ML13144A049
| ML13144A049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/2013 |
| From: | Siemann T - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch |
| References | |
| 78FR22576 00312, NRC-2013-0070 | |
| Download: ML13144A049 (7) | |
Text
Page 1 of 1 RULES AND DIRECTIVES BRANCH U SNH I7 11 2013 M1-AlY 17 AM 11: 18 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of. May 17, 2013 Received: May 16, 2013 Status: PendingPost Tracking No. ljx-85db-3s2p Comments Due: May 16, 2013 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2013-0070 RECEL7IVED Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Comment On: NRC-2013-0070-0001 Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Document: NRC-2013-0070-DRAFT-0223 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-08888 C
P013 9-Q5 7k, I
Submitter Information Name: Taylor Siemann Address:
CA, General Comment
- PLEASE FIND ATTACHED PDF FILE OF COMMENT, THAT WOULD NOT FIT IN COMMENT BOX.
Attachments NSHCreport2-1 SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= B. Benney (bjb) https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000064812e8a9 1 &for...
05/17/2013
Taylor Siemann To: Nuclear Regulatory Agency Docket ID: NRC-2013-0070 RE: Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2
I write to express my opposition to the NRC issuing a No Significant Hazards Consideration (NSHC) determination for the Southern California Edison (SCE) request for a license amendment necessary for restart of its crippled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). SCE has decided to file for a NSHC after a 16-month shutdown of the facility when unprecedented damage was found to the SONGS steam generators (SGs). The facility operators identified massive problems after the emergency shutdown of Unit 3 due to an unexpected bursting of an SG tube and release of radioactivity. Statistics show that 1,600 tubes are damaged in SONGS Unit 2, and 4,700 tubes had shown indications of irregular wear. Unit 3 has about the same number of damaged tubes (about 1800). These are exceedingly above the norm when compared to the average new replacement steam generator.
The Sholly Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) created the No Significant Hazard Consideration limited exception to the AEA's requirement of an opportunity for a prior hearing for all licensing actions. In response to the Sholly v. NRC case, an amendment to the AEA was passed by the Congress allowing the NRC to bypass a prior hearing for trivial license amendments, those for which there is no issue of significant safety to be considered. This legislative action by Congress was explained to be limited to when a trivial amendment was presented.2 Before this time, there was a hearing prior to any action when a license amendment was requested no matter the severity.
A No Significant Hazards Consideration request filed by a nuclear facility happens when an applicant proposes a trivial change in their license, and they want to bypass a prior hearing by the NRC. They are allowed to do so because the proposed amendment is such an inconsequential change that there is no heightened safety concern for the proposed action, no matter what evidence could have been put forward at a hearing. There are 3 criteria, which must be satisfied in order to receive a NSHC determination.
- 1.
Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
- 2.
Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Daniel Hirsch and Dorah Shuey. Far Outside the Norm. 12 September 2012. pg 12, table 3 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Applications andAmendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Consideration.
http://pbadurws.nrc.eov/docs/ML I 122/ML I 12230275.pdf.
- 3.
Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
When applying for a NSHC determination, a facility must demonstrate that the alteration of the operating license is so minimal that it does not require a hearing before the NRC.
Demonstrating that the aforementioned requirements have been thoroughly considered and satisfied, a facility is able to begin operations under the new license agreement while postponing the eventual NRC hearing. Such considerations are necessary because the NRC holds jurisdiction over a large number of facilities, that prior hearings for some trivial amendments are not necessary.
If a facility wanted to, for example, change a license limit for a particular radioactive sealed source from 2.3 millicuries to 2.5 millicuries, a proposal that could have no serious safety issues associated with it to be considered, it could file for a NSHC determination. This could be granted to them after determining if it met the guidelines.
In this example, the Commission must analyze the action that is proposed, as well as the effects the action will create. Looking at the above hypothetical situation, there is no evident problem that will, may or could arise if the NSHC is approved. A change of 0.2 millicuries can have no significant adverse effects associated with it, and there is no heightened safety concern to worry about, no matter what evidence could be put forward in an evidentiary hearing, since it is a trivial change to a low risk element. The facility could get its amendment now, and deal with the hearing at a later time, so they could get on with their trivial action promptly. This is what the NSHC determination was created for. It is precisely the opposite of what Edison is proposing in the case at hand.
