ML13149A117
| ML13149A117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/2013 |
| From: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Hall J | |
| References | |
| Download: ML13149A117 (85) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS SOUTHERN CA EDISON'S PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST April 3, 2013 1:00 P.M.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Public Meeting
2 APPEARANCES Southern California Edison:
Richard St. Onge Director of Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, San Onofre Station Vic Nazareth Manager of Nuclear Fuel, Southern California Edison Ryan Treadway Regulatory Affairs Manager, Southern California Edison Michael Short Steam Generator Recovery Team NRC Staff:
Randy Hall Senior Project Manager, SONGS Special Projects Branch, NRR Doug Broaddus Branch Chief, SONGS Special Projects Branch, NRR Michele Evans Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, NRR Ken Karwoski Senior Level Advisor, Steam Generators, Division of Engineering, NRR Rob Elliott Branch Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Systems safety, NRR Rick Daniel, Facilitator, Office of Enforcement
3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
RICK DANIEL: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is 2
Rick Daniel. This is the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Category 1 public 3
meeting. This meeting will be between the regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory 4
Commission, and the licensee, Southern California Edison. Southern California 5
Edison requested this meeting because this meeting is a pre-application meeting.
6 Its going to be about the license -- draft license amendment request which they 7
provided the NRC on this past Friday. Its on the NRC website and the 8
presentation that youre going to see today is also on the website that was 9
provided on Monday. Theres some minor changes between the presentation 10 that was sent to us on Monday and the one youre going to see; very minor 11 changes, so I dont think it will make that much difference.
12 This is a meeting where were not going to get deeply into the RAIs, 13 request for additional information -- weve had other meetings on those --
14 however, there will be some RAI discussion pertaining to this draft license 15 amendment request. So, but for the most part Im going to keep the discussion 16 on the topic of this meeting. Now were not going to get out in left field, right field, 17 or whatever. So this is part of the normal pre-application licensing process. So 18 were just going to have brief introductions and then Im going to talk a little bit 19 about the format. Before we get into introductions Im going to -- Michele Evans, 20 director of operating reactor license -- director of operating reactor licensing is 21
4 going to address us. I knew Id fumble over that one.
1 MICHELE EVANS: After the introduction --
2 RICK DANIEL: Okay. Why dont you guys introduce -- Southern 3
California Edison, why dont you introduce yourselves first?
4 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Okay, good afternoon Im Richard St. Onge.
5 Im the director of Nuclear Regulatory Affairs at the San Onofre Nuclear 6
Generating Station.
7 RICK DANIEL: Vic?
8 VIC NAZARETH [spelled phonetically]: Im Vic Nazareth. Im the 9
manager of Nuclear Fuel at Southern California Edison.
10 RICK DANIEL: Ryan?
11 RYAN TREADWAY: Im Ryan Treadway. Im the reg affairs 12 manager at Southern California Edison.
13 MICHAEL SHORT: Michael Short, member of the Steam 14 Generator Recovery Team at Sentinel [spelled phonetically].
15 RICK DANIEL: Okay, now the NRC folks.
16 RANDY HALL: Im Randy Hall, the senior project manager at the 17 SONGS Special Projects Branch.
18 DOUG BROADDUS: Doug Broaddus, Im the branch chief for the 19 SONGS Special Projects Branch.
20 MICHELE EVANS: Yes, and Im Michele Evans, director of the 21 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing in NRR.
22 KEN KARWOSKI: Ken Karwoski, Senior Level Advisor for Steam 23 Generators.
24 ROB ELLIOTT: Im Rob Elliott. Im the tech spec branch chief.
25
5 RICK DANIEL: All right, thank you very much. See that was even 1
a mouthful title for yourself, right? I shouldve let you do it in the first place. So, 2
Michele, why dont you start us off with an introduction there?
3 MICHELE EVANS: First of all Id like to welcome everybody in 4
attendance today, especially Southern California Edison, the NRC staff, 5
interested stakeholders, and members of the public who are here in person and 6
on the telephone. I believe this is also being web-streamed, correct? So thanks 7
for coming in everyones interest in this topic. As Rick, our facilitator, has 8
indicated, this is a pre-submittal meeting to discuss Southern California Edisons 9
draft license amendment request. The draft license amendment request 10 addresses proposed technical specification and license condition changes for 11 SONGS Unit 2. The licensee intends to provide a presentation and details of 12 their draft license amendment request. The nature of a pre-submittal meeting 13 allows for discussion, and questions, and clarifications to occur between 14 Southern California Edison and the NRC staff. Because open exchange of 15 information is the purpose of todays meeting, I encourage both parties to actively 16 engage in the dialogue as needed. As a pre-submittal meeting, no decisions will 17 be made at todays meeting and we can discuss next steps in the schedules at 18 the end of the meeting, as appropriate. I think at this point were ready to turn it 19 over to Rich St. Onge to begin their presentation.
20 RICK DANIEL: Rich before you start, I want to let Dougs --
21 DOUG BROADDUS: Actually I was just -- did you have any other -
22
- you wanted to go over --
23 RICK DANIEL: Just format --
24 DOUG BROADDUS: Format? Why dont you go ahead.
25
6 RICK DANIEL: Okay --
1 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah.
2 RICK DANIEL: Let me talk a little bit about the format of this 3
meeting. And ladies and gentlemen on the phone we also want to welcome you.
4 Were really glad youre here with us somewhere we cant see you, but you can 5
see us, but were very -- were happy youre here.
6 Let me go over the format a little bit. Southern California Edisons 7
going to give a brief presentation, and the first part of this meeting is going to be 8
between the licensee and the regulator. Theyre going to give a presentation and 9
as we go through their slides the NRC may make comments, it may make 10 questions, youll hear some discussion back and forth. At the conclusion of that, 11 when we get through that presentation, and all the technical discussion back and 12 forth, were going to open up the phone lines and were going to take questions 13 from those of you of the public that might be here with us today and folks on the 14 phone. Okay? So thats how things are going to go. Doug? Why dont you go 15 ahead --
16 DOUG BROADDUS: Actually, were going to go ahead and --
17 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah.
18 RICK DANIELS: Okay.
19 DOUG BROADDUS: Come on over here, Rich.
20 RICK DANIEL: Okay. Go ahead, Rich.
21 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Okay. Thank you very much. Again, 22 Richard St. Onge, director of Reg Affairs at San Onofre. I really appreciate you 23 all coming and spending time with us this afternoon on this very important 24 subject. Im here, as you can see, with a small team of folks from San Onofre to 25
7 go over questions and just have a discussion about the license amendment. Can 1
I have the next slide please?
2 So weve got an agenda there broadly laid out for you where Ill 3
provide just a few moments of comments and then Ill turn it over to Mr.
4 Treadway. We will go through the details of the license amendment request 5
having dialogue as we go. And then we have some questions at the end that we 6
would like to present to the stuff just, again, for discussion purposes. And then, 7
again, Ill end with just a few closing remarks. So thats where we intend to go 8
today. Next slide, please.
9 So the purpose the meeting, again -- well have a discussion for 10 why Edisons making the submittal. Thats part of why were here. We also 11 really look forward to technical discussion on procedural matters as they relate to 12 the proposed amendment. Weve got a few questions as I indicated that wed 13 like to talk to you about. Also talk about the scope and content of proposal.
14 Thatll be the bulk of the discussion. Next slide, please.
15 Little background information: I think most of the folks in the room 16 know, but on January 31st, 2012, after 11 months of operation, our SONGS Unit 17 3 experienced a small steam generator tube leak. Subsequent inspections 18 revealed extensive tube-to-tube wear in a small concentrated part of both of the 19 Unit 3 steam generators. Out of an abundance of caution, our Unit 2, which was 20 preparing a return to service after a 21 month run in a successful refueling 21 outage, Unit 2 was held offline while the problems at Unit 3 were better 22 understood. SCE gathered the best industry experts and formed a technical 23 team that examined both Unit 3 phenomena and the potential impact of the 24 problem to the Unit 2 generators. As most of us know, Unit 3 had experienced 25
8 Fluid-Elastic Instability. This was a previously unseen phenomenon in 1
commercial u-tube steam generators. And again that was in the in-plane 2
direction. After several months of examination and preventative actions to 3
ensure Unit 2 would not experience FEI, SCE submitted its CAL response letter 4
on October 3rd, 2012. That letter provided the insights of what actually occurred 5
in Unit 3 which caused the FEI condition and it proposed corrective actions that 6
would prevent FEI from occurring in Unit 2. These actions are outlined in the 7
return to service report which was included in the October 3rd CAL response, and 8
in that response is when we first proposed running the unit at 70 percent power, 9
which of course is a subject of this license amendment request.
10 Currently NRC has issued 72 requests for additional information 11 regarding the return to service report. Of the 72, 68 have been formally 12 responded to. We expect to have the other four out in about a weeks time. Of 13 particular interest today is RAI number 32, well spend a little bit of time on that 14 and have again some questions there wed like to go over with the staff. It is our 15 intention to return Unit 2 to service at 70 percent power in time for the Southern 16 California peak electrical usage period. This traditionally starts June 1st, so thats 17 the date that were looking for a potential restart of the unit. This is needed to 18 ensure good reliability and stability in the Southern California area. Next slide, 19 please.
20 So a little recap on RAI 32: In our response to RAI 32 there really 21 were two questions we answered. First was the question around compliance 22 with Tech Spec 5.5.2.11 Bravo 1. This we answered in a manner that provided 23 for the operational assessment determining what the power level needed to be to 24 operate safely for the next operating period. The second part of that was the 25
9 operational assessment tool -- Im sorry. The second part of that was providing 1
an operational assessment at a 100 percent power whereas the other OAs were 2
at 70 percent power, so that has been provided to the NRC staff and, of course, 3
remains under review with the staff right now. In order to ensure the appropriate 4
regulatory actions are underway to support return to service of our Unit 2 facility 5
for that peak summer demand period, we are considering today a license 6
amendment request to be a parallel path to getting the unit returned to service. I 7
think you all understand that its a proposed submittal at this point. If the NRC 8
determines that the previous supply of 100 percent OA is sufficient to 9
demonstrate compliance for that tech spec 5.5.2.11 Bravo dash 1, then this 10 amendment would be withdrawn by SCE. And with that Id like to transition to 11 Mr. Ryan Treadway, again, whos our manager of regulatory licensing at San 12 Onofre.
13 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, thanks Rich. The next couple of slides 14 that youll see here provide an outline of the proposed license amendment. For 15 several months, as you know, a team of experts has worked with SCEs 16 engineering team and determined that operation at 70 percent power will prevent 17 loss of tube integrity due to fluid-elastic instability. Very simply put, the lowering 18 power has a direct effect on the thermo-hydraulic conditions affecting the tube-to-19 tube wear in the steam generators. And we have determined that operation at 70 20 percent power will ensure the steam generators operate safely. Also we 21 understand to address this change associated with operation at 70 percent 22 power a license amendment is required. Next slide.
23 So SCE has proposed a license amendment for operation at 70 24 percent power which allows consistency for the submittal that we provided on 25
10 October 3rd: the CAL response letter and the return to service report. And the 1
changes made to the license and the associated tech specs are also consistent 2
with this submittal. Because this proposed license amendment is a temporary 3
amendment for cycle 17 only, we have proposed a footnote change to both tech 4
spec 5.5.2.11 and the license condition for maximum power level. Next slide.
5 So what weve put together here in our proposal, in our license 6
amendment, its changes to both that tech spec 5.5.2.11 for the steam generator 7
program and the license condition. We feel that this was conservatively done in 8
the event that NRCs review of the 100 percent OA is not complete to support the 9
June 1st restart date. At this point, we understand that both our success path, 10 either completion of the 100 percent OAs reviewed and approved by the NRC 11 staff or a license amendment to address both the conditions in tech spec 12 5.5.2.11, are complete. This proposed license amendment to both 5.5.2.11 and 13 the license are for cycle 17 only and weve also incorporated PRA comparative 14 analysis for operation at 70 percent power and 100 percent power and have 15 concluded that the steam generators in the plants are safe to operate. Next 16 slide.
17 The specific changes to the tech specs is what this slide provides 18 an overview for. This is the steam generator program technical specification and 19 it clarifies that normal, full power operation is limited to 70 percent power; again, 20 which is consistent with our CAL response and our return to service report.
21 Again, we have determined that the license amendment is temporary until the 22 final power level at which Unit 2 can operate is determined. Therefore the final 23 power level that we will be determining will be addressed in cycle 17. Next slide.
24 Now that Ive covered the specific changes addressed in the 25
11 proposed license amendment, I would like to provide an overview of this LAR.
1 Specifically for the license condition consistent with the tech spec, we propose 2
not to operate in excess of 70 percent power for cycle 17. The changes to the 3
license condition are, again, consistent with what was outlined in the change to 4
tech spec 5.5.2.11. The basis for our conclusion and the proposed license 5
amendment is supported by, it is safe to operate at 70 percent power. The basis 6
for the conclusion is that operation at 70 percent power reduces the thermo-7 hydraulic conditions in the steam generator and prevents fluid-elastic instability, 8
which is supported by our CAL response and return to service report. The 9
technical basis for both these conclusions has been provided, as discussed 10 previously, in the CAL response letter and the return to service report.
11 Okay so going on to the -- on slide 11, the changes to tech spec 12 5.5.2.11 address the questions that were raised in RAI 32. In addition, these 13 changes align with the proposed changes to our tech spec and our license 14 condition. As discussed before, the analysis and the evaluations we have 15 completed in the CAL response and the return to service report demonstrate we 16 are safe to operate at 70 percent power. The CAL and return to service report 17 specifically address the actions that are necessary to ensure tube integrity and 18 the steam generator tube integrity requirements are met. We have completed a 19 comparative PRA analysis for operation at 70 percent power and 100 percent 20 power and these conclusions support the license amendment. Next slide.
21 So you can see here in the no significant hazards consideration, we 22 have concluded that there is no significant increase in the probability of a 23 consequence previously analyzed. Specifically, we have evaluated the steam 24 generator tube rupture and the main steam line break-induced tube rupture 25
12 event, as well as other design basis accidents and determined there is no 1
significant increase in the probability of a previously analyzed event. We have 2
also concluded that there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident 3
introduced because of this amendment. Based on our analysis, we have 4
determined that the thermo-hydraulic conditions that caused fluid-elastic 5
instability do not exist at 70 percent power. And lastly, we concluded that there is 6
no change within this license amendment thats proposed that involves a 7
significant reduction in margins of safety. The proposed license amendment 8
incorporates changes for operation at 70 percent including plant safety system 9
changes and procedure changes necessary to operate at 70 percent and they do 10 not introduce a significant reduction to safety. Next slide.
11 In the proposed license amendment, youll see a commitment, and 12 it specifically reads that we will submit and obtain NRC approval of -- with the 13 license amendment request for long term continued operation beyond cycle 17.
14 So with that, that provides a synopsis and an overview of the proposed license 15 amendment, and at this time wed like to offer up any questions that the NRC 16 may have with this proposal.
17 RICK DANIEL: NRC folks, questions.
18 MICHELE EVANS: Want to start?
19 ROB ELLIOTT: Have any questions about --
20 MICHELE EVANS: In general?
21 ROB ELLIOTT: Are we going to go through slide by slide just --
22 your slides have specific topic areas. Do you want to --
23 RYAN TREADWAY: Yeah.
24 ROB ELLIOTT: And we do have questions regarding scope. Do 25
13 you want me to raise that now or?
1 RYAN TREADWAY: Well we can do it by the slides that weve 2
outlined that go by topic if youd like.
3 RICK DANIEL: Or go slide by slide and take questions --
4 ROB ELLIOTT: Yeah.
5 RICK DANIEL: -- by the slide then.
6 ROB ELLIOTT: We can do that.
7 RICK DANIEL: All right. So no questions so far, right? All right.
8 MALE SPEAKER: Rick.
9 RICK DANIEL: Yes?
10 MALE SPEAKER: Microphones?
11 RICK DANIEL: Okay. Yes, when you -- when you speak turn the 12 microphone on. Doug, did you have some --
13 DOUG BROADDUS: From, I mean, I think youre going to -- so are 14 you, youre going to be going through the questions that are in the topics --
15 RICK DANIEL: The topics --
16 DOUG BROADDUS: -- down here?
17 RYAN TREADWAY: The topics will address the questions that we 18 have for the staff.
19 DOUG BROADDUS: Okay, yeah, and I think, yeah, I think the 20 questions that I have will be covered in --
21 RYAN TREADWAY: Related?
22 DOUG BROADDUS: So go ahead.
23 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, so with that well proceed, and if you go 24 to the next slide you see the topic we have there is maximum power. So we had 25
14 a question, does the staff see any further information thats needed beyond what 1
was provided in reference to RAI 11 that is needed for the evaluation or the 2
review of this tech spec change?
3 ROB ELLIOTT: Not at this time, from a preliminary view --
4 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay.
5 ROB ELLIOTT: -- review of it.
6 DOUG BROADDUS: The one -- when youre talking about 7
maximum power, Im assuming that would also encompass the analysis of the 8
change of the power level from 100 percent to 70 percent. You referenced RAI 9
number 11. In our previous RAIs there was a 12, 13, and 14 as well, also 10 address that topic area. And Im wondering why youre not including as RAI 11 number 11, the responses to that as part of this overall. And if theres a specific 12 basis for why you dont believe that its not applicable to this request --
13 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Just to clarify, so I think what I heard your 14 question was, you know, had we considered submitting 12, 13, and 14 and 15 decided not to do that. Is that --
16 DOUGH BROADDUS: Is that -- yeah.
17 RYAN TREADWAY: So we specifically chose to include RAI 11 by 18 reference due to the questions that were coming, you know, back and forth 19 dialogue between the NRC staff and Southern California Edison. So we 20 understand that there are some additional related questions addressed in RAIs 21 12 and 13 and possibly 14. At this time we felt that the license amendment and 22 the no significant hazards consideration and the inclusion by reference of what 23 we supported in the reference documents was satisfactory; so if the NRC sees 24 that additional RAI responses may be necessary we can include them by 25
15 reference as well.
1 DOUG BROADDUS: Okay, yeah, and I believe you got some 2
questions later on about corporation by reference and so Ill discuss that when 3
we get to that point.
4 RANDY HALL: Yeah, just to follow up, questions 11 through 14 5
were generated along the theme of performing confirmation if you will that the 6
accident analyses and tech specs were unaffected by the proposal to operate at 7
70 percent. In your RAI 11 response, which we understand youve just recently 8
revised, you have a table that captures I guess the extent of the review you did of 9
the UFSAR and the tech specs to evaluate the impacts. Does that, at least in 10 part, address the responses to the other questions, 12, 13, and 14 in terms of --
11 how would you measure flow, I believe, was a focus of question 12.
12 RICK DANIEL: Vic?
13 VIC NAZARETH: Yeah, RAI 11 is all encompassing, okay?
14 Twelve, 13, 14 is a little more detailed basically on specific aspects of RAI 11.
15 So RAI 11 incorporates the entire accident analysis, okay? RAI 12 goes into 16 some specifics about uncertainty and then RAI 13 talks about LOCA in more 17 detail, okay? So theyre all incorporated through RAI 11, but RAI 11 has the 18 entire what we do for 70 percent power. So we can incorporate them specifically 19 if you like and just add them on or -- but they are incorporated through RAI 11.
20 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Yeah, again, if it supports the staffs review, 21 we would be willing to include those other responses, so if thats what were 22 hearing well do that. If you need some more time and you want to look at a little 23 bit differently and then have a discussion over it later we can do that too.
24 DOUG BROADDUS: What I would say is just on our quick review 25
16 from the tech staff standpoint, the question was really, you know, they appeared 1
to be applicable and so we wanted to understand if there was a specific reason 2
why they had been excluded. If there was just because you thought 11 covered 3
everything -- I mean it sounds like incorporating those would probably be an 4
appropriate thing to do.
5 RYANTREADWAY: Okay are there any other questions associated 6
with the topic of maximum power?
7 MICHELE EVANS: No.
8 DOUG BROADDUS: No, I guess not.
9 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, so the next slide in the topic we 10 proposed to discuss is RAI 32. Again, like was discussed in the presentation, we 11 understand that there are two paths to address the concerns and the questions 12 raised by the authors of RAI 32. One would be a 100 percent OA thats reviewed 13 and approved by the NRC, the other would be an amendment to make that 14 change. And so would the proposed amendment thats been provided, do the 15 proposed tech spec changes provide a response that is adequate to address the 16 questions raised in RAI 32?
17 DOUG BROADDUS: I think I have to use my normal canned 18 response which is, we cant provide any determinations at this particular time, 19 obviously, as to the adequacy of the amendment, whether we would be able to 20 approve that or not and what we will be doing -- well be doing a -- once we 21 received the actual request well be doing an acceptance review to ensure that it 22 has all the information we need in order to complete our review. So we will be 23 able to give specific feedback at that point as to whether it contains that 24 information. As to whether it adequately addresses RAI 32, thats not something 25
17 we can -- till we complete the review we wouldnt be able to make that 1
determination, the full review of it.
2 ROB ELLIOTT: Well I will say that, that is what the RAI is asking 3
you there. Give us an assessment of a 100 percent, operation at 100 percent 4
power, or --
5 RYAN TREADWAY: Right.
6 ROB ELLIOTT: -- or youll need a license amendment. So youre 7
correct that those are the two paths that RAI 32 is asking you about.
8 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, so I guess the follow would be are 9
there any other changes that you see would be necessary to facilitate the review 10 for RAI 32?
11 ROB ELLIOTT: This is where I think I was going to talk a little bit 12 about scope. You reference -- you incorporate by reference RAI 11, which, in the 13 discussion I understand you took a look at how the change in power level would 14 change LCOs and surveillances. The question we have is did you also look at 15 conditions and actions? It looks like theres potential where theres -- where you 16 have action statements that are tied to greater thermal power, that you need to 17 make sure you either adjust them or can you do them and remain in compliance 18 with your tech specs.
19 RYAN TREADWAY: A complete review was done and for the 20 details Ill turn to Vic to provide a response.
21 VIC NAZARETH: The answer to your question is yes. We looked 22 at all of them. We looked at the actions and we looked at everything thats 23 related to power, okay, and so we did a thorough review of all of that. Thats 24 correct.
25
18 ROB ELLIOTT: Thats the only question I had.
1 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay. Okay, any other questions for the topic 2
of addressing RAI 32? Okay. Next slide weve got, kind of segued into this 3
already, but the scope of the license amendment request. So that one particular 4
question was already answered. With the scope of the license amendment that 5
we proposed, is this appropriate for both the tech spec 5.5.2.11 and the license 6
condition changes that we are proposing to make? You know, more specifically 7
you talked about the two paths in RAI 32, and so you see we have a proposed 8
license amendment put together that has changes to both tech spec 5.5.2.11 and 9
the license condition. So I understand that you cant make any pre-decision or 10 determinations yet, but would they address the scope of what is considered to be 11 the issue at heart of RAI 32?
12 ROB ELLIOTT: Well theres overlap between the questions here, 13 and part of the scope question does RAI also provide is the questions of RAIs 12, 14 13, 14 having relevance also to the overall basis for the amendment.
15 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay.
16 DOUG BROADDUS: I want to make sure we understand 17 specifically what youre trying to ask in this particular instance. The question in 18 RAI 32 was, you know, demonstrate compliance with the tech spec or provide an 19 OA that would essentially demonstrate compliance with the tech spec. Is your 20 question, you know, is this a way to be able to demonstrate compliance? Is that 21 what youre asking? You know, by the manner that youve requested in the 22 amendment --
23 RYAN TREADWAY: Again, referencing back to the two paths to 24 address RAI 32, if we propose a license amendment and you see the changes in 25
19 front of you specific to tech spec 5.5.2.11 for the steam generator program and to 1
the license condition would there be any other changes that would be necessary 2
to address the concerns raised with RAI 32 or the question raised with RAI 32?
3 So it gets to the heart of the compliance aspect thats, you know, ultimately what 4
were after. But the proposed changes we have to tech spec 5.5.2.11 and the 5
license condition weve determined would be satisfactory to demonstrate 6
compliance, and obviously we want ensure that there are no additional changes 7
that would be needed to be addressed as well.
8 DOUG BROADDUS: Okay. I mean the purpose of RAI 32 was, as 9
I indicated, to address compliance with the tech spec. With what the draft youve 10 given to us, you know, changing the power level to 70 percent and the tech spec 11 to 70 percent then the requirement would be to show -- you have to meet 12 compliance, be able to demonstrate compliance with that revised power level.
13 Thats, so I mean, believe thats -- I mean I think thats what youre asking. So it 14 appears that wouldnt -- I mean, if thats what your intent is, that that wouldnt -- I 15 would address that particular issue. But we still have to look at the law. I mean 16 there's more to it than just does it demonstrate compliance and with respect to 17 the 70 percent, it's, you know -- what are the implications of the change to a 70 18 percent power and longer term operation at 70 percent? And that's where Rob 19 was getting at with -- we need to make sure we -- that you fully address and 20 considered the implications at 70 percent power for all operations, all tech specs, 21 all analyses and such. And so that's going to be part of our review as well.
22 ROB ELLIOTTT: Just would add, after looking at it with a day or 23 two days -- whatever we've had. No, we haven't identified other specs, if that 24 what you're getting to -- that we would say you need to address this. That's not 25
20 to say that when we were doing more thorough review, we won't, but we haven't 1
identified anything through a cursory review.
2 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, appreciate that.
3 RANDY HALL: I think a variation on that is if you're asking us was 4
there more to RAI 32 than you've perceived in trying to address it in several 5
different ways. I think the answer is no, we'll have to look at the LAR on its 6
merits, but did the staff have something significantly different in mind than what 7
you're proposing. I don't there was any assumption that was not conveyed by 8
the staff regarding compliance with the --
9 RICK DANIEL: Nothing at this time, then, right? So we can move 10 on.
11 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay. Appreciate that response. If there are 12 no other questions for this topic, we can go ahead and go to the next slide. And 13 this topic is License Amendments, Request Process Issues. And so this kind of 14 gets into the incorporation by reference topic. So, the ability to incorporate 15 what's already been done and reviewed by the NRC staff by the CAL response 16 and return to service report Will this satisfy the ability of the NRC to complete 17 their review of this proposed license amendment?
18 DOUG BROADDUS: I think from the standpoint of incorporation by 19 reference, I think the feedback that we would provide is we need to know 20 specifically and clearly what is the -- what are you incorporating by reference?
21 It's in the draft that we got. It wasn't always clear to us that what exactly you --
22 everything that you were referencing. You know, there were some cases where 23 it seemed like you might be referencing, including by reference everything that 24 was submitted in the previous, you know, March 3rd [October 3rd] submittal and 25
21 all the RAIs and other cases. That there's only limited amount of information 1
from that. You made previous commitments as well in that submittal and it's not 2
clear whether those commitments are also being incorporated by reference into 3
this LAR. So it -- we need to make sure it's clear to us that, you know, what it is 4
that you plan on incorporating by reference. Otherwise it -- you know -- if it's 5
everything, it's a much broader scope. If it's more limited, you know, then that 6
wouldn't limit that --
7 RYAN TREADWAY: We see this as two distinct processes, and so 8
for the license amendment, we provided a justification for operation at 70 percent 9
power. We're making a change to tech spec 5.5.2.11 and in our license condition 10 to operate at 70 percent power. And we believe we've included the technical 11 basis and justification within the proposed license amendment and the 12 determination for no significant hazards consideration within the proposed LAR.
13 Separate from that, we know that to meet the steam generator tech 14 specs, we have to complete the operational assessment and the tube-to-tube 15 wear that was -- the tube-to-tube wear issue that was identified for the steam 16 generators. So that is a separate action thats being addressed with the CAL and 17 the return to service report. And the technical justification for addressing tube-to-18 tube wear and fluid elastic instability is separate in our minds from the license 19 amendment to operate at 70 percent power.
20 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah. And I don't think that there was a 21 question from our mind as to, you know, the distinction between those two types 22 of activities as well. I mean, a license amendment request and a CAL process 23 are two distinct activities, so. But I think it's for our purposes to understand what 24 information you believe is necessary to support the LAR and the license 25
22 amendment request. It's important for you to clearly identify and make sure it's 1
very clear to us -- you know -- which information you are incorporating by 2
reference so that we can know which information to look at. And, you know, if 3
there's additional information that we need, we would ask RAIs in that case, so.
4 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Thanks for that clarification, Doug. I think 5
we understand what you're looking for.
6 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, so with the regards to the license 7
amendment request process, are there any other questions that need to be 8
addressed at this time?
9 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Just maybe one thing to put on the table, 10 Ryan. I think we went over pretty quickly, but this is a one-cycle license 11 amendment request. I think you understand that. And it would be our intention 12 during that operating cycle -- cycle 17 -- we would continue to work with 13 Mitsubishi and our experts and determine the long-term power level would be.
14 Perform or create another license amendment request and then submit that to 15 you in sufficient time that we would establish what the long-term power level of 16 the plant would be for cycle 18 operation. So I just want to make sure I was clear 17 on the --
18 RANDY HALL: As you stated, Rich, that your intent is to request 19 this license amendment for cycle 17 -- a full fuel cycle. Do you have an 20 estimation at this point, how many actual start-ups and shut-downs that might 21 include or additional period of operation beyond this five months, or...
22 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Ask Mr. Short to answer that question.
