ML14083A679

NRR E-mail Capture - PRB Initial Recommendation (G20130776; MF3031)

ML14083A679
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	03/24/2014
From:	Clay Johnson - No Known Affiliation
To:	Lyon F Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
References
G20130776, MF3031
Download: ML14083A679 (5)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Charles K. Johnson [johnsonc20@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:30 PM To: Lyon, Fred Cc: Nancy Matela

Subject:

Re: PRB Initial Recommendation (G20130776; MF3031)

Hello Fred, I was wondering when you would get back to me to tell me that the 2.206 petition was rejected. That has been a foregone conclusion, of course, as it is always the answer that the NRC gives to 2.206 petitioners.

If there is a greater than design basis earthquake and the CGS melts down and explodes it will be on your head, and these memos and paper trail will make interesting reading for reporters trying to figure out what went wrong in the regulatory process. I am sure it will be comforting to the people and businesses evacuated from the Tri-Cities, and the people who rely upon local farming and a clean Columbia River fishery for their livelihoods, that these issues were being considered using the properly designated NRC rules.

Not to lay a guilt trip on you.

We will consider whether or not to appeal your decision and in which forum to do so.

Best, Chuck On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Lyon, Fred <Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov> wrote:

Chuck, Im sorry to be so late in getting back to you. We had some scheduling difficulties because some of the NRC staff involved our process were on travel. The PRB met on February 21, 2014, to consider the petition and the additional information that you provided on February 4, 2014. The PRBs initial recommendation is to reject the petition for review.

The plant is already undergoing a seismic hazard review, and the issues raised by the petitioners are encompassed by the NRCs Fukushima 50.54(f) letter, dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12056A046). The NRCs letter states, The current regulatory approach, and the resultant plant capabilities, gave the NTTF and the NRC the confidence to conclude that an accident with consequences similar to the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the United States (U.S.). The NRC concluded that continued plant operation and the continuation of licensing activities did not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety.

Energy Northwest should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report by March 12, 2015 (for western United States plants), in accordance with the Required Response section of 1

of the Fukushima 50.54(f) letter. The petitioners provided no new information that persuaded the staff to accelerate its schedule for the Fukushima 50.54(f) letter. The staff has already provided in the NRCs Fukushima 50.54(f) letter its expectations to licensees if errors in the current licensing basis are identified by licensees during the seismic hazard evaluations. The NRCs letter dated February 20, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A046), emphasized the staffs expectations. The letter states, in part, The staff considers the seismic hazard reevaluations being performed pursuant to the 50.54(f) letter to be distinct from the current design or licensing basis of operating plants...

However, as with any new information that may arise at a plant, licensees are responsible for evaluating and making determinations related to operability, and any associated reportability, on a case-by-case basis. Licensees should consider and disposition the information through their corrective action program or equivalent process. If an error is identified in the current design or licensing basis during the performance of the requested seismic hazard evaluation, the staff expects that licensees would assess the operability of the affected SSC. Additionally, licensees would need to determine if the situation is reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73.

The NRC is already making as much information as possible available to the public regarding its ongoing activities in response to the Fukushima Dai-Ichi accident (e.g.,

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard.html).

Based on the above, the PRBs initial recommendation is to reject the petition, in accordance with MD 8.11 Handbook Part III, paragraph C.2, Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206, because the petitioners raise issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question.

In addition, the staff provided the following answer to Mr. Tolans question, that you provided on February 4, 2013:

Is it the case that the maximum vibratory ground motion (SSE) for the Columbia Generating Station is 0.25 g to 0.6 g in the 2 to 10 Hertz (Hz) range on Figure 1 as stated in the attached letter? If so, can you explain the statement on page 2 of the letter ( highlighted in yellow) that cites 20 Hz? Should it state 2 Hz and greater?

2

The NRC staff responded:

The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) ground motion for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) shown in Figure 1 is a response spectrum simply reflecting changes in spectral acceleration values with respect to natural frequencies (at 5 percent damping). The SSE spectrum for the CGS can be approximately divided into four frequency segments:

From 0.4 Hz to 2 Hz, the spectral acceleration is from 0.11 to 0.6 g, from 2 to approximately 6.2 Hz, the spectral acceleration is 0.6 g, from 6.2 Hz to about 20 Hz, the spectral acceleration is from 0.6 g to 0.25 g, and from about 20 Hz to 100 Hz, the spectral acceleration is 0.25 g.

Therefore, the statement in the staffs evaluation is correct, because the spectral acceleration is 0.25 g from about 20 Hz to 100 Hz.

The NRC staff reiterated that all the concerns and questions raised by Mr. Tolan in his letter will be addressed and answered during the ongoing seismic hazard reevaluation for CGS.

In accordance with the 2.206 process, you may request to comment on the PRBs initial recommendation, either in person or by telecon. It is your opportunity to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for your petition in light of the PRBs recommendation. Whether or not you with to address the PRB again, please let me know.

Thanks, Fred

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charles K. Johnson 5031 SE Haig St.

Portland, OR 97206 (503) 777-2794 3

johnsonc20@gmail.com 4

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1182 Mail Envelope Properties (CAHWtKjcbgchnSOLGXFphGUoAB+j78YBrd1VkmehTgO28U_PLhg)

Subject:

Re: PRB Initial Recommendation (G20130776; MF3031)

Sent Date: 3/24/2014 12:29:46 PM Received Date: 3/24/2014 12:29:50 PM From: Charles K. Johnson Created By: johnsonc20@gmail.com Recipients:

"Nancy Matela" <nancy.matela@gmail.com>

Tracking Status: None "Lyon, Fred" <Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 6474 3/24/2014 12:29:50 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: