April 14, 2008 Elmo Collins, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

SUBJECT: DIABLO CANYON SAFETY ALLEGATIONS

Dear Mr. Collins:

Thank you for taking the time last month during the Regulatory Information Conference in Rockville, MD, to meet with me and share your insights and to listen to my concerns. Your openness has been mirrored by several other members of your staff in their dealings with me, for which I am equally appreciative.

In that spirit of constructive dialogue, I am submitting the following allegations of safety problems at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant based upon information I recently received from worker(s) at the site:

1. Workers perceive that raising safety concerns carries a high likelihood of retaliation by management. These perceptions are based on incidents such as the poor performance evaluation (worker’s name removed to protect individual privacy) received after he filed a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) regarding instrument setpoint methodology inadequacies for the replacement steam generators.* The DPO process substantiated all, or the majority, of worker’s issues, yet he still received a downgraded performance appraisal because he was not a team player. This episode, and others like them, caused a chilling effect in which workers fear raising safety concerns out of fear of retaliation.
2. Workers have lost trust in the Employee Concerns group and lack confidence that this group conducts fair, unbiased, and appropriately confidential inquiries of workers’ concerns.
3. PG&E is filling supervisor and manager positions at Diablo Canyon with individuals that do not meet the required qualifications for the positions. For example, the last two individuals to have filled the Director of Quality Assurance position did not meet the prescribed qualifications, so PG&E altered the Final Safety Analysis Section text to match their lesser backgrounds.

   * Please note that I am not alleging that PG&E retaliated against the worker for filing his DPO. While that very well be true, I fully understand that NRC’s allegation process, as currently constructed, requires that only the victim of retaliation can formally allege retaliation. Therefore, I cite his case as having chilled other workers who witnessed how PG&E treats workers who raise safety concerns.

4. PG&E is once again violating 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B by failing to promptly correct known deficiencies in the containment fan cooler units. In inspection report 2004-05 dated February 11, 2005, the NRC identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B for “failure to promptly correct reverse rotation of containment fan cooler units for both Units 1 and 2.” A condition report was recently written on Diablo Canyon Unit 2 when an operator observed that non-operating Containment Fan Cooler Unit 22 (CFCU 22) was rotating in the reverse direction at about 35 revolutions per minute. The system engineer investigated and determined to be rotating in the reverse direction because one-half of the backdraft damper was open. The damper was closed by starting CFCU 22. Once the damper was closed, CFCU 22 was shut down. The condition report noted that PG&E had deferred the permanent fix to the problem (anti-reverse rotations couplings project) until 2010 for budgetary reasons (see A0726129).

At my request, David Lochbaum with the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed the information I received from the Diablo Canyon worker(s) and helped me identify the specific allegations within the materials.

I understand that your staff may refer some or all of these allegations back to PG&E. While I would greatly prefer that NRC investigate each allegation, my expectation is that the NRC will take all of the steps necessary to ensure that the final analysis of each allegation is complete and accurate. If allegation(s) are referred back to PG&E, I would expect that NRC verify that the scope of PG&E’s efforts was appropriate, their methodology sound, and their results reasonable.

I look forward to reading the NRC’s resolution of these important issues.

Sincerely,

Morgan Rafferty San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace