ML20052A156
| ML20052A156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1982 |
| From: | WAKE COUNTY, NC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204270479 | |
| Download: ML20052A156 (92) | |
Text
- - _ _ ._. . .__ _______ - -
l l
l
, C ~ ~ .J . .o r ,- w a.m. O R.,
. w ..._. w_ e. .e . h.
7 4 *
[
~'
--- f2 "2 N Of: ?U3 *C .v.II C ;G c =,: ~ g: s .p q v - ne s
, w .. 4.9.C p.e= ..A ... 3 u.s *.*b .r.%3 .p re m.yvab . m
..s.d.s.m e.
s1
. . p~r. .r..o. .r+ 0 r n .*g r.$
..~.
..
- m~a p e
. r J .. r.e t o
l t
I, ,
( , n-"z : April 7, 1982 PAczg: 1 - 90 t
l A;: Ace::, '!crth Carolina I
,h NU q w /
l
- v.e _
e j - >
l ./
<ff,e- . .
j A '
- s. .
i l i
@O- ,
6 ? i 1
d.I DR9X - , ESWI.Y(i
/ .
I
(
' l l !
,:a.m *.s
.1 ..., . . .; . 4,...-., . ~ .. ...
~
.. e. . o
. n. e. . ,. 1
. i i *
.., i
.. a _.ap.a. e: . . . . , i i i 82042iO4 1 i
- . . - , . , . .- . , . y _ - - - - - - - - - - -- *- -- - ' - ' - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ' ' ' " ""----*-
. .- ~. . - - - ..
1
.t h 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p . /
3 4 ---
5
. 6 PUBLIC XEETING 7 SHARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 8 NRC ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW 9
10 11 Apex High School, 12 Apex, North Carolina 13 Wednesday, April 7, 1982 14 15 The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, at 16 7408 o' clock p.m., the Honorable Bob Heater, Wake County 17 Commissioner, presiding.
18 PRESENT FOR THE NRC 19 BOB TEDESCO
~
20 FRANK HIRAGLIA 21 DANIEL MONTGOMERY 22 FRANK LONG 23 JOHN LEHR 24 CHARLES BILLUPS 25
.I ALOERSON REP 09 TING CCMPANY,INC, 400 V1AGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345
2
- .) 1 PRESENT FOR THE NRC (continued)s 2 ED PENTACOST
() 3 CHARLES FARRELL 4 BRIAN RICHTER S PHIL STOHR
.- 6 ALSO PRESENT4 7 BOB HEATER, Wake County Commissioner 8 COLTON BOOTH 9 SARAH DAVIS 10 WELLS EDDLEMAN 11 JIM HENDERSON 12 BIBBIE MOORE 13 - JOHN BERNARD s
14 HARY ROSENSON 15 JIH FRENCH 16 RICHARD WILSON, M.D.
17 JANE SHARP 18 BILL YEAGER 19 ,
[* 20 21 e
22 23 24 i'
~
25 l
? A l
i ALCERSON REPORT;NG CCMP ANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
=eM-+ -+mWm 4-6 %m- m.-- h.
l A
.Q# 1 SSEEEEES 2 PUBLIC APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF: PAGE 3
, Sarah Davis 15 4
Wells Eddleman 17 5
Jim Henderson 37 , ,
. 6 Bibbie Moore. 46 7
n ernard H 8
- 9 Mary Rosenson 58 10 Jim French 64 i
11 Richard Wilson, M.D. 69-12 Bill Yeager 76
- 13
/1f,. Michele Riversome 84 14 Jane Sharp 85 15 16 17 18 19 i
~
l e.
j 20 21 l 22 23 24 1
25 .
l ALCERSON REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC.
, 400 VIRGtNIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN. C.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
3 1
EEEEEER11EE 2 (7408 p.m.)
(% 3 MR. HEATER: It is 7:08. It appears that most 4 of the people have come in, so we vill get started. We 5 are all set to start this NRC meeting this evening. Our
- 6 transcription service is all set up and I have been 7 asked by the NRC to moderate this meeting.
8 My name is Bob Heater and I am your Wake 9 County Commissioner representing this district. The 10 meeting is called to allow members of the public to 11 address the NRC Staff. These gentlemen are charged with 12 reviewing the environmental impact statement as a part 13 of an operating license procedure for the Sharon Harris
(
14 plant.
15 I remind you that there is a sign-up sheet on 16 the front table outside the door. The order of the 17 people on that sheet is the order on which I wi'l 'll 18 them to address the Staff.
19 The NBC Staff is here and I would like them to
~
20 introduce themselves at this time and each one of them 1 21 explain what their purpose vill be in this meeting. At 22 this time I would like to introduce Mr. Robert Tedesco l
! 23 of Washington , D. C. and I will turn the meeting over to
! 24 him at this point.
25 MR. TEDESCO: Thank you. I.am Robert Tedesco,
%d ALDERSoN REPORTING Q* J Tant, mc.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
u
) 1 the Assistant Director for Licensing. As indicated by
~
2 Mr. Heater, this is a public meeting which is being held 3 to allow us to have a discussion with the public and
{')
4 with the Staff regarding the preliminary information 5 concerning the environmental review on the Sharon Harris
. 6 project.
7 There are a number of members of the 8 Regulatory Commission Staff here tonigh t, each of which 9 has a speciality that they can share with you and to 10 respond to questions as they arise with regard to the 11 particular evaluation that they have done. This is in .
12 reality the beginning of our review. The details of our 13 evaluation are not yet complete.
i 14 The first report that we expect to prepare 15 should be ready sometime in October of this year. That 16 will be our draf t environmental statement. At that time 17 comments will be received on the contents of the report 18 from a number of Federal and sta te agencies as well as 19 others as appropriate. '
20 A t this time I would like to call upon Mr.
I 21 Frank Miraglia, who is the Branch Chief and bears the 1*
i t 22 responsibility f or the Sharon Harris project. He will i
23 give you a brief summary of where we are at this stage a 24 of review, as well as to introduce the Staff members.
~
25 Mr. Miraglia.
f d ALCERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
5 I1 1 HR. HIRAGLIA Thank you, Bob. My name is 2 Frank Miraglia. I am Branch Chief, Licensing Branch 3,
('T 3 Division of Licensing, U.S. NRC. My Branch has the 4 responsibility for the Sharon Harris project, both the 5 management of the safety and environmental reviews.
. 6 As Mr. Tedesco has sentioned, this review, 7 which is being initiated, this environmental review, 8 represented the second environmental assessment by the 9 Staff of the environmental effects associated with the 10 operation of the Sharon Harris project. The first 11 assessment was completed and published in the form of a 12 revised final environmental statement in March of 1974.
13 This reassessment will consider information
/
14 that will update that previous evaluation in four ways.
15 The first way is by evaluating changes to the facility 16 design and operation that will result in different 17 impacts from those that were assessed and evaluated at 18 the pre-construction period.
19 Secondly, it will evaluate the results of any
~
20 relevant new information that has become available since l
21 the time that that initial assessment was published.
l 22 Third, we will also consider and f actor into our review 23 new environmental policies and statutes that have a 24 bearing on the licensing action that is before the
. 25 Commiss:.on.
%si l
1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.. . .-... . .- _ -. _ . -. . .~
6 1 And, four, we will identify any unresolved 2 safety issues or surveillance needs that are required to f'; 3 be placed as conditions of the license in the form of 4 technical specifications to be sure that th e 5 environmental values in the Sharon Harris vicinity are 6 protected.
7 We have been in the site vicinity since 8 Tuesday morning. Tuesday we spent at the site touring 9 the facility. The members of the Staff were meeting 10 with the CP CL, toured the f acility and the Sharon Harris 11 project, with principal focus on the interfaces between .
12 the plant and the surrounding environnen,t.
13 The Staff completed an acceptance review of 14 the environmental report that was submitted by CPCL late 15 last year. As a result of that acceptanca review we 16 requested additional information f rom CPEL. They 17 formally responded to those questions. The Staff 18 reviewed those responses and during the course of the 19 site visit additional requests for information were C
20 developed.
21 Those requests were discussed this morning at 22 the Sharon Harris site with CPEL and will be formally 23 transmitted to the utility f or a formal response.
24 At this time I would like to introduce some of 25 the Staff members who are here and ask them to identify i
j l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7
) I themselves and their area of review responsibility that 2 t hey have. We vill start at the f ar lef t with Tim Mo.
/'") 3 MR. MO: My name is Tim Mo. I am with the 4 Radiological Assessment Branch and I sm concerned wi th 5 the radiological impact from normal operations off-site.
6 MR. RICHTERa My name is Brian Richter. I am 7 in the Site Analysis Branch. My area of 8 responsibilities include the socio-economic impacts of 9 the plant operation.
10 MR. FERRELL My name is Charles Ferrell. I 11 am a site analyst in the Siting Analysis Branch. My 12 area of review will be demography and off-site hazards.
13 MR. PENTACOST: My name is Edwin Pentacost. I
( '
14 as in the Environmental Engineering Branch. My area of 15 responsibility will be operational impacts due to 16 vegetation and wildlif e.
17 MR. BILLUPSa My name is Charlie Billups. I am 18 in the Environmental Engineering Branch and as an 19 aquatic scientist I will be responsible for the reviev 20 of non-radiological impacts of the plant on primarily 21 fisheries.
22 MR. LEHR : My name is John Lehr. I am Senior 23 Environmental Engineer in the Environmental Engineering 24 Branch, U.S. NRC. My area of interest on this case vill l 25 be water quality impacts, analysis of chemical ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRG;NIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 8
I
) 1 discharges to site waters.
2 MR. MONTGOMERY: I am Dan Montgomery. I am
'l 3 with the Region II office. I as Chief of the 4 Independent Neasurements and Environmental Protection 5 Section. As opposed to the other gentlemen, we are from
. 6 the regional office and our responsibilities are 7 primarily in inspecting against the construction of the 8 f acility and eventually the operation.
9 In that area we will be involved in reviewing 10 the prb-operational environmental monitoring procram 11 which will be initiated prior to operation of the .
12 plant. Ul tim a tel y , we would have the responsibility for
.-, 13 ensuring that all of the environmental monitoring
)
14 requirements by the NRC are implemented and, in addition 15 to that, the NRC at all current operational plants has 16 developed a direct radiation monitoring network around 17 all operating f acilities and we will have responsibility 18 for implementation of that program.
19 HR. 10NG I am Frank Long, also from the 20 Atlanta Region II NRC office. I am Chief of one of two 21 operating project managemen t branches. We are charged
! 22 with overall responsibility. My branch is composed of 23 project managers, basically, and we have at all sites, 24 as we do at the Harris plant, a resident inspector who
~
25 is an on-site representative of the NRC.
l
.. .)
l l
ALCERSoN REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC, t
400 v1RGlNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C, 20024 (202) 554 2345
ea-%-w+. . +pnwe.,,. = g- w--. e a e= + w e= d.
9 1 We have a very broad inspection program 2 throughout construction. This is related to actual Il 3 construction. work, both civil, electrical, mechanical 4 and the various skills employed in the construction. We 5 evaluate the management programs for control of the 6 quality of construction and cospliance with codes and 7 standards that are applicable.
8 We also have responsibilit'y for a 9 pre-operational test program which begins in the late 10 phases of construction and continues on through plant 11 start-up, th rough plant ascention, to power. -
12 We also have a very comprehensive operating 13 reactor inspection program. One of our major functions 14 is the evaluation of various management programs, 15 qualifications of people, training programs and those 16 things which lead to not only the quality of 17 construction and testing but the quality of plant 18 operations at a later date.
19 MS. ROTHSCHI1Da My name is Marjorie 20 Rothschild. I as a lawyer in the NRC headquarters 21 office of the Executive legal Director and I advise the i
! 22 Staff on any legal matters which may come up as a part i
l 23 of their review of the Sharon Harris licensing l
24 application.
25 I an also one of the attorneys who represent -
l ALCERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345
10 1 the Staff in any hearings that might be held on the 2 Sharon Harris application.
('T 3 HR. HEATER: Thank you, gentlemen, ladies. At 4 this time we will proceed with the people who have 5 signed up. The~ first one will be Mr. Colten Booth. Mr.
. 6 Booth, if you will come around and come up the steps to 7 the podium we.will be glad to hear from you, sir.
8 MS. N00BEs I have a question. I am wondering 9 how people -- do you have a format for people asking 10 q ue stions, because I have two questions, just based on 11 how you introduced your areas of expertise. I wanted -
12 some clarification on two things.
13 58. TEDESCO: Go ahead.
14 ER. HEATER: If you will ask the questions nov 15 and I will repeat it.
16 MS. E00BE: My interest is in knowing what is 17 included in the term "the surrounding environment",
18 wh e th e r th a t is a -- I ' m sure that varies depending on 19 whether your speciality is aquatic interests or
~
20 vegetation or plant demography, but what does that 21 surrounding area mean?
22 And the other one is, is there any way to 23 share with us what kinds of additional information have
-' 24 currently been requested ?
l 25 HR. HEATER: The first nuestion was what does
's l_ J l
l l
, ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W,. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345
l i
l 11 j 1 "the surrounding area environment" mean, and the second 2 question is is there any way of sharing the information r^s. 3 with you. Would that be correct? Does that correctly 4 state your questions?
5 MS. MOOREs In your meetings with CP&1 you
. 6 have requested some additional information from them. I 7 as wondering if someone could simply state what those 8 areas are.
9 HR. TEDESCO: Yes, we vill. Frank, will you 10 answer that? ;
l 11 MR. HIBAGlIA: First of all, in response to l 12 your first question, the surrounding environs considers 13 the environmental impacts associated with the effluents 14 from the f acility in terms of radiological effluents and 15 non-radiological effluents. That would include effects 16 on terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, radiological 17 assessment of the releases in the site environs, again 18 f rom a terrestrial ecology and an aquatic ecology point 19 of view.
20 Environmental assessment will also include an 21 assessment of the socio-economic impact of the operation 22 of the f acility on the area.
23 With respect to the second part of your 24 question as to the types of information tha t we j 25 requested of CPCL this morning, additional information J
ALCERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., $.W.. WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
12
]
1 was asked in almost each of those areas. I will try to 2 briefly characterire them for you.
O 3 With respect to radiological monitoring, 4 environmental monitoring, we asked for an updated land 5 use census in terms of locating nearest dairy herds, 6 vegetable gardens, meat supplies. Again, this is with 7 the view of establishing what the food chain would be 8 and appropriate consideration of uptake of any potential 9 radionuclides in their environment. And we assess what 10 the radiological consequences of those might be.
11 We asked for additional information on the 12 water use of the f acility , flow rates, water makeup, s 13 biocide additions, chlorination of the cooling water.
14 We look at the effects of the chemical releases in the 15 aquatic area. He have asked for information relative to 16 the planned recreational uses that might be made at the 17 Harris reservoir as a result of construction of the 18 reservoir.
19 We asked questions in the socio-economic area 20 indicating need for information as to the amount of 21 taxes that would be paid and how those taxes relate to 22 the tax situation in the country.
23 We have asked for information relative to th'e 24 -- some of the cultural resources in the area that might 25 be af fected , whether they be any historic or ALCERSoN REPCRT;NG CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. O.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
13
) 1 archaeological areas that would requira some sort of 2 protections under the various statutes that do protect
~
( 3 them.
4 It is a very broad characterization. I do not 5 know if that is sufficient for your needs. Do you have
. 6 a follow-up question?
7 MS. MOORE: It was much more detailed and I 8 appreciate that information, but when you are talking 9 about effluents in the terrestrial limit, are you 10 talking about -- I am being a little facetious -- two 11 feet or something that any land animals inhabit, their 12 hunting range, like squirrels, or are you talking about 13 vater, 100 yards or five miles or 207
.)
14 MR. MIRAGLIA: From a radiological point of 15 view we look at the potential effects out to 50 miles.
16 M5. MOORE: That would also be for like 17 windborne or airborne?
18 52. MIRAGLIA: That is correct.
19 MR. HEATER: I think wo will hear the
~
20 statements of the people that signed up first and then l
21 we will come back to the questions, if you would, since 22 we stated we would.
23 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF COLTON BOOTH 24 MR. BOOTH: My name is Colton Booth. I live 25 i n Ca r y , North Carolina. I speak as a private citizen.
- "r v
I ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
1 14 8
[ 1 I have visited the Sharon Harris site. I have been in 2 the coal business for some eleven years of my life, so I 3 can speak with some authority about a coal-fired plant.
4 I lived in West Virginia so I can speak with some 5 authority about hydroelectric power plants.
6 And in my mind I am satisfied that the Sharon 7 Harris Plant will provide adequate electricity to our 8 vicinity. I am satisfied with all the environmental 9 situations that could be prevailing, such as coal or 10 hydroelectric and nuclear. All of these have some 11 adverse effects on the livelihood of our community, but 12 I cannot see any more adverse effect by what is being 13 built there by what I have seen the rest of my life.
14 Personally, my family, we enjoy electricity 15 very much. I am glad to see the plant here. I am glad 16 to see the tax base and I think they are doing an 17 excellent job and if we have an accident I just hope 18 they have room for me over there because I think it's a 19 very safe place.
20 Thank you for letting me speak.
21 ER. HEATER: Thank you, Mr . Boo th .
22 Mext will be Mr. Fred Oliver. If'Mr. Oliver 23 Jill come up.
24 (No response.)
25 MR. HEATER: We vill go to the third one and .
7.,
'%)
ALOER$oN REPCRT NG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (2021 554-2345
15 1 come back to Mr. Oliver. Sarah Davis.
2 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF SARAH DAVIS 3 MS. DAVISs My name is Sarah Davis. I live 4 here in Apex on Tender Road about five or six miles from 5 the Sharon Harris plant.
6 As a community health ' worker I have two main 7 concerns about the operation of the Sharon Harris 8 nuclear plant. These concerns are What will be the 9 health implication of the Sharon Harris plant? And, 10 number two, what is and will be the economic consequence 11 of th e plant's continued construction and operation?
12 As a community health worker I am very aware 13 of the f act that what happens in a community directly 14 aff ects the health and wellbeing of individuals. I 15 believe there are a number of unanswered questions and 16 unexplained f acts about the health effects of nuclear 17 power on the surrounding population.
18 Since abnormalties from radiation exposures 19 a re not obvious for two or three generations, can we in 20 Apex expect to see a rise in the number of patients with 21 cancer, leukemia, mental retardation in years to come?
22 Why was there an unexplained rise in the number of 23 miscarriages and low thyroid diseases in local newborns J 24 af ter the accident on Three Mile Island?
25 How does the stress caused by the fear and i
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY. INC, 400 V?RGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTCN. O.C. 00024 (2C2) 554-2345
16
/-3 J 1 uncertainty of living around a nuclear power plant 2 affect the health of our people? Health problems are
^
3 of ten made worse by financial problems. Therefore, I am 4 also worried about the cost of the Sharon Harris.
5 Again, these are unanswered questions. Why
. 6 would we pay for the plant in the three Sha ron Harris 7 reactors that have been cancelled? Who will pay for 8 cleaning up if we have an accident like Three Mile 9 Island? If nuclear power is so cheap and reliable, why 10 do we keep paying more for electricity while the CPCL 11 nuclear plant in Wilmington breaks down.
12 Since a nuclear reactor only has a life span 13 of 30 years, how can we be sure our children and 14 grandchildren will be protected from the dangerous 15 con taminated plant, and since our regular homeowner's 16 insurance does not cover nuclear accidents, the 17 Price-Anderson Act providas inadequa te coverage for 18 serious accidents.
19 Who will pay for damage to my home and land if 20 an accident occurs? I have a patient who is 87 years 21 old . She lives on a fixed income. Her electrical bill 22 for this year has run almost double per month. I do not 23 think patients or my neighbors can stay healthy and
/ 24 continue to pay and eventually live around the Sharon 25 Harris Nuclear Plant.
]
l~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
1 l
17
) 1 MR . HEATER : Has Er. Fred Oliver come back in?
2 (No response.)
3 MR. HEAIER: I will move to Mr. Wells Eddleman.
4 MR. EDDLEMAN: E-d-d-1-e-a-a-n. There is 5 about 50 ways to spell that name.
. 6 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF WELLS EDDLENAN 7 HR. EDDLENAN: Maybe these electronic things
~
8 veren 't such a good idea after all.
9 I had e number of questions about the 10 environmental review of this plant. First, how is the 11 question of the effect of the radon gas that is released 12 by the mining and milling of uranium and the mill 13 tailings being taken into account?
14 I understand that this is a pretty substantial 15 radiation effect and radon has a half-life of about 16 three days, which happens to be about the time it takes 17 the winds to blow from the main uranium mill areas over 10 to here. So I am assuming about half the concentration 19 that pops into the atmosphere over there is
~
20 technologically-enhanced radiation. That is, if we 21 did n ' t dig it up, it wouldn't get to us. It is easy 22 t h a t that would get to us.
23 I am concerned about the radiation monitoring,
( , ,, 24 first as to the level of the study of the existing 25 background around ths site and in the surrounding area r,
ALDERSCN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTCN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18
~
,$ 1 and if it's out to 50 miles, I think that is good. But 2 in a 50-mile radius you would have to examine quite a
~
3 number of places to get a statistically significant 4 reading. I am wondering if that is being done. I wish 5 it were.
. 6 The reason I am concerned about monitoring 7 bef ore the plant starts up, in the stuff I have been
~
8 able to find out about the plant the only thing that is 9 in there is kind of a fudge f actor that says well, there 10 are some areas in North Carolina that have some 11 background as high as this number. The number they put 12 in there, I think, was around 187 millirens a year, 13 which is a pretty high cosmic background level, but 14 there is no indication of anything like that was ever 15 mea sured around the site.
16 I would also like to know if they are 17 analyzing for all the specific radionuclides. In 18 determining levels of them I would be curious as to what 19 the accuracy of the equipment is, how thoroughly you
~
20 would have to check over an area to make sure you find a 21 certain concentration -- in other words, what your 22 statistical error limits are in inspecting an area. If 23 rou sample a few places, what does that tell you with 24 confidence about the amount of radionuclides that are in 25 the area already?
^
l
. \
%)
l l
l
! ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRG:NIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTCN D.C. 20024 CO2) 554 2345
19
) 1 I am further concerned as to what provisions 2 would be made f or continuous and comprehensive 3 monitoring in communities, within 30 miles of the plant r]} The Durham County 4 site af ter it goes on line.
5 Democratic Convention passed a resolution calling for
. 6 this this Saturday. I think some of the other groups 7 around have been interested in it.
8 Will there be provisions for independent 9 monitoring, independent continuous, independent periodic 10 testing , besides CPCL, the NBC and the State? I have a 11 particular reason for this concern, which is that the 12 State Radiation Protection Commission meeting was in 13 February .
14 One of the concerns stated by the staff there 15 was that they were already having to cut back the 16 environmental monitoring for radiation around the 17 existing nuclear plants in the Carol.'.nas because of 18 inadequate f unds to get sufficient monitoring licenses.
19 I want to know also how fast we can find out 20 if something goes wrong with the plant. What kind of i
j 21 alerting systems are going to be there? Who is going to I'
22 have the authority to initiate them? If the company 23 decides they don't want to tell us something, will the l
l 24 NRC tell us since they have somebody there all the time?
25 I am concerned about this because the average ALDEPSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTCN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
20
'/ 'N
.) 1 wind speed at the site is, as I recall from the reports 2 that were put out earlier, in excess of seven miles an 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />. That-means if something escapes you have got a 4 little over two hours to Raleigh, a little over three 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to Chapel Hill, maybe four hours to most of Durham.
6 If they decide they don't want to tell you 7 fast, how do you know and what can you do about it?
- 8 This ties into the question of evacuation planning. If 9 it turns out that we should have to evacuate this place, 10 how are we going to take care of things like the major 11 hospitals around here? How about Central Prison? What 12 about people who don't have their own transportation?
13 I am wondering how these things are going to 14 be addressed. I as also very concerned about the 15 question of how f ar out you have to plan to deal with 16 these things. If you are within ten miles of the site, 17 that is nice , but what barrier is going to stop the 18 effects of any ten-mile mark? How is this going to be 19 dealt with?
20 I am concerned as to how the cost-benefit 21 analysis of the plant is carried out, particularly with 22 respect to whether it's really worth it to complete the 23 things or whether you should invest the money to produce 24 energy in other ways and make the equivalent amount of 25 energy available.
4 ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. !NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I l
l 21 i I) 1 I am particularly concerned about this because 2 of the operating record of some of these plants. I 3
3 would like to know how long this plant is really going 4 to last, not just how long the architect-engineer 5 projects. I understand the steam generators are
. 6 Westinghouse Model D, which is a defective design, and 7 such are having to be replaced some places or 8 extensively modified. I wonder how that's going to 9 affect the cost of the plant in its lifetime.
, 10 I wonder what you are going to do with a steam 11 generator that's worn out and is full of radioactive 12 material, what the environmental impact of either 13 storing it on the site or trying to disassemble it or a
14 trying to dispose of it. I guess parts of it, at least, 15 you get high level nuclear waste, not low level -- how 16 tha t would be dealt with.
17 I am concerned about various things that I 18 have heard about what is going on at the site. I would 19 just like to ask the NRC to take a look into these. I
~
20 cannot verif y them for myself but, for example, I have 21 heard people say --
they tell me they work there --
22 saying that non-conforming materials that are rejected 23 on one shif t are installed on the next shift, that when k 24 they do the static pressure tests on certain equipment 25 th a t the pipes tha t lead from the testing pressure ID Q ,/
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.w, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
22 0 1 meters into the equipment are sealed themselves.
2 So all you are measuring is whether that pipe O 3 is velded properly. Well, if they have the best welder 4 they have got veld that one pipe, the vessel itself is S not really getting pressure-tested a t all.
