ML15036A554
| ML15036A554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/2015 |
| From: | Ayres R, Bernetich J, Olson J Ayres Law Group, Friends of the Earth |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-275-LR, 50-323-LR, ASLBP 10-900-01-LR-BD01, RAS 27178 | |
| Download: ML15036A554 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) 50-323-LR
)
(Diablo Canyon Power Plant) ) February 5, 2015 (License Renewal Application)
FRIENDS OF THE EARTHS RESPONSE TO NRC STAFFS MOTION REGARDING DR. MICHAEL PECKS EMAIL TO THE BOARD Introduction After completion of the oral argument before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB or Board) in the above-captioned matter, the Board received an e-mail from Dr.
Michael Peck. Dr. Peck, the former Chief Inspector at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo), apparently had listened to the broadcast of the oral argument, and wished to correct an error in the presentation by PG&E to the Board. Dr. Pecks remarks were directed to matters within the scope of the license renewal proceeding, and entirely relevant to the contentions proposed by Friends of the Earth (Friends). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff now requests that Board not consider Dr. Pecks e-mail, on grounds that the e-mail (1) raises issues outside the scope of license renewal, (2) is not relevant to the contentions in this proceeding, and (3) does not represent the position of the Staff. See NRC Staff Motion Regarding Dr. Michael Pecks E-mail to the Board (Jan. 30, 2015). Petitioner urges the Board to reject the Staffs Motion.
Dr. Pecks remarks were directed to comments made by David Repka, counsel for
PG&E, in response to questions posed by Judge Trikouros. Judge Trikouros asked Mr. Repka whether its the ground motion spectra that are really the licensing basis of the plant, not the, not necessarily the magnitude of the earthquake? Mr. Repka responded: Thats correct.1 Later in the transcript, Mr. Repka expanded on his argument that the licensing basis for the plant was the maximum vibratory ground motion at the plant, rather than the magnitude of the maximum earthquake and assumptions about the transmission of the energy created by the earthquake:
(Mr. Repka) [T]he licensing basis is the maximum anticipated vibratory ground motion, and thats the .75G HE ground motion. So what the research information letter does is it confirms, and it is referenced in [the Final Safety Analysis Report (as Updated)], the revised FSAR, but it confirms that the most recent information from the shoreline and other faults remains bounded by that, by the .75G licensing basis.2 As the former NRC Chief Inspector for Diablo, and a member of the staff of the NRC, Dr. Peck has unparalleled knowledge of the licensing basis for the Diablo plant. His message to the ASLB was that Mr. Repkas characterization of the licensing basis for the plant was oversimplified and incorrect. Dr. Peck states in his email:
[The] CLB [current licensing basis] explicitly stated that the DDE corresponds to the safe shutdown earthquake as described in App B to 10 CFR 100 and includes all earthquake faults within 75 miles of the site (except the Hosgri). Nowhere does the CLB state that ground motion alone establishes the license limit.3 (emphasis supplied).
While it is certainly unusual for the ASLB to hear directly from an NRC employee on a point raised in an oral argument, the Staffs arguments in its motion to exclude Dr. Pecks e-mail are entirely unpersuasive.
1 The exchange can be found at page 759 of the unrevised version of the transcript, at lines 19-22.
2 Id. at page 790, lines 12-19.
3 E-mail to Chairman Ryerson, ASLB (January 21, 2015, 1:35 PM) from Michael Peck, Ph.D.,
Senior Reactor Technology Instructor (TTC 423-855-6515).
2
Argument A. Dr. Pecks Message Addresses Issues Entirely Within the Scope of the License Renewal Proceeding.
Friends Petition to Intervene asserts that the new seismic information in the 2014 Central California Seismic Imaging Project Report (PG&E Seismic Report) about the web of faults in the vicinity of Diablo show that PG&E cannot provide the assurances of safe operation required to obtain permission to operate the plant through its sixth decade. Further, Friends argues that the applicant has not identified or analyzed the effects of aging on two systems that are crucial to the operation of the structures, systems, and components vital to the safety of the plant, and that PG&E has failed to establish in its aging management plan that the effect of aging on Diablo will be adequately managed for the period of extended operation. One purpose of the oral argument was to assist the Board in determining whether Friends has identified issues, and provided a brief recitation of the factors underlying the contention4 sufficient to justify requiring a public hearing on the matter.
