large crack at Davis-Besse Nozzle 3 and the subsequent wastage cavity~development occurred in a much shorter time frame than the root cause repor~t concluded."E~xonent Report at 4It 13.

NEIL has not yet had time to analyze in detail1 the assumuptions, methodologies, models, analyses andconclusions reached in the 757 pages of the Exponent Report. Hlowever, we are concerned that If the t~heoriespostulated in the Exponent Report are indeed true, then there~ could be current imnplications for operatingread~iia at other NEIL Mdembers, as wellas VENOC's other PWRs.

iiiiiiiiiii•!iiii

In particular, Exponent's apparent position is that susceptible materials can have crack g••wth rates that aresi.gnificantly higher tha.n previously assumed and small through w~all cracks can lead to high rates of erosionand corrosion. Mater~ial susceptibil~ity and crack growth rates are one of the baLses for the NRC's requirementsfor monitoring reactor coolaint system unidentified leak rates during power operation, visual (bare metal)inspections of reactor pressure vessel heads during refueling outages, and periodic volunietric examnination ofpenetrations. If the theories in the Exponenit Report are correct, it could require reevaluation of the adequiacyof these NRC req~ui 'rements and the licensee programs Implementing them to ensure that excessivedegradation of a reactor pressure vessel head or other components could not occur in less than one operatingcycle:

We recognize hat the Exponent Report was prepared as part of an ongoing arbitration. At the samne time,however, we ar concerned about the possible consequences to the industry (as highlighted in' the previous'pai-agraph), that flic eipo~rt my cause.,We therefore think it is importat for NEIL's' Mrnibers to know whefiherthe opinions and .conclusions set forth in the Ex~ponent Report represent the position of FENOC xith regardl to~*the cas eand tihieliuieof the damiage to the Davils-B~esse reactor pressure vessel head.

One way of deterniiniig~whether the Exponent Report represents FENOC's position isto look t the actionstak-en at Davis-Besse, as wellas filinigs that FENOC may have made, or will make, with the NRC as a result of"the Exponent Report, (Based on our search of the public records, we have not identified any such filing as oftoday) NEIL has retained as consultants a number of former senior NRC officials and obtained their inputVonFENOC's reporting requirements, If any, in connection 'with the Exponent Report. We have been iniformed*that, If FENOC concurs with the conclusions in the Exponent Report that the prior root cause evaluation was InLerro asocir e w ith n -c vthe ve, th otcuse report woutd have to be revised a.nd resubmitted .to NRC and theCnLErmascatedy wcth theentte would also need to be revised. In that regard, we note that the NRC's....Conirmtor Atlo LetertoDavis-Besse Nuclear Power Station' (CAL No, 3-02-001) dated March 13, 2002imposed sxsets of commitmients FENIOC had to undertake prior to restart, Including "determine the rootcause of the degradation around the RPV head penetrations," Because this item 'was closed out based on the~root cause reports submitted by FENOC (see, e.g., NRC letter dated September 19, 2003), we are advised that.17ENOC would have to inform the NRC if it now disagrees wvithi the conclusions that formed the basis forsatisI'yiing one of the items of the AL

---------- ___ ------ ...... .-------

Mr. GaryR. LeidichFecbruary~ 23, 2_007Page

Before deciding on what actions we should take with our other Members about the s~afety concern discussed inthis letter, we thought it prudent to contact yoti'and request additionali nformation on the actions that FLINOC~has taken in response to the opinions and conclusioninteET etRpo.WehrfreeqsthaFENOC answer the following questions:....n nteE~nn eotW eoerqetta

1)Has FENOC prepared a Condition Report and entered the Exponent Report into the Davis-Besse'~Corrective Action Program for analysis?.

2)Has FENOC evaluated the opinions and conclusions in the Exponent Report with re~gard to whatpotential impact there might be on the various reports and analyses that we'regenerated by FENOC tosupport restart of Davis-Besse?

3) Ha,,s PENO'C evaluated its, reporting obligations to the NRC with regard to file opinlions and conclusionscontained in the Exponent ReporPt, and has FENOC contemplated, or is FENOC'contemplating,submitting any reports to the NRC (such as a revised root cause report) ~based on teoiin nconclusions in the Exponent Report? ~eoiin n

4) Has FENOC evaluatedl eopinions and conclusions in the Exponent Report foftheiripotential impact~on FENOC's response to the NRC's February 11, 200'3 Order Lk-03-009 with regard to the insptctionplan for tie refurbished Midlanid reactor presure vessel head that wais installed at Davis-Bc.sse?

5)Ilas FENOC evaluated the opinionis anid conclusions in the Exponent Report for transportability toother systems arid components at Davis-Besse that contain Alloy 600 (such s die pressurizer)?

6) Is FENOC planning on sharing the opinions and conclusionis in the Exponent Report with the InstItutefor Nuelear Power Operations, the techniical committees or programs of the Nuclear Energy Instituteand flit Electric Power Research Institute, or the various reactor ownmers' groups?

NEIL believes that FENIOC's responses to the questions posed in this letter are Important so that NEIL can havea better unde~rstanding of whether the opinions and conclusions in the Exponent Report present a current

*safe~ty concern for other NEIL Members and whether NELL should share the information in~ the E~xponentReport with dhe NEIL Membersihp for review. Understanding the response'by FENOC to the Exponent Reportwill assist us in this regard.,

This matter wvill be a topic of substantive discussion at the upcomhing NEIL Board meeting on 'March 9, 2007,We request that you respond before that time so that the Board can take such Informaia~on into considerationin determining further steps, if any, that may be appropriate for NEIL or its Members.

1 awaii your response, anid if you have an), questions about this letter, please feel free to give me a call.

David B. Ripsomn