ML20125C972
| ML20125C972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1984 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C784 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-007 ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 8506120212 | |
| Download: ML20125C972 (176) | |
Text
7 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
a 4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5 SUBCOMMITTEES ON HUMBOLDT BAY PROJECT 4 AND REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 7
8 REVIEW OF PG&E's DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 9 FOR THE HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 (HBPP-3) 10 11 Eureka Inn 7th and F Streets Eureka, California 12 13 Monday, September 10, 1984
( 14 The Subcommittee meeting was convened, pursuant to 15 notice, at 1:00 p.m.
16 17 Present:
18 liR. DADE W. MOELLER, Chairman ,
MR. JESSE C. EBERSOLE, ACRS Member 19 MR. MAX W. CARBON, ACRS Member ,
MR. RICHARD FOSTER, ACRS Consultant l 20 MR. MARTIN STEINDLER, ACRS Consultant t MR. RONALD KATHREN, ACRS Consultant 21 Also Present:
12 MR. OWEN MERRILL, ACRS Staff l 28 MR. JOHN C. McKINLEY, Designated Federal Employee
( 24 25 0506120212 850214 PDR FOIA SHAPLEN05-007 PDR b e l
1 J
2 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
8 MR. PETER ERICKSON MR. FRANK WITT 4
5 On behalf of the Applicant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company:
6 HR. JIM SHIFFER 7 MR. BRUCE NORTON, ESO.
MR. TERRY NELSON 8 MR. RANDY PARKER MR. ED WEEKS 9
10 11 12 13 14
(
15 16 17 18 19 30 21 22 25 24
(
15
3 1 PEggggglggS 2 CHAIRMAM MOELLER: The meeting will now come to 3 order.
4 This is a meeting of the Advisory Committee on 5 Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittees on Reactor Radiological 6 Effects and the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant. In'the 7 way of background, I might mention that the Advisory Committen 3 on Reactor Safeguards is a statutory committee established 9 something over twenty-five years ago by the Congress to 10 advise at that time the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and 11 subsequently the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on health 12 and safety matters relating to nuclear facilities.
13 This is one of the regular meetings of the sub-( 14 committee, or group of subcommittees, of the Advisory Commi-15 ttee; it is not a part of the hearing process. And it's one 16 of many subcommittee meetings and full committee meetings 17 that this group holds during the course of.the years.
Is The meeting is exploratory in nature, it's simply 19 to gather facts and information and to acquaint our members
'20 with what is going on here in the way of making plans for 21 the decommissioning of this particular nuclear facility.
12 I'm Dade Moeller, the Subcommittee Chairman. Seated 13 on my left is Max Carbon, another member of the ACRS; and
, ( 24 seated on my right is Jesse Ebersole, the current Chairman 25 of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
i
, , , - - - - - - , _ , , _ , . , , _ _ , , - - , - - , ~ , , . - - . - - - . , , - - - , - ~ - - - . . . - . ~ , . . - - - - , . . . . - - .
4 I We have also here at this table a team of consul-2 tants who are sspporting the Committee in its work and the 8 Subcommittee in its work. And beginning at my far left we 4 have Richard Foster, next Martin Steindler, and then seated 5 two seats to my right is Ronald Kathren. These three 6 gentlemen, as I say, are consultants to the Subcommittee.
7 Also with us today is Owen Merrill of the ACRS 8 Supporting Staff.
9 The purpose of this meeting, as I sayi is to review 10 plans by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the a
11 decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, 12 Unit No. 3. The meeting is being conducted in accordance 18 with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
( 14 and the government in the Sunshine Act.
15 Mr. John McKinley, seated on my far right, is the 16 Designated Federal Employee for this meeting.
17 The rules for participation in the meeting have 18 been announced as part of the notice published in the Federal 19 Register on August 17, 1984. We have received no written to statements and no requests for members of the public to make 11 oral statements at this subcommittee meeting. However, if 22 there are members of the public here or others who desire 28 to share with the subcommittee information that they have
( 24 related to the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear 25 Power Plant, Unit 3 just let John McKinley or me know and a
6
y, 5
1 we'll provide time for you to speak. We have time set aside 2
in our agenda for such presentations and we're always glad 3 to have them.
4 A transcript of the meeting is being kept and it 5 is requested that anyone who speaks -- and most of the people 4 conducting the meeting will be those of us here at the head 7 table, plus the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, plus 3
the PGE Staff -- we will ask that each of you identify your-
, self initially before you make a statement. In addition go to identifying yourself we would also ask that you speak with 33 sufficient clarity and volume so that everyone here can hear what is being said.
12 33 Now, there are members near the back of the room
( 34 and if anytime this afternoon you have a problem hearing 15 what is going on just wave your hand or stand up or something gg and we'll try to correct it.
17 Now, in terms of our agenda, and there are copies is ava'ilble for those who desire them, it is our plan first of 3, all to have a briefing on the decommissioning plan by the 20 Humboldt Bay Power Plant personnel. Then we will take a .
21 break and we will follow that with a presentation by the 12 NRC Staff in terms of their review of the decommissioning 23 Pl an for Unit 3. And then a second presentation by the NRC
( 24 Staff in terms -- well, first is the review process and how 25 it will take place, and the second will be any thoughts they
6 1 have at this stage on the basis of their preliminary review 2 of this decommissioning plan.
3 Our consultants and the members of the subcommittee 4 will be interrupting the speakers almost at any time to ask 5 questions that we have.
6 According to the agenda, after we have completed 7 those items --othe Humboldt Bay presentation and the NRC 3 Staff presentation -- then we would break for dinner and 9 resume later this evening for any public statements that 10 People want to make and for an executive session to discuss 11 any preliminary conclusions that the members of the subcomm-12 ittee may have reached.
13 Depending on how the schedule moves along, it would
( 14 be my preference to try to go through and complete everything 15 and then break once and for all and not have a break for dinner and come back. In other words, if things go along 16 17 smoothly and we don't get too far behing schedule I'll plan is just to run the subcommittee meeting through to:.its conclu-19 sion and then break.
- 20 Again, let me repeat that if there are members of 21 the public who desire to make statements simply let us know.
22 Let me ask at this time if any of the members of 23 the subcommittee or its consultants have any comments at this
( 24 time?
15 (No response.)
7 1 Okay, there being no comments in the way of 2 preliminary remarks, we'll now proceed with the meeting. And g
3 I will call upon Terry Nelson, the PG&E Decommissioning 4 Project Manager for Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, who 5 will coordinate the briefing on the decommissioning plan.
6 Mr. Nelson?
7 MR. SHIFFER: Well, actually I think before Mr.
8 Nelson speaks I have a couple of remarks.
9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: All right, would you identify 10 yourself for the record?
11 MR. SHIFFER: Certainly.
12 My name is Jim Shiffer and I am the Manager of la Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Department of Nuclear
( 14 Plant Operations. And I thought I'd introduce the people 15 from PG&E up here at the table for you.
la At my extreme left is Mr. Terry Nelson, who is the 17 SAFSTOR Decommissioning Project Manager and is also a member 18 of the Humboldt Bay Plant Staff. Next to him is Mr. Ed Weeks ,
19 who is the Humboldt Bay Plant Manager. To my immediate left 20 is Mr. Randy Parker, who is Senior Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer on the Humboldt Bay Plant Staff. And to 21 12 my right is Mr. Bruce Norton, who is Licensing Attorney.
13 Before starting, though, I would like to welcome
( 24 the subcommittee members, the subcommittee's consultants, 25 and the NRC Staff members to Eureka. We appreciate this e
f
8 1 opportunity to discuss with you our plans for the SAFSTOR 2 Decommissioning of Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3.
3 As you are probably aware, Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 4 is somewhat of a pioneer among domestic commercial reactor 5 plants. Planning for Unit No. 3 began in 1957 and an appli-6 cation for License to Con'struct was filed with the Atomic 7 Energy Commission in April of 1959. A Construction Permit for the unit was issued in October of 1960. Actual construc-a 9 tion was begun in November of 1960 and completed in June of 10 1962.
11 A Provisional Operating License, the seventh issued 12 by the Atomic Energy Commission, was obtained in August of 13 1962. Initial criticality was reached on February 16, 1963 14 and the unit was declared in commercial operation in August g
15 of the same year.
Is A boiling water reactor was selected for 'Init 3 17 based on the successful demonstration of that technology is at General Electric's Vallecitos boiling water reactor and It is also worth noting 19 Commonwealth Edison's Dresden Plant.
20 that PG&E, along with General Electric, jointly developed,1*.:
21 Prototype tested and built the first commercial scale 12 pressure-suppression containment system at Humboldt Bay.
23 We're quite proud of our operating record at Unit 24 No. 3. It operated for thirteen years, from 1963 until 1976, 25 generating 4.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity at a I
l 9 j g cumulative capacity factor of 634. The unit's availability 2
factor, that portion of time that it was ready for full power 3 operation during this period, was 864.
Unit No. 3 has been shut down since July of 1976.
4 5
It initially remained shut down following a refueling outage 4 in 1976 while seismic and geologic studies were in progress.
7 In 1980 it became apparent to PG&E that the economics 8
associated with plant backfits might not support restarting
, of the unit.
10 The ongoing seismic and geologic studies were then gy suspended while awaiting further guidance on backfitting. In 12 1983 PG&E economic studies determined that it would most 33 likely not be in the economic benefit of our customers to 14 restart the unit. Therefore, on June 27, 1983 PG&E announced
(
15 its decision to decommission Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3.
16 To accomplish the decommissioning PGEE has organ-17 ized a Decommissioning Project Team under the management of 13 Mr. Nelson, to my left. With respect to the decommissioning gg Mr. Nelson reports to Jim Skyler, who many of you may know.
20 Mr. Skyler is PG&E's Vice-President of the Nuclear Power Generation Department. The Senior PG&E Officer in charge 23 12 of Humboldt Bay is Mr. George Maneatis, who is Executive 23 Vice-President of Facilities and Electric Resources Develop-24 ment.
{
15 Other PG&E functional departments support the
10 1 Project Team as necessary. As you know, our plan is to 2 prepare Humboldt Bay Unit 3 for a nominal thirty-year safe 3 storage dormancy period. In support of this we filed with I 4 the NRC on July 31, 1983 our License Amendment Request and 5 supporting documents.
6 PG&E in its preparations for SAFSTOR and plant 7 surveillance during SAFSTOR will continue its corporate 3 commitment' to the public's health and safety and to the 9 protection of the environment.
10 Now, at this time I would like to turn the rest 11 of the PG&E presentation over to Mr. Terry Nelson, who is 12 the Project Manager for this Decommissioning Project.
MR. CARBON: I'd like to ask one small question 13 14 before you do that.
(
15 MR. SHIFFER: Sure.
MR. CARBON: You indicated an availability of 16 17 something like 83%.
18 ,
tiR. SHIFFER: 864.
19 MR. CARBON: Okay, how does that compare with the
, 20 availability of your typical coal or fossil fuel plant?
21 MR. SHIFFER: That's very -- it depends a lot on 12 the size of the plant thdthpou're talking about, but that's 23 very good by any measure of comparison. Large scale fossil 24 plants are typically -- have capacity factors just like 25 large scale nuclear.. plants, down to the sixty to seventy a
9
_ _ _ . . _ . _ . ,-_. - . . _ . . ~ . _ . _ _ - . . _ _ . _ . - _ , _ . - -_._, y, _ _ _ _ . . ,, ..
11 1 percent range.
2 MR. CARBON: Availability?
3 MR. SHIFFER: And availability as well.
4 Most large scale plants are operated at near full 5 load most of the time so their capacity factors and their 6 availability factors are somewhat comparable. But, Humboldt 7 had one of the finest records, not only in the country for 3 a nuclear plant but also for a fossil plant of the PG&E 9 system. It was a very successful plant in that respect.
10 MR. CARBON: Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other questions for Mr.
13 Shiffer?
13 (No response.)
( 14 Well, go ahead, Mr,. Nelson.
15 MR. NELSON: Good afternoon. ,
16 My name is Terry Nelson. My position is the Power 17 Plant Engineer on the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Staff. I'm 18 also the SAFSTOR Decommissioning Project Manager for the 19 decommissioning of Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3.
20 Let me first say that it is a pleasure to have the 21 opportunity to address the subcommittee and to describe 12 PG&E's plans for the decommissioning of Unit No. 3. As Mr.
23 shiffer stated in his opening remarks, Unit No. 3 is a
(
24 boiling water reactor initially constructed between 1960 and 15 1962.
9
12 1
The plant began commercial operation in August of 2 1963 and operated until July 2, 1976, generating over 4.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. During this period 3
(
4 the unit had one of the best operating records of any nuclear 5 Pl ant in the United States, as Mr. Shiffer stated, with an 6 operating capacity factor of 634 and an availability factor 7 of 864.
g Unit 3 included certain design features which made
, it unique among nuclear plants of its era. Some of the 10 unique features included natural circulation-recirculation gg flow which eliminated the need for costly recirculation pumps i 12 Utilization of a pressure-suppression containment system, 33 which was developed for Unit 3 jointly by PG&E and the 14 General Electric Company; and the fact that the reactor
(
15 vessel and the containment system were constructed in a 16 caisson below ground level.
gy These design features reduced..the overall cost 13 of the unit and improved its.
3, (Slide.)
20 During Unit 3's operating lifetime much experience 21 in the operation of boiling water reactors was gained. In 12 fact, many of the operators at other early boiling water 33 reactors in this country spent time at Humboldt Bay observing 24 day-to-day operations and participating in evolutions such
(
25 as refueling outages.
13 1
As the nuclear industry grew out of its infancy 2 regulations changed. The Humboldt Unit was almost continu-3 ously undergoing upgrades and modifications to keep current 4 with regulation changes. When the unit was shut down for the 5
final time in 1976 nobody expected that the Humboldt Bay 6 Unit No. 3 would again become a pioneer in the nuclear 7 industry and help accumulate knowledge in the modes and a methods of decommissioning nuclear reactors when they reached 9 the end of their beneficial lif2.
le What I'd like to do this afternoon is to briefly 11 describe the planning process used to arrive at the 12 decommissioning plans for Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and to describe 13 those plans.
( 14 (Slide.)
If In 1980 when it became apparent that it might not 16 be economically justified to return Unit 3 to power operation 17 PG&E conducted a series of studies to evaluate the options 18 available for the unit. These options included perform.ing 19 the necessary modifications and returning the unit to power 20 operation, repowering the unit as a fossil fuel unit utili-21 zing as much of the existing power generation equipment as 11 practical, and decommissioning the unit.
23 I will not try to describe the results of the 24 first two options studied. They are summarized in the
(
25 Environmental Report contained in our License Amendment
--r e-.? - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - . , , - . - , . --,--.----.,e -s- - , -----,---------e-----w, - , ,-. --- - - - - - . - . . - , - --
14 1 Application.
2 For the third option PG&E contracted with Gibbs E 8 Hill, Incorporated, who subcontracted with Nuclear Energy 4 Sercices to perform a study to evaluate the decommissioning 5 alternatives available for Unit No. 3. The completed study, 6 published in March of 1982, stated that the most appropriate 7 decommissioning alternative would be to place the unit into 8 custodial SAFSTOR for a period of thirty years followed by 9 either dismantlement or entombment of the unit. This study 10 miso provided cost and schedule estimates for the decommiss-11 ioning.
12 (Slide.)
18 In June of 1983 when the decision to decommission l 14 Unit No. 3 was announced a Project Team was formed to plan 15 and accomplish the decommissioning. The Project Team was 16 composed primarily of personnel from the Humboldt Bay Power 17 Plant. These people are most knowledgeable about conditions 18 existing in the unit and would be most able to handle any 19 problems that should arise during the decommissioning.
20 This chart shows the Decommissioning Project Team 21 as it was formed. Most of the work to place Unit 3 into 22 SAFSTOR will be performed by the existing plant staff. The 28 scope of work to be performed does not require bringing in 24 large numbers of outside personnel. This permits utilization
(
25 of workers who not only are familiar with the unit but also 4
l y__ . _
__,__,__.__m_ _ , , _ . . , _ . . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , ,,,m. . _ , _ _ , . - _ _ . _ __
15 1 with the plant work, practices and procedures.
2 As you can see, supervisors in charge of various 3 departments at the plant are the key members of the Decommis-I 4 sioning Project Team. These supervisors are listed on the 5 left of the chart. In addition to the on-site Project Team, 6 key personnel in PG&E's General Office were included to 7 provide support in the areas ,of licensing, contract services, a qual.ity assurance and engineering.
9 Within PG&E's Engineering Department a Project 10 Coordinator has been assigned to coordinate support activitie a 11 of the Mechanical and Nuclear, Electrical, Civil and Architectural Engineering Departments. Following establish-12 13- ment of the Project Team planning sessions were held to 14 establish a work breakdown structure, schedule and cost
(
15 estimates for the project.
16 (Slide.)
17 A review of regulations and regulatory guidance 18 rel'ated to decommissioning'was performed. Primary guidance 19 for decommissioning is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86, 20 " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors".
21 . Technological reports which were reviewed included 12 " Technology, safety and Cost of Decommissioning a Reference 13 BWR", NUREG/CR-0672, dated June, 1980, and Addendum 1 to that 24 NUREG, dated July, 1983. I'd like to point out that Addendum 4
25 1 updated the NUREG to consider the SAFSTOR decommissioning e
16 1 of a power plant with the on-site stNrage of spent fuel,
, 2 which is the project that we anticipate.
3 The third document reviewed was a Draft Generic 4 Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear 5 Facilities, NUREG-0586, dated January, 1981.
4 In addition, the following decommissioning plans 7 and experiences were reviewed: Dismantling Plan for the 8 Plumbrook Reactor Facility, dated February, 1980; Decommis-9 sioning Plan, A Safety Analysis Report for Peach Bottom 10 Atomic Power Stati6n, Unit No. 1, dated May, 1975; and the 11 Decommissioning Peach Bottom, Unit 1. Fin &l Repott, dated 12 July, 1978; Proposed Decommissioning Plan for the Indian 13 Point Unit No. 1, dated October, 1980 was also reviewed.
( 14 In addition, I held meetings with the General 15 Electric Company's representatives to discuss their experienca 16 with the SAFSTOR decommissioning of the Vallecitos boiling 17 water reactor, the GESSAR(ph) , and the GE Test Reactor at 18 the Vallecitos Nuclear Center.
19 (Slide.)
20 Planning for SAFSTOR decommissioning of Unit 3 considered the following objectives First, to modify the 21 12 plant facilities to support the long-term storage of spent 23 fuels to minimize generation of radioactive wastes; and to
( 24 minimize necessary maintenance and surveillance during the 25 SAFSTOR period.
4
17 cpe 1 mg 1
To secure non-operating plant systems, to prevent 2 deterioration and to minimize any potential for release of contained radioactivity. To reduce the general area 3
4 radiation levels in the vicinty of the equipment to be 5 operated or maintained during the SAFSTOR period to as low as reasonably achievable levels. To decontaminate the plant 4
7 facilities to the extent practical, to minimize the potential a spread of contamination outside the facility and to minimize e requirements for periodic surveys.
10 To process and dispose of radioactive wastes 11 remaining on site at the beginning of the SAFSTOR 12 decommissioning activities and any wastes generated during 33 decommissioning.
( 14 And lastly, to establish baseline conditions and 15 monitoring and surveillance programs for the SAFSTOR period.
16 These objectives form the basis for the SAFSTOR 17 decommissioning plan developed and submitted in support 13 of our request to an amendment to a posssession-only license.
19 MR. CARBON: Mr. Nelson, a question. How much 2'O ground are you breaking in the sense that you said, for 21 example, you reviewed the Peach Bottom 1 decommissioning.
12 Is that reactor approximately the size of Humboldt 23 Bay or any of these others that you mentioned or that have
( 24 been decommiss'ioned. Are they about the same size and about 25 the same complexion?
4
l 3s
< ~
18 l
l ,
l MR. NELSON: I don't recall, offhand, the size l
l f b 2 of Peach Bottom Unit 1 facility, but I know that the project 3 that they underwent to place their unit into what is today r
g 4 called SAFSTOR has very similar activities to those that k
we Planned. The review was done from a scope of what type 5
6 of work they had done, what the final condition the plant
! r 7 was left in more than it was on the actual size and magnitude
- 3 of the work project.
9 MR. CARBON: When you said activities, there,
, to didiyou mean the steps that had to be taken or the 8
11 ' radioactivity levels? Which were you referring to?
L MR. NELSON: The steps that had to be taken.
13 13 MR. CARBON: Steps -- so, I guess, if I understand 14 correctly, you are saying that this isn't greatly different
(
15 from Peach Bottom? .
16 MR.' NELSON: No it isn't. And, in fact, at one 17 poing that we h' ave been making for some time is that the work 18 that we anticipate doing at ther Humboldt facility is very 19 similar to work which routinely goes in, even, in an operatiny
, 20 plant.
It is.'primarily decontamination and layup for 4
21 -
22 /a draining -- a draining and flushing of layup of systems.
^
b 23 MR. CARBON: Thank you.
24 MR. MOELLER: Mr. Erickson, the NRC Project Manager 25 MR. ERICKSON: Peach Bottom 1 is 115 megawatts
[
r f, L
9 e.-
S e
19 )
l I versus 220 megawatts thermal for Humboldt Bay.
2 FERMI 1 also decommissioned to the safe thermals I was 200 megawatts thermal.
4 MR. MOELLER: Thank you. Go ahead Mr. Nelson.
5 MR. CARBON: I guess one other question with that.
6 Has the requirements for decommissioning changed in any 7 significant way since FERMI 1 and Peach Bottom?
8 MR. NELSON: No, they have not.
9 MR. CARBON: Thank you.
10 MR. NELSON: During the time --
11 MR. MOELLER: Excuse me. Mr. Erickson?
12 MR. ERICKSON: Well, there is possibly one 13 requirement that has changed and that has to do with the 14 environmental statement which may be required for Humboldt
(
15 Bay. But, it wasn't for either Peach Bottom or FERMI 1.
16 MR. NELSON: That is true.
17 MR. MOELLER: And then, of course, the NRC staff 18 has pending some proposed changes, as I recall, because 19 our subcommittee reviewed them some time ago in terms of 20 a limiting dose that would apply to facilities released
' 11 back to the public and so forth.
12 MR. ERICKSON: That is correct. That will impact 23 on Humboldt Bay when they get to the point of trying to 14 terminate their license 30 years hence, of course.
(
25 MR. MOELLER: Okay.
20
'l (Slide.)
2 MR. NELSON: During the time until the license 3 amendment is received, work is underway to prepare Unit 3 4 for the SAFSTOR decommissioning. This work performed during 5 this period will be limited to systems and equipment which 6 are not required to be operational by the existing Unit 3 i 7 operating license.
8 Preparation work to be performed during this 9 period includes unloading the reactor core. This was 10 completed in March of this year. One hundred'and forty 11 partially expended fuel assemblies were transferred to the 12 spent fuel storage pool and 44 new fuel assemblies, by new 13 fuel assemblies I mean assemblies which have not been in 14 the reactor during operation, were transferred to the new
(
15 fuel storage vault.
16 In-core fission chambers were also removed and 17 placed in the spent fuel storage pool.
18 .
Control rod blad.es, core support structure and 19 other core internals were left in the reactor vessel.
20 Following unloading, the reactor vessel was drained to 21 determine the change in radiation levels in the access shaft 12 and the minus 66 foot elevation.
13 When external radiation levels did not change 14 significantly, the vessel was left drained. ,
(
15 Systems not required for present cold shutdown
_..y .- -r.-- - m .
21 1 condition are being flushed, drained and secured. As systems 2 are secured, connections to other systems still in operation 5 are being isolated.- This not only prevents the secured 4 systems from being refilled unintentionally, but also prevento 5 a problem in a secure system from impairing an operating a system.
7 Radioactive wastes presently on site are being 8 processed, packaged and shipped to the disposal facility.
9 These are primarily wastes generated during and since reactor to operations but also include waste generated as a result 11 of system layups discussed earlier.
12 As a result of the ALARA considerations for system 15 layups and future decontamination work, certain piping sectior is
- ( 14 or components, which are significant contributors to dose 15 rates in those areas where work is being performed, are 16 being removed.
17 For systems which-are to remain secured for the la SAFSTOR period the-piping and components will not be replaced .
apa 1 19 Component and facility decontamination work will
. .ida 2 l . 39 20 be ongoing during this period. Also during this period, 21 we will be working with the NRC~ Staff to obtain the 22 amendment for the Unit 3 operating license to amend it to 25 a possession-only license.
24 MR. CARBON: What is an example of some system 4
25 that you need to keep active with regard to the reactor i
22 1 during the SAFSTOR period?
2 MR. NELSON: You mean with regard to the reactor 3 itself?
( Well, I understood you to say-that 4 MR. CARBON:
5 you would be flushing, draining and so forth, various systems, 6 but some of which you would not drain, you would need to 7 keep active, if I understood you correctly?
8 MR. NELSON: Yes. Our operating license and 9 associate technical specifications has requirements for 10 certain systems to be operational. These systems --
11 MR. CARBON: Under this condition?
12 MR. NELSON: Under the -- in the cold shutdown 13 condition, yes.
14 MR. CARBON: What is an example, and --
(
15 MR. NELSON: Examples are, some of our monitoring 16 instrumentation such as our area monitors, stack monitors 17 and in certain evolutions we have our gas treatment systems 18 is required to be operational.
19 These are systems which we anticipate we will
.20 be able to be either shut down or modified for the SAFSTOR 21 condition, but, under our existing license, we can't do 22 that yet.
23 MR. CARBON: This is more a matter of the licensing 24 requirements, a matter of changing them officially, rather 25 than a technical need as such; is that so?
-~ , _
23 1 MR. NELSON: Yes, it is.
2 Now, we also have systems that are required now 3 which will also be required during the SAFSTOR condition 4 such as the spent fuel pool system.
5 MR. CARBON: But, nothing in connection with the 6 reactor, itself?
7 MR. NELSON: No, that is correct.
8 MR. MOELLER: While Mr. Nelson is changing slides, 9 I wondered: Does the NRC Staff have an explanation, looking 10 back over previous power plan *s that have been decommissioned, ll C:l o n-11 we have E=1mn, PIQA and BONUS which it says were entombed 12 and their licenses were terminated. Why weren't they requirecl 13 to have a possession-only license?
( 14 MR. ERICKSON: Varying unique facilities in the pe$r 15 tme' were government owned under Part 115 license. The utility 16 was operating them under this Part 115 agreement with the 17 old AEC, now the Department of Energy. They really continue 18 with some control at those facilities and the Department ,
19 of Energy still has people monitoring those entombed 20 facilities on an annual basis, and they inspect them, 21 periodically, as well. The Department of Energy is still 22 responsible for Bonus, PIQA 13 MR. MOELLER: Thank you. Mr. Witt?
l 24 MR. WITT: I am Frank Witt. Humboldt Bay does not 25 have the entombment options primarily because of the spent
24 1
fuel, and, I think the only option open is the possession-2 only license.
3 MR. MOELLER: Thank you.
(
4 (Slide.)
5 MR. NELSON: Upon issuance of our license amendment, SAFSTOR decommissioning activities will begin. These 6
7 activities will include the completion of the layup systems a not required during SAFSTOR, modifications as necessary 9 to systems which will be operational during the SAFSTOR to support continues safe storage of spent fuel. These 11 modifications will include installations of improved spent 12 fuel pool level monitoring, modifications of the spent fuel 13 pool purefication system which will improve maintenance 14 of water quality, installation of a cover over the spent
(
15 fuel pool and modification of the stack gas monitoring system 16 to make it more sensitive to krypton 85, the only remaining 17 significant radioactive nuclide gas, and modification to 18 the plant security system as determined as a result of 19 revisions to the existing security plan.
20 MR. MOELLER: In terms of the modification, the 21 spent fuel pool will have a monitor for the level of water 22 within the pool, but I gather that there is not a monitor 23 on the level of water between the steel liner in the spent 24 fuel pool and the concrete tank itself; is that correct?
-(-
25 MR. NELSON: That is correct, there is not.
y - - -r-, - , , - - . . , - - - . ._ _ _ _ - -_
~. .
25 1 MR. MOELLER: Well what then prevents that filling 2 with water? I know you pump it out perio'dically, but why <
1 3 isn't it important to know how much water is in between 4 the liner and the tank?
5 MR. NELSON: We currently have an existing monitoring i I
6 system on that that we can measure the level on that liner !
7 and we do measure it periodically with operators making a the rounds. Part of our improved monitor -- monitoring 9 system on the spent fuel pool will provide an alarm on that 10 level gap so that if for some reason the level does increase, 11 our operators will be alerted and can pump the level down.
12 MR. MOELLER: Oh, okay. Now, in terms of the 13 spent fuel pool cover, are you planning to discuss that
( 14 more later?
15 MR. NELSON: No. I can answer your questions now.
16 MR. MOELLER: Can you describe it to us? Is it 17 a foot or two above the water level or is it a flat cover 18 or domed cover or what?
19 MR. NELSON: The cover over the pool is conceptual
' 20 at the moment. It is going to be a cover at approximately 21 the top of the pool, or about ground level in the refueling 22 building. The purpose of the cover is to provide a 23 contamination barrier between the radioactive water in the
( 24 pool and the refueling building and to allow us to exhaust 25 ventilation air from underneath the cover so that --
l 26 3 MR. MOELLER: Okay, now that was the question.
2 You are going to constantly withdraw and add air; in other 3 words, purefy or remove the air under the cover and above
(
4 the water?
5 MR. NELSON: Yes.
MR. MOELLER: Well, that will go --
6 7 MR. NELSON: We will have a small amount of flow 3 just to make sure that the flow from out of that area is p into the ventilation system and not into the refueling 10 building.
MR. MOELLER: Oh, so it is more to keep the sub-11 12 atmospheric --
13 MR. NELSON: Yes.
14 MR. MOELLER: -- pressure?
(
15 MR. NELSON: Yes.
MR. MOELLER: And then that air -- what happens?
16 17 Does it just go up the stack or does it go through a cleanup 13 system?
MR. NELSON: That air would then go into our 19 2'O ventilation system and up the stack.
MR. MOELLER: 1s it filtered or anything?
21 22 MR. NELSON: No, it is not.
MR. MOELLER: Nothing done to it. But, then the 23 24 stack has a monitor on it in case the air had activity in it?
(
25 MR. NELSON: Yes, the stack has a monitor, which
27 3
is one of things I said we will be modifying to make it more sensitive to the krypton 85. And, we also have a 2
3 Particulate sampling system which will remain in operation.
MR. MOELLER: Thank you.
4 MR. CARBON: What is the thrust of the spent fuel 5
6 pool modifications, the level monitor, the cover, the 7 demineralizer? And, I ask this from the standpoint that g you currently have spent fuel in the pool, you are adding y some more but not a great amount. Are the modifications --
10 is the thrust of them simply to make this easier to take care of on a long-range basis?
33 The thrust is actually twofold. The MR. NELSON:
12 13 improved monitoring of the spent fuel pool will permit us
( 34 to become aware of any problems with the pool during SAFSTOR 15 with a reduced amount of surveillance.
16 Currently, operators frequently are making tours 17 over near the pool and visually observe the pool.
13 MR. CARBON: Where you will have fewer people 19 around less frequently?
That is correct. As I stated, one
' 20 MR. NELSON:
23 of our objectives is to minimize the amount of surveillance 22 and associated radiation exposure associated with this projec u.
23 MR. CARBON: If I may, I would like to go back
( 24 to an earlier question of Dr. Moeller. Did you have the 25 option, also, of, if you had wished, taking your spent fuel,
28 y shipping it down to Diablo or some such thing, such that 2 you could have taken the fuel away from here?
MR. NELSON: We have looked at the various options 3
(
4 of what is to be done with the spent fuel, one of which 5 was to transfer the fuel to Diablo. As far as Diablo is 6
concerned, there are commitments already made for their 7 spent fuel pool storage capacity, so --
8 MR. CARBON: So, you didn't do it for financial 9
or other reasons, but you did have that option?
10 MR. NELSON: Well financial and other reasons 33 were also considerations. In the first place, it would 12 be, both in cost and exposure, an expensive proposition 33 to transfer the fuel down there, and, as far as regulatory
( 34 obstacles to be overcome, that was one of the questions, 15 that there is numerous origins as far as shipping the fuel 16 which would all have to be either tested or gotten around.
gy And, we didn't know what objections might be raised in is transferring --
39 MR. SHIFFER: The shipment of fuel to Diablo is 20 something that, although it was looked at briefly, it was quickly dismissed. I mean, there is several reasons for 21 22 that, one of which is that there is no storage facility 23 at Diablo that is really designed to handle Humboldt fuel.
l 24 And, secondly, as Mr. Nelson indicated, I mean, the 25 transportation and everything is a bit of a problem, and, l
-, - , - - . . . . - , . , , , - . - - - , - , y
29 1
E.,
1 thirdly, we are simply under commitment. We, being P.G.& )
2 are under commitments to the public in the Diablo Canyon 3 area that we are not going to make Diablo Canyon a storehouse 4 for everybody else's radioactive material. We will store 5 the Diablo Canyon materials that are generated there, but 6 not a lot of other stuff.
7 On the other side, Mr. Shiffer. Is MR. MOELLER:
8 there any chance that Humboldt Bay would become a storage 9 pool for other nuclear power plants spent fuel?
10 MR. SHIFFER: No, absolutely not.
11 MR. MOELLER: So, there is no intention to --
12 MR. SHIFFER: There is no intention whatsoever 13 of moving other materials up here anymore than there is
( 14 to move materials down to Diablo Canyon.
15 MR. MOELLER: Thank you.
16 MR. FOSTER: Speaking of the spent fuel pool water, 17 were you going to tell us more about the treatment -- cleanup 18 of that water, its release and its monitoring or should 19 I ask some questions about that now?
20 MR. NELSON: Go ahead.
Il MR. FOSTER: As I understood it from our visit 22 this morning, the fuel pool water will be cleaned up, if 25 you will, through the cleanup system for the low-level waste, f 24 low-level liquid waste, am I correct?
25 MR. NELSON: That is the present arrangement, yes.
1
- -- . , - - . - ,, -. n-- ,.- , , - , , - -. .- , . - - - - - - - - - -n , -., , - - , , . --
30 1 MR. FOSTER: The liquid waste from that cleanup 2 system, how is that presently monitored and handled?
3 MR. NELSON: Well, presently, the spent fuel pool 4 water is recirculated through -- the 3ystem includes coolers 5 which, of course, are no longer necessary due to the age 6 of the spent fuel, and a portion of that circulation flow 7 is routed to our radwaste treatment facility through a 8 demineralizer and then returned to the spent fuel pool.
9 MR. FOSTER: So, any contamination in that water 10 ends up on the demineralizers and the cleanup water goes 11 back into the pool; is that what you are saying?
MR. NELSON: That is correct, yes. Then, the 12 13 demineralizer resin, when the resin requires changing, is
( 14 transferred into our resin disposal tank and will be shipped 15 off-site as radioactive wastes.
16 MR. FOSTER: Now, you do have somewhere in the 17 plant here some liquid waste. In your decontamination 18 document, I think it was on -- oh, say, page 20, I believe, 19 you made reference to your liquid radioactive waste system
- 20 with a comment there that that was going to meet the 21 10 CFR 20 requirements. Can you elaborate on that a little 12 more? Where is that material coming from and going? Is 23 that a statement which applies to your SAFSTOR period?
24 MR. NELSON: Well, that is a statement that applies
, (
25 presently. It is a requirement of our existing license and
31 1
will continue during the SAFSTOR period. Reference to the 2
10 CFR 20 requirements are that the effluents from the plant, 3 the liquid effluents from the plant must meet the relief 4 restrictions contained in 10 CFR 20.
5 Our wastes are collected in the plant in our waste 6 collection system and transferred to our radioactive waste 7 treatment system where it is processed either through an 3 evaporation and concentration process, demineralizer or 9 filter, and then is -- when the processed waste has been 10 sampled and analyzed and demonstrated to be below releasable 11 levels, they are released.
12 MR. FOSTER: Do you anticipate that you are going 13 to have some sort of a tech spec that is going to apply a
( 14 predictable level of release which is more conservative 15 than 10 CFR 20 stack numbers?
MR. NELSON: No, I do not anticipate that.
16 17 MR. FOSTER: Right now you are saying that even 13 during the SAFSTOR period, the concentration quantities 19 would be at the 10 CFR 20 level?
20 MR. NELSON: The 10 CFR 20 limits that we comply 21 with are concentration limits and not quantity limits.
22 MR. FOSTER: Well, it depends on whether you dilute 23 these in canal after you get them out or whether you are
( 14 meeting these in your effluent lines before you are going 25 into the' canal.
1 4
- . + - - -
--~n - - , - - - n-, ---n,, - , . . . . . - , - - , -o,- - - - - - - - - - - - - , . n,, , , a a m, - - - . .-----,,,. -,.
32 1 That is all I have at the moment.
2 HR. STEINDLER: Do you have any provisions or 3 do you plan to install any provisions for canning (phonetic) 4 leakers, leaking fuel?
5 MR. NELSON: We do have provisions for, in our 6 spent fuel pool for storing fuel assemblies in cans for 7 leaking fuel, fuel assemblies. We have no intention --
8 no p,lans right now that that will occur. If it does occur, 9 that could be handled.
10 MR. STEINDLER: You can handle it in the pool?
11 MR. NELSON: Yes.
12 MR. MOELLER: And, what system do you have to 13 tell you promptly if a leaker develops?
14 MR. NELSON: Presently, the spent fuel -- the
(
15 only way we can handle that spent fuel pool is the analysis 16 for radioactivity contained in the spent fuel pool water as 17 water is sampled and anyalyzed periodically.
What is periodically? I mean, is 18 MR. MOELLER:
19 it weekly, monthly, quarterly?
20 MR. NELSON: Approximately monthly.
21 MR. MOELLER: And, so you analyze it monthly and 22 if a leaker has developed, you will see it through the increa ne I
23 in radionuclide concentrations in the spent fuel pool water?
24 MR. NELSON: Yes.
25 MR. MOELLER: Back on releases to the environment
33 I from the plant, which we realize are very low, but it seemed 2 to me, in reviewing what I would call your environmental 3 radiation surveillance program, you had something like five 4 stations or so out away from the plant where you monitored, J
5 as I gather, external dose rates, in which, therefore, if a you had an airborne release that contributed an increase 7 in the dose, you would detect it through these monitors.
8 That;is fine for the airborne, but what environmental 9 radiation surveillance are you doing for liquid, inadvertant I 10 liquid releases?
11 MR. NELSON: The -- prior to releasing any liquids 12 off-site, the tank or the source of the liquid if sampled 13 and analyzed to ensure that it is within release limits.
( 14 Then releases pass through a line which has an in-line 15 radioactivity process monitor which has an alarm in our 16 Unit 3 control room., This would detect any inadvertant 17 releases.
I IS MR. STEINDLER: Well, couldn't I say the same thing in terms of the airborne releases? You have a monitor 19
- 20 in the stack and, I presume, if the activity was too high, l 21 you wouldn't release it up the stack.. So why, in the sense r
l 22 of airborne, do you need an environmental monitoring system 1 23 and, in turn, some liquids you do not? I mean, I think 24 that is what you are telling me.
(
25 MR. NELSON: Well, the --
[
I l~
34 1 MR. PARKER: Hello.
2 MR. NELSON: Yes.
-
- MR. PARKER: This is Randy Parker. We have our 3
{
4 existing program for environmental monitoring which includes 5 aquatic samples along the shoreline of the bay. We did 6 some samples of the oyster beds in the north bay and, as 7 far as the airborne monitoring, we have an air sampling 8 station on Humboldt Hill and there is the milk sampling 9 program. It doesn't mean much anymore.
10 MR. MOELLER: But those will all continue?
11 MR. PARKER: In some fashion, they will continue.
12 We have approximately 30-some stations out in the environment 13 for direct radiation and those will probably be substituted 14 or replaced with stations closer to the site boundary.
(
15 MR. MOELLER: And do you not have some wells --
16 monitoring wells or am.I wrong?
17 MR. PARKER: Recently, in May and June, as part 18 of the characterization program, we had eight or nine test 19 wells drilled on the site in the -- well, most of them in
.20 the restricted area and eight of these were developed as 21 groundwater monitoring wells. We are in the process of 22 pumping them down and establishing a baseline for continued i
23 monitoring.
24 MR. MOELLER: So that would give me some comfort l [
25 in terms of inadvertant liquid releases, would it not?
l l
l I
i t
t
i 35 l
1 MR. PARKER: Yes. Considering two possible routes, 2 either to the groundwater or to the outflow canal, either 3 one would be covered by part of our monitoring program.
(
4 MR. MOELLER: And in terms of the milk and shellfish ,
5 seafood monitoring, you hinted that you would continue it 6 but you didn't give us any facts. I mean, can you give 7 us numbers of samples or frequency?
8 MR. PARKER: I am not certain which will be 9 continued. The monitoring directly at the outflow canal 10 will certinly continue. In the past, samples have been 11 collected at the North Coast Oyster Company and it may be 12 kind of pointless to get those samples because they are 13 quite a ways from the possible plant releases.
14 MR. MOELLER: So again, you are monitoring
(
15 the water out of the discharge canal. So, that is another 16 piece of information, and, if there is nothing there, you 17 would not anticipate any in the shellfish or the seafood?
18 MR. PARKER: Right.
19 MR. MOELLER: Okay.
20 MR. PARKER: This is going to be a growing program.
21 After a few years, it may well, change, but this will be something, I think, included in our license. And, 22 25 to do that kind of thing, we will have to discuss it with 24 the NRC.
(
25 MR. MOELLER: Okay. Thank you.
O
36
-mag
-topa 2
! 1 MR. PARKER: I have one further comment __
2 MR. MOELLER: We have great difficulty hearing you.
MR. PARKER: I'm sorry. Terry mentioned that we 3
4 would need 10 CFR 20 limits as far as effluent releses to the canal. We are also controlled by the EPA regulations, I
5 6 40 CFR 190, to their public dose rate limits.
7 MR. MOELLER: Go ahead, Mr. Nelson.
8 MR. NELSON: The systems which will be maintained 9 operational during the SAFSTOR period include the spent 10 fuel pool system, as I have already discussed, including 11 the pool level monitors, the pool water purification system
. 12 and spent fuel pool covers to be installed.
13 The mineralized water system, which will provide l 14 makeup water for the spent fuel pool, the surface air system, 15 the liquid radioactive waste collection and treatment system, 16 plant ventilation system, fire protection system, area 17 radiation monitors, our stack monitoring system and various 18 electrical, auxiliary power and lighting systems.
19 Waste processing and decontamination work will
' 20 be ongoing during the SAFSTOR decommissioning activities.
21 The objective of the decontamination program will 12 be to reduce contamination levels to a point where the 13 potential for spread of contamination is minimized and routin t
( 24 surveillance work may be performed without significant 15 radiological cautions being required.
,-w~~- e- -n,wr m w.m.-n-- w e ~r m -,--w,-.---------,,---a----n-,------ --.-,.~.,--,---r- -vv--,ar....r-,.,a,--w-----,..,,w,.w~ -
,-,w.- --
---.-v,-~
37 1 At the completion of activities to place Unit 2 No. 3 into SAFSTOR, the baseline radiological survey will 3 be performed. This survey will be used to establish the 4 initial conditions to which the results of periodic 5 surveillance can be compared.
6 The baseline survey will include general area 7 and contact dose rates by elevation, room and plant area; 8 surface contamination levels by elevation, room and plant 9 arear surveys of various system components and an updated 10 inventory of radionuclides. It will not be necessary to 11 repeat the environmental characterization performed earlier 12 this year.
13 MR. CARBON: Question.
( 14 MR. NELSON: Yes.
15 MR. CARBON: I was thinking of something else 16 when you went past decontamination. Would you repeat whatever 17 you said there.
15 MR. NELSON: What I said was that the objectiv.e 19 of the decontamination program will be to reduce contaminatior
' 20 levels to a point where the potential for the spread of 21 contamination is minimized and routine surveillance work may 22 be performed without significant radiological precautions 23 being required.
24 MR. CARBON: Will this activity be concentrated
(
25 in any particular place? Is most of it going to involve
38 1 some particular aspect?
2 MR. NELSON: The decontamination work will be 3 concentrated in those areas which will be routinely accessible 4 during SAFSTOR. The objection being, is that personnel 5 entering the plant for routine surveillance, the visual 6 surveillance of the plant can do so without entering areas 7 of the surface contamination levels that we currently 8 experienced.
9 MR. CARBON: Were you -- I understand. Will you 10 be decontaminating some of the steam lines or anything like 11 that?
12 Will as much attention be given that?
13 MR. NELSON: External surfaces will be I 14 decontaminated, yes. We are not trying to decontaminate 15 these areas down through releasable levels; just minimize 16 exposures.
17 MR. MOELLER: Back on the spent fuel pool; is 18 there any.of the old stainless steel-clad elements in there?
19 MR. NELSON: No. All those assemblies were shipped
' 20 off site in 1970.
21 MR. MOELLER: So it is all zirculoid clad?
22 MR. NELSON: Yes.
23 MR. MOELLER: Now what -- you potentially, although
( 24 you have a contract with the Department of Energy to remove 25 the spent fuel, you might, well, I guess you have to think
39 i
1 in terms of it, maybe, being there for ten, twenty years?
2 MR. NELSON: Yes.
MR. MOELLER: Well what experience can you cite 3
(
4 for us where spent fuel can be safely maintained or retained .
5 in a water pool for periods of years, such as ten, twenty, 6 thirty?
MR. NELSON: As far as citing a specific report 7
3 or reference, I don't have one in mind right now, although, 9 in my reviews of decommissioning activities, I have seen 10 numerous reports, as talked about, there have been no problemo 11 of zero pool (phonetic) at the long-term storage of spent 12 fuel in fuel pools to date, and therefore, I do not anticiapto 13 any. We will be providing, I think, sufficient maintenance 14 and surveillance for the fuel in the pool that, if such
(
15 a problem should occur, it can be detected early.
16 MR. CARBON: 'Along that line, zirconium cladding 17 is, I think, something like 30 mils thick, isn't it?
18 MR. NELSON: I'm.not sure of the number.
19 MR. CARBON: But what is the corrosion rate or 20 pitting rate? Does it amount to anything in coal fuel elemen o.s 21 in highly pure water?
f i
22 MR. NELSON: I do not have the answer to that l
23 question.
24 MR. CARBON: Thank you.
(
25 MR. MOELLER: To me, and I'm speaking as an
5 i individual, the most important source of radioactive material 2
we have here on site, or that you have on site, is the old fu~el assemblies in the spent fuel pool. And you are hoping 3
4 to maintain them there for ten, twnety, thirty years, but 5 I would think, then, that one of the most important pieces 4 of information you could have to present to us, to assure 7 us that this can be done safely, is that others have done s it or have come close to doing it.
9 I would think you would want to know something to about the corrosion rates and projections of just how long 33 it might take; what sort of a cushion you have to assure 12 us that nothing will go wrong with this approach.
MR. CARBON: Along that line, however, and contrary 33 14 to what I was expressing, too, I guess the problem is no
(
15 different than the oper_ ting power ~ plant has; is it?
That is definitely correct. I mean, Is MR. SHIFFER:
17 in the present day and age, all operating power plants are is going to be storing this kind of fuel pool -- their spent 19 fuel in equivalent pools for the same length of time that 20 we are going to be doing it. I might also add that much 21 of this fuel has been in that pool for eight to ten years 12 already and we have observed no discernable adverse affects 23 on this, so actually, we probably have as much experience in history on it as anybody does. But, we have 12 to 14 24
(
25 years, in some cases, but, in that respect, we are no different l
_ ,,,.-.~.-_m. _..-_ - -. _ . , . - _ _ _ , - _ ,m.. .-_ _ _ - _ _ _ , _ . . _ , , , _ . _ . _ _ - . _
41 1 than every other power plant in the country until the 2 disposal arrangements are finalized.
3 MR. KATHREN: Do you do any inspection of the 4 spent fuel, at all, while it is in there? Are there any 5 plans to inspect it?
6 MR. NELSON: The inspection of the spent fuel 7 is done visually by surveillance of the pool and it is part 3
of an annual inventory conducted of fuel assemblies and, 9 also, as I mentioned earlier, the analysis of the spent 10 fuel pool water.
MR. STEINDLER: In the area of decontamination, 33 12 did you say you were going to decontaminate the external g3 surfaces only?
MR. NELSON: Yes, I did.
14 15 MR. STEINDLER: That means that interior 16 contamination of piping produces a significant environmental 17 dose in that area will remain?
18 MR. NELSON: I believe I mentioned earlier that, 19 in the cases where internal contamination presents a 20 significant dose in an area where work will be performed, 21 w'e are currently in the process of flushing or, in some 22 cases, physically removing sections of line or components.
MR. FOSTER: Relative to contaminated equipment, 23 24 you have got a shut down plant unit there with a lot of --
25 lots of instruments, tools, kinds of things that could be 9
, , - - . . , . , - , - . - - ., - - , . . - - , - - n.--, . . - .
42 7
1 reused, sitting right next door to a couple of other fossil 2 fuel units, which I can visualize that might have need for 3 that.
4 I am wondering what sort of administrative controls 5 and also contamination controls you are going to have that 6 will assure that contaminated equipment now present in the 7 Unit 3 area doesn't walk across the barrier and get used 8 in the number 1 and 2 Units, under conditions that be.
9 MR. NELSON: We currently have procedures 10 requirements of the plant that any materials removed from 11 Unit 3 must be assimilated by our radiation protection department and released before they can be removed. Those 12 13 procedures are currently in effect.
( 14 MR. FOSTER: Can you tell us what kinds of ground 15 rules they are using to make those yes/no decisions on what 16 can and can't be used? .
17 MR. NELSON: Let me defer that question to Randy 18 Parker.
19 MR. PARKER: In order to survey out equipment 2'O such as this material that might be used in 1 and.2,we will 21 normally use a pancake geiger counter with the sensitivity 12 that is consistent with the rest of the industry. Typically, 13 5,000 BPM contamination levels can be detected.
24 It has been our experience that most of the
_(
25 equipment that might fall in this category is not suitable
- , --w - . - - - - - ,-------_.s--,----- -. ,- ,--w- , ,= ,, ,-w -wr- y-- w-ew.w-,y----- w <e- -- ,, y--w
43 8
, 1 for use in Units 1 and 2 because it is -- most of the 2 equipment in Units 1 and 2 that we are replacing is being 3 replaced with more modern stuff for which we can get spare 4 parts; that is one problem that Humboldt Bay had begun to 5 face was that replacement parts for some equipment was g difficult to get.
7 MR. FOSTERS Can you tell me where that 5000 BPM 3 mess'.came from and is that just surfac.e contamination or 9
is there -- represent internal -- is this an ANSI rule or 10 a Commission Reg Guide?
MR. PARKER: If I understand it correctly, there 11 i
12 is a INE notice that came out several years ago that describec 13 sensitivities of surveying for contamination with this type
( 14 of incidence and 5,000 BPM's is in the range of achievable 15 sensitivities. This is not something for which an Ig instrument -- I'm sorry.
An instrument of this type is 17 not going to detect contamination inside a piece of equipment, 18 For that purpose, you still have to rely on administrative 19 controls as to what to release, how you determine whether
- 20 or not it is releasable.
MP. KATHREN: Could I --
21 MR. MOELLER: Use the microphone in front of you --
22 MR. KATHREN: If I could pursue that 5,000 for 23 14 a minute. There is an ANSI standard, and I presume you
(
15 are familiar with it. I think it is 1315, but I still would
44 l
like to come back to what Dr. Foster asked, and, is that 1
5,000 BPM per what? Is that for probe area, for --
2 MR. PARKER: I don't remember the write-up too 3
4 well. I believe they were talking in the reference to this 5
notice of 5,000 BPM point sources, whereas you could interpret 4 this as 5,000 BPM over the area of the probe.
MR. KATHREN: The area of the probe is relatively 7
small, is it not? It is about 15 square centimeters?
3 MR. PARKER: Yes. Probably about 15 square 9
10 centimeters. I MR. KATHREN: That would put you above the level 33 12 cited in the ANSI standard because those are cited in terms 33 of 15,000 BPM per 100 square centimeters, and, you are talkin y 14 about 5,000 over a probe area which would put you up to
(
15 90,000 or so?
MR. SHIFFER: You are catching us without our gg I want to remember 17 Procedures in our hands and I can't -- but 13 that that number is per square decimeters. I know it's --
19 I can't remember the exact citation but it is consistent
- 20 with the standard --
21 MR. KATHREN: It would seem more reasonable because I kind of rose 22 those detectors are far more sensitive.
23 to that 5,000 because --
MR. SHIFFER: It's 5,000 BPM per square decimeters, 24
(
25 something like that.
b
_ - - __ _ __ _ __,_r
45 y MR. KATHREN: Yes.
MR. SHIFFER: And that is for beta gamma, there 2
3 is lower numbers for alpha.
I 4 MR. STEINDLER: In the case of decontamination 5 against internal surfaces, do you intend to use chemical 6 decontaminations containing chelating agents or the chemical 7 decontaminating agents, and, if you do, what affect do you g expect this to have on the waste treatment and waste disposal p problems? 4 MR. NELSON: There is only one location in the 10 gi plant that we are anticipating the potential use of chemical 12 decontamination and this is some piping elbows in the condensate gg systems near the feed water heaters underneath the main 14 turbine.
(
And the first thing we will try and do is to remove 15 16 these levels either by internal system flushing or some 17 other type of mechanical decontamination. If that doesn't
- 13 work, then we may evaluate a chemical decontamination program ,
19 Prior to proceeding with that program, we will have to evalua te 20 the various chemicals involved or proposed to be used and 21 what their effects would be. I don't have an answer for t
, 12 that right now.
y 33 As part of the preparations for SAFSTOR 24 decommissioning plan and the environment report, a detailed p
l 25 current radioological characterization of Unit number 3 i
1 J
.-.m._ . . r_ , -,.. ,.. ..m..., ,,. . ,- , _._......,...,-.-_,__.._,.m__,_,-._.__.-...-._,._,_m.,
_7_.._.._...__
( +
t 4; 46 I
I has been performed. l 2
~
The sources of information used in preparing this 3 characterization included environmental radiation studies 4 conducted from 1960 to 1983, reports of operations and
.5 eff'uents l released for the period of 1963 to 1983, the routino 6 health physics surveys and results of radiological analysis, 7 activation analysis performed as part of the decommissioning 8 and; decontamination studies performed by Gibbs and Hill 7/
9 in' 19 8 2.
10 The Pacific Northwest Laboratory study conducted 11 in 1981 entitled " Residual Radionuclide Distribution and 12 Inventory at Humboldt Bay" and additional surveys, studies 13 and samples that were obtained in and around in that area
( 14 fin May and June of this year, detailed results of this 15 characterization are contained in the SAFSTOR decommissioning 16 plan and environmental report.
i 17 As far as total activity currently on site, 18 excluding spent fuel and radioactive wastes presently on 19 site awaiting processing or shipment, it is estimated that
- 20 approximately 24,000 curies are contained in Unit 3.
] 21 The on site activity can be divided into four h7 22 categories. The first is the spent fuel pool. Now my original 4 23 figure did not include the spent fuel but we estimate that 24 the 390 fuel assemblies currently contained in the spent
.(
25 fuel pool contain an estimated 12,000,000 curies.
'I ~
w .
v
=$
g
47 i The materials in the spent fuel pool other than 2
fuel assemblies account for approximately 12,000 curies.
I These materials will be disposed of radioactive waste.
4 Significant items included in this total are stellite roller 5 balls which were removed controller blades and controller 6 blade followers comprised approximately 8200 curies and 7 fuel channels which are approximately 3900 curies.
8 Tht fuel pool liner wall corrosion film is the 9 film contained on the wall itself, contains an estimated 10 3.2 curies which is comprised of 66 percent cesium 137, II 22 percent iron 55 and 4 percent cobalt 60.
12 The water in the spent fuel pool contains an-13 estimated two curies, 80 percent of which is cesium 137.
( I4 (Slide.)
15 The drywell reactor vessel and vessel internals 16 contain an estimated 12,000 curies. Because of the 17 predominance of cobalt 60 and iron 55, the total activity I8 will be approximately 2900 curies or 30 percent of the present.
39 activity at the end of 30 year SAFSTOR period. This will
- 20 simplify removal of the reactor vessel and internals during 11 final dismantlement.
22 (Slide.)
13 Corrosion layers existing in various Unit 3 systems
(
24 contain a total of approximately 100 curies. Distributions 25 of this activity, by system, are described in the SAFSTOR 4
48 1 decommissioning plan and environmental reports. Total 2 activity is comprised of approximately 81 percent iron 55, !
3 14 cobalt 60, two and a half percent cesium 137 and 1.6 4 percent nickel 63.
5 An estimate of the total surface contamination 6 existing in the plant bas,d on core and swipes analyses 7 has not been attempted. Based on the ratio of internal 8 to external contamination reported in the NUREG 0672, the 9 total surface contamination is estimated to be 1.1 curies.
10 MR. STEINDLER: Could I ask about the corrosion 11 film?
12 MR. NELSON: Yes.
13 MR. STEINDLER: Does that include corrosion film
( - 14 on the spent fuel in the pool?
15 MR. NELSON: No, it does not.
16 MR. STEINDLER: So it's just corrosion film on 17 the inside of the reactor plus piping?
18 .MR. NELSON: Yes.
19 MR. STEINDLEE: Are there any analytical data
' 20 to verify that distribution, for these calculations?
21 MR. NELSON: These are the results of the surveys 22 conducted by the P and L study in 1981. They actually took 13 scrapings from inside various systems throughout the plant
( 24 and analyzed them.
25 MR. STEINDLER: Do you have any estimate by what additional material you might find on the surface of the J
4
-r , -,,--e,.- , , - - , , . ,- - - - , - , - , - , , a ,- - . - - - . - - - . . - - , , - , - - - - - - - - - - - - , , , --- ,
49 1 spent fuel?
2 MR. NELSON: No, I do not.
3 MR. MOELLER: Dr. Steindler, that could be 4 significant.
5 MR. STEINDLER: Right.
6 MR. MOELLER: Generally, assemblies, the rods 7 do have a lot of crud on the outside of them.
8 MR. NELSON: Returning to the surface contamination 9 discussion, analysis of concrete cores by Pacific Northwest 10 Laboratories in 1981 indicates that contamination resides 11 mainly in the top centimeter of the concrete except where 12 cracks have occurred. Primary nuclides are cesium 137 and 13 cobalt 60. Cesium 137 appears to have penitrated painted
( 14 surfaces and cracks to a greater extent than the cobalt.
15 The greatest concentrations of cesium are contained in 16 the -- or found in the radwaste treatment system area.
17 Cobalt 60 concentrations are highest at the minus 18 66 foot elevation of the access shaft and in the condensation 19 analyzer room.
20 In addition to the characterization of the 21 radioactivity contained in systems and structures 22 investigations were conducted to determine environmental 23 radionuclide distributions. The P and L study conducted i 24 in 1981 took two soil cores north of the refueling building.
25 Both cores -- for both cores, increase in concentrations
-,-m _- -
50 1 of cobalt 60 and cesium 137-below about 26 centimeters 2 suggested subsurface leakage of contaminated water. One 3 suspected source was the spent fuel storage pool which was 4 known to have experienced leakage early in the operation 5 of Unit 3.
6 In order to evaluate this condition, in June of 7 this year, 11 borings were made encircling the Unit 3 3 restricted area.
9 On this drawing, I'll identify where the borings 10 were made. This drawing -- I'll just point out the --
MR. MOELLER: Yes, point them out and then go 11 12 back to the microphone.
MR. NELSON: The borings started in this -- and 13
( 14 then carried over --
15 The spent fuel pool is physically located right 16 here. Borings were conducted near the concrete storage --
17 storage tanks, around the building, up on the hill near la the ra'dwaste facility. One more boring was conducted up 19 here -- and another boring down here.
' 20 MR. MOELLER: Repeat that, if you will, for the 21 record.
22 MR. NELSON: The borings were conducted -- one 23 boring was conducted to the southwest of the turbine and
( 24 then borings were conducted north of the refueling building 25 near the concrete storage tank, along the roadway between the radwaste facility and along the east side of the t
51 1 refueling building, up on the hill near the radwaste facility 2 and down on the southeast side of the refueling building.
3 MR. MOELLER: Now in the data that was presented, 4 I believe, in the environmental report that you prepared, 5 it showed the activity as a function of depth decreasing 6 to a minimum and then, as you went deeper, it increased 7 again.
8 Did you have an explanation for why, in going 9 down, you reach a minimum and then it increases again?
10 MR. NELSON: Could you tell me which data you Il are referring to?
MR. MOELLER: Just a moment. Why don't you go 12 13 ahead and I'll look it up.
MR. NELSON: Okay. During the sample borings,
( 14 15 continuous soil samples were obtained. The results of the 16 sampling concluded that the nuclide concentrations were 17 simply background and that the contamination detected by 18 P and L in their study was the result of surface spills 19 and not the result of major subsurface leakage of pipes, 20 the spent fuel pool or any other facility.
21 Monitoring wells, which Randy referred to earlier, 22 are being installed in ten of these bore holes. These wells 23 are being developed, characterized and sampled to establish
( 24 a baseline which will become part of a groundwater monitoring 25 program utilized during SAFSTOR to ensure that subsurface
52 4
1 leakage does not occur. Or, if it does, it could be detected.
i MR. FOSTER: When you were describing the locations 2 ,
3 of the-sampling wells, the first ones that were put in, 4 it seemed to me that they were generally heading out in 5
a northern direction from the plant and contrary to where 360 degree pattern around. Is this generally 6 they are now, 7 in a downflow direction as far as the groundwater is concerneo 3 from the plant and towards the bay?
MR. NELSON: Yes.
9 MR. FOSTER: What was the rationale for going 10 it in that direction?
MR. NELSON: Yes. Hydrology -- groundwater hydrology 13 13 i studies conducted earlier in the life of Unit 3 indicated
( 14 that the' primary direction of groundwater flow would be 4 15 towards the bay. In addition to conducting these -- or 16 drilling these wells and obtaining samples, we've also and the reperformed the hydrology analysis to verify thist 17' 13 predominant flow direction is toward the bay.
MR. FOSTER: You have made mention early to the 19 20 possible leakage of the fuel storage spaces with then the Can you tell 21 installation of the stainless steel liner.
i 12 us a little more about the time in which the installation 13 of the liner occurred and whether that was before or after 4
( 24 spent fuel had been placed in the basin?
15 MR. NELSON: I don't recall -- I don't have with 4
f f
- ,- .,, .,---r- .,..---+,.,v,,-,m-y,, - . . , , - --u-,-.---_m ,.----.~-------,w,,-_,--.,-,-- . , . - - . .y, ---
53 1 me the actual years that the liner was installed. It was 2 installed very shortly after operations -- I'm not sure 3 the spent fuel was installed in the pool --
4 MR. SHIFFER: No, I don't -- we were scratching 5 our heads to remember what happened, but my recollection 6 is from the very beginning, from when the plant was first 7 started up, it was originally, the spent fuel pool had no 8 liner and it was simply a carboline, a heavy painted walls 9 and we never were able to stop it from leaking and so we 10 put the spent fuel pool liner before we ever discharged 11 fuel into it.
12 MR. FOSTER: But, I gather that there was 13 contamination in the groundwater which was found outside
( 14 and that you suspected that that contamination might have 15 come from a leakage storage basin and then I was curious 16 to know whether, in' fact, the spent fuel basin in that 17 had actually received any fuel by that time.
18 'MR. SHIFFER: No. That activity would have come 19 because of leaks in the original spent fuel pool liner before
' 20 we came upon the way we handle it now with intermediate 21 water barrier.
12 MR. FOSTER: Would there have been contamination --
23 contaminated material in the spent fuel storage basin before
( 24 you put spent fuel in?
25 MR. WEEKS: This is Ed Weeks, Plant Manager.
4 e
54 I think the sequence of events was: During the 1
construction it was intended that the pool be just a 2
carboline surface. We found, before we put fuel in there,
(
that that must have the stainless steel liners.
4 I recall it was done before we put any contaminated 5
material in the pool. It was after we began to discharge the fuel into the modified spent fuel pool that we suspected it had a leak in the stainless steel liner, also in one of the wells.
9 And then we got a program started to try to identify 10 whether or not we had leakage. This was always, a rather 11 iffy program based on our analysis of the water in the liner between the stainless steel and the gap between the stainless 13
(
steel liner and the carboline. Sampling that water is not definitive and we began to look at what was happening downflou from the pool toward the bay, and we suspected we had a leak and we went to the administrative controls of maintaining' 17 the water level in that gap between the stainless steel liner and the carboline, lower than ground water and also the cool wa er so that we always had leakage into that gap.
We did hve a leak in our stainless steel liner.
MR. FOSTER: If your suspected leak in your stainl ess
. steel liner was there, it would still be there today; is that correct?
( 4 MR. WEEKS: It might or it might not be. The
55 1 The indication from these ten holes that carried the strodamine 2 douglar (phonetic) in here indicates that we don't have 3 a leak, or if we did have a leak, it's no longer there.
{
4 I think that's the conclusion that P.G.E E.'s at right now, 5 is that if it did leak back in the ' 60 's, the leak is probably 6 closed up or so small that it's not really causing any migrati on 7 of damaged material into the area where we put the bore 8 holes. I think that's the conclusion we reached.
9 I think two things could have happend -- either 10 the leak closed itself -- or three things could have happened, 11 even if we had never had a leak, the leak had closed itself 12 or administrative controls of pumping the liner and maintainir g 13 the level of that liner lower than the level of the pool 14 and lower than groundwater, that would prevent any water 15 from escaping from the plant into the soil or into the groundw ater 16 around the plant.
17 We really don't know which one of those three 18 objects is.--
MR. STEINDLER: Is the bottom line that analytically 19
' 20 you don't see any additional increase in contamination outside 21 the original area that you did 20 years ago; is that what 22 you are saying?
23 MR. WEEKS: Basically that's right except for I 24 some indications of near-surface contamination that could 25 have been resolved from the radioactive water spill l
l ,
l
56 I MR. STEINDLER: That is a separate spill you are 2 talking about?
3 MR. WEEKS: Yes.
(
4 MR. MOELLER: Back on my earlier question. The 5 figure -- one of the figures that I had reference to is 6 in the environmental report and it's figure 4.11 on page 7 4-67. And, it shows the picocuries per gram maximum at 8 the surface in decreasing down to the range of 22 to 26 9 centimeters and then increasing as you go on down to 48 10 to 50 centimeters. And, I wondered if you had an explanation 11 for that pattern.
12 MR. NELSON: Well this -- the figure that you 13 are referring to and the one on the following page are the k 14 two P and L samples that basically triggered us to pursuing 15 this farther to find out if we did have a subsurface non-water 16 source. These are the samples that indicated increasing 17 levels of below about 26 centimeters and the results of 18 our study indicated that these activities were more likely 19 the result of some surface spill to which may have either 20 migrated to a level out at this depth but not as a result 21 of sub-surface leakage.
22 MR. MOELLER: So, you think it's a surface spill 23 that wherever the spill occurred it went rapidly to a lower
( 24 depth?
25 MR. NELSON: I'm not sure what the mechanism would
,,- ,, n - - . - . . - , - - , . .
57 1
have been or when the spill may have occurred that caused l 2 this.
3 MR. MOELLER: Or, could it be contamination from
. (
-4 the canal seeping under the plant or something?
5 MR. NELSON: No. These particular samples were 4 taken, that you referred to, is on the northside of the 7 conslage surge tank which is at the plus 12 foot elevation 8 and.the depth is about 26 centimeters.
MR. MOELLER: Sure, okay. Thank you.
9 10 MR. NELSON: I should point out that that area ,
11 of the building between the radwaste treatment facility 12 and the refueling building has been an area of known spills
' 13 in the past. It's an area that we have experienced and
( 14 that's the very reason why this was selected for a sample.
Before we give up on that. Is it 15 MR. KATHREN: ,
16 possible that there's one data point that seems to be low in that. Was that data point checked for validity?
i 17 Which?
18 MR. MOELLER:
19 MR. KATHREN: That 22 to 26 centimeter depth.
20 This is the one Dr. Moeller referred to as -- because if 21 that were an artificially low data point because the sample 12 may not have been good, then at least for the cesium, there i 23 doesn't seem to be a necessarily an increase because you So, k 24 are probably at the, there at the level of detection.
^
25 I'm just asking if that was done?
i 4
....-- ..v. , , . . , . _ _ . _ . , - . . , , - , . . , - , _ _ , _ _ , _ . , . _ . . _ . _ _ _ , . _ . _ . , . . - . . , ,.~........,......,.__.,,__,,..._,_,..,,___m.- m_.m. ,_..
58 1 MR. NELSON: I'm not aware of what checks P and L 2 did on their analysis results.
3 MR. KATHREN: Okay.
4 MR. NELSON: The groundwater wells -- monitoring 5 wells that we developed or drilled, we drilled to a depth 6 down to the first aquifer,'the total depth was about 40 7 to 45 feet approximately, so we went considerably deeper 3 than the P and L study did.
9 MR. KATHREN: And you didn't notice this same 10 characteristic then?
11 MR. NELSON: No.
12 (Slide.)
13 MR. NELSON: Now that you evaluate conditions of
( 14 the environment around Unit 3 intake and outfall canal and 15 base sediment samples and samples of soil, vegetation, algae la and mussels were taken. Radionuclide concentrations measured 17 in these samples were well within expected background levels.
18 The'results of these analyses are in the environmental report ,
19 The chart, or the map that I placed on the view
- 20 graph identifies the locations surrounding the plant where these samples were taken.
21 22 MR. FOSTER: We mentioned a few minutes ago about 23 the use of limits like 10 CFR 20 and whatever monitoring
( 24 in the discharge canal.
25 While the slide is up there, could you tell us t
59 where those liquid effluent levels are monitored. Is this y
in a sampling line going to the discharge canal or in the discharge canal itself?
MR. NELSON: Both. There is an in-line monitor 4
in the radwaste discharge line from the radwaste treatment facility which acts -- the monitor is physically is located 6
at the radwaste treatment facility Unit number 3. So, it 7
8 SamP es in-line before it enters the --
l MR. FOSTER: Is this a monitor which is looking at, I'll say, the activity of things going through the line as contrasted with a sample of the liquid material for laborat ory analysis?
MR. NELSON: Yes, it is. In addition to that
( monitor, we also have a continuous sampling system, a canal sample pump located in the canal which draws a composite sample that we do analyze.
16 MR. FOSTER: If you gearing towards 10 CFR 20 g
y, type limits, is it the water concentration -- or the 19 ncentration of that radionuclides in the canal water that y u are using?
20 MR. NELSON: Let me let Randy Parker answer that.
g g MR. PARKER: Yes. When we have measured our g discharges against 10 CFR 20 limits, we consider the diluted
( concentration in the discharge canal before it leaves the 24 site.