In its Reply Brief, and in the oral argument, Friends pointed to the incongruity in PG&Es argument that the Hosgri Evaluation bounded the equally powerful and far closer Shoreline fault. (The Shoreline fault is 600 meters from Diablo, while the Hosgri fault is 5 kilometers from the plant.) As Judge Trikouros said, this anomaly could only be explained by differences in the ground motion equations used by PG&E to calculate the ground movement at Diablo for the two faults. Mr. Repkas argument, reproduced above, attempted to declare the ground motion equations irrelevant, saying that the 0.75g ground motion estimate is the entire current licensing basis with respect to earthquakes for the plant. Dr. Pecks comment, that the 4
Friends of the Earths Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene at 7, citing Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station),
LBP-06-23, 64 NRC 257, 356 (2006).
3
CLB does not provide that ground motion alone establishes the license limit, is directly responsive to an issue within the scope of the license renewal proceeding - addressed by Judge Trikouros, the Staff, and PG&Es counsel. Indeed, Judge Trikouros and Mr. Repka had an extended colloquy on the subject of what is the current licensing basis for Diablo with respect to earthquakes and their effect on the plant.
B. Dr. Pecks Communication Is Highly Relevant to the Proposed or Admitted Contentions.
Dr. Pecks communication is relevant to at least two of Friends Contentions. The primary response of the Staff and the Applicant to Friends Contention that PG&E has not provided assurances that the plant can be safely operated for a total of 60 years is that, even though the Seismic Report shows that the Shoreline Fault, as now understood, is capable of releasing greater seismic energy closer to Diablo, the ground motion at the plant will not exceed the Hosgri 0.75g ground motion prediction. Dr. Pecks e-mail is directly relevant to this defense, since his comment contradicts PG&Es oversimplified assertion of the current licensing basis.
As the former Chief NRC Staff Inspector at Diablo, Dr. Peck must be considered an authority on the current licensing basis of that plant. In his view, the appropriate yardstick by which to measure the potential impact of the reanalyzed fault system around Diablo is the more stringent of the Hosgri Evaluation and the Double Design Earthquake. The clear implication of Dr. Pecks comment is that such an analysis would show the risk to Diablo from the Shoreline and perhaps other faults, as now understood, to be greater than what was predicted in the Hosgri Evaluation. Such a conclusion, which would require PG&E to analyze the risks to the plant based on the new seismic findings, is obviously relevant to Petitioners Contention 1.
4
C. Dr. Pecks View Does Not Represent the Position of the Staff.
Dr. Pecks e-mail is clearly not offered as the view of the Staff, but rather as expert comment from an NRC Staff member with extensive knowledge of the current licensing basis at Diablo, offering to correct erroneous information conveyed to the Board by the Staff and Applicant during the oral argument. As such, it contains information that could be helpful to the Boards examination of the issues presented by Friends Petition.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Friends respectfully requests that the Board deny NRC Staffs motion to exclude Dr. Pecks email from consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard Ayres
/s/ Jessica Olson
/s/ John Bernetich Richard Ayres Jessica Olson John Bernetich Ayres Law Group LLP 1707 L Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 452-9200 / Fax: (202) 872-7739 ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Counsel for Friends of the Earth Date: February 5, 2015 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) 50-323-LR
)
(Diablo Canyon Power Plant) ) February 5, 2015 (License Renewal Application)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this date, the Friends Of The Earths Response To NRC Staffs Motion Regarding Dr. Michael Pecks Email To The Board was served via the Electronic Information Exchange system.
Signed (electronically) by Jessica Olson Jessica L. Olson Ayres Law Group LLP 1707 L St., N.W., Suite 850 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-452-9200 E-mail: olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com Counsel for Friends of the Earth Executed in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)