ML12352A274

G20120458/EDATS: OEDO-2012-0390 - Additional Comments from 2.206 Petitioner W.Taylor

ML12352A274
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	12/16/2012
From:	Taylor W - No Known Affiliation
To:	Lynnea Wilkins Plant Licensing Branch IV
Wilkins L
References
EDATS: OEDO-2012-0390, G20120458, OEDO-2012-0390
Download: ML12352A274 (4)

Text

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF 2.206 PETITION TO REVOKE FORT CALHOUN LICENSE At the PRB meeting held on November 19, 2012, regarding the 2.206 petition filed by the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter to revoke the license of the Fort Calhoun Station, the PRB stated that our petition had not yet been accepted for review. The PRB further contended that the preliminary recommendation of denial issued on October 5, 2012, was a recommendation that the petition not even be reviewed, not a recommendation that the petition be denied on its merits.

The grounds cited in the October 5 recommendation were:

1. The issues and concerns raised in the petition have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question.

2. The NRC does not believe that the licensee willfully operated Fort Calhoun in an improper and unsafe manner.

3. The reactor oversight process collectively addresses the ongoing capability to operate safely and individual enforcement actions are addressed for willfulness, and the reactor oversight process considers that aspect, collectively.

Grounds two and three above were addressed in my comments at the November 19 meeting. I would also add that those grounds are not listed in Directive 8.11, nor anywhere else that I can determine. They are certainly not grounds for rejecting the petition at this point.

With respect to ground 1 above, even if we accept the PRB position that the petition at this point is being reviewed for acceptance, rather than on the merits, there is still no basis for rejection.

Directive 8.11, at page 11, lists the criteria for acceptance of a 2.206 petition:

1

1. The petition contains a request for NRC action, including revoking a license.

2. The petition must contain facts supporting the request for action.

3. There is no NRC proceeding available in which the petitioner is or could be a party and through which the petitioners concerns could be addressed.

There can be no question that the petition in this case satisfies all three of those criteria.

Beginning at the bottom of page 11 of Directive 8.11, the criteria for rejecting 2.206 petitions are listed:

1. The petition does not allege facts in support of the petition, but is simply a general statement, or the petition does not ask for relief available in a 2.206 petition.

2. The petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility , other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution as been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a directors decision.

3. The request is to deny a license application or amendment.

4. The request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules.

The only one of the above criteria cited by the PRB was the second, since the other three obviously do not apply to this case.

But the second criterion, cited by the PRB, does not apply either. Although Fort Calhoun is currently in the 0350 process, there has been no resolution and the issues presented in the 2.206 petition have not been resolved. The 0350 panel has made it clear that there are numerous issues to be resolved before Fort Calhoun can even be considered 2

for restart, and the fact of the matter is that there is no assurance at all that Fort Calhoun will ever be allowed to restart. The Fort Calhoun situation certainly does not come within the type of situation described in the criterion:

reconsidering or reopening a previous enforcement action or a directors decision. It is not even clear that the 0350 process will address the petitioners concerns. It is clear, however, that neither the 0350 panel nor any entity within the NRC is likely to revoke Fort Calhouns license.

Therefore, it is necessary for the PRB to grant the petitioners petition.

Another issue I discussed at the November 19 meeting was the information presented at a public meeting in Nebraska that inspection revealed structural and design defects at Fort Calhoun. At that time, it was not clear what those defects are and how significant they are. OPPD did submit a Licensee Event Report (ML12255A038) on September 10, 2012, indicating that a support beam was found that was not within allowable limits for stress and loading.

On December 12, 2012, NRC staff conducted a public meeting with representatives and consultants for OPPD to discuss these structural and design defects. I attended that meeting by teleconference. Because the phone system did not work properly and because some of the persons speaking at the meeting were not close to the microphone I did not hear everything. I got the impression, however, that there were more structural and design problems than just one beam. It was clear from that meeting, however, that there is much more investigation to do before the exact nature and extent of the defects are known and how or whether those defects can be adequately addressed. At the close of the meeting, I asked if those defects were present when Fort Calhoun was first licensed. I was told that they probably were. I also asked if those defects could have or should have precluded the plant from being licensed. I did not get a direct answer, but I gathered from the response that generally those defects should have precluded licensing. That would certainly be a basis for revoking the Fort Calhoun permit now.

At the December 12 meeting OPPD had a Powerpoint presentation that I was not able to view since I was on the phone. It appears that that presentation has not been posted on ADAMS yet. I would ask that that Powerpoint 3

presentation be made a part of the record in this 2.206 proceeding. Also, if there is any written summary or notes from that meeting, those should also be part of the record in this PRB proceeding.

Based on the foregoing, the petitioners 2.206 petition in this case should be accepted for review and the relief requested in the petition should be granted.

WALLACE L. TAYLOR Attorney at Law 118 3rd Ave. S.E., Suite 326 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 319-366-2428;(Fax)319-366-3886 e-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com 4