25
60 1 MR. FOSTER: Is that sampler a continuous type 2 of compositing sampler or are these grab samples?
g 3 MR. PARKER: The sampler -- there is actually 4 two pumps. One floats in the canal, recirculates water 5 to a second pump, meters a small amount of water into a 6 sample container so it is a continuous composite sampler.
7 MR. FOSTER: Thank you.
8 MR. MOELLER: On that point, you have emphasized 9 several times that you are assuring that you comply with 10 10 CFR 20. Where does 10 CFR 50 come into the picture, 11 if at all?
12 I assume when you operted the plant itself, you 13 complied 10 CFR 50 Appendix I?
( 14 If now you are going to comply with 10 CFR 20 15 you will be many times over 10 CFR 50.
16 MR. WITT: Can someone help me on that? Either 17 the staff, NRC Staff or the licensee.
18 Is the facility, once it's shut down, no longer 19 have to comply with Appendix I?
' 20 MR. ERICKSON: Yes. Appendix I doesn't apply 21 to the shutdown facility and furthermore, I don't think 12 Humboldt Bay, since it was an old plant, had to comply with 23 Appendix I, even when it was operating because it was built
( 24 before the time of the rule.
25 MR. MOELLER: Was there a grandfather or a
61 1 grand *nothering clause?
2 So, that might be an item that we can clarify 3 sometime.
4 MR. WITT: Now, Appendix I definitely said it 5 is only for operating plants, so it doesn't apply, at all 6 for Humboldt Bay.
7 MR. MOELLER: Okay. So --
3 .
MR. WITT: And, I think Humboldt Bay closed down 9 in '76 before Appendix I was promulgated into rule.
MR. SHIFFER: That's correct. Humboldt Bay has 10 11 never had any Appendix I limits --
12 MR. MOELLER: Okay.
MR. SHIFFER: -- Diablo Canyon.
13 MR. MOELLER: All right. Thank you.
14 MR. NELSON: The radiation levels within Unit 3, as 15 16 of June are detailed in the decommissioning and 17 environmental reports. This afternoon, what I'll try to 18 do is to summarize the conditions existing and describe 19 how we are going to meet the objective of limiting personnel
' 20 exposure during SAFSTOR.
21 (Slide.)
12 The ideograph I've got on screen right now shows 23 the groundfloor level in the refueling building. Dose rates
( 24 in the refueling building currently range from approximately 25 two to ten milirem per hour. Higher dose rates are in the L
62 1 vicinity of the washdown area.
2 The washdown area right here (indicating) and 3 the spent fuel pool.
(
4 The vicinity of the washdown area and the spent 5 fuel pool. Dose rates in the vicinity of the spent fuel 6 pool are partially due to the residue on the walls of the 7 pool near the waterline.
8 //
9 10 11 12 la
~
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
( 24 25 i
l
sh 63 1 During the cleanout of the materials in the pool 2 other than fuel we will be cleaning the walls to reduce these 3 levels as much as possible. Dose rates in the washdown 4 area are primarily due to tools and equipment that are 5 permanently stored in that area. These materials will 6 be removed during -- as well as SAFSTOR activities.
7 (Slide.)
8 Moving on down the access shaft at the minus 9 three foot elevation generating a dose rate of about 10 7 mr's per hour, with the exception of the cleanup fuel 11 exchanger room. In this room the dose rates averaged 12 about 65 mr's per hour. There are spots that are several la hundred mr per hour.
( 14 Compliments from the plant which are being .
15 removed, or will be removed, due to radiation levels will.
16 be stored in this room, and the room will be sealed to Access is through 17 prevent a routine access during SAFSTOR.
18 a doorway 'right here.
19 MR. C ARBON : By sealing, do you mean weld shuts 20 of metal doors, or something like that?
21 (Whereupon, there was a power failure, and a 12 brief recess was taken.)
23 MR. MOELLER: We are ready to resume. Who don't I 24 we move ahead then, and we will continue with Mr. Nelson's 25 presentation.
l l
/
64 1 MR. NELSON: I believe the question was what do I mean by sealing up these rooms. What the intentions 2
3 are, these are the rooms that contain the higher levels
( The intention is to place 4 of radioactivity in the plant.
5 other components which have a high source rem in these 6 rooms, to seal the rooms with a locked door, which would 7 prevent any unintentional or unauthorized access but would 3 not prevent us from getting back in there if we should, 9 for some reason, need to get in.
10 These areas, because the radiation levels are 11 not going to get the extensive decontamination that we 12 have planned for, those areas will be -- the rooms will 13 be sealed. And we will make an effort to make the doors 14 not necessarily airtight, but as a substantial barrier
(
15 against contamination spreading out from the rooms.
16 MR. STEINDLER: Twenty-nine and a half years 17 after you put everything in and lock that door, it may 13 well be that the persons who were then involved are no .
19 longer working at that plant, and the institutional mememory 20 may be a little bit short as to what you did that long 21 time ago.
22 What sort of records do you anticipate that 23 you will have to keep in order to ensure that you know 24 what you put where you put it?
(
MR. NELSON: I will be, at the end of this project 15
_ m _ - . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . ,._.-,_.____._._._,,m _ _ . . - . _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ , . . _ . , _ - -
65 1 preparing a final report citing what those decontamination activities we performed were. In additiona, we will be 2
, 3 updating our plant drawings to reflect the changes or ,
4 alterations made to class systems and equipment, and conduct 5 a -- keep a photographic record of what it is in these 6 rooms or these areas for the records.
7 At the next level down the manlift, at the minus 8 14 foot elevation, here we have approximately 28 mr per 9 hour, primarily used to control our large system filters 10 on this level. We have low pressure for a flooding line 11 which has some traps in the line. Both of them have 12 flooding lines that flush providing significant reduction 13 in instruments terms. And hydraulic system filters will I 14 be removed. Straight down to the fuel exchanger room 15 there is a radiation level averaging about 50 mr per hour 16 with hot spots of several hundred. This room will also 17 be sealed for the duration of the SAFSTOR period.
18 (Slide.)
19 Continuing down the elevation shaft the elevations 20 from minus 24 foot to minus 54 foot, ranging from 1 to 21 20 mr per hour. Those systems will be operated on these 12 levels during the SAFSTOR and routine access will not 13 be required so barriers will be installed preventing access
-( 14 during SAFSTOR.
25 MR. MOELLER: When you give these dose rates, 9
66 j l
1 mean. I mean, for example, when we toured the plant this 2 morning, you know, there were signs and I thought it was 3 very well posted to demonstrate what is in various areas, 4 but a number of the numbers were higher than the numbers 5 you have quoted here. Are these in the high -- or in 6 the areas that are readily available for access; is that it?
7 MR. NELSON: Yes. The figures that I am talking 8 about are general area averages for the space.
9 The reactor shaft, at the minus 66 foot elevation, the pump will remain in operation during SAFSTOR. Access 10 11 in this area will be necessary to monitor the equipment 12 and to perform maintenance. Currently the radiation levels 13 directly under the reactor level are approximately 23
( 14 mr per hour, and radiation levels in the left wing were 15 about 110 mr per hour at the time the reports were prepared.
16 //
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(
25 i
67 We are currently in the process of removing 2
the cleanup pump and lines and low instruments from the 3
scram dump tank. These are the primary contributors to 4
dose rates in this area, and their removal will significantly 5 reduce the dose rates near the RADT.
4 My discussion of the power building is this 7 area. 'In the Power Building the average radiation levels a
range from less than 1 to approximately 20 mr per hour.
9 Dose rates are due to a few significant sources. The 10 condenser hotwell contains a layer of iron oxide which 33 results in a dose rate greater than 100 mr per hour under 12 the condenser. The condenser and the hot well will be flushed during system layups.
33
( g4 The condensate system piping near the feedwater 15 heaters contains hot spots reading approximately 150 mr 16 per hour. In order to reduce dose rates in this area 17 these hot spots will be removed either by internal flushing gg of the piping, or possibly by chemical cleaning.
3, other high dose rates in the Power Building 20 are the results of small hot spots such as loop seals s
or crud traps. These will be evaluated on a per ccse 21 i 22 basis, and you could remove or shield'it as necessary.
Areas of the power building to which accbt;3 23
( 24 for routine surveillance is not required will be locked 25 during SAFSTOR.
l l
l L_
L 68 1
Dose rates in the remainder of Unit 3 range 2 from less than 1 to approximately 15 to 20 mr per hour 3 in the radwaste treatment and storage areas. These dose -
(
4 rate are primarily determined from the quantities of radwasta 5 in process or storage at the time. During preparations 4 for SAFSTOR most radwaste will be shipped off-site, which 7 should reduce these levels.
8 As I stated earlier, most of the work associated 9 with the decommissioning of Unit 3 will be performed by 10 plant personnel. Plant staff has been supplemented by four people from PG&E's Construction Department. And 11 12 contractors may be utilized where technical skills are la needed to supplement the plant staff.
( 14 These technical skills would be things like 15 additional radiation monitors, or in the case of radiactive 14 waste processing, a contractor for solidification and 17 packaging of wastes.
18 The project to place Unit 3 in SAFSTOR is 19 scheduled to be completed by the end of 1985. This schedule 20 is, of course, dependent upon the review necessary for 21 the license ammendment and, if determined to be required, 22 an environmental impact statement.
23 (Slide.)
( 24 MR. KATHREN: Before you go into that, could I i 25 ask just a few, brief questions?
i
,,. - . . - - . - . .-,,.--..-,,-.------n. - . - - ~ , , , _ . . , , , , . , . . _ - - . , , , , . - - . -- , - - . . -
69 1 MR. NELSON: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Louder, please?
2 3 MR. NELSON: Move in real close to the microphone.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Louder, please.
I am close to the mike now. How 5 MR. KATHREN:
6 is that?
7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's better.
MR. KATHREN: Okay. The radioactivity is now 8
9 reasonably sealed up in pipes and whathaveyou, so there is obviously no beta dose associated with this. Do you 10 11 expect or anticipate significant beta doses during the 12 operation?
13 MR. NELSON: During which operation?
( 14 MR. KATHREN: During the decontamination operation.
15 MR. NELSON: Part of our surveys that we conduct 16 whenever we evaluate an area, either in the planning surveys 17 prior to doing the work or in the follow up surveys to 18 determine the results of decontamination, are both gamm'a 19 and beta surveys. We will evaluate beta conditions at
' 20 the time.
21 Now the environmental report radiation levels 12 listed in that report are not only -- it lists beta / gamma 23 levels but -- gamma levels, but also beta levels. There
( 24 are some beta activity in the plant.
25 MR. SHIFFER: I think most of the decontamination
~-' "-- ~-
- - - , - yac r-. m ---"'-""~F P ~ -p N
70 1 is on external surfaces, and if there was any beta you 2 would already be seeing it.
3 MR. KATHREN: You would already see it; okay, 4 that is good.
5 MR. NELSON: The project is estimated to extend 4 -- this project I am speaking of now is to place the unit
. 7 into SAFSTOR -- is extimated to expend a total of 60.1 8 man-rems of exposure for plant workers. This.further 9 could be broken down into unloading of the reactor, which to we utilized a total of 7.8 man-rem. This included not 11 only the fuel movements, also the operator training conducted 12 Prior to the reactor unloading, and removal of the incore 13 fission chambers.
I 14 System layups estimated to take 13.4 man-rem; 15 system modifications, 3 man-rem; decontamination, 3 man-rem; 16 radioactive waste disposal, 27.6 man-rem; and miscellaneous 17 surveys and other miscellaneous activities, 5.3 man-rem.
18 'MR. CARBON: What again is system layup?
19 MR. NELSON: The system layups are the draining
' 20 and flushing of -- or flushing and draining of plant systems 21 and, if necessary, isolations.
12 This estimate is less than the figure of 127 23 man-rem estimated in the Gibbs and Hill (phonetic)
( 24 decomissioning study. Part of the difference is due to 25 decay in radiation levels since the Gibbs and Hill study
71 1
was done, and part due to the fact that the experience 2
to date has resulted in lower exposures than predicted 3 by Gills and Hill.
4 For planning purposes we have estimated the 5 total of 100 shipments of radioactive waste will be made as part of this project. This number is, of course, very 6
7 definitive on the processing and solidification methods 3 that we may select.
9 Using numbers based on the NUREG-0672, these 10 shipments would result in a total public exposure of .091 11 man-rem. Over the 30-year --
MR. STEINDLER: Excuse me, I guess I'm confused.
12 13 That 60.1, how does that compare to a figure of 91.2 that
( 14 I thought I read in Section 6 of the report?
15 MR. NELSON: The figure 91.2 is on the viewgraph that I just put up. That is the total occupational dose 16 to be accummulated over the 30-year SAFSTOR period. That 17 Is dose would be the result of surveillance and maintenance 19 activities.
' 20 MR. STEINDLER: Thank you.
21 MR. NELSON: Annual exposures are expected to 12 decrease from approximately 10 man-rem in the first year 13 of SAFSTOR to less than 1 man-rem in the year 30. Total
( 24 public exposure for the 30-year SAFSTOR period is estimated 15 to be .05 man-rem; the result of the limited number of radioactive waste shipments anticipated to be made over
72 1 that period.
2 During final dismantlement at the end of the 3 SAFSTOR period the occupational and public exposures are
[
4 estimated to be 85.5 and .7 man-rem, respectively. This 5 gives a total SAFSTOR plus delayed dismantlement, 6 occupational and public exposures of 176.7 and .7 man-rem, 7 respectively, compared to estimates of 685 man-rem 3 occupational exposure and 3.7 man-rem public exposure 9 for the immediate dismantlement of the case.
10 Overall exposures associated with the SAFSTOR 11 decomissioning are less than those experienced during 12 Operation of the unit. Over the operating lifetime annual 13 exposures range from 46 to 660 man-rem per year, with
( 14 an average annual exposure of 230 man-rem.
15 MR. CARBON: Delayed decon is the sequence of events after the 30-year period? That is a question.
16 17 MR. NELSON: Yes, it is. Our proposed proposal 18 is to place Unit No. 3 into the SAFSTOR mode for a period 19 of 30 years followed by a delayed decon.
' 20 MR. CARBON: And are you going to discuss what i 21 is involved in the delayed decon today?
22 MR. NELSON: I had not anticipated to, no.
23 MR. CARBON: Could you summarize briefly what I 24 it will involve?
25 MR. NELSON: Delayed decon is the decommissioning
~ ,--- _ . + ----.m--,_,.y
7 P 73 i
1 mode, which all the radioactivity existing on the site 2 1.s-removed down to the levels where the facility is --
l 3 our radiation levels at the facility are releaseable levels, 4 based upon guidelines from the NRC.
5 MR. CARBON: And basically you will-be, at that S 6 time, 30 years plus tearing down radioactive structures 7 and hauling any such things to a low-level waste repository;
" 8 is that correct?
MR. NELSON: Yes, that is correct. The structures
.9 10 will -- we be either tearing down or decontaminating the 11 structures that are required to be torn down.
I MR. CARBON: And during this first 30 years la r
13 -you will not be knocking down, for example, any concrete
( 14 structures or anything like that?
15 MR. NELSON: No, we will not.
16 MR. STEINDLER: How did you pick your 30-year 17 time period?
18 'MR. NELSON: The 30-year time period was selected 19 -- actually it was selected and evaluated based upon the
~ 20 period of time to where we would have appreciable decay
- i. 21 of radioactivity to reduce dose rates experienced during 22 the dismantlement. Also, 30 years was a number utilized 23 in a proposed rulemaking by the NRC that environmental
( 24 impact statements would not be required for a facility 25 for a period of 30 years following termination of operations i
l p-r
74 1
for -- prior to their dismantlement.
2 MR. STEINDLER: Have you done any looking to 5
see what advantage there would be to you and/or the public
(
4 if you extended that 30-year period to some other number 5 for example, 70 years?
g MR. NELSON: The topic is discussed very briefly 7 in the environmental report. I, offhand, cannot remember 3
what the conclusions or the figures utilized were, but
, the basic conclusion was that beyod 30 years the amount jo to be gained in dose rate reduction is fairly small.
MR. STEINDLER: I bring it up for the reason 33 12 some of these -- if for no other reason than other folks 33 have elected to store spent fuel prior to final disposal 14 for approximately 70 years; in Sweden, as an example.
15 HR. MOELLER: Mr. Poster, did you have a question?
Is HR. FOSTER: I have a question on your SAFSTOR j 17 occupational dose where you show the 91 -- on the previous 13 line, I guess, where the -- you show an occupational dose 19 for SAFSTOR of about 91 person-rem, and then for occupationa;
~ 20 dose under the decon of 85. I am curious to know out 21 of the SAFSTOR occupational dose of 91, is a major portion 12 of that associated with what might otherwise be considered 23 as decontamination if you were going into an immediate
( 24 decontamination mode?
25 In other words, is a significant part of that s
e e
75 3
associated with reducing the dose in areas which are now 2
high dose-rate level by tearing out equipment, decontaminating g 3 equipment and getting it out of there?
MR. NELSON: No. The 91 man-rems, 91.2 men-rem 4
5 figure, includes the dose as the result of surveillance g and maintenance during the SAFSTOR period. The dose estimato 7 to establish the initial SAFSTOR condition is the 60.1 g man-rem that I talked about just prior to that.
MR. CARBON: If I understood the previous slide 9
10 correctly the total occupational dose, 177 person-rems, gg and then the immediate decon, the occupational dosage 12 was 685; 685 is what it would be if you went through the gg same decon procedure now as what you will do 30 years
( from now; is that correct?
34 MR. NELSON: Yes, it is.
15 ig MR. CARBON: And so by waiting 30 years you 17 are cutting the occupational dose by a factor of approximateLy i
gg four?
MR. NELSON: That is correct, yes.
l 39 MR. MOELLER: To be sure that I understand, 20 21 when you compare SAFSTOR and decon in 30 years to decon i
12 today, when you make that comparison and say that the
! g3 occupational dose will only be 26 percent of what it would l
( 24 have been for immediate decon, you are including the 25 preparation of the site for SAFSTOR; you are including
' all of the dose through 30 years as well as the dose after l
l
76 1 30 years in decon at that time. It is everything?
2 MR. NELSON: No. The figures of 176.7 and 685 3 are the figures for the SAFSTOR plus delayed decon as compared to immediate dismantlement. In other words.,
4 5 the 176 number does not include the exposure to get into 6 SAFSTOR. That was not used in this calculation.
7 One thing that I would point out is a significant a portion of the exposure for the 60.1 figure to get into 9 SAFSTOR is the radioactive waste handling, disposal, which to is something that is done in either case and is not included 11 in either number.
MR. MOELLER: Okay; that is helpful. In Table 5.1 12 13 on page 5-3 of the Environmental Report you state that
( 14 HBPP Unit No. 3 will use the 10 CFR 20 limits. The table 15 is the 10 CFR occupational and public rad exposure limits.
16 I am concerned, though, in re'ading that from 17 this particular aspect: 10 CFR 20 today legally permits 18 you to -- for a worker to receive up to 12 rem a year, i 19 whole body exposure. Do you have any workers that you
(
l - 2'O are permitting to receive 12 rem a year?
21 MR. NELSON: No.
l 22 MR. MOELLER: Or are you maintaining five as 23 a maximum?
24 MR. SHIFFER: Since PG&E, since its conception,
(
25 in nuclear business has always used five rem per year
77 1 as a maximum.
2 MR. MOELLER: Fine, okay; so although you say
(
3 this you are way below what these limits legally would 4 permit, because they would permit 12?
MR. SHIFFER: That is true. As far as our limits, 5
6 from day one, have been five per year --
7 MR. MOELLER: Excellent. That is good. This 8 is'off the subject, but you covered it earlier; again 9 in the Environmental Report on page 1-2, item 3 -- I read to it several times and could not understand it, and I think 11 you answered it a few minutes ago -- you say [ quote] since 12 a possession only license must be obtained for continued 13 fuel storage at Unit No. 3 it is not cost effective to
( 14 consider entombment as all alternative to SAFSTOR.
15 Now the basic statement there is you cannot 16 entomb if this fuel in that fuel pool; that is what you 17 are saying?
13 MR. NELSON: Yes, that is true. An evaluation 19 was performed with entombing that portion of the plant 20 which does not include the fuel, but that would not be 21 cost effective either.
22 MR. MOELLER: So that is not cost effective?
13 MR. NELSON: No.
( 24 MR. MOELLER: And are those numbers in the back 15 of this report, or somewhere?
78 1 MR. NELSON: There is a discussion in the report of that, yes. l 2 l Thank you. l 3 MR. MOELLER:
g MR. NELSON: In addition to estimating the 4
5 anticipated dose rates for SAFSTOR the affects of SAFTSTOR 6 decommissioning on the environment have been evaluated.
7 The method of analysis was first to evaluate the measureable 8 affects on the environment of the 13 years of operation 9 and the eight years since the reactor shut down, and to 10 compare these affects of actual releases that took place 11 during that period.
12 Potential releases during SAFSTOR were then 13 estimated versus the releases and affects permitted an
~
assessment of the potential affects of SAFSTOR. This
( 14 15 table is a comparison of atmospheric and aqueous releases 16 during operations to those estimated for SAFSTOR.
17 (Slide.)
18 As you can see, S-Beta releases will be 19 significantly reduced. The results of the environmental 20 characterization determined that nuclides outside of Unit 3, t
21 restricted area, are within the range of expected background 22 levels. Therefore, since the releases experienced during 23 operation did not affect the environment, it is not
' ( 24 anticipated that SAFSTOR operations will impact the 25 environment around Unit 3.
=- . - - -
4 4
79 Excuse me. Before you go on 1
MR. STEINDLER:
1t to that slide, in that last one weren't you comparing apples and oranges? The beta / gamma particulates and the 3
> 4 fission gas curies per year that you admit during operation i 5
are radionuclidewise significantly different, particularly 6 half-lifewise, than what you might expect during the SAFSTOR 7 operation.
3 I assume when you are talking about, say, 450,000 9 fission gas curies, that is not necessarily all Krypton-857 MR. NELSON: That is true.
10 MR. STEINDLER: Whereas if you push any clean 11 12 gas out then the SAFSTOR would presumably be essentially 13 all Krypton-85. So, you basically have a different 14 half-life and presumably a diffe$ent impact on the --
Yes. This is Randy Parker. The 15 MR. PARKER:
16 releases during operation, those curies are for a mixture 17 of noble gases decayed approximately 30 to 40 minutes.
18 MR. STEINDLER: And can we'make the same comment 19 about the beta / gamma particulates? Have those been
' 20 sufficiently well identified to know where the primary 21 actors are in that during operation release?
MR. PARKER: Yes. During the operation the 22 23 beta / gamma particulates are those nuclides present on
( 14 the sampling filters after they were allowed to decay 25 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
4 P
80 MR. STEINDLER: Which is mainly what?
1 MR. PARKER: Primarily barium lanthanum 140.
2 MR. STEINDLEL: You would not expect any barium 3
4 lanthanum 140 to come out through the -- during the SAFSTOR 5 operation?
Correct. If we had any isotopes 6 MR. PARKER:
7 released in particulate form I would expect them to be 8 isotopes like cesium 137, strontium 90, possibly cobalt 60.
9 MR. MOELLER: Back on a previous point, you 10 gave the coaxive occupational doses the range for the 11 plant while it was in operation. Did those include the 12 value for 19777 MR. NELSON: No, they did not. In 1977 the 13
( 14 level of activity was considerably above the average, 15 so it was not-included because it would bias the number 16 too much.
MR. MOELLER: And why would it have biased --
17 MR. NELSON: Because that would not give us 18 19 a good average.
20 MR. MOELLER: No, but I meant what were you 21 doing that made that number higher than the others?
22 MR. NELSON: In 1977, that was the year that 13 we had a considerable level of maintenance -- of work
( 24 activity on-site installing sizic modifications.
MR. MOELLER: Thank you.
