ML092600769
| ML092600769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  (DPR-082) |
| Issue date: | 09/15/2009 |
| From: | Randy Hall Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| To: | Swanson J - No Known Affiliation |
| Hall, J R, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 301-415-4032 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML092600759 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC ME2176 | |
| Download: ML092600769 (1) | |
Text
From:
Hall, Randy Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:32 PM To:
janeslo@kcbx.net Cc:
Markley, Michael; Wang, Alan
Subject:
RE: COMMENTS on proposed Diablo License Amendment Attachments:
Sep 8 2009 supplement.pdf; Sep 3 2009 request for emergency amend.pdf
Dear Ms. Swanson,
In your email below, you indicated that you still had not received the documents related to PG&E's license amendment request. I sent the documents to you at this same e-mail address at 1:17 pm EDT this afternoon, but perhaps there was a delay or problem in delivery, so I will attach them again to this reply. Again, we are very sorry for the difficulties you've encountered in accessing this information.
Sincerely, Randy Hall, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC (301) 415-4032 Randy.Hall@nrc.gov From: Jane Swanson [1]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:41 PM To: Markley, Michael
Subject:
COMMENTS on proposed Diablo License Amendment September 15, 2009 TO: Michael Markley, Plant Licensing Branch IV Michael.Markley@nrc.gov FROM: Jane Swanson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace janeslo@kcbx.net RE: DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 -PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE (TAC NO. ME2176)
The following are questions and concerns related to the failure of a relief valve and PG&E's request for a 2-week license amendment to allow operating at 100% capacity until the end of cycle 15.
Mothers for Peace (MFP) was unsuccessful in an attempt to view PG&E's formal request for the license amendment, as neither I nor the NRC Reading Room Librarian
were able to locate it on ADAMS. The librarian forwarded my request to Mr. Markley, but the time now is within an hour of the deadline for comments so I am wording them in accordance with the limited information available.
MOTHERS FOR PEACE CONCERNS On page 3 of the Public Notice, the NRC position is summarized:
"-NRC staff has made a proposed (preliminary) determination that the requested amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. The changes do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously considered, nor create the possibility of an accident of a different kind, nor significantly decrease any margin of safety. "
Mothers for Peace has learned over the decades to be cognizant of vague qualifiers.
What types of hazards were considered and ruled to be "insignificant?" Which accident scenarios have been considered, and which ruled out?
Regarding the failed valve, the details are not given in this public notice nor in any other document MFP could locate on the NRC website. The NRC Staff needs to clarify the nature of the failure in order for a citizen group to be able to offer meaningful comments.
- 1. What is the history of the failed valve? Was it newly installed when the steam generators were replaced?
- 2. Does the history of the functioning valves match that of the failed valve?
- 3. How long had the failed valve and the other 19 valves been in use?
What is the expected length of service?
- 4. Has the root cause of the valve failure been determined?
- a. Were the valves defective and if so will the manufacturer be held responsible? Who was the manufacturer?
- b. Have any other steam generators manufactured in Spain had similar problems? If so, how many?
- c. Has it been determined if PG&E and/or its contractors installed the valves incorrectly?
- d. If human error contributed to the failure, will the resulting expenses be charged to the steam generator project or will they be reflected in the next general rate case?
- 5. Have there been similar cases at Diablo or other plants in which such a valve failed and such an amendment was granted? In other words, is this PG&E request in accordance with past practices?
- 6. Or is this a unique circumstance and might it set a precedent for other plants or other incidents at Diablo?
- 7. On what date was the defective valve discovered? Does that date match the date of failure or was it after the fact?
- 8. How many failed valves would it take to trigger a complete shut-down of the unit?
MFP still requests to see PG&E's filing for the Amendment, as it will give added information and perhaps answer some of our questions. MFP also requests that the date for Comments be extended to a week past the date of PG&E's filing being made available to us.
Jane Swanson janeslo@kcbx.net E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (D841D501B2C4D244B75AB897F70C14949A656084CC)
Subject:
RE: COMMENTS on proposed Diablo License Amendment Sent Date: 9/15/2009 4:32:30 PM Received Date: 9/15/2009 4:32:33 PM From: Hall, Randy Created By: Randy.Hall@nrc.gov Recipients:
janeslo@kcbx.net (janeslo@kcbx.net)
Tracking Status: None Michael.Markley@nrc.gov (Markley, Michael)
Tracking Status: None Alan.Wang@nrc.gov (Wang, Alan)
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7783655 9/15/2009 Sep 8 2009 supplement.pdf 3593273 Sep 3 2009 request for emergency amend.pdf 4173035 Options Expiration Date:
Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: