Transparent, Participate, and Collaborate
The NRC staff is already hard at work on an environmental impact statement to support an update to the Commission’s waste confidence rule, which evaluates the storage of spent nuclear fuel after the expiration of a nuclear reactor’s license.
This project is part of the NRC’s response to last June’s U.S. Appeals Court ruling striking down the agency’s generic finding that spent fuel can be stored safely for several decades after a plant’s license expires. The court held the NRC should have examined the environmental effects of never having a repository, as well as the effects of spent fuel pool fires and leaks. The Commission then decided that the agency would not issue licenses dependent on waste confidence until the court’s remand is addressed.
As director of the new Waste Confidence Directorate, established to meet the 24-month deadline the Commission set for this ambitious and important project, I plan to give you occasional updates on our progress here on the NRC blog. These updates will be part of an extensive and innovative public outreach effort.
I am happy to report that the Waste Confidence Directorate is now fully staffed. We are the newest part of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, which has oversight and licensing responsibilities for spent fuel storage and disposal. But we have drawn our staff from offices throughout the agency in order to utilize a variety of expertise and knowledge. I come to the Directorate from the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, which handles environmental reviews and rulemaking for fuel cycle facilities, decommissioning and waste. My deputy, Carrie Safford, comes from our Office of the General Counsel to provide legal expertise.
We will oversee two branches, with a total staff of 20 employees. The Environmental Review Branch includes many talented and experienced environmental experts with deep knowledge of the National Environmental Policy Act and its requirements. They will work with contractors from the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, Texas, to develop the environmental impact statement.
Our Communications Branch will lead our public outreach effort. The NRC is committed to engaging the public to the maximum extent possible in this important project, and we will keep you informed every step of the way. We have already set up a dedicated Waste Confidence page on the NRC website (one click from our home page under “Spotlight”), where you will be able to find documents, meeting notices and transcripts, and regular updates on our work. You can also reach us directly by email at WCOutreach@nrc.gov.
This week, we announced in the Federal Register our “scoping” effort for the environmental review. We want the public’s suggestions on what we should examine in the environmental impact statement. To that end, we will hold two public meetings here at NRC headquarters on Wednesday, November 14 to explain the project and hear public comments. Both of these meetings will be webcast, with moderated teleconference lines, so people who cannot come to Rockville can still participate. The second meeting will be held late in the evening to accommodate people in other time zones. We will also conduct two webinars in early December to explain the review process and receive public comments. Finally, you may comment online through the government’s rulemaking website – regulations.gov, under docket number NRC-2012-0246. The comment period ends Wednesday, January 2, 2013.
With our dedicated Waste Confidence Web page, webcasts, webinars, this blog and the NRC’s Twitter feed and YouTube channel, we intend to keep you informed and engaged as we tackle this important project. We are confident that we can meet the September 2014 deadline for the environmental impact statement and waste confidence rule, and we look forward to working with you, our stakeholders, along the way.
Keith I. McConnell Director, Waste Confidence Directorate Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsThere has been some concern about testing being conducted at San Onore Nuclear Generating Station’s Unit 2 reactor, which is currently shut down. On Monday, as part of a plan by Southern California Edison (SCE) to test the plant’s auxiliary feedwater pumps, as well as other equipment, the plant was heated to normal operating temperature of about 535 degrees and normal operating pressure of 2,200 psi. Heat is being supplied to the system by running reactor coolant pumps, not the reactor. The heat forms steam in the steam generators, which is needed to test this equipment. During this testing, the reactor remains shutdown.
The licensee is required to perform this testing at the conclusion of a refueling outage. They expect to remain in this testing condition (Mode 3) for about one week, and then return the plant to cold shutdown conditions (Mode 5). During the extended shutdown of Unit 2, Southern California Edison plugged degraded tubes. As a preventive measure, several hundred additional tubes were plugged and removed from service because of their physical location at the top of the steam generators. This was to prevent further tube to tube wear during potential future operations.
On Sunday, October 21, 2012, craftsmen at the plant identified a small hydrogen leak coming from the hydrogen supply piping system on Unit 2. The craftsmen were checking for leaks by spraying soapy water on piping joints. This is a routine leakage check. A minute amount of bubbles were observed, indicating that a very low amount of hydrogen was leaking at a mechanical piping joint. The piping joint was tightened and the leak was stopped.
Hydrogen is used at electric power plants (not just nuclear power plants) for main electrical generator cooling. At San Onofre, the affected hydrogen piping that transports hydrogen to the generator on the non-nuclear side of the plant is outdoors near the turbine building. The small amount of hydrogen leaking from the mechanical joint did not pose a threat to the public or workers on site. Since it was outdoors, a significant amount of hydrogen at combustible concentrations could not accumulate in one area.
Victor Dricks Senior Public Affairs Officer Region IV
Flooding is one of many natural hazards that U.S. nuclear power plants must withstand in order to safely shut down and protect the public. Well before last year’s accident at Fukushima, the NRC was hard at work ensuring U.S. plants have robust flood protection measures in place, and now we’re focused on having the plants update their flooding analyses.
We’ve devoted significant efforts at two sites – Oconee in South Carolina and Fort Calhoun in Nebraska – to oversee those sites’ work in addressing flooding issues noted by our resident inspectors at the sites. The Fort Calhoun improvements paid off last summer, when the plant safely rode out severe flooding along the Missouri River.
The effort at Oconee, focused on dams upstream of the plant, has been underway for several years. Today, all the information available to the NRC leaves us satisfied that the plant’s owner, Duke, has put appropriate temporary flood-related features in place to ensure the public’s safety in case of flooding at Oconee. We’re monitoring additional work Duke has under way to further enhance Oconee’s permanent flood protection.
The experience at those two plants, however, led us to take a broader look at upstream dams to see if anything else needed to be done. That work was largely completed when Fukushima occurred, and the upstream dam analysis played a role in the NRC requiring every U.S. plant to perform a comprehensive reanalysis of all potential flooding sources. The screening analysis did not evaluate the changes at Oconee or Fort Calhoun; instead it answered the question of whether there were possible improvements at other plants.
The NRC has to keep some of that upstream dam information out of public view for several reasons. For one thing, we must coordinate the use of dam-specific information with our federal partners at the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security. Other plant-specific information in the analysis also falls into security categories that are withheld from public release.
Two NRC staffers, one of whom worked on the analysis, have offered their opinions that more information should have been made available. They submitted their concerns to the NRC’s independent Inspector General, which is one method the staff has to formally disagree with an agency decision. While the IG does its work, the NRC can only comment on the analysis currently available on our website.
Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer
When you’re dealing with a topic as complex as California earthquakes (such as Sunday’s 5.3 quake near King City), it seems as if every answer only generates more questions. That’s the case with a recent NRC analysis of the area near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, on the Pacific coast near San Luis Obispo.
Diablo Canyon’s owner, Pacific Gas & Electric, was working with the U.S. Geological Survey in 2008 when they discovered the “Shoreline Fault,” located just a few hundred yards offshore from the plant. This work stemmed from PG&E’s Long-Term Seismic Program; the company committed to the NRC in 1991 that it would continue the program to study seismic issues and perform periodic seismic reviews of the plant.
In 2011, PG&E submitted a detailed analysis of the Shoreline Fault to the NRC. Both PG&E’s analysis and the NRC’s just-published independent review reached the same conclusion – Shoreline’s shaking potential falls within what the Diablo Canyon reactors are already designed to withstand.
Even with that answer, both the state of California and the NRC have asked PG&E to do more work, although for different reasons.
California Assembly Bill 1632 in 2006 directed the California Energy Commission to assess the vulnerability of the state’s nuclear power plants to seismic hazards. As part of the assessment, PG&E proposed a multi-million dollar study that uses powerful air cannons for 3-D mapping of the offshore area near the plant.
Eighteen air guns would be towed behind a boat and used to emit 250-decibel blasts into the water over a 530-square nautical-mile area. The plan has drawn fire from biologists, environmentalists and fishermen who fear marine life from whales to sea otters and fish will be harmed. PG&E has pointed out that similar seismic surveys have been conducted elsewhere without adversely affecting marine life. PG&E has now decided to delay its seismic testing program until mid-November so it can make some changes to its work plan.
Separately from the state-mandated 3-D mapping, following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan the NRC sent a request for every U.S. nuclear power plant to re-analyze their earthquake hazards. So, in addition to meeting the requirements of the state, PG&E must also re-analyze the earthquake hazards for the NRC.
PG&E is now working with a team of independent experts to determine what should be included in its re-analysis for the NRC. The NRC doesn’t yet know if that group will also recommend the high-energy offshore surveys, which cannot be done without state approval.
If the offshore surveys are done, the NRC expects PG&E will include that information in its earthquake re-analysis. If not, the NRC expects PG&E will nonetheless assemble enough updated information to complete its re-analysis by early 2015. The results of all this work will ensure Diablo Canyon remains ready to safely shut down after an earthquake.
Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer
Over the past two weeks, the NRC has received a number of phone calls and emails from the local community and other concerned members of the public to voice their opinion regarding the proposed restart of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 2. Thank you for expressing your concerns. We value your input and understand how important these issues are. We are continually working to enhance our engagement with the public.
While we cannot respond to each person individually, the NRC would like to assure you that your concerns are being heard and that we are approaching the issue of restarting SONGS very carefully. We are committed to learning what happened at the plant before considering any restart options.
On October 4, the NRC received a letter from Southern California Edison indicating that they have addressed issues raised by the NRC in a Confirmatory Action Letter. At the same time, the NRC also received a proposed action plan that recommends restarting Unit 2 at the San Onofre plant for an initial five-month period at reduced power. This restart would be followed by additional inspection.
The NRC will analyze Southern California Edison’s determination of the causes of the steam generator tube degradation and actions to prevent future degradation before making any decision on the proposed restart plan of Unit 2. The NRC will take as much time as is required to complete its inspection and analysis preceding any decisions about restarting Unit 2. Restart of SONGS will not be permitted until the agency’s thorough review is completed and the facility is safe to operate. The Commission is also considering a petition for hearing and request for a stay of any authorization for restart until the conclusion of the hearing.
The NRC will continue to provide opportunities for the public to be involved and informed. For updates on the San Onofre plant go the NRC web site.
Allison Macfarlane NRC Chairman
