ML041350459
| ML041350459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/2004 |
| From: | NRC/OI |
| To: | |
| Masnik M, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1312 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML041390584 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-1398 | |
| Download: ML041350459 (46) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Scoping Meeting RE Browns Ferry Evening Session Docket Number:
50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 Location:
Athens, Alabama Date:
Thursday, April 1, 2004 Work Order No.:
NRC-1398 Pages 1-46 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING EVENING SESSION Pages 1 - 46 Thursday, April 1, 2004 Athens State University Student Center Cafeteria 300 North Beaty Street Athens, AL Evening Session - 7:30 p.m.
2 APPEARANCES:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
CHIP CAMERON JOHN TAPPERT MIKE MASNIK CHUCK WILSON
3 M E E T I N G 1
(7:06 p.m.)
2 MR. CAMERON: Good evening, everyone.
3 My name is Chip Cameron. Im the Special 4
Counsel for Public Liaison, at the Nuclear Regulatory 5
Commission. I would like to welcome you to the NRCs 6
public meeting tonight.
7 Our subject tonight is the Environmental Review 8
that the NRC is going to conduct on a application that we 9
received from the Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA, to 10 renew the operating licenses for the Browns Ferry Nuclear 11 Power Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3.
12 Ill be serving as your facilitator for tonight 13 to try to help all of you have a productive meeting.
14 Our format tonight is going to be a two-part 15 format for the meeting. The first part is, were going to 16 have some brief NRC presentations to give you some 17 background information on the NRCs process to review a 18 license renewal application, such as the one that we 19 received from TVA, and answer any questions that you have 20 about the license renewal process. And particularly were 21 going to be telling you about the Environmental Review 22 portion of that process.
23 Second part of the meeting is going to give you 24 an opportunity to tell us any recommendations, advise, 25
4 suggestions, perspectives on license renewal, again on the 1
Environmental Review process or broader issues.
2 We are taking written comments on these issues, 3
but anything you say here tonight is going to count as 4
much as written comment.
5 We are transcribing the meeting. Mr. Steve 6
Anderson, over here, is our stenographer. That will be a 7
written record of the meeting tonight. It will be 8
available to anybody who wants a copy of the transcript.
9 I think probably we could just go to the 10 introduction of our speakers from the NRC, tonight. We 11 have Mr. John Tappert right here. John is the Chief of 12 the Environmental Section in our Office of Nuclear Reactor 13 Regulation.
14 John and his staff oversee the preparation of 15 any environmental reviews that the NRC do for reactor 16 issues, be it a license renewal application or an early 17 site permit. John has been with the agency for about 14 18 years. He was a resident inspector for the NRC. He has a 19 Bachelors degree from Virginia Tech in Aerospace and Ocean 20 Engineering. A Masters Degree in Environmental 21 Engineering from Johns Hopkins University. And John is 22 going to provide you a welcome and a overview perspective 23 on license renewal.
24 Then were going to go to the substance of the 25
5 license renewal process in the environmental review.
1 Dr. Michael Masnik is here. Hes the Senior Project 2
Manager for the Environmental Review on this Browns Ferry 3
license application. He is one of Johns staff. Mike has 4
been with the agency for 30 years. He has a Bachelors 5
degree in Biology from Cornell. And also not just a 6
Masters but a PhD in Ichthyology from Virginia Tech.
7 Ichthyology being the study of fishes. Is that right?
8 Mikes dissertation, PhD dissertation was on the 9
fishes of the Clinch River, a tributary of the Tennessee 10 River.
11 I would just thank you for being here with us 12 tonight. And were interested in hearing what you have to 13 say and answering any questions that you have about 14 license renewal.
15 With that, John.
16 MR. TAPPERT: Thank you, Chip.
17 Good evening everyone and welcome. Welcome back 18 for those returning from our matinee meeting this 19 afternoon.
20 My name is John Tappert. On behalf on the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Id like to thank you for 22 coming out here tonight and participating in this process.
23 I hope that you will find the information that 24 we share with you tonight to be helpful. I look forward 25
6 to receiving your comments both tonight and in the future.
1 Now Id like to start off our presentations 2
tonight by briefly going over the purposes and agenda of 3
tonights meeting.
4 Now we're going to start off with a brief over 5
view of the entire license renewal process. Now this 6
includes both a safety review, as well as an environmental 7
review, which will the principle focus of tonights 8
meeting.
9 Then we'll give you some additional information 10 about that environmental review. Which will access the 11 impacts associated with extending the operating licenses 12 of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plants Units 1, 2 and 3 13 for an additional twenty years.
14 Then we'll give you some more information about 15 our schedule and how you can submit comments in the 16 future.
17 Then we get to the real heart of tonights 18 meeting, which is to receive any comments that you may 19 have tonight.
20 By way of background, the Atomic Energy Act 21 gives the intercede the authority to issue operating 22 licenses to commercial nuclear power plants for a period 23 of 40 years. For the Browns Ferry Units, 1, 2, and 3, 24 those operating licenses will expire in 2013, 14 and 16, 25
7 respectively. Our regulations also make provisions for 1
extending those operating licenses for an additional 20 2
years, as part of a license renewal program. And TVA has 3
requested license renewal for all three units.
4 Now as part of that review, the NRC will develop an 5
Environmental Impact Statement. And were very early in 6
that process right now, in what we call scoping. Where we 7
seek to identify those issues which will require the 8
greatest focus during our review. After we make our 9
preliminary determinations, we will publish a draft 10 Environmental Impact Statement, next December. Then we 11 will hold another public meeting here to receive any 12 comments that you may have on that draft.
13 But again, the principle purpose of tonight meeting 14 is to receive any comments that you have on scoping. With 15 that Id like to ask Mike to give us some more information 16 about the review.
17 MR. MASNIK: Thank you, John.
18 I would also like to welcome each of you here 19 tonight.
20 Once again, my name is Michael Masnik. Im the 21 Senior Environmental Project Manager for the Environmental 22 Review of Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVAs application 23 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant license renewal.
