Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Diablo Canyon: NRC Insider’s Dissent - All Things Nuclear

...Dr. Peck found two kinds of problems:
(1) PG&E had not completely evaluated whether ground motion from an earthquake along the Shoreline Fault could damage vital plant components, and
(2) the evaluations PG&E had performed of other related issues used methods and assumptions that were unacceptable to the NRC.

Dr. Peck’s findings led him to conclude that the homework required for Diablo Canyon to continue operating safely had not been completed satisfactorily and therefore neither the company nor the NRC had adequate legal basis for the plant’s operation. He filed reports via two internal NRC processes—the non-concurrence and differing professional opinion (DPO) processes—to register his convictions and compel the agency to address them. The NRC is still assessing his latter DPO report, the one obtained and posted by FOE.

Peck Was Right

There is little doubt that Dr. Peck’s findings are correct. UCS obtained internal NRC emails and memos in January 2014 in response to our Freedom of Information Act request. These documents relate to the NRC’s review of a license amendment request (LAR) submitted by Diablo Canyon in October 2011. The company sought the NRC’s approval for its handling of the Shoreline Fault...


NRC Is Treating Diablo Canyon Differently


Dr. Peck’s findings are irrefutable and his conclusion consistent with nearly four decades of precedents. 

What is not clear is why Diablo Canyon continues to operate with inadequately evaluated protection against known earthquake hazards. The NRC’s job is to establish and then enforce safety regulations to protect public health. It is simply not getting that job done at Diablo Canyon.

complete article: Diablo Canyon: NRC Insider’s Dissent - All Things Nuclear

No comments:

Post a Comment