ML15035A218

NRR E-mail Capture - Issuance of Proposed Director'S Decision Associated with Your 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Regarding Impellers

ML15035A218
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	01/29/2015
From:	Mulligan M - No Known Affiliation
To:	Jennivine Rankin Plant Licensing Branch III
References
Download: ML15035A218 (2)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Michael Mulligan [steamshovel2002@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:39 PM To: Rankin, Jennivine

Subject:

Re: Issuance of proposed director's decision associated with your 10 CFR 2.206 petition regarding impellers Mrs. Rankin, Additional Concerns:

I think an accident coming out of broken PCP impeller blades is basically too complex to understand.

I honestly dont think anyone really understands completely how or why these blades fail. What can happen in the future not contrary to licensing. The normal way they handle this is they make a quality requirement over the global uncertainties. Why isnt there a quality requirement where these impellers are supposed to be replaced before cracks and broken blades shows up?

Why isnt this an adverse to quality violation? I am not certain how the USFAR and licensing treats quality for the PCP components Why isnt this related to a 10 CFR 50.59 or licensing amendment request? I considered the PCP impeller problem contrary to plant licensing and the USFAR. Why didnt not operating to plant licensing, the NPSH issuenot cycle through a 50.59 or licensed amendment request change. I request the Palisades Plant immediately comply with all NRC regulations and UFSAR requirements.

As far as the Salem plant primary coolant pump problem and Palisades plant PCP problems being dissimilarI disagree. Basically defects have shown up in prior outage and inspections at both plants. The licensees and the NRC failed to immediately correct the problem. I fear this attitude would carry over to a much larger problemwhere the licensee and the NRC would detect an incipient early problem and decide not to repair it. Then it leads to a much larger problem later on or it become a runaway repetitive problem. It is noticed the NRC doesnt do a comprehensive inspection write up about the early problems. You wait until to you are hunting around inside the core and coolant piping for broken off blades and missing screws to comprehensively report on it. I could make a case these inspection reports are still rather skimpy.

Does the NRC have any actually testing with these 4000 hp pumpsproofthat the loose ductile blades wont shatter the impeller?

I have issues with the transparency of the OIG. Your staff reports these issues to the OIG. But there is no paperwork trail (like on the docket) that I can see showing you sent documents to the OIG and OIG never contacts me indicating they'd seen my concern and it taken into consideration one way or another?

I wish I had an industry wide perspective on PCP impeller blade problem? The blade problem seems only related to Palisades. I request the LERs and inspection reports report on PCP problem more comprehensively. This is an early indicator with licensee problems and safety culture problem. The public should see this.

Sincerely, Mike Mulligan Hinsdale, NH 16033368320 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1853 Mail Envelope Properties (921762476.2508485.1422553151936.JavaMail.yahoo)

Subject:

Re: Issuance of proposed director's decision associated with your 10 CFR 2.206 petition regarding impellers Sent Date: 1/29/2015 12:39:11 PM Received Date: 1/29/2015 12:39:16 PM From: Michael Mulligan Created By: steamshovel2002@yahoo.com Recipients:

"Rankin, Jennivine" <Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: mail.yahoo.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2685 1/29/2015 12:39:16 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: