ML090770957
| ML090770957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | NS Savannah |
| Issue date: | 03/24/2009 |
| From: | NRC/FSME, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Buckley J (301) 415-6607 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML090820074 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-2710 | |
| Download: ML090770957 (53) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Nuclear Ship Savannah Public Meeting Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Baltimore, Maryland Date:
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 Work Order No.:
NRC-2710 Pages 1-53 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 NUCLEAR SHIP SAVANNAH PUBLIC MEETING 4
+ + + + +
5 WEDNESDAY, 6
MARCH 11, 2009 7
+ + + + +
8 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. at the 9
Canton Marine Terminal, Pier 13, 4601 Newgate Avenue, 10 Baltimore, Maryland, John Buckley presiding.
11 12 PRESENT:
13 John Buckley, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 Mark Roberts, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 15 Erhard Koehler, Maritime Administration 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2
C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
AGENDA ITEM PAGE 2
Welcome........................................... 3 3
Introduction of Speakers 4
Purpose of the Meeting & Format................... 4 5
NRC Regulatory Process............................ 5 6
NRC Inspection Process 7
Contents of PSDAR................................ 17 8
Public Comments & Questions...................... 49 9
Adjourn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3
P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(7:06 p.m.)
2 WELCOME 3
MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you very much for 4
coming. I appreciate it.
5 My name is John Buckley. I'm a project 6
manager with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And 7
I'd like to thank everybody for taking their time for 8
coming out tonight to participate in the Post-Shutdown 9
Decommissioning Activities Report for the NS Savannah 10 Public Meeting.
11 The PSDAR, I will use that acronym often 12 tonight, it's a mouthful to say, so I would rather 13 just say it once and then we'll stick with the acronym 14 if that's okay with folks.
15 Tonight's meeting is a Category III Public 16 Meeting, which means that the staff is actively 17 seeking public participation and comments on the PSDAR 18 for the nuclear ship Savannah.
19 There will be a meeting report generated 20 after tonight's meeting. The meeting report will be 21 made part of the public record, and will be publicly 22 available through NRC's agency-wide document access 23 and management system, also a mouthful. The acronym 24 for that is ADAMS, so those are the two acronyms I'll 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4
1 The public comments will be taken at the 2
end. And both public comments and written comments I 3
received earlier on the PSDAR will be included as part 4
of the public record. Just so folks know that.
5 The format for tonight's meeting is 6
relatively simple.
7 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING & FORMAT 8
MR. BUCKLEY: We have myself, Mark 9
Roberts, NRC Region 1 inspector, and I will speak 10 about the decommissioning process; and Erhard Koehler 11 from Maritime Administration will actually talk about 12 the details of the PSDAR itself.
13 The Maritime Administration submitted the 14 PSDAR to NRC on December 11th, 2008. And that is the 15 reason we are having this meeting tonight.
16 The purpose for tonight's meeting will be 17 fourfold. First, I will give you a presentation, a 18 short presentation, on NRC's decommissioning process.
19 Mark Roberts will then speak about the NRC inspection 20 process. Erhard Koehler will give us the details of 21 what's in the PSDAR itself, and then most of the time 22 tonight will be set aside to - for MARAD and for NRC 23 to actually hear public comments.
24 Those comments will then be considered in 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5
NRC's review of MARAD's submittal.
1 NRC REGULATORY PROCESS 2
MR.
BUCKLEY:
The NRC decommissioning 3
requirements are set out in Title X of the Code of 4
Federal Regulations, Part 50.82. That is the 5
regulation title.
6 The decommissioning process - and that 7
regulation actually spells out what the different 8
steps in the decommissioning process are. The 9
decommissioning process starts when a licensee makes 10 the decision to permanently cease operations.
11 Within 30 days the next 30 days the 12 licensee must submit to NRC in writing certification 13 that it has made that decision to cease operations.
14 At that point the licensee the operator must then 15 remove the fuel from the reactor vessel.
16 And once again the regulations require 17 that the licensee submit a certified - a certification 18 in writing to NRC saying that all the fuel has been 19 removed from the reactor vessel.
20 Upon making the decision to cease 21 operations, the licensee either prior to ceasing 22 operations, or within the next two years, following 23 that decision, must submit to NRC its PSDAR.
24 The licensee then has the option of either 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6
going with immediate decommissioning or licensee can 1
put their facility into what is known as a safe store 2
condition.
3 Decommissioning for a Part 50 license does 4
not actually have to happen for up to 60 years.
5 Towards the end of the decommissioning 6
process licensees are required to submit to NRC a 7
license termination plan. That plan must be submitted 8
to NRC within at least two years prior to the date 9
that they expect to have their license terminated.
10 The license termination
- plan, the 11 requirements for what goes into a license termination 12 plan is also laid out in the requirements. Six things 13 are required. First, the licensee must submit as part 14 of their LTP, license termination plan, they must 15 submit a site characterization report to identify the 16 current radiological status of the facility.
17 They must also submit - oh, I'm sorry, 18 hang on I got it - it's my fault, I apologize.
19 Okay, we finished with two things, must 20 submit a site characterization report to lay out what 21 the current radiological status of the facility is; 22 they must submit a description of the planned 23 decommissioning activities; they must submit a
24 schedule for those decommissioning activities; they 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7
must submit a final status survey plan that tell us 1
how they intend to demonstrate that they have met the 2
decommissioning requirements; they must submit a 3
discussion of the final end state of the facility; 4
they must submit an updated cost estimate for those 5
decommissioning activities which remain; then finally 6
they must submit an updated environmental evaluation 7
to evaluate what environmental impacts the remaining 8
decommissioning activities will have.
9 After the licensee demonstrates that they 10 have satisfactorily met the conditions of the LTP, NRC 11 then terminates the license. 10 CFR 50.82 also 12 provides the general requirements of what must be in 13 the PSDAR. The requirements are quite general, and 14 four things are identified.
15 First, the PSDAR must have the planned 16 decommissioning activities. It must provide a 17 schedule for those activities. The PSDAR must include 18 a detailed cost estimate to say how much those 19 decommissioning activities will cost. And then 20 finally we need an environmental impact report to 21 evaluate what are the environmental impacts of those 22 decommissioning activities.
23 In order for licensees to have a better 24 idea, a more detailed understanding of what goes into 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8
the PSDAR, the NRC published in July of 2000 1
Regulatory Guide 1.185 which is entitled, standard 2
format and content for post-shutdown decommissioning 3
activity report.
4 This report, this reg guide, actually 5
provides a lot of detail about exactly what the 6
licensee should submit to the NRC.
7 I'll point out first that the NRC by 8
regulation is not required to officially approve the 9
PSDAR, but in fact the NRC does review the PSDARs to 10 make sure that they do comply with requirements.
11 However a formal approval letter is not 12 provided.
13 The review process for the PSDAR is also 14 laid out in the requirements, in the regulations.
15 What it says is, when a licensee submits its PSDAR NRC 16 must notice submittal - must notice receipt of the 17 submittal in the cover register, and request public 18 comments.
19 NRC must also schedule a public meeting to 20 talk to - to hear comments from the public about 21 what's included in the PSDAR, and that's what we're 22 doing tonight, so tonight we are meeting the second 23 step of the regulatory requirements.
24 NRC then considers those comments in its 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9
review of the PSDAR, and the staff will use the 1
requirements or the details in Reg Guide 1.185 in our 2
review of that submittal.
3 Reg Guide 1.185 lays out the criteria the 4
staff has to use in its review of the licensee's 5
submittal. What it says is that the NRC staff will 6
find the PSDAR acceptable if it meets these four 7
criteria.
8 First, as long as decommissioning can be 9
accomplished as described in the PSDAR, the staff 10 finds that acceptable.
11 If decommissioning can be completed as 12 described within a 60-year time period, that is also 13 good.
14 Decommissioning staff has to be able to 15 determine that decommissioning can be completed for 16 the cost estimated in the PSDAR submittal.
17 And finally decommissioning activities 18 cannot endanger the public health and safety or the 19 environment.
20 The PSDAR describes the decommissioning 21 activities that the licensee plans to undertake, to 22 bring its license to termination.
23 However the regulations lay out several 24 requirements or several restrictions on the licensee 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 10 in their completion of those decommissioning 1
activities.
2 First licensees, in this case MARAD, is 3
not allowed to perform any decommissioning activities 4
for a period of 90 days following its submittal. That 5
time period is required by the staff to review the 6
PSDAR, conduct a public meeting and consider those 7
public comments in our review.
8 Second, the decommissioning activities 9
described and those conducted by MARAD, they cannot 10 preclude unrestricted release of the site at some 11 point in the future.
12 The third restriction laid out in the 13 requirements is that decommissioning cannot result in 14 significant environmental impacts which were not 15 previously evaluated by the NRC and the applicant.
16 And finally the last one is that 17 decommissioning cannot result in sufficient funds not 18 being available for decommissioning to finalize the 19 decommissioning activities.
20 So in completing my remarks about the 21 decommissioning process I would say the following 22 things. NRC does not officially approve PSDARs.
23 However, the NRC will review it and will consider 24 public comments in our evaluation of their submittal.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11 And that is the presentation I had for 1
tonight. I would be happy to entertain comments you 2
have on the regulatory process. We can wait for 3
comments overall after Erhard completes his discussion 4
of the technical details.
5 But I would entertain comments now if you 6
want.
7 (No response.)
8 Seeing no hands, I will go to Mark Roberts 9
next to talk about NRC's inspection process.
10 NRC's INSPECTION PROCESS 11 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, John.
12 I was traveling this week and had another 13 presentation at headquarters, so I didn't put together 14 a beautiful PowerPoint like John put together. But I 15 can tell you essentially what our inspection process 16 would be for the NS Savannah.
17 The NS Savannah is a unique facility.
18 It's one of the only floating sources of - floating 19 power plants. So we have classed this as a Class II 20 research and test reactor for our purposes.
21 We have inspection procedures to tell us 22 what - the task that we have to do.
23 One of the requirements that the facility 24 has, or the reactor has, is what they call a technical 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 specifications, that tells us what some of the 1
activities are that the licensee has to perform. They 2
have to perform so many different inspections and 3
other requirements.
4 As a Class III test reactor we would 5
inspect
- them, if they are not doing active 6
decommissioning, at least once every three years, 7
every three-year period, and we write an inspection 8
report about it.
9 Some of the things that we would look at 10 would be how they met their technical specifications, 11 such as the radiation surveys. They are required to 12 have an annual report they submit to the NRC; we would 13 review that.
14 Other things we look at are staffing, 15 radiological surveys that they are required to do, any 16 other required what we call surveillances - that is 17 testes to - that are required by the technical 18 specifications.
19 And one other important thing is such as 20 site security, one of the concerns - I won't say 21 fairly recently - but NRC is very concerned about 22 security of licensed materials, so that is one 23 activity that we would look at.
24 Once after decommissioning is started we 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 13 would get into a different inspection procedure. It's 1
for research and test reactor decommissioning. In 2
that procedure there are all sorts of requirements to 3
look at. Routine decommissioning activities, such as 4
radiation surveys, work controls, all the things that 5
have to do with radiation protection like personal 6
dosimetry, measurements for workers, radiation survey 7
instrumentation use, how areas are labeled, and 8
posted, to make sure that there are what we call 9
communications to people walking around the ship that 10 know where radiation areas or radioactive material 11 areas are.
12 We would look at training. We will look 13 at waste disposal. And then we would look at the 14 transportation of waste, and as a final activity we 15 would look at what they call the final status survey 16 of the facility.
17 One major requirement for this procedure 18 is that we be flexible, because the decommissioning 19 activities could take multiple years to complete. I 20 was involved in the Main Yankee decommissioning 21 process that took over a seven-year period. So you 22 had to be flexible as part of when you - if you wanted 23 to see something on a particular time period you had 24 to be flexible because it might not be happening that 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 14 week or that month; you might have to put that off.
1 So typically for a project like this I 2
would set up a routine conference with the licensee, 3
typically radiation safety officer and other staff.
4 And it would depend on the level of activity that they 5
would do. It migh8t be a weekly or biweekly or 6
monthly call to get an idea of where they are in their 7
process.
8 I would then select activities that I 9
wanted - major activities that I wanted to see, and 10 they would let me know when those things were 11 happening.
12 Certain major activities that we like to 13 see are things like removal of large components; 14 shipments of - waste shipments; things like that.
15 One major final activity would be the 16 review of their final status surveys. That is the 17 radiation surveys they employ or they perform to 18 determine that they meet their required criteria for 19 release for unrestricted use. We may consider making 20 our own measurements, what we call confirmatory 21 measurements. We have a contractor that would do 22 that.
23 And again we would assess our needs based 24 on that.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 15 So basically in summary, until they start 1
active decommissioning, we class them as a
2 decommissioning test reactor, with a low inspection 3
frequency. Once they start active decommissioning we 4
have to be flexible. We move up our schedule to 5
inspect as often as we deem necessary, to make sure 6
that we see the activities, to make sure that the work 7
is being performed safely.
8 And as a finality we will take a look at 9
their final status surveys, again, to make sure that 10 the work has been completed, and the criteria that we 11 designated in their license termination plan is met.
12 That's all I have. Thank you.
13 MR. BUCKLEY: Thanks, Mark.
14 Erhard Koehler will now give us a
15 discussion of the details of the PSDAR submittal.
16 CONTENTS OF PSDAR 17 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Welcome, everybody.
18 Thank you for coming this evening. We the Maritime 19 Administration appreciate your attendance at this 20 PSDAR public meeting.
21 For the members of my staff who have 22 sweated a long time for tonight, this is a very 23 important milestone for us, and we very much 24 appreciate - I very much appreciate all the hard work 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 16 that they have put in to this project, and are likely 1
to continue to put in for the foreseeable future.
2 I'd like to just ask the members of the 3
Savannah technical staff or the extended staff to 4
please just stand up for a moment.
5 (Applause.)
6 MR. KOEHLER: Yes, you can applaud.
7 This is an exciting time for the Savannah, 8
not just because we are celebrating a milestone in the 9
decommissioning process, but we are also in the midst 10 of the early portions of the 50th anniversary 11 commemorations of the history of this ship.
12 Last year we celebrated the 50th 13 anniversary of the keel laying of the NS Savannah.
14 This summer we will be celebrating the 50th 15 anniversary of its christening and launching, Mamie 16 Eisenhower doing the officiating in Camden, New 17 Jersey, on July 21st, 1959.
18 There is a bit of a gap between 2009 and 19 2011. The ship was completed in 1960 for the most 20 part for the advisory committee on reactor safeguards 21 took a good due diligent process before allowing the 22 fuel to be loaded and the reactor to go critical in 23 1961.
24 We intend to conclude the commemorations 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 in 2012, on the 50th anniversary of the ship's maiden 1
voyage to Savannah, Georgia. So John, if you will.
2 Now briefly, I know my role here tonight 3
is to talk about the content of the PSDAR. We are not 4
going to go through the entire report in detail, but 5
we are going to hit some of the highlights, and we 6
will talk just very briefly about the ship.
7 An overview of the decommissioning of the 8
Savannah, the plans that we have had to date, the 9
activities we plan to conduct in safe store, touch on 10 future decom and license termination. And we have as 11 may have been noted, many of you have noticed on the 12 website, we do have an appendix to the PSDAR that 13 talks to preservation to the nuclear power plant as an 14 alternative to decommissioning. This is a concept for 15 discussion; it is not a proposal at this point. But 16 as an historic property, as a national historic 17 landmark, the Maritime Administration in exercising 18 its stewardship responsibilities under the National 19 Historic Preservation Act, any consideration of the 20 radiological conditions of the plant has considered 21 the possibility of preserving it in lieu of 22 decommissioning it. So we will talk briefly about 23 that.
24 As Mr. Buckley noted, there is certain 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 18 required content of the PSDAR. We have included that 1
in the relevant sections of the document itself, the 2
planned major decommissioning activities; the 3
- schedule, estimates, and discussion of the 4
environmental impacts and issues.
5 We did publish separately an environmental 6
assessment and finding the most significant impacts 7
for decommissioning the nuclear facilities on the 8
Savannah. That report was published in June of 2008, 9
and it was separately submitted to the NRC last fall, 10 in September. It does form the basis for the 11 environmental discussion the PSDAR.
12 As Mark noted the Savannah is a relatively 13 unique creature in the NRC-regulated world. It is the 14 only NRC-regulated floating nuclear power plant. It 15 is the only mobile nuclear power plant in the NRC-16 regulated world, so we believe that we have some 17 special issues, things of unique concern to the 18 Savannah that we addressed in the PSDAR.
19 For context - and this report was widely 20 disseminated - for some context we put in some design 21 history, and also the actions that were taken in the 22 mid-1970s to mothball the plant at that time. We talk 23 a little bit about the options for retention sites for 24 the Savannah when it goes back into protect storage 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 19 for an intermediate period.
1 We have talked about, and the PSDAR will 2
talk about a little bit tonight, the Savannah was 3
first put into protective storage in the 1970s at a 4
time when there was no such history in the nuclear 5
industry to do that. Mothballing was the name of the 6
game in the day. Today it's safe store, and we have 7
evaluated the differences between the two processes in 8
order to come up with a safe store condition for 9
future retention. We talk to that comparison. We 10 will mention some of that tonight.
11 And then again, finally, the preservation 12 as an alternative.
13 Briefly the Savannah is a creature of 14 President Eisenhower's visionary Atoms for Peace 15 proposal. Go on, John. It was proposed or announced 16 by the president in 1955, and the program was 17 established as a joint program between the Atomic 18 Energy Commission and the Maritime Administration.
19 I've put this up, key milestones in the 20 reactor operating history, because these are really 21 the events that are of significance to 22 decommissioning.
23 First criticality was December 21st, 1961.
24 In Camden, New Jersey, the ACRS, the Advisory 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 20 Committee on Reactor Safeguards, permitted the reactor 1
to be operated to only 10 percent power in that 2
heavily populated zone in Camden. So the ship was 3
moved to Yorktown, Virginia, to the Coast Guard 4
training center, where it underwent sea trials, dock 5
trials and sea trials before acceptance by the 6
Maritime Administration in May of 1962.
7 The reactor was first operated to 100 8
percent power down in Virginia near Yorktown.
9 Our present license was first issued in 10 June of 1965. We are currently in amendment 14 of 11 that license.
12 The final shutdown occurred November 9th, 13 1970. Over the course of that time from December of 14
`61 to November of 1970 the reactor operated for a 15 total of 2.423 effective full power years. And you 16 can see that that is over an eight-year span that the 17 reactor operated.
18 Unlike most land side generating stations 19 where you start the reactor up, and you hope to 20 generate a lot and a lot of electricity, the Savannah 21 being a ship cycled the reactor quite often. The ship 22 would depart a port, it would go on a voyage, it would 23 maneuver, it would come into port, it would shut down.
24 It would load cargo, dispatch cargo, then it would 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 21 make its next voyage and go to the next port.
1 So the reactor was continuously cycling.
2 So over that long period of
- time, over that 3
effectively eight years of operation, the reactor only 4
saw about 2-1/2 full power years.
5 The defueling was completed on September 6
29th, 1971. The ship was prepared for mothballing in 7
the mid-1970s, and the possession only license, which 8
is the current form of the license, was issued in 9
1976.
10 The restrictions on the license preclude 11 MARAD from reactivating the reactor without the 12 permission of the NRC, and it also precludes MARAD 13 from decommissioning the reactor nuclear facilities 14 without permission of the NRC.
15 And in summary, today the nuclear ship 16 Savannah is defined as national historic landmark, an 17 international historic mechanical engineering 18 landmark, and a nuclear engineering landmark. It is a 19 significant structure in American and nuclear American 20 history.
21 In considering decommissioning of the 22 Savannah it is useful to understand what the current 23 condition of the plant is. For the most part the 24 plant, the power plant, is substantially intact. The 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 22 only components that were removed in the 1970s were 1
the four primary cooling pumps; the demineralizers, 2
which were part of the primary system purification 3
system, primary water purification; the fuel itself 4
was removed; and most of the primary coolant was 5
removed.
6 For the most part the balance of the 7
nuclear facilities are intact, and present on the 8
ship.
9 All of those are to be removed in the 10 decom process, which is the ultimate decommissioning 11 stage for the Savannah. Next.
12 As I noted the Savannah is a national 13 historic landmark. AS a federal owner of a national 14 historic landmark, the National Historic Preservation 15 Act obligates federal stewards to certain preservation 16 activities, and these are fairly recent amendments to 17 the NHPA.
18 But John, if you go back just one slide, 19 if you notice in that cutaway view, and also the 20 National Park Services' wonderful drawings that they 21 have done on the back table, all of the components 22 that are to be removed in decommissioning, in decom, 23 were installed into the ship through the existing 24 accesses. It is our intention through a philosophy 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 23 that the ship ultimately would be preserved post-1 decommissioning, to use those accesses to remove the 2
components and the equipment and the piping from the 3
ship without disturbing its underlying fabric.
4 So again where possible we will undertake 5
all decommissioning activities in a manner that 6
preserves the historic fabric of the ship and makes 7
possible its future preservation. It si not a given 8
that the ship will be preserved in the future; it's 9
not a MARAD mission to preserve the ship in the 10 future. But we are very sensitive to its historic 11 status, and the intention is to do no harm in 12 decommissioning that would prevent its future 13 preservation.
14 As a federal facility decommissioning 15 funding for the Savannah is provided for by federal 16 appropriations. I will take the opportunity to note 17 that today, March 11th, 2009, nearly six months after 18 the beginning of fiscal year 2009, the Congress has 19 passed the omnibus budget to complete funding for 20 fiscal year 2009. I believe it has been signed.
21 Kevin is telling me that it has been signed.
22 So for those of us who are feds in the 23 room, congratulations, we have a budget.
24 It's one thing to know that federal 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 24 appropriations are the source of funding to 1
decommission this facility. For those of us who are 2
feds involved in the budgeting process, we must also 3
understand that there is an incumbency on the agency 4
to request those funds. We cannot expect them to 5
simply flow from the Congress like manna. There is a 6
necessity for the Maritime Administration to request 7
these funds to perform the decommissioning. And in 8
the PSDAR we acknowledged this responsibility to 9
actively seek the monies to decommission the facility.
10 We began seeking such funding in fiscal 11 year 2005. The decision to advance decommissioning of 12 the Savannah was first made in internal discussions in 13 2002. The Maritime Administrator at the time, Captain 14 William Schubert, received some briefings about the 15 condition of the Savannah, and its relative condition 16 out in the James River reserve fleet. And he made the 17 decision to pursue decommissioning as a solution to 18 the condition.
19 At that point in time we were approaching 20 the fiscal 2004 budget cycle. We did not make the 21 fiscal 2004 budget cycle, but beginning in fiscal 2005 22 the agency began requesting funds for decommissioning.
23 We initially projected an interim funding 24 profile or incremental, rather, I'm sorry, where the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 25 total amount of money required for decommissioning 1
would be spread over several fiscal years, which was 2
principally because the funding was being sought 3
within the agency's operating budget, not as a capital 4
expense. And as a consequence a large expenditure in 5
one fiscal year for the Savannah would have an impact 6
on other agency programs.
7 So the incremental program was the one 8
that was decided upon, and decided at both the 9
departmental level, the agency level and the Office of 10 Management and Budget.
11 Those of you who are federal employees and 12 have experienced the appropriations process of the 13 last several years, similar to this year, know that it 14 has not been very stable. This is not the first 15 fiscal year that we have received a budget late in the 16 year. This is in fact probably the third or fourth in 17 a row.
18 Because of
- this, because of the 19 instability of the budget process, because of the 20 several fiscal years in which continuing resolutions 21 were passed instead of appropriations, we were not 22 able to successfully receive sufficient monies to 23 commit to decom. So in the course of the fiscal 2008 24 budget request cycle the decision was made to pull 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 26 back and to reassess our options.
1 That occurred in the calendar year 2006.
2 Throughout the beginning of calendar year 2007 and 3
into 2008 as we pursued top side maintenance of the 4
ship and drydocking, the agency reevaluated its 5
options. And in the spring of 2007 a determination 6
was made to evaluate and to seriously consider a 7
return of the Savannah to protective storage, to safe 8
store, and to defer decom out to the maximum point in 9
time that the regulations allow.
10 As John noted the regulations require 11 license termination no later than 60 years from 12 permanent cessation of operations. In the case of the 13 Savannah which permanently ceased operations at the 14 conclusion of defueling in December, 1971, we have 15 until September of 2031 to complete the 16 decommissioning process. That is the end of fiscal 17 year 2031.
18 So there is a period of time if you back 19 out the several years that are required for the decom 20 project prior to 2031, there is a period of time for 21 intermediate or interim protective storage, that the 22 intent is to prepare the Savannah for that new 23 retention period.
24 We have defined this protective storage as 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 27 a new decommissioning activity. It's important, 1
because the Savannah left protective storage when it 2
left the James River Reserve Fleet in anticipation of 3
decom in 2006.
4 And commitments had been made, meetings 5
had been held, and the NRC understood that we were 6
pursuing a
decom path and we had requested 7
appropriations for that process. So MARAD in making 8
the decision sometime later to return the ship to 9
protective storage defined that as a
new 10 decommissioning activity, one that should be taken in 11 accordance with contemporary requirements for 12 protective storage, not the mothballing criteria of 13 some 25 years previous.
14 So in order to undertake this we had to 15 analyze the difference between mothballing and safe 16 storing. Mothballing was first defined in 19743 in a 17 regulatory guide. Several plants have been mothballed 18 in the years preceding the reg guide, but there was no 19 formal guidance until that reg guide was published.
20 There were only a handful of facilities that were 21 mothballed at that time. Most nuclear power plants 22 were being built at that point; they were not being 23 removed from service.
24 Safe store is defined in the regulatory 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 28 guide that defines format and content for the PSDAR as 1
a concept that existed a little bit earlier, but this 2
is the formal guidance that we have.
3 The way I would describe safe store and 4
mothballing is that mothballing is a very prescriptive 5
cook book type method by which you take a plant out of 6
service and seal it up and make sure that it does not 7
harm to the environment or to the public.
8 Safe store is very much more a performance 9
based criterion as we understand it. You take an 10 operating facility, and you shut it down, and you 11 scale back your operations to suit a plant that is no 12 longer generating electricity or generating 13 radioactivity, but you maintain your operating profile 14 for the period of protective storage.
15 In concept they are different. They are 16 different from an intellectual standpoint, although in 17 physical characteristics they are not much different.
18 The operating procedures or the operating 19 programs and processes that have to be maintained in a 20 safe store environment include quality assurance, 21 radiation protection, security, fire prevention and 22 detection; that is not all inclusive, but those are 23 the major ones as we understand them to be.
24 I have several slides that talk to some 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29 direct comparisons of mothballing and safe store.
1 This will be in the record. You can see these. These 2
are also in the PSDAR. I think you can skip the next 3
four slides or os.
4 As we understood and as we came to 5
understand safe store, and to define what would be 6
Savannah's new protective storage condition, we tasked 7
our engineering contractor, Areva Federal Services, to 8
prepare a safe store plan. This would translate the 9
understanding of the differences from mothballing and 10 safe store and define discretely the things that we 11 needed to do to implement safe store.
12 We took the opportunity to include in that 13 safe store plan several conventional marine type 14 applications that are related to safe store. It is a 15 ship, and because the ship is going to go into 16 retention for some period of time, it has to be made 17 intrinsically safe from a marine standpoint, not just 18 a nuclear standpoint; and we wrap all these together.
19 Safe store plan includes four major themes 20 or elements: planning and engineering activities; 21 surveys; technical activities; and radiological 22 remediation.
23 Planning and engineering activities, some 24 of which are in process, most of which will be 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 30 completed in the next few months, include an historic 1
site assessment that actually is complete; 2
developing the DGCLs for residual radioactivity; and 3
engineering plans that implement electrical systems, 4
HVAC, and the safety improvements to the ship.
5 The principal surveying activity will be a 6
MARSSIM characterization survey. This is a much more 7
detailed and thorough survey than the scoping survey 8
that we performed in 2005, though we don't expect many 9
differences in the results. The characterization 10 survey will be done to a level that will permit it to 11 be used in licensing processes.
12 The technical activities include making 13 safety improvements to the ship. The ship is now 50 14 years old. There are certain elements of the ship 15 that have weathered quite well, and there are others 16 that have weathered not quite so well, and we look to 17 make certain improvements to the ship so that it 18 remains safe to the personnel that are embarked 19 onboard and working, and safe for the public that 20 visits the ship over the course of the continued 21 retention period.
22 We improved the we intend to 23 rehabilitate and improve ventilation in radiologically 24 controlled areas including the containment. One of 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 31 the things that safe store requires is the maintenance 1
of systems that are needed through the retention 2
period and for decommissioning, ventilation being one 3
of them.
4 In the case of the Savannah and the 5
mothballing process, the ventilation was completely 6
shut down and blanked off. So we really have none.
7 So we will be making those improvements.
8 And also modifications to electrical 9
systems throughout the ship. The ship is, again, 50 10 years old. And it's had water damage over the years.
11 It's one of the reasons that the ship was returned to 12 the Maritime Administration in 1994 after a period of 13 uses in a museum in Charleston.
14 So from an intrinsic safety standpoint 15 electrical conditions on the ship are of high 16 importance, and we intend to take certain steps 17 including the installation of a new shore-powered 18 switchboard to ensure the safety of the ship and its 19 distribution system.
20 Radiological remediation includes a few 21 items. We intend to drain the remainder of the 22 primary coolant as much as is practicable. We will 23 remove contaminated equipment and piping from outlying 24 areas of the ship.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32 One of the factors that influenced the 1
2002 decision to decommission, to pursue 2
decommissioning, is the fact that there are certain 3
portions of the primary system equipment and piping 4
that are adjacent to the shell of the ship. We wish 5
to improve the intrinsic safety of the ship by 6
removing those materials from immediately adjacent to 7
the environment.
8 Once you are at the skin fo the ship you 9
are at the environment. If there is a breach to the 10 skin of the ship we have a potential release to the 11 environment. So we will remove certain - there are 12 about five pumps and some pipes and valves and things 13 that are in four compartments along the skin of the 14 ship that we would intend to remove as part of the 15 safe store process.
16 And finally we do hope to reduce the 17 number of radiologically controlled areas inside the 18 ship. There were a number of spaces such as 19 laboratories, the health physics lab in the hospital, 20 which are very minor decontamination in pipe ends, 21 sink drains and such. These are spaces that were 22 defined as radiologically controlled areas when the 23 ship was a museum, and was available for unescorted 24 public access. They no longer meet the tech spec 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 33 definition of a radiologically controlled area, but 1
they have not been removed from radiological controls 2
until we decontaminate the piping.
3 A question that often comes up is, what 4
are you doing in Baltimore of all places. From the 5
previous description you can see that there is a fair 6
amount of work, and I know we have a few volunteers 7
from the John W. Brown in the audience tonight. And 8
the Brownies have gone down over the years and done 9
quite a bit of work in the reserve fleet. Most of 10 their work involves the removal without regard -
11 without - with due regard for the safety of the ship 12 from which they are removing the equipment, but 13 knowing that the equipment they are removing from 14 those ships is never going to be used again except on 15 the John W. Brown. It's a different environment when 16 you're on a retention ship, when you are out there 17 doing work in the middle of the river, it's a fairly 18 onerous environment in which to do this type of work.
19 So the Savannah has been moved out of the 20 James River Reserve Fleet. It may return there for 21 protective storage when the safe store preparations 22 are complete. That's one of the retention site 23 options. But until the work is complete we don't 24 intend to return the ship to a reserve fleet site, 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 34 because that is not a forgiving environment to do this 1
type of work.
2 So we needed a place to berth the ship.
3 We solicited competitive bids on the East Coast, and 4
we were fortunate to receive the bid in Baltimore. We 5
had some preference for Baltimore, because most of the 6
staff is D.C.-based and in the local environs, and we 7
found that it has substantially improved the capacity 8
of the staff and the proficiency of the staff to 9
manage this facility by having it in our backyards so 10 to speak.
11 So we are here in Baltimore. We have a 12 labor contract that extends three years. We do not 13 plan any major dismantlement actions, certainly we 14 have to submit a license amendment before we plan to 15 do that.
16 But this is not necessarily the facility 17 at which we would conduct decommissioning activities.
18 It's not what we contracted for here.
19 But we are rapidly becoming far more 20 proficient in managing the facility. And we will 21 complete all the detailed decommissioning engineering 22 and planning while the ship is here in Baltimore.
23 Future decommissioning will be - or final 24 decommissioning will be by the decom method in 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 35 accordance with the regulatory requirements as they 1
exist. The intention is to dismantle the nuclear 2
facilities, bring them into our philosophical approach 3
through the existing accesses, and to pursue license 4
termination in accordance with the regulation.
5 Again that would have to be completed by 6
- 2031, 60 years after permanent cessation of 7
operations, understanding that we need roughly five 8
calendar years to complete the project, so that 9
funding would be required no later than fiscal year 10 2025, is what we've defined in the PSDAR.
11 John, you gave me 30 minutes on this; I'm 12 not sure how I'm doing, but I think I have some time.
13 Did somebody say 30 seconds?
14 The final topic that I wish to discuss 15 tonight is the preservation alternative that we 16 proposed in the PSDAR. It is appendix C, it is the 17 last several pages of the report.
And this 18 alternative is in consideration of the ship's 19 exceptional significance as a
national historic 20 landmark.
21 The presence of the nuclear facilities on 22 the ship are not the only defining characteristic of 23 the NS Savannah. The Savannah would qualify as an NHL 24 whether it was conventionally powered or not by virtue 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 36 of its association with Atoms for Peace, by virtue of 1
its exceptional design, its service history. There 2
are many factors that associate the Savannah with the 3
maritime and nuclear heritage of the United States 4
with or without the nuclear power plant onboard.
5 Under the National Historic Preservation 6
Act, when you remove a signature element or a defining 7
characteristic, even if it's not the only one, that 8
can be considered an adverse effect. And mitigation 9
of adverse effects is required.
10 Now we sort of jumped the gun. If our 11 historian, Barbara Voulgaris, was here tonight, she 12 would be pointing a finger at me and saying, you are 13 jumping the gun. We haven't done Section 106 on this 14 project, and you don't know that it's an adverse 15 effect. But intuitively it is very easy to understand 16 that this will be from a 106 perspective an adverse 17 effect to the NS Savannah, one which would require 18 mitigation.
19 And those of you who had the opportunity 20 to see the fine work that the National Park Service 21 has been doing in documenting the nuclear facilities 22 of the ship, that is the mitigation that will be used 23 in consideration of the adverse effect of 24 decommissioning.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 37 So in a
sense we have started 1
decommissioning in a way; it's just not an NRC-2 regulated activity.
3 So we have however included preservation 4
as an alternative.
It was not a
budgeting 5
alternative. This is one that is in recognition of 6
our stewardship responsibilities under the NHPA, as a 7
federal owner of a national historic landmark there 8
are obligations written into the law. And so we 9
believe that it is important to at least consider this 10 and talk about it. It may be ruled out, but at least 11 we will have done due diligence in pursing this 12 concept.
13 This would not be the first nuclear power 14 plant to be preserved, and I think that this is an 15 important distinction to make. This is not a new 16 idea. Now this would be the first NRC-regulated 17 facility to be preserved, but it is not the first 18 nuclear power plant to be preserved. You will notice 19 here the USS Nautilus which is safely up in Groton, 20 Connecticut, owned, managed, maintained by the U.S.
21 Navy. No longer commissioned, but it is a naval 22 vessel, and it is in the property of the Navy, cared 23 for and interpreted by the Navy.
24 The Department of Energy has a very 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 38
- rigorous, vigorous preservation program for the 1
Manhattan Project. And three of their sites, the X-10 2
Graphite Reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Hanford 3
B Reactor in Hanford, Washington, both of which are 4
national historic landmarks; and the Trinity site, 5
which is a national historic site; these are all 6
preserved by the Department of Energy. They are 7
actively maintained, and they are accessible to public 8
visitation.
9 And then finally the DOE again in public-10 private partnership sponsored museums and historical 11 foundations at other historic sites that they maintain 12 including most of the national laboratories, the 13 national atomic testing museum is out at Albuquerque, 14 New Mexico. They are reopening I believe in April a 15 brand new facility. The Nevada test sites sponsors 16 the atomic testing museum which is in Las Vegas, if 17 you ever get out to Las Vegas for a convention or just 18 to visit, go out and take a look. It's well worth the 19 time. And the Brookhaven National Lab, the Sandia 20 National Lab, all have museums which are officially 21 sanctioned by and supported by the Department of 22 Energy.
23 So these are federal preservation 24 initiatives in the nuclear industry.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 39 We have in considering the topic and in 1
opening it up for discussion have identified a few 2
possible licensing paths that might be applicable to 3
this. In 10 CFR 20.1403 and 1404 our license 4
termination rules for license termination under 5
restricted conditions, and license termination under 6
alternate criteria. These demand that the owner -
7 first the principal consideration in these is that the 8
owner has to maintain appropriate institutional 9
controls to safeguard the facility after the license 10 is terminated.
11 There would have to be some definition as 12 to a role for either MARAD or the federal government 13 maintaining the ship and the license facility if such 14 a path were to be taken.
15 The third option that we have looked at is 16 maintaining the license. Prior to the current 17 regulations in 50.82 with the PSDAR requirement when 18 it was established in 1996, we were on a 10-year 19 license renewal cycle. So we were a possession-only 20 license beginning in 1976, and the license was renewed 21 periodically on 10-year terms.
22 Whether that is an option, or whether a 23 new license or some form of the current license, could 24 be maintained, would be a
way to maintain 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 40 institutional control of a preserved nuclear power 1
plant.
2 I guess I talked about that. So these are 3
some of the criteria that will be in the slides, and 4
those are available on ADAMS at the end.
5 One thing we are not quite sure of, and 6
would bear some discussion, is whether maintaining a 7
license would require an amendment to the Atomic 8
Energy Act, or whether any amendment to the Atomic 9
Energy Act for the sole purpose of preserving the 10 Savannah might be something to pursue.
11 But those are some of the options that we 12 have considered. Rationale for preservation and 13 decommissioning is again based on stewardship 14 responsibilities and obligations imposed on federal 15 owners of historic properties. This has become a very 16 mature process. The last several administrations have 17 had presidential executive orders promoting historic 18 preservation, the later of which, the Preserve America 19 Initiative by President Bush, really imposed the 20 obligations on federal owners of historic properties, 21 and encouraged their adaptive reuse, and encouraged 22 their employment in public-private partnerships of 23 some form to use those historic properties rather than 24 discard them.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 41 So preservation of the nuclear facilities, 1
preservation of the ship, is wholly consistent with 2
the current federal thrust in historic preservation.
3 The two presidential executive orders, the other being 4
Save America's Treasures from the Clinton 5
administration, have both been codified into law now.
6 And there is some funding for them, even for federal 7
entities.
8 So it has become a very firm program, very 9
firm federal program with support.