25 y -- w w - , - g -. -, -
81 MR. NELSON: In reviewing the safety analysis 3
2 for SAFSTOR decommissioning of Unit 3 several acts and g scenarios were considered. The scenarios are described
[
4 in the submittal. Certain factors must be considered 5
when evaluating the safety of Unit 3 in the SAFSTOR condition .
g First, the reactor has been shut down since 7 July of 1976, and decayed and spent fuel is such that 3
the fuel may be air cooled; therefore, any event which p causes loss of water from the spent fuel pool will not 10 result in overheating and fuel overheating and subsequent loss of cladding integrity.
33 12 Krypton-85 is the single radicactive gas of 33 significance remaining in the fuel. An actual inventory 14 of Krypton-85 in a single fuel assembly is calculated 15 to be 98 curies. If it were assumed that the total krypton 16 inventory in the fuel assembly were released none of the 17 activity retained in the spent fuel pool water or in the 13 refueling building -- a maximally exposed individual would 19 receive a dose of .13 milirems.
' 20 If the entire krypton inventory in the spent 21 fuel pool -- all the assemblies -- were released, the 22 maximally exposed off-site individual would receive an 23 expose of 35 milirems.
( 24 The remaining fission products are contained 25 in the fuel pellets sealed within the fuel assemblies.
s
82 1
Even if a vent were to rupture or somehow damage fuel f
2 cladding, it would not be a motive force to release 3 significant quantities of the fission products into the 4 environment.
5 And fourth, due to the location of the spent 6 fuel storage pool below grade, loss of water shielding 7
around the fuel will not result in high dose rates off-site.
3 Recovery will require refilling of the pool which can 9 be done from outside of the refueling building.
30 These factors make it extremely unlikely that il an event would occur which might result in endangering 12 the health and safety of plant workers or the general 13 public.
I 14 It is PG&E's intention to continue to maintain 15 Unit 3 in a safe condition until such time as the spent 16 fuel is safely removed from the site and a final DECON 17 decommissioning is completed and the facility license 13 terminated. Thank you.
MR. MOELLER: Thank you.
19 20 *** INSERT ***
21 22 23
( 24 25
l HUMBOLIyr BAY POWER PLANT
( UNIT 3 SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING I.
I I
.?
.,i y3 .... -
%s ~ ~_
4; l
(
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY i
FIGURE 1 l
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT N0 3 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED i
POWER OPERATION l
REPOWERING l (
DECOMMISSIONING l
(
FIGURE 2
l VICE PRES 10ENT
(
NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION DEPARTMENT H8PP PLANT MANAGER DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT MANAGER IHBPP POWER PLANT ENGINEERI ON SITE PROJECT TEAM GENERAL OFFICE PROJECT SUPPORT
- SUPERVISOR OF OPERATIONS - GENERAL 0FFICE COORDINATOR
- SUPERVISOR OF MAINTENANCE - NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT
- SR. CHEM. & RA01AT10N PROTECTION ENGINEER . - LICENSING
- SR. POWER PRODUCTION ENGINEER - NUCLEAR SERVICES DEPARTMENT
- QUALITY CONTROL SUPERVISOR' - QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT i
- ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT l
1 DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION
(
l l
l FIGURE 3 i
REG GUIDE 1.86 Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors NUREG/CR-0672 & ADDENDUM 1 Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference BWR
(
NUREG-0586 Draft Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclea.r Facilities ,
(
l FIGURE 4
l DECOMMISSIONING OBJECTIVES
- Support Storage of Spent Fuel
- Secure Non-Operating Systems Reduce Radiation Levels (ALARA)
Decontaminate the Facility ,
Dispose of Radioactive Wastes -
Establish Baseline Conditions
(
FIGURE 5
f PREPARATIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONING Unload the Reactor Flush, Drain,& Secure Systems Process Radioactive Wastes 1
Remove / Shield Hot Spots
(
Decontamination Possession-Only License
(
FIGURE 6
1 I
DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES r
1 l
Complete System Layups Modifications:
SFP Level Monitor SFP Cover SFP Demineralizer
(
Stack Monitor Security System Waste Processing
- Decontamination Baseline Survey FIGURE 7
l i
1
(-
SP,ENT TUEL POOL MISCELLANEOUS INVENTORY - 1984 ESTIMATED CURIE CONTENT Cot!PONENT 33Fe Co "JN1 Other Total Nuclides Curies Incore Instrumgnt Strings a 90 9E 69 <1 260
(<1 gram 23.g}
8,2C0 Stellite Rollersb <15 g,000 11 .
Canned Waste - -
Vacuum Cleaner Bags MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS FROM REAC OR VESSEL Feedwater Sparger a,b 1.1 1.2 .83 <.1 3.2 Fuel Channels (140)b 1,500 100 1,800 500 3,900
(
Sealed sources 5b-Be Operating Sources (2) <1E-C a Based on Oaks. H.D., Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Rolling Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0672. Vols. 1 and 2.
b Based en neutron activation calculations and sample analysis l
l l
l
(
FIGURE 8 I
L
REACTOR VESSEL INVENTORY OF RA0!0NUCLIDES CORRECTED FOR DECAY FOR CONDITIONS M10-1984 I (CORRECTED FROM GIBBS AND HILL 1982)
E5TIMATED CURIE CONTENT. MID - 195a REACTOR QTHER TOTAL INTERNAL COMPONENTS $cco 55p, 63N1 NUCLIDE5a C1 Chimney Guide and 3.1E*3 1.7E+2 1.6E*3 1.7E+1 4.9E+3 Chimneyb Core Shroudh 5.3E+2 2.9E+1 2.7t+2 3.0E+0 8.3E*2 Core Support Ring & Gridt 1.4E+3 7.7E+1 7.3E+2 7.0E+0 2.2E+3 Fuel Support Plate (s)b 9.9E*2 5.4E+1 5.1E+2 5.0E+0 1.6E+3 Control Rod Guide Tubesb 6.3E+1 3.7t+0 3.3E+1 <1E+0 1.0E+2 Control Rod Bladest 9.4E+2 1.0E+2 2.3E+2 3.1E+0 2.2E*3 Reactor vessel & 6.9E+1 5.0E+1 9.0E+0 3.0E*0 1.3E*2 Claddingb Orywell Vessel Wallb <1g*0 <1E+0 <1E+0 1<E+0 (1E+0 Drywell Concrete & <1E+0 <1E+0 (1E+0 <1E+0 <1E+0
( Rebarb Totals 7.1E+3 1.4E+3 3.4E+3 3.8E+1 1.2E*4 FOOTNOTES:
a Not corrected for decay since identities not reported.
~
b Calcu1ated from Gibbs and Mill.1982 c calculated from " Reference" BWR (NUREG/CR-0672)
FIGURE 9 l
t
CORR 0510N FILM RAO!0NUCLIOE INVENTORYa l
( CORRECTED TO JULY 1984 (PNL 1983)
RADIONdCLIOE NALF-LIFE INVENT 0Rf Tears C1 55Fe 2.7E+0 6.9E*1 60Co 5.3(+0 1.2E+1 137Cs 3.0E+1 2.1E+0 63Ni 1.0E+2 1.4E+0 903 r 2.9E*1 1.7E-2 241 4 , 4,3g.2 1.2E-2 238Pu 8.4E+1 6.8E-3 4
. 239.240Pu 2.4E+4 6.1E-3
( 244Cs 1.8E+1 4.4E-3 54Mn 8.4E-1 3.0E-3 242C s 4.5E-1 1.1E-6 FOOTNOTE:
l stacludin9 the pressure vessel. biological shield, concrete surfaces and residues in tanks and susps.
(
FIGURE 10
, g e
( 'Q;p'a .- o k >
h *a a o ,
i N !
$5a D
, ~ *Wt b5 s
l l.
=a
~
= M d
, O s I
n w o!
- ": z 3 3
l : a . ga g g zW l! I:
iII i "G lI EI!*
"I*
G I
-Ig*e I i* e!
w<
. o
<o e D D+ ' Is ; a . r o. e I i
3 ..
. ,w j'.
o!
E o
@M az
'5 l - >
- e*
z o-o
'[=(
, _ _ ; iL.,1 .
<a w mr y ,,
.m/. - . e m.m. ,.
= 0G u. O<
.'-..L N ;d I .'a 0 o! o z
=
.
- I
. 2 o 3
EE La /z * ';$; .7- 5! . . .c . _ a a
= < w
- M3
.!, j ..
. um I d (,,,t uQ, O CIs n"
- e + zo ou s'
ai !
lf' yg
( .*u*.*
s yo<-
- a(.
o
-i
- 4. _ _ _ (' _ 3:u. , o<
. 5 o
., t
+
!) as O-l m o, 3.8 2 <o
- O ,
=
. a Ee l
g!
- xo
= !.!- O I I
' C o e >I
- =- I t a c. o
'.!{O , I f i
^ Y
~
o I I l - ,
I lQ : ;
a...,
8 I
I t
- l ! *
( :; 2; 2 si l :
FIGURE 11
- s. ~
~ . . . . .
x '"_.'N '6 ""19 ,,,
T.* 12 ' 080,4 e ..
.so 10 A
+ sOst a wo 2
a"..e,c . ~ ~. y L.-
0 \= =i
- m =--
i
- . . =. -
O 01~ - h,,mffftil "- UJ
\.:. -
ne 1 !. . _*a, 7
-uto,Pn>\ ,, c e:':':.'u . a -
s
~
n'.'... e.
y y
~\_] L T "a. l4 '
- ~
l-
)!Se T.*8
_i i ~ ' i !
~
a _J SOct a g' .
~
f,8,j,8,y,f,,
O Ito,I l 1 3.I I_L,O, rrr *a !. :
g ' ' * * " -
[.::r w
p- _
..,,, s
- E '
_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[
ung$ $.e,g{jhd[Illkl}. p ...._
- 'a ngn3EggpI p
s.__...._
4 ,*~_.. . . .
= =.
e w o sAnsetts
! ALOseG 3 0,1 AcoKS* * %
l l
-/
LOCATIONS OF COMPOSITED ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLES (JUNE 1984)
2 2 ._
g-( u.
N i
+
/ .E O
E E'
33
! il i f E us : --
l sw
, e- t u.! e g .
3 8 l *- @
O t
j
- 3. .
's, a i .'
l M- g O j !
i: 5
- i I 'e t j 5
~
o i u j. -
- .wil
( i !
- 2. l l: ,
!r c-ti. i t! ' t. g, i N g,Q _ i X 'O g 3
a -
g I ke I
i %
i
![
- Ni .
1 z
i s. . . . .
a e
- It i
- 35
- 1 W]i w - , . e k
FIGURE 13
(
F- SUPPRESSION TANK COOLER ESCAPE SHAFT HATCH
.d. HATCH
- t. . . _ ,,
, y $ .
< 'n SPENT -
a- FUEL :
CLEANUP HEAT :. .- .
POOL EXCHANGERS ,
y ,, _ .,
. .\
..' .. .e
.. d. .' * : ~ ~ ' . ~. .
REACTOR
,L*.~ey&- 46 di NEW FUEL
( l J 0*-03: Qi 4 0 '- STORAaE 4 -
.m xw VAULT
. _ \ / )
CLE AN-UP DEMINER ALIZER HATCH FUEL POOL COOLERS E L. (-)1'-0" PLAN AT EL. (-) 2*-0"
(
FIGURE 14 m --. ,
{
'l I
ESCAPE SHAPT MANLIFT ORIVE )
e.ONTROL ROD HYDRAULIC LAOO SYSTEM PILTERS
., / .
i SPENT PUEL 7 umum 3 g
. 000000000 C POOL N
t:s ,1. .000000000
a W.sr-W *a:
. 000000000 SHUTDOWN HEAT '
r-. 9 p CASK E XC H A NGE R S (2)g I g s . ..
L-. :f
( HATCH ASOVE b' N p pg Vr TURSINE SLOG.
5]$ e I m '
DRAIN TANK
. SHUTDOWN PUMPS"k'N" '- .p:
.. v 3 =k TURRINE SLOG.
FLOOR ORAIN PUMP LADOER grRoM ww Fust VA' ULT)
PLAN AT EL. (-) 14'-0"
(
FIGURE 15 l
9
! I I. -
. lg 3 i
! ?
1 ! ; i
(
t
\ ,
,\
> :n ,
i= % -
/
i
-.= i !C_ i / .
... c3 yg a m =====
--I E l .
_! ; i Es a: j "- ==== I g
.1 :
L-j .- ..
l' f
-i A___f=c Ii; / .
= ,. m ~ i lI,t- i:
it dI E ~!.J =====
h r --== 1 I i r si s:i a
.1 :: <
""!*; I l['i !!
g I 3
( :# l! 5 l.
- L'!' - -
vlt:. 15s
- : :n 3
- l.
?
l
" i~;) g,fy , l I
l
{
\b %..
h
( .i m Y my '
! \ '
I -g L '
/ m-
=
--\Oc .*
nk .
I 1.. (
.i i/
/
\
\ l 5
l .
c Y -
I
<g-l!
W f .- g _
i :'s h J [ 'd' i !.I*
e/
M#
- ussem-- t i 2 i-
'.! i d j =
c--- i il__
[
g's -
gi -
4 P- q ., q if~:
.l
~
'x i i e i , %g g:
1 -f. l M '
, /.
- l?. ::
- l 3 0 r ') x ., e e ?! .?, ?
I 3 .
N. -
/I; I; Ii
. II. $
. .h.
- i,}.
m 's, d
- d b z'
> {e l - / r ( $ $
(
23
I I 4.
b ;*I i:
I :
. ~3 .
3 -
o g
13 [8 .
3: .: 3 FIGURE 16
( \
COM SPRAY MAP NO.1 (UDCE4 ESCAPE SHAFT F NEM AEACTOR CAISSON SUMP PUMP MACTOR EQUIPtENT _ { LADOgA ORA M TA#et '
COM 8PAAYMA8P N.2 MACTOR CLEANUP PUMP
.M . _
.i "
MA NLIFT SCRAW DUMP ,.
TANK ,
(OVEm , p y ,
REA TOM CAISSON 9
5 -
suPPAssa:ON CHAMBER l
l l
l PLAN AT EL (-)66'-O"
(
9 FIGURE 17
, , . , , - . . - . _ . . , _ , . - . . , _ . - _ , , , , , , . . , , , , _,.--_-_-_mm. _.--____ .,w.,, _ , _ . . .
g . - ~
s g
N
( L N
k en
+
= .: 2
+p $ It O A/ .
I:
[I
.I l
5
(
s Vu
- I -- :
f 8 3 e
, - i E
/* ..
1 a
.i e g - g I l. - J :
m a i
't= - si i'
I u.
Q a z l
s
- I
! vi g 5~
g I
- (
! :w;j'el- e 3'
g 8
g
. V L_J.
g "l I .
l .
g-g ,8 @
j% _ :>ci - E ci i!
! !! =
i i s
!D<d'
.-.-; A i i :=
l l
! ! ! 'i! N / .
' = ;-
er ai r"P"1 ii Ph
- - - - . a 4-I
(
I FIGURE 18 f
I . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . - _ _ - - . - _ - _ - - - -
O i
!, DOSE ESTIMATE 4
- Task Man-Rem Reactor Unloading 7.8 System Layup 13.4 i
- System Modifications 3.0
- (
Decontamination 3.0 Radiactive Waste Disposal 27.6 l
Surveys & Misc. 5.3 TOTAL 60.1
- FIGURE 19 i
r__-_____________-_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC EXTERNAL DOSE ESTIMATED ,
FOR SAFSTOR AND DELAYED DECON VERSUS THOSE ESTIMATED FOR IMMEDIATE DECON OF HBPP UNIT NO. 3
(
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXTERNAL DOSE ALTERNATIVE person-rem SAFSTOR AND DELAYED DECON SAFSTOR.0ccupational Dose 91.2a SAFSTOR.Public. Dose 0.0Sb Delayed DECON Occupational Dose 85.5C Delayed DECON Public Dose 0.7d TOTAL OCCUPATIONAL DOSE 176.7 TOTAL PUBLIC DOSE 0.75 IMMEDIATE DECON DECON Occupational Dose 6858 DECON Public Dose 3.7 f l
(
FIGUME 20
COMPARISON OF RELEASES FR6M H8PP UNIT N0. 3 OURING OPERATIONS AND MAXIMUM RELEASES ESTIMATED FOR SAFSTOR DURING OPERATION 5* ESTIMATED 5AF5TORD EMISSION / EFFLUENT ANNUAL RELEASES (mean i S.E.) (range)
Atmospheric:
Beta-gamma Parti- 443,000 1 167,000 230-400 culatesC (uC1/yr)
Gross-alpha ' 960 + 360 5d (uC1/yr)
Tritium (C1/yr) 2 1 0.2 Negligible (<2 mci /yr)
Fission Gases 451,870 1 73,450 Negligible (<1 mci /yr)
(Ci/yr)
Aqueous:
Gross Beta-gamma 2650 1 450 130-240 (mci /yr)
'(
Gross Alpha 420 1 190 Negligible (<10)
(uC1/yr)
Tritium (mci /yr) 35,000 1 9000 70-100e a From Semiannual Operations Reports 1964-1975
-b Estimated as the average conditions observed during)SAFSTOR See (1980-1983) and the associated standard error (S.E. .
Tables 10.4.3 and 10.4.4. Values not decayed.
I c All beta-gamma emitting particulates having half-lives > 8 days.
d Maximum two observations, 1982 and 1983 greater than detection levels.
- Estimated from 3 values, the 1981 discharge was below' detection levels.
(
l FIGEME 21
l
- c HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT NO.3 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS l
l
-Spent Fuel May Be Air Cooled
-Kr-85 Only Remaining Significant Gaseous Nuclide
(
-No Motive Force To Transport Activity
-Spent Fuel Pool is Below Grade
(
FIGURE 22 i
83 1 MR. MOELLER: Why don't we pick up now any 2 questions that the Subcommittee might have for Mr. Nelson 3 or the PG&E Staff.
I I have a question regarding the 4 MR. CARBON:
5 point that the spent fuel can be air cooled. I certainly 6 could believe and I have no problem with the safety of 7 storing the fuel in a pool of water.
8 It would seem simpler just to drain the water 9 and' forget it, but I assume that the main reason that 10 that is not done is simply sky shine from the fuel down 11 in the dry pool; is that correct?
MR. NELSON: Yes, that is correct. We will 12 13 still have to have access into the refueling building 14 to maintain the drain tanks, drain pumps, et cetera, and
(
15 radiation monitoring instrumentation, so we would not 16 want to drain the pool and increase radiation levels.
17 MR. STEINDLER: I have a couple of questions.
18 In this factor of four, about four, in the reduction in 19 man-rems, is that almost entirely due to that 30-year 20 delay?
21 In others words, is the primary activity loss 12 decay or because you are planning on doing something 23 different 30 years from now than you would have to do 24 it you did it now?
(
15 MR. NELSON: It is primarily due to decay; also,
, , . ~ - - -., . - - - . , . , . - . - _ , , .- --
84 I the fact that performing the operation 30 years from now, 2 because of reduced dose rates, they may be done differently.
3 One example would be the method of removing the reactor i
4 vessel itself. Today that would require remote tooling.
5 Thirty years from now it may be able to be done without 6 the use of remote tooling.
7 MR. STEINDLER: In the case of air cooling, 3 or in the potential for air cooling, what is the role 9 of surface contamination of the elements as they set in to the pool, which would presumably then dry and could be 11 become airborne? Do you have some mechanism -- thinking 12 about that, what the extent of it is?
13 MR. NELSON: If an event were to occur where 14 the water was lost out of the spent fuel pool and the
(
15 assembly did dry, then surface contamination could become 16 airborne. As I stated, we -- recovery action would include 17 refilling the pool, which can be done from outside the 13 building. The airborne contamination would be contained 19 within the building until the pool could be reflooded.
20 MR. STEINDLER: Is your ventilation control 21 planned with the cover over the pool, planned to at least 12 be a'ble to cope with some of those airborne activities?
MR. NELSON: The use of filters is not proposed 23 24 at this time.
(
25 MR. STEINDLER: Do you have any idea when you plan
85 1 to move the fuel off the site?
MR. NELSON: I cannot predict that. The fact 2
3 would be determined by when the Department of Energy --
7 MR. STEINDLER: In the case of sampling of the 4
5 aquifers, first off, have you noticed any change of activity 6 in aquifers due to the low, underlying contamination, 7 which is, I guess, if I have my directions right, north 3 of the plant?
MR. NELSON: I am not aware of any, no.
9
' 10 MR. STEINDLER: I was going to say, you have 11 sampled the aquifer near the plant and you have not seen 12 any activity in it, and you don't expect any increase 13 in activity over 30 years?
MR. NELSON: That is correct, yes.
( 14 15 MR. MOELLER: Did you have another question?
MR. CARBON: Just as a matter of curiosity, 16 17 do you know how the occupational exposure-resulting from 15 your decommissioning program compares with, say, Peach-19 Bottom or any of the other plants?
MR. NELSON: No. I have not run that comparison
'20 21 myself. We are participating in a project, I believe, 22 under sponsorship of the NRC to collect information from 23 decommissionings, which they are looking at our project
( 24 and numerous other projects and collecting a data bank, 25 so I am sure that information will be available.
86 MR. FOSTER: You have told us that delaying 1
2 the full decontamination for 30 years is predicated, I
-guess, on points. One of these is that you are-going 3
4 to say man-rems. You are also anticipating that the 5 technology for decontamination, decommissioning may be 6 better at that time.
7 Have you made any estimates of how many man-years 3
of' effort are involved in maintaining your SAFSTOR conditiono y for 30 years, and what the cost per man-rem savings would 10 be? I am curious to --
11 MR. NELSON: There have been estimates of the 12 total man-rems -- man-power requirements for SAFSTOR and operational maintenance costs for SAFSTOR. I do not recall 13
( 14 the figures right now. I was not prepared for that today, 15 but one point that I should bring out here is that year 16 number three is on"a site which is occupied by two other 17 operating power plants. And they will continue to be 13 operating, so the site is manned. And the personnel, 19 maintenance and operations personnel involved with those
' 20 . units will be the ones providing the maintenance and 21 surveillance for Unit No. 3, therefore, since it is an 12 occupied site and we do have manpower available we will 23 not have to dedicate resor-'as solely to the preservation
( 24 of the SAFSTOR unit.
MR. FOSTER: But there are some people -- you 25 i f
l l
I
87 1 have your security force, for example , which --- I don ' t 2 know how many people is involved, but it is substantially
, 3 greater than you would have if you had no nuclear material l 4 there -- i 5 MR. NELSON: The security force is the single 6 cost item that is a result of the fact that the spent 7 fuel is remaining on-site.
8 MR. FOSTER: Do you have a dedicated health 9 physicist?
10 MR. NELSON: We presently do.
11 MR. FOSTER: Perhaps my choice of words was 12 not the best there.
13 (Laughter)
( 14 MR. NELSON: It should be pointed out that 15 although our health physicist is a very capable physicist, 16 his time is also shared along with the administration 17 of the Chemistry Control Programs for our falso (phonetic) 18 units, and also the state and EPA programs for a control 19 of hazardous waste, water quality, et cetera, so he will
' 20 also be sharing much of his expertise in other areas 21 besides Unit 3.
12 MR. FOSTER: I think we have the information 23 available here. Perhaps I will make my own instrument
( 14 here of the cost per man-rem saved here and see how that 25 turns out versus some of the Appendix I kind of allera
- - __ ~
, 88 I (phonetic). estimates which is commonly used -- it's a 2 thousand dollars -- and to make an estimate with whether 3 you are somewhere in that ballpark or substantially greater l 4 or less.
5 Another question I have is relative to the reasons 6 for going into current decomissioning, which you told 7 . us the economics of this, those kinds of things change.
8 I am wondering if ten years from now the economic picture 9 reversed itself would you visualize that it would be at 10 all practical to consider at that ten years from now 11 restarting this or reapply for another operating license?
