Will the NRC give SCE
what it wants, permission to restart?
A PUBLIC MEETING
NOTICE: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station DOCKET:
05000361/362 November 16th, 2012 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
(PDT) LOCATION: Doubletree Guest Suites, Doheny Beach, CA 34402
Pacific Coast Highway Dana Point, CA 92629.
The 8.4 million
citizens in the 50 radius of San Onofre should be very worried about the
Southern California Edison's plan to restart unit number two at SONGS. SCE will
explain in detail their plan of action to restart unit #2 at this meeting. For
your information and safety please attend this meeting. Will the NRC give SCE
want it wants, which is permission for them to restart without making any
repairs to unit #2, with only the addition of a sound listening device to hear
if there is a new steam leak?
The NRC has not
replied to the public demand for an adjudicated public hearing that was clearly
heard and understood by Mr. Collins at the last NRC meeting on San Onofre on
October 9, 2012. How long will the public have to wait for an answer? Time is
running out, and the NRC's credibility is once again in question. Just what are
the NRC alliances? Why is there such a rush to restart this defective steam
generator?
Will the NRC ever
respond to the questions submitted by David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned
Scientists? These question where:
1. Unit 2 replacement steam generator 2SG89 has
significantly more wear indications per number of supports than does [Unit 2]
replacement steam generator 2SG88. Until the reason for this marked difference between the wear
degradation for the Unit 2 replacement steam generators is understood, the
operational assessment performed for future operation is suspect. [See graph in
Lochbaum letter].
2. Since all four replacement steam generators
came from the same manufacturer, were of the same design, made of the same
materials, assembled using the same procedures, and operated under nearly
identical conditions in twin reactors, the reason for this marked difference is
unclear…
[the] explanation is not well documented and therefore appears to be more
convenient than factual.
3. The document states that the owner will
“administratively limit Unit 2 to 70% reactor power prior to a mid-cycle”
outage to inspect the replacement steam generators. What are the legal consequences if
the reactor power were to increase to 75%, 85% or 100% power? The NRC
has licensed San Onofre Unit 2 to operate at 100% power. What would legally
prevent the owner from restarting Unit 2 and increasing its output to the NRC
licensed limit? The NRC’s enforcement program includes sanctions when its
regulations are violated, but nothing for broken promises. If the NRC agrees
that reactor operation at less than 100 percent power is warranted, it should
enforce that reduction with an order or comparable legally-enforceable
document.
4. Table 8-1 of Enclosure 2 and its accompanying
text attempt to explain how operating Unit 2 at 70% power will prevent the
tube-to-tube wear (TTW) experienced on Unit 3 by comparing it to an anonymous
reactor (called Plant A). ..reliance on one suspect data point (Plant
A) is hardly solid justification for operation and 70% power being acceptable.
5. There is no justification in this 80-plus page
document for an operating duration of 150 days.
6. … there are no legal means compelling the
plant’s owner to shut down Unit 2 after 150 days of operation at or above 15%
power.
7. ...a temporary nitrogen-16 radiation
detection system will be installed prior to the Unit 2 startup. However, there
is no commitment to use it after startup, or to keep it in service should it
stop functioning. The detection system is proposed as a
defense-in-depth measure, but there is no assurance it will be operated.
8. Attachment 6 to Enclosure 2 has proprietary information
redacted. Section 1.4 of
Enclosure 2 states that the owner used AREVA, Westinghouse Electric Company
LLC, and Intertek/APTECH to review the operational assessment. At least one of
these companies manufactures replacement steam generators and would therefore
be a competitor to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), which made the
replacement steam generators for San Onofre. If the owner did not
withhold the proprietary information from MHI’s competitors, why withhold it at
all? If SCE did withhold the proprietary information from these reviewers, what
is the value of their independent, but limited, review?
The question has to be
asked should the restart be put on hold until the Academy of Science cancer
study is completed, and should real time radiation monitoring be put in place
on NRC's or SCE's website prior to a restart? The public needs to see for
themselves what is being released when this defective steam generator blows
again.
It is clear to ROSE
that the rush to restart unit two is on, and the decision by the NRC to let SCE
move forward has been made at the highest levels of the NRC.
One last question
remains will you stand up for the public’s right to know and for the safety our
children deserve?
Gene Stone, ROSE
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/