6 I am concerned about the water quality and 7 supply downriver from the place. I think that 8 cancelling two units makes a difference, but I am still 9 concerned about what happens if yoo take a very large 10 proportion of the Cape Fear flow, how much you would 11 concentrated in the loops that already exist in that 12 water, what the eff ect on the plant would be for various
~ 13 pollutants that would be taken in for emergency cooling.
')
14 I have some questions about the cooling 15 towers. This is a very high humidity area and a very 16 low wind speed area compared to many others. I am 17 wondering how efficient the cooling towers will be, 18 whether they will grow more molds and have other 19 problems, and really wr ather they can get rid of that 20 such humidity if it is that humid around it. This area 21 does have pretty high humidity most of the year.
22 I am also wondering whether the added humidity 23 from those towers will have other environmental effects 24 -- particula rly fog on the roadways, fog on the lakes 25 where people might be boating, whether it might require s
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
23 1 the air conditioners downwind of the plant to work 2 harder because they are getting more humidity. I am J ') 3 serious about that.
4 I think you might have a tiny effect, but 5 sultiply it by one million air conditioners and you may
- 6 have a sizeable ef fect.
7 There are some questions that have come up 8 just listening to this. I wonder how many of you all 9 who are here now were here in 1974 when the previous 10 review was done or worked with the NRC at that time and 11 the AEC. I would like to know what methods are being 12 considered or what method is planned to decommission the 13 Harris Plant, what the environmental impacts of that O~ 14 will be particularly with respect to the very long lived 15 activation products like nickle-59, niopium-94 and so 16 on.
17 I am concerned about the environmental effects 18 of nuclear waste transportation to this plant for 19 storage at some of the other CPEL plants and from it and 20 storage at it, the question of whether the spent fuel j ,
21 pool vill actually hold itself together, and whether its 22 space is adequate for how much will be in it and whether 23 they can make sure that accidents there will not have -
- 24 too serious an impact on us, whether the containment I
l 25 building can stand up to -- not the containment, pardon
(%
-)
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH,NGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
24 d 1 me, the f uel building, whether that can stand up to 2 certain forms of terrorism.
- . 3 For example, we have Ft. Bragg right down the 4 road here where things unfortunately are stolen from 5 them a lot. One of the things that the Army and +.he Air
- 6 Force have now are these precision guided m unitions 7 which can blow a hole in almost any designated spot in 8 anything. And although I would certainly hate to think 9 that somebody would be crazy enough to try it, I think 10 things like this have to be considered before they might 11 happen.
12
- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-J
]
i ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
25 qs 1 I am miso curious as to what the benefits are 2 that are considered to derive from the plant, vnat kind 3 of performance the plant is expected to have and whether i}
4 CPCL's past experience and operating record is being 5 figured into that. lately I have been seeing things.
. 6 Whenever their actual performance goes down they predict 7 that it will still be a few more years before we can get 8 it back up and then it will be good again. I am a 9 little skeptical of that.
10 I would like to finish up with possibly a 11 apocryphal question. There is a story about hearings 12 like this in western North Carolina where the Duke Power 13 Company came and gave a lot of technical information
/ -T
(> 14 about how safe the nuclear plant there was going to be.
15 The story goes that there was this old farmer in the.
16 audience. When they asked for questions, he got up and 17 said well, sir, you have given me a lot of very detailed 18 inf orma tion. You have answered most of the questions 19 that I had, but I just have one more. That is, what is
~ '
20 the worst thing that can go wrong with this plant and 21 what consequences would tha t have.
22 And I am rather disturbed about whether the 23 NRC is really dealing with ~ the worst case, particularly 24 in light of what has already happened at Three Mile 25 Island and a number of other plants.
s_/
ALDERSoN REPCRTiNG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHaNGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4 26
']
s 1 MR. HEATER: Mr. Tedesco would like to have 2 someone reply to some of your questions.
^
) 3 MR. MIRAGLIA: Mr. Eddleman, you had a large 4 number of questions. I will attempt to answer some of 5 those. I was trying to keep a list. I may not have
- 6 them all and we may have some other members of the Staff 7 here who can address some of the other areas and we will 8 have them do that.
9 Your first issue was with respect to radon and 10 the contribution of the radiological impact from radon 11 releases that would emanate from emissions from the 12 mining operation used to get uranium th a t would be used 13 to fuel the Harris reactor.
14 The NRC has developed a position relatively to 15 radon and the releases in the environment and the 16 environmental impact that would be attributable to the 17 licensing of any individual reactor. Discussion of 18 radon and its environmental impact will be contained in 19 the draf t statement that will be prepared and issued in 20 t he fall of this year.
21 You had some questions in the emergency 22 planning area. The emergency plan.is developed in a 23 cooperative ef fort between the utility, the NRC, the 24 State and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
25 With respect to the development of the on-site ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, i 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
27 l I
) 1 plan, the NRC has various cuidance criteria as to what 2 elements must be considered in development of the plan.
', 3 Ihat includes establishment of various emergency lev els ,
4 difference classes of incidents, what actions must be 5 taken by the utility, what notifications must be
- 6 instituted by the utility to the appropriate agencies --
7 the NRC and State and others, as appropriate.
8 So those elements will be contained in the 9 emergency plan. In addition, the off-site emergency 10 plan, FEM A, working in concert with the State and the 11 local agencies, will make sure that the enorgency 12 planning f or the uff-site agencies is compatible with
, 13 the emergency plan to be developed for Sharon Harris.
~~
14 rou talked in terms of cooling tower effects, 15 fogging and the like. Perhaps Ed Pentacost'could go 16 into a little more detail about the effect of the 17 cooling tower operating in terms of drift, which would 18 be chemical deposition resulting f rom the operation of 19 the cooling tower, incidents of fogging, how far 20 off-site f ogging effects, if any, would exist.
21 These kinds of things will also be assessed 22 and evaluated by the Staff and discussed in their draft 23 statement as well.
24 The number of other issues you raised are 25 perhaps not environmental issues as.such, but will be
%s ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
28
- 0) 1 considered in the Safety Evaluation Report that is to be 2 prepared by the Staff.
3 As to the adequacy of the spent f uel storage 4 facility, accidents in that spent fuel storage f acility 5 -- these will all be evaluated and considered by the
- 6 Staf5 and the results of those evaluations will be 7 contained in the Safety Evaluation Report prepared by ,
8 the Staff, which would be issued in the first quarter, I 9 believe, in 1983.
10 As far as worst case, the environmental 11 statement to be prepared will have a discussion and an 12 assessment prepared by the _ Staff of accidents beyond the 13 design basis accident and would include accidents at TMI 14 and the like and an assessment of what the environmental 15 consequencas of such an accident at .the Harris station 16 might be in terms of radiological health and economic _
17 impacts. That will also be part of the draft statement 18 to be prepared.
19 You had several other points, one on the j 20 environmental monitoring of background radiation. That 21 sort of thing I think Dan Montgomery might be able to 22 provide some specifics on that.
23 MR. EDDLEMAN: Could I just ask_you one thing 24 about this? You said some of these issues would be 25 addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report, the report -
m h _/
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INd.
400 vtRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.- .. a -.= . ~ . .u - . ..
29 m;) - 1 that would be out in 1983, but your draf t is going to 2 come out in 1982. Do I take it you are going to have 3 some reevaluation of those radiological impacts from the
<7) .
4 safety issues later?
5 MR. MIRAGLIA: The environmental review, there
, 6 are two reviews that will be conducted in parallel. One 7 review is the environmental review. It is the a
8 assessment of the environmental impacts of the operation I 9 of the facility. The draft environmental statement will 10 be prepared and issued 'f or comment in October.
11 In concert and in parallel with that 12 environmental review , the Staff also will review and 13 prepare a Safety Evaluation Report. The scope of the
._ ,T-
^
14 Safety Review is such broader than that of the 15 environmental review. The Safety Evaluation Report is 16 to be prepared' and issued in the first quarter of 1984.
~
17 MR. MONTGOMERY: I guess the first thing I 18 would like to' address is the question regarding 19 pre-operational monitoring, establishing a baseline. As 20 I mentioned briefly, within our of fice in Region II we 21 have the responsibility for a series of pre-operational 22 environmental inspections.
23 This is a series of three inspections in which e 24 we look at the implementation of what we call the i
. 23. pre-operational environmental monitoring program. This O .
s - 2ALdERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIROttilA AVE S.W, WASHNGioN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 30 l
<m M 1 will start approximately three years prior to operation 2 of the plant. The purpose of the pre-operational 7,; - 3 environmental monitoring program, which is a requiremen t 4 of the NRC, is to measure background levels and the 5 varia tion an ong all the different pathways which will
+ 6 not only be monitoring during the operation of the plant 7 but additional reasons for doing this is to ensure that 8 the program is properly implemented in terms of sampling 9 procedures, analysis procedures, proper equipmett and 10 the proper capability to monitor the environment.
11 Briefly, two years prior to operation of the 12 f acility the direct radiation part of the environmental 13 monitoring program would be initiated. In addition, the 14 fish monitoring of aquatic pathways would be initiated, 15 food products, and sediment from streams.
16 Approximately one year prior to plant 17 opera tion, the airborne monitoring program would be 18 initiated to sample allk samples, surface Water, ground 19 water, and any drinking water intakes that may be 20 involved.
l l 21 Then, six months prior to operation, we 22 ini tia te ra dioiodin e airborne measurements and l
l 23 radioiodine in milk and any other types of radionuclides i
24 in milk.
25 With respect to the pre-op program, it is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~. . . - - . . . - .
31
) 1 designed primarily to determine any va riations in 2 background but it turns out that in general the only
, 3 radionuclides that you would normally find in the 4 environment now are still some of the longer-life 5 radionuclides from the weapons testing in an ares there
. 6 you do not have an operating nuclear plant -- things 7 like seisium-137 and strontium-90 in milk.
~
8 The pre-op program is set up to identify any 9 local variations in these background levels to establish 10 wha t w'ould be the norms in regard to the effect from the 11 plant . Does that answer your question regarding th e 12 p r e -o p program?
13 The monitoring program is set up with the O 14 theory that the environmental monitoring stations are 15 located normally in those areas in which you would 16 expect the highest concentrations in the environment.
17 Normally from normal operations of a nuclear plant you 18 seldom can detect any effect of the plant on th e 19 environment, so the theory is to monitor what we call 20 critical pathways which are not necessarily, in some 21 races, even measurable.
22 But if the releases are such that they would l
23 be detectable in the environment, then the environmental kJ 24 monitoring stations are located where you would expect 25 the highest concentrations.
j .m ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
32 1 MR. EDDLENANs That is helpf ul. I asked a 2 more complicated question and I do not think you can j 3 really address it in a forum like th is . I would like to 4 go over it with you some more.
5 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. When you start talking
- 6 about statistical variations and T-tests and things like 7 that, that would be beyond the scope. .
8 MR. EDDLENANs I'm not asking you to respond 9 here.
10 3R. MONTGOBERYs Okay.
11 ER. TEDESCOs Mr. Eddleman raised another 12 question about the steam generator. The issue on the q 13 steam generator that would be used on Harris has its
^
14 origin back with a foreign plant who used a similar 15 steam generator. There are certainly anomalies in the 16 hydraulic flow that have been detected. These matters 17 are being investigated on Harris as well as a number of 18 other plants. By the time the Harris does go into 19 operation this matter should be resolved.
20 We are talking about two years, 2-1/2 years, 21 three years from now.
! 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I certainly hope so, 23 because Duke Power said they would have it resolved 24 bef ore they got McGuire into operation and they a re 25 still limited to half power.
l ,. s J
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY lNC.
400 VIRGINlA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
33 1 MB. TEDESCOs Yes, they are limited to fifty 2 percent power and the matter is still under review.
3 Ihey are running tests,- taking data. The data are being 4 evaluated by Duke Power and Westinghouse and the Staff.
5 I would like to have Frank Long now say some
. 8 words about the question of non-conformance. .
7 HR. LONGS I would just like to address the 8 subject in general terms because it is a ve ry broad 9 program devoted to detection and correction of 10 non -conf ormances.
11 Obviously, during the construction phase this 12 is a very routine and a very comprehensive program. You y 13 are , I believe, more concerned with -- for the long
- 7 14 term, particularly in the operating plants. I would 15 like to say just briefly that this is a very major 16 f actor in our inspection program.
17 It all originates with, first, what we feel 18 are very stringent reporting requirements for all 19 anomalies, whether they are identified as 20 non-conf ormance f actors in materials , components 21 supplied in the plant, replaced on spare parts and that 22 type of thing.
23 He have a very large effort applies to the 24 management systems for control of this type ot thing.
25 as you know, very obviously you seritioned the steam !
I /*
l l .
i ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA VE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- . - _ - . . . - - . - .. ._ ... . . ~ . -
I 34 O
o 1 generators, of course. There are license conditions for 2 detection of deterioration or degradation of the quality 3 of those components -- steam generators and many others 4 -- by the limitations on samples of the primary water S testing and things such as that.
. 6 We have in our regional office a very broad 7 spectrum of special skills to address routinely and in 8 an inspection program, amounting to somewhere perhaps in 9 the range of 2,000 or more manhours a year of direct 10 eff ort in this broad spectrum of area that are covered 11 b y the license or regulatory requirements.
12 The reporting requirements, of course, would 13 not be the sole source. We would expect and look for 14 things that pe'rhaps were not reported or where the NRC 15 may not be satisfied with the amount of reporting or the 16 f act that something was adequately reported. We do 17 expect and obtain prompt correction of identified 18 non-conf ormances.
19 We take enforcement action at various levels 20 of enforcement action depending on the types of 21 non-conf ormances, whether they consist of more serious 22 violations or lesser violations. We follow up on these 23 b y the utility taking the actions that he has identified 24 to us. We verify that these were in fact taken promptly 25 and there is usually, in most things of significance, a V
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
35
) 1 continuing program of followup.
2 We look for two things -- correction of 3 specific problems and correction of root causes, whether 4 the root cause may be one of qualification of personnel, 5 maintenanca procedures, operating procedures or 6 def ective equipment. , We try to establish the root 7 causes of all non-conformances so that the likelihood of 8 recurrences would be diminished.
9 One very important thing not only in the 10 construction but in the operating plant are the 11 management systems established for controlling the 12 quality of not just parts, replacement parts and 13 components, but the quality of actual opera tions, 14 recordkeeping , a broad spectrum of things that are vital 15 to the ultimate safety of the plant.
16 dB. LEHR My name is John Lehr. I would just 17 like to address a couple of things Mr. Eddleman 18 men tioned. You made some comments about water quality 19 effects downstream of the Cape Fear River and the 20 consequences of withdrawing water containing pollutants 21 f rom the Cape Fear and concentrating it in the plant 22 systems and discharging it.
23 I do not know if you are aware -- we learned 24 just as a result of the site visit -- that the plant is 25 being constructed now without an intake on the Cape Fear M
l l
ALCERSON REPoRTINo COMPANY. INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHtNGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
36
's 1 River. In other words, the combination, I guess, of 2 revised hydrologi analysis and the reduction in the
- 3 size of the cooling lake and the reduction in the number 4 of units at the site has resulted in no longer having a 5 need for takeup water being withdrawn from the Cape Fear
. 6 River, that the normal inflows into the streams which 7 f eed the Harris Lake will be sufficient to supply .
8 cooling tower makeup and other cooling tower uses.
9 So there will, however, likely occur some 10 discharges from the Harris reservoir to the Cape Fear 11 River. There are provisions in the main dam of the 12 Harris Lake for two levels of discharge or discharge 13 f rom two water levels, which gives the utility some 14 flaxibility in choosing the characteristics of the 15 waters they would choose to discharge to lower Buckhorn 16 Creek and consequently the Cape Fear River.
17 It is not anticipated, we understand, that 18 this discharge would be continuous. It would probably 19 only occur during periods of high inflow into the Harris 20 La k e . '4e have indicated to the Applicant that we would 21 vant the environmental report to be revised with more 22 detail in this area.
23 And our formal request for additional 24 information, which will be going to the utility in the 25 next month or so, will have a couple of questions i i I (s/
l t
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
37
) 1 addressing this, so that that information will be in the 2 docket if you ever want to examine it.
, 3 The other thing I wanted to mention, you asked 4 about the qualifications and the length of se rvice of 5 the people preparing this environmental statement. The
- 6 Council on Environmental Quality Hegulations, a modified 7 form of which we have adopted or proposed to adopt as 8 part of our regulations, calls for the qualifications, 9 names, qualifiestions and areas of responsibility in 10 environmental statements to be placed in one section of 11 the statement so that members of the public, interested 12 parties, can see who did what and what qualifications
, 13 the individuals have.
14 I cannot speak for everyone up here. I have 15 been working for the Atomic Energy Commission since 16 1973. I have worked on over 80 of these different 17 cases. I am sure a number of these gentlemen have had 18 just as much experience. That is all I have to say.
19 MR. HEATER: Thank you, gentlemen.
20 The next person on the agenda is Mr. Jim 21 Renderson.
22 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF JIM HENDERSON 23 MR. HENDEBSON: I think this is a very J 24 important hearing and I am grateful for the opportunity j
25 to participate. I wondered whose responsibility k
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
38
() I publicity for this meeting was.
2 NR. MIRAGLIAs In what sense?
3 5H. HENDERSON: Whose responsibility was ,
s.
4 publicity for the meeting tonight?
5 ER. MIRAGLIA: We, I guess, in concert with 6 Region II did arrange for a press release to be made 7 announcing the meeting. In addition, standard meetinq
~
8 notices were provided to all parties that we have 9 identified on our service list and parties who are 10 potential Intervenors to these proceedings received 11 notice of this meeting as well.
12 NH. HENDERSON: I have several problems. I
..s 13 guess when I first found out about the meeting it was M
~'
14 simply through talking to a neighbor who is an 15 Intervenor in the Harris case. When I contacted my 16 Mayor of Apex at the end of last week, as soon as I 17 found out, he had not -- he told us he had not been 18 notified.
19 I contacted a couple of the local television 20 stations and they had not been notified. This was "ast 21 Ihursday. I think a couple of announcements were placed 22 in the local newspapers, but no one has found one 2d earlier than today. I think this is an excellent kind 24 of forum and a very important one and I am quite certain 25 tha t attendance would be much larger h'ad pu blicity been ,'
! I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
39
() 1 more effective.
2- MR. MIRAGLIA: We did provide a press 3 release. I know it is more current than today. It is
[]}
4 at least a week to ten days, maybe even older than that, 5 where we did make a press release.
Har'hc 24
~
. 6 HS. ROTHSCHILD:
7 HR. MIRAGLIA: March 24 the press release was 8 made from the regional office and provided to, I am 9 sure, the local newspapers as well as -- is Joe -- Joe 10 is not here right now, our representative from the 11 Region II office.
12 So we do attempt to the best of our ability to 13 provide this information to newspapers. I guess it is 14 at the editor's discretion as to what he considers 15 newsworthy items to be placed in the paper. We do make 16 the inf o rma tion a vailable. The news notices went out 17 even before that and copies were provided, as I said, to 18 people on the service list, other Federal agencies, 19 potential petitioners to intervene, as well as made i 20 available at the local public document room in the 1
21 vicinity.
1 22 It's a fair question. That is the best answer 1
23 we have.
' s) 24 MR. RENDERSON: Well, thank you. As I say, I 25 an very gratef ul for the opportunity. I think it is O e ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
30 1 clearly an important issue for our community and the 2 communities nearby and I think this is a very 3 appropriate format f or addressing it. Thank you.
f}
4 I would like to ask a couple of short 5 questions. I think the first one would probably be best
- 6 directed to Mr. Richter. I have noticed and been 7 disturbed since the time I first noticed it that my 8 homeowner's insurance policy does not cover and 9 specifically excludes damage from any nuclear source --
I 10 atomic action, atomic explosion . There are several 11 causes that would seem to cover accidents from nuclear 12 power plants.
13 Is this in general true for most or all v
14 homeowners
- insurance policies, that damage from nuclear 15 power plants is specifically excluded?
16 5R. BICHTER: It is with mine.
17 HR. HENDERSON: It is with mine a s well. I 18 just got new insurance on my home a week or so ago and I 19 noticed it.
20 MR. RICHTER: It was in there too.
21 MR. HENDERSON It was excluded.
i l 22 I have heard some talk about the 23 Price-Anderson Act. If an accident does occur and my V 24 home or my rental properties are damaged, who will pay?
i
! 25 HR. RICHTER: Unfortunately, I do net believe l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
41 h 1 I am the most qualified to discuss this.
2 MS. ROTHSCHILDs I can speak in general terms 3 about it, that it is a Federal statute that does provide O.2 4 for compensation for damages that might result from 5 accidents at nuclear f acilities. I cannot speak about 6 specifics, but there is a statute that does provide for 7 compensa tion.
~
8 MR. HENDERSON And what are the upper limits 9 of that statute?
10 MS. ROTHSCHILDa I am not sure. I think it 11 has recently been revised. I think it was $540 12 million. This is just in general terms. I think it was 13 recently amended and I am not certain what the limits i
14 a re .
15 MR. HENDERSONs About a half a billion 18 dollars, something like tha t?
17 5R . MIR A GLI A : The reason most of the 18 homeowner's insurance has an exclusion clause in there 19 is that there is a Federal statute that provides for a 20 certain degree of insurance which is provided by the' 21 Price-Anderson Act.
22 The Price-Anderson Act has been recently 23 revised somewhat, so I do not know if the number is
' 24 still $540 million or $560 million, but it is on that 25 order of magnituda. The revenues for that are
)
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
42
() 1 con tributed to by the utility as well as the Federal 2 government.
{} 3 Very, very early, the bulk of the revenue was 4 provided by the Federsi government. As times progressed 5 and as the industries matured, the contribution to that
. 6 fund has shif ted and a larger proportion is provided by 7 the utilities. So that fund would be made available.
8 In the instance of THI, a nuclear insurance 9 group that administers this thing set up claims offices 10 within the vici'nity of the site and claims were made 11 against that insurance provided via the Price-Anderson 12 Act .
. 13 ER. HENDERSON Thank you. Is it true --
' ) 14 may be Mr. Heater would know -- that the total tax base 15 of Wake County alone , is tha t something on the order of 16 58 billion? Isn't that about a ballpark figure?
17 MR. HEATER: It is higher than that.
18 MR. HENDERSON: Higher than that. Well, if 19 there is a serious accident, who is going to make up th e 20 dif ference?
Who do I sue, in other words, if my home or 21 properties are damaged as a result of the Sharon Harris 22 plant and what is my likelihood of getting reimbursed?
23 HR. MIRAGLIA: I am not quite sure what your 24 legal rights on that is. It is a question --
25 MR. TEUESCOs We can't answer that.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON Q.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
- 43
() 1 MS. ROTHSCHILDs Other than there is this 2 Federal law of Price-Anderson that is designed to 3 provide a method of compensation. But there are limits.
)
4' MR. HENDERSON: I had one other related 5 question which desis core wth the -- it deals with the 6 example of Three Mile Island. I understand, is it true, 7 Mr. Mo , tha t pregnant women were encouraged to evacuate 8 from cne Three Mile Island plant area within ten miles 9 or five miles of the plant?
10 Is that true, ' hat radio announcements were 11 made advising pregnant women to leave their homes in the 12 immediate area around the plant?
13 MR. TEDESCOs Yes.
<3 '
'~
14 MR. HIRAGLIA: Yes, that is true.
15 MR. HENDERSON: Were those women or f amilies 16 compensated in any way for lost work, for travel costs?
17 1R. TEDESCO: I do not think the whole issue 18 has been resolved.
19 MR. MIRAGLIA: Various claims were made under 20 the Price-Anderson Act for times lost, of lost wo rk ,
21 transportation and various other claims. Those claims l
22 were made to the --
23 MR. HENDERSON: To the utility?
l
! 24 MR. MIRAGLIA4 To the utilities that 25 administer this under the Price-Anderson Act. A number k% '
ALDERSoN REPoATING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIAGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTCN D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. _ ~ _ _ . _ _ . .. _ ._ . . _ _ . - _ _ . . __
44 l 1 of sums were paid and others are still pending.
2 MR. HENDERSON: Well, one more question, if I
() 3 could, and a brief one. Is psychological stress a 4 factor in projecting the possible health effects of 5 Sharon Harris? I do not know who to ask again.
. 6 MR. MIRAGLIA: I will answer again. It is 7 really not a specific answer, but the question of 8 psychological stress and the consideration of 9 psychological stress with respect to environmental 10 impacts arose out of a recent court decision relating to 11 Three Mile Island.
12 That court decision -- they have issued their 13 judgment. The specific decision and considerations to 14 that that explain the rationale of the court has not 15 been provided ye t, but the matter is one that is under 16 review by the Commission itself and as to whether the 17 National E.. tironmental Policy Act requires psychological 18 stress to be considered in terms of environmental 19 assessmonts, the question of whether the Atomic Energy 20 Act in the context of assuring the adequate public 21 health and safety is at a broad enough term to consider 22 psychological stress under the statutes and the Act.
23 The only thing I could say is the matter is 24 under review. It is under consideration. There are 25 legal judgments and decisions that have to be rendered l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I45 l 1 yet, and at that point in time psychological stress is 2 not in the environmental assessment as we have been 3 conducting them in the past.
r])
4 The impact of the decisions to be made as a 5 result of these pending court actions remains to be
. 6 seen. The Staff vill then have to respond to the 7 directive it receives via the courts and the Commission 8 itself to the degree this issue would be discussed, if 9 a t all.
10 MR. HENDERSON: Thank you very much. Again, 11 this is a very important forum.
12
., 13
) *
~
14 15 16 17 18 4 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
't N.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- 400 VIRGIMA AVE., S.W., WASHtNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.__. ~ . _ _ . . - _. __
46 GD 1 MR. HEAIERs Thank you, Mr. Henderson. We 2 have been in session now for about an hour and ten 3 minutes, and I think the Court Reporter would like a
])
4 little break. We will take a ten-minute break and 5 reconvene at 9:25 for the balance of th e pe ople who want
. 6 to speak and for questions.
