ML20128A087
| ML20128A087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1992 |
| From: | Repka D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Kline J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#492-13409 OLA, OLA-2, NUDOCS 9212030175 | |
| Download: ML20128A087 (3) | |
Text
. _
d by0 WINSTON & STILiWN
,.m 1
U 3htiC
- m c r n-c n w%sm ow n.wn 400 L STREET N w c ~ cuo enict uss s mA N *" **'
3 5 *r.sf *Acata ONE AASHINGTO*' OC :0005 3502 92 NOV 25 P 3 :35 = = ~
aca 3n 3,00 e,
i, e
'd A 80Ra 088 :CE om.tra us>*E4"O.atnuung -
i'5 WA!f R S' Rett (d j
- ))
g e
sco m m an.
(202) 371-5726 November 23, 1992 Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety 'nd Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jerry R.
Kline Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
Re:
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275 _,
OLA. 50-323-OLA (Constrt.cgion Period Recapture)
~
Dear Sirs:
l Last weck we filed Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Response I
to Petiticner's Supplement to Petition to Intervene.
On review, we l
identified a typographical err-r on page 20, in footnote 26.
l Attached are a mark-up and a corrected paga 20.
Sincerely, h a.
v%
David A.
Repka DAR/la Enclosures cc:
Service List 9212030175 921123 PDR ADOCK 05000275 d
~p6)
O PDR Q
I i
i 1
1 In an attempt to support its assertion that the NRC has
" repeatedly" cited PG&E for " slow response to maintenance l
problems," MFP makes multiple references to what was in fact an i
isolated event related to PG&E's recent maintenance-of a single component, backdraft dampers in the plant's Containment Fan Cooler Units ("CFCUs").
Although PG&E agreed with the NRC that its 4
l maintenance activities in this particular instance were inadequate, i
the NRC in fact found no programmatic deficiency or breakdown in PG&E's overall maintenance program,- and declf.aed to undertake l
escalated enforcement action against the licensee as a result of l
the evunt.
Instead, the NRC cited PG&E for Severity Level IV violations. Under the NRC's Enforcement Policy (10 C.F.R., Part 2, Appendix C), a severity Level IV violation by definition is a "less j
significant" violation-and does not constitute a "(b]reakdown in i
j the control of licensed activities."
Isl., Supplement I,
" Reactor l
Operations," patagraphs D.1, C. 8. U' The other Notice of Violation i
l W(... continued) j-surveillance program, cannot on their face be found to be an j
indictment of the entire program.
See also Pacific Gas anc(
j Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
i ALAB-7 5 6,. - 38 NRC 1340, 1344-345 (1983) -(programmatic, as j
opposed to
- isolated, failures-in-censtruction quality
)
assurance are germane to plant's capability of being operated safely).
The 1954 Act provides only that a nuclear plant be j
operated in a manner which provides reasonable assurance of i
the protection of-the public health and safety, not a standard of abr? lute ection.
4 p
}
E' MFP also. quotes, out of context, statements by NRC officials made in connection with the NRC enforcement conference on this matter.
The-statement by -K.
Perkins refers 'to alleged i
deficiencies in engineering assessments of degraded plant conditions (valve 1FCV-95) and design. basis reconstitution issues (Reg. Guide
.1.97),
not.to maintenance deficiencies.
(continued...)
i i
... _.,.. _... _,,,.... _. _.... _.,,... _ _ _. _., _, _... ~ _.. _ -. _.... _ _. _
In an attempt to support its assertion that the NRC has
" repeatedly" cited PG&E for " slow response to maintenance problems," MFP makes multiple references to what was in fact an isolated event related to PG&E's recent maintenance of a single component, backdraf t dampers in the plant's Containment Fan Cooler Units
("CFCUs").
Although PG&E agreed with the NRC that its maintenance activities in this carticular instance were inadequate, the NRC in fact found no programmatic deficiency or breakdown in PG&E's overall maintenance program, and declined to undertake escalated enforcement action against the licensee as a result of the event.
Instead, the NRC cited PG&E for Severity Level IV violations.
Under the NRC's Enforcement Policy (10 C.F.R., Part 2, Appendix C), a Severity Level IV violation by definition is a "less significant" violation and does agt constitute a "[b]reakdown in the control of licensed activities."
Id.,
Supplement I,
" Reactor d
Operations," paragraphs D.1, C. 8. E' The other Notice of Violation I
l l
P(... continued)
I surveillance program, cannot on their face be found to be an l
indictment of the entire program.
See also Pacific.. Gas and l
Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
l ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340, 1344-345 (1983)
(programmatic, as opposed to
- isolated, failures in construction quality l
assurance are germane to plant's capability of being operated safely).
The 1954 Act provides only that a nuclear plant be operated in a manner which provides reasonable assurance of the protection of the public health and safety, not a standard of absolute perfection.
l l
E' MFP also quotes, out of context, statemente by HRC officials made in connection with the NRC enforcement conference on this matter.
The statement by K.
Perkins refers to alleged deficiencies in engineering assessments of degraded plant conditions (valve 1FCV-95) and design besis reconstitution issues (Reg. Guide 1.97), not to maintenance deficiencies.
l (continued...)
l l...
,