MR. NELSON: Well, I don't really --
12 13 MR. SHIFFER: We have no plans for that, and
( 14 I would be astounded if circumstances would cause us to 15 try to make that kind of a decision, but no, we certainly 16 have no plans for that.
17 MR. MOELLER: Jesse Ebersole or Ron Kathren, 18 do you have questions?
19 MR. EBERSOLE: I have no questions.
20 MR. KATHREN: No questions.
t 21 MR. MOELLER: Let me ask just a few here that 12 I had, points I would like to have clarified. The Staff 13 may be able to help me with this. In Reg Guide 1.86,
( 24 which applies, of course, to the commissioning, you required
- 25 that they report any abnormal occurrences that take place s
4
,------.---.-----<-w..-..--,n. , < - . , , - - , - - - -,,,---.n.- ,,-----,--,---,,,-----,-m- - - - - - - - , - - - - , - - - v. -
--r-
89 1 during the decomissioning or subsequently, and I am concernect 2 about that because you call them abnormal occurrences 3 in 1.86 but in my opinion they are not much different 4 than an LER.- And subsequent to the writing Reg Guide 5 1.86, of course, an abnormal occurrence has taken on a 6 whole new meaning, meaning it is those items you report 7 to the U. S. Congress on a quarterly basis.
8 MR. ERICKSON: Yes, you are absolutely correct.
9 In the text we will call them LER's.
MR. MOELLER: Okay. Well, thank you. And what 10 E
11 is needed, then, is Reg Guide 186 just needs to be rewritten <
12 Who administers your training program, Mr. Nelson?
IS Ycu talk about a training program of people who are going
( 14 to be involved. And I didn't really get -- do you have 15 a training facility, or training courses, or what? ,
MR. NELSON: We have an on-site training 16 17 coordinator who is responsible for coordinating the adm'inistration of all site training programs. He utilizes 18 19 the plant staff, members of the plant staff, for their
- 20 individual expertise to supplement his expertise providing 21 specialized training.
12 MR. MOELLER: But how many people are we talking 18 about in a class; I mean, talking about effectiveness, 24 can you -- are you teaching one or two people? And is
(
15 it a formal one-week course, or what?
l 90 ;
I l
3 MR. NELSON: The length of the course -- or, )
i 2 most courses are conducted in single days, or in some )
l 3 cases a few days sessions, but the course is generally 4 designed at the audience. The size of the course will 5 be dependent upon the number of people we have that need 6 the training. For example, a course for our Maintenance 7 Department on, say, contamination control during a pipe 8 cutting or welding operation, we would have maybe as many 9 as ten to twelve people in the class. A class for operators 10 who are on shift, we bring those people in on alternate 11 shifts. We may have groups from four to five.
12 MR. SHIFFER: You know, I might also mention 13 that this facility still remains part of the department;
(
14 it's a plant operation, and you are, I guess, aware now 15 we just completed our on-site training facility at Diablo 16 Canyon. And we are going to be building an additional 17 training facility for maintenance training and all those 18 kinds of things as part of our accreditation efforts, 19 so as we complete all those programs, of course, the people 20 of Humbolt Bay will have access to those trainings. It 21 is all part of the same company, the same department.
22 MR. MOELLER: Fine. That takes care of my question.
23 Now you, just a few minutes ago, mentioned several times, 24 of course, that Units 1 and 2 will be operating, and this
(
25 helps you a lot in looking over the site for Unit 3.
~
n . , - - -
91 1
What is the projected life of Units 1 and 2?
2 I mean, is there a possibility they will still be operating 3 30 years from now?
.I Yes, I would say that is a 4 MR. SHIFFER:
5 possibility.
6 MR. MOELLER: Okay. And I understand the answer.
7 MR. WEEKS: This is Ed Weeks --
8 MR. MOELLER: Get real close to a microphone.
9 MR. WEEKS: Right now the company's planning, 10 long-range planning for their fossil units, Humbolts 1 11 and 2 are included as units that will have extended life, 12 maintenance done to them; in fact, it is done to them 13 to extend the life of the units beyond normal, 30 and 14 40 years. No one can really see clearly what is going
-(
15 to happen 15 or 20 years down the road, but I fully expect 16 those units to be operational, or units replacing those 17 units being operational for the next 15 or 30 years.
18 MR. MOELLER: Okay, thank you. Since Mr. Parker 19 is there, and we were talking about him as the dedicated
. 20 health physicist, I read your background, but let me ask 21 this question:
12 Are you a certified health physicist?
13 MR. PARKER: No, I am not. I have not taken 24 the exam.
(
15 MR. MOELLER: And are you contemplating taking the r --- . . - -, -. , . - - - ,. - --,-n . - - - - ,- . , - - , - .-.
92 1 exam?
2 MR. PARKER: Lately I have not had time for it, 3 MR. MOELLER: Does your company encourage or g
4 provide any incentive to you to become certified?
5 MR. PARKER: If you mean in terms of a license 6 premium or the equivalent, no.
7 MR. MOELLER: No, of paying the fee and giving 8 you --
9 MR. PARKER: They have an educational program 10 which would offset most of those costs, yes.
11 MR. SHIFFER: I might add, by the way, that 12 in the department we have -- in our general office staff 13 we have two certified health physicists. And we also I 14 have a couple at Diablo Canyon, so we are covered throughout 15 the company.
MR. MOELLER: Very good. Mr. Parker, in reading 16 17 the decommissioning plans I get the impression that whole 18 body counting will be the primary method for determining 19 internal, or intake or inhalation ingestion of radionuclides
~20 by your workers. Am I correct? Do you not do urinalysis 21 or bioassays?
22 MR. PARKER: We currently have as our regular 23 means of internal contamination evaluation a whole body
( 24 counter. That is a problem that we will have to resolve 25 over the next few years, because as the Cobalt 60 and the other gamma emitters decay we have a very poor indicatio n 4
93 !
1 of internal contamination standards, so we will probably 2 switch to some combination of urinalysis or other techniques MR. MOELLER: Okay, thank you. Mr. Nelson, 3
4 in terms -- back on this spent fuel pool, your Environmental 5 Report indicates that Cobalt 6's leak rate increases with 6 temperature and time, and that cesium 137 leakage increases 7 with temperature but not with time. Why is that? Is 8 there anyone that can tell us why we have differences 9 in cobalt and cesium?
10 MR. PARKER: I can offer a wild guess, that 11 perhaps there is some oxidation reaction going on with 12 the cobalt whereas you would have one oxidation state la to play with for Cesium 137.
( 14 MR. MOELLER: And this would hold the cesium, 15 but see, it says the cesium leak rate does not increase 16 with time whereas the cobalt does.
17 MR. PARKER: Yeah. I really do not know. I 18 would assume that if this is the case time would have 19 no change on the oxidation state of the cesium, whereas 20 some other reaction could have with cobalt.
21 MR. MOELLER: All right. And what about the 22 biological growth in the spent fuel pool? Do you have 23 any information on that; how that might affect leak rates
( 24 or the life of the cladding?
25 -
MR. PARKER: Not really. In the past we have had
94 1 a green discoloration to the water, which some people 2 h. ave felt was algae, other people have felt was not algae.
( 3 We have treated it with hydrogen peroxide, changed out 4 the demineralizer filter and it went away, so it could 5 be either one. With larger demineralizers, we do not 6 expect the problem.
7 MR. MOELLER: On page 4-77 of the Environmental 8 Report you compare the doses that, I guess, members of 9 the public have received or might receive to the dose 10 from [ quote) one x-ray diagnosis. I wondered what an 11 x-ray -- one x-ray diagnosis is.
12 MR. NELSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that 13 question. This report was prepared by a consultant, and
( 14 this is Bechtel Corporation's terminology.
15 MR. MOELLER: Well, you might go back to them.
16 MR. SHIFFER: If I had -- later on in the 17 paragraph -- one x-ray diagnosis, which is approximately 18 a 50 miligram whole body dose --
i 19 MR. MOELLER: Right, but I don't know personally
' 20 what x-ray diagnosis gives you 50 miligram whole body 21 dose, or even 50 miligram effective dose equivalent.
i 22 It is poorly written. I would either ask for my money l
23 back or get them to rewrite it.
( 24 In the next paragraph they define, or they say 25 that such and such an exposure would be minimous. I would
95 1 challenge them on that because for them to say it is 2 diminimous is just a matter of opinion.
3 Let me give you a couple of others where you
(
4 should complain, and then we will move on to the Staff.
5 On page 5-14, it states that the NCRB sets standards.
6 The NCRB does not set standards. That is in Section 5.4.2.
7 MR. SHIFFER: You are correct. They make 8 recommendations.
They make recommendations. On 9 MR. MOELLER:
10 page 9-1, the next to the last reference, ICRP 1966, I 11 think you meant ICRP 1977, which is ICRP publication 26, 12 because that is what you quoted in the text. I am not 13 positive of that, but I would check that next to the last
( 14 reference on 9-1.
15 MR. SHIFFER: Okay.
MR. MOELLER: Okay. Dick, do you have some 16 17 more?
15 MR. FOSTER: Just one that is related to 19 monitoring and detection of a problem, a potential problem 20 during the SAFSTOR period. If you should have, let's 21 say, a leaky fuel element which contaminated your fuel 12 storage basin for water, can you-tell us during the SAFSTOR 13 period what regular monitoring equipment would find thatt
( 24 where the instrument readout for that would be, whether 25 it is the control room or some other place during the a
l l
96 l i
l 1 SAFSTOR period; and who it would be that would be expected 2 to notice that?
( 3 MR. NELSON: During the SAFSTOR period monitoring 4 of the spent fuel will continue to be performed by chemical 5 analysis of the spent fuel pool water. There will not 6 be an installed instrument that would be able to -- that 7 would detect a leaky fuel assembly.
8 Another possible indication would be an increase 9 in static release rate of Krypton-85, which the stack 10 monitor then would alarm, if that reaches a detectable 11 level.
12 MR. FOSTER: I don't have the microphone, but 11 perhaps you can hear me. The chemical analysis would
( 14 be based on a sample which is taken to the lab. And the 15 frequency of that is once a month; once in three months?
16 MR. PARKER: It is currently done on approximately 17 a monthly cycle. I cannot recall what we proposed for 18 the SAFSTOR period. It is included in our proposed 19 technical specifications for SAFSTOR.
20 MR. FOSTER: I have one other question. Is 21 that a draft sample or is that continuously collected, 22 that sample?
23 MR. PARKER: This is Randy Parker again. This
( 24 would be a sample of the water being recirculated through 25 the spent fuel pool. cleanup demineralizers. It would be
i 97 y
a draft sample and then radiochemically analyzed.
2 MR. FOSTER: It would be upstream from the cleanup g 3 system?
MR. PARKER: Yes, that is correct. It would 4
5 be a sample of the bulk pool water, itself.
g MR. FOSTER. I have to ask one other question 7 in that regard. The cleanup equipment, what does the water see as it goes through that? It is just a sand g
, filter or is it seeing resins or what?
MR. PARKER: The system presently being used 10 gj was originally installed as part of the radwaste treatment system at the plant. The water is pumped out to the 12 33 radwaste facility, and a small portion of the flow goes 14 through a filter; a second portiono -- I'm sorry. Let's 15 back up.
16 A small portion of the recire flow is pumped out to the radwaste facility. The water that goes there 17 13 is' run through a filter,'and then through a demineralizer 3,
and is then returned to the pool.
- 20 MR. FOSTER: It goes through both a filter for gi removing particulates, and then it does go through some 22 sort of a demineralizer which is resins?
23 MR. PARKER: That is correct, ion exchange resins.
k MR. FOSTER: What fraction of the flow goes 24 through that cleanup system? One percent? Ten percent?
25
98 MR. PARKER: I am not exactly sure. I think 1
2 it is on the order of 10 to 15 GPM that goes through the 3 demineralizer and filter, and the remaining flow is perhaps 4 100 GPM that is recirculated right back to the pool.
5 MR. STEINDLER: I am sorry, what was that last 6 '
r?
7 MR. PARKER: About a hundred GPM.
8 MR. KATHREN: On page 6 to S-16 of the SAFSTOR 9 decommissioning plan you have a table of radiation prediction instruments used at the plant. The first listing is a 10 11 GM pancake probe instrument which has a stated range of zero to 50,000 R per hour. I am sure that is supposed 12 18 to be MR per hour. I would think counts per minute is
( a more appropriate category.
14 15 MR. SHIFFER: That is right. It was the Everline 16 probe that you were looking at today.
17 MR. KATHREN: But I would also like to comment IS that generally throughout the beta and gamma, those indications are in terms of r per hour. This, perhaps, 19 20 -may be a trivial point but r is a unit reserved only for 21 electromagnetic radiation, so correctly it should be in 22 some other unit.
18 Also, you talk about a micro r meter, and in
( 24 the text on page 6-17 that is not listed anywhere in the table, at least that I can see. And there are very few 15
99 1
instruments that really have what I will call low-range 2 capability, presuming that that GM pancake probe is in 3 fact in units of counts per minute rather than r per hour.
(
4 MR. SHIFFER: I am sorry. I have sort of lost 5 you here. What is the page you are referring to?
6 MR. KATHREN: Page 6-16 of what is stated as 7 the SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan, dated July, 1984.
3 MR. SHIFFER: I have that, and you are correct.
9 The zero to 50,000 should be counts per minute, the standard 10 GM probe readoJt.
11 Your question was that none of these are very 12 sensitive?
MR. KATHREN: Well, other than that, which is 13
( 14 calibrated in counts per minute, I do not see anytning 15 reasonably that would get you in the sub -- say, the range 16 zero to a half an mr per hour.
17 MR. SHIFFER: Oh, I think that both the pancake 18 proble and the scintilation detector would do that for you.
l 19 MR. KATHREN: The pancake probe -- yes, the 20 'scintilation detector would. You have two of those.
! 11 The pancake probe is calibrated in terms of counts per l 12 minute.
t MR. SHIFFER: Well, that is true, but you could 23 k 24 calibrate it over to mr per hour. I mean it is about
! 25 a 5,000 count per minute per mr per hour is the sensitivity l
100 1 of those probes.
MR. KATHREN: And how about their energy 2
3 dependence?
4 MR. PARKER: It varies. There is an energy 5 dependence curve. You would have to calibrate it for 6 the isotopes you were looking at, but I mean it certainly 7 could be done.
3 MR. KATHREN: You think that the two scintilation 9 instruments you have listed here at the low range and 10 will be adequate the decontamination job?
MR. PARKER: The final site survey for the 11 12 beginning of the 30-year SAFSTOR period is going to involve more than just these instruments. The last scintilation 13
( 14 detector referred to there is a manufacturer's name, 15 Micro-r-meter, which will actually read right down to is background levels two or three micro r per hour and up to five milirem per hour. It is not calibrated except 17 13 to Cesium-137 gamma energies, but could be recalibrated l 19 to actual gamma energies.
l 20 MR. MOELLER: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. I think 21 that that completes our interaction for the moment with 22 the PG&E and the Humbolt Bay people. We will move on 23 then to the presentation by the NRC Staff.
l l ( 24 As we get ready for that, let me ask if there 25 is any member, or are any members of the public here who desire to make a stat.ement?
l l
l
g:
101 1
1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay, it appears that we have 2 at least two or three people, so let us get your name and so forth so that we can arrange for that. What I'm hoping
( 3 4 is that we can go through with the Staff's two presentations 5 and perhaps take a break and then have the public statements.
-6 And you should plan on roughly ten minutes. We do not like 7 presentations more than about ten minutes each, if you can a do it within that time span.
9 Okay, Mr. Erickson, you will be on to talk about 10 the NRC Staff Review Process for the Decommissioning Plan.
11 MR. ERICKSON: My name is Peter Erickson, I'm the 12 Project Manager for the NRC for Humboldt Bay. I will discuss 13 the NRC Review Process for Decommissioning with emphasis on 14 the decommissioning mode selected by PG&E for Humboldt Bay.
15 Later on Mr. Frank Witt, our Lead Reviewer, will discuss the 16 specifics of our review of the decommissioning plan.
17 (Slide.)
13 I'm going to discuss three major topics, as shown 19 on this view graph. And the ACRS Members may be free to
' 20 comment at any time they wish to as I'm going through my at presentation.
12 (Slide.)
13 The first topic is current regulations and guides.
k 24 10 CFR Part 50 applies to not only normal reactor operation, 15 but decommissioning. The licensee is permitted to perform
102 2 o'n I changes, tests and experiments with,Section 50.59 without 2 the NRC approval as long as those changes or tests do not 3
involve an unreviewed safety question or a change in the
(
tech specs. Decontamination of the facility, for instance, 4
5 is one of those types of items that he is proceeding to do a at this time.
7 50.90, Application for Amendment to License or a s Construction Permit is the rule that the Licensee will use 9 for obtaining his Possession-Only License. And that has been 10 requested at this time. Of course, we will have to apply Sh o lly 33 Ch ; L :'ph) determinations as to whether we prenotice this 12 with Opportunity for Prior Hearing, or make a determination
$3 of No Significant Hazards Consideration.
(- 34 50.82 is the only part of 10 CFR 50 that speaks 15 specifically to a decommissioning process, and that is for is termination of a license. 50.82 describes a process for a 17 licensee to apply to dismantle a facility and to terminate is the' license upon completio'n of the dismantling.
19 As TG&E discussed already, 10 CFR Part 20, 20 Staff.ards for Radiation Protection specifies the rules for 21 Protection of workers as well as releases of activity to the 22 environment. 10 CFR Part 20 also admonishes that the license a 13 would retain these controls to assure.that releases are as
( 24 low as reasonably achievable and exposures to personnel are 25 as low as reasonably achievable.
103
-3 1
10 CFR Part 51 is the Licensing ar.; Regulatory 2 Policy for Environmental Protection. A new issuance of 3
10 CFR Part 51 requires that an environmental statement be
(
4 written for a decommissioning action. And we intend to do 5 that, we intend to write an environmental statement.
6 Part of the environmental statement will include a 7 scoping meeting here in Eureka in which public participation, publ~ic comments will be received. In this respect I was also s
y hoping that we would be able to obtain an unbiased moderator 10 who is a local resident of Eureka or nearby that would mode-33 rate this scoping meeting so that we could conduct it in a 12 manner which would be fair to all.
13 Regulatory Guide 1.86 was discussed in some detail
( 14 by the Licensee already. This specifies the guidance for 15 decommissioning as it exists today, although some of the term a 16 and definitions have been changed.
17 (Slide.)
13 The requirements for issuance of a Possession-Only 19 License, such as the Mothballing/SAFSTOR option that has been 20 selected, first of all, the first item has been accomplished, as you know. And so has the second item with respect to 21 22 n.ost of the systems not in use.
23 The fuel has been removed and fluids from the k 24 reactor Primary System and Reactor Vessel have been removed.
25 Technical specifications that would be established are
3-4 104 i primarily for fuel storage, thatwould be the major issue; 2
surveillance and maintenance; facility radiation monitoring; g 3 reporting to the NRC; handling and removal of radioactive 4 wastes; and administrative controls.
5 (Slidh2 )' s 6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Excuse me, where on the previous 7 item you said surveillance and maintenance and facility a radiation monitoring, that's on-site as well as off-site?
9 (Return to previous slide.)
10 MR. ERICKSON: Yes.
11 We would -- I think Reg Guide 1.86 talks about it monitoring in the environment as well as on-site.
15 (Pause.)
14 Yes. " Monitoring in'lochtions which would be the i
15 most likely directions radiation would take if it were 16 leaving the site for the environment."
17 (Slide.)
18 Humboldt Bay and PG&E are not the only licensees 19 and facilities that are in the -- or considering the mothball 2'O or SAFSTOR option as a method of decommissioning. This slide 21 shows the list of power plants that have selected that option 12 for decommissioning.
13 First of all, the Vallecitos boiling water reactor
( 24 located in Alameda, California, a 50 megawatt thermal reactor ,
25 shut down in December of 1963. A Possession-Only License was
.-----.a,
-5 105 ;
l 1 issued in September of 65. So they have about twenty years j 2 of experience in a'SAFSTOR mode. !
3 Fermi-1, 200 megawatts thermal, sodium-cooled 4 reactor, shutdown in December of 1971; Possession-Only 5 License issued in September of 1973. And this is in Monroe 6 county, Michigan.
7 Indian Point Unit 1, a 615 megawatt thermal reactor !
3 shutdown in 1974. They submitted an Application for a 9 Possession-Only License, which hasn't been taken action on 10 yet; Westchester County, New York. And this facility also 11 has fuel on-site and has had fuel on-site in their fuel 12 storage pool since shortly after it being shutdown. All the 13 fuel was removed from the reactor vessel and moved to the'
( 14 storage pool.
15 ?each Bottom 1, 115 megawatt gas-cooled reactor; 16 shutdown in 1974; Possession-Only License issued in 1975 in 17 York County, Pennsylvania.
Is I have also listed Humboldt Bay Unit 3 there; 220 19 megawatts thermal; shutdown in July of 76. They have 20 submitted their Application for a Possession-Only License 21 in the SAFSTOR mode.
12 The nuclear ship Savannah; 80 megawatts thermal; 13 shutdown in 1970; Possession-Only License was issued in 1981.
( 24 It is now located in Charleston, South Carolina and it is 25 being used as a museum in the Patriot's Point Development
106 3-6 1 Authority Maritime Museum there. They have several other 2 ships and the nuclear ship Savannah sits alongside the dock.
3 People are allowed to enter the ship in areas that are not
[
4 contaminated.
5 The major radioactivity remaining, of course, is 6 in the reactor vessel which remains in a shielded structure 7 inside the ship. That license continues on the N.S.
3 Savannah.
9 *** INSERT ***
10 11 12 13
( 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 i
U 13
( 24 25 l
I l
,, ~ , . - - y r- r --, -- - - ,
R R P
1 e
'NRC STAFF REVIEW PROCESS FOR HUMBOLDT BAY UNIT 3 .
9 DECOMMISSION PLAN ,
O
\
- ~
i .- TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED 1
0 CURRENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDES l
l 0 REQUIREMENTS FOR. POSSESSION - ONLY LICENSE l '
~
i 0 EXPERIENCE IN MOTHBALLING/SAFSTOR OPTION j .
i.
s I
i .
1 h
CURRENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDES FOR DECOMMISSIONING l -
10 CFP. PART 50 - LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES S 50.59 - CilANGES. TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS S 50.90 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT I $ 50.82 - APPLICATIONS FOR TERMINATION OF LICENSES 10 CFR PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
! 10 CFR PART 51 - LICENSING AND REGULATORY POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION l
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.86 - TERMINATION OF OPERATING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR i NUCLEAR REACTORS i
I
I REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF POSSESSION - ONLY LICENSE MOTHBALLING/SAFSTOR
~
WITH DELAYED DISMANTLING i .
REMOVE FUEL FROM REACTOR VESSEL REMdVEFLUIDSFROMSYSTEMSNOTIN.USE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ESTABLISHED O FUEL STORAGE 0 , SURVEILLANCE AND MAINTENANCE ,
t 0 FACILITY RADIATION MONITORING I
'l 0 REPORTING TO NRC ,
0 HANDLING AND REMOVAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES i 0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS ,
A 9
~
EXPERIENCE MOTHBALLING/SAFSTOR OPTION WIT!!' POSSESSION ONLY STATUS OR APPLICATION POWER AND NUCLEAR SHIP REACTORS POWER POSSESSION -
LEVEL DATE ONLY LICENSE FACILITY MW THERMAL SHUTDOWN ISSUED LOCATION 50 MW 12/09/63 09/09/65 ALAMEDA CO.,
VBWR CALIFORNIA 200 MW 12/01/71 09/05/73 MONR0E CO.,
FERMI 1 MICHIGAN 10/30/74 APPLICATION WESTCilESTER CO., .
