ML20134J589

Transcript of 970115 Public Meeting in Higganum,Ct.Pp 1-129. Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20134J589
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	01/15/1997
From:	NRC
To:
References
NUDOCS 9702120206
Download: ML20134J589 (159)

Text

p

'c 1

4 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

+++++

3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

+++++

5 PUBLIC HEARING 6

+++++

7 THURSDAY 8

JANUARY 15, 1997 9

+++++

10 HIGGANUM, CONNECTICUT 11'

+++++

12 The'Public Hearing was held at the Haddam 13 Killingsworth High School, in the cafeteria, Little City 14 Road, Higganum, Connecticut, Marjorie DeBold, presiding.

15 PRESENT:

16 From Northeast Utilities:

17 TED FEIGENBAUM 18 JERE LAPLATNEY 19 From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

20 DR. MICHAEL MASNIK 21 GENE HOLLER l

C 22

3701 (202) 234 4433 . - - -. - - =. _.. _ _ _ 4 22 1 the security plan, and our technical specifications can be I 2 revised to eliminate requirements that simply no longer 3 exist. 4 We have a technical specification, for 5 example, on how quickly the reactor has to trip. That is 6 no longer applicable to this unit. Items like that will 7 be removed from our current requirements, and only those 8 items which apply to a de-fueled reactor will remain. 9 Next slide, please. 10 I think of importance to this audience is also 11 an activity, a key activity in 1997, will be the 12 development of the post-shutdown decommissioning 13 activities report. I still haven't memorized the term 14 yet, because like Ted said, we weren't planning on 15 shutting this unit down. 16 This is the plan. It is a document -- summary 17 level document on the order of eight to ten pages. It 18 will have how we plan to tear this plant apart, in 19 accordance with regulations. 20 We'will spend the better part of 1997 putting 21 this plan together. Right now, our optimistic schedule 22 shows this being completed around the end of the summer 23 time frame, but that will require reviews and everything 24 else, so understand, this is not something that is going 25 to come out in the next month or so. { NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 33 m. 23 4 l 1 We are going to fix the problems from 1996, we i 2 are going to staff the organization and take care of those f f 3 issues, then we will get to work on the plan. i i 4 When the plan has been submitted, we can 5 actually -- we can begin planning the actual 6 decommissioning work. If you want to think of it this 7 way, we submit a plan to the NRC, and I'll discuse the l l 8 process in a minute. Pending their approval, we can go 9 off and start figuring out the nuts and bolts, where do 10 you make the cut, how do you remove the component, the 11 detailed planning can begin. l t 12 Those are activities that may occur in 1997, i 13 so I put them up here for completeness. 1 14 Last point I wanted to meke is, the regulation 15 says, that we cannot begin any major decommissioning work 16 until the PSDAR has been filed with the NRC, and 90 days 17 have elapsed to allow time for public comment. l 18 As Ted has already announced, we in*.end not to t I 19 live just to the letter of that, we are going to go to the i 20 spirit, and we intend to involve the public in the 21 development of the plan. l l 22 The citizen's committee, I see is a key { 23 resource to helping us identify tnose issues that the f 24 community is worried about, and we intend to provide good 25 responses, i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 + _.~_.___.._ _ __._.___ _ _. 24 1 But, again, we cannot do any major 2 decommissioning work until 90 days after the plan has been 3 submitted. i 4 So, what I'm telling you is, if you look 5 across the river, or if you happen to be on the Hacid.Tm 6 Neck side as you come down the road, the physical plant 7 will appear the same for the next year. We will not cut i 8 out steam generators, we will not be cutting out reactor \\; 9 vessels, it will stay the same. i 10 The intent of the regulation is to plan your j 11 decommissioning, submit it to the NRC, get approval, and 12 then next fit your plan. That is exactly what we plan on i 13 doing at Connecticut Yankee. i i 14 Connecticut Yankee, when we make decisions, we i 15 run through a series of decision gates, and so any 16 decision that we make, we have to pass that series of 1 17 gates. The top gate, the gate that you have to pass first 18 is safety. 19 So when we look at -- when we make decisions 20 for decommissioning, or any decision during the day, we 21 look at our priorities. Our priorities are safety first. 22 In this case, we always used to say, nuclear safety, I 23 think we are going to change our thinking here, it is fuel 24 storage safety now. That really is the majority of our 25 nuclear safety. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 23&4433 25 1 Radiological safety is going to gain 2 importance. At Connecticut Yankee we have a lot of 3 seasoned radiation workers, and notwithstanding the event 4 of this fall, these people have done this work for a long 5 time, and they are experienced. In the decommissioning mode there will be 6 4 people who aren't as experienced, taking on tasks that are 7 8 more challenging, radiologically. We need to make sure 9 that we keep radiological safety high on the scope. Environmental safety is another important 10 11 aspect at Connecticut Yankee. We have a good i environmental record, we do report everything as required 12 13 by the regulations, and we manage the very lowest level 14 indicators, what is called exceedences. As we go through the decommissioning, there is 15 16 a potential use of chemicals, there is potentials where we 17 have to address the environmental impact of our 18 activities. Most activities have been evaluated, but some 19 may not have, and they have to be looked at. And so environmental safety, I think will be 20 has coming up, higher on our radar scope than maybe it 21 22 been in the past, because of the nature of the new work. 23 And, finally, industrial safety. This has 24 been around for a long time. Our industrial safety record 25 is excellent. We've completed -- I see some employees, it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 . ~.. _..- _. _ -. _. _.. 26 l l 1 is over 400 days now without a lost time accident. 2 Our industrial safety record, I notice i 3 reportables is an order below the construction industry. [ 4 We intend to maintain that kind of focus on industrial 5 safety. Industrial safety is -- the benefits of 6 industrial safety, there is a number of them. l r 7 First of all, is that you return your j 8 employees to their families the same way they gave them in 9 the morning. That is the most important. Industrial i 10 safety attitude also shows an overall attitude. If a 11 person is focusing on safety, and they safely perform 12 their job, that is a good indicator as to how they do j 13 their job, overall. 14 And, finally, safety -- doing his job safely, L 15 usually means you are doing it right. So it is a good 16 thing to focus on, it has a lot of benefits, and we've ] 17-kept that high on the screen for many years, and we have I 18 good results, to date. 19 The second major item is quality. Do it right 20 the first time. In the nuclear field, if you do not do 21 something' properly the first time, you will always get the 22 opportunity to do it, and do it until you get it right. 23 So there is no benefit in trying to cut corners in a 24 nuclear power plant. 25 Our focus is do it safe, do it right the first NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 i 27 i 1 time. And finally, the actual performance of the job. 1 2 And just so you know the difference -- go back i 3 to that slide for a second, please. 4 The only thing different from the first time I 5 delivered this talk to my first set of shift managers in 6 1990, was the fact that I've added the emphasis on fuel 7 storage and environmental. The rest of this hasn't 8 changed, at least for me, for the last six, seven years. i i 9 I'm going to change topics, here, for a l 10 second. I'd just like to spend a couple of minutes i 11 talking about the nuts and bolts of decommissioning i 12 options. So this is a small primer on regulation. ~ 13 There are three options in the regulation for 14 the decommissioning. Prompt dismantlement is DECON. That 15 is, essentially, filing a plan with the NRC and the plan 16 says, we intend to decontaminate and disassemble the 17 plant, and remove all radioactivity from the site. And do i 18 it, essentially, starting whenever our plan is approved. 19 The second one is SAFSTOR, that one says that 20 you can store the plant up to an overall period of 60 21 years, and at some point in the 60 year period, you begin 22 the dismantlement of the first option, but you can just 23 safely store the plant for the interim period. l 24 And the final is ENTOMB, and that is where you 25 do some engineering items to put concrete and entomb NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l .(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l 28 i 1 certain portions, but within the 60 year period, you still ~ 2 have to go back and tear it apart and have it dismantled j 3 and, you know, you have to have DECON done at the end of j 4 the 60 years. 5 The point I'm making here is they will all end 6 up at the DECON. The question is, the durations that you 1 7 wait, and how you configure the plant, while you wait to 8 get to the ultimate dismantlement. 9 The final stage for any nuclear facility is, 10 you remove the radioactivity from the site. 11 At Connecticut Yankee, our options will be 12 evaluated. We have' filed with FERC a cost estimate for l 13 decommissioning that is required. The current cost l 14 estimate is based on the DECON option. I 15 That does not mean we have selected the DECON 16 option. That means that the current cost estimate is 17 based on the DECON option. 18 When we file our PSDAR, we will in fact have 19 the final de<:ision in that document. 20 And the final point I want to make is that i 21 we've had a lot of questions from the public, and I'm 22 trying to answer some of the questions I anticipated in 23 this slide, about the future use of the facility. i 24 Currently, there is no planned use for the l 25 facility. It is consider to be a -- basically a i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEh" t '4D TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE 119440 AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000 5 3701 (202) 234-4433 .m-._ p - - - ~ - - 29 1 liability that we have to dispose of, at this point. I-2 That could change at some point, but right now f I 3 there are no plans for the facility. There have been 4 questions about re-powering, etcetera. That is not in the 5 cards, currently, at Connecticut Yankee. 1 6 I got a little bit choked up when I was 7 talking about my family. But I really want to reiterate 8 that, you know, Gary has been here at Connecticut Yankee i 9 for 25 years, and he is a life-long resident of i 10 Connecticut. I'm a member of this community, my daughter-l 11 4 in the 12 just played sports yesterday in the gymnasium, 4 13 shot-put by the way. And, you know, we are here to make 14 sure that this job gets done right. We live in the EPZ, i of this community, and we are going-to make 15 we are part i f 16 sure this job gets done right. 17 And that is the end of our presentation, i L 18 Marge. 19 MS. DEBOLD: Next we had planned a short period so that you might ask questions related to what the 20 21 two pre:senters have just given you. If there is anyone 22 who would like to ask a question, if you'would just raise 23 your hand or step to the mike. Is there anyone at this point who would like 24 25 to ask -- go right ahead. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 ~.-.. _. _.. _. 30 l ~ 1 MR. BLOCK: Yes. My name is John Block, and { 2 I'm the attorney for the Citizens Awareness Network of l 3. both Massachusetts and Connecticut, as well as Friends of } 4 the Coast, and Nuclear Information Resource Service. I 5 My question is this A point was made that no 6 major decommissioning work will be done until the PSDAR j e 7 has been submitted and approved. l t 8 I was wondering if you could describe what l 1 9 activity will take place that you are not considering 10 major decommissioning work. l 11 Also, one technical question. There was'a 12 citation to a FERC filing, and I was wondering if you 13 could provide the citation, so that somebody could get a 14 copy of that filing. I 15 MR. LAPLATNEY: I'll take the first question, 16 because that is in my realm, I'm the plant manager. 17 _MR. BLOCK: Thank you. 18 MR. LAPLATNEY: What we are going to do here, - - for the next couple of months, is 19 for the first 20 maintain the spent fuel pool, and really very little else. 21 'he only activity that would be in excess of that, that I 22 can foresee in 1997, is the possibility of a full circuit 23 chemical decontamination of our contaminated primary 24 systems. 25 We would do that to reduce the subsequent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 -w r.* w. ,<v n. ,-s- --a .ns- .y r w. p + w n m se- ,---.=m- ~ w -...-~-- -=-- 31 i the i l 1 radiation exposure for the engineering evaluations, I 2 walk-downs, and all the work on that piping. 3 We are one of the oldest plants in the i 4 country, and we are quite contaminated. l 5 Other than that, there are -- I don't want to j l 6 say no equipment removals. I mean, if we took out a j i j_ 7 circulating pump like you have in your basement, I l 8 wouldn't want to be held to that standard. But we are not 9 moving any major equipment out of the plant, we are not 10 going to attempt to take any out of the turbine building, 11 or'the reactor site. 12 There is no work planned, other than a 13 potential chemical decontamination. The FERC filing, Ted, I .J i 14 I may have to defer to you on the number. 15 MR. FEIGENBAUM: If you would give me 16 information as to where we can contact you, we will give 17 you that citation. There may be somebody here in the 18 audience that mighc have it, from my staff, I do not carry 19 that information around with me. 20 But I will get it for you, within the next 24 I 21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />, if you would just give me a phone number. j 22 MR. BLOCK: It can even be 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. Thanks. 23 MS. DEBOLD: Is there further questions? Step j i 24 right up. j i l 25 MR. SMITH: My name is Peter Smith, and I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE. N.W. (202)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 e-w,-i c--w 32 t 1 from Haddam Neck. I'd like to know, now that the 2 attention is going to be focused more on the spent fuel 3 area, you talked 20 year storage, somewhere in that area, 4 but I'm a little -- I don't know, not disbelieving, but I 5 think it might be there a lot longer. 6 Since attention is going to turn to that, 7 rather than the chamber and the actual reactor area, I 8 vondered if they may find a problem with the storage' area, i 9 once the concentration -- really looking at that area, 10 specially seeing as there are faults in the area. j 11 Have there been any contingency plans to 12 store, at least the older fuel, above ground? 13 MR. LAPLATNEY: Okay. I believe I can address 14 your question. First of all, I think you allude to a 15 point t: at at least I would like to drive home. And that 16' is, we are reviewing the design of the spent fuel 17 building. '8 If you remember I said, we have corrective 19 actions to complete from 1996. One of the things that we 20 found was that the design basis at Connecticut Yankee is 21 poorly documented. 22 Every system that is required to support spent 23 fuel pool cooling and maintenance of the fuel in the spent 24 fuel pool, the design basis is being completely 25 reconstructed. That is one of the reasons why it is going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 23W33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i 33 1 to take us some time to submit our PSDAR. 2 The second -- and the fault and the earthquake 3 proof is part of that design review. So that will get 4 looked at. l 5 You alluded to the length of storage. You i 6 recognize -- I'm sure the public recognizes that is really i l 7 a DOE issue, they need to take possession of the fuel. 8 I'm not going to comment on, you know, they have an ' 9 obligation, they need to deal with that, and it is our 10 obligation to safely store the fuel until such time as I 11 they do that. 12 You also alluded to a thing called dry storage l 13 option. Some utilities have gone that way. There is no i 14 way we would make a decision on that now, but it is a -- 15 it is considered a viable option, in fact, a very good i 16 option that some utilities have pursued. 17 But there is an awful lot of questions that 18 have to be answered in terms of compatibility of the fuel 19 storage canister within the shielding, making sure it is i 20 compatible with the over-the-road transporter, so you i 21 don't have to undo work that you've done once. 22 You don't want to handle spent fuel any more i 23 than you have to. 24 MR. SMITH: I have one other question. It has i 25 to do with the canal area. Will that be filled in, at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE tSLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 34 1 some point? 2 MR. LAPLATNEY: The current cost estimate, 3 which I said was the DECON, does not include filling in 4 the canal. So it assumes that we will leave the canal 5 essentially as is. 6 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 7 MR. LAPLATNEY: I'd like to throw in one more 8 thing on that. I wanted to call Rosemary but -- coms on 9 up, Rosemary. 10 I just said, though, that the canal will not 11 be filled in. That is the current plan. I want to re-12 emphasize, until the final plan is approved, anything we 13 are saying here is preliminary. 14 MS. BASSILAKIS: Rosemary Bassilakis, a 15 resident of Haddam, and also a member of the Citizens 16 Awareness Network. Mr. LaPlatney, you are assuring us 17 that you are going to decommission the reactor safely and 18 in compliance with NRC regulations. l 19 However, I would like to bring up the fact 20 that you've operated that reactor outside of NRC 21 requirements for the past 28 years. You have not updated 22 your final safety analysis report. You've been operating 23 with an inoperable emergency core cooling system, as well 24 as containment air recirculation fans, just to mention a 25 couple of issues. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344 433 l 35 I_would like to know how we can be sure that j I l 1 i l you will follow the rules now, when you have a long time 2 1 3 history of not following the rules. 4 MR. LAPLATNEY: Well, Rosemary, I'm glad you I 5 asked that question. I guess I've got to be honest, I expected you to ask that question this evening. So I 6 i 7 thought about the answer to that, okay? I Let me tell you the story of what happened. 8 You've cited long-time design basis' issues at Connecticut 9 10 Yankee, which quite frankly did surface in 1996. ) 1 At the first occurrence of one of those, which 11 12 was the CAR fans, which you've pointed out, we could not i i i prove that the CAR fans could survive a water hammer event i 13 14 after a large break loss of coolant. You are looking at the person who made the l 15 l 16 decision to shut the plant down, based on that quests.on. 17 So when I became aware of the design basis issue, I shut 18 the plant down. 19 Additionally, information came to light, 20 subsequent to that, which the NRC brought to our 21 attention, I can't take credit for us bringing it out, 22 that showed there were significant design issues at 23 Connecticut Yankee. 24 That is when we, the local management, pointed we have to do a complete design basis reconstruction. 25

out, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 . _. _ - - - _. _.. ~. _ _. _ _ -. _ _ _.... I 36 l 1 It is going to cost this much money, it turned out to be i J 2 about 40 million dollars, and I think this number is in-3 the public record. 4 And that prompted a cost benefit study of the l 5 unit. The cost benefit study says, well, not only does l I 6 the 40 million cause you problems, but by the way, you are 7 not economical, anyway. Which I think this is all off-l = 8 hand. 9 So quite honestly, when we found out about it, l 10 and we understood it, we did the right thing. So I'm l 11 going to do the right thing again. 12 MS. BASSILAKIS: If I may just rebut. So what j i 13 you are saying is that you didn't know you weren't in i 14 compliance? l l 15 MR. LAPLATNEY: That is what I'm saying. 16 MS. BASSILAKIS: So what will stop that from i 17 happening again? i \\ l 18 MR. LAPLATNEY: Well, you know, you want to go 19 back in history a little bit, I think you have to 20 understand. Connecticut Yankee was not initially licensed 21 to be single failure proof. We pre-dated those 22 regulations. 23 The initial design of the plant only has one 24 suction line from the containment over to the RHR pumps. 25 The initial design of the plant only had one spent fuel I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 .~ 37 e 1 cooling pump, and one spent fuel heat exchanger. 2 This plant is not a modern plant. It is a 30 3 year old design. -4 So, for us, we have had to try to meet the 5 regulations as best we could, and there is a program 6 called SEP, which has compared us against the regulation, 7 and quite frankly, we've done an awful lot of 8 modifications. 9 I'll point out, to rebut the other way, that 10 Connecticut Yankee has voluntarily undertaken 11 modifications since 1987, that have reduced the core melt 12 frequency by magnitude. 13 That gobbledygook means that we voluntarily, 14 over the last decade, have made modifications to the plant is that reduced the risk inherent in the plant. The core 16 melt frequency is our measure of risk, which I know you 17 are aware of. 18 So I think we are doing the right thing. 19 MR. FEIGENBAUM: A couple of points, here, 20 regarding oversight of the facility. We are constituting. l l 21 a new and separate safety oversight board, with specific 1 22 individuals from outside the company that have 23 decommissioning and nuclear power operational experience. 24 We have never had, in the recent past, a 25 specific Connecticut Yankee focused oversight board, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W. (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 38 I 1 we are putting one together, and we hope to have that in 2 place very shortly, that will have, again, special talents 3 from people around the country, recognized experts to 4 watch our performance, to look at our programs and our i 5 procedures, to make sure that we are meeting all 6 requirements. l 7 In addition to that, we have a new quality f 8 oversight manager at the site, and he has brought in' 9 people from another company, completely separate from i 10 Northeast Utilities, to provide the day-to-day r 11 surveillance and auditing and inspection of activities in i 12 the plant. 13 So I feel that this provides an additional f 14 level of assurance, in terms of compliance, to make sure 15 t.Lat we meet the necessary standards, here, going forward. [ 16 MS. BASSILAKIS: Thank you. 17 MS. DEBOLD: Is there anyone else with a 18 question? This gentleman right here in the front. 19 MR. REARDON: Jerry Reardon, Newington, 20 Connecticut. 21 I have two questions for you. In regard to 22 your statement about long-term liability, long-term 23 storage of radioactive materials on-site, should Northeast 24 Nuclear go belly up, are you planning for that 4 25 contingency? j NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 39 I i LAPLATNEY: Do you want to take that one, 1 2 since it is financial? 3 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Well, first of all, Connecticut Yankee is a jointly owned facility. There are 4 5 10 owners of Connecticut Yankee. We are obligated, going 6 forward, whether it is Northeast Utilities or some 7 subsequent company, whoever takes ownership of the assets, is responsible for decommissioning that plant, and tiking 8 9 it to its full decommissioned state. We have done some cost estimates, as I'm sure 10 11 we mentioned earlier, that indicate based on the prompt-that we need approximately 425 million 12 dismantlement, 13 dollars to complete the job, and that includes the 20 years of storage of the fuel on-site. 14 We have collected, through rates, at least 15 16 half of that amount, about 200 million dollars. We have 17 filed, as the gentleman pointed out, with FERC, to collect 18 the remaining cost to complete the necessary trust funds 19 to complete the decommissioning. We have filed with FERC, who will do a review, 20 21 and hopefully grant the ability for us to collect those 22 costs over time. And we expect to be able to do that, and 23 be able to maintain rates, to the rate payers in the area, 24 without any effect, because the savings that we are going 25 to get from shutting Connecticut Yankee, and buying the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W. (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 (202) 234-4433 _ -. - - _. _ -. ~.. 40 1 i power elsewhere, at a lower price, will pay for that 2 difference. 3 So we believe that whether it is Northeast 4 Utilities or somebody else that takes ownership of assets, 5 we are all responsible, under the law, to make sure that 6 this plant is decommissioned safely. 7 MR. REARDON: Question two. Recent newspaper articles indicated that the NRC will require CY to update j 8 9 the FSAR before proceeding with decommissioning. Could you elaborate on your plans of updating 10 11 the FSAR? 12 MR. LAPLATNEY: Jerry, that is very accurate. Not only do we have to revise the design basis of the 13 14 systems required to support spent fuel operation, but part 15 of that is we have to update the FSAR. We have to maintain an active FSAR right 16 17 through decommissioning, as well as a set of tech specs. We will have a plan, we will have a security plan. It is 18 19 the scope of the documents, the FSAR will be maintained. 20 It has to be updated and maintained. 21 MR. REARDON: Thank you. 22 MS. DEBOLD: The gentleman right on the aisle, and then we will follow him by the woman to his right. 23 24 MR. GUNTNER: Thank you. My name is Paul 1 I'm director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for 25

Guntner, i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000>3701 (202) 234 4433 . - -.. - ~ 41' e 1 Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, i 2 D. C. and I think one of the reasons that we are here, 1 3 today, up from Washington, has to do with what we believe 4 to be a precedent that is likely to be set with the j 5 Connecticut Yankee decommissioning under the new 1RC 6 decommissioning rules. 7 But what I'd like to address, just briefly, i j 8 Mr. Feigenbaum's remarks with regard to the fact that the l I 9 anticipation of 10 co-owners in Connecticut Yankee 10 basically pooling their efforts to cover what we see, in l 11 Washington, as an ever escalating cost of decommissioning. 12 I'm sure you are aware that the cost of l 13 decommissioning Yankee Rowe is a moving target right now. 1 14 And, already, it is up to nearly 400 million for that much 15 smaller plant. 16 The concern that I just think that shouldn't 17 be glossed over, here, is that this whole issue of 18 decommissioning is occurring at a very unstable time for 19 this industry, in terms of deregulation of the electricity i 20 market. i 21 And at the same time that your 10 co-owners 22 who are all nuclear power operators, would be seeking to 23 raise the cost to their consumers. There is going to be I 24 increasing competition, in New England, particularly, with j 25 regard to cheaper, safer, cleaner sources of electricity. j NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 42 And this is part of the problem that we are 1 2 facing, because -- and as the gentleman brought up before 3 us, the risk is that you will default on an un-4 decommissioned plant. leaving the whole issue of safety, 5 environmental quality, basically in limbo. And it shouldn't just be glossed over with 6 7 just a casual remark. This gentleman had a very good 8 question. 9 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Mr. Guntner, I'm not trying 10 to gloss over the issue. It is an important issue. The Public Utility Commissions in the various states around 11 are struggling with this issue of stranded 12 the country, of which decommissioning is part of that. 13

assets, certainly, the Federal Energy Regulatory 14 15 Commission is well aware of it, as are the utilities in 16 this nation.

It is a responsibility that we have to make 17 sure that these facilities that provided power all these 18 years, are safely decommissioned. 19 We understand that, I think the public utility commissioners around the country understand it. It is 20 being discussed on agendas on a daily basis. 2: 22 And I believe that it will be worked out, 23 because it is the responsible thing to do, it is the only 24 thing that is necessary to do, and the monies that we the monies 25 collect, I just want you.to understand, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 43 l 1 that are collected through rates, are put in trust funds, j i 2 where this money is dedicated, it can't be touched by the i 3 utility for any other purpose than for decommissioning. 4 And this is overseen and regulated quite a j 5 bit. So that money is protected, once it is collected, l 6 for the purpose of decommissioning. And, yes, the 7 industry is going through restructuring, and there is I 1 I 8 deregulation and competition coming. It is a very j 9 important issue to us, and I think to all of you in the 10 community, and this is an issue of stranded investment, l l 11 and commitment for service provided in the past, that has 12 to be dealt with. 13 So it is important,.and I'm not glossing over i 14 it, but I do believe that-through the process that we have i 15 in the government of -- before we move into deregulation, 16 that these issues'will be fully aired and worked out, and i 17 resolved successfully, so that we can be sure that plants, 18 like Connecticut Yankee, are decommissioned safely. 19 MS. KATZ: Hi. My name is Debby Katz, I'm 20 with the Citizen's Awareness Network. 21 I have a couple of questions. I was a little I 22 confused about some of the things that you presented. Not i 23 that you were confusing, but it just raised some issues 24 with it. 25 You were talking about doing evaluations for i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 44 1 the issues that were out of compliance with the reactor, 2 where the NRC is mandating that you do that. 3 But I had some confusion. It sounds like you were possibly only going to do the compliance issues that 4 5 would be effective under decommissioning, so that you were 6 not going to correct all the 50.59 errors that were 7 happening in the reactor, in total? 8 MR. LAPLATNEY: That is correct. ~ 9 MS. KATZ: Which is correct? 10 MR. LAPLATNEY: I'll try that again. That is 11 correct. Yes, we will, right now we have to plan the configuration with a limited number of systems required to 12 13 safely protect the fuel. ) i We have deficiency, and I'll give you the most 14 15 glaring one. Rosemary mentioned it, okay? We had a 16 problem with the containment sump suction not being adequate to provide net positive suction to the RHR pumps 17 18 on recirculation. 19 That means that we may not be able to get enough water from the containment to cool the core after a 20 21 large break LOCA accident. There is no longer fuel in the core, we have 22 23 certified to the NRC that we will never put fuel in the 24 core, it is a waste of money, of the citizen's and my 25 community, to fix that deficiency. There is no reason to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 _.m ._m. 8 4 45 l 1 go and fix that deficiency. l-l 2 We should focus our resources on safely 3 maintaining the fuel in the spent fuel building, and 4 fixing the things that are a problem. L 5 MS. KATZ: Oh, I agree that maintaining the 6 radiated fuel pool is terribly important. But since 7 reactor workers are going to be decommissioning the 8 reactor, just as they were operating the reactor, and they 9 are going to have.to cut ~it apart, and they are going to 10 potentially be contaminated in the process, the issue of 11 knowing how that reactor worked, and knowing what the 12 blueprint really means, and whether it is accurate, would 13 seem very important, given the kinds of exposures that 14 we've seen at Rowe, in a reactor that'was one-third the 15 size. 16 MR. LAPLATNEY: Okay. There were no-17 deficiencies noted in the structural prints or any prints or any design features that you'would have to have 18 that 19 knowledge in order to safely dismantle.it. The deficiencies were noted in the operation, 20 21 how does this system work, what is its flow, what is the 22 operating characteristics. \\ i 23 The issues you raised, if there happens to be i 24 one out there, we will certainly deal with it, but we are 25 being conservative, and we are including more things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 46 e 1 rather than less in the things that we are dealing with. 2 But something which clearly no longer applies, 3 is a waste of resources, and that is not approi taate. 4 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Just to complete our answer 5 on that, though. Jere talked about specific systems that 6 we may be dismantling them, and it doesn't make sense to 7 spend a lot of time and effort and money to update 8 drawings and specifications. 9 But there are some generic programmatic 10 issues, such as our radiological control program, which we 11 will fix generically across the board. Corrective action, 12 that is when we find a problem, how it gets fixed and 13 implemented throughout our processes. 14 Those kind of generic issues will get 15 addressed, everywhere, across the board. 16 MS. KATZ: You see, from the Rowe experience, 17 there were major problems, potentially, with the reactor 18 vessel. When that reactor shut down, those problems i 19 disappeared. And, as of yet, what has happened with the 20 Rowe reactor, has not fully been understood, even though 21 it could be very helpful, to the industry, in terms of 22 understanding embrittlement of reactor vessels. 23 We are concerned that the problems that may 24 have come up at Connecticut Yankee, will in fact be 25 buried, as the problems in Rowe were buried. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 -m- -si m,

S E,A5 J4 6-M A

s w* _.SM,ma 7 i 47 i 1 But I want to ask you about what maintenance i 2 ope. rations will be -- this is my last question. r 3 MS. DEBOLD: Well, the time -- if you will i 4 make it-quick. i i i 5 MS. KATZ: It will be a very quick question, 6 it may be a longer answer, I can't guarantee that. 7 I wanted to know what maintenance operations \\. I e 8 would be taking place during 1997, on the reactor, by 9 reactor workers. 10 MR. LAPLATNEY: The only activities that will 11 occur on the reactor vessel, as I see it now, is we may 12 take a radiation survey of the internals of the reactor 13 vessel, in order to make the calculations to safely ship 14 it. 15 So a radiological survey that would be 16 performed under water. The people are on top of the - 17 water, the shielding protects them from the vessel, so I i 18 would characterize it as very low risk, compared to some 19 activities, such as assembling and disassembling the 20 reactor. ' 21 MS. KATZ: So there is no other maintenance 22 work going on? 23 MR. LAPLATNEY: We do not need to maintain-a 24 reactor that is no longer going to be used, so we will not 25 waste exposure time or money on that. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 _.__..m.--._..___._ 48 I 1 MS. DEBOLD: I did say that I would call on ) i 2 one other person at this section, so I will call you to l 3 the microphone, then we will judge whether we move on to i i 4 the second part of the program. I 5 MR. FARBER: Doug Farber of Middletown, t 6 Connecticut. l 7 In the event that less than rational minds l i 8 prevail in the method of decommissioning chosen is prompt l f this is a multi-part question. What is 9 dismantlement 10 the anticipated mode of transporting contaminated 11 materials and components from the site. f 12 And will the public be made aware prior t.o l 1 13-transportation, as well as the route being taken? And 14 finally, what safeguards will be taken against, you know, 15 not that I want to sound paranoid, but vandalism and/or 16 terrorism. 17 MR. FEIGENBALH: We have made no decisions as 18 far as method of transportation, yet. And I think this is 19 the kind of issue, because it is an important issue, 2C about, you know, barges or trucks going through the 21 community, and what is the best way to do that with the 22 least risk and the least environmental impact. 23 This is the kind of an issue that we would i 24 expect the citizens, community advisory committee to help 25 us with, to air before we move forward, to talk about the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 l 49 1 way we are going to transport these major components, the-2 way it is going to go through the town, and get feedback 3 from the community about their feelings about that, and 4 how we should look at other options. 5 So I would say that we made no decisions in 6' that regard. We will get input from the community before 7 we go forward and make any decisions in that regard. 8 MS. DEBOLD: I'd like to move on to the RC 9 part of this, just to try to keep to our time schedule. 10 Save your questions. At the end, I'm sure, the people 11 from Northeast Utilities will be happy to answer them. 12 I've been a little flexible. Hopefully, some i 13 of the questions that you asked at this point will not 14 have to be asked again later. 15 At this point, I would very much like to ask - 16 - I've got to look at my -- Mike Masnik, from the NRC. 17 .DR. MASNIK: Good evening. My name is Mike 18 Masnik, I'm the section chief of the decommissioning 19 section of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I work 20 in Rockville, Maryland, at NRC headquarters. 21 I hope that most of you have gotten a copy of 22 a handout of my slides. Unfortunately, I didn't expect 23 quite so many folks tonight, and I did not provide enough 24 copies. However, it will be bound in the transcript. 25 Also, what we will do is we will put several NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE N W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701_ (202) 234 4433 l 50 1 sheets of paper up on the table there, and if you would 2 like a copy of the slides, you just leave your name and 3 address and we will mail them to you. 4 I have a number of other. "_ people here with 5 me tonight, and I would like to take a few minutes to 6 introduce them. 7 Steve Dembek, also from NRC headquarters, is 8 the immediate task project management for the Haddam' Neck 9 plant. Mr. Mort Fairtile, who is the current 10 decommissioning project manager for Haddam Neck. Mort is 11 an important person in the decommissioning of the plant. 12 He is the principal point of contact for the NRC. 13 Your second slide has all the pertinent 14 information for contacting Mort, if you have any questions 15 about the plant. 16 Also with me, today, is William J. Raymond, 17 who is the Senior Resident Inspector stationed full-time 18 at Haddam Neck. Mr. Raymond's immediate supervisor, John 19 Rogge, and his branch chief, John White, from our regional 20 office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, is also with us. 21 Also Mr. Dave Matthews, the Deputy Director of 22 the Division of Reactor Program Management. One of our 23 senior managers out of Rockville Maryland. 24 And Mr. Gene Holler, an attorney from the NRC 25 headquarters, with the Office of General Counsel. Gene is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 51 1 an expert on the legal aspects of decommissioning, and has 2 been an attorney on several recent shutdown reactors. l l l 3 Also with the NRC is Diane Screnci, also from 4 King of Prussia, and she works in the NRC Office of Public 5 Affairs. 6 And finally, I have also brought along Ms. 7 Etoy Hylton, from our branch, who is our licensing 8 assistant. ~ 9 As you can see, we've brought a lot of folks, 10 here, tonight, primarily to be sure that we have the right 11 people here to answer your questions, but also to listen 12 first-hand to your concerns about the transition of Haddam 13 Neck from an operating plant to a decommissioning plant. 14 The purpose of today's public meeting is to i 15 provide you with a little background on decommissioning of 16 nuclear power facilities, and to share with you the NRC's 17 experiences in our role of oversight of decommissioning of 18 power reactors. And, finally, to explain the Commission's 19 new regulations on decommissioning. 20 I first want to talk a little about 21 decommissioning of powe:. reactors. There are definite 22 stages in the life of a nuclear power plant. There is the 23 planning, the construction, the licensing, the operation, 24 and finally decommissioning. 1 1 25 Decommissioning is the last phase in the life NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 52 i I l' of a _ nuclear f acility, and its purpose is to remove the f i 2 facility safely from service, and reduce the residual 4 3 radioactivity of the facility, and the site, to a level i 4 that permits the release of the site, and termination of 5 the NRC license. } 6 Now, this definition is important as to what j i 7 it says, and what it does not say. The focus of the NRC 1 8 is limited, solely, to the removal of the radiologicil i I 9 hazards resulting from operation of the facility. 10 The fact that the licensee may choose to spend 11 additional funds to remove buildings from the facility, is 1 12 of interest to us, only if the material that is being 1 13 disposed of is radioactive. 14 Now, once the residual levels of radioactive 15 materials are reduced to below certain criteria,.either by 16 decontamination, or disposal off-site, then the NRC 17 license for the facility and site can be terminated. 18 Before the license is terminated, the licensee 19 has to perform an extensive, final survey that proves to 20 the NRC that the site is clean enough to terminate the 21 license. 22 The NRC may do a confirmatory survey to be 23 certain that the site is clean enough. Once the license j 24 is terminated, the NRC no longer has any regulatory 25 oversight over the facility or site. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 23 4 433 4 53 1 This is the ultimate goal with 2 decommissioning, the termination of the license. 3 Now, there is one other key phrase in the 4 definition of decommissioning,'and that is removing the-5 facility safely from service. Once the facility 6 permanently ceases power operation, there are a number of 7 systems that still are required to protect public health 8 and safety. 9 They relate, principally, to the safe storage 10 of irradiated spent fuel. The spent fuel pool and its 11 associated systems are the principal structure systems or 12 components that must be maintained operational. 13 Licensee activities that result in disposal of 14 contaminated and activated materials must also be 15 conducted in such a way as to safeguard public health and 16 safety, and to protect the environment. 17 Now, you may have noticed that I have not said 18 anything about disposal of the spent fuel. The spent fuel 19 will ultimately be disposed of in a U.S. Department of 20 Energy high level waste burial site. 21 Today, however, the U.S. Department of Energy 22 does not have an approved burial site for disposal of the i 23 spent fuel. Therefore, the-fuel will remain on the site 24 until a decision is made as to its disposal. l 25 Initially, when the spent fuel is removed from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 54 1 the reactor, it is both highly radioactive, and it i 2 generates a lot of heat. Over time, the radioisotopes 3 decay, and the fuel becomes less radioactive, and the i 1 4 amount of heat generated decreases dramatically. 5 However, even after many years, the radiation i 6 levels of the spent fuel are quite high, and radiation 7 shielding must be provided. 8 What most licensees are doing, are 9 constructing on-site storage facilities that store the 1 10 fuel in a dry condition, in large casks. These dry 11 storage facilities are thoroughly reviewed by the NRC i 12 prior to approval. 13 The storage facility is, typically, only a l 14 couple of acres in size, and requires minimal maintenance. 15 Concrete and steel shielding reduces the radiation to very 16 low levels, and the storage containers are construct.ed so 17 that there is no leakage of radioisotopes to the 18 environment. 19 So to summarize, decommissioning is the 20 removal of the facility from service, reducing the levels 21 of radioactivity of the facility and site, the levels that 22 will ultimately result in termination of the license. 23 NRC oversight activities relate directly to 24 the continued safe storage of the irradiated fuel, and the 25 proper decontamination and dismantlement of the facility. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 (202) 2344433 55 1 Now that I've provided you with some 2 background on the concept of decommissioning, I'd like to 3 talk a little about your experience with the actual 4 decommissioning of other power reactors in the United 5 States. 6 We've had 15 nuclear power reactors 7 permanently cease operation, and begin decommissioning 8 since the early 1960's. These plants, their location and 9 status, are given on the next slide. 10 I realize that it is difficult, for those of 11 you in the back, to read it. And, again, if you do not 22 have a copy of the slides and you would like one, 13 immediately after the presentation you can sign up for 14 one. 15 As you can see, we've had a fair amount of 16 experience in the area of decommissioning oversight. A 17 number of plants are in long term storage. A number are 18 actively being decontaminated and dismantled. 19 And one, the Shoreham plant, has actually had 20 its license terminated. The Fort St. Vrain plant in 21 Colorado, is also ver'/ close to having its license 22 terminated, as well. 23 You will notice under the column, " status" I 24 indicate for the most part, that we have facilities that 25 are either in long term storage, or decontamination and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 56 1 dismantlement. I 2 I would like to talk a little about these two l 3 options. Our regulations allow licensees, after j i 4 permanently ceasing operations, to decide if they would l 5 like to begin dismantlement immediately, or if they prefer 6 to store the facility in a safe, stable condition, for 7 some period of time, before they begin dismantling. 8 or they may conduct a partial dismantlemsnt, 9 followed by a storage period, ending with final 10 dismantlement. Our regulations say that under normal 11 circumstances, the licensee has 60 years to completely' 12 decommission the facility. 13 The decision as to store or dismantle 14 immediately, as I said, is a licensee decision. Some 15 years ago we performed a generic environmental impact 16 statement that looked at decommissioning options, and we 17 determined that as long as the licensee complied with our 18 regulations, either option, or a combination was 19 acceptable. 20 One of the principal reasons for arriving at 21 this conclusion is because the risk to the public health 22 and safety and the environment associated with licensee 23 activities at a nuclear power plant undergoing 24 decommissioning, is significantly less, than those at an 25 operating facility. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 57 l l 1 This risk continues to decrease over time, due [ 2 to_ radioactive decay, which reduces both the radiation l l 3 levels, and the heat generated by the spent fuel. 4 This reduction in risk, after a period of f l 5 time, is so significant, that many of the regulatory l l t l 6 requirements associated with plant operation are no longer i 7 needed. l 8 For. example, off-site emergency planning'in 9 many of the detailed technical requirements applicable 10 only to operating plants. These regulatory requirements f 11 are generally reduced gradually, based on a detailed 12 evaluation by the NRC staff of the risk. l l 13 Another example of our response to the i 14 reduction in risk is the ultimate elimination of the full 15 time resident inspector at a site, and the reliance on 16 inspections conducted by NRC specialists in the field of l 17 decommissioning. 18 Some regulatory requirements are eliminated 19 immediately when the plant permanently ceases operation. 20 An example would be the monitoring program for reactor 21 vessel embrittlement, l 22 So to summarize, there have been a number of 23 power reactors in the United States that are permanently i l 24 shut down, and are in the process of decommissioning. The i 25 NRC staff has considerable experience in the oversight'of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ' 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 236 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200 5 3701 (202) 23M ~ - .=... - ~. -. 58 1 \\ 1 these activities. 1 2 There is a gradual reduction in regulatory ] l 3 requirements on the licensees, as the decommissioning ) 1 l ~4 progresses. And this reduction is based on significant 1 1 5 reduction in risk to the public due to permanent cessation i l l 1 l 6 of power generation operation. l -l 1 7 I next want to talk a little about the 8 regulations governing decommissioning. 9 Now, the first comprehensive regulations 10 dealing with reactor decommissioning were promulgated in 11 1988. Based on the experience gained over the next seven 12 years, the Commission extensively revised the regulations 13 in the summer of 1996. 14 In July of 1996, the NRC published a final 15 rule making that substantially changed the decommissioning 16 process. Perhaps the easiest way to explain how the new l l 17 decommissioning rule works is by describing the process of 18 decommissioning from the regulatory perspective, for a 19 hypothetical nuclear power reactor that is nearing the end 20 of its normal life. 21 The licensee has decided not to pursue license i l 22 renewal, so the reactor is destined to permanently shut 23 down. The process is summarized in the next slide, and we 24 will talk a little about each of these steps. 25 Each power reactor licensee will, about five i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE M.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 4 59 r 1 years prior to the projected end of operations, submit a l - 1 2 preliminary decommissioning cost estimate. The pu:. pose of f l e 1 l 3 this cost estimate is to force the licensee to cycluate i how much money it would need to decommission the facility, 4 5 and compare it to how much it has in its decommissioning j 6 trust fund. 1 If the amount of money is inadequate, the 7 8 licensee has approximately five years to adjust the imount j i fund. 9 of money they have in their decommissioning trust l' The decommissioning trust fund is a fund that j 10 11 each licensee is required, by our regulations, to set up t i 1 12 to assure that there is sufficient funds to radiologically 13 decommission the facility when the time comes. i 14 Our regulations require about 350 to 400 15 million dollars, in today's dollars, for the radiological-l 16 decommissioning of an average 1,000 megawatt electric 5 17 reactor. 18 Typically these funds cannot be used for anything other than radiological clean-up of the facility. 19 20 Obviously, if a plant shuts down prematurely, as did 21 Haddam Neck, it cannot submit a preliminary cost estimate. However, they still are required to collect 22 the funds necessary for decommissioning the facility. 23 Five years go by, or the licensee decides to prematurely 24 25 shut down their reactor, and they cease power generating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 L 1 1 60 l 1 operations. The reactor is permanently shut down. The 2 3 licensee is required to submit written certification to 4 the NRC, within 30 days of the decision to permanently 5 shut down. The date of cessation must be specified. Once 6 7 the fuel has permanently been removed from the reactor 8 vessel, the licensee will submit a second certification to 9 that effect. Then the licensee will no longer be allowed 10 11 operation of the reactor, or allow the movement of fuel 12 back into the reactor vessel. This eliminates the 13 requirement to adhere to other certain regulatory 14 requirements only necessary for power reactors. once these two certifications have been 15 16 received by the NRC, the licensee can begin some limited 17 decommissioning activities, and can begin reducing its 18 licensing requirements on the facility. 19 For example, the regulations require certain minimum staffing requirements in the control room of an 20 Once the two certifications have been 21 operating reactor. 22 received, the licensee may apply to amend its license to 23 reduce the staffing requirements, and revise the based on the qualifications to certify fuel handlers, 24 25 assumption that the licensed power reactor operators are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 vw 61 1 1 no longer needed. i 2 After receiving the two certifications, the 3 NRC staff will likely hold a public meeting in the 4 vicinity of the nuclear site, to discuss the 5 decommissioning process with interested members of the 6 public. That is what we are doing tonight. 7 Within two years of permanently ceasing i l 8 operations, the licensee must submit a post-shutdown. 9 decommissioning activities report, PSDAR, to the NRC, with i 10 a copy to the affected states. 11 The PSDAR must include a description of the 12 planned decommissioning activities, along with a schedule 13 for their accomplishment, an estimate of the expected 14 costs, and a discussion that provides the reasons for 15 concluding that the environmental impacts associated with 16 site-specific decommissioning activities will be bounded 17 by appropriate, previously issued environmental impact 18 statements. 19 The NRC shall notice the receipt of the PSDAR 20 in the Federal Register, and make it available to members 21 of the public. The NRC staff will hold a public meeting 22 in the vicinity of the nuclear plant to allow the licensee 23 to present their plans for decoumissioning of the i 24 facility, to describe what the role of the NRC in the j 25 decommissioning of the facility will be, and to listen and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _. _ ~ - 62 i i respond to questions from. members of the public. l 2 The licensee is prohibited from undertaking i L 3 any major decommissioning activities until 90 days after i 4 they submit the PSDAR. The purpose of the 90 day period 5 is to allow sufficient time for the NRC staff to examine 6 the PSDAR, to publish notification of the receipt in the i 7 Federal Register, to hold public meeting in the vicinity 8 of the facility to discuss the licensee's plans for ' i 9 decommissioning, and to conduct any necessary safety ? 10 inspections prior to initiation of major decommissioning 11 activities. i 12 Ninety days after the NRC receives tue PSDAR, 13 and after certification of permanent cessation of l 14 operations, and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor i 15 vessel, the licensee could begin to perform major 16 decommissioning activities, without specific NRC approval, l i l 17 using a process described in Section 50.59 of the 18 Commission's regulations. 19 The new rule also imposed some additional 20 requirements on decommissioning activities by licensees. 21 The licensee is prohibited from performing any 22 decommissioning activity that would foreclose the release 23 of the site for possible unrestricted use, or result in 24 significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed, 25 or result in there no longer being reasonable assurance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344 433 l 63 l 1 that adequate funds would be available for 2 decommissioning. L l 3 So now the road is clear for the licensee to l 4 begin decommissioning in earnest. The PSDAR may call for l l l 5 the nuclear reactor to be placed in long term storage. So 6 systems would be drained, certain electrical systems 7 deactivated, and the nuclear reactor placed in a safe, t 8 stable condition. I 9 Or the PSDAR may call for immediate 10 dismantlement, in which case the licensee would begin to 11 take the nuclear reactor apart, and ship the contaminated 12 material to a burial site. I 13 This activity is expected to take several The NRC staff would actively be involved in the 14 years. 15 areas of reducing unnecessary regulatory requirements, on-16 site inspections, and licensee documentation of the safety 17 basis of their activities. 18 The NRC staff would continue to have i 19 interactions with the public and the affected states. 20 Two years prior to the planned termination of 21 the license, the licensee would submit a license 22 termination plan. The license termination plan would l 23 include a site characterization, identification of 24 remaining dismantlement activities, plans for site f 25 remediation, detailed plans for the final radiation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i I 64 survey, a description of the end use of the site if it is I I 2 restricted, and an updated site-specific estimate of 3 remaining decommissioning costs, and a supplement to the 4 environmental report describing any new information or 5 significant environmental change associated with the 6 licensee's proposed termination activities. 7 The NRC staff would, again, notice the receipt 8 of the licensee termination plan in the Federal Register; 9 make the plan available for public comments, and offer an 10 opportunity for a hearing on the plan. The NRC would also hold a public meeting in 11 12 the vicinity of the site to allow the licensee to explain 13 the license termination plan to the public, and to discuss 14 the remaining NRC activities associated with terminating 15 the license, and of course, allow the public to ask 16 questions. 17 The NRC approval of the license termination 18 plan will be by license amendment, which would authorize 19 implementation of the license termination plan. 20 The licensee would then continue to clean up 21 the site, perform the final radiation survey. The NRC 22 staff would continue to provide oversight during this 23 process. Next slide. The Commission shall terminate the license if 24 25 it determines that the remaining activities have been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 65 t I performed in accordance with the approved license i i 2 termination plan. And that the terminal radiation survey-l I r and associated documentation demonstrates that the [ 3 4 facility and site are suitable for release. f 5 Now, the above decommissioning process, from 6 permanent cessation of operations to license termination, 7 could take, at a minimum, 3 to 5 years, and at a maximum, i 60 years',..since the regulations allow for a licensee'to l 8 s 9 take 60 years. 10 It would likely take, if the licensee pursues l 11 immediate dismantlement, and commits to a reasonable level 12 of effort comparable with what we've seen at other 13 facilities to date, approximately ten years, with 14 approximately 150 to 200 people on-site, using contractors l 15 to do much of the work. 16 I'd like to end with a few specific comments 17 on Haddam Neck. The licensee has notified the NRC of its i 18 permanent cessation of operations, and permanent removal 19 of fuel from the reactor in a letter dated December 5th, 20 1996. 21 They now have two years to submit a PSDAR. As 22 we've heard tonight, they probably will submit that 23 sometime this summer, or late this summer. 24 During that time, or during the time between 25 now and when they submit the PSDAR, they will submit a f i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 66 l 1 number of amendment requests to their license, asking for 2 elimination of unnecessary regulatory requirements. 3 For example, we would expect the licensee to 4 submit an amendment request removing from the license 5 those requirements that deal with operations.

Now, 6

depending on what the licensee plans to do, the licensee 7 will either begin planning for dismantlement, or place the 8 plant in a safe stable condition for long-term storage. 9 That concludes my prepared remarks, and I 10 would like to entertain questions at this time. Yes, in 11 the front, there? i 12 MR. BLANCH: My name is Paul Blanch, from West 13 Hartford, Connecticut, ex-employee of Northeast Utilities. 14 Again, a lot of mistrust here, between the 15 public, the NRC and Northeast Utilities, and what we've i 16 heard tonight, really, doesn't further instill that trust. 17 We are calling this a decommissioning plan. 18 This is a decommissioning meeting. But, as you said 19 yourself, and out of the rule, it says, the NRC definition 20 of decommissioning excludes interim storage of spent 21 reactor fuel. 22 What is actually being accomplished here is a 23 transition from a power operation license part 50, to the 24 establishment of a high level waste site. 25 Now, the decommissioning rule does not address NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ~ 67 1 the storage, the safeguards, and so on and so forth, of 1 2 the spent fuel. That comes under another regulation that 3 was designed specifically for the storage of high level 4 waste and spcnt fuel, 10CFR72. l 5 What the NRC is doing here, with this new ) 6 decommissioning rule, is ignoring, and I do mean ignoring, l 7 the requirements for storage of high level waste. We have 8 specific regulatory requirements, in part 72, that 9 require, number one, a safety analysis of the dangers of 10 the spent fuel, such that you can determine whether 11 emergency planning is or is not required. 12 What I would like to hear, from the NRC, is ) 13 that because you are establishing a high level waste site, 14 here, how can you in good conscience ignore the 15 requirements of 10CFR72? 16 DR. MASNIK: Well, as you've said, there are 17 two separate sets of regulations, here, of course. And 18 nothing in the decommissioning -- the new decommissioning 19 rule leads me to believe that we are ignoring the other 20 regulations. 21 The other regulations are still in force. The 22 licensee can safely store the fuel in the spent fuel pool 23 for an extended period of time. That is permitted by the 24 regulations. If they should choose to go to a dry storage 25 option, they would be required by the regulations to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE, N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 i 68 1 submit a license application, just like every other 2 licensee, and that license application would be reviewed, 3 and if it is determined that the proposal io acceptable, j i l 4 under the regulations, they would be licensed to maintain 5 an independent spent fuel storage facility. I 6 MR. BLANCH: But, again, part 72 addresses any l 7 type of storage. You are alluding, or trying to convince 8 the public that it only applies to dry storage. It 9 applies to any storage of spent fuel. 10 These are the requirements that were 11 essentially approved by Congress, dictated by Congress, F 12 and now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going to 13 license a high level waste facility here, and not apply 14 the regulations. This is ludicrous. 15 We have regulations, we have a purpose, and as i 16 a member of the public, I think that we need to impose 17 those regulations, because that is what we are winding up 1 18 with, for probably the next 50 years. j 19 MR. MCCORMICK: I would like to know, from the .20 NRC -- my name is Tom McCormick -- if NU could do anything I 21 that would result in them not being. determined to be of a 22 fit corporate character to receive a license from you, to 23 decommission this plant. 24 We know they lie in public, consistently, l 25 about safety matters, telling us there is containment l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND A'd., N W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i 69 l i 1 accidents, when clearly the NRC, in one of your studies, 2 is saying there is at least five pathways out, not even. 3 including going.through the steam generator, directly to l L 4 the environment. 5 So.they lie about that. They lie, lie about ( 6 radiatic cangers. They keep telling us safe, safe, safe. 7 Yet when the International Commission on Radiation 8 Protection tells us at least 400 people die, per year, per i 9 reactor year, from the mining of the fuel alone, they say l 10 that is safe. 11 We know they lie to the state of Connecticut, 12 consistently, consistently, consistently, on matters 13 involving the cost of Millstone III. The plant cost 4 j 14 billion dollars, and I followed this very closely, the 15 best I can remember NU ever saying that plant was going to 16 cost was something like 2.6 billion dollars. l 17 I think that if you are a company, and you are 18 building a plant at 2.6, and it comes in more like 3.8, 19 you have a fiscal management problem, perhaps? 20 Do you foresee any circumstance where you f 21 would not allow them a license? They are being 22 investigated by the Attorney General for criminal 23 activities regarding polluting the Long Island Sound. 24 We know that there is a strong possibility

25. that they are going to receive further fines from you, and i

l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000 53701 (202) 234 4433 70 1 possible other criminal indictments from the Attorney 2 General of the Unit <ad States, for material false witnesses 3 regarding the sump screening at Connecticut Yankee. 4 Is there anything they can do, or do they have 5 carte blanche, sir? 6 DR. MASNIK: They do have a license, and we 7 are charged, as the NRC, to assure that the licensee 8 either operates the facility, or in this case, dismantles 9 the facility in a safe manner. 10 And we will continue our oversight of the 11 licensee, and obviously there have been some problems that 12 have been identified in the past, and they are serious, 13 and we acknowledge that. 14 But we will provide the oversight to assure 15 that the activities that are planned will be carried out 16 in a safe manner. I guess -- 17 MS. DEBOLD: Would you step up to the mike and 18 repeat the question, please? 19 MR. MCCORMICK: The questions are, what could f 20 Northeast Utilities do, as a holding company, to prevent 21 you from granting them a license, in this case? The 22 senior stock is going down, down, down, they could end up 23 in bankruptcy court. 24 Do you think they are a stable corporation? 25 What could prevent it? Just give me a little list, four NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000 #3701 (202) 234-4433 .~. - - - - -.- - . - ~ _ --. ; 71 1 or five factors that would prevent, if proven, different i i 2 factors of granting them a license to carry forward. 3 DR. MASNIK: Well, first of all, they have a l 4 license, there is no granting -- l 1 5 MR. MCCORMICK: But they will need a new l t 6 license, they will need a renewal. I i 7 DR. MASNIK: There is no renewal of the 8 license planned, here. They are in the process of I 9 terminating the license. I guess, you know, ultimately if 10 the situation is such that we no longer have any 11 confidence that the licensee can safely dismantle the 12 plant, there are provisions, under the Atomic Energy Act, 13 that the federal government would take over the facility. 14 However, you know, for years I worked on Three 15 Mile Island, and there was a situation where there was a 16 tremendous amount of money, there was a possibility of a 17 default involved. But through the efforts of the 18 licensee, and our efforts at oversight, that money was 19 scraped together, and they accomplished what they set out 20 to do, and that was, basically, place the plant in a safe, 21 stable condition. 22 So I don't know how else to answer your 23 question. 24 MR. MCCORMICK: One financial, do you think if 25 they were financially able to carry forward, you would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 72 1 remove them from the job of decommissioning and bring in 2 another agent to'do it? l l 3 DR. MASNIK: I think before we got to that, we 4 would compel them to provide the money. I mean,.it is not i l 5 a question of whether or not they choose to, they have to, l 6 okay? 7 If the company no longer exists because it l 8 goes into default, and there aren't sufficient assets to 1 -9 finish the job, then under the Atomic Energy Act, the 10 federal government has the authority to step in and take 11 over the process. 12 But I think that -- I mean, that is so far 13 down the road, we are nowhere near that point, yet. In 14 fact, this plant is in reasonably good shape, compared to 15 other plants that have shut down prematurely. 16 They have a considerable amount of money put i 17 aside. If they choose to place the plant in long term l l 18 storage, there is sufficient money there to take it for l 19 quite some time, until other funds become available. 20 Yes, in the back? 21 MR. HYMAN: My name is David Hyman. You said 22 that the NRC asks that the licensee have 350 to 400 23 million dollars for a 1,000 watt reactor, is that correct? 24 DR. MASNIK: That is correct. 25 MR. HYMAN: It is my understanding that Yankee NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i-l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200( 5 3701 (202) 2344 433 l 73 f 1 Rowe has spent in excess of 400 million dollars for their t j 1 2 decommissioning, and yet they are a third that size. Have 3 you considered revising your numbers, perhaps? l r 4 DR. MASNIK: Well, first of all, they haven't' l 5 spent that money. 1 i j 6 MR. HYMAN: I believe the actual number is 7 365. 8 DR. MASNIK: Well, they've estimated 425' 9 million dollars. 10 MR. HYMAN: They originally estimated 50, so - 11 12 DR. MASNIK: Yes, I grant you that. 13 MR. HYMAN: But still, they are one-third the 14 size. I mean, what you are talking about is funds that 15 would, in fact, cover one-third of the dismantling here. 16 What does the NRC suggest -- 17 DR. MASNIK: No, no, no. The number 350 to 18 400 million dollars is an estimate for 1,000 megawatt 19 plant, electric. This is -- 20 MR. HYMAN: Well, what is the megawatt at 21 Yankee Rowe? 22 DR. MASNIK: That is roughly one-third of 23 that. 24-MR. HYMAN: Correct. Therefore, if Yankee 25 Rowe has spent 360 million, and they are not done, and i i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 l- 74 1 they are one-third the size, if you multiply that number 2 by three, I believe you come up to somewhere a little over 6 3 one billion dollars, is that correct? i 4 DR. MASNIK: I guess I'm having trouble -- 5 MR. HYMAN: Isn't that correct? I 6 DR. MASNIK: No, they have not spent anything. i 7 MR. HYMAN: It is a free job? 8 DR. MASNIK: No, they have not spent any' money 9 yet. They have not accessed any of the funds that are in i 10 the decommissioning cost fund. 11 MR. HYMAN: How much has Yankee -- 12 DR. MASNIK: Oh, Yankee, I'm sorry. 13 MR. HYMAN: Rowe spent to take apart that 14 reactor, sir? How much? 15 DR. MASNIK: I don't know the answer to that, 16 at this point. 17 MR. HYMAN: Well, I'll tell you what, if you 18 could possibly come up with a number at some point, it 19 would be nice. Let's move on, if you would, because I 20 know that there are other people that would like to talk 21 to you. 22 There is a handout over here on the table, 23 that I was looking at, and there is a quote here from a 24 Federal District Court Judge, in a case that the Citizen's 25 Awareness brought with the NRC. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 3 J1 (202) 234 4 433 75 i* 1 And the quote goes as follows: "This course i 2 of conduct by the NRC suggests a concerted bureaucratic 3 effort to thwart the efforts of local citizens to be heard i l 4 about an event that vitally affects them and their i 1 It calls to mind the activities of Charles 3 5 children. 6 Dickens' fictional Office of Circumlocution in Bleak i j 1 4 f 7 House. The prospect that this tax may be used nationally, l 1 8 as more nuclear plants shut down, and more local citizens i i i 9 groups express concern about the impact of the process on j l' 10 their lives is to put it mildly, disquieting." s-i 11 So this is a federal court judge talking about 4 l 12 you. Now, somebody here, earlier, made reference to the i 13 trust that is trying to be established here. i 14 I was wondering if you could comnent on this ) 15 quote, and what the NRC is doing to try and regain our l 16 trust. t 4 17 MR. HOLLER: If I may, sir, my name is Gene { l 18

Holler, and I'm an attorney with the Office of General l

19 Counsel with the NRC. 20 The court case that you referred to, CAN 21 versus the NRC, was addressed to the regulations in force 4 i 2 22 at the time that the Yankee Rowe facility began its 23 decommissioning. Subsequent to that, the commission has ] r 1 24 published and promulgated the new regulations. j 25 In more detail, for those that are interested, 1 i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 76 l l j 1 in the statement of considerations accompanying the new { 1 2 regulations that talked about, referred to, and that were. 1 i 3 published on July 29, 1996. ~ j j 4-The Commission addressed those matters that 5 the Court in CAN v US found to be deficient. Primarily i i 6 the Court perceived that the Commission had not adequately I 7 provided the reasoning for the NRC's change in [ 8 decommissioning. 9 That has been explained, and has been 1 1 10 promulgated with the new rules that are in effect. -The 11 Court also had some problems with decommissioning i ) 12 activities taking place prior to meeting the appropriate 13 National Environmental Protection Act reviews. 14 Again, the Commission, in the new rules, has 15 provided for that. Specifically, a licensee may not 16 undertake decommissioning activities, as allowed in this 17 PSDAR, without explaining how they fall within the 18 environmental impact that had been previously assessed in 19 the generic environmantal impact statement, or the 20 specific environmental impact statement for the plant in j i 21 question. 22 Lastly, the Court also perceived that the 23 Agency had approved the expenditure of funds for { 24 decommissioning before approval of a decommissioning plan, 25 and thereby triggering hearing rights, or possibly NEPA i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433 j i 77 l 1 reviews, National Environmental Protection Act reviews. 2 Again, the new regulation sets forth specific l 3 rules, criteria, for the expenditure of those funds, and l l 4 those specific NRC approval, therefore, is needed to do l t t 5 those. l 6 In sum, the commission takes the position that j i 7 it has explained the rational for its revised ( l 8 decommissioning rules, that the Court in CAN v U.S. l 3 l 9 despite the colorful language that you cited that the l 10 Court used to emphasize certain points, that they -- the ) I 11 Commission has addressed those concerns that the Court had I 12 with the 1988 rule, and as it was applied in the Yankee 13 Rowe proceedings. i 14 And that the Court did not specify any 15 specific approach that the Commission must take in 16 promulgating decommissioning rules. 17 MR. HYMAN: Thank you for addressing these 18 concerns. I was wondering if you could address my 19 original question. What are you doing to try and regain 20 any confidence that we might or might not have? 21 MR. HOLLER: Yes, sir. Briefly, the 22 Commission, in the new rules, has provided for, as Dr. 23 Masnik has pointed out, first of all, the opportunity for i 24 early public participation in the form of a meeting. l 25 MR. HYMAN: Does that include public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005.3701 (202) 23M433 l 78 1 disclosure of documents, specs, radiation doses to public, 2 to the workers? We are talking about operating this 3 decommissioning in the light of day, are we not? 4 MR. HOLLER: Yes, sir. I think we are sort 5 of getting into speculation, and if you have a specific 6 question there? 7 MR. HYMAN: No, that is not speculation. I'm 8 really quite -- 9 MR. HOLLER: So that we don't become 10 argumentative, let me answer the first part of the 11 question, first. And your question was, what is the NRC 12 doing to re-establish trust? To begin with, as Dr. Masnik 13 has pointed out, the NRC conducts, early on in the 14 process, the public participation meetings. The licensee submits the PSDAR, it goes onto 15 16 the docket, it is publicly available in the local public 17 document room, as well as copies can be obtained. The 18 public is invited to comment on it, a public meeting is 19 held, where it is discussed. 20 So early on in the process, that participation 21 takes place. Mere importantly, as the decommissioning 22 process proceeds, and prior to termination of the license, 23 which is really the more important step, because that is 24 the part where the NRC, after the termination of the 25 license is no longer in the process. NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 79 I 1 Again, the licensee must submit a termination l 2 plan, which includes specific radiation surveys, a report i 3 on tnoas hings that are still required before j 4 decommissioning is finished, an update on the cost and l j 5 monies available for decommissioning, and the approval of 4 6 that is through a license amendment process. i l j 7 Which, again, provides not only the 8 opportunity for public participation and comment, but for p 9 the public to request a hearing on the final approval of 1 10 the termination plan. 1 11 So in sum, through the long process, early 12 involvement with the public, when th'e licensee first comes 13 out with its post-shut down decommissioning activities and a continuation of having things available in 14

report, 15 the public docket, and finally with an opportunity to 16 review and comment on the termination plan.

