Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MindMover

(5,016 posts)
Fri May 18, 2012, 10:01 PM May 2012

California senator presses feds after report questions safety at troubled coastal nuke plant

LOS ANGELES — The chair of the U.S. Senate’s 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 plant’s 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

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
California senator presses feds after report questions safety at troubled coastal nuke plant (Original Post) MindMover May 2012 OP
Props to Barbara Boxer flamingdem May 2012 #1
NRC has to approve everything PamW May 2012 #2
No, they do not approve every modification. Throckmorton May 2012 #4
If it affects SAFETY; then the NRC must approve! PamW May 2012 #5
Funny, I don't remember that qualifier in your comment. Throckmorton May 2012 #6
Must be read in context PamW May 2012 #7
Did the NRC have to approve my new control rod position monitoring system? Throckmorton May 2012 #8
" But why would anyone worry about that.?" Lets see shall we? Throckmorton May 2012 #9
Yes the NRC approved the replacement. kristopher May 2012 #3

PamW

(1,825 posts)
2. NRC has to approve everything
Sat May 19, 2012, 05:03 PM
May 2012

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)
4. No, they do not approve every modification.
Sun May 20, 2012, 07:28 AM
May 2012

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)
5. If it affects SAFETY; then the NRC must approve!
Sun May 20, 2012, 02:24 PM
May 2012

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)
6. Funny, I don't remember that qualifier in your comment.
Sun May 20, 2012, 04:23 PM
May 2012

"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)
7. Must be read in context
Tue May 22, 2012, 07:25 PM
May 2012

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)
8. Did the NRC have to approve my new control rod position monitoring system?
Tue May 22, 2012, 09:23 PM
May 2012

or isn't that important to safety?

Throckmorton

(3,579 posts)
9. " But why would anyone worry about that.?" Lets see shall we?
Wed May 23, 2012, 06:24 AM
May 2012

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)
3. Yes the NRC approved the replacement.
Sat May 19, 2012, 05:51 PM
May 2012

The failed tubes still had the imprint of the NRC's rubber stamp on them.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»California senator presse...