INDIAN POINT 615 MW
'UNIT 1 SUBMITTED DEW YORK YORK CO.,
PEACH
- BOTTOM 1 115 MW 10/31/74 07/14/75 PENNSYLVANIA APPLICATION HilMBOLDT CO.,
HUMBOLDT BAY UNIT 3 220 MW 07/02/76 SUBMITTED CALIFORNIA
' CHARLESTON, l N. S.
SAVANNAH 80 MW 11/70 08/14/81 SOUTil CAROLINA l
I
-7 107 1 MR. ERICKSON: Any questions?
2 MR. FOSTER: Could you review for me again which g
i enes of these facilities still maintain radiated fuel in a 4 storage based on-site?
MR. ERICKSON: Just Indian Point and Humboldt Bay, 5
4 Unit 3.
7 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other questions for Mr.
8 Erickson?
9 MR. FOSTER: I have one other.
to Is this application -- sorry, wrong microphone.
11 Has this application been noticed in the Federal 12 Register?
MR. ERICKSON: No, not at this point. It will be.
13 I 14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, thank you, sir.
15 We'll move on, then, to the next NRC Staff presen-16 tation on the preliminary review of the decommissioning plan.
17 And that's by Frank Witt.
i It MR. WITT: Good afternoon.
19 My name is Frank Witt. I'm with the Chemical
- 20 Engineering Branch. We have the charter for review of 21 decontamination and decommissioning and I'm the Lead Reviewer 12 for.Humboldt Bay.
~
23 ! Slid &e)-
( 24 Our licensing effort, as shown on the view graph, 25 is to prepare an SER which supports the Possession-Only l
t j
,n-,- . - _ - -----.-_...,...,.,,-.-..~..,-.--,--._-,,c.,, ---.-,------,-----,,,.-,_.3--e,m,,---,----,-7-.,,--,e-n-. - - - --------,--,,.,.r-,e-
109 5-9 1 Branch's involvement in review.
2 MR. STEINDLER: Excuse me.
( 3 Before you go on, you did indicate in your last 4 view graph that you were going to review the preliminary 5 draft of the Dismantlement Plan?
6 MR. WITT: Yes.
7 MR. STEINDLER: Is that part of the requirement, 3 this being thirty years down the road?
9 MR. WITT: Well, that-- Pete, do you want to 10 answer that one?
11 MR. ERICKSON: I can answer that.
12 It presently is not part of the requirement.
13 However, it seems the prudent thing to do in this stage.
( 14 And we've discussed it with the Licensee and they agreed to 15 put that in there so that one will know what their intentions 16 are when we review and approve this thirty-year storage 17 period.
18 MR. STEINDLER: Is the issue going to be one of 19 whether it's do-able or is the going to be -- tell me in
' 20 specifics what you're going to do.
21 MR. ERICKSON: I don't think we disagree that it's 12 do-able. We'd just like to know what their intentions are 23 at the facility.
k 24 (Pause.)
25 MR. WITT: While the Chemical Engineering Branch
5-8 108 1 License. And we will also review the Technical Specification 2 changes, the Decommissioning Plan for SAFSTOR, and also the 3 Preliminary Dismantling Plan. And we'll also review the
(
4 Quality Assurance Plan.
5 Another part of our effort is the Environmental 6 Impact Statement.
7 Part 51.20 (A) (5) of the March, 1984 Part 10 CFR 51 8 requires the issuance of License Amenment authorizing the 9 decommissioning of a nuclear power reactor -- an Environmenta L 10 Impact Statement is required for that License Amendment 11 Request.
12 A scoping session was 2ndicated by Pete Erickson 13 before, and the objective of this scoping session is to
( 14 define the proposed action and also to determine the scope 15 of the Impact Statement and to identify the significant 16 issues to be analyzed in depth. ,
17 A very preliminary review of the Environmental 18 Impact Statement by our Environmental Branch indicates that 19 the more significant impacts are likely to be occupational
- 50 radiation exposure and exposure to the general population, 21 and impacts of ultimate removal of radioactive materials 22 from the site. That's just a very preliminary statement 23 that they came up with.
( 24 (Slide.)
25 This view graph just indicates the Technical Review
. - . - - - - - - , , , , - , - - , - - , ,,----,-,-,,,-------------,-w- , - - - , , , , ,- - - - - , - - - - , - ~ , - - - , . , n- - , - - . - -
110
>-10 1 has.the'. lead'. responsibility, we'll be putting together the 2 SER to support the licensing action, which will also include
( 3 fire protection, which is in our branch. Meteorology and 4 Effluent Treatment will look into waste handling and pro-5 cessing. Radiological Assessment will be looking into the 6 occupational exposure and ALARA Programs and have a big part 7 in the Environmental Impact Statement. Operator Licensing 8 will look at the licensing of operators for fuel handling:
9 that still has to be maintained under this Safe Storage 10 period. And the Environmental ahd Hydrologic Engineering 11 Group will be responsible for the Environmental Impact 12 Statement.
13 As far as the status of the review, we just got
( 14 started in the review and assembled the Review Team and the 15 Reviewers. And we've gone through the proposed Decommissio-ning Plan and we've sort of done an acceptance review. And 16 17 all of the Reviewers that I've talked to or have checked with ,
18 we don't have any major problems with what was submitted.
l 19 And this includes the Environmental Report.
l
- 20 But we are going into a detailed review where we 21 will be coming in with requests for information so that we 12 can prepare the Safety Evaluation Report.
! 23 MR. FOSTER: One question on -- you mentioned that f
( What 24 you are going to be looking at the ALARA Programs.
25 kinds of things do you expect to be looking at there? Is l
l -
111
-11 1
this just occupational goals, or is this also going to be 2 release limits?
, 3 MR. WITT: I would say occupational dose. Because 4 the numbers that were shown before, the release to the public ,
5 are very low. And I'll be showing some in my presentation.
MR, STEINDLER: What is the schedule that you have 6
7 planned for your review, when do you expect that?
MR. WITT: I think we haven't set up a schedule 3
p yet. The pacing item will be the Environmental Impact 10 Statement bects: Je it requires quite a few steps and it's it going to take A while, take at least a year.
12 MR. STEINDLER: How does that related to the 33 comment that was made earlier that PG&E would like to be 14 done with this by December of 857 MR. WITT: I don't think we can get that Environ-15 16 mental Impact Statement out -- it depends whether there are j 17 hearings involved. There's a hearing process, too, that's 13 required.
19 (Slide.)
20 I think this was covered before, but just to 21 review, the fuel has been removed from the reactor and stored in a spent fuel pool; I think 390 assemblies. Certain pipe 12 18 sections or components have been removed, and this is part
( 24 of the ALARA Program. And any open pipe sections have been 25 sealed for contamination control.
5-12 112 1
Some of the radioactive wastes have been processed 2 and shipped to burial grounds. The reactor vessel and
( 3 reactor coolant system components have been drained and 4 flushed and this waste has been processed. Systems not needed 5 for SAFSTOR will be secured and isolated, as indicated by 6 PG&E.
7 Control rods and core internals are left in place 8 in the reactor and the reactor vessel has been vacuumed and 9 the head has been installed.
10 (Slide.)
11 Again, as a review, the operations that are needed, the systems that are needed during SAFSTOR, are: the spent 12 13 fuel pool systems; to maintain environmental conditions for
( 14 the personnel; monitoring and alarm systems; and, of course, 15 the waste processing; and fire protection.
16 (Slide.)
17 This slide has been up, too. The occupational 18 dose for the SAFSTOR totals 91 person-rems. And Delayed 19 Decon: 85.5 person-rems. And the general public dose -- at 20 the bottom of the view graph -- SAFSTOR at 10~3 person-rem 21 and Delayed Decon at 0.7 person-rem.
12 MR. STEINDLER: Are these your numbers or are they 13 someone else's?
k 24 MR. WITT: No, this is from the report.
25 MR. STEINDLER: Have you produced any verification l
__- - - _ _ _ . - . . _ . _ . .- _- _ _ , _ _ . . _ - _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . , , o, . _ _ - - - - -
113 5-13 i of these?
2 MR. WITT: We have not donc this yet.
3 MR. STEINDLER: Do you plan to?
g 4 MR. WITT: I -- I'll check into that.
5 MR. STEINDLER: Okay.
g MR. WITT: I don't know whether the Radiation 7 Assessment Branch, if that's in their normal review. It 3 might be. I can -- I'll check into that.
9 (Slide.)
10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Where we've already seen these, 33 why don't we go along rather rapidly?
12 MR. WITT: Right.
ja Well, one point here, there was some discrepancy.
( 14 I think Terry mentioned 12 million for spent fuel, but in 15 the report it's 1.2 Curies. Is the report --
is (Inaudible comment from Mr. Nelson.)
17 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, sir, I can't hear you.
Is CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Use a microphone, will you, 19 please?
- 20 MR. NELSON: Both the figures of 12 million and 21 1.2 million are contained in the report, one of which is a 12 typographical error. And I haven't yet verified which one is 23 which. There are total curies contained in a table in the
( 24 Environmental Report. Those can be tabulated to verify the 25 number.
-14 114 1 MR. WITT: Well, I added the numbers up in the 2 table and came up to 1.2 million. Is that the right number,
( 3 Terry?
4 MR. NELSON: (Affirmative response.)
s MR. WITT: The other point that I'd like to make 6 is that Dr. Moeller indicated -- and we will be asking the 7 question on the Curies Inventory on the spent fuel, the 8 activated products. I think that m bht be significant.
9 That's all that I have right now.
10 *** INSERT ***
11 12 13
( 14
- is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28
( 24 25
_ _ _ _ - - -- - ,---,--.,-,m-, --
~ , - - . , . _ - - - , - - -, - - _ _ _ - - ,- , , - - - - --
- . ~ . - - , . - , -
. _ _ . _ - ~__ _ . _ __ .-.
. ~
LICENSING EFFORT
( .
e SER SUPPORTING
. POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE
. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES i
. DECOMMISSIONING PLAN SAFSTOR DRAFT DISi%NTLEMENT
. QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN g
e ENVIR0i4 MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 4
^
( ,
5
-- .,~,r---.,,,___,r. _ . , _ _ , ___
TECHNICAL REVIEW 3 RANCHES
(
. =- .
e CHEiilCAL ENGINEERING (LEAD) e liETEOROLOGY & EFFLUENT TREATENT e RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSENT e OPERATOR LICENSING
( e ENVIRONMENTAL & HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING l .~
D e.
l o + e
, ..-wyn._, .y. - - - . . 7 _ . , . . _
,,__-,_,.g..,,..,,n.. . . . _ _ , _ _n,- _ _... - ,_,_ _ _ - . , , , , , . , _ , , _ , _ . , , , , , , . _ , _ , . _ _ - , , . _ , , _ . . - - - - - _ , - , ,_,
I 1
PLANT STATUS
- (
l- e FUEL REMOVED FROM REACTOR - STORED IN SPENT FUEL P0OL .,.
I e CERTAIN PIPING SECTIONS OR C0lf0NENTS REH0VED FOR ALARA I
l e OPEN PIPES SEALED - 00HTM11NAT10N CONTROL '
1,
, e SOE HADI0 ACTIVE WASTES PROCESSED AND SHIPPED i
e DRAIN AND FLUSH LIQUID WASTES PROCESSED e SYSTEllS NOT NEEKD FOR SAFSTOR'WILL BE SECURED AND ISOLATED e CONTROL RODS AND CORE INTERNALS LEFT IN PLACE j e REACTOR VESSEL VACUUED AND KAD INSTALLED i
i l
i i
1
n -
~
i M
OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS HEEDED DURING SAFSTOR - ?
, A l
i i.
e SUPPORT STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL -
l IRINTAIN ENVIROW H TAL C0lEllTIONS FOR PERSONNEL PROTECTION e
I -
1 t : .
e PihWIDE REMOTE HONITORING AND ALARHS
- e COLLECT AND PROCESS LIQUID AND SOLID RADIDACTIVE :n WASTE i .
~
i e FIRE PROTECTION j
l i
i
)
1 e
1
A e
o DCCUPATIONAL DOSE
- .(
SAFSTOR (30 YEAR) DELAYED E CON t, MRSON-REM iMINTENANCE 11 7 35.5 MRSON-REM ilASTE HANAGEENT - 36.
HONITORING SURVEILLANCE 8 .
91 TOTAL' .
GEE RAL PUBLIC DOSE SAFSTOR dei.AYED DECON 10-3 KRSOH-REM 0.7 M RSOH-REM
.-. - . - . . - _ . - - . - . __ - _ - _ - - - ~ - . - - - -
RADI0 ISOTOPE INVENTORY
. j
~
CURIES .
e SPENT FUEL ASSEIBLIES 1,200,000 -
e ACTIVATION PRODUCTS 12,000 NUCLEAR STEMI SUPPLY SYSTEM 32 .
TURBINEPLANTSYSTIM. 33 Y.
~
SERVICE SYSTEM 32
^
- WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS 14 a
O
f .
~
CONTMIMTION Am RADIATION LEVELS ,
4 j . ,
I I' REMOVA8tE CONTMIETION: 10 10-5 Ci/100 cn2 A/
1 l 10 10-7 x Ci/100 cn2 ,
1 4
i AREA RADIATION LEVELS : 1 - 110 nn/na e r .
i I '/
l i . ,
1 1
i .
j -
J .
J 4
l i
i j .
I
115
-15 1
1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any questions for Mr. Witt?
2 (No response.)
3 Any general questions by the members of the 4 subcommitte?
5 (No response.)
4 Okay, why don't we take not more than a ten minute 7 break. And I would ask that the three members of the public 8 who desire to make statements to contact Owen Merrill. Owen, 9 will you raise your hand? And if you will give him your 10 names and so forth.
^
11 We'll take a ten minute break and then we'll 12 immediately provide an opportunity for the public to make 13 its comments.
14 (Thereupon, at 4:35 p.m., a ten minute recess was 15 taken.)
.;6 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay, we're ready to resume.
17 And we will call first upon Carl Zichella, an 18 Energy Policy Analyst, and his organization is the Redwood 19 Alliance. Would you please go up to the main podium there
- 20 so you can speak into the microphone 7 11 MR. ZICHELLA: Well, I'd like to take the opportu-22 nity also to welcome you gentlemen to Eureka. And I'd like 23 to also thank you for your insightful questions. It's very
( 24 refreshing.
( 15 I'd like to first offer what I fe41'I'have to is a I
I
I 116 516 l i complaint about the time line about the meeting. There was 2 very little public notice about this meeting. I don't know 8 if you're aware of that. But, it first came to my attention
(
4 last Friday, and when I contacted members of the news media y I was surprised to find out that some of them had not heard l 6 about it at all in any way and there was very little public !
notice about this meeting. -
l 7
l 4
And I think that that is a very inauspicious
, beginning to what is going to be a very long process for all 10 of us, the comunity and members of the NRC, as well as gg PG&E included. We're all --
CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, we do have a system l 12 gg notices are sent to the local papers and so forth. We'll
( g4 certainly check and see if there was a hitch in this.
15 MR. EICHELLA: Well, thank you for that. And this gg is a very interested community in this issue and I'm sure 17 that --
13 . CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Surely. l g, MR. EICHELLA: -- you'll find a high level of l 20 response, as long as there is some information put out 21 about it.
22 The lack of information so far about what is going 33 to happen is also -- disturbs me a little bit. I'm concerned l
( 34 about that because it's very difficult for me, as spontaneous 25 as I am, to present an opinion about what's been going on. I l l
l
117 6-17 I was sitting back and listening to the presentations today, 2 which were very informative, yet I did not have any time in I 8 advance with which to prepare something to leave with you 4 gentlemen regarding our position.
5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, sir, to help you there, 4 too, you can mail us written comments and they will be brough t 7 to the attention of this committee.
8 !!R. ZICHELLA: Thank you.
9 Though, if it would be possible in the future, as to information is put together for consideration and it could 11 be released in some way to the public, it would be very 12 helpful to members of the public who are interested in this 18 and would like to participate meaningfully to have that
( 14 information available to them.
15 I'm very gratified to hear that there's going to 18 be an EIS require'd in this process, and I would like to 17 encourage full public hearings and maximization of public 18 input into this process. I think we all are stuck with a 19 very sticky problem here that we'd like to see resolved in 30 the best way possible.
21 And I don't view that maximum public participation 22 as necessarily a hindrance to that process. Because I 18 believe that had there been more full public access in many 34 other situations concerning nuclear power plants many problema 25 could have been avoided. And perhaps we can avoid some along
118 6 18 1 the way. We're pioneers, as was mentioned earlier, and I 2 think that the public should be fully involved.
3 I also have some coments regarding the spent fuel 4 storage pool. Sitting back and listening today I had some i 5 concerns about previous information I had. But those were 4 also raised slightly. I'm very concerned about the earth-7 quake vulnerability of that particular facility, and I did a not hear very much about that today. l 9 I heard a certain amount of concern about whether ,
10 or not it leaks: "We're not sure. We're going to drill ten 11 more holes and try to find out." These things concern me la a little bit, because if the pool does leak then that to me 18 infers some sort of a structural integrity question that; may 14 need to be examined in some depth. ,
15 I think more stringent monitoring of the ground 16 water surrounding the pool is going to be, to my mind, a 17 necessity over the long haul. This would particularly be is necessary after an earthquake event, which are not that 19 infrequent around here. We had a major one, I believe, in 30 late-1979. We had a 7.0 earthquake here that leveled a 21 highway overpass, and I'm very concerned about the structural as integrity of that particular site.
18 Now, the reactor itself had been upgraded for
( 34 seismic integrity, but I'm questioning about the pool. I al don't think very much has happened to the structural integrity
F i
119 6-19 1 of the pool with regards to seismic stuff, and I think that 1 2 needs to be very closely examined by the NRC.
( 3 I think that more complete biological aquatic 4 monitoring would also be a very prudent move on behalf of 5 the regulatory agency. I don't think that buying some oyster s 6 from the north and of the bay is simply going to be sufficien :.
7 I think that in the long haul a more serious effort will need a to be made over the long run regarding this. Again, my 9 concern is with the integrity of that spent fuel storage 10 facility and possible environmental releases.
3: one thing I'd like to point out is that Humboldt 12 Bay right in the vicinity of the plant -- and for most of 13 it -- is a very shallow bay. And the flush action on that 14 bay is not good. So that should be considered. Biological 15 magnification is a possibility out there, and I think that, is again, calls for a more stringent aquatic monitoring program.
17 A complete examination of the current spent fuel is storage pool's structural integrity, I believe, is nece'ssary.
19 The fact that PG6E is unsure about the possibility of leaks 20 concerns me. And I think that there should be no doubt 21 about the possibility of that thing leaking from the get-go.
12 If there is any doubt about it leaking at the as beginning we're in a bad place to start with. I think we
( 34 should really have no qualms about the integrity of the f
Al spent, fuel storage pool if it's going to go thirty years. He i
120
-20 1 have a lot of history behind us to refer to with this.
2 I mean, look at what happened at the storage tanks
( 8 at Hanford, Washington. We don't want to see a situation 4 like that happen now where it may or may not last for thirty 5 years from the beginning. Let's know, and let's be sure that 4 we're doing all that we can to insure that.
7 I think that there should be more complete monito-8 ring of the incident I heard brought up in one of your 9 questions -- which I thought was quite excellent -- about 10 how you would know if a fuel rod or an assembly began to leak ,
11 And the response was that it would be a monthly check of the 12 chemistry of the water in the spent fuel storage pool, la I'm sorry, that doesn't satisfy me at all. I think
(
14 a lot of people would be concerned about that, particularly 15 if there's any question about that thing leaking. I think something should be put into place, some form of monitoring 14 17 system which would require a more rapid identification of a 18 problem and have some sort of a plan in place with which to 19 approach that once it was identified.
20 I think a very close scrutiny of the seismic 21 monitoring system that will be required should be brought I didn't hear much about that. I heard 13 back into play here.
la a lot about trying to minimize the requirements for monito-( 24 rings and that concerns me, particularly with the seismic al activity and the possibility for surface faulting out at the L
4
' 121
-21 1 site, which does exist there.
2 It was referred to in the Woodward & Clyde studies a that were done regarding the earthquake potential and l
4 seismicity of that site baci in 1980, a very excellent study. l 5 I think it should be called to your attention that 6 in the past, and after the 79 earthquake and before the ,
I 7 Woodward & Clyde report came out, an NRC inspection team did l I
e come out and examine the seismic monitoring equipment at j 9 the Humboldt Bay site. And they found that most of it, l
10 almost all of it, was inoperable due to poor maintenance. i 11 I think that says something about the management la potentials thkt may need to be examined with regard to la monitoring out at the plant. And some other control may be
( 14 needed to be put into place by which the federal agencies 15 would have some greater oversight. Perhaps # frequent l 16 regular visit to the facility during this time, particularly 17 it ,the outset years, would be valuable and I think looked 18 upon favorably by the community. i 19 Some sort of verification of PG&E's submitted data 20 should be undertaken. There were a number of inaccuracies 21 and mistakes brought out today, and the experience of the ta past, particularly at Diablo Canyon, clearly obviates the 18 need for such measures.
( 14 Aerial monitoring is another area with which I am Al concerned. When I hear that the air beneath the cover of the l
l l
122
-22 i spent fuel storage pool will be routed out through the stack, 2 again, I'm concerned as an elementary school very close by 3 the plant -- somewhere on the order of less than two-thousand
(
4 feet from the plant there is an elementary school that is 5 directly downwind from the stack -- historically the highest 6 radiation readings on the monitors in this area have been at 7 that elementary school.
I think that requires a very close look. That's an 3
9 early warning system, and if there should be some problem jo with Krypton gas being released in the atmosphere, several 13 of the fuel elements losing integrity, for instance, and 12 coming apart -- as has happened in the past at Humboldt Bay,:
33 mainly,as you know, with the stainless steel elements, which 14 I understand are now gone.
But nevertheless, I think we should not take any 15
! Ig chances with the health and safety of people directly down-wind of the plant. I think that the data determining the 17
!+
13 exposure to the public is unclear with regard to the overall 19 decommissioning process. And I was more confused than 20 clarified with what I saw presented today.
21 And I would really like to see a more detailed 22 analysis done to that, and the assumptions with which those 23 analysis are completed made public as well. Because it's i 24 hard to just look at a number and not know where that number 25 came from and how that number was ascertained without having- -
o
123 6-23 1 to be able to come up with some sort of an intelligent 2 response to that number is asking a bit much. I'm afraid.
- 3 One thing that I do have a concern about is tge 4 efficacy of lasting thirty years. There are activation 5 elements in the cores of nuclear reactors that do last a 6 very long time, and Morrisium(ph) has a half-life, I believe, 7 on the order of Plutonium. It's an element that can cause 8 prob'lems down the road to workers, and I think that some 9- methods may be needed to be taken into account to protect 10 workers even after thirty years when it becomes time to 11 dismantle the reactor, if it is to last thirty years before 12 that can happen.
13 And I'm not going to offer any recommendations as
( 14 to what I think should happen. I think we're all in a very 15 ' embryonic stage as to far as this process goes and we're 16 all going to learn a lot in the next'few years.
17 And I thank you again.
18 CHAIRMAN i!OELLER: Well, thank you. Both for your 19 presentation and for staying within the time limit.
20 The next presentation is by Garrett Connslly. And 21 I gather that Garrett is with the Acorn Alliance and his 12 interests are in health and safety. Go ahead.
13 MR. CONNELLY: Thank you.
( 24 All I want to do at this point is bring up a few 15 points so that whoever goes over this record can focus in a
6-24 124 1 few of the attitudes which I want to focus on.
2 Terry Nelson exhibited something here that I want
( 3 to point out for the record with regard to the conversation 4 in contemplating sending the spent fuel to Diablo, which didn't 5 Prove to be a good idea, he gave as one of the reasons for a not doing this numerous ordinances which were partially the 7 problem, which were either to be tested or gotten around.