23 MICHAEL SHORT: The question is how many start-ups and shut-24 downs are we likely to go through during the timeframe of cycle 17. Cycle 17 will 25
23 be approximately two years long at 70 percent power. So if you assume for a 1
moment, I think conservatively that the five-month operating interval is sustained 2
throughout that cycle -- could be as many as four or five start-ups and shut-3 downs over that period of time. And that would be, I think, a conservative 4
estimate of the number.
5 DOUG BROADDUS: Along those lines, again, getting back to my 6
previous question as well. In the response that you provided to RAI 32 there --
7 the first path of the response that you provided to RAI 32, there was an approach 8
described on how you plan to go forward with operation, you know -- and I had 9
asked the question at the time, you know, were you planning to make those 10 statements commitments. And so I guess the question still applies here. You 11 know, I think my understanding of the response was that it would depend upon 12 whether or not we agreed, I guess, at the end, you know, to allow -- to restart and 13 such. So I am trying to understand, still, you know, are there going to be 14 additional commitments beyond the one to submit a license amendment request 15 for -- prior to cycle 18? Or are the commitments part of this LAR request, or are 16 they part of the CAL response? And how do they kind of work together?
17 RYAN TREADWAY: For the actions we've outlined and that portion 18 of the response for RAI 32, those are actions that we're obviously willing to 19 commit to take. For the proposed license amendment, we've only identified this 20 specific commitment that's necessary to support the NRC's review of this 21 proposed licensed amendment. And with those actions that we outline in our 22 response, we obviously wouldn't commit to. The vehicle at which we decide to 23 commit to in this case would be the CAL response. We also knew that some of 24 those actions that we outlined in the RAI 32 response still had some critical 25
24 decisions that influence the outcome or the final language in those commitments 1
as we move forward.
2 But to answer your question, we feel that the CAL response would 3
be the vehicle on which to address those commitments, if necessary for a long-4 term continued operation for the proposed license amendment -- the one 5
commitment you see identified as the one that we felt was necessary to support 6
the NRC's review.
7 DOUG BROADDUS: Okay. And from that perspective to -- a one 8
time, temporary change generally, you know, when we've handled these types of 9
requests before, previously, with a one-time change, there was something that, 10 you know, there's something that's going to end at the end of that temporary 11 period that would either allow you to go back to normal operations or there would 12 be some type of commitment of, you know, that there would be a change. In this 13 case, if I'm understanding correctly, that it would just be to submit another LAR.
14 At the end of the period, though, what would your expectation be, or what do you 15 perceive at the end of that time period -- the end of cycle 17, you know, if you 16 haven't submitted a LAR at that point or you've submitted a LAR to us -- a license 17 amendment request to us, and we haven't finished it yet. What do you see --
18 foresee the action that would be taken at that point? What are you asking for 19 from that perspective?
20 RICHARD ST. ONGE: I think from Southern California Edison's 21 perspective, we would give you lots of time to look through and approve that 22 license amendment request. So we understand the urgency of getting that cycle 23 18 -- if I can call it that -- license amendment request in front of you as quickly as 24 possible. Now we do want to inform that license amendment request for full --
25
25 you know, long-range maximum power based on the five-month operating period 1
that Mike referred to just a moment ago. So, you know, it's not like we'll give it to 2
you at the very beginning of the cycle, because we do want to see the results of, 3
you know -- we expect the five months to confirm our analysis. That's what our 4
expectation. And if there's a change to that, then we'll have to regroup. But at 5
this point, we believe it'll confirm out analysis, and we'll be prepared to come 6
forward with a long-term LAR sooner than later.
7 RYAN TREADWAY: In addition to that five-month operating cycle -
8
- confirming and validating our initial analysis -- there are other ongoing actions 9
that we're working with MHI to address continued operation beyond cycle 17. So 10 both of those would factor and feed into that decision, but, you know, like Rich 11 said, once we get through the first five-month operating window, and those 12 results come back and confirm and validate our initial results, we'll have a better 13 idea of what the final LAR would be and the proposed changes necessary to put 14 in front of the NRC for review and approval. But we wanted to also highlight the 15 fact that there are additional actions we're considering for long-term continued 16 operation.
17 RANDY HALL: I think you mentioned earlier that if the staff accepts 18 the 100 percent OA, that you would withdraw the amendment request that we're 19 contemplating, would the commitment still stand? Would it be captured in the 20 context of the CAL response, or?
21 RYAN TREADWAY: If at such time that the NRC approves 100 22 percent OA and we demonstrate compliance, we would have to address the 23 commitment made in the proposed license amendment, but we -- you know, at 24 that point in time, we wouldn't know exactly what the commitment would change 25
26 to. It would depend on, you know, the results and the conclusions made from the 1
NRC staff's review of the 100 percent operational assessment.
2 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Yeah, we've talked about that, Randy, and 3
you end up in a cycle of continuing to do 100 percent OAs indefinitely. And so 4
we'd have to look at the sustainability of that. It's just that in our mind, 5
sustainable or not -- and the answer was not, then I think we're back to a license 6
amendment.
7 RYAN TREADWAY: So, to address your question specifically, 8
there may be a change to the commitment necessary if the staff approves 100 9
percent operational assessment.
10 RANDY HALL: Thanks.
11 RICK DANIEL: Any other questions, comments from the NRC? All 12 right. Go ahead.
13 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, the last slide and the last topic for 14 discussion that we had was the technical basis that was provided and 15 documented for the no significant hazards consideration. And so we've, you 16 know, touched the aspects of the no significant hazards consideration and the 17 basis. And I guess we wanted to broach the topic. Is this satisfactory for the 18 NRC's review that the inclusion by reference and the supporting basis that we 19 have? Supports our no significant hazards consideration, or is there additional 20 information at this point in time, preliminary that the NRC feels is necessary to 21 support that conclusion?
22 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah, I think on that one -- again, we can't 23 provide a determination -- any decisions at this point. However, we have not --
24 with our preliminary review, we haven't identified any issues associated with that.
25
27 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay, that was the question we had on the 1
table where the no significant hazards consideration.
2 RICHARD ST. ONGE: So our next slide is a closing slide. But 3
before we go there, are there other questions that the staff has for Edison?
4 KEN KARWOSKI: Yeah, I guess as you were going through your 5
presentation, something came into my mind. As you know, your technical 6
specifications have reporting requirements for the steam generator results.
7 Those typically say 180 days following entry into mode 4. Given that you're only 8
going to be operating five months, that would mean that report would come in 9
basically -- it could potentially be in your second five-month interval if we were to 10 approve this request or the return to power report. Have you given any 11 consideration in this request to revise that reporting requirement?
12 RYAN TREADWAY: And at this point in time, our review has 13 concluded that there would be no necessary changes to that 180-day report 14 requirement. So once we enter mode 4, that would start the clock for our 180-15 day report, and we would provide that --
16 KEN KARWOSKI: Okay, you recognize those results will come in 17 after -- you would already potentially started another interval of operation.
18 RYAN TREADWAY: Correct.
19 KEN KARWOSKI: Whereas currently the 180 days gives sufficient 20 time for the staff to take a look at it before you complete your current operating 21 cycle. That'd be a little inconsistent.
22 RYAN TREADWAY: Okay. I understand the question that you're 23 raising and we'll have to look at that a little more closely.
24 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Let us take that one off line here, Ken, and 25
28 we'll talk internally. It is a good question. It sounds like what the NRC would be 1
looking for is a report sooner, right?
2 KEN KARWOSKI: Yes.
3 RICHARD ST. ONGE: We'll take a look at that.
4 KEN KARWOSKI: Or we would need to understand why you want 5
me to change that requirement.
6 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Okay. All right. Any other questions? Let 7
me move on, then, to my closing remarks here. I really want to thank NRC for 8
this opportunity today. Really appreciate the candid and insightful feedback 9
we've been getting. It is helpful. This is very important to our ability to, again, to 10 return the unit to service, meet our customers' needs. And that's important to the 11 company, important to our customers and our other stakeholders. We look 12 forward to working with your staff and -- you know -- should we decide to submit 13 this LAR, which, again we're still under consideration, we look forward to working 14 with the staff to iron out any other problems or process issues that are out there.
15 With that, I'll turn it back over to Rick.
16 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Rich. Any closing -- Doug?
17 DOUG BROADDUS: And actually, I apologize. I did have one 18 additional request. I think you said earlier you were planning to -- have you 19 made a decision that you are going to submit this to us, and when would we 20 expect that?
21 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Okay, very good question. We are in the 22 decision making process right now. And this is part of that, you know. Results of 23 today's meeting, we'll incorporate -- be incorporated into our decision. So we 24 haven't made the decision yet. I expect within a week, we will have made a 25
29 decision and we'll -- and if we have made that decision, we'll have submitted a 1
LAR to you. So I think in about a week's time, you'll have both a decision and --
2 as well as the LAR, should that decision be affirmative.
3 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah. The -- I mean, your timeframe that 4
you specified, you know, June 1st start-up timeframe. Just from the perspective 5
of processing a license amendment in that amount of time -- that short a 6
timeframe is a -- would be a challenge by itself. We also have in parallel the --
7 also the ongoing CAL actions and our reviews associated with that and finalizing 8
that -- those reviews as well. So there are going to be competing priorities for --
9 from that respect as well as, you know, just getting through the -- even from a 10 process standpoint, just going through each of the steps in that timeframe is --
11 will be a challenge.
12 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Sure.
13 DOUG BROADDUS: I just -- you know.
14 RICHARD ST. ONGE: I think we understand the --
15 DOUG BROADDUS: If you're looking for a date to that -- the 16 sooner you get something into us, the quicker we can start working on it. But 17 that -- you know, and I'm not going to make any commitments as to whether or 18 not we can meet that date or not in any way, other than, you know, we typically, 19 you know, when utilities ask for -- a licensee asks for a quick turnaround or -- we 20 try to meet their dates as the best we can. But --
21 RICHARD ST. ONGE: So we understand it's a strain on the 22 resources for the NRC and to the extent we can help in terms of priorities. We're 23 willing to do that. Try to get the license amendment to you as soon as we can.
24 That's my commitment.
25
30 DOUG BROADDUS: Okay, all right. With that, from a close-out 1
standpoint, I just wanted to say thank you for coming in and giving the 2
presentation today. I think, you know, we also appreciate getting the materials 3
ahead of time. It gave us an opportunity to look at those and try to see if there 4
are any specific questions that we might have. We did have a few, but in general 5
I think we understand what you're asking for, and we hope -- we've been able to 6
convey what it is we're, you know, what else would be needed in order for us to 7
move forward with the review.
8 As you've mentioned, and you recognized in your presentation, I 9
want to make sure it's clear, you know. The CAL -- the CAL process and the 10 amendment process are two different, distinct processes. They are -- and they 11 can, in fact, you know, proceed in parallel. As I indicated through -- we'll 12 probably be having the same people working on both, so it'll be, you know --
13 they'll be working those in parallel. But they're -- you know -- we -- you know, we 14 are planning to work on both of these going forward. Both the OA as well as the 15
-- any amendment request you might send it to us in finalizing that.
16 The one thing, as well, is I wanted to just mention that the two are 17 not dependent upon each other. We don't see that any -- that a license 18 amendment would be dependent on a CAL or a CAL would be dependent on a 19 license amendment in this case. But I think I -- as you've recognized, completion 20 of both of these actions is necessary. It's an important component to your ability 21 to be able to restart, and so I think, you know, although from our perspective, 22 they may be independent and can be conducted in, you know, separate from 23 each other. I understand from your position that you're seeing them as one 24 needing to go forward, so. With that, you know, and I think thats why we do plan 25
31 to work on them concurrently together going forward.
1 But and the one thing I want to make sure is clear as well, we don't 2
necessarily have to complete each of them at the same time as well. And so if 3
we finish one before the other, then that -- it'd just be how it works out. I think 4
that's about all I wanted to say is one -- the other point is we do have a schedule 5
that we've laid out on the -- on our website and such. You know, once we get the 6
LAR and we know, you know, that basically starts the clock from that standpoint.
7 We'll try to make sure that that's updated. We'll also do a review of the schedule, 8
you know, and make you aware of that review of the schedule. And we'll also 9
update that information on the website as well so that we have that information 10 as well as, you know, the current process information in there together. We think 11 that that's important to get that information out both to you as well as to the public 12 and the stakeholders -- the external stakeholders -- so that they understand the 13 process. All right? And I think that's all I had to say -- wanted to say, so.
14 RICK DANIEL: Okay. Is there anything else from either licensee or 15 regulator?
16 RICHARD ST. ONGE: I think our team is satisfied.
17 RICK DANIEL: Okay. NRC?
18 MICHELE EVANS: All right. Well, I'd like to say thank you to 19 Southern California Edison and the various stakeholders who are here today, 20 and also to the NRC staff. Think this has been a good dialogue, and at this point, 21 Rick will move us into the next part of the meeting.
22 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Michele. So, ladies and 23 gentlemen, this concludes the technical portion and discussion between 24 Southern California Edison and the NRC. We're going to be opening up the 25
32 phone lines and we're going to be taking questions from the audience. So, 1
operator, I assume you can hear me at this point. Why don't you go ahead and 2
give directions to the folks on the phone and as soon as you do that, we'll wait for 3
you to do that. And as soon as you do that, we'll be starting out with questions 4
here in this room first. So, go ahead, operator.
5 OPERATOR: [inaudible]
6 RICK DANIEL: Okay, thank you, operator. And from there, we're 7
going to take a question here in the room first, and we're going to bounce back 8
and forth according to who has questions where. Sir, why don't you stand up, 9
and there's a microphone coming here to you. And we'll take your question.
10 And, again, ladies and gentlemen, and I ask that you keep your questions and 11 comments contained to the subject at hand -- this draft license amendment 12 request.
13 S. DAVID FREEMAN: My name is S. David Freeman. I was the 14 CEO of several nuclear utilities, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, the 15 New York Power Authority, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District. I have had 16 probably more experience with nuclear power as a responsible CEO than anyone 17 in the room. And I must say to you that I find this meeting shocking. It's 18 shocking because it's portrayed as a public meeting, and yet I feel like I am 19 looking through a peephole behind the nuclear curtain at discussions that are 20 going on, that the public is not participating in. And this is simply a chance for us 21 to see one discussion. But I know these discussions will continue. And the idea 22 that the utility has the right to ask the judges to tell them what they need to 23 supply in order to get approval just strikes me as unreal. We're talking about a 24 nuclear reactor with steam generators that are so damaged that no utility -- if it 25
33 were initially trying to get a license -- would come before the Nuclear Regulatory 1
Commission with equipment of that kind and ask for a license. I'm sure that no 2
one in the room would disagree with me. And my question is this is -- all about 3
paperwork, but, frankly, with the chairperson of your Commission and others 4
talking about transparency and public hearings, the public is not being heard 5
here today. And there is no public hearing, and we're talking about restarting a 6
reactor that has not been fixed which the utility admits is broken. And we're 7
talking about footnotes and paperwork instead of safety. And then you have 8
three judges that are also sitting there trying to decide whether your CAL process 9
is a de facto licensing process. And so here, going behind everybody else's 10 attempt to grant people a license without changing anything and without the 11 public having a voice in it. And frankly, I think -- I know everyone here is very 12 sincere in what you're doing. Don't get me wrong. I've been a staff person 13 myself, and I've worked in agencies. And I've worked in utilities.