7 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
8 NR. HEATERS If everybody will come back in 9 and take your seats now, it is about time to start.
10 Will everyone please be seated? We are going to start :
11 now.
12 The next person to be heard from will be Ms.
13 Bennie Moore.
-1 14 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF BIBBIE HOORE 15 55. HOORE: I wonder if I should wait until 16 the lights get turned on here. I have been asked to 17 wait a minute until all the panel members reconvene.
18 MR. TEDESCO Frank, are you coming up?
19 (No response.)
20 MS. HOORE: I was wondering, someone mentioned 21 there was another hearing today, a daytime hearing, for 22 people who could not come tonigh t?
23 MR. TEDESCOs There was a meeting this i
~/ 24 afternoon, yes.
25 MS. MOORE: Was it a public hearing meeting?
o ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. !NC. -
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
47
() 1 MR. TEDESC04 It was an open meeting. l 2 MR. LEHR: It was a public meeting this
( 3 morning at the Appleton -- there was a public meeting 4 this morning at the Sharon Harris Visitor and Energy 5 Center, at which time we discussed some of our concerns 6 with the applicant, and it was open to members of the 7 public.
8 MS. MOORE: Okay, but this would really be the 9 more official one for people in the nearby community?
10 MR. TEDESCO: Yes.
11 MR. LEHR: Yes.
12 MS. M00BEs I would also just like to 13 underline Jim's comment earlier about the way this
"' 14 meeting was publicized, and one member here did say you 15 had reviewed 80 other plants, and I think with that kind 16 of experience in seven or eight years that an awareness 17 of how important it is, at least to the public, to be 18 notified of these meetings would mean that you would 19 have better attendance. I am also guessing that $2,200 20 was spent bringing these eleven fine pe6ple together 21 from Atlanta and from Washington, D. C., and I think 22 that is a very good use of public money, but my 23 complaint is in terms of the number of people ,
ss 24 represented tha t it is not a very egalitarian use of the i 25 money, so I would encourage you for the fall meeting to (j
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. . . ._ .. . - - . - - . . -. - - . - j e4 8 1 use some other methods of networking, and my idea is 2 certainly that the Triangle J Council of Governments O 3 couta aatier ===t or the co===aitr servea i= tat = re-4 of the meeting.
5 I am really wonderidg how many people there
. 6 are f rom Pittsboro, Buchner, and Mon tcure, Durham, 7 Chapel Hill, Garner, Baleigh, Warstel, and Apex. I 8 think those are some of the communities that should be 9 represented . I did call all the town rommissioners in 10 Morrisville and inf ormed them of the meeting, invited 11 them, and do intend to go back and report to them the 12 inf ormation I have.. So I do have a few other 3 13 questions. '
~
14 I am wondering if, again, this is one of the 15 ways in which state government and federal government 16 have to let us know how good their reporting to the 17 public is. If this is how many people found out shout 18 this meeting, how are the rest of us going to find out 19 about any monitoring reports? That is one question.
20 And in terms of my primary interest, as a gardener and 21 as a hortitherapist at the North Carolina Botanical 22 Garden is really 1 bout radiation impact on food and 23 plants that are in the near environment.
V 24 I think that in the next 20 years, North 25 Carolina will continue to rely on local food production k) l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
~_
49 l
5 1 as opposed to shipping f oods f rom Calif ornia and Florid a 2 because of the high cost of petroleum and gasoline. And
(]'; 3 because of that, what is going to be the im pact for us 4 in terms of eating the food that we grow? So, again, 5 what data collection methods are effectively being used
. 6 by other plants to look at home vege tables, orchards, i
7 and flowers? I heard milk and air being monitored, but 8 not these other locally consumed foods.
9 Also, in terms of hunting here in this area, I 10 think turkey, deer, squirrel, opossum and raccoon are 11 common foods for a small percentage of the population, 12 and I am sure that wildlife will be looked at. I am 13 interested in not only knowing how Sharon Harris 1
14 potentially might be doing if there is an accident, I 15 would really like to know how well the plant does 16 operationally on s regular basis. I would also like to 17 know how frequently will -- do you think standards will 18 be upgraded and changed? I know there have been some 19 changes since 1974 20 I guess my last concern is How are the 21 sonitoring requirements chosen for Sharon Harris 22 specified de pending on the characteristics of this 23 50-mile area? I am thinking about -- I am sure that our
(-
\\/ 24 area is dif ferent from some New England areas in terms 25 of soil, clima te, vegetation grown here, wa ter supply 5,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHiNGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.- - _ .n _ . . - _ _ _
50 gS 1 resources, population growth and expansion. We all know 2 that the Raleigh area of North Carolina is one of the
~ ') 3 f astest g ro wing sta tes in terms of population change in 4 the United S tates , agricultural marketing, and also the 5 quality of the level of citizen participation or
. 6 swareness on the issues of safety.
7 Hy quess is that North Carolina, I don't know
~
8 about participation activity by the public, but it migh t 9 not be as great as some of the other New England states 10 where there has been more experience with nuclear power 11 plants.
12 Hy last comment is, I hope that as things are
. 13 talked about, that instead of saying, by the time Sharon
)
14 Harris goes into operation, this will be resolved, that 15 b y just saying th a t you do not really leave yourselves 16 open to consider the possibility that Sharon Harris may 17 never be opened. I think to be truly open and really 18 look at the information, I would like to say, not by th e 19 time it opens, .or should it open, and the possibility 20 that it might open.
j 21 So, thank you.
l 22 3R. TEDESCO: Thank you.
23 MR. HEATER: They would like to reply to some 24 of your questions.
25 MR. MONTG05ERY: With respect to monitoring of ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AW , S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
51 x
-- 1 radiation levels in the environnent, I guess one of the 2 things that is sometimes not considered in an
} 3 environmental hearing such as this is that prior to the 4 discharge of radioactive ef fluents f rom the plant, there 5 are many other controls, many other specific license
, 6 conditions that have been imposed for the release of 7 radioactive material f rom the plant, whethe r by airborne
~
8 effluents or by liquid ef fluents. The NRC has a 9 responsibility to implement general standards which have 10 been set by the Environmental Protection Agency with 11 respect to exposure of individuals, people living near 12 the plant.
,,, 13 At the same time, our regulations for the
)
~
14 discharge of radioactive effluents, we are under a 15 policy of -- to limit releases to as low as reasonably 16 achievable. Prior to the discharge of radioactive 17 effluents, they are required to be monitored 18 con tinuously. It turns out at this point in time the 19 quantity of radioactivity discharged from a nuclear 20 power plant is extremely low. Generally, it is most 21 seasureable at the time of the discharge. We have 22 requirements in this area in which the companies are 23 required to account for all the radioactivity discharged
(/ 24 f rom the plant.
25 In addition, we are currently implementing a O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 52
( 1 new policy in ragstd to radiological effluent, technical 2 specifications which basically spell out all of the 3 regulations associa ted with the eventual exposure or
(])
4 potential exposure of individuals living near a plant.
5 At the time that th ey release the radioactivity, they
. 6 hav'e to project all the doses and account for the 7 potential doses associated with all these releases, and
~
8 really, in practice, we find tha t in the environmental 9 monitoring area, you normally cannot even measure the 10 level of radioactivity in the environment. They are so 11 low, they are virtually immeasurable.
12 Secondly, regarding your concerns of 13 monitoring of different types of what we call pathways 14 of exposure, for example, vegetable gardens, there is a 15 basic environmental monitoring program, requirements 16 that become part of their license at the time the plant 17 starts to operate. There is what we call a branch 18 position regarding minimum environmental monitoring 19 requirements, which include things such as vegetable 20 gardens and any type of pathway which could involve 21 exposure of peopla, of persons in the srea.
22 With regard to radio sensitivity, in general, 23 the pathways of radioactivity environment from nuclear
~
- 24 power plants, we normally do not see a concentration 25 f rom various levels like accepting a few pathways such O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 53
() 1 as iodine in milk. In general, man is more
' 2 radio-sensitive than any of the other organisms and 3 along with the principle of radiation exposure is that
{~)
4 protection of man through limited exposure levels will 5 automatically assure that the other forms of flora and
, 6 fauna are protected at the same time.
7 MS. MOORE: All those comments mean that it is 8 over time considered, not just on that date, but if you 9 take that amount over 40 years, it still is at such a 10 low level?
11 MB. MONTGOMERIs Yes. The monitoring 12 programs, one of the purposes is to early on detect if 13 there is any buildup in the environment. So that one O 14 would be aware prior to any time at which the levels 15 would be built up to be of concern, that we would know 16 of that, and in terms of the actual environmental 17 monitoring program, there are certain levels under --
18 probably the way the license for Sharon Harris would be-19 that if they detect certain levels in the environment, 20 they have to report this within 30 days to the 21 Commission, to the staff, and we would at that time 22 evaluate the significance and perhaps require additional 23 monitoring, whatever is necessary to determine what the
} 24 source is, and if there are any needed controls.
25 MR. HEATER: The next person will be Mr John
, r~
i l
t- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
54 1 Bernard.
2 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF JOHN BERNARD
) 3 MR. BERNARDs I have only a couple of very 4 brief questions. They pertain to radiological 5 monitoring. I believe that is Mr. Mo. Is that
- 6 correct? Is that your area?
7 MR. MO: Yes.
8 MR. BERNARD 4 The first question is, what 9 provisions for off-site radiological monitoring does NRC 10 requirement for the Sharon Harris plant once it goes on 11 lin e?
12 MR. MO. Dan Montgomery just now described g 13 some of those programs. They will be more or less along 14 that line. We do have a standardized guide branch 15 position which specifies all these requirements.
16 MR . BERN AR D: I guess the question I an asking 17 is , what kind of equipment are you proposing to use? Is 18 there such a thing as off-site monitoring available once 19 the plant goes on line?
4 20 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes.
21 MR. TEDESCO: Yes.
22 MR. BERNARD: Is it along the lines perhaps of 23 the equipment that is being used by Metropolitan Edison?
O 24 They are employing a Rooter Stokes pressurized ion 25 chamber. Is it anything along these lines?
- m i
l ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
55 73 As far as the specific
~./ 1 MR. MIRAGLIA:
2 instrument, there will be direct radiation monitors, 3 which is a thermal luminous dosimeters required. There
(])
4 will be airborne air sample required. There will be 5 soil and vegetation sanples required. There will be
- 6 liquid effluent samples required. As to the specific 7 instrumentation and things of that nature, the 8 Commission does not usually prescribe the branch 9 technical position, and the guidance provided by the 10 Commission indicates f requency of the samples, the 11 critical pa thways, and the sensitivity, minimum 12 sen si tivity to detection that would be required, and s 13 they would then propose what they were going to use, and
']
14 demonstrate that the sensitivities of whatever 15 instrumentation they were going to use or whatever 16 techniques they were going to use are consistent with 17 tha t guidance.
18 MR. BERN ARD: What you are doing is, you are 19 describing a system that is reporting back to Sharon 20 Harris, right? This is not something that will be also 21 capable of being monitored by, say, the local community?
22 There will be nobody in populace areas, for instance, 23 who will be capable of being notified at the same time?
24 The system that I am describing that has been put 25 together at THI --
l l
ALDERSoN REPCRTiNG COMPANY,INC. l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
= 56 1 MR. MIRAGLIAs Are you talking about direct --
2 3R. BERNARD: There is immediate feedback.
3 For instance, when a plume is detected
(]) --
4 MR. MONTGOMERY: There are existing systegs 5 like that in operation. There is no requirement at this
, 6 time imposed by the NRC that they have the direct 7 telemetry, direct readout that you are referring to.
~
8 There are requirements to have the thermal luminous 9 dosimeters which are --
you have to exchange this out on 10 a routine readout. The NRC will have a network of 11 TLD's. CPCL will have a recurrent monitoring of the 12 TLD 's in the sta te Radiological Health Department. The 13 state of North Carolina vill have, from my
)
14 understanding, will also have some TLD stations around 15 there also.
16 To my knowledge, I am not sure if CPr.L has any 17 plans for direct telemetry.
18 HR. BERNARD: I would like to recommend that 19 they would do this because I would have for us to have 20 to wait for a TMI type accident. You see the need for 21 sucn a device as this.
?
22 MR. MONTGOMERY: There are other capabilities
, 23 within a site to make verification of radiation levels V 24 on a direct measurement. You do not have to wait until f 25 a readout TLD. There are various portable survey l
()
l l
l i l ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 '
57 1 equipment that is required as part of the emergency 2 response capability, to be able to make these
() ,
- .~
3 measurements, so it is-not as if there is j ust a 4 dif ference. in philosophy, telemetry versus other types ,
s 5 of equipment.
+ p MR. MIRAGLIA If anyone is having difficulty 7 hea ring the responses to this, it'would be preferable to 8 use the sphona. Could you just sianify by raising t
9 your hand, we.Will go to the microphones. We will try
.s I0 to use the microphone to make sure you hear the 11 responses.