24 On January 6th, 2004 the NRC staff received an 25
8 application, from TVA. To renew the operating licenses 1
for Browns Ferrys 1, 2 and 3.
2 Our License Renewal Review process has four 3
components: a safety review, environmental review, plant 4
inspections, and a final safety review by the NRCs 5
independent oversight body, the Advisory Committee on 6
Reactor Safeguards.
7 Essentially, the NRCs efforts result in two 8
parallel reviews: a safety review, indicated in the upper 9
portion of this slide, and a environmental review, thats 10 given in the lower portion of this slide. This figure 11 summarizes both the safety and environmental reviews and 12 highlights opportunities for public involvement.
13 The safety review entails a detailed review of 14 the licensees application by headquarters, safety 15 experts, on-site inspections by both our headquarters and 16 regional staff, and a final review by independent over 17 site organization within the NRC.
18 The safety review is focused on the review of 19 the applicants programs to identify and manage what we 20 call passive, long-lived systems structures and 21 components. These programs are the focus of the license 22 renewal because our existing regulatory processes for 23 operating nuclear power plants ensure, on an on-going 24 basis, that active systems, structures and components are 25
9 inspected, maintained, and replaced, as needed, throughout 1
the operating life of the plant. Also, existing programs 2
verify that programs such as the emergency planning and 3
security remain acceptable.
4 The review of the application results in the NRC 5
staff publishing a license renewal safety evaluation 6
report. That report, along with the results of the safety 7
inspections, are forwarded to the Advisory Committee on 8
Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS, the independent oversight 9
board, I spoke of earlier.
10 The ACRS reviews the safety evaluation report, 11 the inspection reports, and makes a recommendation to the 12 Commission on the licensees application.
13 While the safety review and inspection are 14 occurring, the NRC staff is also conducting the 15 environmental review.
16 The NRC staff summarizes its findings on 17 environmental issues first in a draft Environmental Impact 18 Statement, and then, after receiving public comment, a 19 final Environmental Impact Statement.
20 During preparation of the final Environmental 21 Impact Statement there are several opportunities for 22 public involvement. This public meeting this evening is 23 one of them.
24 At the end of all this activity, the final 25
10 Safety Evaluation Report, the final Environmental Impact 1
Statement, and the results of the NRC staffs inspections, 2
and the advisory committees recommendations will be used 3
by the Commission in making a final determination on 4
whether of not to renew the licenses for Browns Ferry.
5 Opportunities for public involvement in this 6
process are indicated by the splash marks on this diagram.
7 The first opportunity for public involvement is the 8
opportunity to file a petition to request a hearing on the 9
renewed application. That opportunity began in early 10 March and will close in early May. The process requires 11 that a petition be submitted to the NRC to hold hearings 12 on issues that would be litigated by a panel of 13 administrative judges.
14 The next opportunity for public involvement is 15 today's meeting. Which is part of the environmental 16 scoping process. In this scoping process we determine the 17 issues that we need to be address in our environmental 18 review.
19 The next opportunity for public involvement will 20 be when we request comments on our draft Environmental 21 Impact Statement. Additionally, oral and written 22 statements can be provided during the Advisory Committee 23 on Reactor Safeguards meeting for this facility.
24 In addition to these opportunities throughout 25
11 the process, members of the public, who have nuclear 1
safety concerns, can raise those issues during meetings 2
open to the public that the NRC will hold to discuss the 3
review of the Browns Ferry application.
4 Meetings on particular technical issues are 5
usually held at NRC headquarters, outside Washington.
6 However, some technical meetings and meetings to summarize 7
the results of the on sight inspections are typically held 8
near the plant site, and may be attended by members of the 9
public.
10 Ill now provide a little more detail regarding 11 our environmental review process, which is the subject of 12 todays meeting. The National Environmental Policy Act, 13 or, as we refer to it, NEPA is a congressional mandate, 14 enacted in 1969, which requires all federal agencies to 15 use a systemic approach in considering environmental 16 impacts, during certain decision making proceedings.
17 The law functions as a disclosure tool that 18 seeks public involvement. It mandates a process in which 19 the information is gathered to enable the federal agencies 20 to make informed decisions. And then as part of the 21 process, we document that information, make it all 22 publicly available, and invite the public to participate 23 in its evaluation.
24 The NEPA process for license renewal results in 25
12 Environmental Impact Statements, also called an EIS, which 1
describes the results of the detailed review that we do.
2 Our review considers environmental impacts of alternatives 3
to the purposed action as well. Including what we call 4
the no-action alternative, which would be simply not to 5
approve the request.
6 We also look at impacts of constructing and 7
operating alternative power generating facilities. Today 8
were in the process of gathering information we need to 9
prepare our Supplemental EIS. In particular at this stage 10 were performing what we call "scoping."
11 The NRC is having this meeting as part of our 12 scoping process for the purpose of providing you and other 13 governmental agencies with the opportunity to provide us 14 with information that you believe may have some bearing on 15 the environmental evaluation.
16 Again, in particular, were looking for 17 information that may not be readily available or concerns 18 that people might have that have not been addressed by the 19 TVA in their application.
20 This next slide describes the objective of our 21 environmental review, as it is stated in our regulations.
22 To paraphrase, were trying to determine whether or not 23 renewing the Browns Ferry license for an additional 20 24 years is acceptable from an environmental stand point.
25
13 I should emphasize that if we conclude that the 1
license renewal is acceptable from an environmental 2
prospective, all that means is that it would be 3
environmentally acceptable for TVA to operate Browns Ferry 4
for an additional 20 years.
5 The NRC does not determine whether they actually 6
operate for those additional 20 years. That decision is 7
made by TVA.
8 It is possible that the utility could determine 9
that it is not economically feasible to continue 10 operating, even though it may be environmentally 11 acceptable.
