ML15225A317: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML15225A317
| number = ML15225A317
| issue date = 07/07/2015
| issue date = 07/07/2015
| title = 2015/07/07 NRR E-mail Capture - Flood Protection at Fort Calhoun
| title = NRR E-mail Capture - Flood Protection at Fort Calhoun
| author name = Dean W M
| author name = Dean W
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR
| addressee name = Lochbaum D
| addressee name = Lochbaum D
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm ResourceFrom:Dean, BillSent:Tuesday, July 07, 2015 1:31 PMTo:Dave LochbaumCc:Dapas, Marc; Markley, Michael; Lyon, Fred; Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer
{{#Wiki_filter:NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:                       Dean, Bill Sent:                       Tuesday, July 07, 2015 1:31 PM To:                         Dave Lochbaum Cc:                         Dapas, Marc; Markley, Michael; Lyon, Fred; Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
RE: Flood protection at Fort CalhounDave Thanks for the well written and safety-focused letter. It may take us a little time to get you a response, but we will strive to get you something in 4-6 weeks. I would think that the questions you raised were considered in our assessment of the amendment, but since it isn't clear to you from your review of the available documentation, then we maybe could have been a bit more thorough in our Safety Evaluation. BILL From: Dave Lochbaum [mailto:DLochbaum@ucsusa.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:15 AM To: Dean, Bill Cc: Dapas, Marc; Markley, Michael; Lyon, Fred  
RE: Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Dave Thanks for the well written and safety-focused letter. It may take us a little time to get you a response, but we will strive to get you something in 4-6 weeks. I would think that the questions you raised were considered in our assessment of the amendment, but since it isnt clear to you from your review of the available documentation, then we maybe could have been a bit more thorough in our Safety Evaluation.
BILL From: Dave Lochbaum [mailto:DLochbaum@ucsusa.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:15 AM To: Dean, Bill Cc: Dapas, Marc; Markley, Michael; Lyon, Fred


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
[External_Sender] Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Hello Bill:  
[External_Sender] Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Hello Bill:
 
Attached is a letter with two concerns about an amendment recently issued by the NRC about flood protection at Fort Calhoun.
Attached is a letter with two concerns about an amendment recently issued by the NRC about flood protection at Fort Calhoun.  
As described in the letter, the "fix" approved by the NRC with this amendment seems to now make the plant vulnerable to a single failure; something the "unfixed" design avoided.
 
Also as described in the letter, whereas the NRC staff compelled the licensee to seismically qualify new valves and piping needed for the "fix," neither the licensee nor the NRC staff addressed the seismic qualification of the non-safety-related sluice gates. If all the sluice gates do not close all the way, it matters little whether the valves and piping survive or not - the flood protection won't work at all (unless there's not a flood).
As described in the letter, the "fix" approved by the NRC with this amendment seems to now make the plant vulnerable to a single failure; something the "unfixed" design avoided.  
Bottom line - it looks like the "fix" is little more than a different way of not adequately protecting the raw water pumps from flooding damage.
: Thanks, Dave Lochbaum UCS 1


Also as described in the letter, whereas the NRC staff compelled the licensee to seismically qualify new valves and piping needed for the "fix," neither the licensee nor the NRC staff addressed the seismic qualification of the non-safety-related sluice gates. If all the sluice gates do not close all the way, it matters little whether the valves and piping survive or not - the flood protection won't work at all (unless there's not a flood).
Hearing Identifier:     NRR_PMDA Email Number:           2295 Mail Envelope Properties       (A67A2D233B3FBB4C8B5109AD7C39550715C5031A80)
Bottom line - it looks like the "fix" is little more than a different way of not adequately protecting the raw water pumps from flooding damage. 
: Thanks, Dave Lochbaum UCS Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2295   Mail Envelope Properties   (A67A2D233B3FBB4C8B5109AD7C39550715C5031A80)  


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
RE: Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Sent Date:   7/7/2015 1:31:27 PM Received Date: 7/7/2015 1:31:30 PM From:   Dean, Bill Created By:   Bill.Dean@nrc.gov Recipients:     "Dapas, Marc" <Marc.Dapas@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "Markley, Michael" <Michael.Markley@nrc.gov>
RE: Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Sent Date:               7/7/2015 1:31:27 PM Received Date:           7/7/2015 1:31:30 PM From:                   Dean, Bill Created By:             Bill.Dean@nrc.gov Recipients:
Tracking Status: None "Lyon, Fred" <Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "Evans, Michele" <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "Uhle, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Uhle@nrc.gov>
"Dapas, Marc" <Marc.Dapas@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Dave Lochbaum" <DLochbaum@ucsusa.org> Tracking Status: None Post Office:   HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov   Files     Size     Date & Time MESSAGE   1606     7/7/2015 1:31:30 PM Options Priority:     Standard   Return Notification:   No   Reply Requested:   No   Sensitivity:     Normal Expiration Date:     Recipients Received:}}
Tracking Status: None "Markley, Michael" <Michael.Markley@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Lyon, Fred" <Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Evans, Michele" <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Uhle, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Uhle@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Dave Lochbaum" <DLochbaum@ucsusa.org>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:             HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files                           Size                     Date & Time MESSAGE                         1606                     7/7/2015 1:31:30 PM Options Priority:                       Standard Return Notification:             No Reply Requested:                 No Sensitivity:                     Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:}}

Latest revision as of 21:58, 4 December 2019

NRR E-mail Capture - Flood Protection at Fort Calhoun
ML15225A317
Person / Time
Site: Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District icon.png
Issue date: 07/07/2015
From: Bill Dean
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Lochbaum D
Union of Concerned Scientists
References
TAC MF2591
Download: ML15225A317 (2)
v • d • e


Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Dean, Bill Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 1:31 PM To: Dave Lochbaum Cc: Dapas, Marc; Markley, Michael; Lyon, Fred; Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Dave Thanks for the well written and safety-focused letter. It may take us a little time to get you a response, but we will strive to get you something in 4-6 weeks. I would think that the questions you raised were considered in our assessment of the amendment, but since it isnt clear to you from your review of the available documentation, then we maybe could have been a bit more thorough in our Safety Evaluation.

BILL From: Dave Lochbaum [1]

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:15 AM To: Dean, Bill Cc: Dapas, Marc; Markley, Michael; Lyon, Fred

Subject:

[External_Sender] Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Hello Bill:

Attached is a letter with two concerns about an amendment recently issued by the NRC about flood protection at Fort Calhoun.

As described in the letter, the "fix" approved by the NRC with this amendment seems to now make the plant vulnerable to a single failure; something the "unfixed" design avoided.

Also as described in the letter, whereas the NRC staff compelled the licensee to seismically qualify new valves and piping needed for the "fix," neither the licensee nor the NRC staff addressed the seismic qualification of the non-safety-related sluice gates. If all the sluice gates do not close all the way, it matters little whether the valves and piping survive or not - the flood protection won't work at all (unless there's not a flood).

Bottom line - it looks like the "fix" is little more than a different way of not adequately protecting the raw water pumps from flooding damage.

Thanks, Dave Lochbaum UCS 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2295 Mail Envelope Properties (A67A2D233B3FBB4C8B5109AD7C39550715C5031A80)

Subject:

RE: Flood protection at Fort Calhoun Sent Date: 7/7/2015 1:31:27 PM Received Date: 7/7/2015 1:31:30 PM From: Dean, Bill Created By: Bill.Dean@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Dapas, Marc" <Marc.Dapas@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Markley, Michael" <Michael.Markley@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Lyon, Fred" <Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Evans, Michele" <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Uhle, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Uhle@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Dave Lochbaum" <DLochbaum@ucsusa.org>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1606 7/7/2015 1:31:30 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15225A317&oldid=2232415"