Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumCalifornia senator presses feds after report questions safety at troubled coastal nuke plant
LOS ANGELES The chair of the U.S. Senates environment committee pressed federal regulators Tuesday to disclose details about the design of the troubled steam generators at the San Onofre nuclear power plant, where a probe into tube damage has kept the reactors sidelined for months.
In a letter, Sen. Barbara Boxer asked Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko for documentation on how the federal agency reviewed generator modifications, which might be the culprit in vibration that has damaged hundreds of tubes inside the complex machines.
At issue is whether operator Southern California Edison sidestepped any federal requirements by conducting extensive design changes, a claim leveled by an environmental group that said the alterations are at the heart of the plants problems.
The twin reactors, located along the coast between San Diego and Los Angeles, have been shut down for more than three months while investigators try to determine the cause of the unusual tube wear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/report-questions-safety-of-equipment-at-troubled-san-onofre-nuke-plant-on-calif-coast/2012/05/15/gIQAv24XQU_story.html
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)nt
PamW
(1,825 posts)Just as the NRC has to approve every aspect of the nuclear power plant's design; the NRC has to approve every modification of the plant. What sense would it make to have your regulator have to approve every aspect of the design of the plant, if the licensee was free to change that design, or order replacement parts that were not identical to what the NRC approved.
You can be sure that whatever modifications were made in the design of the San Onofre steam generators; the NRC knew every aspect of those modifications, and approved them all.
PamW
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)If something screens out under 10 CFR 50.59 the NRC does is not in the approval cycle. That is most of the time.
License amemdments, {Technical Specification, Unresolved Safety Questions and FSAR changes}, are just about the only changes they must approve.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Read it for your self at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0059.html
(c)(1) A licensee may make changes in the facility as described in the final safety analysis report (as updated), make changes in the procedures as described in the final safety analysis report (as updated), and conduct tests or experiments not described in the final safety analysis report (as updated) without obtaining a license amendment pursuant to Sec. 50.90 only if:
(i) A change to the technical specifications incorporated in the license is not required, and
(ii) The change, test, or experiment does not meet any of the criteria in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) A licensee shall obtain a license amendment pursuant to Sec. 50.90 prior to implementing a proposed change, test, or experiment if the change, test, or experiment would:...
It's all right there for anyone to read. If it affects safety or technical specs; they need NRC approval.
PamW
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)"Just as the NRC has to approve every aspect of the nuclear power plant's design; the NRC has to approve every modification of the plant"
Then they quite clearly do not "approve every modification of the plant", only those requiring a License Amendment in the form of Technical Specification Changes, FSAR changes, and Unresolved safety questions.
As I make changes to a couple of nuclear plants on a regular basis, almost none of which require the approval of the NRC prior to issuing them. BTW, license amendments are currently running a 15 month approval cycle with the regulator, and I am still waiting on two from 2010.
PamW
(1,825 posts)If the operator wants to change the color of the paint on the backup diesel generator; then NO - that doesn't have to be approved by the NRC. But why would anyone worry about that.
Implicit in the question is the fact that we are dealing with safety issues. If it were not a safety issue, there would be no need for concern. Nobody would care.
The people here are concerned about safety issues. Senator Boxer is concerned about safety issues and not paint colors.
When the issue involves safety; then the NRC must approve as per the above quoted regulations.
PamW
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)or isn't that important to safety?
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)What if the new paint is more flammable?
What if it melts at a low temperature?
What if the color has an operational significance?
What if the additional layer of paint decreases the available volume of the compartment?
I can think of these for potential issues and I don't even deal with paints and coatings for a living.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The failed tubes still had the imprint of the NRC's rubber stamp on them.