14 People believe they're doing the right thing. But you folks need a 15 mirror. This is -- this is the opposite of a public hearing, and the idea of restarting 16 this reactor without having the public hearing is an insult to the 6-, 7 million 17 people in Southern California that are scared to death of what's going on.
18 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Freeman, for 19 your comments and your question. Why dont you folks go ahead and address --
20 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah, I'll just start by thanking you for your 21 comment. And the intent here is not a hearing. As we indicated in the beginning, 22 this is a pre-submittal meeting between Southern California Edison and the NRC 23 to do exactly what we did -- was to allow them to ask, you know, present their 24 draft license amendment request and have a dialogue with us about the content 25
34 of it, and ask any questions that they may have. Part of our -- you know, as we 1
move forward, the goal here was to have an understanding and maybe share 2
some information to enable us to -- if they do submit it -- to be able to go through 3
a review process in a timely manner. That's the purpose of this type of meeting.
4 Anyone want to add anything?
5 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah. From the perspective of -- the second 6
half of what you were addressing, which is, you know, a public participation in the 7
process. That begins, you know, after something is actually submitted to us. So 8
once a LAR -- a license amendment request -- is submitted to us, we'll go 9
through our --
10 S. DAVID FREEMAN: Needs to occur before they get a license.
11 DOUG BROADDUS: We'll go through the process, you know, that 12
-- our defined process, which is to do the 13 S. DAVID FREEMAN: My question, will you guarantee that that 14 real hearing will occur before you give them a license?
15 DOUG BROADDUS: A request -- a hearing request -- an 16 opportunity for a hearing request will be part of the notice of the receipt of the 17 application. So, there will be an opportunity for -- to request a hearing once we 18 get that -- the request in. And when we issue that, one of our requirements is 19 that theres -- we cant take action until that comment period, which is typically a 20 30-day comment period, is -- ends. So, we wont take action until that occurs.
21 S. DAVID FREEMAN: Guaranteeing we will actually have a public 22 hearing in which our experts can testify before you make a decision?
23 DOUG BROADDUS: I cannot guarantee that anyone would ever 24 have a hearing because that is not a decision that we make. It is a decision that 25
35 the ASLB makes. The ASLB are the ones who hear the request for the hearing, 1
they hear the -- whether theyre --
2 3
S. DAVID FREEMAN: [inaudible] before you issue a license 4
amendment?
5 DOUG BROADDUS: Were going to follow our process, which -- it 6
depends upon the outcome of our review, and specifically with the notice of no 7
significant hazards consideration determination. If that is determined that the 8
amendment request meets the criteria for that, there -- we are -- the regulation 9
specifies that we would proceed without -- even if we have a -- or the amendment 10 request could be issued even if we have a hearing request.
11 RICK DANIEL: And this is a known process. Its outlined in NRC 12 regulations. Its on the website.
13 S. DAVID FREEMAN: -- quite well known, thats my problem.
14 RICK DANIEL: Pardon me?
15 S. DAVID FREEMAN: The process is quite well known, thats my 16 problem.
17 RICK DANIEL: Okay. Well --
18 S. DAVID FREEMAN: I want to know whether the NRC is actually 19 going to practice what theyre preaching now, which is to give the public a right to 20 present testimony and witnesses in contradictory. People -- I believe that these 21 folks believe that reactor sank.
22 RICK DANIEL: Okay.
23 S. DAVID FREEMAN: [inaudible] self-serving.
24 RICK DANIEL: Sir, I think he answered the question regarding the 25
36 ASLB and there is a process, an existing process, and Mr. Broaddus has 1
addressed your question. If you want to discuss it in greater detail, well be 2
happy to take it up with you after the meeting. Okay?
3 S. DAVID FREEMAN: We both agree this is not a public hearing.
4 RICK DANIEL: That is correct. That is correct, nor was it billed as 5
one. Operator, do you have someone standing by on the phone? We can take 6
your call.
7 Thank you.
8 MALE SPEAKER: [inaudible]
9 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you for your question. Mr. St.
10 Onge.
11 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Rick, I think the NRC probably should 12 answer that question. Theyre asking once youre in receipt of the LAR, how long 13 would it take before you had some certainty around the June date, is what I 14 heard.
15 MICHELE EVANS: So, the way the process works, they need to 16 submit this amendment, get it in-house to us, we need to do an acceptance 17 review, we need to notice the no significant hazards determination in the 18 amendment --
19 DOUG BROADDUS: And the opportunity for hearing.
20 MICHELE EVANS: -- and an opportunity for hearing, thank you.
21 And theres a -- that comes with a 30-day window once its posted and noticed, 22 so you have a 30 day window there. And then after that point in time, if our 23 review, you know, if we agree that the amendment can be issued and at that 24 point in time, the earliest we can move forward would be after that 30-day 25
37 window. So, maybe youre talking a week plus 30 days, you know, the 1
acceptance review and the getting it noticed, plus a 30-day window, plus any 2
time on the other end, a few days.
3 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah, I think the important point is, you know, 4
well do our best to try to meet the timeframe thats being requested, but we will 5
take whatever time we need in order to complete our review of this request, just 6
as weve indicated previously that well take as much time as we need to -- in 7
order to complete the CAL process as well. And the one thing that I wanted to 8
clarify is that they are -- you know, as I tried to indicate previously, they are two 9
different processes and so I think -- what -- the caller -- what you indicated is this 10 appeared to be a -- an alternative path to get to the same result. I want to make 11 sure its understood that the CAL process and our review and closeouts, in 12 conclusion of that, will proceed, you know, in the same -- you know, regardless of 13 whether theres a license amendment request or not. And that will not be 14 completed until weve completed it. So, you know, from that perspective, the 15 CAL is there -- theres a commitment from the licensee to not restart until weve 16 completed that. And weve indicated that we will provide a notification when 17 weve made a decision regarding the restart at that point and based upon that 18 CAL. This amendment request -- we will also proceed in the manner that Ms.
19 Evans just indicated, and, you know, we will also make a notification at the end of 20 that when were completed with our license amendment review at that point and 21 the determination we have at that point, as well.
22 MALE SPEAKER: Can I just follow up what I heard out of the 23 answer is that it will take a week to certify that the application is complete and 24 that theres -- that theyve met the no hazard test, is that what I heard? And then 25
38 you will issue a notice for the hearing, which has to have a 30-day period 1
attached to it. Is that what I heard?
2 DOUG BROADDUS: No. I think what Michele was trying to 3
indicate, we have to do two initial steps. One is acceptance review. The second 4
is the review, our own internal review of the notice of the no significant hazards 5
consideration determination, and then a publication of the notice of the receipt of 6
the application, the opportunity for a hearing, and the opportunity to comment on 7
the no significant hazards determination in that case. Yes, it takes -- in order to 8
get it published, a notice published, it takes a couple days to actually just do that, 9
and once we actually have the notice prepared and put out there. So, in order to 10 be able to get through that entire process, you know, would be -- we would need 11 at least a week, I think, to get through that process if everything went perfectly 12 smoothly. It may take longer.
13 MICHELE EVANS: Well, and to clarify, the actual review that the 14 amendment is acceptable, you know, doesnt occur in that first week, that just 15 keeps us moving along and then we have a 30-day window, but I do want to 16 point out that we have been reviewing this issue for a year or so already. So, itll 17 be -- even though theyre separate paths, the content is similar to what weve 18 been looking at for the past year, so, you know, the -- were trying to just provide 19 a time line of the -- at the earliest when, you know, my math shows, you know, 20 seven weeks of a timeframe based on the dates that Ive laid out. Whenever you 21 do submit it until there could be a point when we issued it if we found it 22 acceptable.
23 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Michele. Go ahead, do you 24 have something else? Okay. Thank you, caller. Were going to take a question 25
39 from Kendra Ulrich here from Friends of the Earth in the room and then were 1
going to go back to the phone. Go ahead, Kendra.
2 KENDRA ULRICH: Hi. My names Kendra Ulrich. Im with Friends 3
of the Earth. First, I just want to say that I find the fact that Edison is literally 4
making safety a footnote at the bottom of their page is absolutely appalling, that 5
this does not address all of the safety concerns that were raised in the restart 6
proposal for this incredibly damaged reactor. But specifically, I have two 7
questions, one related to something that Mr. Nazareth said regarding the 8
analysis that you had done. You had said that you had done an analysis of all 9
reactor systems that are impacted by operation at reduced power levels for 10 extended periods of time. I would like to know when that analysis is going to be 11 made public.
12 MALE SPEAKER: Made available on your website.
13 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah, I mean, I -- if what youre talking about 14 is what theyve submitted to us, I believe the response is any -- either -- unless 15 theyre proprietary, all of the responses are available either on Adams or on our 16 public website.
17 KENDRA ULRICH: I havent seen it. My question is when?
18 DOUG BROADDUS: Is that -- do you know [unintelligible]?
19 RANDY HALL: Are you talking about -- excuse me, would that be 20 included in RAI-11 responses then?
21 VIC NAZARETH: Yeah, RAI-11 has already been out, right? The 22 original then would be just revised RAI-11.
23 MALE SPEAKER: Yeah, thats right.
24 VIC NAZARETH: The initial RAI-11 response, I understand is out, 25
40 so.
1 MALE SPEAKER: Right.
2 DOUG BROADDUS: Do you recall if that contained proprietary 3
information off the top of your head? I dont remember --
4 VIC NAZARETH: That R.A.I. -- the initial one did not. Okay, the 5
new one does and very selected sections. Okay? The revision is in selected 6
sections. Most of it is cleaned up, right?
7 RANDY HALL: Right. So, the prior response to RAI-11 is publicly 8
available. The most recent one, we understand, was dated on Monday and that 9
has not been processed yet, but the portion of that response thats publicly 10 available will be made public in Adams shortly.
11 KENDRA ULRICH: Okay. Well, well be looking for that. I look 12 forward to seeing your analysis of all the various reactor systems that are 13 impacted by this proposal.
14 RICK DANIEL: So, whats your second question, Kendra?
15 KENDRA ULRICH: My second question, well, it specifically relates 16 to the fact that, you know, Edison has asserted here over and over again that 17 they have some degree of certainty about the safety of this proposal of operation 18 at 70 percent, when, in fact, Westinghouse and AREVA, their own experts, 19 disagree as to the cause of the tube wear. Westinghouse says that its tube pitch 20 and turbulence. AREVA says that it is fluid elastic instability. Intertek and 21 AREVA disagree on the time the tube burst. So, theres no agreement between 22 the experts that Edison has submitted to you for their justification for restarting 23 and restarting for five months. I -- Mr. Broaddus had made a comment that, you 24 know, the CAL could be, you know, completed afterwards. I would assume that 25
41 having a technical basis for approving a license amendment of this type would be 1
a requirement. So, that -- therefore, that would have to be completed before you 2
could issue a new license amendment, or at least the technical evaluation report 3
would have to be completed. As such, the --
4 RICK DANIEL: Why dont they answer that first, Kendra.
5 KENDRA ULRICH: Okay.
6 RICK DANIEL: Go ahead. Ken?
7 KEN KARWOSKI: The licensees proposed license amendment 8
request is basically changing the acceptance criteria for the steam generator 9
tubes. Its redefining the power level at which they have to determine what the 10 acceptance limits are. That review can be handled independently of the CAL 11 response, which is how are they demonstrating that they are actually meeting 12 that. The steam generator technical specifications are performed-based. Weve 13 specified the acceptance criteria, licensees are responsible for ensuring that they 14 meet those acceptance criteria and those analyses that they perform to do that 15 are subject to the inspection and oversight process. And in this particular case, 16 its being covered as one of the CAL items.
17 KENDRA ULRICH: Right. So, their justification for why they can 18 demonstrate tube integrity at 70 percent is based upon operational assessments.
19 Is that correct?
20 KEN KARWOSKI: That is correct, yes. But thats --
21 KENDRA ULRICH: Okay. And their operational assessments that 22 theyve submitted to you only show that they can demonstrate that. Again, 23 disagreement amongst the expert [spelled phonetically] that they submitted to 24 you, but theyve only submitted anything for five months. They are asking for 25
42 approval for two years. So, essentially, Edison is coming to the NRC and asking 1
you to approve something with no technical basis to actually be able to fall back 2
on. So, if there is an accident, you are liable as the regulators. And quite frankly, 3
any regulator thats worth their name would turn this down on its face. Or, my 4
second question was, are you going to be requiring them to submit an 5
operational assessment that actually gives you a technical basis for approving a 6
license amendment for two years?
7 KEN KARWOSKI: The proposal is to change the acceptance 8
criteria that the steam generator tubes have to meet. Every -- the licensee is 9
required to follow those --
10 KENDRA ULRICH: For two years, right?
11 KEN KARWOSKI: Yes. Their counterproposal is for a cycle 17 12 operation, so its one cycle --
13 KENDRA ULRICH: Which is what he just said, is two years, right?
14 KEN KARWOSKI: Right. But the licensee is required to meet 15 those acceptance criteria. They have to determine how long they can operate, 16 whether its five months, four months, six months, they have to make that 17 determination and thats consistent with how every licensee in the country does it 18 for their steam generators. They have to make the determination of how long 19 they can run while still meeting those requirements. Those analyses are subject 20 to the inspection and oversight process and in this particular case were 21 reviewing those as part of the CAL response.
22 KENDRA ULRICH: Except that their technical experts that theyve 23 submitted to you also disagree with one another. So they were asking you to 24 accept something for two years with no technical basis and no agreement 25
43 amongst their experts.
1 KEN KARWOSKI: The return to power report thats being reviewed 2
under a separate process -- our review is still ongoing and well make a 3
determination -- and thats -- in their current proposal.
4 KENDRA ULRICH: And that will be completed prior to a license 5
amendment being issued.
6 KEN KARWOSKI: I -- those are two independent processes. If 7
they can --
8 KENDRA ULRICH: So, your technical evaluation for justifying 9
restart, for allowing them to restart these reactors, the basis for 70 percent 10 integrity, tube integrity, is separate from approving a license amendment to make 11 a footnote at the bottom of the tube integrity technical specification?
12 KEN KARWOSKI: Yes, because the current proposal is just to 13 change the acceptance criteria, which the tubes are required to meet. That is a 14 separate review from how do they go about meeting them. So, its two separate 15 reviews, and so --
16 KENDRA ULRICH: So, youre literally taking safety out of the 17 question.
18 RICK DANIEL: Kendra, why dont you let them answer while we 19 hang on.
20 KEN KARWOSKI: The safety is being addressed as a result of our 21 review and the return to power recorded in response to the confirmatory action 22 letter, so, the answer is no. We are focused on safety, but theyre two separate 23 processes, the acceptance criteria for the tubes is in the license amendment 24 request and the safe -- how you go about meeting that acceptance criteria is part 25
44 of the CAL response.
1 RICK DANIEL: Michele?
2 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah, to clarify, this license amendment 3
doesnt give them -- this is not the only thing they need to restart the unit. So, we 4
need license amendment, you know, ideally, if things line up right, youd have a 5
license amendment. We would get through and finish our review of the 6
confirmatory action letter submittal to restart, which only -- where a proposal is to 7
run for five months. At the end of an inspection report, that still has to be -- we 8
still need an exit meeting and a report, so the close-out inspections that have 9
been going on for the past six months or so, okay? So those things all need to 10 come together, at which point, if they do and they line up, we would authorize 11 restart for five months. So, that five month cycle.
12 RICK DANIEL: Not two years.
13 MICHELE EVANS: Not two years.
14 KENDRA ULRICH: Except theyre asking you for a no significant 15 hazard consideration for restarting a reactor --
16 DOUG BROADDUS: Now what theyre asking in no significant 17 hazard -- what they provided for their proposed no significant hazards 18 consideration determination is on the change to the tech spec --
19 KENDRA ULRICH: But on tube integrity, right?
20 DOUG BROADDUS: On the performance criteria for the tube 21 integrity.
22 KENDRA ULRICH: Yeah. I understand that wholly, and Michele, I 23 just want to make clear I understood that, as well, that approving a license 24 amendment isnt approving restart. Its removing a critical licensing question 25
45 from this process and approving a no significant hazard consideration with so 1
much uncertainty. I cant imagine that any engineer also worth their name and 2
their professional reputation, would approve such a thing. Thank you.
3 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Kendra. Operator, were 4
going to take another question from someone on the phone, and do we have 5
someone lined up, please?
6 OPERATOR: Certainly. The next question will come from Linda 7
Adams. Your line is open.
8 RICK DANIEL: Hi Linda. Go ahead, whats your question?
9 LINDA ADAMS: Good afternoon. My name is Linda Adams, 10 former secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. I also 11 served as the legislative secretary to Governor Gray Davis during the California 12 electricity crisis. In that capacity, I was responsible for negotiating emergency 13 legislation that allows the state to take over the purchase of power in order to 14 keep the lights on in our state. As a longtime advocate for environmental 15 protection, its critically important that we have a safe and reliable supply of 16 power generation in California. One of the key questions that must be addressed 17 with regard to the restart of SONGS, is what is the impact from a power delivery 18 and reliability perspective should SONGS not restart. More importantly is the 19 question of operational safety of the unit, including whether the best available 20 technology is being used to ensure the safety. And finally, the NRC has been 21 reviewing data from Edison for several months now, and the question is whether 22 the NRC has the resources, and more importantly, the information needed to 23 evaluate the data and make a decision prior to the beginning of Californias peak 24 period. I believe strongly we need to ensure reliability of our electricity service in 25
46 California, but not at the expense of public safety. And I know a lot of these 1
questions have been discussed over the course of this meeting, and I know that 2
NRC may not be able to immediately answer these questions, but I think these 3
are the questions that need to be addressed prior to any decision being made.
4 And, so thank you. That concludes my statement.
5 RICK DANIEL: Thank you very much, Linda.
6 DOUG BROADDUS: So, to answer your question, do we have all 7
the information that we need in order to be able to make a decision in time for the 8
-- what I understood -- the critical time for power, I guess, the peak summertime 9
period, I think is what you said. From the standpoint of the CAL actions, we do 10 still have some RAIs as Rich St. Onge mentioned earlier, there are still some 11 additional RAIs responses that are pending. We do need those in order to be 12 able to continue that review. From the standpoint of any license amendment 13 request, we dont have one yet, so we cant -- we can only move forward when 14 we get that, and well move forward as quickly as we can. But, again, as weve 15 specified, there are specific timeframes that are, you know, required, and those 16 timeframes for comments and hearing requests and such, will be provided in this 17 process as well. So, were going to have to -- those are going to be part of that --
18 the timeframe and the schedule for that. So, I cant answer the second half from 19 that perspective, until we have all the information we need.
20 LINDA ADAMS: Correct. Correct. Thank you.
21 RICK DANIEL: [affirmative] All right. Thank you, Linda. A question 22 in the room and well get back to you in a minute, operator.
23 ANTHONY CRAWDOW [spelled phonetically]: Anthony Crawdow, 24 just a timeline question. If you want to take it off-line its easier because you 25
47 probably addressed it. Just if you go through the steps on from today to potential 1
restart, its one of the milestones and if you have the schedule online Ill just -- if 2
youll just walk me through then, I would really appreciate it.
3 DOUG BROADDUS: Okay. Again, Im not going to necessarily put 4
dates on and -- except for the dates that are specified by regulations or 5
someone, for a first step --
6 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Easy question compared to your last 7
couple.
8 DOUG BROADDUS: [laughs] Sure. Our first step is once we 9
receive the license amendment request is to conduct an acceptance review and 10 to review the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination 11 submitted by the licensee. We then take -- if we accept that -- the application, we 12 would then notify the licensee of that, we would then put --
13 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Does that mean approve or thats a 14 different part?
15 DOUG BROADDUS: No, accept means that its accepted for our 16 review. Our acceptance review -- the purpose of the acceptance review is to 17 determine whether the request has sufficient information for us to be able to do 18 our review. And, you know, its kind of a completeness review, you know, is 19 everything there that we need? If its not, we would then give the licensee an 20 opportunity to supplement that or, if its something where theyre going to have to 21 need significant amount of additional analyses in order for us to be able to do our 22 review, we would not accept it at that point in that case. So, thats our first step 23 in the process is our acceptance review. Once its accepted, then we would --
24 soon after that, we would issue the notice that would include the -- basically the 25
48 fact that we received it, what -- as a summary of what that -- of what the request 1
is, our proposed notes, and this is the staffs proposed no significant hazards 2
consideration determination, which may be different than what the licensee 3
submitted to us. I mean, we have to do our own review and make sure --
4 whether we agree with what they provided or whether we think that theres 5
something, some -- a difference in what they provided. So that would be 6
provided and the opportunity for comments on that as well as an opportunity to 7
request a hearing, would all be included in that notice. There would be a 30-day 8
period, a minimum 30-day period for comments and a minimum 60-day period for 9
-- to request a hearing. Okay, once thats -- the 30-day period is complete, we 10 would --
11 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Do they run parallel or --
12 DOUG BROADDUS: Yes.
13 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Or that 30/60 day run parallel --
14 DOUG BROADDUS: Parallel. Yeah, theyre concurrent.
15 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: And the 30-day starts when you agree to 16 accept --
17 DOUG BROADDUS: It starts on the date of the notice.
18 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Is that when you accept the application?
19 Or is it the 30-day --
20 DOUG BROADDUS: No, thats the date the notice is published in 21 the Federal -- typically its published in the Federal Register. All right. So, then 22 once the 30 days is over, then its however much time we need to complete our 23 review at that point. And the 30 days, you know, for a comment period, well be 24 conducting our review during that time period. So, its not like we wait until the 25
49 end of the 30 days to start that, no we dont. We -- were reviewing it from --
1 essentially from day one as soon as weve accepted it, we start reviewing it. And 2
so, however much time we need after that is when we would actually issue the 3
final determination. And it would either be an approval or a denial at that point.
4 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Is the time of decision approval, is that 5
the approval for restart?
6 DOUG BROADDUS: No. Its -- it would -- what we would do is 7
issue -- THE request -- the question was because there wasnt a mic there --
8 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: I apologize.
9 DOUG BROADDUS: -- Ill restate it. Its okay. The question was is 10 that an approval to restart, no, and thats why -- I wanted to make it clear that 11 there is a distinction between the CAL process that were following and the 12 amendment process that we would follow. It would only be the issuance of the --
13 of an amendment at that point. If approved, we would issue the amendment.
14 That would also be issued in the Federal -- we would put a notice in the Federal 15 Register at that point and it would specify the date that its applicable -- the 16 amendment is applicable, and which would typically be immediately after -- upon 17 issuance of that.
18 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Okay. So, now at that period its an 19 amendment to run at 70 percent, you know --
20 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah. And it would -- the approval in a case 21 based upon what theyve submitted to us -- I mean, provided to us as a draft at 22 this point, is the issue -- the amendment that would be issued would only be an 23 amendment that changed the tech spec and changed -- and we put those 24 footnotes in place -- thats what would be issued. They would be -- that in 25
50 essence would restrict them from that point going forward from operating above 1
70 percent. Right now, their license authorizes them to operate up to 100 2
percent. If we approve that amendment and issued it, then they would be 3
restricted from that point on from operating above that 70 percent level. It would 4
not give them any authorization to operate other than any more than what they 5
have right now. And so, through the CAL process, thats not -- were working 6
right now on whether or not we would provide any -- you know, a determination 7
on whether they should be allowed to restart.
8 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: And when does the decision come out on 9
the CAL process to -- like so thats running parallel to the license amendment --
10 DOUG BROADDUS: Yes.
11 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: -- and like is there a timing that that 12 happens before or after you get a license?
13 DOUG BROADDUS: As I said, it doesnt have to happen -- it could 14 happen before or after. Right now, what we expect is that -- and this is what we 15 put on our website -- is we dont expect -- let me take a step back. The next step 16 in that process would be a public meeting that were planning to have out in the 17 Southern California area, that -- where we would present basically the -- we 18 would have it as an exit meeting on the inspection report itself, the inspection 19 thats being conducted as well as our findings from our technical evaluation of 20 their restart time that they submitted back in October. So, that -- we dont expect 21 to be able to have that meeting until some -- until early May timeframe at this 22 point.
23 ANTHONY CRAWDOW: Thats the public meet -- the early May 24 timeframe.
25
51 DOUG BROADDUS: The May timeframe would be a public 1
meeting. At that point, we expect to be essentially done -- well, actually the 2
meeting will not occur until were essentially done with that review. And so, when 3
that happens, you know, when we have that public meeting, well be essentially 4
done. We will give the information about what our findings are, you know, and 5
provide that information. And then well -- shortly thereafter we expect to issue 6
the inspection report and the technical evaluation and then the restart decision 7
would be based on those two documents.
8 RICK DANIEL: And theres more information on the website about 9
a lot of this and we can take some more discussion when you have the meeting.
10 Operator, why dont you give us the next caller, please.
11 OPERATOR: Thank you, the next question will come from Tom 12 Gurdziel. The line is now open.
13 RICK DANIEL: Thank you. How you doing, Tom?
14 TOM GURDZIEL: Im doing real good here. Im about eight miles 15 away from three operating nuclear reactors up here in New York -- in New York 16 state. Ive got three things to make -- three comments to make here. Number 17 one is, if the use of the Unit 3 generator asynchronous condenser which stabilize 18 electric voltage and the grid, has anybody considered doing that? Thats number 19 one. Number two, I cant see where we can spend all this time going through this 20 process and that process because the other process isnt quite done yet. So, 21 what Im suggesting is the NRC do a preemptive action of putting the license at 22 Unit 2 to 65 percent for three months -- for five months, excuse me, with the 23 stipulation that if theres any leaks in those five months, their power goes to zero 24 percent and thats permanent. And the third thing I want to say is I think Unit 3 25
52 ought to get a zero percent power license change right now. I dont understand 1
what the delay is. So, its 14 months and where are we? No place. Okay.
2 Thats all I got. Thanks, Rick, bye.
3 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Tom. Operator, how about the next 4
caller?
5 OPERATOR: Thank you. Greg Van Pelt [spelled phonetically],
6 your line is open.
7 Greg Van Pelt: Thank you very much. Im Greg Van Pelt. Im from 8
the California ISO. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question here. I think 9
the questions been asked and answered perhaps a couple times, and not to 10 belabor it, I want to ask a question about a schedule for the process. Clearly, the 11 ISO is interested in safety, and nothing we want to do is to put safety at risk in 12 any way. Our interest is in reliability and, of course, we have to enable planning 13 and we appreciate the previous comments about the need for electric reliability.
14 And so, were hopeful that a firm schedule can be established for the issues 15 associated with San Onofre as to when it may be available or may not be 16 available. And our interest, again, is in a firm schedule to enable planning 17 without looking to rush or cause any bypass of process or by any means to put 18 safety at risk, but I think its important to say that we all recognize the need to 19 assure that the reliability planning can be done in a somewhat time-urgent way 20 and wed like you to take that under that consideration. And with that, I 21 appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
22 RICK DANIEL: Thank you very much, Greg. Operator, well take 23 the next caller, please.
24 OPERATOR: Thank you. Dan Hirsch, you may ask your question.
25
53 RICK DANIEL: Hi Dan, how you doing?
1 DAN HIRSCH: Miserably, how are you?
2 RICK DANIEL: Better than you, better than you. Go ahead.
3 Whats your question or comment?
4 DAN HIRSCH: Im quite struck by the lack of candor in response to 5
Secretary Adams question as to whether the process that you are contemplating 6
will permit all of the necessary safety information to be available and be reviewed 7
prior to making a decision.
8 RICK DANIEL: Well, lets take another --
9 DAN HIRSCH: Excuse me. Let me try to finish.
10 RICK DANIEL: Go ahead.
11 DAN HIRSCH: What has not been said here clearly is that what is 12 being proposed by Edison, and apparently with some kind of indication of prior 13 agreement by NRC staff, is to get this license amendment, which is essential for 14 a restart of the crippled reactor, and do so with a safety hearing that would occur 15 after the fact. The phrase that has been used over and over again is that theyre 16 requesting a no significant hazards consideration, but you really have not 17 disclosed what that means, is as in the Old West days where the judge says, 18 Well hang him now, but we will give him a fair trial later. What you are 19 proposing through this entire session have not been candid about is to permit a 20 hearing but only after it is too late to give them the approval and allow a hearing 21 to occur long after the fact. And this occurs after Edison had screwed up initially 22 on the steam generators, but insisting that they be able to be put in without a 23 hearing, a hearing which could have disclosed the fundamental design problems, 24 and NRC staff having screwed up in allowing that to occur. So, what is going on 25
54 right now, I think we just have to be really clear about. About 10 days ago there 1
was a oral argument before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board about 2
whether or not what the two of you are doing violates the law and is, in fact, a de 3
facto license amendment process, and that a hearing would be required. And 4
what NRC staff and Edison are doing, after being given a very rough time by the 5
licensing board, which was very skeptical of what you are doing, is youre trying 6
to pull the rug out from under three administrative law judges of the Nuclear 7
Regulatory Commission, carrying out a mandate given to them by the 8
Commission to determine whether what youre doing really does require a 9
hearing. The idea that you could try to get this thing turned on in less than two 10 months from now and hold the hearing long afterwards, I think is simply 11 scandalous. And at least you should be candid about it. You should say, Yeah, 12 Edison wants us to give them this approval, but make sure that none of the 13 safety concerns that the experts who are not at Edison and not at NRC staff wish 14 to raise before a licensing board could be heard before they get the approval.