With that understood, we turn to San Onofre's request for a No Significant Hazards Consideration determination. San Onofre proposed this to the NRC:
"The proposed amendment makes a temporary change to the steam generator management program and the license condition for maximum power. For the duration of Unit 2, Cycle 17, the proposed amendment would change the terms "full range of normal operating conditions" and "normal steady state full power operation" and restricts operation to 70 percent of the maximum authorized power level. "Full range of normal operating conditions" and "normal steady state full power operation" shall be based upon the steam generators being operated under conditions associated with reactor core power levels up to 70 percent Rated Thermal Power (2406.6 megawatts thermal)."3 An in-depth inquiry that takes into account the recent and severe problems of the facility 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commssion. Federal Register. Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2.
hlttps://www.federal reg)ister..gov/articles/2013/04/16/2013-08888/appr ication-and-amendment-to-faciit,.--opera tini--Iicense-involvin -proposed-no-sienificant-hazards. 16 April, 2013
creates a clear conclusion that NSHC does not apply. As previously stated, San Onofre has recently been experiencing serious technical problems, which have resulted in the plant undergoing a complete shutdown. There are certainly unknown problems in the steam generator, which are causing tubes to degrade at rates that are clearly a normal phenomenon.
Mitsubishi, the steam generator manufacturer, along with Edison the facility owner both realize this and have been trying to uncover the culprit of the problem. The situation described by Mitsubishi is so unique that they have struggled to pinpoint the problem, as well as how to stop the continuing degradation. Seeing as there are legitimate problems with the facility that are of unknown cause, we can determine there are significant hazards considerations to address before taking any action that can result in run the facility's steam generators in their damaged condition, due to the fact that there are fifteen billion curies of radioactive material inside the core of the reactor, which is an astronomical, not a trivial number.
SCE's NSHC proposal is not only questionable morally, it is unlawful. In San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission the court addressed this very same dilemma. The court ruled that the expansion of an onsite spent fuel storage pool for radioactive waste carries with it a significant hazard consideration, and contrary to the position by the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and the NRC, NRC must hold a hearing prior to deciding whether to grant approval.' This was not a trivial matter because in the proposal, there were a larger number of fuel rods than in the original license that would be implemented into the new expanded storage pool, which the court found allows for a larger possibility of a new or different kind of accident. This failed to satisfy compliance with the 2nd standard required for NSHC. If changing the size of a spent fuel storage pool is found by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals to not fit the NSHC criteria, then it seems clear that eliminating a safety requirement that damaged steam generators incapable of operating safely at full power so as to allow a dysfunctional steam generator to operate at San Onofre would not fit the criteria either. Operating the SONGS facility with damaged steam generators clearly entails the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously assessed. Upon considering the decision, and weighing the history of the SONGS plant, the NRC is legally obligated to reject the proposed NSHC finding for the amendment to the SONGS operating license. If it allowed this determination, the NRC would unlawfully defer its own obligatory proceedings to an industry, neglecting sworn duties to act as a safeguard from exactly such entities, thus failing to follow the hard look doctrine.'
If the NRC allows the NSHC, serious legal issues will prevail. The Sholly Amendment allows for a license amendment to proceed with a hearing for the amendment only after the fact, but only if the NRC properly concluded it was lawfully correct to issue the NSHC.6 That cannot be demonstrated in this case.
4San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 449 F.3d 1016.
15 February, 2011 5 Hard Look Doctrine. http://deiinitions.useLeal.conm/h/ihard-look-doctrine/
6 https:ivwwwfederal register.g.ov/articl cs/2013/04/16/2013-08888/appl ication-and-arncendrnent-to-flicili t-opera ting-I icense-involving-proposed-no-sieni ficant-hazards
Question #1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
The NRC must show that there is no significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident that was previously evaluated. The problem is that there is a significant increase in the consequence. The SONGS original license to own and operate the plant requires that the facility be capable of running at 100% power without damage to the steam generators. Because there is now significant damage to the steam generators, and they cannot demonstrate that they can run for the license period, nor even the 2 years requested in the license amendment, that license condition provides significant safety margin against accident.
Indeed, NRC has concluded SONGS cannot restart with its damaged steam generators at any power unless this safety requirement is eliminated. If allowed to run the facility at a reduced rate, when it cannot meet the current safety requirement in the license, there would be a significant consequence associated with the grant of such a license amendment, eliminating a barrier to the operation of SONGS in its crippled state without repair. What makes this significant is that there are damaged steam generators running off the heat produced by an immense amount of radioactive material, and as opposed to when the generators were running healthily with no damage, there is a significant increased chance that the steam generator could suffer a serious accident or that an accident could result in greater consequences than that previously evaluated (which was based on just one steam generator tube rupturing.) This amendment proposal certainly needs more oversight, which is why the law requires an opportunity for a prior hearing.
You cannot shut down a facility for an unknown reason that because it is dysfunctional and then restart it at a reduced rate, to assume that there is no consequence for running a damaged steam generator. The 15 billion curies of radioactivity at the heart of the reactor have a legitimate possibility to present a significant consequence as a result of running the faulty facility at whatever power, rather than fixing them and only running them when they are not seriously flawed, as they are now.
Question #2) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The Mothers decision found the NSHC to be wrongly administered, which was on the basis of the NRC not properly analyzing the 2nd standard of a NSHC. In allowing a faulty steam generator to run, there is a legitimate concern in whether more radioactive waste will leak from the facility, as happened prior to the shutdown. Because Edison and the owners of the facility admit that this is a trial run, they are deciding to experiment with safety and the lives of people in the area.' The proposed amendment allows SONGS to go from running an effective littps://wwvw.feder-,l reý,ister.P-ov/at-ticles/20 13/04/16/0 1 3-08888/appl ication-anid-ar-ncndr-nent-to-faici I ity-on. ra ti nP,- I i censc-invo I v in a-proosed-no-si uni fi ca nt-hazards
steam generator at 100%, to a defective steam generator at 70%. This difference constitutes an evident possibility that there could be a new/different kind of accident present at the facility from when the steam generators did not have damage. Edison's claims that running the facility at 70%
will reduce the reason they think the steam generator tubes are rubbing against each other.'
They don't know if this is the real cause or what even is the cause of the tubes damaging and rupturing during rapid vibration movement. Because they do not know, there is a possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated for the steam generator.
Furthermore, the accident could involve far more than a single tube rupturing, which is what was previously evaluated.
Question #31 Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
The 3rd standard which the NRC did not adequately address when deciding to allow the license amendment after only one day of analysis. (Edison supplemented its license amendment request one day before NRC issued is NSHC determination, surely calling into question whether a thorough review was conducted.) Not only should the NRC carefully examine the issue, it must consider the implications and future possibilities in determining that there is no new obstruction with the current safety margin. In issuing the amendment, the NRC is saying that it has approached the situation and decided that there is not even an issue as to whether there is a new safety hazard that could come as a result of issuing the amendment. If there is any new safety hazard, then a NSHC is not a valid issuance.
Past precedent alike reaffirms that cases similar to SONGS are of serious concern, and when they are they need sufficient adjudication. The Mothers case addressed how a NSHC is used when expanding a spent fuel storage system. During the NRC issuances in light of the Mothers case, Commissioner Asselstine's dissent notes that on the House floor during debate a NSHC was clearly defined not to be used for cases of this spent fuel expansion situation.' The mere fact that this is such a concern to a large degree of people, and that there is articles and news stations following this case, proves that this case does involve significant hazards considerations, citizens are genuinely worried, experts dispute Edison's claims, and indeed there is an evident reduction in the safety margin.
This NSHC decision has lit up the field of the Nuclear Industry. The ASLB has ruled in favor of a necessary license amendment hearing before any action occurs on the restart. The ASLB found that this hearing needed to occur. The NRC continues to downplay the severity of starting up a damaged nuclear facility, and won't let anything stop it.'" Regardless of who says 8 ibid 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket:
50-275-OLA. 22 July, 1986. pg 15-20 10 United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Southern California Edison Co. Docket Nos. 50-361-CAL, 50-362-CAL. 13 May, 2013
what, the back and forth from the ASLB to the commission and to the agency only proves that this is not an insignificant situation.
For that reason the NRC should adequately address the license amendment, and conclude that in allowing this amendment there are significant hazardous considerations posed that must be resolved before issuance of a license amendment. If SCE is wrong, and the distinguished experts on the other side are right, tremendous hazard can exist for the 8.5 million people living within 50 miles, as well as the people who work at the facility, and there should be more thorough analysis by the agency, including an independent review by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and less deference given to SCE.
For the reasons above, it is clear that there should not be a No Significant Hazards Consideration determination. There should be a full adjudicatory hearing on the license amendment application before any action occurs, so that the NRC will adequately address the problems with the facility before any decision is made that could have such extraordinary consequences.
Sincerely, Taylor Siemann