10 We do believe that preservation is quite 11 consistent with the vision of Atoms for Peace, the 12 mission and the purpose of the Savannah project, which 13 is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power, to 14 promote the merchant marine, and that these missions 15 which were undertaken by the federal government in the 16 form of the Savannah remain relevant to this day.
17 The nuclear renaissance is certainly 18 something that we are familiar with. Nuclear power is 19 not going away. And the Savannah with a preserved 20 nuclear power plant is certainly an excellent facility 21 to educate the public about nuclear power.
22 We don't believe that preservation for the 23 purpose of cost avoidance is something that is 24 justifiable. Preservation for cost avoidance does not 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 42 relieve MARAD of its obligations or its 1
responsibilities as a possessor of a nuclear power 2
plant.
3 In situ decommissioning is something that 4
the IAEA has some guidelines on. It's not in the U.S.
5 regulatory scheme, but we also - we have reviewed 6
that, and we don't believe that that is particularly 7
applicable to a floating power plant.
8 So finally we also believe that 9
preservation if it is to be undertaken should provide 10 means for public access to the facility.
11 And that concludes my remarks on the 12 PSDAR.
13 MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you very much, 14 Erhard.
15 PUBLIC COMMENTS & QUESTION 16 MR. BUCKLEY: The remainder of tonight's 17 meeting has been set aside to hear members of the 18 public. If you folks have comments on the PSDAR, if 19 you have questions for Erhard regarding the contents 20 of the PSDAR or the licensing process or inspection 21 process, I think the panel members here are happy to 22 entertain any questions you may have.
23 If you would like to make a comment about 24 the PSDAR itself, please come up, state your name so 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 43 we have it for the record, and we would be happy to 1
consider those comments in our review of the MARAD 2
submittal.
3 Could you state your name for the record?
4 That would be helpful.
5 MR. KAMPS: My name is Kevin Kamps. I'm 6
with Beyond Nuclear based on Takoma Park, Maryland.
7 And we are a watchdog organization on the nuclear 8
power industry.
9 And I haven't had a chance to study the 10 PSDAR yet, but I came tonight at the request of Tom 11 Clements, who is with Friends of the Earth in South 12 Carolina, and he has a particular interest in NS 13 Savannah, because he was born in Savannah, Georgia, 14 studied it in elementary school in a textbook I think 15 he said.
16 And my coworker, Paul Hunter actually 17 built a ship, model ship, NS Savannah when he was a 18 small child. So there is some interest out there.
19 But there are some concerns.
The 20 experience that I bring to decommissioning of nuclear 21 facilities, I acquired at the Big Rock Point nuclear 22 power plant in Michigan. And the concerns that we 23 bring to decommissioning is that there is significant 24 residual radioactivity, for example at the Big Rock 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 44 Point facility, even though they spent close to $400 1
million on decommissioning.
2 And in fact the sediments of Lake Michigan 3
have never been examined from what is there, even 4
though discharges took place for 35 years.
5 So the concerns that we have tonight about 6
the proposed preservation would be that if this is 7
going to be encouraging visitation by members of the 8
public, concerns of radiological exposure to those 9
people who visit, and particularly children who are 10 more vulnerable than
- adults, especially more 11 vulnerable to adult males, which is the reference man 12 that NRC bases its health regulations on.
13 So that is a tremendous concern that we 14 have about the health of visitors to the ship. We 15 certainly would be concerned about where - if 16 decommissioning activities do take place, where they 17 would take place. So if this is the location, for 18 example, for that decommissioning activity to take 19 place, we are concerned about the workforce in the 20 Port of Baltimore, but also local residents, some of 21 whom are within just a couple or three miles of here.
22 Another concern that we would like to 23 raise tonight is about this proposed museum that would 24 take place onboard the ship, and the content of the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 45 museum. Towards the end of your talk you talked about 1
Atoms for Peace and you talked about the nuclear 2
renaissance. And there is certainly a significant 3
portion of the American public that does not agree 4
with the premise, and is not supportive of the nuclear 5
renaissance. So the question of - I already mentioned 6
the concern about radiological exposure just in having 7
the museum. But if there is to be one, if there are 8
to be public visitations, the question of balance.
9 And there seems to be some court precedent requiring 10 balance in the creation of such a museum. And I know 11 that a colleague, Kathleen Sullivan, in New Mexico, 12 was able at the Los Alamos Museum, to obtain some 13 measure of balance; that there are alternative views 14 on these subjects; that there are critical 15 perspectives on Atoms for Peace and nuclear power in 16 general.
17 So those are some of the concerns that we 18 bring tonight. And we will - one last question, I 19 don't know if you can answer it right now, is your 20 openness to written comments and what deadline would 21 be in place for that? Because I think there are a lot 22 of interested parties out there.
23 MR. BUCKLEY: Written comments have been 24 requested when the Federal Register notice went out.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 46 I have seen several written comments already, and 1
those are being considered and will be evaluated.
2 You can send in written comments at any 3
time. We can certainly consider those.
4 The 90-day period which MARAD had to wait 5
before they start any decommissioning activities 6
described in the PSDAR ends very very soon, so your 7
comments would be requested sooner rather than later.
8 Any other questions or comments?
9 Yes, please.
10 MR. MEYER: Good evening. Thank you for 11 this presentation.
12 My name is Alfred Meyer, and I'm just a 13 concerned citizen.
14 I was wondering if this fits into the 15 PSDAR proceedings, but I'm curious to know what the 16 total cost of the Savannah has been in its 2-1/2 years 17 of service and what in particular it actually did.
18 MR. BUCKLEY: Erhard, you are the person 19 to answer both of those questions.
20 MR. KOEHLER: You will test my powers of 21 recall. The first question was how much did it cost?
22 MR. MEYER: Total cost of the project from 23 inception to today.
24 MR. KOEHLER: The - we have a - the ship 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 47 cost roughly $80 million to construct. And that was 1
apportioned among the cost of - no, I'm sorry, it's 2
$40 million to construct I believe it was. $40 million 3
to construct.
4 MR. MEYER: 1950 dollars?
5 MR. KOEHLER: 1956 probably, because it 6
was authorized in 1956, and it was appropriated in 7
1956. So I believe it was $40 million to construct, 8
which was split I think $18 million to the Atomic 9
Energy Commission for the nuclear power plant and the 10 fuel and the training; and the balance to the Maritime 11 Administration for construction of the ship.
12 We have a document, the Program Status 13 Report, it's a one-sheet report, the last of which was 14 updated in 1970, roughly the time, just before, two or 15 three months before the ship was taken out of service, 16 that provided most of the statistics, including the 17 cost. I believe that it was roughly to that date 18 something around $120 million, which would have been 19 then reduced - the total federal expenditure would 20 have been reduced by the value of the revenue earned 21 in cargo services from 1965 to 1970. But roughly on 22 the order, the federal expenditures were roughly $120 23 million to 1970.
