Please advise

Thanks 

Rika 
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Salter [mailto:dsalter@hgp-inc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:26 AM
To: Imai, Rika
Subject: meetings


Rika,
Here are a couple of meetings that might be interesting:

MEETING 1.  10/24/01 - A meeting to discuss Davis-Besse's (ECAR) proposal to
defer required reactor vessel head penetration inspections to their April
2002 refueling outage.  This is interesting because due to the recent
discoveries of cracked and leaking vessel head penetrations (like that at
Oconee 3), all PWRs are required by Bulletin 2001-01 to perform inspections
and provide information related to the structural integrity of the upper
reactor pressure vessel head penetration nozzles to ensure the integrity of
the reactor coolant system pressure boundary and to demonstrate compliance
with applicable regulatory requirements.  Davis-Besse, however, wants to
defer this inspection/assurance information until their refueling outage in
the Spring of 2002.  The NRC has 4 categories of plants according to risk
for penetration cracking.  They are:
1. Plants that already experienced cracks (Oconee 1, 2, 3; ANO 1; Cook 2)
2. Plants that are considered with high susceptibility (Davis-Besse, and six
other plants)
3. Plants that are considered with moderate susceptibility (32 plants)
4. Plants that are considered with low susceptibility
So, with Davis-Besse in the high susceptible category, the NRC may require
them to provide assurance requiring an inspection and therefore an outage.

MEETING 2.  10/25/01 - The day after the above meeting is a meeting
concerning the Pebble Bed reactor.  This is the reactor type that Exelon is
pushing for construction and use in the US.  Exelon will be discussing with
the NRC the biggest possible "showstopper" for the design--the graphite
coolant.  Graphite can burn (e.g. Chernobyl).  However, pebble bed
proponents say it is unlikely.  The NRC should provide info on their
concerns and leanings which would steer Exelon one way or another.

So far this contract year, we have attended two meetings.  That leaves us
currently with a backlog of four meetings through this month and a rate of
use of .67 meetings per month which would make the projected use for the
year of about eight of the 24 meetings allowed in the contract.  If we
attend the above two meetings, the backlog would be down to two; the rate
would be 1.33 per month; and the projected yearend total would still be only
about 16.

Let me know as soon as possible since meeting #1 is scheduled for tomorrow
so I would need to make plans.
Thanks,
Dan