ML18353A749: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| docket = 05000206, 05000361, 05000362 | | docket = 05000206, 05000361, 05000362 | ||
| license number = | | license number = | ||
| contact person = Lindsay H | | contact person = Lindsay H | ||
| package number = ML18338A059 | | package number = ML18338A059 | ||
| document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts, Slides and Viewgraphs | | document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts, Slides and Viewgraphs | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:Community Engagement In the Decommissioning Process: | ||
Implications for Spent Fuel David G Victor Chairman, Community Engagement Panel NRC REG CON Seminar Rockville, MD December 2018 | |||
Community Engagement Panel (CEP) | |||
Who we are: Functions as a Two-Way Conduit | |||
* 18 Members | |||
* Public Officials, NGO's, Labor, Business, | |||
* Provides for SCE to learn about the Environmental, Native American concerns of the Community | |||
* Quarterly Meetings | |||
* Workshops | |||
* Provides for Community to learn | |||
* Expert Presentations about the impact of the | |||
* Not a Formal Decision Making Body decommissioning process | |||
* No Official Oversight Function | |||
* SCE (plant operator) provides resources for meetings, funded by decom trust fund | |||
Public CEP Meetings | |||
* Update From Edison With Timeline | |||
* Expert Presentation | |||
* Questions and Dialogue with CEP Members | |||
* Public Comment and Question Period | |||
* Questions Directed to Expert or SCE | |||
* Currently trying to revamp public comment and public engagement | |||
Planned Future State A Surprise For Many! | |||
Today Late 2020's | |||
Public Concerns (a selective list) | |||
* Removal of the spent fuel | |||
* Integrity of Canisters (Corrosion, seismic, sea level rise, possible terrorist attack) | |||
* Radiation Monitoring (including real time) | |||
* Environmental (e.g., Disposition of the Offshore Conduits) | |||
* Preparedness for first responders | |||
* Jobs | |||
* Cost | |||
Preparing for ISFSI-only status: Defense In Depth | |||
* Regular monitoring (and what is learned from monitoring) | |||
* Inspection of canisters | |||
* Test canister | |||
* Dealing with potential worst case scenarios | |||
Expect the Unexpected | |||
* At the August 9th CEP Meeting, a safety worker described a loading incident. | |||
* A spent fuel canister got caught on an inner guide ring during lowering. | |||
* Hung unsuspended for about an hour | |||
Current Status At | |||
* Transfer of spent fuel has been SONGS temporarily halted. | |||
* NRC investigation with findings and enforcement actions. | |||
* Public meetings (NRC webinar; SONGS CEP with Scott Morris, Region IV) | |||
* It is anticipated that upon implementation of NRCs and SCEs recommendations, transfer of spent fuel will resume. | |||
* Update letter from Victor, Stetson and Kern on songscommunity.com | |||
Community Struggles With: Who To Trust? | |||
* Utility - SCE? | |||
* Government - NRC? | |||
* NGO's - Union of Concerned Scientists? | |||
* Outside Experts? | |||
Emerging Issues around Spent Fuel | |||
: 1. What is the Pathway to a Change in Federal Law? | |||
* Is the upcoming session the time to get this done? | |||
* How big is the deal needed? | |||
* Is a change in law essential? | |||
: 2. Is a Permanent Repository needed? | |||
* Political answers to that question | |||
* Groundhog day problem | |||
* Technical answers to that question | |||
: 3. Will Consolidated Interim Storage Work? | |||
* We must learn the lesson of Yucca, Canada, Finland, PFC and others: | |||
the key to success is multiple sites | |||
* Consent is very important | |||
* Consent vs. holdup | |||
* Lots of support for this: BRC, Switch, others | |||
* How long will the NM and TX sites keep moving along? | |||
* When can we begin serious transportation planning? | |||
* Lots of models and institutions to build on | |||
* This is a political and organizational challenge, not technical | |||
: 4. What will ISFSI Defense-in-Depth Look like? | |||
* Industry has clear visions (AMP), but the public knows little about those and most of the key concepts are not explained in English | |||
* Reliance upon non-existent technologies worries many people | |||
* Stress Corrosion Cracking is an ongoing concern | |||
* The expansive definition of retrievable worries many people | |||
* Loss of onsite pools; nonexistent hot cells | |||
* Need more robustness around Russian doll and welding responses | |||
* Failure to get this right will lead to pressure for expensive systems that do not add safety | |||
* Must articulate a vision in plain English that is dynamic and responsive to public concerns | |||
: 5. What is the Right Risk Analysis and Oversight for Fuel Offloading? | |||
* SONGS August 3rd incident has raised serious questions about whether delegation to vendors and assumptions of low risk site footprints are correct | |||
* Calls for more inspection oversight | |||
* Calls for better analysis of safety systemsengineering, personnel, training | |||
* Akin to the airlines | |||
: 6. Can we have a serious, non-classified discussion of worst case outcomes at an ISFSI only site? | |||
* Keen community interest in this topic | |||
* Planning for a 1Q 2019 meeting (highly likely) | |||