12 HR. BERNARD: Thank you very much. For 13 instance, if there were plans for a device such as the bq <
14 one I described, if there were ' plans for something like 15 that to be implemente:1, when would we find tha t 16 inf ormation out? How long will it take before we know 17 this? The plant will have to be on line? Is tha t the 18 way it is going to work for a device that is capable of 19 being [onitored by both the population, surrounding
^
20 populations as well as on site?
21 5B. TEDESCOs There are no requirements right 22 n o w f or th a t .
23 MR., BERNARD: Okay. Thank you.
U 24 NR. HEATER Thank you, Mr. Bernard.
25 lt e x t is Ms. Mary Rosenson.
r' . _
~
\* 's ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANt,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
58 1 PUBIC STATEEENT CF HARY ROSENSON 2 MS. ROSENSONs I as on a study task force of a O o co =aisr aica i= a roaa en t a- 11 ti=it- 3==t =o 4 you don 't think we are all humoriess and have one-track 5 minds, I think it is a special community because it
, 6 houses the NCA A national basketball champions.
7 (Genersi laughter.)
~
8 NS. ROSENSON: After a year's study, we know 9 that in the event of a Class 9 accident, or even a 10 lesser radioactive release, there is no sign up in the 11 sky that says, plume, you have hit ten miles, don 't go 12 any further, and the wind is going to stop blowing at 13 tha t point.
14 Se'cond, we have learned that we might well be 15 receiving victims f rom an accident at the Sharon Harris 16 p la nt . My question on behalf of all communities like 17 ours is , first of all, what monitoring provisions are 18 you making f or communities beyond the ten-mile limit?
19 Anybody? Is there an answer to that?
20 ER. STOHR: Bill Stohr, NRC. In terms of 21 planning for a precautionary measure, the requirements 22 are now that they go out, as you are probably aware, out 23 to the ten-mile tsdius, 360 degrees around the plant.
l 24 The general thinking is that for accidents that are l
25 envisioned and planned for, that is generally O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
59 1 sufficient, in terms of having preplanning for that 2 area, but there is also the consideration that the
(')
s-3 preplanning that go'es in in the general sta te planning 4 f ramework, et cetsra , having that all accomplished would 5 f acilitate any situation arising which would possibly
- 6 extend beyond ten miles. Overall, realize that you are 7 talking in the realms of very small probabilities for 8 all of this. A lot of the characterization of the 9 questions, et cetera, is as if this was something that 10 was impending. It sounds like twice a year you are 11 going to have these types of situations. The 12 probabilities for any of that of this magnitude are very 13 sms11.
s 14 There are many other safeguards built into the 15 plant , and emergency planning is another safeguard 18 tacked onto the end of that sit'2ation if you did get 17 into a very serious accident. The current philosophy is 18 that planning to that extent right now is prudent, and 19 t ha t is generally considered sufficient by the NRC and 20 the Federal Emergency Management Agencies.
l 21 MS. ROSENSON: That is the next part of my 22 question, sir. What data did you use to establish the i
^
23 ten-mile limit ? Probability statistics?
I
'" 24 MR. STOHR: I do not have tha t specific l
I 25 information. However, there was an EP A --
l :m U
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
60
) 1 MR. MIRAGLIA: There was a joint interagency 2 steering group which developed the basis for that 3 recommendation of ten. miles. NRC was a member of that
(])
4 steering group. I believe EPA was a member of that 5 steering group, and there is a specific report which 6 provides the basis for the recommendations for that 7 steering group. Other agencies may have also been 8 involved, such as FEMA or DOE. I am not sure of those, 9 but there was a report, and I do not have a specific to number f or the report right at the tip of my tongue, but 11 the basis of that report looked in terms of not only 12 probabilities of the accidents, but the consequences of 13 the accident and the consideration of a number of 14 f actors. The judgment was reached and the rationale and 15 the technical basis for the ten-mile number is provided 16 in that document, which was the basis for the guidelines 17 established.
18 MR. TEDESCO: If we have your name and 19 address, we will send you that report. Would that 20 help? If yo'u give us your name and address, we will do 21 t h a t .
22 MR. MO N T GOM ERY : One of the things, there are 23 mechanisms to evaluate the consequences beyond ten" 24 miles. That is not to say the state is involved in 25 emergency plans with monitoring teams and other federal I
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AhE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
61
,q
> 1 agencies involved that could evaluate consequences out 2 to greater than ten miles.
3 MS. ROSENSON: My final question --
(})
4 MR. TEDESCO Would you put your name and 5 address into the record so that we could send it to you?
. 6 MS. ROSENSON: It is Mary Rosenson, 200 Rich 7 Trail, Chapel Hill, 27514 My final question speaks
~
8 directly to tha t. What magnitude of accident would have 9 to occur for that plan to go into ef fect for people to beyond a ten-mile limit ? Things cannot just stop a t ten 11 miles. Even when you are talking about probabilities.
12 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think the ten-sile guidance
, 13 is that preplanning and contingency planning out to ten
~~
14 miles has to be prescribed as a minimum. Certainly the 15 capabilities to assess the ' consequences of the accident 16 beyond that exist, and will be evaluated. With respect 17 to the emergency plan, the whole purpose of the 18 emergency plan is, as Mr. Stohr indicated, is another 19 level of def ense.
20 There are various safeguards built into the 21 facility that are there to minimize such occurrences 22 f rom happening. The emergency planning is to have the 23 responsible agencies and the decision makers equipped
24 with the tools necessary for them to make the decisions 25 tha t are required, to take whatever protective action is
\,
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
62
() 1 necessary to protect the public.
2 I am sure the decision-makers are not going to 3 say, you know, we are going to go to ten miles, if the
( ,)
4 situation and the information at hand dictates that they 5 should go to a further radius. It is just a tool that 6 is being utilized to provide information to all the 7 involved agencies to make those kinds of decisions.
8 MR. TEDESCOs But in any event, we are dealing 9 with accidents beyond what we call design basis 10 accidents. We are talking about severe accident 11 consequences now much beyond the design basis of the 12 plant , so we a re dealing with these more severe and 13 lower probability type of events that do involve very
~
14 significant damage to the core.
15 Now, you cannot go all the way. There is a 16 probability that you start getting so small that there 17 is enough backup that it is not going to ha ppen.
18 HS. POSENSON: I agree. But the word 19 probability implies that something could happen.
6
. 20 MB. TEDESCO: Yes.
21 MS. ROSENSON: I think people outside the ten
~
22 mile limit feel like what are we to expect and what are l
l . 23 we to prepare for and what are we to ask our mayor to do?
24 3R. TEDESCO: The whole basis upon which we do 25 it is based upon probability. We do a probabilistic d
ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WA1HINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
63
$) I risk assessment. He have a number of accident
? scenarios, and we start to categorize them in 3 probabilistic echelons. Dealing with ten miles, fifty
-3 4 miles, you are really dealing with very low probability 5 events, but yet --
, 6 NS. ROSENSON: It aepends on what you mean.
~
7 It depends on whether you think like Herman Kahn.
~
8 NR. MIRAGLIA: Various critical pathways are, 9 even within the context of your present emergency plans, 10 looked at -- pathways out to 50 mile ingestion pathways, 11 critical pathways. It is not limited to ten miles.
12 There is inf ormation and assessments made to say whether 13 allk sourcas should be quarantined for a certain number 14 of days, or beef cattle should be slaughtered or -- and 15 these kinds of things, so the plan in the ten-mile limit 16 has a specific criteria for a specific thing, but there 17 are elements of the plan tha t evaluate what the 18 consequences of what a severe event would be beyond that
~
19 ten-mile radius.
20 NS. ROSEMSON: That will be in place before 21 the plant goes on line?
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes.
23 53. TEDESCO: The 10-mile is mostly for the 24 short-term response. Whatever you have to do for a 25 very, very severe accide-t would be within that 10 i
1 l
ALCERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY. INC, 400 vtRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1
-- -- ~ -.._. __ ._. _.. _ __ ,_,
6u 1 miles, on a short-term basis, compared to the 50 miles.
2 That is for the longer term.
('i 3 55. ROSENSON: Thank you.
.s 4 MR. HEATER: Thank you.
5 Is Mr. Fred Oliver here?
6 (No response.)
7 MR. HEATER: I assume Mr. Oliver left us for 8 good. The next one would be Mr. Jim French.
9 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF JIM FRENCH 10 ER. FRENCH Good evening, gentlemen. I 11 believe my family's home is within the ten-mile radius 12 you have described tonight, and I am glad you are doing
.- 13 all you can to study the alternatives to protect us from (d 14 accidents which are envisioned and currently planned f or.
15 I assume we are not here to discuss whether or 16 not nuclear power is something we can financially afford 17 here in the south, and I welcome you to the south. Many 18 Years ago political decisions were made by the people 19 here which was to continue and develop a progressive
- 20 development of our county and our state. Mr. Bob Heater l
21 has given 1 creat portion of his life to eveloping Wake I
l 22 County into what is now one of the ten most desirable 23 places to live in the United States.
' 24 Back then, when the decision was made to go to l
~
25 nuclear power, there were many questions that were not ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
65
) 1 answered, or else the answers have proven to be false.
2 One of those is the cost of nuclear fuels and the demand
() 3 for electricity produced by nuclear power, but I assume 4 we are not here tonight to decide whether on a cost 5 financial benefit the decision by the people of this
, 6 county to continue with this plant is a wise one in 7 terms of dollars.
~
8 We are here to decide whether or not we can 9 afford the safety risk. In my own personal opinion, the 10 d a ta on the financial cost is such'that we really do not 11 need to reach the safety risk. It is just too 12 expensive. But I would ask you if CPCL was working to ,
13 plan a solar energy research f acility or solar 14 generating plant or geothermal or another hydroelectric 15 plant or even a fossil f uels plant f or the generation of 18 energy. If they were placing that at the site where 17 Sharon Harris was meant to be, would we be havino a 18 hearing such as this? Would we be considering the 19 question of risk to vegetation, to wildlife and unborn 20 children ? I would ask any of you.
21 NR. TEDESC04 Mr. French , Congress ha s given 22 us responsibility for regulating nuclea r power, and tha t 23 is the authority that we have. To go beyond tha t in 24 another form of energy, we are not the right people.
25 MR. FRENCH: Absolutely, but part of your d
i
.aLDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
66
) 1 authority is to consider questions of risk to unborn ,
j 2 children , to milk , to those who drink the water here.
( ') 3 Is that correct?
4 MR. TEDESCO Yes, sir.
5 MR. FRENCH: Why do you find that as part of 6 your authority when considering nuclear generating power?
7 HR. TEDESCC: Because it does involve the
'* 8 radiological aspects of plant operation.
9 ER. FRENCH: So is it fair to say the 10 cadiologics1 aspects of plant genera tion involves a 11 substantial risk to those flora and fauna in our 12 environment?
13 MR. TEDESCO. You used the word substantial.
14 I think we have done as auch as we can to minimize that 15 r is k .
16 3R. FRENCH: I see. To minimize a substantial 17 risk, I suppose?
18 MR. TEDESCO: To minimize the risk.
19 HR. FRENCH: Ri sk , to me, the use of the word
- 20 seems to imply that -- and planning for saf ety, to make 21 something safe, implies that there is a risk there. I 22 would assume , and if I am incorrect in this I would 23 appreciate you pointing this out, that a meeting very 24 similar to this was held before the Three Mile Island 25 plant went on line, and at that hearing people were t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. _ _ ~ ___ __ ._
67 1 assured, were they not, that the plant was substantially 2 risk-f ree, and that the risk to the environment, to the t' 3 people in that community was not substantial. Is that 4 correct?
5 MR. TEDESCO4 I do not think that anyone would
- 6 ever say it is risk-free. I do not ever say anyone can 7 say that about any aspects we deal with, that there is 8 absolutely no risk involved. There is always a finite 9 risk. What we are trying to do is try to make sure that 10 tha t risk is as small as possible. That is the whole 11 purpose of our hearing.
12 MR. FRENCH 4 I see. But when the plant was 13 first being planned for back in the sixties --
O 14 NR. TEDESCO4 Seventy-four.
15 MR. FRENCH: Seventy-four, we have all been 16 surprised at the rate of development in our own county 17 and the greater Triangle area. The placement of Sharon 18 Harris ten m.iles away was decided in '74, before Apex 19 became quite a bedroom community and suburban area as 20 well. If there had been a recommendation that the plant 21 would have been moved f urther up the Cape Fear River --
22 MR. TEDESCO: The site placement reflects the 23 demography of what we have done today as part of our J 24 overall safety evaluation. That will be considered.
l 25 MR. FRENCH 4 But the plan is nearing i ,
%)
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.,1W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
68
-s 1 completion.
2 NR. MIRAGLIA: The question of alternative
(, 3 plant sites was considered at the CP stage. With 4 respect to the questions of risk, I think no means of 5 generating electricity are risk-free.
. 6 HR. FRENCH: I would agree with you.
7 HR. NIRAGLIA: The risk associated with 8 nuclear power and what the consequences are of severe 9 accidents would be discussed in the draf t environmental 10 statement.
11 HR. FRENCH: The risk from a fossil fuels 12 plant is possibly a more dirty quality to the air, but 13 the risk that you are doing your best to assure us or to 14 protect us from is really the risk f rom a disaster. Is 15 that not correct? The potential for a disaster that 16 does not exist with a down stream hydro plant or fossil 17 fuels plant?
18 3R. MIRAGLIA: It depends on how one 19 characterizes a disaster. Certainly a catastrophic dam 20 f ailure could be considered by many folks as being 21 classified as a catastrophe and a disaster, and .it has 22 immediate consequences, and perhaps it has the same 23 degree.
~' MR. FRENCH: Is there a dam breakage that the 24 i
25 NBC would care to compare to what happened at Three Nile v
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
69
() 1 Island?
2 3R. MIRAGLIA: In terms of what happened at g3 3 Three Mile Island, as f ar as cadiological impacts, I
.. )
4 think there were numerous inquiries into the accidents 5 to study what the consequences of the release from the
. 6 facility were. The bottom line from all of those 7 studies, the Senate investigating committees, the 8 President's Commission on Three Mile Island, the 9 Commission's own inquiry into this,. indicated that the 10 radiological impacts on the people that are living in 11 the vicinity and on the environment there were very, 12 very small. I think there were severe economic impacts, 13 but in terms of harm to the public, I think those
() .
14 studies would bear out that it was not catastrophic nor 15 was it a disaster.
16 MR. FRENCH: Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. HEATERa Thank you, Mr. French.
18 Er. Richard Wilson had some questions he t
19 wan ted to ask.
20 PUBLIC STATEHENT OF RICHARD WILSON, M.D.
21 DR. WILSON: Nany of the questions tonight 22 were answered by saying that they would be issues that 23 would be taken care of by the NRC staff, many of them s, 24 taken' care of by the NRC monitoring though CPEL. I 25 think there are many reasons to worry about CPEL's l
ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, ,
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
70
) 1 ability to answer these questions. I think there are ;
2 even some questions that have emerged over the past few 3 years about the NRC's ability to assure us of
( 4 environmental safety. So I would like to ask s few 5 questions that might reassure me about the NRC.
. 6 The first has to do with the Kemeny and 7 Rogovin reports about the accident at Three Mile 8 Island. As I read those reports, I was surprised at the 9 sort of frankness of their language. As I turned the 10 pages, their attitude seemed to go f rom sort of surprise 11 to worry to outrage at the way in which the NRC seemed 12 to be not discharging their duty of protecting the 13 public, assuring the safety of the plants when they were O 14 licensed and when they were operating. They called for 15 chances, some technical, but most broader than 16 specifics. Most had to do with sort of the attitude.
17 They implied that there needed to be changes in the 18 organization of the NBC, the procedures, and even the 19 personnel. They doubted -- or they wondered, I guess, 20 whether even those things would assure us that nuclear 21 plants would be safe. 22 Now, tonight hearing Mr. Stohr, who is in 23 charge of amergency preparedness, talk to us about small 24 probabilities, and Mr. Montgomery talking about when the 25 plant opens, he said, if the plant opens, make me wonder l
~
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
71
's 1 if things have changed.
2 So, my first question is, just what has 3 changed at the NRC in that basic level? Hy second (}) 4 question has to do with problems that come up in the 5 routine licensing of power plants which do not have an
. 6 answer. That is, they are hard problems. Nobody knows 7 the answer at this time. In the past, they have been 8 sort of sof t in the case of each individual nuclear 9 reactor by saying that since we don't know the answer, 10 you don 't have to answer that before your plant 11 operates.
12 It is a generic problem. Recently, I 13 understand, Cougress has been taking a second look at g-)
^v 14 that way of sort of putting these issues'aside 15 bureaucratically , and has asked for or designated a 16 certain number of them , I think 15 or 16, that they will 17 require, I think, quarterly reports on progress in 18 solving. My second question is, I wonder whether you
-19 could list f or me those 15 or 16 issues.
20 My third question has to do with the Diablo 21 Can yon Nuclear Plant. This was a plant built on a f ault 22 line in California. Because of that, it was supposed to 23 he built extremely carefully. Just before the operating 24 license was to be issued, it was discovered that there 25 had been a mistake. The wrong blueprints had been used l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, t- ' 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
72 i i 1 f or a major part of the construction. That in itself 2 led to more detailed investigation of the plant, and I 3 think somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 separate ({} 4 mistakes had been uncovered. 5 My third question, then, is, what are these
. 6 100 mistakes that were discovered in the operating 7 license stage just before or af ter the review process 8 had supposedly been completed?
9 Finally, in view of these uncertainties, it to would seem that the NRC would have a lot of worries 11 about doing their job, and that they would want a lot 12 more people and a lot more mo ne y , but like everyone else 13 these days, I think you have been faced with some 14 substantial budget cuts, so I would like you to tell me 15 how your proposed budget is likely to fare and if there 16 are cuts in your budget, what things will you not be 17 able to do? 18 MR. TEDESCO I will take some of those. Mr. 19 Wilson asks some very good questions. I don't know if 20 ve've got some very good answers for him, but they are 21 really good questions. Realizing what happened on TMI 22 and the results of the Rogovin and Kemeny Commission 23 reports as well as the Commission's own, all that 24 inf ormation was put together and an overall NRC action 25 plan was developed. That dealt with all the issues that i i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
73 1 were raised by the differen t investigative bodies. That 2 plan now is in the process of being worked out and
.} 3 completed and implemented. Phases of it deal with 4 changes in plants. Changes in organiza tional structures 5 are beino carried out already. So, a plan is unfolding o 6 that will definitely show implementation of thos~e 7 recommendations.
8 Within the NBC, there have been changes, 9 changes in personnel, changes in management, in 10 organizational structure, attitudes in some ways. You 11 cannot just start all over again with all brand-new 12 people. You may then be in a worse state than what you 13 were, but I think we have become more sensitive and more
'J 14 aware of avoiding a mindset of keeping in blocks and 15 squares and being more open to consider accidents that 16 are beyond design base accidents. I think we are making 17 definite progrest in those areas.
18 As f ar as the licensing problem that you 19 alluded to, I do not have a list of the 15 or 16 issues
~
20 that you talked about, but I am aware of them , and for 21 each of the items that are subject to an evaluation by 22 the staff, there is a basis for why we allow a plant to l 23 operate today pending the full resolution of that issue,
-s l
l / 24 so there are alternatives and f allback positions that we l 25 have that will provide a short-term fix. v q I l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
74 1 I am going to let Frank take care of Diablo 2 Canyon. 3 The other issue about the uncertainty in our (]) 4 budget, as we regulate, we, too, are reg ula ted by 5 Congress. They are the ones who give us our budget
~ . 6 allocations in terms of money and personnel. I think 7 there are areas that we would like to see more people in 8 snd have more money, but what we do is, we develop our 9 program based on what we have, and try to get the 10 maximum amount that we are able to do.
11 So, I would like to have Frank talk about 12 Dia blo, because he is directly involved in it. 13 MR. MIRAGLIA: As a result of the detection of 14 the errors at Diablo Canyon, the Commission did suspend 15 the operating authority f or fuel load snd low power ' 16 opera tions. The error that was detected, the initial 17 error was sn error in desion. As a result of that, the 18 Commission suspended the authority granted to Pacific 19 Gas and Electric and indicated a program that would have 20 to be carried out and would be required before the 21 Commission would reconsider lif ting that suspension. 22 That program required an independent design 23 verification by a party that had not been involved in i
- 24 the initial design of the f acility. The focus of the 25 independent audit would be in the seismic design area,
, k l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
75 I) 1 because these are where the initial error had been 2 detected. The Commission has been working and has f') a 3 recently approved the proposal from the utility to use 4 Teledine Engineering Services to conduct such an audit. 5 The staff just this week received the program plan for
. 6 review to determine whether it would be adequate to 7 fulfill the requirements of the Commission's order, so 8 tha t plan will be reviewed, modified as the staff sees 9 necessary to implement the terms of the order.
10 Thus far in the verification activities that 11 have been conducted to date, there have been, as Mr. 12 Wilson said, on the order of 100 discrepancies, errors, 13 things of this nature. They are relating to diagram 14 errors, perhaps imp roper specte r, things of this 15 nature. Part of the program is to fully evaluate and 16 assess the significance of each and every one of these 17 errors. The list is long. The significance of each of 18 the items is yet to be assessed, but that certainly will 19 be done, and each of those will be evalua ted prior to 20 any further action at the Diablo Canyon facility. 21 MR. EDDLENAN4 Can I ask if other petitioners 22 to intervene can get a list of those errors, and 23 whatever explanation of it there is?
/ 24 1R. MIRAGLIA: We can provide you with what is l
! 25 a vailable. . i l ( _) l' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 854-2345
75 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you. 2 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think perhaps the easiest way 3 to do it would be to provide a copy of some of the (]) 4 pertinent correspondence and reports to the local public 5 document room. We will undertake that activity.
. 6 MR. HEATERa That concludes the names that 7 have come in. Do we have a question from the floor?
8 Yes, sir? 9 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF BILL YEAGER to MR. YEAGER: Bill Yeager. I would like to 11 follow up the questLan about the steam generators. 12 Since the long-term reliability of the steam generators
<. 13 has come into question, has the design of the plant been v:
14 modified ? Are these generators easily replaceable 15 should it be determined in two or three years that 16 continued use of this particular design would require 50 17 percent operating capacity? 18 MR. TEDESCO: The issue on the steam 19 generators is presently being looked at by Westinghouse 20 as well as the people over in Sweden. They believe they ! 21 have an approach that should provide a fix for it. We 22 haven 't seen it. We haven't revealed it yet. As you 23 know, Duke Power is still at 50 percent at McGuire. l f-24 They have to be fixed before the plant can go up beyond 25 that point, so the approach that is being taken is to i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 77
'C)
D 1 develop a permanent fix to eliminate the problem which 2 right now looks like the hydrodynamics due to vibratory 3 force on the steam generator tubes. They are looking at ([) 4 different ways of monitoring the instrumentation to look 5 at the vibrational characteristics and then develop from 6 that a design fix, and that is the present approach they 7 are taking. 8 So, the expectation is to fix it rather than 9 replace it.
~
10 MB. YEAGER: So there has been no change. 11 Should the generators unfortunately have to be replaced, 12 tha t would be a very major undertaking? 13 ER. TEDESCO: It has been done before on a 14 number of plants. The plant at Surrey, they did replace , 15 the steam generator tubes there. 16 ER. YEAGER: How long was the plant down? 17 HR. TEDESCO: In terms of a year or so or more. 18 MR. YEAGER: How much did it cost, $200 19 million , $100 million, $200 million? . 20 MB. TEDESCO: In that area. , 21 MB. YEAGER: I have some other questions. My - 22 understanding is that this is a hearing to assess -- to 23 d rs f t the environmental impact statement, a nd that there 24 is apparently another separa te report which relates to 25 saf ety matters. Will there be a public hearing on the f.; v At.DERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
78 l
) 1 safety matters?
2 MS. ROTHSCHILD: Yes. I just want to clarify, pC) 3 this is not a hearing. I may just be talking about
~.:
4 terms, but it is just a meeting as part of the staff's 5 environmental review basically to hear the public's 6 concerns. As far as a comparable meeting on the safety 7 review, I do not think one is held. However, there is 8 an opportunity to request a hearing on the entire 9 appliation for an operating license, and a number of 10 requests for hearings have been filed. If those are 11 granted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, then 12 there would be a formal hearing which would encompass 13 issues raised by people who are participating in that h, 14 proceeding, which would probably cover both safety and 15 environmental issues. 16 So, no ruling has been made yet on those 17 requests for hearings. 18 MR. YEAGER: Since most of the questions 19 raised tonight are related to safety, perhaps more than 20 to environmental impact, it seems to me some kind of 21 public meeting or provision for public input to that 22 report should be considered. 23 MR. MIRAGLIA: Perhaps I can -- In addition to 24 the f ormal hearings that Harjorie had indicated, 25 subsequent to the issuance of the saf ety evalua tion O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 thlGINIA AVE. S.W WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
79 h I report, there is an advisory committee on reactor 2 sa f eg ua rd s, and the normal process is that subsequent to 3 the issuance of the safety evaluation report, the ACRS
.3 4 reviews the staff evaluation. There is usually a 5 meeting in the vicinity of the site by a subcommittee of . 6 the ACRS. The ACRS is a statutory body. It has 15 7 members, and it is sort of an overs!.ght overview of the 8 adequacy -- it is an independent look at the evaluations 9 that are conducted by the staff.
10 As I said, they are usually held some time 11 shortly after the issuance of the safety evaluation 12 report. There is a published agenda. These meetings 13 are noticed , publicly noticed, and there is an 7 14 opportunity at those meetings for members of the public 15 to express their concerns in the safety areas to that 16 committee, so there would be that type of an opportunity 17 with respect to the safety evaluation. 18 '! R . YEAGER: Can individuals be placed on a 19 mailing list for notification? 20 MR. MIR AGLIA : As to -- yes, if you write to 21 the Commission and indicated that you want to be placed 22 o n a mailing list -- 23 MR. YEAGER: To what address? w/ 24 53. MIRAGLIA: United States Nuclear 25 Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C. , 20555, and you l f l- ij I ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
80
'] 1 can mark that to the attention of Division of Licenses.
