ML111150004
| ML111150004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/2011 |
| From: | Borchardt R NRC/EDO, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Corbett E, Hancock L, Kehoe C, Lowenthal A, Alquist E, Blakeslee S, Leno M State of CA, Senate |
| Polickoski J, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 415-5430 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111150002 | List: |
| References | |
| G20110268, LTR-11-0219, TAC ME6051, EDATS: SECY-2011-0230 | |
| Download: ML111150004 (15) | |
Text
April 30, 2011 The Honorable Ellen M. Corbett Chair, Senate Select Committee on Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery California State Senate State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Corbett:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2011, to Chairman Jaczko that expressed your concerns about seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants. In light of the recent events in Japan, you asked the NRC to explain why the agencys review of license renewal applications does not include seismicity. You also asked the NRC to consider the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions report, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report, issued November 2008, in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 when conducting the safety review requested by President Obama.
Regarding the NRCs license renewal process, we consider seismic hazards to be an ongoing regulatory concern; therefore, we address seismic hazards issues whenever a significant change is recognized, as part of our continuous oversight of operating reactors. Therefore, the NRC does not separately reanalyze seismic hazards as part of the license renewal process.
The license renewal review is focused on managing the effects of aging on plant structures and equipment and is not a re-review of the current licensing basis. Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any plant, including Diablo Canyon or San Onofre, the NRC will take the appropriate actions as part of the agencys ongoing safety oversight, regardless of whether the NRC is performing a license renewal review for that facility. In short, with respect to safety concerns, the NRC does not wait for the license renewal process to evaluate and address new information associated with seismic issues.
In response to the recent events in Japan, the NRC has established a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of our processes and regulations to make recommendations to the Commission about whether the agency should make additional enhancements to our regulatory system. This review will include an assessment of regulatory issues associated with seismic hazards. This activity will have both near-term and longer term objectives. As appropriate, we are also pursuing additional activities that appear to be prudent, including inspection activities and NRC generic communications to look at the readiness of plants to deal with both design-basis and beyond-design-basis accidents.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor seismic issues for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and ensure that the power plants safety systems remain capable of safely shutting down the plant in case of a seismic event. Specific, recent NRC actions related to seismic issues for the California plants include an ongoing, independent NRC staff review of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Companys (PG&Es) Shoreline Fault Zone report; public meetings with PG&E near the site to discuss that report and at NRC Headquarters to discuss seismic evaluation methods; a public workshop on seismology; and the issuance of an NRC generic communication on the use of probabilistic seismic hazards methods for reviewing the safety of existing plants.
The NRC staff is also aware of recent correspondence between the utilities and the State of California, which we will consider in our ongoing evaluations by the agencys staff in the ongoing safety oversight and licensing processes for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. These include Southern California Edison Companys (SCEs) evaluation of the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions AB 1632 Report; PG&Es request for the NRC to defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating license until completion and reporting of the results of the three-dimensional seismic studies approved and funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and SCEs pending rate case before CPUC, which includes a request for funding for enhanced seismic studies for San Onofre.
While the NRC continues to provide assistance to the Japanese government, I want to assure you that the agency continues to make its domestic responsibilities for the licensing and oversight of U.S. licensees its top priority and that U.S. nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. As the NRC conducts the near-term evaluation of the relevance of recent events to the U.S. fleet, the agency is continuing to gather the information needed for us to take a longer, more thorough look at the events in Japan and their lessons for the NRC. Based on these efforts, the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public.
Sincerely,
/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
April 30, 2011 The Honorable Christine Kehoe California State Senate District 39 California State Senate State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Kehoe:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2011, to Chairman Jaczko that expressed your concerns about seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants. In light of the recent events in Japan, you asked the NRC to explain why the agencys review of license renewal applications does not include seismicity. You also asked the NRC to consider the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions report, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report, issued November 2008, in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 when conducting the safety review requested by President Obama.
Regarding the NRCs license renewal process, we consider seismic hazards to be an ongoing regulatory concern; therefore, we address seismic hazards issues whenever a significant change is recognized, as part of our continuous oversight of operating reactors. Therefore, the NRC does not separately reanalyze seismic hazards as part of the license renewal process.
The license renewal review is focused on managing the effects of aging on plant structures and equipment and is not a re-review of the current licensing basis. Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any plant, including Diablo Canyon or San Onofre, the NRC will take the appropriate actions as part of the agencys ongoing safety oversight, regardless of whether the NRC is performing a license renewal review for that facility. In short, with respect to safety concerns, the NRC does not wait for the license renewal process to evaluate and address new information associated with seismic issues.
