2010-02-09 NRC Meeting on License Renewal Process

There will be two identical meetings-

* 1:30-4:30pm

* 7:00-10:00pm

Both meetings will be preceded by an informal open house beginning one hour prior to each meeting. Members of the public will have the opportunity to talk with NRC Staff. * The License Renewal Application and information on the license renewal process are available on the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html

Why oppose PG&E’s application to renew the license of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant for another 20 years? State Assembly member Sam Blakeslee, who represents San Luis Obispo and serves on the Utilities and Commerce Committee, told the Bay Guardian that a license renewal decision “will possibly be one of the most significant and risky infrastructure decisions we make in our lifetime."

Background:

• The current operating licenses are in effect until 2024 for Unit 1 and 2025 for unit 2, but PG&E is applying to extend operations until 2044 and 2045.

• The license renewal application is premature since the results of many studies requested by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are not complete.

Earthquakes:

• It is contrary to NRC regulations to license a nuclear facility next to an active, major earthquake fault. However, the NRC “grandfathered” the license for Diablo, accepting PG&E’s excuse that it was unaware of the Hosgri Fault, located within 3.5 miles of the plant, when it first invested billions of ratepayer dollars in building the plant. The NRC is prohibited by its own regulations from taking into account corporate profits rather than public safety, but that is exactly what it did.

• The recently-discovered Shoreline Fault, less than one mile offshore of the Diablo site, has not been thoroughly studied yet, but it clearly exacerbates an already precarious situation. The central coast of California is riddled with earthquake faults, and seismic studies to better understand them are on-going. The faults in the area include the Hosgri, Shoreline, Pecho, Olson, San Luis Bay, Crowbar, N40W, Los Osos, San Miguelito, Cambria, West Huasma. Oceano, and Widmer Avenue. • The Diablo Canyon facility includes two nuclear reactors and the storage of all the high-level radioactive wastes generated by those reactors since licensing in1984. Currently, most of the spent fuel (which is much more radioactive than the fuel in the reactors) is stored in over-crowded pools. During an earthquake there is the potential of a loss of coolant crucial to preventing uncontrolled fission or a fire, either of which would release radiation into the air.

Radioactive Waste:

• California law prohibits new plants until/unless the waste issue is resolved. To allow an existing plant to generate radioactive wastes for an additional 20 years would contradict the intent of this law.

• Ross Landsman, NRC inspector for the Midwest region, made the following comments on the Holtec casks of the type being used at Diablo Canyon: "Every time I found something wrong with the Holtec casks, my colleagues in Washington gave them an exemption." And "I remain concerned about the safety of the Holtec Dry Casks. The NRC should stop the production of the casks, but they do not have the chutzpah to do it. This is the kind of thinking that causes space shuttles to hit the ground."

Safety:

• Recent NRC inspection reports on Diablo (August, 2009) indicate that PG&E is not meeting industry standards in its identification and resolutions of problems at Diablo. One recent example is that in October, 2009, it was discovered that for 18 months the Diablo Canyon plant had operated with defective control of some of the valves relied upon to flood the Unit 2 reactor with essential cooling water in the event of a serious accident or sabotage. An investigation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified three violations of NRC regulations as the cause of the problem.

• There are an unacceptable number of human performance problems at Diablo, leading to violations of NRC regulations as well as failures to observe safety requirements. Expensive re-training has not been effective in reducing the number of incidents.

• In the event of a major radiation release, those advised or choosing to evacuate would all have to drive in the direction opposite the wind carrying the radioactive material. Our few available roads are woefully inadequate.

Terrorism:

• MFP is currently pursuing a legal challenge in the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals involving the dry cask storage facility for storing nuclear waste and its vulnerability to terrorist attack, especially from the air. If the court rules in favor of MFP as it did in 2006, the NRC might be ordered to require PG&E to make design changes. [Go to mothersforpeace.org for detailed information.]

• The air space over Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant is NOT a no fly zone.

• Instead of the casks being under berms or concrete and spread out in different locations, they are grouped in clear view from the air or ocean.

• The spent fuel pools are not protected by containment structures, making them vulnerable to terrorist attack.

• The proliferation of fissile material is a constant concern, as these materials have the potential to be used to make weapons if stolen.

Aging and Degradation:

• Diablo was designed in the 1960’s. In the ensuing half century, not only have innumerable fixes been deemed necessary to keep the plant running, but replacement parts have become unavailable.

Uranium Supply:

• Optimistic projections of the availability of uranium fuel supplies show that resource running out in about 2020 – BEFORE the period at stake in the possible Diablo license extensions. [See December 1, 2009 publication of an article by Brian Wang titled "Uranium Supplies are Likely to be Adequate until 2020," available at www.theoildrum.com/]

Cost Concerns:

• Diablo is an out-dated and over-priced plant by any measure. By the time Diablo Canyon was licensed in 1984, it had cost PG&E's ratepayers some $5.5 billion – more than 10 times the original projected cost. Designed in the 1960’s, it has needed constant updating and replacement of defective or worn-out parts. The earthquake bracing for Unit 2 was originally installed in mirror image of the plans and was re-done at huge expense. The rate-payer funds that would be required to keep the plant operating an additional two decades would be better spent on alternative technologies that would create additional jobs instead of nuclear waste.

• The dry casks will have to be relicensed every 20 years and, eventually, the waste will have to be transferred to another cask. This is very expensive since each cask costs about $1 million.

• The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are in the process of determining whether or not continued reliance on nuclear energy is in the best economic interests of the people of California. PG&E’s decision to apply for license extensions 14 and15 years in advance of the expiration of the current licenses raises questions regarding PG&E’s intentions toward the coming CPUC and CEC conclusions.

• PG&E spent $16.8 million on a feasibility study analyzing plant equipment and operation to determine whether to apply for a license extension. The study was paid for by PG&E’s ratepayers but, even though PG&E has filed the application, the results of the study have not been published.

• A new once-through cooling system, to reduce the unacceptable loss of sea life, is projected to cost $3 billion.

• The costs for relicensing have conservatively been estimated at $85 million.

CONCLUSION: The history of Diablo Canyon shows that in terms of safety, security, and economics, it is not in the public interest to add an additional 20 years to the operating life of the two reactors at Diablo Canyon. The only advantage would be to the corporate profits of PG&E. PG&E should, instead, apply its considerable resources toward establishing itself as a leader in the development of renewable sources of energy.

AGENDA

* I. Welcome and Purpose of Meeting, 10 minutes

* II. Overview of License Renewal Review Process, 40 minutes

* III. Question and Answer Period, As Needed * IV. Closing, 5 minutes