15 We really do not have a system of justice in this country that is supposed to hang 16 you first and give you your trial later. But that is what you two entities are doing 17 right now. I dont think youll succeed. I think youll do it from the -- in the face of 18 that licensing board that will anger them greatly. I think it will create a furor on 19 the Hill because the Commission has promised the Congress that there would be 20 complete review and that review completed before any decision to start up. But 21 at least you should today have been clear that what youre proposing is to have 22 the review after the approval, the hearing would be permitted and long after it 23 could make any difference. And I just think that youre undercutting any chance 24 of credibility for Edison to be believed that it can run a facility safely or for the 25
55 NRC staff to be viewed as an entity that can determine whether or not it is safe.
1 So, I just want to say its exceeding troubling, and if youre going to do it, at least 2
you should be candid about it. To have gone through this whole meeting and not 3
really made clear to people that youre proposing that any safety hearing occur 4
after the fact really shows how embarrassed you are about what youre really 5
doing.
6 RICK DANIEL: All right. All right. Thank you, Dan.
7 DOUG BROADDUS: Im not sure theres specific questions in 8
there. What Ill try to do is respond to some of the statements that were made in 9
that, first of all, as weve stated in numerous instances previously, and Ill restate 10 again today, that it is -- you know, we will not allow a restart until were confident 11 that there -- the unit can be operated safely. And thats independent of any 12 license amendment requests or even the ASLB activities, you know, we would 13 not allow them to operate if we did not believe that they were safe to operate, 14 and we will not allow that to occur. And we will take whatever time necessary in 15 order to make that determination. The -- from a standpoint of the license 16 amendment request and any hearing process, were going to follow the process 17 thats required of us, and we are going to do that, we are going to be in full 18 compliance with that. Were going to follow the normal -- its our normal process.
19 We are going to do that -- the licensee, the SCE has not asked for an exigent or 20 an emergency amendment request, so, you know, there is no cutting short any 21 timeframes by which people can make, you know, can request a hearing or 22 cutting short the opportunity for public participation because of making 23 emergency or exigent situations, you know, that apply. So were going to follow 24 that process, the normal process. So thats, I mean, I hope that that response to 25
56 the --
1 DAN HIRSCH: Not at all. You just werent candid. Is it not true 2
that what you and Edison are proposing to hold the hearing as to whether this is 3
safe after the fact? Is that not what youre proposing?
4 DOUG BROADDUS: Im indicating that were going to follow our 5
process. The regulation --
6 DAN HIRSCH: But the process you are following is to hold the 7
hearing after the decision to approve the license amendment.
8 RICK DANIEL: Okay. All right.
9 DOUG BROADDUS: The regulation --
10 DAN HIRSCH: Youre having the trial after the hanging.
11 RICK DANIEL: All right. Hang on a second, Dan. Hes trying to 12 respond to you. Doug?
13 DOUG BROADDUS: The right -- the regulation that dictates our 14 review of the no significant hazards consideration specifies that if we, the staff, 15 are able to make a no significant hazards consideration determination, that we 16 are able to proceed with that regardless of whether there is a -- any request for 17 hearing or other pending action within the ASLB, you know, whether its either 18 before the ASLB. What we do plan to do is make the notification, notifications 19 that are specified in that regulation as well, if there is a hearing request or if the 20 ASLB, you know, the action is still ongoing, we will make another -- our plan is to 21 make a notification prior to that action being completed, any action being 22 completed, whether its our restart decision under the CAL or in a decision under 23 a license amendment. That -- my understanding of this, and Im getting outside 24 of my range of full understanding here, but my understanding is that -- so that 25
57 theres an opportunity for parties, you know, parties of the -- of those actions to 1
be able to make -- to take action as a result of that, that possible action that could 2
be reoccurring. So, thats -- you know, we want to make that notification prior to 3
either of those two decisions being made.
4 DAN HIRSCH: All right.
5 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Dan. Thank you for your 6
comments and your opinions. We appreciate them. Operator, well take the next 7
caller, please.
8 OPERATOR: Certainly, sir. Frank Lopez, your line is open.
9 RICK DANIEL: Go ahead, Frank.
10 FRANK LOPEZ: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Frank 11 Lopez. Im commenting today on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of 12 Commerce. The Chamber is the largest business association here in Southern 13 California. We represent the interests of about 1,600 member companies and 14 organizations who collectively employ about 650,000 people. On the call today 15 to make sure that the business community here in L.A. has a voice during this 16 important public review process. The Chamber has participated in multiple public 17 meetings now as part of the NRCs regulatory review of the SONGS restart plan.
18 Were concerned that with the impact of SONGS having on good reliability and 19 energy affordability in the region, and were really concerned that during the 20 summer we wont have the capacity to deal with the peak demand. Businesses 21 depend on reliable and affordable electricity, and reliable and affordable 22 electricity is going to be hard to come by if SONGS is offline during the summer.
23 We understand that there needs to be a thorough public review of the proposed 24 restart plan to determine if SONGS can be safely restarted, but we believe that 25
58 what we need right now, in our view, is a reliable and impartial regulatory 1
process. A regional economy cannot afford to have this rigorous, time-tested 2
process that has been built on a foundation of safety and thorough technical 3
review, politicized. The question I have for the NRC today is, what are you doing 4
to ensure that your decision-making process regarding the proposed restart of 5
SONGS is based on sound technical review, and not political influence or special 6
interests?
7 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Frank.
8 DOUG BROADDUS: Ken, do you want to talk from a technical 9
standpoint? How were ensuring the review is technically justified.
10 KEN KARWOSKI: Yeah, I guess just from a technical perspective, 11 you know, weve gotten the return to power report and weve been reviewing that 12 for several months. And weve identified a number of issues and weve provided 13 RAIs so that the licensees provide some -- most of the responses. Were still 14 waiting on some of those. But our review is independent of any external 15 influence. Were engineers. We take a look at those submittals and we review 16 them and we make recommendations to our management on the acceptability of 17 those reviews.
18 RICK DANIEL: Okay. So the NRC is just following the process 19 thats mapped out for them, correct?
20 DOUG BROADDUS: Yes. And, I mean, our process for making 21 decisions is very well laid out and very well established throughout. It has been 22 established and, you know, for years. Its not a new process, were not changing 23 our process in this particular situation, you know. And, you know, if theres a 24 desire to influence our decision, as an independent regulator, were going to do 25
59 our best to ensure that that does not -- that there is no influence on our decision.
1 You know, its why we have our technical experts, we have people here that have 2
been doing this for a long time, and we rely upon them to provide to us the best 3
advice and their review of the technical issues. And thats who we rely upon to 4
provide us the basis for our decision making.
5 RICK DANIEL: Okay. All right. Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Mr.
6 Lopez. Operator, well take the next call, please.
7 OPERATOR: Mike Tyner [spelled phonetically], you may ask your 8
question.
9 MIKE TYNER: Yes. Im a representative of the building 10 construction trades department at the AFL-CIO. I understand that the NRC has 11 conducted a series of public meetings on San Onofre and I wonder if the staff 12 could outline the NRCs public meetings and hearings on SONGS since its 13 January 31, 2012, shutdown.
14 RICK DANIEL: You know, Frank, I mean --
15 MIKE TYNER: Mike.
16 RICK DANIEL: Im sorry, Mike. Im still on the last caller. You 17 know, Mike, that information is readily available on the NRC website and its all 18 mapped out for you there by date and everything. So, Id prefer for right now that 19 we dont spend time on that. It is very much available to you if you go in and look 20 at the public meetings under the NRC website. It talks about SONGS and all the 21 dates and the meetings are laid out there and what the meeting was about, and 22 so on. And theres even public -- theres even transcripts available for each 23 meeting, okay? Does that answer your question?
24 MIKE TYNER: It does. Thank you very much.
25
60 RICK DANIEL: Yes, sir.
1 DOUG BROADDUS: And just for everybodys information, I think, 2
you know, its about 10 meetings that weve done total, you know, but, again, all 3
that information is -- were making all that information available on our website, 4
as, you know, we will in this case -- well make the final set of slides that SCE 5
provided to us, well make those available on the website. And when we receive 6
license amendment requests, I expect well put that on there, as well. The --
7 weve put out the draft version of that is there. So, what were trying to do is 8
making sure that, you know, all the information we have -- the information that 9
can be made publicly available, as long as, you know, that would exclude 10 proprietary information, obviously. But, all that information thats, you know, is 11 readily available on that website.
12 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Mike. Operator, well take the 13 next caller, please?
14 OPERATOR: The next question is from Opti Ahmed [spelled 15 phonetically], your line is open.
16 RICK DANIEL: Hi, Mr. Ahmed. Go ahead, were listening to you.
17 OPTI AHMED: Thank you very much and good morning. Im a 18 small business owner in the service area and I wanted to acknowledge your firm.
19 Now, what is critical for me and for my employees is, (a) reliability and safety, 20 and more importantly also, affordability. What is NRC going to do to protect my 21 business? Because at the end of the day if theres no electricity, especially 22 during the peak period, then I will not be able to be in business. If Im not in 23 business, then I will not have employees that I can support. So, what are the 24 complete plans for NRC to actually address this prior to the peak period? Thank 25
61 you very much.
1 RICK DANIEL: Thank you.
2 DOUG BROADDUS: Thats -- I mean, I think we understand the 3
desire to ensure that there is reliable power and is affordable available. Our 4
primary responsibility is safety. So, we have to make sure that before any restart 5
can be authorized that the plant can be safely operated. And I do want to make, 6
you know, just try providing some type of reassurance that we are -- this is, you 7
know, a high priority action for the agency. We are taking -- you know, we are 8
doing this -- we have dedicated teams for this that are working on this, you know, 9
and so this is something that we are focusing on and were not taking, you know, 10 were not putting this on the backburner and just taking our time on it. Were 11 trying to do this as expeditiously as we can.
12 RICK DANIEL: And theres a lot of interest on all sides.
13 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah.
14 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Doug. Operator, well take the next 15 caller, please.
16 OPERATOR: The next one is from Betty Jo Toccoli.
17 RICK DANIEL: Hi, Betty Jo.
18 BETTY JO TOCCOLI: Good afternoon, or I guess its afternoon 19 there and morning here. I represent the California Small Business Association 20 and we have over 200,000 small business owners. And I think you partially 21 answered my question on reliability. We certainly understand that safety needs 22 to be and we think youre doing a great job, both you and Edison. We dont have 23 any concerns about either party not being concerned about safety, but reliability 24 is our issue several have addressed, and so heres my question. Even if you 25
62 started SONGS and something went wrong, is there any reason you couldnt 1
shut it down again?
2 DOUG BROADDUS: If your question is whether we have the ability 3
to require them to shut down once theyve started up, and yes, we do. We have, 4
you know, we can issue an order to the licensee to, you know, if theres a safety 5
issue to require them to shut down. We have a resident inspector thats there all 6
the time. You know, resident inspectors are there monitoring their day-to-day 7
activities and that person is there specifically to look at the, you know, the 8
ongoing safety in the operation of the plant.
9 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah, I was just going to add the licensee is 10 required to follow their technical specifications. So, if there is additional issues 11 related to the steam generators they would become aware of that and be 12 required to shut down the plant at various parameters.
13 BETTY JO TOCCOLI: Well, we would just like to encourage you to 14 take care of us over these hot summer months. We were lucky last year, but I 15 dont think were going to be this year and were extremely concerned about 16 small businesses staying in business and the jobs they create. And we thank 17 you for all your hard work.
18 RICK DANIEL: Betty Jo, Southern California Edison wants to 19 comment on your question as well.
20 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Well, its our ultimate responsibility to run 21 the plant safely and we certainly wouldnt want to go into a scheme while were 22 waiting for the NRC to tell us to follow our tech specs or when its time to shut 23 down the unit. So, long before the NRC came to that conclusion, we would come 24 to that conclusion.
25
63 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. Thank you, 1
Betty Jo. How about take a question from Mr. Freeman here in the audience, Mr.
2 Freeman?
3 S. DAVID FREEMAN: I just wonder if the panel is aware of the fact 4
that the ISO has said publicly that they are not planning on San Onofre running 5
this summer at all. Their plans for the summer, which are quite well publicized 6
and well known to everyone, assume that San Onofre will provide zero power. I 7
am a founding trustee of the ISO. I ran two utilities in California as a CEO, and I 8
was Gray Davis Senior Advisor during the energy crisis. So, theres nobody 9
more concerned about reliability than I am. But the State of California is not one 10 power plant away from a blackout anymore, that was 10 years ago. The ISO has 11 worked diligently last year and this year to make sure that theres adequate 12 power supply, and that reliability is a responsibility of the State of California, not 13 the responsibility of the NRC and you all know it. And that issue should have no 14 bearing on your decision. Im sure it doesnt, and it should not have any bearing 15 on the Edison Companys decision making either. We have a serious safety 16 problem that has not been fixed at this power plant, and all this paperwork is not 17 assuring anybody that a restart is in the public interest. And all this hyped up 18 concern by the Edison Companys PR department really should be ignored by 19 you today because its irrelevant to your decision.
20 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Freeman. Any 21 comments?
22 MICHELE EVANS: Well, no, I would just thank you for that 23 information. As Doug had indicated, our focus is on safety and the safe 24 operation of the unit. We wont authorize restart until we believe it is safe to do 25
64 so. With regard to Californias power situation, that is not our concern.
1 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Michele. Operator, well take the next 2
question.
3 OPERATOR: Thank you. The next question is from Arnold 4
Packard.
5 RICK DANIEL: Okay, go ahead, Arnold.
6 RON PACKARD: Its Ron, Ron Packard.
7 RICK DANIEL: Ronald, Im sorry. Ronald, go ahead.
8 RON PACKARD: Let me introduce myself. Im Ron Packard. I 9
had the honor and privilege of serving in the United States House of 10 Representatives for 18 years in the 43rd and later the 48th Congressional 11 Districts in California. During the last part of my service, I was chairman of the 12 House Appropriation Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which 13 has jurisdiction over all generating plants in the United States, including nuclear 14 plants. My congressional district covered North San Diego County, South 15 Orange County, and Western Riverside County. The San Onofre nuclear 16 generating station, SONGS, was in the geographic heart of my district. I officially 17 visited SONGS frequently during my tenure in congress and each time reviewed 18 carefully the operation and maintenance of the plant. I always felt convinced that 19 safety was the priority of San Onofre and knew that the owners and operators of 20 the plant were operating and maintaining the plant properly. My energy and 21 water subcommittee funded research and development on alternative sources of 22 energy, but these sources of energy will only fill a small percentage of our 23 national as well as our regional energy needs. While I totally support alternative 24 energy production through solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and all other 25
65 sources of alternative energy, they can never replace the need for nuclear 1
generation. The NRC would serve the people of California and the Western 2
states best if they would allow San Onofre to reopen before summer when we 3
could be faced with potential brownouts or blackouts. It is incumbent upon the 4
NRC and any other governmental regulatory agency to do the right thing here 5
and complete their work with Edison on this issue in a timely manner. To do 6
otherwise would be to act overly bureaucratic or even adversarial and would 7
directly hurt the day-to-day wellbeing of the very same constituents that I was 8
honored to serve in Congress.