In response to the recent events in Japan, the NRC has established a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of our processes and regulations to make recommendations to the Commission about whether the agency should make additional enhancements to our regulatory system. This review will include an assessment of regulatory issues associated with seismic hazards. This activity will have both near-term and longer term objectives. As appropriate, we are also pursuing additional activities that appear to be prudent, including inspection activities and NRC generic communications to look at the readiness of plants to deal with both design-basis and beyond-design-basis accidents.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor seismic issues for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and ensure that the power plants safety systems remain capable of safely shutting down the plant in case of a seismic event. Specific, recent NRC actions related to seismic issues for the California plants include an ongoing, independent NRC staff review of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Companys (PG&Es) Shoreline Fault Zone report; public meetings with PG&E near the site to discuss that report and at NRC Headquarters to discuss seismic evaluation methods; a public workshop on seismology; and the issuance of an NRC generic communication on the use of probabilistic seismic hazards methods for reviewing the safety of existing plants.
The NRC staff is also aware of recent correspondence between the utilities and the State of California, which we will consider in our ongoing evaluations by the agencys staff in the ongoing safety oversight and licensing processes for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. These include Southern California Edison Companys (SCEs) evaluation of the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions AB 1632 Report; PG&Es request for the NRC to defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating license until completion and reporting of the results of the three-dimensional seismic studies approved and funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and SCEs pending rate case before CPUC, which includes a request for funding for enhanced seismic studies for San Onofre.
While the NRC continues to provide assistance to the Japanese government, I want to assure you that the agency continues to make its domestic responsibilities for the licensing and oversight of U.S. licensees its top priority and that U.S. nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. As the NRC conducts the near-term evaluation of the relevance of recent events to the U.S. fleet, the agency is continuing to gather the information needed for us to take a longer, more thorough look at the events in Japan and their lessons for the NRC. Based on these efforts, the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public.
Sincerely,
/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
April 30, 2011 The Honorable Elaine K. Alquist California State Senate District 13 California State Senate State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Alquist:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2011, to Chairman Jaczko that expressed your concerns about seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants. In light of the recent events in Japan, you asked the NRC to explain why the agencys review of license renewal applications does not include seismicity. You also asked the NRC to consider the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions report, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report, issued November 2008, in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 when conducting the safety review requested by President Obama.
Regarding the NRCs license renewal process, we consider seismic hazards to be an ongoing regulatory concern; therefore, we address seismic hazards issues whenever a significant change is recognized, as part of our continuous oversight of operating reactors. Therefore, the NRC does not separately reanalyze seismic hazards as part of the license renewal process.
The license renewal review is focused on managing the effects of aging on plant structures and equipment and is not a re-review of the current licensing basis. Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any plant, including Diablo Canyon or San Onofre, the NRC will take the appropriate actions as part of the agencys ongoing safety oversight, regardless of whether the NRC is performing a license renewal review for that facility. In short, with respect to safety concerns, the NRC does not wait for the license renewal process to evaluate and address new information associated with seismic issues.
In response to the recent events in Japan, the NRC has established a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of our processes and regulations to make recommendations to the Commission about whether the agency should make additional enhancements to our regulatory system. This review will include an assessment of regulatory issues associated with seismic hazards. This activity will have both near-term and longer term objectives. As appropriate, we are also pursuing additional activities that appear to be prudent, including inspection activities and NRC generic communications to look at the readiness of plants to deal with both design-basis and beyond-design-basis accidents.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor seismic issues for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and ensure that the power plants safety systems remain capable of safely shutting down the plant in case of a seismic event. Specific, recent NRC actions related to seismic issues for the California plants include an ongoing, independent NRC staff review of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Companys (PG&Es) Shoreline Fault Zone report; public meetings with PG&E near the site to discuss that report and at NRC Headquarters to discuss seismic evaluation methods; a public workshop on seismology; and the issuance of an NRC generic communication on the use of probabilistic seismic hazards methods for reviewing the safety of existing plants.
The NRC staff is also aware of recent correspondence between the utilities and the State of California, which we will consider in our ongoing evaluations by the agencys staff in the ongoing safety oversight and licensing processes for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. These include Southern California Edison Companys (SCEs) evaluation of the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions AB 1632 Report; PG&Es request for the NRC to defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating license until completion and reporting of the results of the three-dimensional seismic studies approved and funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and SCEs pending rate case before CPUC, which includes a request for funding for enhanced seismic studies for San Onofre.
While the NRC continues to provide assistance to the Japanese government, I want to assure you that the agency continues to make its domestic responsibilities for the licensing and oversight of U.S. licensees its top priority and that U.S. nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. As the NRC conducts the near-term evaluation of the relevance of recent events to the U.S. fleet, the agency is continuing to gather the information needed for us to take a longer, more thorough look at the events in Japan and their lessons for the NRC. Based on these efforts, the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public.
Sincerely,
/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
April 30, 2011 The Honorable Sam Blakeslee, Ph.D.
California State Senate District 15 California State Senate State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Dr. Blakeslee:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2011, to Chairman Jaczko that expressed your concerns about seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants. In light of the recent events in Japan, you asked the NRC to explain why the agencys review of license renewal applications does not include seismicity. You also asked the NRC to consider the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions report, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report, issued November 2008, in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 when conducting the safety review requested by President Obama.
Regarding the NRCs license renewal process, we consider seismic hazards to be an ongoing regulatory concern; therefore, we address seismic hazards issues whenever a significant change is recognized, as part of our continuous oversight of operating reactors. Therefore, the NRC does not separately reanalyze seismic hazards as part of the license renewal process.
The license renewal review is focused on managing the effects of aging on plant structures and equipment and is not a re-review of the current licensing basis. Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any plant, including Diablo Canyon or San Onofre, the NRC will take the appropriate actions as part of the agencys ongoing safety oversight, regardless of whether the NRC is performing a license renewal review for that facility. In short, with respect to safety concerns, the NRC does not wait for the license renewal process to evaluate and address new information associated with seismic issues.
In response to the recent events in Japan, the NRC has established a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of our processes and regulations to make recommendations to the Commission about whether the agency should make additional enhancements to our regulatory system. This review will include an assessment of regulatory issues associated with seismic hazards. This activity will have both near-term and longer term objectives. As appropriate, we are also pursuing additional activities that appear to be prudent, including inspection activities and NRC generic communications to look at the readiness of plants to deal with both design-basis and beyond-design-basis accidents.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor seismic issues for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and ensure that the power plants safety systems remain capable of safely shutting down the plant in case of a seismic event. Specific, recent NRC actions related to seismic issues for the California plants include an ongoing, independent NRC staff review of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Companys (PG&Es) Shoreline Fault Zone report; public meetings with PG&E near the site to discuss that report and at NRC Headquarters to discuss seismic evaluation methods; a public workshop on seismology; and the issuance of an NRC generic communication on the use of probabilistic seismic hazards methods for reviewing the safety of existing plants.
The NRC staff is also aware of recent correspondence between the utilities and the State of California, which we will consider in our ongoing evaluations by the agencys staff in the ongoing safety oversight and licensing processes for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. These include Southern California Edison Companys (SCEs) evaluation of the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions AB 1632 Report; PG&Es request for the NRC to defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating license until completion and reporting of the results of the three-dimensional seismic studies approved and funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and SCEs pending rate case before CPUC, which includes a request for funding for enhanced seismic studies for San Onofre.
While the NRC continues to provide assistance to the Japanese government, I want to assure you that the agency continues to make its domestic responsibilities for the licensing and oversight of U.S. licensees its top priority and that U.S. nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. As the NRC conducts the near-term evaluation of the relevance of recent events to the U.S. fleet, the agency is continuing to gather the information needed for us to take a longer, more thorough look at the events in Japan and their lessons for the NRC. Based on these efforts, the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public.
Sincerely,
/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
April 30, 2011 The Honorable Loni Hancock California State Senate District 9 California State Senate State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Hancock:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2011, to Chairman Jaczko that expressed your concerns about seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants. In light of the recent events in Japan, you asked the NRC to explain why the agencys review of license renewal applications does not include seismicity. You also asked the NRC to consider the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions report, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report, issued November 2008, in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 when conducting the safety review requested by President Obama.
Regarding the NRCs license renewal process, we consider seismic hazards to be an ongoing regulatory concern; therefore, we address seismic hazards issues whenever a significant change is recognized, as part of our continuous oversight of operating reactors. Therefore, the NRC does not separately reanalyze seismic hazards as part of the license renewal process.