12 This environmental review may seem strikingly 13 familiar to some of you. Im sure some of you are asking:
14 Didnt we already do this? And didnt we do it recently?
15 The answer to both questions is yes and no.
16 The Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal 17 entity and is required to comply with the National 18 Environmental Policy Act, just like the NRC.
19 In February of 2001 TVA began its NEPA process 20 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, to 21 determine whether to pursue license renewal. This effort 22 culminated in publication of TVAs EIS, entitled, "Final 23 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Operating 24 License Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 25
14 Athens, Alabama." And it was dated March of 2002.
1 So why then is the NRC preparing another EIS for 2
a license renewal at the same plant? Well, there are a 3
couple of reasons. The first, and probably the most 4
important is a legal one. TVA is authorized by congress 5
to construct and operate power plants. Therefore its 6
actions to generate electricity are just like any other 7
private power producer. Even though it is a federal 8
agency, it cannot issue itself a license to operate a 9
nuclear power plant.
10 The NRC is a regulatory agency charged with 11 insuring that nuclear material can be used, while 12 protecting public health and safety.
13 The NRC does not operate nuclear power plants; 14 however, it does license them.
15 As a regulatory agency the NRC is required to 16 conduct an independent assessment of potential impacts 17 associated with renewing power reactor licenses for an 18 additional 20 years of operation.
19 The three units at Browns Ferry are much like 20 those of the other 101 units regulated by the NCR else 21 where in the United States.
22 Secondly, the NRC staffs environmental 23 evaluation is expected to be contemporaneous with the 24 Commissions decision either grant or reject TVAs license 25
15 renewal application. TVAs Environmental Review is 1
already several years old. So that the staff will 2
consider whether there is new and significant information 3
available that would affect its review.
4 In the end TVAs NEPA obligations are different 5
from the NRCs. Nevertheless, the NRC and its 6
predecessor, The Atomic Energy Commission, recognizes the 7
unique standing of TVA as a federal agency, and has 8
permitted to TVA to submit its EIS in partial fulfillment 9
of the requirements to submit an environmental report.
10 Lets get back to NRCs Environmental Review 11 process. This next slide gives a little more detail on 12 the environmental portion of the review process, including 13 some dates for the milestones in the process.
14 TVAs application was received on January 6th, 15 of this year. On March 10th of this year we issued a 16 notice of our intent to perform scoping, which is what 17 were doing now, and our intent to develop a supplemental 18 Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed action.
19 Were currently in a data gathering phase to 20 determine the environmental impacts of renewing license.
21 After we collect the data, we will develop a draft 22 Environmental Impact Statement, which we expect to issue 23 for public comment in December of this year.
24 Well also come back early next year for another 25
16 public meeting to talk about the results of our review and 1
to provide an opportunity for the public to provide 2
comments that they may have on our draft Environmental 3
Impact Statement.
4 After receiving and evaluating any comments, we 5
will then develop the final Environmental Impact 6
Statement, which we hope to issue in July of next year.
7 Were gathering information for our evaluation 8
from a number of different sources. This is a partial 9
list of sources of data for our review. This week we were 10 at the site to review TVAs procedures for managing 11 environmental impacts and to observe first hand, how the 12 plant interacts with the surrounding environment.
13 We are also meeting with Federal, State and 14 local government officials and we will consider all 15 comments received from the public during this comment 16 period.
17 This slide shows the range of environmental 18 topics our team is reviewing. Impacts considered include 19 such things as air quality, water quality, the effects on 20 plants and wildlife. We also look at what we call socio-21 economics, or how the plant affects peoples lives 22 economically in the surrounding communities.
23 We have assembled a team of NRC staff and 24 experts from the national labs, with backgrounds in these 25
17 technical and scientifically disciplines in order to 1
perform our environmental reviews. Some of whom are with 2
us tonight.
3 To summarize a few key dates, our schedule is to 4
complete the scoping process by May 9th, when the public 5
comment period ends. After that, as indicated, we plan to 6
issue a draft Environmental Impact Statement in December 7
of this year, and to issue a final Impact Statement in 8
July of next year.
9 If youd like to receive a copy of the draft, 10 and final Environmental Impact Statements, please fill out 11 a card with Tomeka up at the registration desk.
12 This slide provides contact information in case 13 you have additional questions after you leave the meeting 14 today.
15 Im the designated point of contact within the 16 NRC for the environmental portion of the license renewal 17 review.
18 Although youre welcome to contact me with any 19 questions, if you have comments and wish to have them 20 addressed in our review, they must be provided in writing 21 or, as Chip has indicated, in this meeting, where they 22 will be transcribed and will be the equivalent of a 23 written comment.
24 Arrangements have been made for the documents 25
18 associated with the environmental review to be locally 1
available. The Athens Limestone Public Library, in 2
Athens, Alabama has been kind enough to make some shelf 3
space available for documents related to the environmental 4
review. Also, documents are available through our on-line 5
document management system, which is a accessible through 6
our internet home page, which is indicated right down 7
here.
8 After this meeting comments can be submitted by 9
mail, in person, if you happen to be in the Rockville, 10 Maryland area, or by e-mail at the address shown here.
11 Weve established a web sight that -- actually an e-mail 12 address that you can e-mail your comments directly to the 13 NRC. I receive them in my office.
14 That concludes our formal presentation on the 15 environmental review process. In closing Id like to 16 thank everyone for attending, and for your attention 17 during the presentation. We look forward to any comments 18 you might have.
19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mike and thanks, John.
20 Do we have questions on license renewal process, 21 any aspects of it?
22 Okay. Do you have a question? Do you have any 23 questions about anything? Do you want to ask any? For 24 questions and then were going to go to people for more 25
19 formal comment. But if there is anything that youd like 1
to explore further, further information.
2 MS. MUSE: Im Nancy Muse from Florence, 3
Alabama. I havent been to an NRC meeting like this since 4
the 80s. So Im a little rusty. I wanted to know what 5
the proposed dates were for decommissioning the units, and 6
when they were originally built.
