"... continued operating risks were accepted ..."

Please see my entry of February 5, 2007, WHOOPS! A Clue to Fouling Elsewhere?

The title, "... continued operating risks were accepted," is extracted from the first of the two Oxenford papers. My contention is that the "operating risks" are safety risks. At least one "expert" has testified to the NRC's ACRS that severe fouling is not a safety matter; that severe fouling is merely an economic consideration. That testimony was presented a few years prior to the Oxenford papers. A skilled sanitizer from the nuclear power lobby would have changed Oxenford's "operating" to "economic."

Now, the above cited "expert" was (or is) not out of line with NRC thinking. In the enclosure with her letter to Entergy's Hinnenkamp on February 28, 2006, the NRC's Linda Joy Smith reports that her inspection team at River Bend found that crud during cycles 8 and 11, "... is of very low safety significance ... ." See NRC file ML060600503. I'll report further on this.