3 This is a point which I just wanted to bring up 9 to show you that for thirty years we have to manage this i 10 plant, and if people are thinking in terms of ordinance as 11 soraething tb be,rI assume, aggressively tested or gotten 12 around, what shape they would be in in thirty years.
13 And I don't mean to say anything like this
( ), personally, I think it's an attitude of our culture that we
- 15 have to deal with.
j 16 The other thing I think we might want to look at 17 is there's no filters on the spent fuel st'orage. It seems 13 like with the addition of some kind of filter there tha't 19 maybe that would come out during the hearing process.
20 And then I was disturbed to see that the NRC 21 figures were taken from PG&E's report and that they hadn't i
22 been validated yet, and I think this is something that's l
23 really important. They weren't even checked over and there wasn't even a guarant3e that they would be checked over. So 24 25 I would hope that that would be followed through on.
4' 9
I 9
125 6-25 1 Then I would like to mention, and this is my last 2 point, the fact that none of us will be here in thirty uears, 3 we'll all be dead. And we're passing this on to the next 4 generation, that this is our legacy. And this legacy that 5 we're passing on of radiological contamination to the environ -
6 ment is fast approaching the level of cultural concern, 7 similar to the federal debt. Pretty soon the next generation s a will-neither be wealthy enough or healthy enough to clean 9 up the terrors that we're leaving behind.
10 I just want to leave you with one story of a 11 statue from Italy. And these are human beings, people living 12 in Italy; they honored their people, their ancestors and they 13 built a large, large statue of PG&E's scale of enterprise.
. 14 On top of the statue was a crocodile, and on top of the 15 crocodile is a man.
16 And that statue is in the very center of town and 17 the nan is looking out over the ocean. It's a huge thing 18 that people lived with for centuries and centuries. And then 19 they noticed that they had forgotten why they built the 20 statue. It's right in their main square, right in their l
21 main town.
22 How, we're proposing to guard radiation, which will 23 kill people and also affect the gene pool of all life, which
( 24 most people don't speak up for the rest of life. But little l 15 rabits and deer and everything else get the same thing that 1
- ,_- A
126 26 1 people get.
2 Now, if these people in Italy, the way they solved
( 3 their problem about not knowing who the god was that they had 4 at the harbor looking out over the ocean was that they had 5 a contest to see -- and they renamed the god after centuries 6 of not knowing who it was.
7 We really won't have this luxury with radiation.
8 And'so I hope that you will use the power of your good office. s 9 here to make sure that this coming public hearing will be 10 deep enough in its considerations to make sure that the peopl e 11 who are living today and who know what they are passing on 12 to future generations will do the best they can.
13 So, thank you.
( 14 CHAIR!iAN MOELLER: Thank you, Mr. Connelly.
15 The next speaker is Stephen Adams, representing the 16 Redwood Alliance as well as himself.
17 MR. ADAMS: Thank you.
18 I'd just like to bring up a couple of points that 19 haven't been mentioned. I'm not sure where I got this 20 impression, but it seems within the last year and a half 21 we had run across some information at the Redwood Alliance 22 that suggested to us that the safest mode of transport for 23 the spent fuel itself was by barge, as opposed to trucking
( 24 or flight or whatever else might be considered.
25 And assuming that it is possible that the eventual
f 127
-27 1 repository for the fuel will be at Hanford -- and this could 2 be accomplised primarily by barge to move that material up
( 3 there -- we would like to'see something in the Environmental 4 Impact Statement that compares the reliability of material 5 shipped by barge, as opposed to shipped by truck over the 6 roads which exist in this part of the country which are very 7 poor.
8 And we have a lot of dangers around here, we 9 regularly have problems with accidents, with slides and that sort of thing. We'd like to see the two modes compared.
10 l 11 Again, we are under the impression that the barge 12 is safer and we're betting that probably Hanford will be the 13 place where this stuff eventually ends up.
( 14 The second thing 4. hat we would like to see is some 15 sort of analysis of the -- with respect to the thirty-year 16 period modified somewhat as to reflect that whenever the 17 federal repository for tais stuff is approved and when it 18 opens that that is the time that eventual decommissioning of 19 the plant happens.
20 I think that if you were to take a poll of people 21 in this community you would find that they would probably 12 say tb get this thing done as soon as you can. Whether that 13 happens to be thirty years or whether that happens to be
( 24 fifteen years, it's just my guess that the people who live 15 in this community would like to see this thing solved as
,, - ---- - , , , , - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . , , _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + , -
! 128
'7-28 -s t
1 f :r y ekly as possible and they're really not interested in a 2 thirty-year timeline when the job could be accomplished in
( 3 twenty years, or fifteen, or whenever, when the federal 4 government decides to proceed with this last part of the 5 nuclear cycle.
l 6 The last thing I would like to suggest is, the 7 gentleman from the NRC mentioned an unbiased person to do 8
~
the scoping session. I would like to suggest Erv Renner. He 9 is one of the Board of Supervisors here, and just to throw i 10 in that name.
11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Can you spell the last name, 12 please?
IS MR. ADAMS: R-E-N-N-E-R. First name: E-R-V. He's
( 14 the Supervisor for the First Supervisorial District of 15 Humboldt County.
- 16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER
- Thank you.
17 HR. ADAMS: Thank you.
I 18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The next presentation is by i
19 Barbara George. And her topic, I gather, is "Everything I
' 20 Ever Wanted to Ask About Nukes and was Afraid to Know".
21 Barbara?
12 (Pause.)
18 Are you representing yourself or is she -- here r 24 she comes.
l l 15 MS. TAYLOR: My name is Betty Taylor. Let me say I ?
- , - - - . . , ,---,.-,- _ ,.,- -- - - _ _ . , - - - - ~ , . - . . - - - - ~ - - , - - , , . - . , - . - . . . , -
129
-29 1 Barbara George will be appearing on Wednesay night, the 12th, 2 ati Cafe Voltaire at nine p.m. with her hour and a half 3 presentation. And now she'll just give us a quick lesson 4 in radiation, a crash course.
5 (Thereupon, Ms. Taylor presented a pre-recorded 6 tape of Ms. Barbara George's prese.ntation.)
7 MS. GEORGE: (On pre-recorded tape as played in a the Subcommittee Meeting Room:)
9 -
" Radiation. You'll be happy to know that it's just 10 numbers, size, speed and time. But it's not going to be fun.
11 It's time to straighten up and concentrate.
12 "We'll start with a really small number. Does 18 anyone know the size of an atom? I was afraid of that. All
(,
14 right, you take an orange and you take an atom from the 15 orange. 'Put them side by side, you blow them up equally; 16 you keep blowing them up until the orange is as big as the 17 earth; then the atom will be the size,of a cherry.
18 "Inside the atom we think it's mostly empty, unless
- 19 it's full of things that we can't measure. We can't help l
' 20 that. But we do know that the main things in there are 21 electrons that fly around a central nucleus which contains 22 protons and neutrons.
13 " Electrons are so tiny and light that you might
( think they don't matter. But they are the things that make I
24
)
15 chemical compounds. This is from your sixth grade science I
130
-30 1 book. The electrons hold hands and dance around two or more 2 atoms.
3 "Now the other part of the atom, the nucleus,
(
4 contains 99% of the weight of the atom. So, how big is that?
5 Well, we'll have to blow things up again. We'll expand the 6 atom to the size of the Astrodome and the nucleus will be the 7 size of a grain of sand in the middle of the Astroturf. it's e a world of illusion.
9 "So, let's get inside the nucleus. That's where everybody wants to be these days. The main things in there to ,
11 are protons and neutrons, which are about the same size and 12 weight, but protrons have electric charge and they determine 13 what element the atom is. .
( 14 "Now, let's go to the. chart. We have elements here 15 with protrons, neutrons and total weight. You have one 16 protron for hyd'rogen and you have no neutrons, for a total 17 weight of one. Two and two for helium, a total weight of 13 four. You might notice some ofyour favorite elements here.
19 "We go all the way up to 82 protons for lead, a 20 very heavy element. Then everything above lead is radio-21 active, meaning something at some time will pop out of the 12 nucleus and fly through space until it hits whatever happens 23 to be there in space -- like your body. ,
i I 24 "Every element with more than 83 protons is radio-25 active because the nucleus is so crowded that protons and i
h
131 7-31 1 neutrons are constantly in motion, like everything else in 2 the universe. Yes, even your brain is in motion at this i 3 very moment. It might be wondering where the nearest exit 4 is because it's feeling too full. This is exactly what 5 happens in the nucleus when it's too full: something escapes ,
6 "Here we have all the elements made by people. We 7 named them after our favorite places: Berkelium, Calfornium.
8 Thes'e were all made in the last fifty years and they are all 9 radioactive. We don't seem to be able to make any elements 10 that aren't. These are all the natural radioactive elements.
11 "There are three different kinds of atomic 12 radiation. Beta particles are the weakest. They are formed 13 when a proton turns into a neutron and loses its electric
( 14 charge, which flies out in the form of a beta particle, which 15 is the cize of an electron. The next kind of radiation is 16 a gamma ray. It's not a particle, just concentrated energy 17 waves produced by all the jiggling around inside a crowded 18 nucleus.
19 " Scientists now think that gamma rays did the most i 20 damage to the Japanese. They used to think it was the 21 alphas. Alpha particles come out of the nucleus like 22 cannonballs, two neutrons and two proton stuck together.
28 They don't move as fast as gamma rays. Gammas travel at the
( 24 speed of light and they'll go right through you. Alpha 25 particles are much slower so when they hit thay won't get
. - , . - - - - - . - - - . - . . -- . - . - - , _, .-..,.,---,--.-----n - -
_- .- _~. _ _
132
-32 1
much further than the top three or four layers of skin.
2 ,
"But, if you eat or breathe a bunch of radioactive I
( 5 atoms they will sit inside of you and bombard whatever organ 4 is nearby. Once they are in they become part of your tissue and nothing can get them out. And some will live a lot 5
4 longer chan you.
7 "Now, there's something that always comes up when a people talk about radiation. It's called half-life. I don't
, expect you to understand it, but maybe you'll get just a ,
10 touch. It's a very misleading term because you think when 33 you get through half of something you are half-through, one ;
more half and you're done. Wrong.
12 "One half-life is only one-tenth to one-fifteenth 33 34 of a radioactive lifetime. I'll explain. This is a group 15 of radioactive atoms of a certain element. One half-life is gg the time it takes for half these atoms to send off radiation, 17 changing into a different element. This element may still be 13 radioactive, I'll explain that later.
3, "In the second half-life half the remainisg atoms will change; that's a quarter of the original group. And so
- 20 23 on one-eighth, one sixteenth, et cetera. So it takes ten i to fifteen half lifes for most of the atoms to radiate, 22 ,
i 28 decaying little by little into non-radioactive elements.
( 34 "This is the decay series for uranium. Decay
- 25 series means the regular sequence of elements it turna into f (
L 4 .
N
- I i
i L
. 7 133 1 as it radiates. Uranium-238 has a 4.5 billion year half-life ,
2 Then it shoots off an alpha and become thorium. It goes 3 through sixteen changes before it becomes lead.
4 "The radioactive elements decay just a little at 5 a time because the nucleus holds on so tight. The pent-up 6 energy in the nucleus has 200 million times the force of a i 7 chemical reaction, such as burning oil. No wonder people 4
s are so fascinated with these nucleur toys, but all we can i 9 do with them so far is blow things up or boil water. "It's 10 like cutting butter with a chainsaw", Helen Caldicott says.
"What we know how to do is smash the nucleus. We 11
' call it " splitting the atom". First you pile up a critical 12 13 mass. That means enough splitable atoms close enough 14 together so that natural radiation from some of them will 15 fly into the nuclei of other atoms with enough force and t L
16 accuracy to smash them into pieces, releasing lots more
' \
17 radiation and particles which fly out and smash other nuclei, l Is and so on in a chain reaction. ;
19 "Now, listen closely. U.S. reactors only use one 20 form of uranium. Originally it was the only element known 21 that would split in the chain reaction. There are different f I
12 forms of elements with different numbers of neutrons. The 13 protons always stay the same so they have slightly different ,
I 34 total weight.
15 "However, the uranium we get out of the ground is i
j .
7-34 134 1 less than one percent splitable Uranium-235. The rest is 2 a.lmost all Uranium-238, which doesn't split. Now all 3 uranium is more rare than gold and we have very little U-235
(
4 left at the rate we're going.
5 "So, is that the end of g6kes? Unfortunately not.
6 The more common U-238 won't split, but it has a peculiarity 7 all it's own: it can absorb protons and become Plutonium-8 239, which will also split. That's why we leave U-238 mixed 9 in with the U-235 fuel for nuclear reactors. The U-238 10 turns into Plutonium, which is left over after the U-235 is 11 used up. Then we can extract the Plutonium at a reprocessing 12 Plant and use it for bombs, or to run a different kind of 13 power reactor called a Breeder Reactor which runs on
( 14 Plutonium and manufactures more Plutonium than it uses.
15 "Our nuclear reactors all use Plutonium, not 14 Uranium. But we aren't building Breeder Reactors in the 17 United States right not, perhaps because they are more 18 complicated than the Uranium Reactors. And the first ones 19 partially melted down.
20 " People occasionally remember that Plutonium is the t
11 most lethal substance on earth. Twenty pounds of Plutonium at distributed evenly would be enough to kill everybody in the as world, say, if everybody sniffed a line of Plutonium.
Pluto, i ( 34 by the way, was the Greek god of hell before it became the 15 Disney dog.
i
)
e
135 7-35 1 " Wait, we're not finished with the crasn course 2 yet. We have a few numbers to go, big numbers. Count 3 backwards. You can count with me: Nine, eight, seven, six, 4 five, four, three, two, one. Pick one of those numbers. It 5 doesn't matter which one, it's not a raffle.
4 "Got your number? Now, add a zero. What you have 7 there, somewhere between ten and ninety, is about the life-8 span of a human being. Now we're going to go back in time, 9 back, back. : ., ;' u.*
" Add another zero to your number. Three-hundred, 10 11 four-hundred years ago electricity was unknown. Add another 12 zero. A few thousand years ago very few people understood 13 that the earth and planets go around the sun. Six-thousand
( 14 years, you had the Egyptians, another society that was really 15 into death and burial.
16 "Now add another zero and you're back ten-thousand, 17 fifty-thousand, eighty-thousand years ago. You're back to I
18 the first human beings, Cro-Magnon. The Stone Age lasted for 19 seventy-thousand years, recorded history only about ten-20 thousand.
21 "Now add one more zero. Here we ares a hundred-22 thousand, two-hundred-thousand, two-hundred-fifty-thousand 28 years back. In the middle of the last Ice Age before the
( 24 Great Lakes were formed.
25 "Now, hang on. Reverse. We're traveling forward, l
136 7-36 1 Now it's today. Now it's tomorrow. Now it's 250,000 years 2 in the future, when the Plutonium we make today finally stops 3 threatening life with radiation. As far in the future as the
(
4 Ice Age is past.
5 "Now bring your attention back to your body. How 6 does radiation affect you? Is it like a disease? It's more 7 like getting hit by tiny comets: alphas and betas and gammas a hurtling through the space in the atoms of tha." cells of your 9 body, occasionally hitting something.
to "All of the atoms in your cells are bound in the 11 chemical compounds by the electrons, remember? And all of 12 them are doing different jobs your body needs. Radioactivity la breaks those chemical compounds by knocking your electrons
( 14 right out of your atoms, like little wrecking balls, r
15 "The chemical change can kill the cell or change 16 the way it functions, depending on what gets hit. Sometimes 17 it's better if the cell dies. If it lives it can create 18 havoc.
19 "A reproductive cell can cause mutations in later 20 generations. Sometimes the chemical mechanism governing cell 21 divisions sticks in the on-position and then the cell keeps 22 dividing and dividing, gobbling up all the available nutrient s 23 and starving and displacing all the surrounding cells. This
( 24 is called cancer.
25 "And that is your crash course on radiation."
(End of Tape.)
_ .m _. . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . _ , . , , , - . , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - , _ - - . _ . . , _ . - _ _ _ . . ,_
7-37 1 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank pu.
2 The last speaker is Andy Colonna. And'his organi-3 zation or affiliation is that he is a citizen and a rate-4 payer and is speaking as an individual.
5 HR. COLONNA: Thanks for an opportunity to address 6 you all. I don't have a prepared statement, really, but 7 partly the reason for that is that I wanted to keep an open a mind when I walked into this room, because I really wasn't 9 sure what we would be presented with to speak to, if there to was an opportunity to.
11 What I can tell you is some of my personal 12 impressions. Having studied up a little bit about the 13 history of the PG&E plant and the current attempt to open 14 Diablo to full power, I'm really struck with some of the 15 style and content of the presentation today by PG&E.
Is The first thing that struck me was the way in which 17 they -- and I have nothing personal against anybody here; le but there's a difference between us: they're getting paid 19 and I'm not. In fact, I'm paying them. But, when Mr. Nelson 20 spoke about a pioneering effort with the plant and said that 21 we had been delivering power for thirteen years abd -- I 12 thought that was kind of strange.
18 Because when they first opened the plant in 1963
( 34 their optimism was a thirty-year figure. They were saying 25 that they could deliver for thirty years. The plant lasted
138
-38 1 for thirteen because it was shutdown for problems that 2 several of us tried to point out in those days, when they 3 were saying there were no geological problems, which was 4
4 part of their optimism.
5 They said that they hadn't found any faults under 6 the plant or near the plant. Later there were threes one under, one in front of it at the bayside, and one behind it.
7 8 The USGS and the U.S. Forest Service confirmed that, and then 9 later one of the geologists that they hired belatedly agreed 10 that there wasa problem there.
11 They said that they would have -- although, they 12 did not have at the time--a plan for decommissioning the 13 plant in 1963, that they would develop one. It's been
( 14 twenty-one years since then and they still don't have a plan 15 to decommission. The whole idea of thirty years that the 16 plant would stay open, it's kind of odd that we are faced 17 with a SAFSTOR, so-called, option or non-option. If there 18 is no other thing to do with it it's not an option; it's what 19 we're faced with for thirty years.
20 I don't trust their figures for obvious reasons.
21 Their track record leads me to distrust,their figures. I j 12 don't trust their monitoring, again, for the same reason.
Who monitors the monitors? Their monitoring is internal, j 28
( 24 it's not something that is within what I was taught in school j 15 to expect, with checks and balances structured in.
I
139
'-39 1 It really is lacking through the whole regulatory 2 process, and Humboldt Bay isn't the only plant that's 3 guilty of this.
i 4 The fact that they had adequate time to review 5 their own report to find the discrepancies -- which you 4 gentlemen were able to point out without much difficulty 7 in your review today is symbolic of the track record to date.
8 I was amazed that you were able to come up with some of the 9 criticisms that you were able to come up with.
10 I'm wondering of the San Andreas Fault is going to 11 wait thirty years. I've been reading a lot of stuff in 12 National Geographic magazine, which published,some really 13 intensive and thorough analysis of our changing earth. I
( 14 brought it with me and I would just like to share with you 15 that the San Andreas Fault is a fact of our lives, it's 14 going to be for quite some time -- forever, effectively in 17 my life span, and whatever several-hundred generations will 18 come after us who are going to have to deal with nuclear 19 power waste products in some form or another.
20 In fact, the turning point came for me as an 21 individual when I was propaging to take my welding test to 22 go on a nuclear power plant in Florida in 1969. And I was 18 exploring the costs and benefits of building a nuclear power
( 24 plant at all. And the most optimistic estimate was forty 25 years for the life span of any nuclear power plant -- or the
7-40 140 1
best one they had built or designed so far. And the least 2 Passismistic estimate of the waste disposal problem over time 3
was 250,000 years, which I think this previous speaker has 4 adequately reinforced.
5 The San Andreas Fault is connected to the Hosgri 6 Fault. And I don't know who arranged to have the 6.5 7 earthquake this morning to punctuate your visit here, but .
3 according to the news it was felt as far east as Redding, as y far north as Grants Pass, and far south as San Jose. And 10 that was in the first hours after the quake was felt, that 11 was the closest feedback they got. I'm sure it was felt in 12 more places than'.that.
13 I think that there is a real problem of responsibi-L' 14 lity here. To me as a rate-payer and to all of us where 15 they're investing in a plant that's going to cost more to 16 maintain itself.over time, everybody has a stake in taking a 17 hard look at how to get rid of this problem short of the is thirty-year period.
19 I don't feel that it's likely that there won't be In 20 a major earthquake before that thirty-year period is up.
21 fact, there's a lot of evidence to indicate that there will 13 be.
28 I would like to read something into the record. I
( 34 don't know how much time I have left, five minutes?
25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Perhaps.
I 141 7-41 1 MR. COLONNA: Perhaps?
2 This is from this 1973 National Geographic article, 8 "Our Changing Earth": "In historic times only two other
(
4 monster earthquakes have jolted California. In 1857 a 5 cataclysm which centered at Fort Teton, seventy-five miles 6 out of LA, rent the surface of the earth for 200 miles as 7 the west side of the San Andreas Fault slammed northward as 8 much as thirty feet.
9 "In 1872 a convulsion along the Owens Valley Fault 10 brought the people into the streets from San Diego in the 11 south to Eureka in the north." -- Which is the San Andreas 12 Fault line, that earthquake was several miles away from that la fault line.
( 14 The question becomes inevitable: Is another su:h 15 big one on the way?
16 I pass on the words of an official of the National 17 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, testifying last year 18 before a Senate Hearing on seismic Safety: "In the Weather-19 man's parlance he asserted flatly, 'The chances of a major 30 quake along the fault in the foreseeable futare is 1004.'
21 Whare and when will it strike? Emphasizing that his opinion 12 or any other can be little better than guessing, Dr. Charles 18 F. Richter, the ' father df' the flagnitude Scale and now
(
84 Profossor of Seismology at Cal Tech, has estimated that the 15 most likely locala is the San Andreas Fault inland of L.A.,
142 7-42 1 a repeat of the 1857 Fort Teton shaker."
2 The next most likely possibility, he thinks, is 3
a convulsion near the northern end of the fault, a rerun of I ~
4 the 1906. I want to stop, okay? Because th&t's probhbly 5 it. This is the north end of the San Andreas Fault, right a off the coast here.
7 Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Thank you.
9 I believe, then, that concludes the presentations 10 by members of the public. Let me then wrap-up the formal 13 portion of the meeting by thanking the people from PG&E and 12 the Humboldt Eay Power Plant, Unit 3, for their presentations ,
i 13 particularly Mr. Shiffer and Mr. Nelson.
[ 14 And let me thank the NRC Staff, Peter Erickson and 15 Frank Witt, for sharing their comments with us, as well as Is the five members of the public who took time to make 17 presentations at this meeting.
We will now terminate the formal portion of the 18 1 19 meeting and terminate the recording of the sessions. And 20 the subcommittee will go into Executive Session, still open 21 to any members of the public who desire to remain. And we 13 will probably -- I'm guessing -- but it doesn't seem to me 23 that we will take much more than fifteen minutes or so to 24 do that.
(
25 So, we want to thank the Reporters for their effort s s.
r 143
-43 1 as well. And at this time I will' simply give an opportunity 2 to the members of the subcommittee for any additional comment s 3 or remarks or highlights that they've noted for the day.
(
4 And that will conclude the formal record of the proceeding.
5 (Thereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing was 6 adjourned.)
7 8
9 10 11 13 II r
3 14 15 le 17 18 19 30 31 23 28 24 SS
144 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
S This is to certify that the attached proceedings 4 before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the 5 matter of:
6 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND HUMBOLDT BAY 7
EUREKA, CALIFORNIA a
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 9
10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission.
15
/h MICH'EL A CdN50LLY Off cial Re orter b ft) 17 PAT RENAIT Official Reporter y,
Jim Higgins and Associates 20 Dated: September 11, 1984 21 22 28 24 25
.