7 MR. CAMERON: Mike.
8 MR. MASNIK: I dont believe that the licensee 9
had any proposed dates for decommissioning. But when we 10 issue a license for a nuclear power plant, its for a 40 11 year period, the initial license period.
12 So, basically, if you assume that the license 13 runs for 40 years, it would be at the conclusion of the 14 license which would be 2013, 2014, and 2016. However, the 15 licensee has determined that they want to pursue a license 16 renewal for an additional 20 years. So, tack on 20 years 17 to those dates and that would then be the potential 18 decommissioning date.
19 MR. CAMERON: Does that answer that question for 20 you?
21 MS. MUSE: I wondered if the dates given, that 22 you just mentioned were the original dates given for the 23 life of the plant?
24 MR. MASNIK: Yes.
25
20 MR. CAMERON: When does the license for these 1
plants expire? Those are the dates; right?
2 MR. MASNIK: When the license is issued, it 3
actually has a specific date at the bottom of the license.
4 And those are the dates that were on the license.
5 MR. CAMERON: Okay, anything else, Nancy?
6 MS. MUSE: I dont tonight, if youre going to 7
explain the technology that would enable these plants to 8
be considered safe for an additional 20 years.
9 Of course, I dont claim that I would understand 10 everything about the technology, but I wondered are we 11 going to have an overview, to see why we should believe 12 its okay for them to be extended another 20 years.
13 MR. CAMERON: Mike, I dont know if this is your 14 area, or whether John or perhaps Jimi can tell us.
15 Perhaps just a little bit more about the types of aging 16 issues that we look at. And also, what types of actions a 17 licensee might take to prepare for renewal in terms of not 18 necessarily adding new technology but replacing 19 components.
20 I dont think we can go in to a lot of detail on 21 that, but perhaps we could give Nancy a little bit of an 22 idea on those issues.
23 Jimi, do you feel comfortable doing that? Okay.
24 Jimi is the project manager on the safety side of the 25
21 evaluation as opposed to the environmental side. Its Mr.
1 Jimi Yerokun.
2 MR. YEROKUN: Thank you. Let me try to explain 3
that question. The process of reviewing the application 4
for renewal takes a period of over two years. One of the 5
key things that we do is, the applicant identifies the 6
structures of the plant that need to be subject to aging 7
management reviews. Because thats the ones that are 8
focused on as to what the aging effects on there 9
components and structures, and how the applicant justifies 10 that those conponents and structures, based on those aging 11 effects will be able to operate for under 20 years.
12 So its a process of trying to identify which 13 equipment or components need to be closely looked at and 14 analyzed for the effects of aging.
15 The bottom line is trying to justify that, for 16 an additional 20 years, those components and structures 17 will, in fact, support the plants.
18 I said that it was simple, but its a tedious 19 process of really trying to focus on what are those 20 components and structures.
21 You have to have a way to manage those 22 structures and components so thats the, I guess, a short 23 response to that. I hope that does it.
24 MR. CAMERON: All right. Thanks Jimi.
25
22 Did that give a little bit of an idea of the 1
types of things that are examined, and I guess if 2
something needs to be replaced -- In other words, we look 3
at the structure systems and components that may be 4
vulnerable from an aging point of view; do analysis on 5
those. And if theres anything questionable, Jimi, we 6
require the licensee to do something about that? Is that 7
correct?
8 MR. YEROKUN: Yes, I believe what we do is 9
ultimately verify that the analysis the licensee has in 10 place to assure that the aging effects would be acceptable 11 for the additional 20 years is accurate. If there is 12 discrepancies in those reviews, we ask for clarifications, 13 or for supplemental analysis that shows that no real 14 discrepancies remain, bottom line is, before the license 15 renewal is granted, all those discrepancies that exist 16 will have to have been clarified. So that we have 17 adequate assurance that, in fact, there is no additional 18 aging effects that will impact the confidence of 19 structures for another 20 years.
20 MS. MUSE: Who are the inspectors that look into 21 the different components that may be vulnerable to aging?
22 And are those reports made public?
23 MR. CAMERON: Good question. First of all, let 24 me introduce our resident inspectors, who are at the plant 25
23 to make sure that NRC regulations are complied with. They 1
live here in the community.
2 And then if I could get -- I dont know if 3
either one of them want to address this special 4
inspections, but if someone could talk about the 5
inspection component that we do.
6 But let me introduce these guys first. This is 7
Bob Holbrook, right here, and Bob Monk. They are our 8
resident inspectors.
9 Bob, do you want to say anything in response to 10 that?
11 MR. HOLBROOK: Hi, Im Bob Holbrook. Im a 12 Senior Resident Inspector at Browns Ferry for the 13 operating units. I live in Decatur.
14 We inspect the plant on an on-going basis 15 everyday. Theres four of us assigned at the plant. We 16 do our routine inspection thats laid out from the 17 headquarters in Washington.
18 For the license renewal inspections, and the 19 aging inspections, we have special inspectors that come 20 from Atlanta, in the office in Atlanta, and from 21 headquarters. And they have several inspections scheduled 22 and there will be teams of inspectors, or individual 23 inspectors that will come over at particular times, on a 24 regular scheduled basis and look at these scheduled 25
24 inspections that we have.
1 Theyll pretty much look at everything in the 2
plant that has to be inspected and provide feedback to the 3
public. Those reports are available to the public on the 4
NRC web page. So any of you that gets on the internet, 5
can take a look at those and read them and see what the 6
inspectors find.
7 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Bob.
8 Jimi, do you want to add? Okay.
9 Lets go to this gentleman here. Yes sir, and 10 please introduce yourself.
11 MR. NORTH: Hi, my name is Jeff North. I am a 12 resident of Huntsville. Ive got three quick questions 13 for you. I was talking with the TVA gentleman before the 14 formal meeting started. I asked why a 20 year extension?
15 And they said thats easy, thats what the law provides 16 for us, not 10, not 30.
17 MR. CAMERON: First question, why 20?
18 Barry, this is Barry Zalcman, an NRC staff.
19 Hes an expert on 20 years.
20 MR. ZALCMAN: When the Commission provided 21 direction to the staff, one of the underlying basis of why 22 40 was one of the questions that were raised. The why 40 23 was really tied to economic factors, and to trust issues.
24 They were not design issues.
25
25 Use of nuclear material was a new technology, if 1
you go back into the 50s and 60s and early 70s. We 2
really hadnt had much experience, but the designs that 3
had been put in place were very robust designs.
4 Performance of these facilities has been, we 5
think, safe. But its even been improving over the past 6
several decades. Thats a good thing but the reality is 7
equipment ages.
8 Now the 40 year period was established 9
previously as a good benchmark, a good design mark for 10 engineering applications.
11 The 20 year mark is just some reasonable time 12 frame that we believed could be used as a basis to look at 13 aging effects.
14 As a basis to look at extended operation we 15 dont look at the economic factors associated with whether 16 or a not a licensee would pursue license renewal. Thats 17 a business decision that they have to make.
18 Our focus is on safety, our focus is on 19 security, our focus is on environmental issues.
20 Now the 20 year period was a reasonable time 21 frame. And it also preconditions that you have to have 22 some reasonable experience to understand aging at the 23 facility. So no licensee can come in for license renewal 24 under the regulations, absent the request for an 25
26 exemption, without some experience in this case. Its 1
also 20 years of experience.
2 So at some point energy planning decision makers 3
need to make some forecast of what their needs are going 4
to be over time. A planning horizon of 20 years is 5
reasonable. The continued operation of 20 was a good 6
guidance. It was something that we had circulated as part 7
of a rule making effort, guidance from the commission.
8 But then we had shared it with the public, is that a 9
reasonable time frame.
10 One obvious question that would lead from that 11 is: are we just renewing only for 20 years, or can there 12 be continued renewals thereafter?
13 Just as any equipment ages over time, there will 14 be a time when some piece of equipment is obsolete. And 15 it makes no economic sense to use it, or to try to operate 16 that.
17 But if an applicant sought not only the renewal 18 after gaining a 20 year renewal, another 20 years, then 19 they still have to meet that safety standard.
20 Our object as a regulators to ensure that 21 facility, with reasonable assurance can provide adequate 22 protection to the public, protect the environment, common 23 defense and security. So there we needed to set some time 24 frame; we did it in the public setting so the public could 25
27 weigh in. Theres no magic with 40 years, so its no 1
magic with 20 years. But they presented reasonable time 2
frames for decision makers, business planners to make some 3
reason judgements.
4 Then we, in looking design analysis, can use 5
some time frame set to look at whether or not performance, 6
whether or not support information is there, to be able to 7
judge and understand aging effects.
8 So theres no magic. It was a reasonable time 9
frame.
10 Its a very good question. We can go back into 11 the history and look at the rule making and exchange of 12 ideas during the setting up of the rule making process.
13 We have a rule for license renewal. I dont know that 14 weve used our acronyms but its in the code of federal 15 regulations. Title 10 is energy, and our seize 16 regulations are in Title 10, and for license renewal its 17 part 54.
18 But you can go back in the history, if its 19 really of interest of you. Youll find out that theres 20 no magic. But it was reasonable and it was a meaningful 21 time frame that engineers could use in their evaluations.
22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Barry. Very helpful.
23 Do you have another question, sir?
24 MR. NORTH: I guess, you know the aging.
25
28 Everyone today would probably look at the Davis -- I dont 1
know how to say it -- Bessie as a -- well, an aging 2
problem that might occur in a plant.
3 I guess I have one quick specific question to 4
our inspectors is, I didnt see an inspection report where 5
that issue for the Browns Ferry Plant on the web site.
6 Was that because its not subject to that problem? Or I 7
wasnt looking in the right spot?
8 MR. CAMERON: Before we go to see whether our 9
residents have anything on that, can someone just give us 10 an overview on the Davis-Bessie issue. Whether it was 11 actually -- whether its properly characterized as aging 12 issue and what the agency did in response to that that 13 might have required all plants including Browns Ferry to 14 do something and then see if -- Bob Holbrook or Bob Monk 15 want to chime in on it?
16 John, do you want talk to this, please?
17 MR. TAPPERT: For those of you who arent aware, 18 Davis-Bessie is a nuclear power plant in Ohio. About two 19 years ago it was discovered that there was a severe 20 corrosion problem on the upper head of the vessel. Thats 21 the pressure vessel that keeps the nuclear fuel inside.
22 Essentially what had happened was boric acid, which is 23 used for controlling reactivity in the reactor, had caused 24 corrosion on the head of the vessel and eaten through 25
29 several inches of low carbon steel, leaving a very small, 1
stainless steel liner as the only pressure boundary.
2 So that was very, very serious event in the 3
nuclear industry. Probably the most serious event in the 4
last 10 years.
5 The agency has done a number of things to 6
address that on a generic basis. Weve issued what we 7
call bulletins, or things that go out to the plant to 8
require additional inspections and programs and things 9
like that.
10 To my knowledge this is essentially a 11 pressurized water reactor problem, so I dont know that 12 specific actions were targeted at the boiling water 13 reactors such as Browns Ferry.
14 Inspectors can help me out on that if they can.
15 But that may be why you havent seen anything 16 unique to Browns Ferry.
17 MR. CAMERON: Bob Monk, do you want to add 18 anything on that? This is Rob Monk.
19 MR. MONK: As was mention this, Browns Ferry is 20 a boiling water reactor. One of the major differences --
21 one it doesnt have boric acid. So you dont have the 22 accelerated corrosion mechanism there.
23 Secondly, the configuration of the head doesnt 24 have all these penetrations that a pressurized water 25
30 reactor has due to the control rod drive configuration.
1 So its very different design.
2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
3 And one more? Thats fine. Were here for you 4
tonight, anything that we can provide, well do so.
5 MR. NORTH: I know that in aging issues for 6
airplanes and things like that theres the concept of the 7
fleet leader or something that has been operating the 8
longest, as being an indicator of what problems other 9
members of the fleet will have.
10 I was wondering if anyone here can tell me if 11 there are reactors of the same design as Units 1, 2 and 3 12 that are substantially older and could be considered a 13 fleet leader for the purpose of aging.
14 In other words, are 1, 2, and 3 the oldest of 15 their design or are they somewhere in the middle, or are 16 they pretty much unique?
17 MR. CAMERON: So theres a factual question 18 about the age of the Browns Ferry plants as compared to 19 other plants. Then there is the issue of the concept of 20 the fleet leader and whether we use anything similar to 21 try to help us look at aging issues.
22 Did you want to respond to the one specific 23 question, or both of them.
24 MR. BURZYNSKI: Yes.
25
31 MR. CAMERON: Please introduce yourself to us.
1 MR. BURZYNSKI: My name is Mark Burzynski and I 2
work for TVA.
3 On the question of fleet leaders, there are 4
older boiling water reactors than Browns Ferry that have 5
gone through the license renewal process and have more 6
operating time. And theres a design -- but they are an 7
earlier version design. But theres also a very similar 8
sister design at Peach Bottom that has gone through the 9
license renewal process. So Browns Ferry is not the first 10 of its same design. So weve had some experience at what 11 were the important issues to look at that helped us in our 12 review and evaluation in the information that we put in 13 the application.
14 MR. CAMERON: Thats great. Thank you for that.
15 So that the experience of some of these other 16 plants have been folded in by varies applicants for 17 license renewal into their subsequent applications.
18 John, anybody from the NRC want to say something 19 in regard to that? John, John Tappert.
20 MR. TAPPERT: There are older boiling water 21 reactors out there, as was mentioned. The vintage of this 22 plant was kind of during the nuclear hay-day. There s a 23 number of reactors in the country that were built in the 24 early mid 70s. So they have a lot of company that they 25
32 can share experience with. As far as --
1 MR. NORTH: None are say 10 years older?
2 MR. TAPPERT: The only thing thats coming to 3
mind, I think we had some license in 69, within five 4
years essentially. Fleet leaders, there are programs, 5
some of the things that we were looking at the vessel 6
heads, for instance. Theyre looking at who are the most 7
suspectable plant and some of the things you look at are 8
age, temperatures of operation. So those sort of factors 9
are looked at when youre trying to identify who -- where 10 do you expect to see some sort of determination, or those 11 sort of issues of that nature emerging.
12 So, where? I havent really, I dont know that 13 we use that term so much, but that concept of course is 14 alive.
15 MR. MASNIK: John, you might mention about the 16 owners groups.
17 MR. TAPPERT: The owners groups have their own 18 initiatives in the boiling water reactors. There is a 19 vessel internals project, that addressed some cracking 20 issues resulting from the way these things are designed.
21 Theres a structure called a shroud that surrounds the 22 reactor core. There were some cracking issues on that.
23 But a number initiatives there have been taken 24 with the owners group and with the agency to try and 25
33 address those things, too.
1 So thats another mechanism thats used to share 2
information for like vintage plants and similar 3
technologies. Do you want to add anything to that line, 4
Mike?
5 MR. MASNIK: And of course, just operating 6
experience over time.
7 MR. CAMERON: Great. I think that the answers 8
to the last question probably provide some more 9
information on the issue that you brought up, Nancy.
10 And while were here, do you have any other 11 questions that you want to ask at this point?
12 MS. MUSE: I wont do that to you.
13 MR. CAMERON: If you do have, you know anything 14 you need to know just please ask it.
15 Sir, are you finished?
16 MR. NORTH: I guess.
17 MR. CAMERON: Lets hear from -- lets go to the 18 public comment part of the meeting. Certainly we can go 19 back to questions. Were going to hear from Mr. Chuck 20 Wilson, who is right here. Chuck is the project manager 21 for TVA on the Environmental Review for this license 22 renewal application. Hes going to provide you with some 23 information that may provide some more clarity on the 24 relationship between the TVA Environmental Review process 25
34 and what the NRC is doing.
1 Chuck.
2 MR. WILSON: Ive got a few slides. Ill bring 3
that up.
4 Yeah, as Chip said, Im Chuck Wilson. Im TVAs 5
Project Manager for the Browns Ferry License Renewal 6
Environmental Reviews, plural, 7
Next slide.
8 Just to refresh or go back to square one. What 9
TVA is trying to do here is really to renew the Browns 10 Ferry Unit operating licenses. To continue operations for 11 20 years past the current expiration dates.
12 You can see up there, the current expiration 13 dates of the licenses if the are not renewed. And what 14 they would be if they are renewed for another 20 years.
15 Next slide.
16 Youll be hearing some of this again, but I 17 think its worth hearing again.
18 Being a Federal agency, TVA has to comply with 19 NEPA. In general, the more sufficient a proposed project 20 is to TVA, the more extensive its environmental review 21 will be, including the degree of public involvement.
22 TVA completed a supplemental Environmental 23 Impact Statement for Browns Ferry license renewal and Unit 24 1 recovery, in March of 2002. Thats this thing right 25
35 here and its available for anybody to look at after the 1
meeting. Its on our web site.
2 Next slide.
3 These were the five public comment opportunities 4
for the Browns Ferry Supplemental EIS, or part of that 5
process. So it did get very extensive public review.
6 Next slide.
7 These are some of the environmental subjects 8
addressed in the Browns Ferry license renewal supplemental 9
EIS. You can see that they are fairly extensive. It 10 involved every issue that we could reasonably contemplate.
