ML13010A111

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility Review of November 28, 2012, NRC Meeting in San Louis Obispo Regarding Seismic Issues and Plant Performance for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant

ML13010A111
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/12/2012
From:	Becker R Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
To:	Thomas Farnholtz Division of Reactor Safety IV
Sebrosky J
References
Download: ML13010A111 (2)

Text

PO Box 1328 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (858) 337-2703 (805) 704-1810 www.a4nr.org December 12, 2012 Thomas Farnholtz Division of Reactor Safety US Nuclear Regulatory Commission-RIV 1600 E Lamar Blvd Arlington TX 76011-4511 RE: A4NR Review of November 28, 2012 NRC meeting in SLO.

The Alliance wishes to provide the NRC with public meeting feedback for the event that was captioned as:

NOTICE: NRC TO HOLD TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ON NOV. 28 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold meetings two public on Nov. 28 to discuss topics including seismic issues and plant performance for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. The plant, operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), is located near San Luis Obispo, Calif.

Let us start with the issue of plant performance, as noted in the above paragraph. When was this portion of the meeting supposed to take place? In the past the utility and the NRC would position themselves in the front and discuss the past years operation. Both NRC and PG&E staff would be introduced and each would present a short recap of issues during the past 12 months. The process is usually followed by questions, but this process was not part of the evenings events.

A4NR arrived at shortly after 2pm and stayed until a just past 8pm and at no time was a review of 2012 operations discussed. There were no NRC/PGE panels to address the Diablos previous year.

The Alliance is aware of several issues that might have been raised:

• April 2012: Unanticipated swarms of marine salps clog intakes requiring reactor to be shut down

• October 2012: Rain causes transformer arc and fire The only other topic mentioned in the meeting announcement was seismic issues, yet there appeared to be several tables with NRC staff standing around all day and into the night.

1

The poster session was a dismal failure due to the format. The public arrives, yet there is no sign designating expertise of poster sections; there was no one to introduce the public to those poster experts. If the public wanted to ask PG&E and the NRC a question to understand both utility and regulatory responses in context and follow up - there was no opportunity for this as the utility and the NRC were in separate rooms.

A4NRs chief purpose in attending was to glean what we could from both PG&E and the NRC on seismic issues, especially the influence of the Shoreline fault on the design and double design impacts, new data collected, the inexplicably timed release of Shoreline Report, and studies on the horizon.

The Alliance had asked permission before arriving to use our camera to insure our questions and the responses were documented. PG&E appeared to have no problem with either our questions or filming in their room -not so the NRC. We were asked to stop filming by public affairs staffer Lara Uselding and told we should move along to give others a chance to ask questions. As representatives from the NRC and utility greatly outnumbered those from the public asking questions, this request was both disingenuous and rude. Further, the public affairs staff should be given instruction in the application of the First Amendment with regards to public meetings, public officials and rights to record.

Jared Heck did a great job trying to introduce members of the NRC he thought we would like to speak with and to find those we had heard were present. He kept the public on track during the comment periodwithout commandeering the microphoneand gently urged those who spoke too long to give others a chance.

A4NRs frustration with Jared was that he was unable to provide an agenda or give a good explanation for the meeting format, but our guess is that these details were out of his hands.

Bill Maier was his usual charming self - also pointing out NRC staff in attendance and greeting the public like he was actually glad to see them.

While it was nice to see Mary Woolen and Elliot Brenner, A4NR has no idea why they were at this meeting (and that goes for several other NRC staff). As we end up paying for each and every NRC attendees travel, time and meals we would like to see some justification for their presence.

Had the NRC chosen to answer our letters to Chairman Macfarlane (attached) at this meeting then Ms.

Kammerers poster session might have had some meaning. However, her determination to explain that the presentations and findings of virtually every seismic expert not working for PG&E and/or the NRC at the recent SSHAC was just an opinion as opposed to technically defensible science was at best off-putting. Why she did not to make these assertions during the November 6-8 SSHAC, when the opinion-makers were in the room? (http://a4nr.org/?p=2477)

Sincerely,

/s/

Rochelle Becker Executive Director 2