9 RICK DANIEL: Yeah.
10 RON PACKARD: Clearly, there are some stakeholders who want 11 no nuclear power in the United States at all, not just safe nuclear, no commercial 12 nuclear plants whatsoever. These parties are motivated to grind the regulatory 13 process to a halt and it seems to me that the process has already been dragging 14 on and on.
15 RICK DANIEL: Okay.
16 RON PACKARD: That just -- that simply cant happen because we 17 do not want Washington to have an impact negatively on the people of California.
18 RICK DANIEL: We --
19 RON PACKARD: Its already been answered. I was going to ask 20 the question.
21 RICK DANIEL: Sure, go ahead.
22 RON PACKARD: What your process would do and -- whats your 23 process and when do you intend to make the decisions on a safe restart?
24 Youve already answered that question, for which I appreciate. I simply would 25
66 like to know if you are going to be able to meet the timeline and allow the plant to 1
operate during this next summer.
2 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Mr. Packard. I think the timelines 3
existing on the website, Michele?
4 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah, thank you for your comments. Yes, we, 5
as I indicated we are completing our safety review in as timely a manner as 6
possible. The licensee does still owe some information in some areas, so we are 7
waiting for that input and well continue to move forward. I will say the timeline 8
on the website says, you know, a public meeting in the April/May timeframe.
9 Internally, weve talked about its really the May/June timeframe. So, were 10 shooting for the May timeframe, but it could be June, Ill be, you know, honest 11 here. So, thats where we are with it.
12 RON PACKARD: You indicated, and Ive listened to your entire 13 presentation today, and its been very informative, but youve been working on 14 this for the past year and Im sure youve been reviewing much of the technical 15 data. Theres additional technical data that you will need to review between now 16 and the start time. And I assume that you can do that in a manner of time that 17 would allow the amendment to be approved and thus the operation could take 18 place -- the start could take place during the summer months. Its the summer 19 months were very concerned about. This coming summer we simply cannot 20 afford brownouts or blackouts, and Im convinced that youll be able to do the 21 right thing.
22 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Packard.
23 DOUG BROADDUS: The one thing, if I will commit to everybody 24 that we will do is, you know, as soon as we develop a schedule, you know, for 25
67 this and for the review of our license amendment. I want you to be assuming that 1
we would receive one, we will get that information up on the website as well so 2
that we can have that as well as the CAL review process, that information 3
available on the website.
4 RICK DANIEL: Thanks, Doug. Operator, well take the next caller, 5
please.
6 OPERATOR: Question from Ruben Guerra.
7 RUBEN GUERRA: Hey, this is Ruben Guerra, can you hear me?
8 RICK DANIEL: Yes, we can hear you loud and clear, go ahead.
9 RUBEN GUERRA: Thank you. My name is Ruben Guerra and Im 10 the Chairman and CEO of the Latin Business Association out of California, 11 representing over 800,000 Latino-run businesses. And, you know, I just -- Ive 12 been reading all the remarks today and its very wowing to me that weve been 13 given all this rhetoric, you know, that the NRC has been listening to all these 14 people talking about SONGS when they really have no experience, they havent 15 been to SONGS, they just go by what they hear. [unintelligible] was calling 16 people scandalous. You know, unfortunately people that do that are scandalous 17 themselves. You know, theres nobody more that knows about the situation of 18 electricity in California than we do. You know, we experience it every day. Right 19 now our businesses are suffering with rate hikes. Were looking at future rate 20 hikes if SONGS isnt opened soon. And Im in the renewable energy business.
21 And I would be saying, you know, for me to be here to support SONGS would be 22 against my rules of doing business, but Im here to support it because its the 23 right thing to do. Renewable energy will not be sufficient enough. Its going to 24 take another 20 to 30 years to come up to speed on renewable energy. You 25
68 know, according to the information released by the U.S. Energy Information 1
Administration, costs for energy are beginning to rise in Southern California, you 2
know, the EIA has attributed those difference of SONGS being offline. Operating 3
SONGS directly generates economic activity worth an average of $2.2 billion per 4
year. You know, in other countries -- this is why our economy suffers. But 5
because theres too much process, theres too much hearing, theres too much 6
rhetoric. We need to get this online and we need to do it now.
7 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you very much, Ruben, for your 8
comments. Operator, well take the next caller, please.
9 OPERATOR: Next question is from Ace Hoffman.
10 RICK DANIEL: Operator, can you just tell us --
11 ACE HOFFMAN: Thank you for taking my call.
12 RICK DANIEL: -- do you have any clue as to how many callers are 13 left on the line?
14 OPERATOR: Yes, sir. We have about six questions remaining.
15 RICK DANIEL: Okay, were likely only going to take six more 16 questions. Go ahead, Ace.
17 ACE HOFFMAN: Okay, thank you for taking my call.
18 RICK DANIEL: And were running over, but go ahead.
19 ACE HOFFMAN: Okay. We -- some of us have been studying San 20 Onofre very, very carefully for many years and we are not hearing a lot of 21 answers to question that we have right now. For example, we didnt hear 22 anything about a multi-tube break in the case of a main seam line break because 23 there are thousands of damaged tubes. We dont know if those tubes are 24 damaged by inward elastic instability, probably not in Unit 2, but flow-induced 25
69 vibration certainly, and what about fatigue? That hasnt been mentioned at all.
1 These are technical issues that the public would like to see the answers to. We 2
dont want them to be redacted or ignored.
3 DOUG BROADDUS: Yes --
4 ACE HOFFMAN: Is there any chance that we will be getting a full 5
technical description of why San Onofre thinks that they can restart the reactor?
6 And I also want to make a comment about some of the early comments at the 7
beginning, where they said that San Onofre is needed, that was their word 8
needed, for voltage support and to supply power to Southern California Edison -
9
- to Southern California. But the ISO has made it clear that we have an excess 10 of power without San Onofre even having tried to install thousands of rooftops, 11 solar, demand response, wind generation, and all these things have been 12 ignored for nearly two years now. So, its time to move on, and perhaps the NRC 13 should stand up, get a spine, and tell San Onofre that theyre nowhere near close 14 to restarting. You cant start a broken reactor. Thank you very much.
15 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Ace.
16 DOUG BROADDUS: Okay, yeah. I just briefly -- we, you know, 17 that the, as I mentioned earlier the CAL actions, the review of the restart plan is a 18 separate activity, and thats really the intent of the meeting today. But I wanted 19 to just reinforce that we are planning to have another public meeting in California, 20 in probably the May timeframe is what were looking at at this point, where we 21 would be able to discuss the issues, you know, that we have reviewed as part of 22 this the return to service plan and our CAL actions as well as the inspection 23 activities. Ken can kind of give you some background on those, you know, the 24 specific technical questions that you asked about and how those, you know, 25
70 would be considered.
1 KEN KARWOSKI: Yeah, I guess in terms of you brought up the 2
multiple tube break during the steam line break. The technical specification 3
requirements for San Onofre and for other units are intended to prevent that from 4
occurring. Theyre supposed to have margins of safety against breakage during 5
a steam line break accident of approximately 1.4. So, the technical specification 6
requirements are intended to prevent that. That is one of the focuses of our 7
review of the return to power report is to ensure that tube integrity would be 8
maintained consistent with those factors of safety and the technical 9
specifications.
10 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Operator, well 11 take the next caller, please.
12 FEMALE SPEAKER: John Geesman.
13 JOHN GEESMAN: This is John Geesman. I was a member of the 14 California Energy Commission during the Davis and Schwarzenegger 15 Administrations. Im a former board member of the ISO. I have a question for 16 both the NRC and for Edison. Based on information Edison has turned over for 17 the investigation being conducted by the California Public Utilities Commission, 18 even if both Units 2, Unit 3 were working perfectly, there were only 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> in 19 2012 when they wouldve been competitive with the market price for power 20 Southern California. Thats a little more than 1 percent of the time. Why are we 21 putting ourselves through so much regulatory pain and suffering for a plant that is 22 not cost effective 99 percent of the time?
23 MICHELE EVANS: Well, thank you for your comments, John.
24 However, as we indicated earlier, for the agency our focus here is on the safety 25
71 of the units and, you know, making a decision as to whether theyre able to be 1
operated safely. With regard to your other comments and reliability and those 2
issues, thats not in the jurisdiction in the NRC.
3 JOHN GEESMAN: Whats Edisons explanation?
4 RICHARD ST. ONGE: You know, were not prepared today to be 5
talking to that. We came here with a group of technical folks, not financial folks, 6
so no comment.
7 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, John. Operator, well take the 8
next caller, please.
9 OPERATOR: Ray Lutz.
10 RAY LUTZ: Yes, hello. This is Ray Lutz with Citizens Oversight.
11 And in talking about this no hazards determination, there were some words that I 12 didnt hear from the NRC when this was proposed. And the words are youve 13 got to be kidding. I mean this is a plant that we know now -- I mean, we should 14 be given an award to SCE for their ability to avoid public meetings and public 15 scrutiny and a full technical review. The defective steam generator design 16 occurred because they worked to avoid a license amendment process, and now 17 we know that they actually didnt make changes to their steam generators after 18 they already knew that they were going to be subject to excessive fluid elastic 19 instability type of dangers. And they didnt do that because they didnt want to 20 have a license amendment process happen. Now, theyre coming in with a 21 request to avoid any kind of full technical review of a plant that is already known 22 to be completely defective because of these steam generators. And they want to 23 add a footnote and then say to you guys, Now we can -- were going to be, this 24 plant is just like its brand new. Its -- theres nothing wrong with it and theres no 25
72 hazard at all. I cannot believe that these words did not come out of your mouth, 1
youve got to be kidding. To make this request of the NRC and the public 2
review of this situation to come in there, Southern California Edison, and ask for 3
a no hazard determination when we know this plant is a suffering design mistake 4
because of your fault, a $1 billion mistake that you guys are still sucking money 5
out of the public to fund. Now, if this goes forward and the NRC says this is fine, 6
I mean, Ive got to ask the NRC, doesnt this take your breath away for someone 7
to come in and say theres no hazard at all? Even though the thing was shut 8
down, theres hundreds of tubes that are plugged, we put in stuff, and we did 9
analysis. Were talking about fluid elastic instability even though a lot of it has to 10 do with random turbulence.
11 RICK DANIEL: All right.
12 RAY LUTZ: Its got to take your breath away. I mean I cannot 13 believe that this -- you guys are sitting there talking about process and how 14 youre following the procedure, but I dont even know why youre getting past 15 square one. The answer should be, No, were not going to even look at that 16 stupid thing.
17 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Ray. Michele?
18 MICHELE EVANS: Thank you for your input. You know the 19 licensee is following their process and they are looking at a license amendment 20 request, and I know you dont want to hear that and that is the process and thats 21 the one were following. Along with that we are doing a thorough technical 22 review of the technical issues associated with the steam generators. Thats 23 about all I can say.
24 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah, the only other thing that I would add to 25
73 that is that from the standpoint of the no significant hazards consideration, there 1
is specific criteria that are called out in the regulations that we have to review that 2
against. And actually, Ill go ahead and just read those so that everyone can 3
understand what those are. The consideration has to look at whether the 4
requested change in the amendment involves a significant increase in the 5
probability of consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Number 2:
6 creates a possibility of a new or different kind of an accident from an accident 7
previously evaluated. Number 3 involves a significant reduction in the margin of 8
safety. Those are the criteria that would have to be evaluated and they have to 9
be evaluated based upon the requested change in the amendment. Those are --
10 it is not something that goes beyond what is being requested in the amendment.
11 It is only what is requested in the amendment and does the change result in any 12 of those occurring and thats the criteria that we have to evaluate that against.
13 RICK DANIEL: Any other comments, Ray? All right. Operator, 14 well take the next caller, please.
15 OPERATOR: Thank you, Thomas Herring.
16 THOMAS HERRING: Hello, this is Tom Herring; Im a resident at 17 Mission Viejo, California, and a practicing mechanical engineer and I just wanted 18 to respond to an earlier comment that the NRC has not done a good job with 19 making these meetings public. Ive been to all the local public meetings and Im 20 enjoying this meeting here. And I just wanted to compliment the NRC in being 21 balanced and doing a good job and thats all I had to say.
22 MICHELE EVANS: Thank you.
23 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Tom. Well take the next caller, 24 operator.
25
74 OPERATOR: Hugh Moore.
1 HUGH MOORE: Good morning.
2 RICK DANIEL: Good morning.
3 HUGH MOORE: My name is Hugh Moore; Im a member of the --
4 treasurer of the San Diego County Green Party, Im also a past Navy Veteran. I 5
worked as a radiation safety technician in the Navy. And back then, you know, 6
the discussion was always you talk about safety, safety always comes down to a 7
risk-benefit analysis. And when you do a risk-benefit analysis, you determine the 8
amount of risk depending upon the benefits that you get back from whatever 9
youre doing. And with the SONGS plant, the benefit, of course, is energy 10 production. And when it was originally applied for -- when Edison originally 11 applied for its application, it was guaranteed 100 percent power usage from two 12 different plants that would produce power that we would be able to get from it, 13 making the benefit. And with that amount of power, that benefit was accepted as 14 a proper risk. There was enough, you know, benefit to pay for the risk that you 15 were going to receive, I mean, pay for the benefit that your -- enough benefit to 16 pay for the risk that you were going to put the public at. Well, at this point we 17 know that neither power plant is going to work at 100 percent because there are 18 increased significant risks, which the Edison Company is admitting to, saying, 19 We cant run at 100 percent. Were asking for the amendment to allow us to run 20 at less than 100 percent of only one plant. That being the case the amount of 21 power that theyre going to produce never meets the benefit to outweigh the risk.
22 So, yeah, well there is all this regulatory issue going on which I, you know, 23 respect and think we have to do obviously because we have to produce safe 24 power and we cant put the public at any greater risk. But I think the decision has 25
75 already been made. And I would like the NRC to respond to, how can you say 1
that the risk from running a nuclear power plant when they say they cant run it at 2
full power because of the dangers inherent in the design that they have already 3
made mistakes in, ever outweighs the -- I mean, the benefit ever outweighs the 4
risk and therefore, safety, if it is your primary concern, you can never approve 5
this amendment. So, can you respond to that?