11 Next slide.
12 For the Browns Ferry license renewal 13 supplemental EIS, TVA concluded the following: there were 14 no significant environmental impacts, and restarting Unit 15 1, and continuing operation of all three units allows 16 power production without green house gases. Which is 17 consistent with TVAs clean air initiatives.
18 Plus, it maximizes use of existing assets and 19 avoids the impacts of new site construction, which is very 20 important financially to the ratepayers and consumers of 21 the valley.
22 Also, as a commitment that came out of the 23 reviews, TVA is confirming the expected levels of fish 24 impingement and entrainment associated with increased 25
36 intake flows after Unit 1 is recovered and restarted.
1 Next slide.
2 Finally, to support the NRCs NEPA review 3
process, TVA has updated and repackaged the information 4
contained in that supplemental EIS into an environmental 5
report. We did following NRC guidance.
6 The NRC is going to use that environmental 7
report data in compiling their own supplemental EIS. This 8
is also available if anybody wants to inspect it, a big 9
thick document.
10 That concludes my remarks, thank you.
11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Chuck.
12 Nancy, were going to hear from you next. Do 13 you want to come up and talk to us or do you want --
14 MS. MUSE: Is this a comment?
15 MR. CAMERON: Yeah, did you have some comments 16 that you wanted to give us tonight?
17 MS. MUSE: Sure.
18 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to come up there or do 19 you want to speak from here?
20 MS. MUSE: My comments are not down on paper, so 21 bear with me. Im basically concerned about the 22 transportation of the waste and current status of the on-23 site storage of nuclear waste. Especially after all the 24 terrorism activities.
25
37 Some folks, a long time ago suspected that 1
nuclear plants and their materials would be primary 2
targets of terrorist. Im wondering how is that being 3
handled now? How is this transportation issue going to be 4
addressed in the new age that were living in?
5 Im also concerned about the workers. I dont 6
know if this still occurs but that workers at Browns Ferry 7
have low level radioactive waste on the clothing that they 8
wear at the plant. I dont know how thats being handled 9
now. Im concerned about that.
10 Do they still have to throw away their boots 11 every time they wear them or do they wear them home? That 12 was a few years ago in the 80s that the subject that was 13 discussed and I havent heard that issue discussed lately.
14 I dont understand the terminology impingement 15 and entrainment. I dont know how to comment on that 16 without understanding what it is.
17 Im also concerned about the level of 18 radioactive substances that are effluent. If and what 19 they are, and where can we get that information? Is that 20 on the web site of the NRC? Radio activity that is 21 released into the environment in any way.
22 MR. CAMERON: Nancy, has just given us a number 23 of concerns. I think that we can address them and should 24 address them now since we have time.
25
38 Mike, Id like to start with the last two which 1
seem to fall in your area. Can you just give us a simple 2
explanation of impingement and entrainment? Then can you 3
perhaps repeat the information on the emissions into the 4
water.
5 MR. MASNIK: Sure. Mike Masnik. Impingement 6
and entrainment are two processes that refer to impacts 7
associated with operation of the plant at the intake 8
structure of the plant. The plant uses large quantities 9
of water to cool the condenser -- that pass through the 10 condenser to cool the plant. That water is brought in 11 from the river, in a structure called an intake structure.
12 That water has to be fairly clean, in the sense that cant 13 have large objects and stuff in it. So there is a series 14 of screens in front of the intake, which screen out debris 15 and in some cases fish.
16 When a fish is overwhelmed by the flow, it will 17 actually be impinged or be pulled on to the screens of the 18 plant. So thats called impingement.
19 Now when fish are very small, or shellfish, or 20 larva or there are other small organisms, a little bit 21 smaller than about three eights of an inch, they are too 22 small to be impinged on the screen so they are entrained 23 in the flow through the plant. So they actually traverse 24 the plant cooling system. And thats called entrainment.
25
39 Those are the two processes. These are of concern because 1
they have a significant impact on the wildlife in the 2
water body.
3 Your second question had to do with, or the last 4
question actually had to do with radioactive releases to 5
the environment through the liquid environment. And of 6
course the plant releases liquid that are slightly 7
radioactive. These are -- there is a procedure when 8
liquids are collected in the plant, they are processed 9
through ion exchange resins. Ultimately that water has to 10 be discarded. Of course these systems are very efficient 11 but they do not remove every bit of radioactive material.
12 So some radioactivity is discharged from the plant through 13 monitored release points, into the river. Theres a 14 record of how much is released, of course those release 15 points are inspected. And our inspectors do look at the 16 results of that monitoring.
17 In addition to knowing what is released from the 18 plant, there is also what we call a far-field monitoring 19 program. Thats a monitoring program out in the 20 environment to verify that material is not being 21 inadvertently released from the plant. Things like fish 22 and shellfish are sampled in the river. From those 23 samples, estimates are made on the dose that might be 24 incurred by individuals that would eat fish out of the 25
40 river, or fish in the vicinity of the plant. That 1
information is summarized annually by the licensee and 2
submitted to the NRC in the form of a report. Which is 3
available on our web site. You can pull those reports up.
4 I think the next one is due in the May time frame. So the 5
one that would available now would be for last calendar 6
year.
7 MR. CAMERON: And we do have our regulations 8
restrict how much radio activity can go out in the water.
9 MR. MASNIK: Right, exactly.
10 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Mike.
11 I would just note that Nancy has stated some 12 questions here but we know that there is an implicit 13 comment behind them. Well consider those comments in our 14 evaluation.
15 One important issue that you mentioned, is the 16 security issue, the terrorism threat. Maybe John, could 17 you just tell the audience what the NRC is doing about 18 that. I guess point out what relationship that has to 19 license renewal.
20 MR. TAPPERT: Its hard to believe sometimes 21 that its been over two and a half years since 9-11. On 22 that day, the world changed and certainly the way we 23 looked at security changed. Nuclear power plants have 24 always had very robust security programs. But in the 25
41 intervening time, theyve been enhanced significantly.
