ML13184A014
| ML13184A014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  (NPF-010, NPF-015) |
| Issue date: | 07/10/2013 |
| From: | Doug Broaddus Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | Tom Gurdziel - No Known Affiliation |
| Benney B 301-415-2767 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13184A011 | List: |
| References | |
| G20130288, LTR-13-0308, TAC MF1417, TAC MF1418 | |
| Download: ML13184A014 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 July 10, 2013 Mr. Thomas Gurdziel 9 Twin Orchard Drive Oswego, NY 13126
Dear Mr. Gurdziel:
Your petition dated April 5, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13102A248), addressed to the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission), has been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). You requested that the NRC permanently (and immediately) change the licensed power of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit 3, to zero; immediately change the licensed power of SONGS, Unit 2, down to 70 percent and allow startup; and prohibit any involvement with all nuclear industry activities (including SONGS) by Southern California Edison (SCE, the licensee) employees that approved removal or dilution of Unit 3 shipping and receipt requirements on December 22, 2009. The NRC's Petition Review Board (PRB) informed you on May 20, 2013, that it denied your requests for immediate action, since the NRC's technical staff was reviewing the information submitted in SCE's confirmatory action letter (CAL) response and restart plan, and since the staff determined there was not an immediate safety concern. As the basis for your remaining requests, you stated, in part, that:
First, Southern California Edison directed Mitsubishi to effectively eliminate all environmental requirements. (Ref. Follow-up AIT report, p. 15, 16 lines up).
Second, shipping orientation of the plane of the u-tubes was not specified. Third, no method of tube bundle support during shipping was specified, apparently in violation of Specification S023 017 01. (Ref. AIT report p. 45,8 lines up).
Fourth, unlike for the Unit 2 replacement steam generators, both a baseline pre-service eddy current test (in Japan) and a final pre-service eddy current test (at SONGS) WERE NOT PERFORMED for Unit 3. (Ref. AIT report p. 3, 1 line up and p. 4, top paragraph (for Unit 2); and AIT report p. 4, 12 lines up). Any changes resulting from shipping damage are thus hidden. This is particularly significant (and, should I say, suspicious) because at least one very large impact load of 1.23 g was recorded by 3 accelerometers attached to Unit 3 replacement steam generator 3EO-88. (Ref. AIT report p. 46, 19 lines down). This is problem 5. Note that this is the replacement steam generator that had the leak.
The PRB reviewed your submittal again. SCE has since informed the NRC that it will permanently cease operations for SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and submitted written certification of its intent on June 12, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML131640201). By letter dated June 14, 2013 (ADAIVIS Accession No. ML13164A143), the NRC acknowledged SCE's decision to permanently cease power operation of SONGS, Units 2 and 3. That letter further stated that the NRC staff has ceased its review of the SONGS, Unit 2, Return to Service Report. Further, by letter dated June 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13183A391), SCE certified the permanent removal of fuel from the Unit 3 reactor vessel. In light of these actions, the NRC will not be
T. Gurdziel
-2 taking your requested action to permanently (and immediately) change the licensed power of SONGS, Unit 3, to zero; nor will we be taking your requested actions to implement an immediate change to the licensed power of SONGS, Unit 2 down to 70 percent, limited to 5 months of operation, and grant immediate permisSion to SCE to start up Unit 2. However, had SCE not informed the NRC of its intent to permanently shut down SONGS, Units 2 and 3, the PRB determined that your requested actions did not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206, for the reasons described below.
Your request concerning Unit 3 raised issues that had already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation, for which a resolution (preventing operation) had been achieved. In response to the CAL, SCE focused its actions on restoring Unit 2 to service, and had indefinitely deferred any actions to address the CAL provisions regarding Unit 3. Consequently, until SCE took action to respond to that portion of the CAL, SONGS, Unit 3, would have remained shut down. Regarding the permanent shutdown of Unit 3, your request cited five items from the Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) report. As specified in the AIT report dated July 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12188A748), each of these items had been resolved. Therefore, this request would not have met NRC's criteria to be treated as a 2.206 petition, unless significant new information was presented.
The PRB also reviewed your request to grant permission for SONGS, Unit 2, to start up and operate for 5 months at 70 percent power. This request also raised issues that were the subject of the NRC staffs ongoing review and evaluation of SCE's Unit 2 CAL response and restart plan. At the conclusion of its review, the staff would have documented its decision regarding Unit 2 restart in a technical evaluation report. In addition, by letter dated April 5, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13098A043), SCE submitted a license amendment request in support of its proposal to operate Unit 2 at 70 percent power. The NRC had not completed its rigorous analysis of either of these documents in order to determine if the licensee's actions, including operating SONGS, Unit 2, at 70 percent power, were appropriate to protect public health and safety. NRC action to change the licensed power level of SONGS, Unit 2 to 70 percent would have been premature, prior to the completion of these reviews, and without significant new information from you. Additionally, since SONGS, Unit 2, was the subject of a license amendment request, the PRB determined that your request could have been raised in the ongoing licensing proceeding, and thus would not have met NRC's criteria to be treated as a 2.206 petition.
In addition to your requests to change the licensed power for each unit, you requested that the NRC prohibit involvement in the nuclear industry (including at SONGS) by SCE employees who approved removal or dilution of Unit 3 shipping and receipt requirements on December 22, 2009.
Because you raised issues that have been the subject of NRC staff review where resolution has occurred, the PRB has concluded that your request does not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206. Specifically, as documented in the AIT Report dated July 18, 2012 (Enclosure pages 15-19), and Follow-up AIT Report dated November 9,2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12318A342; Enclosure pages 44-46), the inspectors found no information that would lead the NRC to conclude wrongdoing had occurred. Absent significant new information, this request does not meet NRC's criteria to be treated as a 2.206 petition. This letter, therefore, closes out your request for a 2.206 petition.
T. Gurdziel
- 3 Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely,
~f-7~Af
'60uglaS A. Broaddus, Chief SONGS Special Projects Branch Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 cc: Distribution via Listserv
ML13184A011; Incomin ML13102A248; Res onse ML13184A014 NRR/DORULPSO/LA NRR/DPR/DD NRRlDORULPSO/BC JBurkhardt SBahadur JHall for DBroaddus 7/8/13 7/8113 7/10/13