The license renewal review is focused on managing the effects of aging on plant structures and equipment and is not a re-review of the current licensing basis. Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any plant, including Diablo Canyon or San Onofre, the NRC will take the appropriate actions as part of the agencys ongoing safety oversight, regardless of whether the NRC is performing a license renewal review for that facility. In short, with respect to safety concerns, the NRC does not wait for the license renewal process to evaluate and address new information associated with seismic issues.
In response to the recent events in Japan, the NRC has established a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of our processes and regulations to make recommendations to the Commission about whether the agency should make additional enhancements to our regulatory system. This review will include an assessment of regulatory issues associated with seismic hazards. This activity will have both near-term and longer term objectives. As appropriate, we are also pursuing additional activities that appear to be prudent, including inspection activities and NRC generic communications to look at the readiness of plants to deal with both design-basis and beyond-design-basis accidents.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor seismic issues for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and ensure that the power plants safety systems remain capable of safely shutting down the plant in case of a seismic event. Specific, recent NRC actions related to seismic issues for the California plants include an ongoing, independent NRC staff review of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Companys (PG&Es) Shoreline Fault Zone report; public meetings with PG&E near the site to discuss that report and at NRC Headquarters to discuss seismic evaluation methods; a public workshop on seismology; and the issuance of an NRC generic communication on the use of probabilistic seismic hazards methods for reviewing the safety of existing plants.
The NRC staff is also aware of recent correspondence between the utilities and the State of California, which we will consider in our ongoing evaluations by the agencys staff in the ongoing safety oversight and licensing processes for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. These include Southern California Edison Companys (SCEs) evaluation of the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions AB 1632 Report; PG&Es request for the NRC to defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating license until completion and reporting of the results of the three-dimensional seismic studies approved and funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and SCEs pending rate case before CPUC, which includes a request for funding for enhanced seismic studies for San Onofre.
While the NRC continues to provide assistance to the Japanese government, I want to assure you that the agency continues to make its domestic responsibilities for the licensing and oversight of U.S. licensees its top priority and that U.S. nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. As the NRC conducts the near-term evaluation of the relevance of recent events to the U.S. fleet, the agency is continuing to gather the information needed for us to take a longer, more thorough look at the events in Japan and their lessons for the NRC. Based on these efforts, the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public.
Sincerely,
/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
April 30, 2011 The Honorable Mark Leno California State Senate District 3 California State Senate State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Leno:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2011, to Chairman Jaczko that expressed your concerns about seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants. In light of the recent events in Japan, you asked the NRC to explain why the agencys review of license renewal applications does not include seismicity. You also asked the NRC to consider the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions report, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report, issued November 2008, in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 when conducting the safety review requested by President Obama.
Regarding the NRCs license renewal process, we consider seismic hazards to be an ongoing regulatory concern; therefore, we address seismic hazards issues whenever a significant change is recognized, as part of our continuous oversight of operating reactors. Therefore, the NRC does not separately reanalyze seismic hazards as part of the license renewal process.
The license renewal review is focused on managing the effects of aging on plant structures and equipment and is not a re-review of the current licensing basis. Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any plant, including Diablo Canyon or San Onofre, the NRC will take the appropriate actions as part of the agencys ongoing safety oversight, regardless of whether the NRC is performing a license renewal review for that facility. In short, with respect to safety concerns, the NRC does not wait for the license renewal process to evaluate and address new information associated with seismic issues.
In response to the recent events in Japan, the NRC has established a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of our processes and regulations to make recommendations to the Commission about whether the agency should make additional enhancements to our regulatory system. This review will include an assessment of regulatory issues associated with seismic hazards. This activity will have both near-term and longer term objectives. As appropriate, we are also pursuing additional activities that appear to be prudent, including inspection activities and NRC generic communications to look at the readiness of plants to deal with both design-basis and beyond-design-basis accidents.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor seismic issues for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and ensure that the power plants safety systems remain capable of safely shutting down the plant in case of a seismic event. Specific, recent NRC actions related to seismic issues for the California plants include an ongoing, independent NRC staff review of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Companys (PG&Es) Shoreline Fault Zone report; public meetings with PG&E near the site to discuss that report and at NRC Headquarters to discuss seismic evaluation methods; a public workshop on seismology; and the issuance of an NRC generic communication on the use of probabilistic seismic hazards methods for reviewing the safety of existing plants.
The NRC staff is also aware of recent correspondence between the utilities and the State of California, which we will consider in our ongoing evaluations by the agencys staff in the ongoing safety oversight and licensing processes for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. These include Southern California Edison Companys (SCEs) evaluation of the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions AB 1632 Report; PG&Es request for the NRC to defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating license until completion and reporting of the results of the three-dimensional seismic studies approved and funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and SCEs pending rate case before CPUC, which includes a request for funding for enhanced seismic studies for San Onofre.