1 The NRC as issued a number of orders to the 2
plants to increase the number of guards, the training of 3
the guards, putting additional vehicle bears out there to 4
prevent any source of vehicle bombs. And a number of 5
other things which are of a more classified nature. The 6
agency itself has created a new office to oversee these 7
issues. We have strong coordination with the Office of 8
Homeland Security and the FBI. So a lot of things have 9
been put in place to make these facilities more secure.
10 What youre not going to see in our 11 Environmental Impact Statement is much or discussion or 12 any discussion about security or terrorism. The reason 13 for that is that were taking care of that in what we call 14 a operational issue. Were dealing with those issues at 15 all 104 nuclear power plants now. Were not waiting for 16 them to come in for license renewal to look at terrorism.
17 So its a very important issue, its an issue that the 18 agency is being very aggressive with, as well as the 19 licensees, but youre not going to see as part of license 20 renewal.
21 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, John.
22 The final point that Nancy was concerned about 23 was the issue of radio active material on workers 24 clothing at the plant. Im going ask Bob Holbrook or Bob.
25
42 This is Bob Holbrook.
1 MR. HOLBROOK: For our workers that work at the 2
plant, the plant staff has the department of technicians 3
that help the workers monitor their clothing, their shoes 4
and any garments that they may have on. If a worker would 5
happen to get contaminated on his shoes or clothing, the 6
technicians would come with a monitor and help them verify 7
where it is and how much it is. From that the licensee 8
would make a decision on whether or not it can be cleaned 9
up. Or whether of not the garments would be confiscated 10 by the plant staff. If they are at level significant 11 enough for the licensee to confiscate, they will take 12 those garments and dispose of them.
13 Now for people that are working on a daily basis 14 and leave to go home. Before a worker can leave the plant 15 their monitored perhaps through more than one or two 16 radiation monitors. The very last thing that the employee 17 goes through before he goes home is a radiation monitor.
18 The monitors are set at a significant low level. If the 19 employees go through that or attempt to go through that 20 and it sets off the monitor then the plant staff is 21 required to come out and do an individual risk or monitor 22 that. Workers do not go home if they go through that 23 monitor or approach that monitor and it alarms. Theyre 24 just not allowed to go home like that. They either have 25
43 to come back in the plant and have to be cleaned up or 1
decontaminated or the plant staff will again take their 2
shoes and their clothes and give some other clothes that 3
they can go home on. They dont leave the plant if they 4
are contaminated.
5 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Bob. I think 6
Nancy has one quick follow up for us. Then well see if 7
anybody else wants to give us comments.
8 MS MUSE: Where typically are these workers 9
exposed to the radiation? Where would be some of the most 10 radioactive sources of their contamination in the plant?
11 MR. CAMERON: Bob, I think you can give us an 12 idea on that.
13 MR. HOLBROOK: Well I dont want to give the 14 impression that contamination is all over the plant.
15 Contamination is usually controlled in fluid systems. In 16 waters and things like that. If they happen to have a 17 leak, or during maintenance mostly, if the licensee has a 18 technician or a mechanic go out and work on a valve in a 19 piping system. If the valve in the line is wet with water 20 thats contaminated and a worker has to go in there and 21 work on it then you have to be very careful about when you 22 touch things to keep from getting contaminated. So its 23 mostly in piping systems that has to has maintenance done 24 on them.
25
44 MR. CAMERON: I would just emphasize what you 1
said, is that those are the types of situations where 2
there is contamination and its not if you are just 3
walking through the plant or something like that. Theres 4
not contamination everywhere.
5 Sir, did you have a comment or any for us or any 6
questions before we rap up here?
7 MR. NORTH: I noticed when you were discussing 8
the licensing for the additional 20 years. You made a 9
distinction between active systems that are continually 10 inspected. I think they were referred to as passive 11 systems. I think it was your talk. Could you describe, 12 and I assume those will be the elements that will have the 13 additional scrutiny, what are some of those things?
14 MR. YEROKUN: Ill tell you I think the 15 distinction I think youre talking about is between the 16 active components and the passive components. The focus 17 for license renewal is on the passive components. Active 18 components such as that are in operation and have constant 19 testing. Those things are -- so you know if there is a 20 nuclear replacement or the periodic inspections that takes 21 care of those. The passive ones like pipes and structures 22 that are just there. Those are ones renewal focus is on.
23 Those are the ones we call passive components. It has to 24 be those components that are not replaced at a periodic 25
45 interval. If something is periodically replaced every 1
three years, every five years, you know thats just PM 2
[Preventive Maintenance]. So thats not something that we 3
focus on either. Its those components that are there, 4
they dont have any kind of those that are periodical 5
replacement. Those are the ones that we have to look at 6
and see what aging effects are there. And to worry about 7
such that you have adequate assurance go for another 20 8
years. So thats the distinction.
9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you once again, Jimi.
10 We had mentioned earlier that we have varied 11 members from the NRC staff here with us tonight. Youve 12 met some of them, and listened to some of them. We also 13 have experts in the varies in the scientific areas that 14 are being looked at in the environmental review, with us 15 tonight. Were going to be here after we formally close 16 the meeting. So if there are other questions about 17 anything, well be glad to try to answer anything that we 18 can for you, tonight. So, I think what well do is close 19 off this formal part of the meeting. And Ill ask John 20 Tappert our senior official to do this for us. Then well 21 be here for any questions that anybody has.
22 John.
23 MR. TAPPERT: Id just like to thank everyone 24 again for coming out, taking time out of their evening to 25
46 participate in this process. Remind you that our comment 1
period is open until May 9th, so if you have any 2
additional comments you have this lines for the contact 3
information for Mike to submit those. And just to 4
reintegrate what Chip said, we will stay after the meeting 5
if you want to discuss any other issues further.
6 Thanks again for coming, and drive home safely.
7 8
(Off the record 8:12 p.m.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
47 1