2 MR. YEAGER: Okay. Now this meeting is in
's,'
3 ref erence to an update to a 1974 environmental impact 4 statement. Among the things to be' considered are 5 changes to design and opera tion based on any new
, 6 inf ormation tha t has come to light in that period. !
7 Could you outline for us briefly some of the 8 major items that come under that heading? 9 3R. MIRAGLIA: During the course of our to meetings in the site vicinity for the last two days, 11 certain design changes have been identified. One of the 12 things that we had asked the utility in the request for 13 information was for a summary of those design changes. O' 14 Some of those have" been discussed here this evening. - 15 One is the elimination of the intake off the Cape Fear 16 River, which is a design ch ange from that previously 17 set. I think the biggest and most significant change is 18 the f act that the lake and cooling tower on the site 19 would be for two units as opposed to four units, which 20 was the evaluation conducted at the CP stage. 21 I would say that is the biggest design change. 22 MR. YEAGER: Let me go over some of the things 23 that came to my mind under that heading. One, of
... 24 course, is the problem with the steam generators.
25 Another is radioactive waste disposal. .Since 1974, all i t - ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
w e.6-- +.w ee 6 4& 6*a -
.-+----e , m. -mi+ %,ee%+r e w Aee 81 1 reprocessing facilities have been closed, and it is 2 rather doubtful at this stage what the future of our 3 radioactive vaste processing will be, which means that 4 these wastes will have to be stored on a relatively 5 long-term basis. . 6 So, I presume that there will be some coverage 7 of this issue.
8 MR. MIRAGLIA: Both in the environmental 9 statement and also in the safet'r evaluation report, we 10 will be looking at the storage of spent fuel at the 11 Sharon Harris f acility. Th', proposal that is before us 12 right now is for interim storage of the spent f uel prior 13 to shipment off-site to an appropriately licensed
's~/
14 storage f acility. 15 MR. YEAGER: Another issue recently come to 16 light is embrittlement of the containment vessel due to 17 radiation effects. That will not be covered? That is 18 not an issue? 19 MR. MIRAGLIAs That will be an issue in the 20 saf ety reactor. 21 MR. TEDESC04 It is the reactor vessel, not 22 the containment vessel. That is an issue that will be 23 examined. O 24 MR. YEAGER: Are there other comparable 25 issues? Do you see those as major issues? O l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE,, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.~- - . . . ..- . . - - - -.- -
82 h 1 MR. MIRAGLIA: All those l'ssues have been 2 identified by the staff, and they would have to be 3 evaluated as part of the safety evaluation and will be 4 conducted on the f acility. 5 MR. YEAGER: Do you see other issues which you . 6 would consider more significant? 7 MR. MIRAGLIA: Well, we have just started to 8 initiate that review. All of the safet. eview will be 9 done. As I said, a re-analysis of the design as 10 proposed by the facility, and we will look at all the 11 aspects thst were examined before plus all the new 12 requirements and issues that we have identified to date 13 that must be considered. MR. YEAGER:
~
14 I am referring not so much to 15 individual design changes, such as the decision to have 16 two plates instead of four, whether or not to take water 17 f rom Cape Fear, but generic issues which have arisen 18 about nuclear power plants si.nce 1974 19 MB. TEDESCO: That will be addressed.
- 20 MR. MIR AG LIA : The generic" issues will be 21 discussed in the safety evaluation report, such as the 22 thermal shock question. The question of steam 23 generators will be evaluated in there. All the issues O 24 that have been identified and the design changes that 25 have been necessitated as a result of the various O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W,. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
83 1 recommendations from the investigations on Three Mile 2 Island. All of those, and other things that may come up 3 will have to be considered as appropriate. ( '} 4 MR. YEAGER4 One final question. Is it 5 possible for individuals to receive copies of the draft
- 6 reports or statements before the public meetings?
7 HR. MIRAGLIA: The safety evaluation reports 8 do have a press release announcing the issuance of 9 those. They are provided to the local public document 10 room , again . There will also be in the Sharon Harris 11 case a draft safety evaluation report to characterize 12 tha t aspect of the safety review process. The final 73 13 saf ety evaluation analysis reports provided by the s .) 14 utility would be reviewed. The staff will generate 15 requests for additional information as needed to 16 initiate those reviews. The utility will respond to 17 those requests, and then the staff will, based upon the i 18 information it has in hand, will do its analysis and 19 present a draft safety evaluation report. This will not
- 20 be the completed product, but will represent the staff 's 21 position relative to the facility based upon the 22 inf ormation that has been provided. That will be 23 provided to the utility to indicate these are the issues
24 tha t we see remaining to be resolved on the facility. ,
25 If we have either additional questions, l sd l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!AGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCiN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
eu 1 additional needs for analysis, additional information 2 for us to appropriately satisfy ourselves that the 3 regulations and the terms and conditions and guidance of
.]
4 the Commission are being complied with, that will occur 5 a little earlier in th e process, probably late towards
. 6 the end of the year. Such a draft will be issued, and 7 again, those will be formally transmitted to the 8 utility, and copies of that material will also be 9 provided to the local public document room as well.
10 ER. YEAGER Thank you. 11 HR. HEATER: Yes, ma'am, the young lady in the 12 back. Give your name, please, and come to the front so 13 the stenographer can hear you. O' 14 PUBLIC STATENENT OF HICHELE RIVERSOME 15 MS. RIVERSOME: My name is Michele Riversome. 16 '4 hen do you plan to have another open forum like this 17 over this issue? 18 MR. TEDESC04 There are not any more scheduled 19 a t this point except as Frank outlined it, at the time
- 20 tha t we ha've the meeting with the ACRS subcommittee, and 21 that might be, what, in 1983?
e 22 MR. MIRAGLIA: This will be this spring, about 23 a year f rom now. At that time our safety evaluation 24 report will be out. 25 MS. RIVERS 0ME: In that case, is there any way l ,)
'.s t
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
n- _. _ _. ._ __ _ __ _ o _. _ . - _._ d 85
) 1 as individuals that we can get a copy of this transcript i
2 of this me2[.ing? rw 3 53. TEDISCO: This will be in the public ln .,' . 4 documen,t room next week. 5 MS. RIVERSOME: Where? 6 HR. NIR AGLIA : The local public; document room 7 for the Sharon Harris facility is at the Wake County 8 Public Library,7 1n Raleight. 9 MS. 30THECHIlD: I would just like t'o add, if 10 a hearing is held on the operating license application, 11 there usually is an opportunity in addition to the 12 formal proceedings for the parties f or members of the 13 public to make what is called a limited appearance
14 statement where you can -- this is a certain time period 15 that is set aside and members of the public at the 16 discretion of the licensing board can make their views 17 and other comments they may have known to the licensing 18 boa rd .
19 HR. HEATERa We are getting close to the end
- 20 of our scheduled session. Are there other questi'ons?
l 21 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF JANE SHARP l
- 22 MS. SHARP : I am Jane Sharp. I live in Chapel 23 Hill, that town beyond the ten-mile limit, where a l .-
-- 24 number of concerned citizens live. At the end of the l 25 hea ring, I am interested in the end of the nuclear I
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.- - . . . . , . - . 1 86 J) '1 plants in terms of Guclear wastes, which I understand 2 are to be safely taken care of by the government, I 3 guess. I wondered whether the NBC takes any
{}} 4 responsibility for the probable storage of an unnamed 5 number of tons of nuclear waste at the Sharon - Harri s 6 plant, in the center of a highly populated area in North 7 Carolina, coming not only f rom Sharon Harris but also 8 from Brunswick and possibly from Robinson in South 9 Carolina, even as we are already receiving vaste from 10 Oconee at the McGuire plant in Charlotte. Do you feel 4 11 any responsibility for this at all? 12 NR. TEDESCO Yes, we do, and tha t is part of 13 our review. It will be reported in the environmental 14 report and the safety evaluation report. 15 MS. SHARPS I wanted to ask a specific 16 question about the latest Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 report I saw on vaste management. They are now talking 18 about skin temperatures of the storage cans in metals 19 which are changing every time I read a repo rt , from
- 20 steel to titanium to various alloys of copper, titanium, 21 lead, some very expensive metals, some not so very o
22 expensive. They are now talking about skin temperatures 23 of 150 degrees centigrade. i - 24 When I first started studying it, the accepted l 25 skin temperature was 400 degrees centigrade. Does this , i
.Y. '
L I- ) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l l 97 () 1 sean that they are going to store the vaste f or maybe 50 2 years before they plan to put them underground? 3 MR. TEDESCOs I am not sure what kind of waste
)
4 you are talking about. When you say skin temperature -- 5 MS. SHARP Spent fuel of various ages. We
. 6 now have -- maybe the oldest spent fuel is 20 years 7 old ? Is that correct? Thirty?
s 8 MR. TEDESCO: In that area, maybe a little 9 older. I think there are probably some older than 10 tha t . 1 11 MB. SHARP: We have some idea about how much 12 it cools down over that period. We know newly spent 13 f uel is very hot, and probably it cannot be buried for O 14 a t least ten years, maybe 20 or 30. Are we anticipating , 15 then a storage f acility in the center of this highly 16 populated area for ten to 30 years of spent fuel? l 17 MR. MIRAGLIA: The proposal we have before us l 18 for the Sharon Harris is in terms of interim storage of . 1 l 19 the spent fuel, with ultimate storage to a -- 1 20 MR. TEDESCOs To a long-term facility. 21 MR. MIRAG1IA: -- for a lona-term permanent ' ! a 22 storage either away-from-reactor storage facility, or a 23 waste repository. , ! 24 MS. SHARP: This is what has been happening - 25 ever since the waste problem reared its ugly head, I , i }
%d ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 2C024 (202) 554-2345
88 () 1 guess, hasn't it, and we are not any closer than we were 2 20 years ago, are we , really? 3 HR. TEDESCO We are closer. I don't know how
}
4 close. It is not finished yet. 5 MS. SHARP: Well, I am concerned about this,
, 6 and I think maybe the people here are concerned also 7 that we are planning to pile up increasing quantities of 8 spent fuel in ever closer racking arrays in a plant in 9 the center of North Carolina. I think we need to think 10 twice about this, and I would like to ask you to review 11 caref ully whether or not this plant should plan to store 12 waste f rom Brunswick as I believe it is now planning to 13 do, and whether we should plan to store it and for that O 14 long a period. Most people are not in favor of away 15 from reactor storage because it requires transportation, 16 which is dangerous in and of itself, and where would you 17 put them once they are generated and they are set 18 there? It is going to be very difficult to put them 19 some place else. We all know that now.
20 I would like you to very carefully consider 21 whether it is a desirable thing to contemplate to store p 22 such vaste in this vicinity for 30 to 50 years. 23 MR. HEATER: Another question?
.) 24 HR. PHELPS: My name is Don Phelps. I think 25 it v,as about three weeks ago that it was decided that
,)
\v/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- . . =-- - - ~ . - .
a 89 (h 1 cleanup of the Three Mile Island plant would be 2 subsidized by the power companies all over the U.S. Is g 3 that true? 4 MR. TEDESCOs I have heard th a t . I don 't know 5 that.
. 6 MR. PHELPS4 I believe it was passed and 7 signed by Ronald Reagan about three weeks ago, and 8 decided that it would be. I would like to know if that 9 cost is going to be passed on to customers of those 10 electric companies.
11 MR. TEDESCO: We are not the right ones to 12 answer that question. 13 MR. HEATER: That is not in their field. 14 Therefore, they cannot accurately answer it. You would 15 have to check with CPCL to get an appropriate answer for 16 tha t, I think. 17 Are there other questions? 18 (No response.) 19 MR. HEATER: If not, I thank you all for
# 20 coming here tonight. The questions were very good
! 21 questions, to the point, and I appreciate that. I ! 22 appreciate the audience's attention. I believe we will 23 g e t the draf t environmental impact statement -- that 3 J 24 will be available in about October of 1982. j 25 MS. ROTHSCHILD: I would just like to say if l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
90 h 1 any of you are interested in additional ways of 2 obtaining information from the NRC, I have some i 3 pamphlets that outline those various means, and I would 4 be glad to leave them with you. , l 5 MR. HEATER: Thank you. The meeting is
. 6 adjourned.
7 ER. TEDESCO Thank you, Mr. Heater. 8 (Whereupon, at 9:35 p.m., the meeting was 9 concluded. ) 10 * *
- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
) 20 21 9
22 23 i q 24 ! 25 . O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
IMC 7AR EGULATOE CD.WSSICN This is Oc certify that the attached pecceedings before the J in the satter of: PUBLIC ' MEETING - SHARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
'NRC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Date of Prcceeding: April 7, 1982 Dccket lluczber:
f Place of Prceeeding: Apex, North Carolina were held as herein appears, and that this is the original t:anscript the: ecf for the file of the Car:t::rissicr.. Jane N. Beach i Official Reporter (Typed)
, a w
0 icial Repcrter (Signature) r
/ ;
h i O . i
.}}