6 RICK DANIEL: Thank you, Mr. Moore.
7 DOUG BROADDUS: I would just indicate that, you know, I 8
reinforce what I said before that as part of the CAL process, we would not allow 9
restart of the unit, either unit, unless weve determined that they are safe to 10 operate. And what I mean by safe to operate is are they able to meet all the 11 criteria, all the requirements that are specified in our regulations, you know, all 12 the requirements in the license, you know, which are all based upon safe 13 operation, a reasonable assurance of safe operation. So, thats, you know, when 14 you talk about do the benefits outweigh the risks, you know, from that 15 perspective we need to make sure that it meets our safety criteria, all the safety 16 criteria in our requirements, and that is what were going to be doing.
17 HUGH MOORE: Then clearly youre correct. You should be 18 looking at only safety and you are right; therefore, you would have to approve it if 19 it met your criteria. Well, lets remember that your criteria should not be 20 dependent upon the capability of the plant thats left. Your criteria should remain 21 at the same level of what you would do at a new plant. And if it cant operate at 22 100 percent, then it cant meet the criteria.
23 RICK DANIEL: Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.
24 HUGH MOORE: I appreciate the time, thank you.
25
76 RICK DANIEL: Yes, sir. Operator, well take another caller. You 1
have how many more on the line?
2 OPERATOR: We currently have three standing by. And the next 3
question is from Gary Headrick.
4 MALE SPEAKER: Hi, Gary, go ahead.
5 GARY HEADRICK: Hi, Im Gary Headrick; representing San 6
Clemente Green, about 2,000 people living in harms way near it. First off, I think 7
its important to look at the total picture when were talking about the processes 8
the NRC is considering. And it certainly mustve been a humbling experience 9
when you look back on Fukushima and realize how badly the seismologists and 10 engineers missed the mark in predicting what might happen. And now, you have 11 the opportunity to follow the process, which Ive heard a lot about today, but 12 another process the NRC has available is the adjudicated license amendment 13 hearing. And the question to NRC is why not just go with the most safe bet, do a 14 more thorough investigation, and use all of the great minds that are at your 15 disposal to make this determination, especially in the fact that we need to be 16 absolutely certain that if you allow them to restart it that everyones had a chance 17 to weigh in on that very important process. So, thats a question for NRC. Why 18 not just jump right to the adjudicated license hearing and then Id like to follow up 19 with a question to Edison.
20 RICK DANIEL: Okay, thank you.
21 DOUG BROADDUS: Again, I think, you know, I appreciate the 22 question there. You know, again, we are going to follow the process, which in 23 this case would, you know, for a -- for any license amendment request would 24 provide an opportunity to request a hearing or an opportunity for a hearing. So, 25
77 that would be there, you know, and thats going to be provided in accordance 1
with our normal process. So, I mean, Im not sure what else I can --
2 RICK DANIEL: Well, what youre saying, Doug, is that its still --
3 GARY HEADRICK: Well, your process, as I understand it, your 4
process could allow for approval of a restart before we get a more thorough 5
hearing that would follow after the fact that Dan Hirsch so aptly put.
6 RICK DANIEL: [affirmative]
7 DOUG BROADDUS: And in that case the regulation will provide 8
that if the staff is able to make a, you know, significant hazards consideration 9
determination that none of those criteria are met, in this case that the -- we could 10 issue an amendment in that case, even if the hearing had been requested. The 11 hearing would still occur, yes, and it would still occur if it was granted by the 12 ASLB. I mean that would be up to them to make that determination as to 13 whether it met all their contention and admissibility criteria from that standpoint.
14 But it could occur, you know, we wouldnt be able to issue it if we were able to 15 make that determination.
16 RICK DANIEL: He had a follow-up question for Edison?
17 GARY HEADRICK: Well, yeah, just to follow up on that a little 18 further. Now, you guys are the ones that got it wrong the first time when they 19 shouldve had a license and then to avoid this problem to begin with. And if you 20 expect the public to trust your judgment without getting everyones input on this, 21 then I think youre going to get a lot of resistance and I hope it will change your 22 mind. Its just astounding to me that you would even cooperate with Edison and 23 avoid that adjudicated license amendment hearing. Thats -- I just still dont 24 understand it, but Ill go on with the question for Edison, if you dont mind.
25
78 RICK DANIEL: Sure.
1 GARY HEADRICK: Edison continues to recite the mantra that 2
safety is first, and we know from David Freemans testimony and other people, 3
experts in the field, that we really do not have a problem meeting our energy 4
needs in the summer regardless of what their friends in the Chamber of 5
Commerce and business communities say. Were going to be fine. And so, what 6
other reason besides profit for Edison is there to rush this decision? Can you 7
please explain why you have to rush this, because its not for the benefit of 8
Californians?
9 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Gary, again, the folks that are with us today 10 are technical people; I dont have system-planning folks available to me. If you 11 want to get a hold of us outside of this meeting, we can tell you what our 12 forecasts are for the Southern California area. I dont have anybody here that 13 can talk to that right now.
14 RICK DANIEL: All right, thank you, Rich.
15 GARY HEADRICK: Well, thanks for your time and just please be 16 exceptionally safe and err on the side of caution, please.
17 RICK DANIEL: Got it. Thank you very much, Gary. Operator, well 18 take the next caller, please.
19 OPERATOR: Ted Quinn, I believe.
20 TED QUINN: Oh, yeah, my name is Ted Quinn; Im a 30-year-21 resident of Southern Orange County, and I certainly support the restart of San 22 Onofre, if in fact the NRC review and determination approves that. So, my 23 question goes to a fundamental that both our last speaker addressed and others.
24 It has to do with this no significant hazard determination. I think theres some 25
79 confusion in this area and Id like to ask a couple questions. First to the NRC 1
staff, is it uncommon for nuclear facilities to request a no significant hazard 2
determination as part of a license amendment submittal; and second, honestly, 3
what is the purpose of a no significant hazard determination? If you could go 4
over it -- I know you read the text earlier, if you could reinforce it, if you could, 5
please.
6 RANDY HALL: The no significant hazards consideration 7
determination, I think theres a lot -- fair amount of misunderstanding about that.
8 Thats a procedural standard to determine whether the staff can make a decision 9
as to whether a license amendment should be or could be issued prior to the 10 conduct of a hearing. I think the process would, as explained, would have the 11 licensee in the proposed amendment request provide their proposed no 12 significant hazards consideration determination, addressing the three criteria that 13 Doug Broaddus mentioned just a few minutes ago. The NRC in turn would 14 review that proposed no significant hazards consideration determination and 15 make its own independent judgment as to whether it agreed with the licensees 16 analysis or believes that a no significant hazards consideration determination 17 was appropriate, and that would be published as a, again, a proposed 18 determination. The staff would review an amendment, if they found it acceptable; 19 would prepare to issue that amendment, approve it. If there was a request for a 20 hearing in the interim, then the staff would make, potentially, a finding -- a final 21 finding of no significant hazards consideration. So, its at that point in the 22 process when the staff consciously determines there is no significant hazards 23 consideration in accordance with the criteria to be applied, that thered be a 24 conscious decision to go forward with the amendment request and hold a hearing 25
80 after the fact. Once again in accordance with our process, we would notify the 1
Commission itself, the five commissioners, with at least five days notice prior to 2
issuing that amendment that we had made the final determination and were 3
proposing to issue the amendment even though a hearing had been requested in 4
that case. So, the Commission would have the discretion at that point to direct 5
the staff otherwise or take some other action, if they so chose. So, that -- did I 6
answer your question or was there a second part to it that I didnt address?
7 TED QUINN: Yes, no, you answered it. I think if I could just clarify 8
what youve stated is independent of what San Onofre submits, the SCE submits, 9
the NRC staff will make an independent determination on whether its acceptable 10 on the no hazards significant hazards determination or not, right?
11 RANDY HALL: Thats correct. And I believe the first part of your 12 question was whether this was uncommon or common. Its required that they 13 make in their application a proposed no significant hazards determination so that 14 part is standard. I would say in a majority of cases, I dont have the statistics, the 15 staff would agree or independently determine that a proposed no significant 16 hazards determination was appropriate for a particular amendment request.
17 There are some cases in which thats not the case, but it is common.
18 TED QUINN: Okay. Thank you for going through that, I appreciate 19 it.
20 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you, Mr. Quinn. And operator, 21 well take the final caller, please.
22 OPERATOR: And Myla Reson, your line is open.
23 MYLA RESON: Im here, and thank you very much for taking my 24 call. Im calling from Los Angeles, which I also consider to be part of the San 25
81 Onofre nuclear danger zone. Should a serious event happen at San Onofre, I 1
dont think that anyone in Southern Californias safe. My question is, in the two 2
years following the events that triggered the ongoing nuclear catastrophe in 3
Fukushima, has the NRC evaluated the ability of Unit 2 to withstand a beyond 4
basis -- beyond-design-basis event, such as a great tsunami or an earthquake of 5
greater magnitude of 7.0? And following on that, because I believe you have not, 6
and you talked about how you would only be evaluating a previously evaluated --
7 Im sorry -- that you would be making your determination about the no significant 8
hazard consideration based on previously evaluated criteria. Is it my 9
understanding that, in fact, you did not make this previous evaluation of the 10 beyond design basis events and you would not be taking them into 11 consideration?
12 RICK DANIEL: Thank you.
13 MICHELE EVANS: Okay. For the first part of your question --
14 MYLA RESON: I have a follow up.
15 RICK DANIEL: Okay.
16 MICHELE EVANS: Okay, well wait. Let me get the first part.
17 MYLA RESON: Please.
18 MICHELE EVANS: With regard to the events of Fukushima, the 19 agency reviewed the status of our operating reactors at the, you know, not long 20 after the events of Fukushima occurred and determination was made that the 21 plants were safe to continue to operate. Actions have occurred since then, 22 though, to request additional information with regard to seismic, for one. Theres 23 flooding, seismic, and several other areas. And the plants have been, you know, 24 grouped and prioritized and were in a process now where each operating plant is 25
82 reevaluating their seismic hazards in light of new, current information in the U.S.
1 So, that was the first part. I didnt -- you did ask something else, but I didnt catch 2
what that was.
3 MYLA RESON: So, let me follow up on that. So, given that youre 4
still in the process of reviewing whether or not San Onofre can withstand an 5
earthquake of greater magnitude than 7.0 and run safely or can withstand a 6
potential great tsunami, it is in a tsunami zone. Is it -- there is a possibility that in 7
fact you will allow Edison to restart their damaged nuclear reactor prior to having 8
that full evaluation in place?
9 MICHELE EVANS: Okay. So, yeah --
10 MYLA RESON: Yes.
11 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah, the other view you --
12 MYLA RESON: Are you saying, yes, there is a potential for you to 13 grant that --
14 MICHELE EVANS: Yes, Im saying --
15 MYLA RESON: -- permit prior to making that evaluation?
16 MICHELE EVANS: Im saying that the activitys ongoing at all the 17 plants in the country, with regard to Fukushima follow up are not, you know, 18 nothing needs to be resolved at this point prior to the restart decision on -- for 19 SONGS.
20 MYLA RESON: And why is that?
21 MICHELE EVANS: That goes back to the initial thing I said where 22 following the events of Fukushima, the reviews were conducted and the agency 23 determined that all plants at that point, unless theres something specific about a 24 particular plant, were safe to continue to operate.
25
83 RICK DANIEL: All right. And Doug, youre going to address the no 1
significant hazards question.
2 DOUG BROADDUS: Yeah, I think you asked the question as well 3
as to whether or not those actions are part of the no significant hazards 4
consideration determination, and those are not. What is part of that no significant 5
hazards consideration determination is the change to the license that is being 6
requested. Thats what we have to look at is, is the change that is being 7
requested; does that change increase the probability or, you know, significantly 8
increase -- result in a significant increase and the probability of those criteria.
9 So, and again, that does not consider other activities that are ongoing. Its not --
10 you cant -- it doesnt go beyond the amendment request. It has to be focused 11 only on the changes in the amendment request.
12 RICK DANIEL: And just a follow up --
13 MYLA RESON: You know, what Id like to remind you that 14 Chairman Macfarlane stated, that as a geologist she has an acute appreciation 15 of the challenge of predicting the earths behavior, and that since the earth is 16 constantly changing and our recorded knowledge represents roughly one-17 millionth of the earths history, there is much we dont know. In light of this, we 18 must be wise in balancing confidence in our engineering prowess with the 19 humble recognition that natural systems have repeatedly demonstrated the ability 20 to confound us. Those are the words of Chairman Macfarlane. I have no 21 confidence that you, you know, that you would restart a damaged nuclear reactor 22 in a tsunami zone riddled with earthquake faults. Im just appalled by that 23 possibility. I think that the hubris that is demonstrated by your confidence in your 24 determination is just absolutely shocking.
25
84 RICK DANIEL: All right. Thank you very much, maam, for your 1
comments and your questions. We certainly appreciate your opinion. And 2
operator, that will conclude our questions from folks on the phone today. Im 3
going to ask for closing comments from Southern California Edison, anything you 4
folks like to say in conclusion of the meeting today?
5 RICHARD ST. ONGE: Again, I want to thank the NRC for their 6
time today in providing Edison with a very candid feedback on the proposed 7
license amendment. Doug, I understand youd like to get a proposed 8
amendment to you as soon as possible so you can continue the work so Ill take 9
that back to the management at Southern California Edison and well arrive at a 10 decision as quickly as possible, thank you.
11 RICK DANIEL: NRC?
12 MICHELE EVANS: Yeah. Once again, I just want to thank 13 everyone for their time and everyones input and opinions, thank you.
14 RICK DANIEL: And that wraps up our meeting, but Id just like to 15 add a personal note. Ive had the privilege, and Id be remiss if I didnt say 16 something, but I want to thank the NRC for giving me the opportunity to facilitate 17 these meetings over the last year. Theyve been interesting, theyve been 18 challenging, but Im going to be leaving the NRC here in 30 days, moving on to 19 new horizons, and I certainly want to thank the activists and the non-20 governmental organizations and all the people Ive met for having faith in me 21 running these meetings. And Southern California Edison and the NRC, I know 22 youll continue to try to do what youre saying youre going to do and I have faith 23 in the process. So, thank you very much. I wish you all a good evening.
24 DOUG BROADDUS: And we really do appreciate, Rick, all the 25
85 help youve given to us, I mean, youve been an integral part of these meetings 1
and helped us out in getting through them and being a facilitator to help, you 2
know, make things run smoothly and we will certainly miss you. And itll be hard 3
to find somebody to fill your shoes, but --
4 RICK DANIEL: Well, honestly, its been my pleasure and I wish the 5
very best to the next person that comes along, thank you.
6 DOUG BROADDUS: Thank you.
7 MALE SPEAKER: Thanks, the meeting is concluded.
8
[Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded]
9