24 We don't have good data readily available, 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 48 good records readily available, for the cost of the 1
defueling or the mothballing process to the mid-`70s.
2 There was a drydocking in 1975. There was some 3
retention cost from 1975 to 1981, and from 1981 to 4
1994 when the ship was chartered to the state of South 5
Carolina for use as a museum, the full cost of the 6
ship was then borne by the state of South Carolina.
7 So there is a period of time there of 8
roughly 13, 14 years where there was the only MARAD 9
expenditures were essentially for staff travel to 10 attend the periodic annual meetings, annual reviews, 11 and so forth.
12 In 1994 the ship was returned to the 13 Maritime Administration for drydocking. The value of 14 the appropriation or the authority that we received to 15 use internal funding for the drydocking, for the 16 return of the ship from Charleston to drydock here in 17 Baltimore, to go the reserve fleet and into retention, 18 was $1.5 million; and I believe that that was 19 authorized - I believe it was fiscal `94.
20 The ship was then retained in the James 21 River Reserve Fleet from 1994 to 2006, and it's 22 overhead cost was absorbed in the larger operations fo 23 the James River Reserve Fleet. You would have to go 24 in and try and find the line item cost that might have 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 49 been attributable to the
- Savannah, potentially 1
something on the order of about $20,000 a year or 2
something like that. Whatever the per ship cost was 3
for the fleet operations, and that varied because the 4
number of ships in the fleet varied over time, and 5
there was a cost to operate the fleet apportioned 6
among the ships.
7 From 2005 to date, I would have to go back 8
and check. It's - it's $3 million this year. It was 9
$3 million last year which was fiscal `08. 4.7 the 10 year before that? And then it was a lesser number the 11 year before that.
12 And the drydocking contract was $4.1 13 million, and the topside contract at Colonna's 14 Shipyard in August of 2006 was $1 million.
15 Now your other question, and we will have 16 to do some research and see how well I did, your other 17 question - I have been responsible for the ship since 18 1993. I did repossess it if you want to use the word, 19 but I took redelivery of the Savannah in 1994, and ran 20 it through the drydocking, and I've been the senior 21 management official for the ship since 2004. So I 22 have some history, and we brought a lot of paper.
23 Your other question was, what did the ship 24 do? Correct?
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 50 MR. MEYER: Yes.
1 MR. KOEHLER: Okay. Savannah was 2
constructed as a demonstration project, Atoms for 3
Peace, proposed by President Eisenhower. From 1962 to 4
1965 it operated a demonstration service in support of 5
that vision, in support of that program of Atoms for 6
Peace. It sailed to foreign countries; it sailed to 7
domestic ports. It was open for public visitation.
8 It was built for the public purpose of demonstrating 9
the peaceful application of atomic power. It was 10 built for the purpose fo exploring the issues related 11 to future nuclear powered merchant ships. And there 12 have been three other nuclear powered merchant ships 13 that used the benefit of Savannah's entry into 14 merchant service as a basis for their subsequent 15 operations. So Savannah explored issues such as 16 marine insurance, security for port calls, training of 17 merchant marine officers as nuclear power plant 18 operators; all of the things that would be different 19 in a
nuclear merchant ship as opposed to a
20 conventional ship whether it was diesel propelled or 21 steam propelled.
22 And it did all of those missions quite 23 well. It satisfied all of the declared programmatic 24 objectives for it at a federal cost. But the federal 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 51 government made the decisions through a proposal by 1
the president and through an act of Congress to take 2
on this particular project to demonstrate these - to 3
fulfill these public purposes. And the federal 4
government spent the money to do that in the form of 5
the Savannah.
6 So there are a lot of myths and legends 7
about the Savannah. It's a somewhat misunderstood 8
ship through the lens of time. But when you look at 9
what its declared purposes were; when you look at what 10 the goals and objectives for the program were laid 11 out; it satisfied all of them.
12 From 1965 to 1970 it did operate in 13 commercial cargo service. It was chartered to a 14 commercial operating company, and it operated in 15 rotation on essential trade routes of the United 16 States with other conventionally powered ships. And 17 there again it operated quite well. The Savannah was 18 never out of service for a reason other than uplands 19 maintenance outage.
20 So the Savannah was an extremely reliable 21 ship. And it handled cargo reasonably well. You have 22 to remember, one of the myths and legends, one of the 23 knocks about this ship, is the fact that it didn't 24 handle cargo well. That was purely because of the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 52 aesthetic design considerations that took precedence 1
over the ability to handle cargo efficiently.
2 So where Savannah is often considered a 3
poor cargo ship, that's because it was designed to be 4
done.
5 The other thing I would also note is that 6
it was not designed to be an economic ship. It was 7
not designed to be profitable in operation. It was 8
designed for the public purpose of exploring issues 9
related to nuclear merchant ship propulsion, and as a 10 consequence - you know the feasibility of a nuclear 11 powered merchant ship only demanded that it be able to 12 carry cargo, not that it make money doing so, and not 13 that it do it efficiently. And it did all of those 14 quite well.
15 But it did not make money. Ironically had 16 the ship operated into 1974 and the oil crisis, it 17 would have turned a profit even with its built in 18 inefficiencies.
19 I think you have to stand at a microphone.
20 MR. MEYER: Thank you very much. I'm 21 wondering if it carried any cargo prior to 1965.
22 MR. KOEHLER: It carried cargo for the 23 Food for Peace Program. It carried some demonstration 24 cargo on its maiden voyage to Savannah, Georgia. It 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 53 carried the newsprint that was used to print the 1
newspapers in Savannah the following day in their 2
nuclear edition.
3 So it carried - during the period `62 to 4
`63 when it was in its initial demonstration service, 5
it really was intended to show the flag. It was not 6
really in service as a cargo ship. It carried some 7
cargo. We had 400 legal sized file boxes of paper 8
that include cargo manifests, and one of these days we 9
may scan them or give them to the archives and 10 somebody can figure out exactly how much cargo she 11 carried.
12 But off the top of our heads we haven't 13 read all that. So I apologize I can't answer that 14 one.
15 MR. MEYER: Thank you.
16 MR.
BUCKLEY:
Other comments or 17 questions?
18 If not, the meeting is adjourned. Before 19 we go, I'd really like to thank Erhard and the other 20 MARAD staff for putting together tonight's meeting 21 venue. I very much appreciate your help.
22 Thank you for coming.
23 (Whereupon at 8:17 p.m. the proceeding in the above-24 entitled matter was adjourned.)
25