* Derailed a bit by the canister incident | |||
* Must identify plausible pathways and responses | |||
* Must include discussion of radiationlevels, safety, impacts | |||
: 7. Can the decommissioned plants get better organized? | |||
* Political organization | |||
* Learning across the industry | |||
* Taking advantage of consolidation in the decom industry}} |
Latest revision as of 09:05, 20 October 2019
ML18353A749 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | San Onofre |
Issue date: | 12/12/2018 |
From: | Victor D Southern California Edison Co |
To: | Haile Lindsay NRC/NMSS/DSFM/IOB |
Lindsay H | |
Shared Package | |
ML18338A059 | List: |
References | |
Download: ML18353A749 (17) | |
Text
Community Engagement In the Decommissioning Process:
Implications for Spent Fuel David G Victor Chairman, Community Engagement Panel NRC REG CON Seminar Rockville, MD December 2018
Community Engagement Panel (CEP)
Who we are: Functions as a Two-Way Conduit
- 18 Members
- Public Officials, NGO's, Labor, Business,
- Provides for SCE to learn about the Environmental, Native American concerns of the Community
- Quarterly Meetings
- Workshops
- Provides for Community to learn
- Expert Presentations about the impact of the
- Not a Formal Decision Making Body decommissioning process
- No Official Oversight Function
- SCE (plant operator) provides resources for meetings, funded by decom trust fund
Public CEP Meetings
- Update From Edison With Timeline
- Expert Presentation
- Questions and Dialogue with CEP Members
- Public Comment and Question Period
- Questions Directed to Expert or SCE
- Currently trying to revamp public comment and public engagement
Planned Future State A Surprise For Many!
Today Late 2020's
Public Concerns (a selective list)
- Removal of the spent fuel
- Integrity of Canisters (Corrosion, seismic, sea level rise, possible terrorist attack)
- Radiation Monitoring (including real time)
- Environmental (e.g., Disposition of the Offshore Conduits)
- Preparedness for first responders
- Jobs
- Cost
Preparing for ISFSI-only status: Defense In Depth
- Regular monitoring (and what is learned from monitoring)
- Inspection of canisters
- Test canister
- Dealing with potential worst case scenarios
Expect the Unexpected
- At the August 9th CEP Meeting, a safety worker described a loading incident.
- A spent fuel canister got caught on an inner guide ring during lowering.
- Hung unsuspended for about an hour
Current Status At
- Transfer of spent fuel has been SONGS temporarily halted.
- NRC investigation with findings and enforcement actions.
- Public meetings (NRC webinar; SONGS CEP with Scott Morris, Region IV)
- It is anticipated that upon implementation of NRCs and SCEs recommendations, transfer of spent fuel will resume.
- Update letter from Victor, Stetson and Kern on songscommunity.com
Community Struggles With: Who To Trust?
- Utility - SCE?
- Government - NRC?
- NGO's - Union of Concerned Scientists?
- Outside Experts?
Emerging Issues around Spent Fuel
- 1. What is the Pathway to a Change in Federal Law?
- Is the upcoming session the time to get this done?
- How big is the deal needed?
- Is a change in law essential?
- 2. Is a Permanent Repository needed?
- Political answers to that question
- Groundhog day problem
- Technical answers to that question
- 3. Will Consolidated Interim Storage Work?
- We must learn the lesson of Yucca, Canada, Finland, PFC and others:
the key to success is multiple sites
- Consent is very important
- Consent vs. holdup
- Lots of support for this: BRC, Switch, others
- How long will the NM and TX sites keep moving along?
- When can we begin serious transportation planning?
- Lots of models and institutions to build on
- This is a political and organizational challenge, not technical
- 4. What will ISFSI Defense-in-Depth Look like?
- Industry has clear visions (AMP), but the public knows little about those and most of the key concepts are not explained in English
- Reliance upon non-existent technologies worries many people
- Stress Corrosion Cracking is an ongoing concern
- The expansive definition of retrievable worries many people
- Loss of onsite pools; nonexistent hot cells
- Need more robustness around Russian doll and welding responses
- Failure to get this right will lead to pressure for expensive systems that do not add safety
- Must articulate a vision in plain English that is dynamic and responsive to public concerns
- 5. What is the Right Risk Analysis and Oversight for Fuel Offloading?
- SONGS August 3rd incident has raised serious questions about whether delegation to vendors and assumptions of low risk site footprints are correct
- Calls for more inspection oversight
- Calls for better analysis of safety systemsengineering, personnel, training
- Akin to the airlines
- 6. Can we have a serious, non-classified discussion of worst case outcomes at an ISFSI only site?
- Keen community interest in this topic
- Planning for a 1Q 2019 meeting (highly likely)
- Derailed a bit by the canister incident
- Must identify plausible pathways and responses
- Must include discussion of radiationlevels, safety, impacts
- 7. Can the decommissioned plants get better organized?
- Political organization
- Learning across the industry
- Taking advantage of consolidation in the decom industry