While the NRC continues to provide assistance to the Japanese government, I want to assure you that the agency continues to make its domestic responsibilities for the licensing and oversight of U.S. licensees its top priority and that U.S. nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. As the NRC conducts the near-term evaluation of the relevance of recent events to the U.S. fleet, the agency is continuing to gather the information needed for us to take a longer, more thorough look at the events in Japan and their lessons for the NRC. Based on these efforts, the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public.
Sincerely,
/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
April 30, 2011 The Honorable Alan Lowenthal California State Senate District 27 California State Senate State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Lowenthal:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2011, to Chairman Jaczko that expressed your concerns about seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants. In light of the recent events in Japan, you asked the NRC to explain why the agencys review of license renewal applications does not include seismicity. You also asked the NRC to consider the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions report, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report, issued November 2008, in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 when conducting the safety review requested by President Obama.
Regarding the NRCs license renewal process, we consider seismic hazards to be an ongoing regulatory concern; therefore, we address seismic hazards issues whenever a significant change is recognized, as part of our continuous oversight of operating reactors. Therefore, the NRC does not separately reanalyze seismic hazards as part of the license renewal process.
The license renewal review is focused on managing the effects of aging on plant structures and equipment and is not a re-review of the current licensing basis. Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any plant, including Diablo Canyon or San Onofre, the NRC will take the appropriate actions as part of the agencys ongoing safety oversight, regardless of whether the NRC is performing a license renewal review for that facility. In short, with respect to safety concerns, the NRC does not wait for the license renewal process to evaluate and address new information associated with seismic issues.
In response to the recent events in Japan, the NRC has established a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of our processes and regulations to make recommendations to the Commission about whether the agency should make additional enhancements to our regulatory system. This review will include an assessment of regulatory issues associated with seismic hazards. This activity will have both near-term and longer term objectives. As appropriate, we are also pursuing additional activities that appear to be prudent, including inspection activities and NRC generic communications to look at the readiness of plants to deal with both design-basis and beyond-design-basis accidents.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor seismic issues for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and ensure that the power plants safety systems remain capable of safely shutting down the plant in case of a seismic event. Specific, recent NRC actions related to seismic issues for the California plants include an ongoing, independent NRC staff review of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Companys (PG&Es) Shoreline Fault Zone report; public meetings with PG&E near the site to discuss that report and at NRC Headquarters to discuss seismic evaluation methods; a public workshop on seismology; and the issuance of an NRC generic communication on the use of probabilistic seismic hazards methods for reviewing the safety of existing plants.
The NRC staff is also aware of recent correspondence between the utilities and the State of California, which we will consider in our ongoing evaluations by the agencys staff in the ongoing safety oversight and licensing processes for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. These include Southern California Edison Companys (SCEs) evaluation of the recommendations in the California Energy Commissions AB 1632 Report; PG&Es request for the NRC to defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating license until completion and reporting of the results of the three-dimensional seismic studies approved and funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and SCEs pending rate case before CPUC, which includes a request for funding for enhanced seismic studies for San Onofre.
While the NRC continues to provide assistance to the Japanese government, I want to assure you that the agency continues to make its domestic responsibilities for the licensing and oversight of U.S. licensees its top priority and that U.S. nuclear power plants continue to operate safely. As the NRC conducts the near-term evaluation of the relevance of recent events to the U.S. fleet, the agency is continuing to gather the information needed for us to take a longer, more thorough look at the events in Japan and their lessons for the NRC. Based on these efforts, the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public.
Sincerely,
/RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
Package ML111150002; Incoming ML11108A051; Response ML111150004 *via email OFFICE NRR/LPL4/PM NRR/LPL4/PM NRR/LPL4/LA Tech Editor
- NRR/RPB2/BC NAME JPolickoski AWang (RHall for)
JBurkhardt JDougherty DWrona DATE 4/25/11 4/25/11 4/25/11 4/25/11 4/25/11 OFFICE OGC*
NRR/LPL4/BC NRR/DORL/D NRR/D EDO NAME EWilliamson MMarkley (BSingal for)
JGiitter ELeeds (WRuland for)
RBorchardt (MVirgilio for)
DATE 4/25/11 4/25/11 4/25/11 4/26/11 4/30/11