17 MR. HYMAN: I respectfully submit, sir, that 18 despite the opportunity for hearings, discussions, 19 etcetera, concerning Yankee Rowe, there was no movement 20 until court was brought into it. It leads one to believe that your process of 21 22 hearings and panels and meetings is merely a lot of hot 23 air, and that it is not taken very seriously by the NRC. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. HOLLER: Yes, sir, I take your opinion. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISt.AND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33 80 l 1 Thank you. l 2 MR. MELLOR: Russ Mellor. Just to provide a t 3 point of fact for Dave Hyman. Rowe's cost of l 4 decommissioning, as estimated in its 1995 FERC case was l 5 341 million, and that is on out through the entire \\ i 1 6 decommissioning. That includes dry storage, it includes t 7 things that the NRC isn't concerned about, such as removal j i I 8 of buildings. t 9 So it is a long process, and that money hasn't \\ 10 all been spent, nowhere near has it been spent. i 11 MR. KATZ: My name is Fred Katz, I live in l 12 Rowe. It is my understanding, and I think you sort of l 13 said it, that the only time for the public to have an i I' 14 opportunity for a hearing, that is an adjudicatory 15 Hearing, is after the entire process is complete. Am I I 16 right? 17 DR. MASNIK: No, it is not quite right. 18 Whenever there is an amendment to the license, there is an 19 opportunity for a member of the public to request a 20 hearing. And there will be a number of license 21 amendments, as this plant proceeds down to -22 decommissioning. 1 23 MR. KATZ: 'I didn't quite understand what you t 24 said. But I'm still laboring under the assumption, or the 25 understanding that the only time that the public will have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 l - ~81 l l 1 an opportunity for a hearing on decommissioning, is after 2 decommissioning is complete. t i 3 DR. MASNIK: Well, the only time that -- the 4 license termination plan that I spoke of, and that Mr. j l 5 Holler also talked about, requires a hearing, an l 6 opportunity for a hearing. j i 4 7 But, during that period of time, any change to f i 8 the Haddam license, which requires a license amendment, l 9 there is an opportunity for a member of the public to i 10 request a hearing. 11 MR. KATZ:.Well, hasn't there been a change in l 6 i 12 the license of Yankee Haddam in terms of their shutting 13 down and going into decommissioning; or is that not a 14 change? l 15 DR. MASNIK: No, that is not a change -- l l 16 MR. KATZ: Is there an opportunity for a 17 hearing? i 18 DR. MASNIK: That is not a change in the 19 license. 20 MR. KATZ: I see. It is not a change in the 21 license, but it is a change somewhere? 22 DR. MASNIK: Well, it is a change in the 23 status of the facility, that is correct. 24 MR. KATZ: Which doesn' t require the of feririg 25 of an opportunity for a hearing. Now, the opportunity for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 82 was it not? hearing was available under the old rule, 1 a 2 MR. HOLLER: Excuse me, sir. If I understand l 3 your question correctly, the question was, was there an j And the opportunity for a hearing under the old rule? I 4 f and there is an opportunity under the new 5 answer was, yes, i t 6 rule. The difference is the timing of it. Under the i 7 I 8 old rule -- l 9 MR. KATZ: When the amendment for -- at the and now the opportunity comes 10 possession of the license, i 11 after the decommissioning is over. i is this not a concerted bureaucratic r 12

Now, to thwart the ability of citizens to have a voice i

13 effort i r 14 in matters that affect them? 15 MR. HOLLER: I would submit to you, sir, not. l I think what Dr. Masnik was trying to explain, and perhaps 16 17 this may clarify it; if the licensee were able to go from i 18 an operating plant, and doing those activities that are t i l authorized by its license to the point of completing all 19 [ of its decommissioning activities without the need for any 20 a theoretical case if you will, f 21 amendment of its license, ) then they could get to that point which you suggest. 22 23 However, it is highly unlikely that a licensee would be able to go from the point of operating a plant, 1 24 to conducting all the activities necessary for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l WASHINGTON. O C, 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 (202) 234 4433 .w,, 83 1 decommissioning without the need for some license 2 amendments, changes to its license. i 3 Now, each change to its license presents the 4 opportunity for notice to the public of that change, and 5 an opportunity to request a hearing. 6 Ultimately, when the licensee has gone through 7 the process of just prior to terminating the license, he 8 still has a license, then the mere fact of presenting its 9 final plan for termination of the license, itself, 10 presents the opportunity for another hearing, for the 11 opportunity to request a hearing. 12 MR. KATZ: So, in other words, Connecticut 13 Yankee is operating -- or its license is an operating 14 license right now? Whatever activities are going to take 15 place will take place under its operating license? 16 MR. HOLLER: Correct. Yes, sir. 17 MR. KATZ: So that will make it possible for 18 them to use the opportunities that are presented by the 19 50.59; is that right? 20 MR. HOLLER: What the gentleman is referring 21 to is 10CFR, the code of Federal Regulation 50.59, which 22 allows the licensee to engage in other activities, as 23 described in its FSAR, if it meets certain criteria? 24 MR. IMTZ: See, this is very circumlocutious, 25 you see? Because at Rowe what we experienced was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 7344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 84 1, 10CFR50.59 being utilized in a closed reactor, and usually 2 that regulation is used for operating reactors, which we j 3 found very puzzling. 4 But now you are telling me that since the ') i license has been changed, they can use it, and it is 5 6 perfectly all right. 7 In terms of invoking any trust, what I'm i 8 experiencing right now, is having my head twisted ar6und i 9 in a circumlocutious way. I think that this is an example 10 of what Judge Ponzer was talking about. 11 MR. HOLLER: All I can say, sir, I take your 12 point. I think we have probably reached the point of 13 where we both understand the positions that we've taken, f 14 and I don't know if we will accomplish anything more. 15 MR. KATZ: Well, I understand it perfectly 16 well, but we will have no opportunity to have a hearing on 17 the choice of the decommissioning option. 18 MR. HOLLER: That is correct. 19 MR. KATZ: That is correct. Thank you. It 20 doesn't leave me feeling very trustful. 21 DR. RAYBLATT: Please stay, because I have a 22 question that involves -- 23 MR. HOLLER: Your name, please? 24 DR. RAYBLATT: My name is Dr. Rayblatt, and 25 I'm from Bridgeport, Connecticut. I received a letter NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 2000#3701 (202) 234-4433 --- - -. - -. - - ~ - 85 1 1 from Mr. Seymour Weiss, who unfortunately is not here i 2 tonight. And in that letter which is concerned with 3 information regarding the fraudulent tests on TMI II, that { i 4 resulted, finally, in the worst disaster in the history of 5 generation of nuclear power in the United States. ? 6 And the reason why I was denied the 7 information I was seeking, was that there is no health 8 significance, anymore, since the plant is shut down. 9 My question to you is, since the Haddam Neck 10 at CY is going to be, or actually is, permanently shut 11 down, does this mean that any information that otherwise 12 would have been made available to citizens, would not be l 13 available anymore? -1 14 DR. MASNIK: In the situation that you've 15 explained with TMI, I think your request was to require 16 us, the NRC, to produce that information. And require the 17 licensee to submit it. 18 And, basically, we came to the conclusion that 19 since the plant --- could you let go of the mike, please? 20 If you would let go of the mike please, it is causing 21 interference in the system. Yes, that 3.s fine. 22 The Agency took the position that they were 23 not going to compel the licensee to provide that 24 information. Now, any information that is provided to the 25 NRC, and any information that is provided by Haddam to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 +-r- -.A y- .ry g.- e,--, -. - 86 i 1 NRC, or that we require of Haddam, is put in the public 2 docket. 3 And that public docket is available to i 4 everyone. That information is down at the local public 5 document room in Middletown. We were there today, and it t i i 6 is accessible. 7 DR. RAYBLATT: This is not true. Simpl3, I I 8 have a document which says that the report of the vital i 9 leak rate test of the containment system on TMI II has i 10 never been placed in the public documents room, until 11 February of 1996, 18 years, or 17 years after the l 12 disaster. 13 The report on structural integrity test, the i 14 test that shows whether the containment can withstand is not available even today, has never been 15

pressure, 16 placed, according to response to my FOIA.

i 17 And Mr. Weiss, he is the person who is 18 responsible for such things, for violations, severe 19 ' violations of Freedom of Information Act. t 20 As a matter of fact, today, I filed a petition 21 to punish Mr. Weiss and the NRR, much more than it was 22 done by removing Mr. Taylor and other heroes, Russell. We 23 must change the staff at the NRC. 24 Until people like Weiss and other heroes are 25 there, we are not sure that things will be done right. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 87 1 These people are simply puppets of the industry. I 2 MR. CLEW: My name is Harvey Clew, C-L-E-W, 3 from Haddam, I'm a selectman here, which is our version of 4 the Town Council. 5 Several years down the road Haddam may wish to 6 make sure of the Connecticut Yankee site to produce tax 7 revenue, or for residential purposes, or recreation 8 purposes, or something or other. 9 Forgive me if you've covered this, but have 10 any decommission -- are any decommissior. sites now in use 11 for something other than nuclear power generation, and do 12 any of these sites contain nuclear fuel, high level i 13 nuclear fuel, or other nuclear waste? 14 DR. MASNIK: We've only -- of course, Shoreham 15 is the only one that has -- a recent plant that has been 16 decommissioned. I know that there is some plans at other 17 facilities, but they haven't come to fruition, yet, to re-18 power the sites, using gas and gas turbines. 19 In fact, one of the plants that I work on, 20 Trojan, is actively pursuing that, and they plan to have 21 an independent spent fuel storage -- this dry storage 22 facility, so the fuel would be on-site, and they are 23 planning to convert the turbine deck into a couple of gas 24 turbines. 25 So I don't believe that there are any NELAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 88 1 facilities that have undergone that sort of conversion, 2 but there are some that are planned. And there is no 3 reason why that can't occur. I mean, we would have to 4 look at the safety significance of whatever activity-is 5 planned for there, if we do have nuc of these dry storage 6 facilities, there. 7 Of course, if the license is completely 8 eliminated, and the fuel is shipped off-site to a 9 permanent repository, then the licensee would be free to 10 do whatever they want with the site. 11 MR. CLEW: I'm aware of that. My point is 12 that it may be very difficult to get anyone else to occupy 13 this site for any other purpose, as long as there is 14 nuclear fuel there, or any other suspicion that the site 15 is still contaminated, or dangerous in some way. 16 Now, the Trojan plan, of course, they are very 17 familiar with radioactivity and so on. But most people 18 aren't. My point is, won't it be difficult for -- to make 19 some other use of this site, as long as there is nuclear 20 fuel there. 21 DR. MASNIK: You may be right, I clearly can't 22 answer further than what I just said. 23 Yes, Debbie? 24 MS. KATZ: I just wanted to make a clarifying 25 point, because you keep bringing up the Shoreham reactor NIL 4L R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 23M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ( - =.-...- -. - - _ __. - 89 ^ 1 as the one reactor that is decommissioned. That reactor 2 was only in operation for 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />. And so it really i 3 didn't operate for very long, so its decommissioning isn't 1 l i 4 quite the same as Connecticut Yankee or Yankee Rowe. ( l 5 I just felt that was clear. And the other l l 6 point is that the site will, in fact, remain contaminated. l 7 Reactors are allowed to leak 15 milli-rem a year about i i j B background radiation, at site, according to your own l 9 regulations. i 10 DR. MASNIK: The gentleman in the back with l l 11 the black shirt. 12 MR. MALONEY: Hi, I'm Tom Maloney, from the 13 Connecticut River Watershed Council. And I would just 14 like to re-emphasize a que~stion that was raised by 15 somebody over here, and maybe follow up on selectman 16 Clew's point. 17 Did I hear correctly that there will be no 18 opportunity for a public Hearing to discuss 19 decommissioning options? Which I think the community here i 1 20 would be very interested in having that opportunity to 1 21 discuss what options the utility might take in the future. 22 MR. HOLLER: Gene Holler, again. Just so we 23 are clear, there is an opportunity for the public to l 24 comment, both in writing, and there will be a public l 25 meeting similar to this one, once the licensee has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 _ _.. - _ = -. 90 \\ \\ 4 l 1 submitted its PSDAR, the post-shut down decommissioninc l 2 activities report. i 3 If you mean a hearing in the sense of an l 4 adjudicatory hearing, then the regulations do not provide l 5 for an adjudicatory hearing. They do provide, though, for j 6 public comment on what the licensee chooses to put in its 7 PSDAR. 8 MR.-MALONEY: Even in the event that the PSDAR i 9 prescribes something that is a fundamental change in the 10 existing license? 11 MR. HOLLER: Well now, again, we are getting 12 into the previous discussion we had. If the licensee were l 13 proposing to do something that is not a?. lowed under its l 14 license, such that it would require a fundamental change, 1 l l 15 if that is the background you set up, then hat 16 fundamental change would require a license amendment, and 17 then there would be an opportunity for a hearing. 18 But, again, we are talking hypotheticals and 19 it is difficult to do that. 20 MR. MALONEY: Right. But in the event that'it 21 is just a PSDAR there is not a public hearing? 22 MR. HOLLER: That is a correct statement. 23 MR. MALONEY: Okay. 1 24 MR. HOLLER: And the licensee then is 25 proposing in'its PSDAR to do those things that are allowed NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 l s s 91 1 under its current license. 2 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Ted'Feigenbaum from Northeast { 3 Utilities. Again, as I said earlier, once we go through 4 1997 and decide on the options, and research and evaluate l 5 the best methodology, we will come to the public, we will j t 6 talk about why we selected the option we did, and we want [ 7 to hear your input, we want to get your input. ~ 8 And if you don't feel comfortable at a public 9 meeti"g, you can come to my office, we will sit down, we 10 will go over it in detail, what the issues are, and we'd 11 like to hear your input. 12 You can mail us information. So I think there 13 will be plenty of opportunity for the public input, and we r 14 do want to get it, and we do want to receive it, and we do 15 want to consider it. 16 MS. DEBOLD: I know that your question relates 17 to this statement, is that correct? i 18 ANSWER: Yes, ma'am. 19 MS. DEBOLD: If you want to come to the mike I 20 will recognize one quick short question, and then, if we 21 may, in an effort to keep this to the timetable that we 22 established earlier, I'd like to begin a comment period. 23 The names that are on the list who have signed 24 up, we will go through them, but I will explain that after 25 your question gets answered, and hopefully -- thank you. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt>ND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 6 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 i 92 i 1 QUESTION: What we are trying to say, sir, is 1 [ 2 that you are making a decision, and then allowing us to l I 3 comment on it, or vent. 4 What we are saying is, we would very much like i 5 to be a part of the decision making process. And that is j 6 not allowed, at this point, by you. We are asking for l 7 that to change. You are asking for our support and our 8 trust. ] l 9 By excluding us from the process, I believe t } 10 you are diminishing, greatly, that trust. Thank you. i 11 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you for helping us get 12 through the question and answer period. The next part of j 13 the session is a period of public c:o.nment. I had hoped 14 that we would have time for a break, but I think 2n the 15 interest of giving everyone a chance to say what they wish j 16 to, we will continue. a j i ~ 17 If you need to leave, if you would just leave l 18 quietly, and otherwise we will go right ahead. i d* There are two papers that are sign-up sheets t 19 20 that people have signed up on. Some of you who have 21 signed up may not wish to speak. There are about 40 names 22 listed 23 It was not clearly, and that is my fault, 24 noted that the two sheets I'm holding are for making a 25 comment that would be record, and hopefully will be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 93 1 responded to'at a later time, not at this time, by either 2 the utility or the NRC. l 3 So I'll start with the names on the list, and 4 read them and we will go right in order. If you wish to 5 be excused or excluded or say pass or whatever, we will 6 take you off the list if you don't want to speak. 7 I'll give you the first five' names, and you 8 can arrange yourselves in that order. Thomas LaGuar'dia, 9 Donald Eggett, Paul Jacobson, Charles -- sorry about that. 10 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, if you 11 could give us the name yourself. 12 And then I think the fifth one is Nick 13 Williams. So is Thomas LaGuardia interested in speaking? 14 Good. Step right up, and after him it will be Donald 15 Eggett. 16 If you keep it to two minutes, please. 17 MR. LAGUARDIA: Thomas LaGuardia, President of { 19 TLC services. We are'in the decommissioning planning and 19 field services business. 20 The work that has been done in decommissioning 21 the plants, to date, has been done safely and with public 22 interest at heart. Public health and safety, as well. 23 The work that goes on during decommissioning 24 is drastically different than what goes on during 25 operations. The systems that are used to maintain and' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 94 I 1 operate a plant in a safe operating condition, are not of 2 concern in decommissioning. t 3 In decommissioning the only concern is, where 4 is the contamination, and how do we deal with it? And [ 5 this has been done safely, repeatedly, at decommissioning k 6 projects dating back from the early 1960's. I I 7 The planning that is being done now by this 8 utility, and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a'nd all 9 of the contractors that work in this industry, is done 10 with the interest of protecting public health and safety, j 11 and our own workers. 12 I have a stake in this. Every time I bid a 13 job my house is on the line, to fund and to support the i 14 project. I have an interest in public safety, and the-l 15 safety of my workers, and all the co-workers. 16 This is a safe industry. It is the safest i 17 industry in the decommissioning field, because it has been 18 done with experience based, now, some 30 odd years long. i i 19 Thank you. 1 20 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. Donald Eggett, 21 please. Followed by Paul Jacobson. 22 MR. EGGETT: My name is Don Eggett, I'm with ) 23 Commonwealth Edison in Chicago. I didn't really plan to 24 come here, it was just an opportunity to come here because 25 I was in the neck of the woods, here, at Tom LaGuardia's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000M701 (202) 2344 433 ~ 95 l 1 office. 2 I just wanted to respond to one of the 3 questions regarding re-powering or other future 1 4 alternative uses that was brought up by one of the 5 comments. l 6 Fort St. Vrain in Colorado has re-powered a 7 gas turbine unit, 133 megawatts, and they plan to re-power 8 two additional 133 megawatt gas turbines, on site. They 9 do have an independent spent fuel storage facility, which 10 is on site, under the part 50.72 license. 11 I agree that the spent fuel issue is something 12 we have to deal with. But as you probably know, that is 13 the Department of Energy's responsibility, today, and we 14 have to work with them. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. Paul Jacobson? Nick 17 Williams, please. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Nick Williams, from 19 radiological services of New London, Connecticut. I'm a 20 lifelong Connecticut resident. 21 I'd like to echo Mr. LaGuardia's comments. I 22 was a radiation protection manager on the Shoreham 23 decommissioning, which is mentioned with a reactor that 24 didn't operate very long. l 25 However, there were about four million pounds NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 .___.._.___.-.____.____.____.._....___._m,_ 96 ~ 1 of radioactive material shipped from that site, and dose i 2 rates of up to 1200 R per hour, so it was fairly 3 significant. And we had very good cooperation and 4 reaction from the public, and als.o we had extensive NRC 5 involvement, even long after the license was terminated, 6 we still had follow-up and review, and incredibly thorough 7 work by the NRC in that project, to the satisfaction of 8 the general public on Long Island. 9 That is it. 10 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. Let me give you the 11 next few names. James McClear, if you would speak next. 12 Then we have Ted Feng, Ernie Woods, Adam Levin, and 13 William -- looks like -- I'm going to say Fair, but it is 14 -- but we will get it in a minute. 15 How about Ted Feng, please? Ernie Woods, 16 please. 17 MR. WOODS: I have a short, prepared Good evening, my name is Ernest Woods, I've 18 statement. 19 lived in Haddam for forty years, and I've been an employee 20 at Haddam Neck for 15. I have spoken to you many times, in the past, 21 but I'm here 22 on the techs and economic viability icsues, to reassure you that the decommissioning of the 23 tonight Haddam Neck plant will be performed safely. 24 I have the utmost confidence in the leadership i 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33 97 1 of Bruce Kenyon, President and CEO of NU nuclear, and the 2 management of CY. 3 At the Haddam Neck plant, safety is stressed 4 over and over, every day. Station management continually 5 states that no job is so important that safety has to be 6 compromised. 7 The employees and management are sensitive to 8 the concerns of the public and safety, environmental, and 9 radiological issues. 10 We, myself as a worker and also a town 11 resident, is confident that the decommissioning process at 12 Haddam Neck will be completed correctly, safely, 13 professionally, and in a timely manner. 14 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. Adam Levin, please. 15 MR. LEVIN : No comment. 16 MS. DEBOLD: William -- 17 ANSWER: No comment. 18 MS. DEBOLD: I'll never find out the last 19 name. Kim Medeiros, please. 20 MS. MEDEIROS: I'm going to forfeit my time to 21 Debbie Katz. i 22 MS. DEBOLD: Fine. Although she is down here i 23 later. Do you want to go now, Debbie? 24 MS. KATZ: Yes, I'11 take it now. 25 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 23& 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 t 98 1 MS. KATZ: What we experienced at the Rowe i l I 2 reactor in Massachusetts was the meltdown of democracy. 3 Yankee Atomic engaged in experimental decommissioning that we believe exposed workers and the public to unnecessary 4 f 5 radiation. l 6 And the people that are accountable for this f I i i 7 are the NRC. Yankee Atomic is a corporation, it is their i 8 job to do the decommissioning and to get rid of the ' l 9 radiation. 10 The reality about nuclear power is that it is 11 a dirty technology, and it contaminates everything it l 12 comes in contact with. And what you have left after 30 13 years of operation, is an enormous amount of contaminated 14 waste that is really deadly, and you have to find another 15 community to dump it on, to get rid of it from the site it I 16 is on. I i 17 This raises ethical issues about what we do 18 with waste, in terms of who do we contaminate, what 19 communities suffer the sacrifice of increased exposure to 20 radiation, and increases in disease. 21 In our community, we have an epidemic of 22 disease that we fear is related to long-term exposure to 23 radiation from that reactor going into our local Little 24 River. 25 But Rowe removed over 136,000 curies from that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISt.AND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l 99 1 reactor without an approved decommissioning plan. And 2 when we won a court case against the NRC, and the NRC was 3 found to be arbitrary, capricious and utterly irrational, 4 in their allowing the stripping of the Rowe reactor, and 5 when the NRC was found to have violated the national 6 environmental policy act, the administrative procedures 7 act, and the atomic energy act, and was told by the court 8 that decommissioning is a major federal action, and you 9 cannot skirt that by calling it another name. i 10 The NRC made a new rule in which 11 decommissioning is no longer a major federal action, in 12 which there are no longer hearings allowed for citizens to 13 be involved in matters that vitally affect them, like how 14 do they want their community contaminated, and do they 15 want other communities contaminated in the process of 16 having themselves cleaned up. 17 And what do we do with this incredible problem 18 of nuclear waste that, in fact, we have no solution for. 19 And what we are doing is shifting it from pillar to post, 20 because this whole process is bankrupt, and nobody knows 21 what to do with it. 22 And instead of creating a policy that will i 23 allow looking at it, we are creating a very dangerous 24 precedent. I want to acknowledge that we think that NRC 25 is in violatio1. CAN v NRC at this point, in terms of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 r 100 \\ l' that Appellate Court decision, and that you are operating j 2 outside the law. i t i 3 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. Brian Wood. All i 4 right, I'm not seeing Brian. -How about Tom Cleary? j -1 5 MR. CLEARY: No comment. 6 MS. DEBOLD: No comment. Paul Blanch? 7 MR. BLANCH: Again, Paul Blanch from West 8 Hartford, Connecticut. i 9 Just to expand on some of the issues that I l 10 brought up in the questioning of the NRC. We have a basic l 11 credibility problem, here, with the NRC and with Northeast 12 Utilities. 13 I have six inches worth of Inspector General j i 14 reports on my desk, that report on the incompetence and 15 false statements made by various levels of NRC people, to 16 the public, to Congress, and so on and so forth. I 17 We just don't have the confidence that the NRC l i 18 is going to do their job. We've already seen an 19 indication, tonight, how they are going to ignore the 20 requirements for high level waste storage. 21 If we remember, a few years back, it was 22 proposed to site low level waste storage here in 23 Connecticut. There was a public outcry. We don't have, 24 and will not have low level waste storage. 25 But yet, what is going on, what I hear tonight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 101 1 is, we are going to have high level waste storage, and we 2 are going to have no requirements for a high level waste 3 storage. j 4 Why do we need requirements? We need i 5 requirements, specially a safety analysis report, which is 6 required by part 72. This safety analysis report will 7 determine what the risk is associated with the storage of 8 spent fuel. 9 Why do we need that? We need it so that we 10 can determine whether there is a credible risk, such that 11 do we need off-site emergency planning? Do we need safety 12 related cooling systems? Do we need qualified operators? 13 All these questions beg answers. What we are 14 seeing tonight is, anyone can do just about anything they l 15 want, because there are a total of 102 words covering l l 16 spent fuel storage in 10CFR50. 1 17 We look at part 72, it goes on for probably 20 18 or 30 pages, and it is a rearonable regulation, and I urge l 19 you to r.ddress everything contained within part 72. l 20 Thank you. l 21 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you, Paul. Next I have 22 John Block, followed by Paul Guntner, and Gerald Reardon. 23 Do those people wish to speak. 24 MR. BLOCK: My comment is addressed to 25 something that has not been discussed this evening by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 . -.... - - - -. ~ t 102 i 1 either the NRC or the utility. And perhaps it wasn't i 2 included in the nda, because it seems to have been left 3 out of the NRC's rules, even its new rules. ( 4 And that is, the need, in the NRC's rules, to 5 have a mandated, economic decommissioning plan for every 6 area of the country that is affected by the process of 7 shutting down a large scale industry that employs many, 4 8 many people, and moving it away, so that the tax base of a 9 community is sometimes irreparably damaged by that shift. 10 And people have been speaking of Shoreham. 11 Well, the people out in Shoreham got a real surprise after 12 they had been continuing to tax Wilco to run their school, 13 and found that millions of dollars that they had taxed the 14 utility for, have to be paid back. 15 And I think that unless something is done to 16 demand this kind of an economic plan that includes 17 planning to retrain workers, relocate people, and in the 18 long term assure the economic viability of towns that have 19 come to live on the largesse of having a very large 20 employer there, that is suddenly going to go away, that 21 nothing will be done, the towns will be left in ruin, in 22 addition with being left with big piles of waste sitting 23 there for long periods of time. 24 So I think that my comment is addressed to the 25 NRC, that it is time to have a rule making, not only to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 103 t deal with the need to increase decommissioning funds. 1 2 I mean, this was mentioned here previously and i 3 it is absolutely ludicrous for you to stand up there and 4 listen to somebody tell you that a reactor a third the 4 j 5 size of this one is going to cost, you know, something on 6 the. order.of 360 million, and you are not requiring that i they have funds sufficient to pay for the decommissioning. j 7 8 Why isn't there a rule that requires that there be economic dislocation planning for every community 9 4 10 that has to experience what this one is going to 11 experience, and what Rowe experienced, and what Shoreham 12 experienced. 13 So it is time for that rule making. That is 4 14 my comment. l 15 MS. DEBOLD: Paul, you are the next one. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. GUNTNER: Just briefly. I think that 18 we've heard, quite eloquently this evening, that there is 19 some very real concerns that the public is being removed 20 from this process, and that the Nuclear Regulatory 21 Commission -- when the rules don't work to shield the 22 industry, the NRC changes the rules. 23 And I think that given that in this era of 24 electric industries deregulation, when the rising 25 competition associated with this out of control NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 23M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 1 104 1 decommissi ning costs, what we are faced with is the 2 public left holding the bag, without a voice. 3 And I think that my message here is that the 1 i 4 warning clearly goes out, tonight, that it is our 5 responsibility as a democracy, to reclaim our voice, and i 6 take our stand. 7 MR. REARDON: Gerald Reardon, Newington, 8-Connecticut. The spelling is the same. 9 I have in my hand two documents that were 10 recently issued. They both speak to the public's trust 11 and confidence in Northeast Utilities and the NRC. 12 The first document is a 300-plus page report 13 that was issued by the Department of Public Utilities, 14 State of Connecticut, on December 31st, 1996. 15 It says a lot of things about Northeast i 16 Utilities maningement. None of them very flattering. ) i 17 The second report was issued in November, by 18 the Citizens Awareness Network, and the Nuclear 19 laformation and Resources Services. 20 It is a petition for enforcement, a 2.206 to 21 the NRC, and it is focused on CY operations and its 22 management. Again, it is not very flattering to that 23 organization. 24 In total, they represent serious doubts l 25 whether NU is capable and ethically -- on an ethical and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. '102) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 105 \\ 1 competency basis, to operate as well as decommission any l j 2 of their nuclear units. i 3 And I urge the NRC, I beg the NRC, to tonight 1 4 establish a coiamitment that will address and resolve all 5 the issues raised in both these documents, prior to any r 6 further steps to be taken about CY's decommissioning. i 7 I'd like to speak, also, to the point of l 8 estimates in the nuclear industry. I want to bring to ) 9 your attention that when Millstone III was initially -- ) l 10 began its construction, and these are very round numbers, 11 these are estimates of estimates, it was estimated that' 12 that plant would cost 800 million dollars. 13 When it was completed, the cost of that plant 14 was 3.6 billion dollars. It is the nature of the nuclear 15 industry, in my past 25 years in it, that estimates are 16 grossly under-estimated in factors, as a previous 17 gentleman mentioned, of three to five, and I would not be 18 surprised in the order of magnitude, would be the final 19 cost to CY's decommissioning. 20 Thank you. 21 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you, Mr. Peardon. Next we 22 have -- I'll read through the names of the next few, so 23 you can get ready. I have Peter Smith, Rosemary 24 Bassilakis, I've got Debbie Katz again, but maybe you will 25 weit until the end, this was the second request. We will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 I 106 1 go to David -- looks like Koffer. 2 We will do those in that order, if we may. 3 Peter? Peter must have left. Rosemary? 4 MS. BASSILAKIS: I want to make it very clear 5 that this meeting does not satisfy our decommissioning 6 concerns. 7 What we want is an adjudicatory hearing, where 8 we are allowed to question both the NRC and the utility, 9 under oath, and that we have disclosure of their records. 10 We want to have meaningful input in the decommissioning 11 process. 12 We want to participate in pollution prevention 13 and control. We don't accept the new decommissioning 14 rule, and we believe it is unconstitutional. 15 We further want decommissioning to be 16 recognized as a major federal act. And because of that, 17 we would like it to have to be in compliance with the 18 national Environmental Policy Act. 19 Further, as a good neighbor policy, we would 20 like prior notification to all releases from the reactor, 21 into both the air and the water. And we would like prior 22 notification to any waste shipments off the property, 23 starting now. 24 We would like something like an 800 number set 25 up, where we can call to be notified of this information. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 107 1 We would like to have a resident inspector on-site, 2 throughout decommissioning, given Northeast Utilities' 3 track record, or bad track record, should I say. 4 They are under criminal investigation, that is 5 not a petty deal. We would like a resident inspector 6 there at all times. 7 And although this has never been done before, 8 I would like to see the reactor put on the watch lis't. 9 Although it is not operating, it should be on the watch 10 list, until they are proven to be willing to follow NRC. 11 compliance. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. David? 14 MR. KOFFER: Yes, my name is David Koffer. I 15 was puzzled. This was originally going to be a question 16 having to do with the NRC's additional reqairements on 17 decommissioning activities, and I was confused in that the 18 licensee, which in this case would be Haddam, was 19 prohibited from performing any decommissioning activity 20 that results in significant environmental impacts. 21 And it occurred to me that since the only dump. 22 actually available for radioactive waste disposal in this 23 country is Barnwell, which is in South Carolina, and since 24 it is an acknowledged fact that the Barnwell dump is 25 leaking into its aquifer, and since the dump is unlined, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l 108 1 and since, if you went into Haddam tomorrow and said, you t 2 propose the Barnwell dump is what they should do for their 3 municipal waste,.they would laugh you out of town. r 4 Clearly, putting nuclear waste in an unlined 5 dump that wouldn't make standards for a municipal waste 6 dump in most states, is going to result in significant t 7 environmental impacts. f i 8 And I was going to ask what interpretation of f 9 their own rules the NRC was able to use to spin this 10 around not to be a problem. l 3 11 But since the question period is over, I'll l i 12 just frame it as a comment, and just ask people to j i 13 remember that the end of the process that the NRC is i 14 proposing here isn't some magic -- isn't a technological l 15 quick fix answer, it is just that a small town in South 16 Carolina gets poisoned more, as it has been for a number 17 of years. i 18 And it is not really any reason -- they didn't 1 19 buy into that, they didn't ask for that, and that is 20 something that we should consider when it is a question of 21 Haddam trying to get rid of all the radioactive liability 22 on land it owns, to fulfill what it sees as its 23 responsibilities for its shareholders. l 24 That is all. 25 COMMENT: There was a gentleman who wrote a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 23 4 433 _.___________._.__.m., 109 1 book about the truth about Chernobyl. He was the high i 2 Soviet bureaucrat in the nuclear agency there. And he i 3 went there to investigate and report to the Politburo, and 4 basically he was kind of given the charge, find out the 5 truth, but make sure the truth is this. I i 6 And I think that is too much hapoening in this 7 country, also. And he refers to the international 8 agencies, and the NRC, and the nuclear utilities, as the 9 nuclear mafia. 10 And I think that is really a quite accurate I 11 assessment of the situation. That you simply are engaged j 12 in an act of criminal syndication to foist mass murder on t 13 the population of the earth. t 14 Whether it be the 400 that die per reactor 15 year, from the mining of uranium, from those that die of i 16 breast cancer all around plants around the United States, 17 those that are dying from Chernobyl, those that are dying 18 and have died from atmospheric nuclear tests, you simply 19 are engaged in mass murder, and thus are criminal, and are 20 part of a criminal conspiracy or syndicate. 21 And there is really no other way to view you, 22 and I wish my fellow citizens would delve into that view a 23 little further. Because it is certainly my belief very 24 true. 25 Mr. Feigenbaum says he wants to be a good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 . _. _ _ _ _. ~. _ _ _ _. _._._.m.____ 110 1 neighbor. Logic simply dictates, a good neighbor does not 2 dump poisons in one's public waters. Does that mean, Mr. 3 Feigenbaum and Northeast Utilities are now going to cease 4 dumping chemical and radioactive poisons into the 5 Connecticut River from Connecticut Yankee? 6 or if -- because if we follow logic, that 7 means if they dump poisons, they are not a good neighbor. l 8 So, are they going to be a good neighbor? 9 And that leads me to a request. I would like 10 the NRC's best estimate for further releases, airborne, and affluent, involved in decommissioning from Connecticut 1 i 12 Yankee, precisely what types, kind, and radioactive levels 1 13 will we be seeing during the decommissioning of 14 Connecticut Yankee. 15 And I'm simply concerned -- I'm very 16 conservative. Right, liberty -- what is it, life? Would 17 some conservative help me here? Life, liberty, pursuit of 18 happiness, U.S. Constitution? 19 I consider the dumping of poisons in the 20 public water an attack on my right to life. And I would 21 hope my federal government would protect my right to life. 22 And if you are not, I guess you just proved my point, you 23 are part of that criminal syndicate. 24 And I will close with one observation. Ne 25 heard a comment that closing down Connecticut Yankee was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 111 1 going to save the rate payers money. And by saving the 2 rate payers money, we are going to be able to have more 3 money for decommissioning costs. l l' 4 Well, I'm not sure what Connecticut Yankee l i 5 cost is to produce power, but we will say five cents a 6 kilowatt hour, for the sake of argument here. Millstone 7 must be over 20 cents a kilowatt hour, Seabrook must be 25 8 cents plus. 25 cents, 30 cents a kilowatt hour. l l 9 Does that mean Northeast Utilities is going to i 10 shut down Millstone III, shut down Seabrook, and buy 11 cheaper power and give the money back to the rate payers? l 12 Thank you. 13 MS. DEBOLD: David Hyman, followed by Fred l l 14 Katz and Stacy -- is David here? Fred? 15 MR. KATZ: I'm Fred Katz, and I just have -- I i 16 briefly want to say that my presence and my little 17 participation here, I want to make sure is not construed 18 as my assenting to this process as satisfying, in any way, 19 the requirements under the Constitution, and under the 20 Atomic Energy Act. 21 That an opportunity for a hearing be presented 22 at the point that a license amendment is required at 23 decommissioning. So that I believe that NRC is engaged in 24 a concerted bureaucratic effort to thwart the intention of l 25 the Constitution, the Congress, the Atomic Energy Act, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 236 4433 112 i f the citizen's participation in events that vitally 1 o 2 affect them. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. DEBOLD: Stacy, Barbara Day? Tom Maloney, 5 you are next, followed by Art Collins and Walt Czaka. l 6 Tom, did you wish to speak, is he still here? All right, l he may have spoken his words earlier. 7 How about Arthur Collins Junior? Walt Czaja. l 8 l 9 After Walt is Robert Groves. 10 MR. CZAJA: My name is Walt Czaja. I'm a minority selectman in the town of Haddam. 11 Being a mechanical engineer, I've always felt 12 that there was a place in this world for nuclear power. 13 And I based this on the fact that several years ago, one 14 of the very few times he was on public television, Admiral 15 16 Rickover said, that it is the safest type of power you can 7 providing you have the right people running the 17

have, 18 show.

He always maintained that the problem between 19 and the nuclear reactors on a nuclear submarine, 20 i they have professional people 21 commercial reactors are, running the reactors on a submarine, and they have people 22 with MBA's running nuclear power plants. 23 This is Hyman Rickover talking, and I agree 24 25 with him completely. And this is what has happened. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2W433 (202) 234-4433 - -.... -.. ~. -. -. - -. - - - - -. ~. -.. ~ 113 t L 1 Now, we are in a position in town, where-we l 2 are going to suffer from the standpoint of taxes. But, if' l 3 decommissioning shall.take place, it shall take place. 1 4 But the things that I cannot fathom, as I just spoke with l l 5 Mr. Nericcio about, and I've talked many times with Ernie 6 Woods, you people are dedicated people that do your job. i 7 You've worked over there to the best of your I 8 ability. The problems are, I feel, are in the top echelon d 9 of Northeast Utilities, which always have said, we are 10 your good neighbor. I have no trust in these-people, even 11 today. Including Mr. Kenyon, after that public address 12 statement he.made over to our people in the business 13 community, in East Haddam, here about a month ago. 14 Just a bunch of drivel. The same general, run 15 of the mill statements that any politician would make to 16 its constituents. 17 But let me tell you why I suspect, and have no 18 trust in these people. They have told us they are going 19 to shut down this facility, which I think, from a 20 standpoint of maybe 40 to 60 million dollars, could be put 21 on line to NRC specifications, and continue to live its 22 life and generate power. 23 Now, remember this. That this facility has i 24 had an outstanding record over the years. It was number 25 two reactor in the country, okay? Now, we are in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 23M433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433 j 114 l 1 position where we are going to retire this reactor. 2 Okay, our top echelon management in Northeast 3 said they are going to save 120 million dollars. And yet 4 our Public Utilities Commission, our Attorney General only 5 recently said, that they suspect mismanagement to the tune 6 of 600 to 800 million dollars of Northeast Utilities, over 7 the last several years. 8 Now, does it take a kid in the first grade to 9 understand the mathematics of what that statement I just 10 made to you, is? Now, who in heaven's name is really 11 telling us the truth? I suspect that either what the 12 Attorney General is telling me is true, and if it is, we 13 should never be shutting this plant down. 14 But if this is the case, we have no choice. l 15 This is why I have no confidence in these people who are 16 now going to direct the decommissioning of this facility. l 17 Thank you for your time. l 18 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you, Walt. Bob Groves is 19 next. Ray, he must have left also -- Mr. -- I'm not sure. 20 Rich Badon. Next name I don't have a good -- 21 COMMENT: I already spoke. 22 MS. DEBOLD: Thank you. Tony Nericcio? Peter 23 Bowman. 24 MS. BOWMAN: Peter is out of the building at 25 this time, and my name is after his, so if you want me to l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 115 i 1 I 2 MS. DEBOLD: Sure, why don't you please come i } 3 up. 4 MS. BOWMAN: Thank you. I think we should be 5 talking about the decommissioning of all the plants right [ t 6 now at Northeast Utilities, and under their control. I 7 wish we ware. l t i 8 I was going to ask a question, and I also i 9 didn't realize that the question and answer period would f 10 be over. But I have something on my mind that worries me, j 11 and I do need a response. 12 The Department of Energy is planning to enlist 13 nuclear -- commercial nuclear reactors to volunteer to [ i 14 have plutonium loade) fuel roads, called MOX, mixed oxide 15 fuel, in commercial nuclear power plants, for the reasons 16 that they've listed in the papers, I don't have to go into } 17 that. t 18 I would like to know, since Northeast l 19 Utilities is in a pretty precarious position financially, 20 in a period of deregulation and possible competition, 21 whether Northeast Utilities is looking to the Department l 22 of Energy to volunteer either Connecticut Yankee or any of j 23 the other plants, to be rebuilt, as they have to do, and 24 to process these plutonium fuel roads, which is weapons 25 grade plutonium, which would be then transported, and then i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M433 i 116 1 finally put into the reactors. 2 And I understand that 13 utilities have 3 volunteered already, and I would like to know if there is 4 any discussion going on, I would alert -- if you haven't 5 already thought of it, the public here, to keep your eyes 6 and ears open, and try to monitor this. 7 And I would like a response from the NRC, and 8 if it is directly directed to me by letter or by pho'e, n 9 then I will pass it on. But another correction -- a 10 question was asked, whether any other nuclear plant that 11 had been decommissioned was in a position where other 12 forms of energy were being used. 13 And, actually, the Sacramento Municipal 14 Utility District shut down a nuclear plant, which I 15 believe was Diablo Canyon, I'm not sure which one. Rancho 16 Seco, thank you. 17 And they are presently using clean energy and 18 conservation to service their public. And it would seem 19 to me that the public here, the people here, should get 20 right on the ball with their legislators, and in this 21 period of deregulation and reconstruction, insist that 22 Northeast Utilities either shut down completely, as a 23 corporation, or convert as Sacramento Municipal Utility 24 District did, to alternate clean energies and 25 conservation, or that the public -- public control of its ) NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND A'K., N W. (202) 234-4433 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 117 1 utilities, public control of the electricity that has to 2 be put into people's homes and into factories r.nd 3 businesses, that this be a major change. 4 That we have clean energy, clean safe jobs for 5 the workers who are presently, specially the transients 6 and the people who go into the hot parts of the plant, who 7 are risking their health and their enildren's futures -- 8 their children's health, and have to work in these f'ilthy 9 dangerous plants, where you don't see, smell, or taste the 10 danger, but it is there. 11 These people would then have jobs in clean, 12 solar based energy, and would be able to use their skills 13 effectively, there, for the people. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. DEBOLD: And is Mr. Bowman here? 16 MS. BOWMAN: He hasn't come back. 17 MS. DEBOLD: He hasn't come back. I have no 18 further names on my list. But I did agree that I would 19 stay until 10. If there is anyone else who wishes to 20 speak, or I don't know what Northeast Utilities or the NRC 21 be willing to take a question or two, since we cut people 22 off early. 23 If you would like to ask a question, if you 24 would step to a mike after you've gotten the okay, then we 25 will let you announce who you are. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 -~ 118 i 1 Let's start with the next hand that is up. If ) 2 you would make sure to identify yourself and who you want 3 to answer the question, so that they will start listening. 4 MR. MCCORMICK: Tom McCormick, it is for the 5

NRC, And Paul, if you would please help me out here.

In 6 New London, there was an NRC hearing where I asked about 7 the possibility of criticality in a spent nuclear fuel 8 pool, and what would happen if there was a loss of ccolant l 9 in a spent nuclear fool pool that was fully loaded, or at 10 least say five or six years of fuel in there. 11 And a gentleman from the NRC said, yes, that 12 pool could go critical, conceivably, at.least in terms of l 13 physics, if there was a loss of coolant. 14 And at that time, I believe, there was a 15 statement from an NRC person that as part of re-opening 16 the Millstone facility, that there would be a full 17 evaluation of what would happen in a loss of coolant l 18 accident to a spent fuel pool. 19 Yes, I've heard it, and other people have 20 heard it. I would like to know what is the status of that 21 study, and when we will be seeing a full-fledged spent 22 fuel pool study of a fully loaded pool. 23 DR. MASNIK: I'm not prepared to answer that, l 24 because I know nothing -- well, I don't know nothing, but 25 I know very little about what is occurring at Millstone. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ... -. - - - - -. -. -. - ~ .. _. ~. -. - -. -. - - - 119 1 Is there anyone else on the NRC staff here ( 2 that has a response to that? l 3 (No response.) 4 I can address in general terms what might l l 5 happen. Obviously, it is highly dependent on how long the 6 fuel has been taken out of the reactor. And, over time, 7 the danger decreases. 8 So after a number of years, there could i>e a 9 loss of coolant accident with very little consequence, 10 other than extremely high radiation fields in the area of 11 the pool. 12 Now, if it occurs early on, there is the 13 possibility that you could have a fire, basically, and a 14 release of radioactive material to the atmosphere. i 15 The pool is designed so that a loss of coolant 16 accident is a very, very small probability. There is 17 other sources of make-up water to the pool. They are 18 typically redundant, in some cases, five or six different 19 sources of water. 20 The probability of a pool failing 21 catastrophically, and the loss of liquid at auch a rate 22 that it could not be made up, is close to incredible. 23 MR. BLANCH: Again, this is Paul Blanch in 24 response. And you just supported my point, before, that I 25 made before. You are not sure what that probability is, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l 120 l l 1 I'm not sure what it is, I don't know what the 1 2 consequences are. I have a good idea. 3 This is why we need a complete safety ] i 4 analysis, to determine what that risk is. Nobody knows. 5 The NRC has promised it to us, we are still requesting it. 6 Now they are reneging on their promise. 7 But I believe that before Connecticut Yankee 8 goes into decommissioning, we need a full safety analysis l l l 9 to determine what these risks are. And the NRC is { 10 extremely reluctant to provide that. l 11 MS. DEBOLD: Is there anyone else who would 12 like to ask a question? Rosemary. Again say your name 13 for us, and to whom you wish to ask your question. 14 MS. BASSILAKIS: Either the NRC -- actually 15 the NRC should be able to answer this. Rosemary 16 Bassilakis. 17 As far as the reactor goes, since there is 18 going to be no maintenance being done, I'm just curious 19 whether or not anything like cutting up control rods are 20 considered maintenance. 21 MR. FAIRTILE: That is an operation that is 22 commonly done at operating plants, and it is done l 23 underwater, and it is a routine operation. 24 MS. BASSILAKIS: But it won't be done prior to 25 the decommissioning plan being submitted to the NRC. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 121 1 fir. FAIRTILE: I have no idea what the 2 licensee schedule is. Ted? 3 MS. BASSILAKIS: I was hoping the NRC would be 4 able to answer it, since they are the ones overseeing the 5 utilities. 6 MR. LAPLATNEY: My understanding of the 7 regulation is, there is nothing prohibiting us from 8 cutting those up, okay? We have 45 control rods in the 9 cavity. In order to take the water out of the cavity 10 right now, we would have to do something with those rods. 11 We may choose to cut them up, we may not. It 12 is not a major activity, it's been done many times. It 13 was done at Connecticut Yankee a couple of years ago. 14 That is not a major decommissioning activity. 15 That is my take on it, Rosemary. 16 MS. BASSILAKIS: So you may do that, before 17 you submit your partial decommissioning plan to the NRC. 18 My point is that -- 19 MR. LAPLATNEY: We may or we may not. And 20 we've done it before at Connecticut Yankee. That is an 21 activity under our current license that we have 1 22 participated in. i 23 MS. BASSILAKIS: I guess my point is, since 24 you are no longer an operating facility, what happens from 25 now forward is part of decommissioning, and that if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l 122 1 workers are going to incur a certain dose of radiation, 2 that this should be considered under decommissioning. 3 MR. LAPLATNEY: I understand your point. You 4 are asking about the total dose commitment. You know, I 5 think we will end up discussing that. I think that will 6 be one of the issues we will be talking at our meetings 7 with the Committee, and I'm sure you recognize we are 8 going to invite your group to be on this committee. ' I 9 Quite frankly, we are aiming to reduce the j l 10 dosage to extremely low levels. Connecticut Yankee is one I r 11 of the most highly contaminated plants in the country. 12 The Environmental Impact Statement is something like 1200 13 rems at Connecticut Yankee. We intend to come well below 14 that from this point forward. 15 That is our goal, so there was questions about 16 will we give numbers, will we give effluent? We will give 17 you everything we have. This stuff is in the docket. We 18 docket every six -- it used to be every six months, now it 19 is every year, all the ef fluents from Connecticut Yankee. I 20 We will continue doing that. This information 21 is provided as a matter of record. If you want to come 22 visit connecticut Yankee, I'll give you a meter, and you 23 can measure the radiation yourself. This is going to be 24 an open process. 25 MS. BASSILAKIS: I would like to find out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 123 1 before the six months are up. I know that you file every 2 six months, but we want to know before the beans are out i 3 of the can. 4 MR. LAPLATNEY: You are talking if we are 5 planning a release or something like that? You know, we 6 will talk about that. I just -- right now I'm trying to 7 think of a process to do that, but we can certainly 8 discuss it. It is all a matter of public record. 9 MS. BASSILAKIS: Call an adjudicatory hearing. 10 MR. LAPLATNEY: I don't preside over 11 adjudicatory hearings. 12 MS. BASSILAKIS: I understand. Thank you. 13 MS. BOWMAN: I wanted to ask my question both i 14 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to Northeast i 15 Utilities. 16 And that is, if my previous point, if my 17 previous question, if there is any approach by either the 18 DOE or the utility to consider restructuring for the use 19 of MOX, will the public be told; at what point in the 20 process will the public be told, and who and how. 21 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Ms. Bowman, Ted Feigenbaum, 22 Northeast Utilities. There is absolutely no plans to use 23 mixed oxide fuel in any of the Connecticut reactors. 24 And if there ever was a change in that 25 approach, we would certainly make that public. NELAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 124 1 MS. BOWMAN: How? 2 MR. FEIGENBAUM: But there are no plans to do 3 that. 4 MS. BOWMAN: How and when would you make it 5 public, at the first contact, or after the decision? 6 MR. FEIGENBAUM: All our contacts with the NRC 7 are public, those are in the public document room I 8 mentioned earlier. 9 MS. BOWMAN: I'm talking about the DOE. 10 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Same thing. Same deal. We - 11 - all those letters and correspondence -- 12 MS. BOWMAN: Well, I wouldn't know how to 13 access that information. Could you tell me how? 14 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Well, anything that deals 15 with the regulations, we send on the copy of the NRC, and 16 that ends up in the public document room, which is here in 17 Middletown. So it is all a matter of public record. And 18 something as significant as that, we would also have a 19 press release, and a public statement. 20 But, again, I'm talking about a hypothetical. 21 There is absolutely no plans to use mix oxide fuel. 22 MS. BOWMAN: In any of your plants? 23 MR. FEIGENBAUM: In any of our plants, that is 24 correct. 25 MS. BOWMAN: Thank you. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 _._____...____m .______m_._ 125 0 1 MS. DEBOLD: Maybe this could be the last 2 question. Let's have this one be the last question, and 3 then I will make a comment or two. Yes, Debbie? 4 MS. KATZ: I had my hand up, as well. 5 MR. REARDON: Jerry Reardon, Newington. My 6 question is for Dr. Masnik of the NRC. 7 In your presentation you listed a series of new plants that have been shut down for decommission'ing. 8 9 Amongst them are Dresden. I recollect, some years ago, 10 where the NRC had issued an inspection report, identifying 11 that that utility had allowed their containment heating to 12 be shut down, which subjected their cooling water pipes to i 13 the spent fuel pool, to freezing conditions, and had also 14 allowed their spent fuel pool water quality to degrade to 15 the point where there was actually algae, as an old 16 swimming pool that has not been chlorinated. 17 Has NRC obtained any lessons learned from that 18 activity, and what have you put in place to assure the 19 public that such violations of just general maintenance s 20 conditions-don't occur, again, under the NRC's nose. 21 DR. MASNIK: The Dresden plant was in long-i i 22 term storage, and you are correct in saying that there was l l 23 a rather cold weather, which resulted in the freezing of a j-24 pipe. 25 And after we -- after we did an investigation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 126 1 at Dresden, which resulted in a civil penalty, we 2 conducted a series of inspections at all shut down plants 3 that had fuel in spent fuel pools. 4 We've also reviewed all the procedures 5 associated with cold weather precautions at these plants. 6 And to answer your question, yes there was a lessons 7 learned document that was prepared in response to that 8 event. 9 And we are confident that the licensees have 10 gotten the word, and additionally, our inspectors are also 11 sensitive to that issue. 12 So the answer is yes, we learned a lesson. 13 MR. REARDON: In response to my previous plea 14 to you, and the NRC tonight, can you commit to the public, 15 the general public, to address and resolve both those 16 documents that I spoke to, in my previous discussion? The 17 DPUC report, and Citizens Awareness Network's petition 18 before proceeding further? i 19 DR. MASNIK: I can't commit to that, no, I 20 cannot. 21 MR. REARDON: What do you need to do to -- I 22 mean the -- 23 DR. MASNIK: Those documents will be handled 24 in the manner - the normal manner that we do. One is a 25 2.206 petition, and that document will be handled as we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE !SLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 e 127 l 1 handled 2.206 petitions, by the regulations. So it will t i 2 be considered, yes. l 3 MR. REARDON: Well, judging by how long it 4 took you to handle George Galatis' petition, which is 5 still pending, it is several years. By that time it is t 6 too late. 7 That petitic. and the DPUC report contain'very { 8 serious information regarding the competency of NU 9 management to decommission CY. i I i 10 MS. DEBOLD: Debbie, you have a quick i i 11 question? i 12 MS. KATZ: Yes. Thank you very much for your 13 generosity in letting me do this. i 14 I would like to know if Connecticut Yankee 15 would, in fact, create a good neighbor policy, in which i 16 they would give prior notification of all releases into 17 the air and water, and prior notification of all shipments 18 of radioactive waste out of this community. 19 To whoever from NU will answer that, because 20 it wasn't clear that you would do that, and Rosemary 21 didn't really ask for an answer. But I'd like an answer. 22 MR. LAPLATNEY: And the answer is, this 23 evening I will not make that commitment, I have to figure 24 out what that means_to us. However, I think this is an 25 excellent first topic for the citizens decommissioning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 128 1 advisory committee. 2 If that body decides they want that 3 information, so it is a representation of the entire 4 community, not just one particular faction, we will 5 definitely consider that request. It is not something 6 that we can't do. 7 I'd like to hear from the rest of the 8 community, first. 9 MS. KATZ: Because in Maine, Maine Yankee, 10 provides that information to the whole community, as a 11 public service. 12 MR. LAPLATNEY: We'll have a representation, 13 let the whole community be heard. I'd rather hear it from 14 everyone first, before we go and commit the resources to 15 do it. 16 MS. DEBOLD: I want to thank everyone who has 17 come tonight. If you will be patient with me long enough 18 to say thank you to the Northeast Utilities people, and to 19 the NRC people. And I will say that the comments and the 20 questions left a lot to be considered, and I think they 21 are taken in the right vein. I notice the Nuclear Energy 22 Advisory Council had members here, tonight. 23 And also, there are several people here who 24 may have membership on the -- at any rate, thank you for 25 coming, and I hope there will be more meetings, and we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 129 1 will try to help get them before the public. 2 Thank you. 3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 4 concluded at 10:10 p.m.) 5 6 j 7 8 9 10 i 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 i t i I i Connecticut Yankee Decommissioning NRC Public Meeting Haddam-Killingworth High School January 15,1997 l a i l I introduction l Ted C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer - Connecticut Yankee N .l i

• l Agenda i

i Decommissioning Ted Feigenbaum i Overview / Commitment to Public Participation Plans for 1997 / Jere LaPlatney j Decommissioning ) Priorities and Options Closing Remarks Ted Feigenbaum 4 Our Decommissioning Commitments i

• Safety

• Providing Adequate Resources

• Vigilant Compliance with all the Rules and Regulations

• Public Participation I

W i i i i i \\ @Cu& \\ c 4=8 OM No b

=

gu IJ-b D

o Q "C l-*o k

t g

ens 6

o 1

G O

7 i

t, i

l 1

I i

i

i CY in 1997

... a year for improvement and planning

\\

• Complete Corrective Actions for 1996 Performance Problems t

• Organize and Staff for Decommissioning i

• Change License to Reflect Defueled Plant b

i CY in 1997 i

... a year for improvement and planning

• Develop and Submit Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) j

• Begin Planning of Actual Decommissioning Work

• No Major Decommissioning Work Will Be Done Until at Least 90 Days After PSDAR is Submitted

1

!l<!

l i

!i g

n i

n o

iss se ii l

t a

e mi c

t r

el n

mio ga e

n cgml a

ai a

or o

o r

ni t

ot y

m r

cP yslor st r

e eed vd af i

ui o

t l

i l

f ua n

D af r

ei u

e n

r Y

S

- QP C

i-

6 Decommissioning Options

• Prompt Dismantlement (DECON), Safe i

Storage {SAFSTOR), or Entombment (ENTOMB)

• All Options Will Be Evaluated l

• Current Cost Estimate Based on Prompt Dismantlement

• PSDAR will include the Final Decision and Cost Estimate j

• There are no Future Plans for the Site b

a.

I AGENDA 1.

6:30 to 7:00pm. Advance sign up for public. Each person, depending on number of sign ups and time available, will be able to make comments during public comment period.

2.

7:00 pm. Mrs. Marjor ie DeBold, First Selectman of Haddam chairs meeting.

She describes purpose of meeting, briefs attendees on agenda and establishes ground rules.

J 3.

7:10 pra Mr. Ted Feigenbaum of Northeast Utilities and Mr.

Jerer lap 1atney. P1 ant Manager will outline future plans for the plant. Open to questions after presentation.

i i

i 4.

8:00 pm. Mr. Michael Masnik of NRC describes decommissioning regulations and proposed future NRC oversight.

Open to

)

questions after presentation.

5.

9:00 pm. Public comment period.

]

6.

10:00 pm. Closing remarks by Chair and adjournment.

i i

M

,%M,--*a m a %m,,se6.,--.A-4A4 4#4-All.I.4 Jh&JL.Am_

f m.d4.

,em;,4h wa 6

..M.m e. A

• A w h.e aw ew_oA-w4msp.h+_A-,

a,E C4 s.4 4

.4 3

a meag a #L.h.m.v..,

m.-w Ae &_Ca4 Am aheg_--Ag4h-0 1

'l i

b I

d 4

h I

l 4

l 5

l 1

1 l

4 l

i I

4

BP24 (12/96)

DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Backaround Several licensees have announced their decisions to permanently cease power operation of their nuclear power plants.

The licensees' decisions have been based on economic and technical considerations.

Thus, these facilities and several others have entered the decommissioning process before their operating licenses expire, earlier than originally anticipated.

1 Decommissioning highlights for individual plants are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Decommissionina

]

1 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reculations, Section 50.2 (10 CFR 50.2), defines decommissioning as the safe removal of a facility from service and reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license.

Decommissioning involves three different alternatives:

DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.

Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted use and termination of the license.

Under SAFSTOR, often considered " delayed DECON," a nuclear facility is maintained in a condition that allows the decay of radioactivity to reduce radiation levels at the facility; afterwards, it is dismantled.

Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material such as concrete and the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.

To be acceptable, the method selected must provide for completion of decommissioning within 60 years.

A time beyond 60 years will be considered only when necessary to protect public health and safety in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.

Reculations The procedure for decommissioning a nuclear power plant is set out principally in NRC regulations 10 CFR Parts 50.75, 50.82, 51.53, and 51.95.

An underlying assumption embodied in the regulations when the Commission issued the original decommissioning regulations in 1988 was that decommissioning would occur after the facility operating license expired.

Five

BP24 (12/96) years before the licensee expected to end operation of the plant, it was obligated to submit a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect planning for decommissioning.

Then, within one year before expiration of the license, (or two years after operation for plants closing before their license expires) a licensee had to submit to NRC an application for authority to decommission that facility, together with an environmental report covering the proposed decommissioning activities.

However, several licensees have permanently ceased operations prematurely without having i

submitted the documentation required under the regulations.

In l

addition, these licensees requested exemptions from some safety requirements to reflect their status of no longer having fuel present in the reactor.

Because the regulations did not specifically address prematurely shutdown facilities, these situations were handled on a case-by-case basis.

Throughout fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the NRC staff worked on j

l revisions to NRC regulations to clarify their applicability and to make certain changes in decommissioning policy regarding permanently shut down reactors.

On July 20, 1995, the Commission issued a " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants."

On July 2, 1996, the Commission approved the final rule.

The rule was published in the Federal Register July 29 and became effective 30 days from the date of publication i

l (on August 28, 1996).

The final rule redefines the decommissioning process, defines terminology related to decommissioning, requires licensees to provide the NRC with early notification of planned decommissioning activities at their facilities, and explicitly sets forth the applicability of certain NRC requirements to permanently shutdown reactors.

The Commission believes the amendments will enhance efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process for nuclear power reactors.

The amendments allow for public participation in the decommissioning process and furnish the licensed community and the public a better understanding of the process as the operating personnel at a nuclear power reactor facility undergo the transition frora an operating organization to a decommissioning organization.

The revisions to 10 CFR 2, 50, and 51 related to the final rule on decommissioning power reactors require that:

(a) Within 30 days after a nuclear power plant licensee decides to cease operations permanently, the licensee must submit a written certification to the NRC, and (b) When the licensee permanently removes nuclear fuel from the reactor vessel, the licensee must submit another written certification to the NRC.

._ -.-. --.- ~-

i l

BP24 (12/96) l When NRC receives these certifications, the licensee's authority to operate the reactor or load fuel into the reactor vessel will be removed by regulation.

This will entitle the licensee to an annual fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to adhere to certain requirements needed only during reactor operation.

)

Within two years after submitting the certification of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee must submit a post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC.

This report must provide a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, along with a schedule for accomplishing them, and an estimate of the expected costs.

In the 1SDAR, the licensee is required to discuss the reasons for concluding that environmental impacts associated with the site-specific decommissioning activities have already been considered in environmental reports or environmental impact statements prepared previously.

If this has not been done, the licensee l

would have to request a license amendment for approval of the activities and submit to the NRC an environmental report on the additional impacts.

1 After receiving a PSDAR, the NRC must publish a notice of

,2 receipt, make the PSDAR available for public review and comment, and hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the plant to discuss j

the licensee's intentions.

)

l Ninety days after the NRC receives the PSDAR, and generally 30 j

days after the public meeting, the licensee can begin to perform major decommissioning activities without specific NRC approval.

These activities could include permanent removal of such major components as the reactor vessel, steam generators, large piping i

systems, pumps, and valves.

The final regulations state that decommissioning activities conducted _without specific prior NRC approval must not:

foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, result in there being no reasonable assurance that adequate e

funds will be available for decommissioning, cause any significant environmental impact not previously e

reviewed.

If any decommissioning activity could not meet these terms, the licensee is required to submit a license amendment request, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.

Initially, the licensee could use up to three percent of the amount specified in 10 CFR 50.75 for decommissioning activities without prior NRC approval.

An additional 20 percent could be expended 90 days after submittal of the PSDAR.

The remaining decommissioning trust funds would be available for decommissioning activities when the licensee submits a detailed

BP24 (12/96) site-specific decommissioning cost estimate to the NRC.

Rulemakina A new rule, entitled " Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste - 10 CFR Parts 60, 72, 73, and 75" (SECY-95-104), addresses physical protection requirements for the storage of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste in a j

permanently shutdown reactor, independent spent fuel storage installation, monitored retrievable storage installation, or a geologic repository.

The Commission published the proposed rule on August 18, 1995.

After a period for public comment, a final rule was scheduled to be issued April 15, 1996.

However, the NRC staff is requesting a Commission policy review of ISFSI safeguards based on public comments and staff reviews.

Following the Commission policy review, the proposed rule will be revised and will be submitted for public comment if significant changes occur.

Other rulemakings that are anticipated in the decommissioning area include a revision of regulations to address spent fuel cooling periods and indemnity issues; decommissioning costs, funding, and financial assurance.

Prematurely Shutdown Plants Since the original decommissioning rule was published in 1988, seven power reactor facilities have shut down prematurely:

• Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station,

• Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, o

Yankee Rowe Nuclear Station, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1,

• Trojan Nuclear Plant, and

• Haddam Neck Plant.

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, also ceased operation after the March 28, 1979, accident.

In addition, Iridian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 and Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3, and Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor, which were shut down in 1974, 1978, 1980, and 1987, respectively, are in the decommissioning process.

ADoroved Decommissionina Plans In June 1992, the NRC issued an order to Long Island Power Authority, approving the Shoreham decommissioning plan.

Long Island Power Authority announced completion of dismantlement of the facility in October 1994.

BP24 (12/96)

In November 1992, the NRC issued an order approving the Fort St.

Vrain decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are nearly completed.

The NRC approved Yankee Rowe's decommissioning plan on February 14, 1995.

Subsequently, due to a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, the Commission rescinded its approval on October 12, 1995.

A hearing was conducted and on October 18, 1996, the Commission denied the most recent petition regarding the decommissioning plan.

On October 28, 1996, the NRC staff informed Yankee Atomic that decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.

On June 16, 1993, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation and environmental assessment of the Rancho Seco decommissioning plan.

The plan proposes safe storage (SAFSTOR) of the facility for about 20 years followed by dismantlement and decontamination.

Approval of the decommissioning plan was delayed because of contentions raised by the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO).

However, ECO reached a settlement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the licensee for Rancno Seco, and on August 1, 1994, withdrew from the proceeding.

The staff reviewed and updated its previous safety evaluation and issued the order authorizing decommissioning of Rancho Seco on March 20, 1995.

On April 15, 1996, the NRC issued an order approving the Trojan decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are ongoing.

NRR/NMSS Memorandum of Understandina on Decommissionina On March 15, 1995, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NV.SS) reached agreement on a realignment of certain responsibilities regarding power reactor decommissioning.

In the future, NRR will maintain project management responsibility for power reactor facilities until fuel is permanently transferred from the spent fuel pool.

CONTACT:

Seymour H. Weiss, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-2170

i i

i I

i BP24 (12/96)

{

TABLE 1 i

i DECOMMISSIONING HIGHLIGHTS INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 October 31, 1974, plant was permanently shut down because its emergency core cooling system did not meet current regulatory requirements.

January 1976, reactor was defueled.

June 19, 1980, NRC order revoked authority to operate plant.

October 17, 1980, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan.

NRC review has been ongoing since then and has prompted numerous supplemental licensee submittals.

January 1996, the proposed decommissioning plan was submitted to Commission for approval.

HUMESLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 July 2, 1976, plant was shut down due to seismic issues.

July 30, 1984, Decommissioning Plan submitted.

July 19, 1988, SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan approved.

Spent fuel (390 assemblies) will remain onsite in the spent fuel pool until a federal repository is available for it.

DRESDEN UNIT 1 October 31, 1978, plant was shut down to meet new federal regulations and to perform chemical decontamination of major piping systems.

January 7, 1986, while plant was still out of service, licensee announced its decision to decommission the plant, rather than comply with regulations imposed in response to the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.

July 23, 1986, license was amended to possession only license (POL) status.

September 3, 1993, decommissioning plan was approved.

January 25, 1994, licensee personnel discovered about 55,000 gallons of water in the containment building.

The source of the water was a service water line which that had frozen and ruptured within the unheated containment.

The water was pumped from the containment building for processing by the site radwaste system.

The NRC responded by conducting a two-week special team inspection that Adentified numerous discrepancies that the licensee had to address.

July 13, 1994, licensee submitted a check for $200,000 in response to the NRC-imposed civil penalty for its failure to maintain required systems and to staff unit in accordance with Dresden Unit 1 decommissioning plan.

BP24 (12/96)

LA CROSSE April 30, 1987, plant was permanently shut down.

August 7, 1991, SAFSTOR decommissioning plan was approved.

FORT ST. VRAIN August 18, 1989, plant was permanently shut down because of failure of the control rod drives and degradation of the steam generator ring header.

May 21, 1991, license was amended to possession only license (POL) status.

June 11, 1992, all fuel was placed in an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

November 23, 1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan.

September 1, 1993, removal of the prestressed concrete reactor vessel top head was completed.

April 1, 1994, all of the graphite reflector blocks had been removed from the reactor vessel and shipped to the low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.

July 1, 1996, dismantlement is nearly complete.

SHOREHAM e

June 28, 1989, licensee's shareholders approved agreement

{

with the New York State to not operate the facility.

^

August 24, 1989, reactor vessel was defueled.

June 14, 1991, license was amended to POL status.

February 29, 1992, license was transferred to Long Island Power Authority for decommissioning of plant.

June 11, 1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan.

{

September 1993, transfer of fuel to Limerick began.

Fuel transfer was completed June 1994.

October 1994, the licensee announced completion of the dismantlement.

Confirmatory surveys conCucted.

April 11, 1995, decommissioning complete, ?OL terminated.

I RANCHO SECO J

a June 7, 1989, plant was shut down because voters approved non-binding referendum prohibiting licensee from operating facility.

December 8, 1989, reactor vessel was defueled.

March 17, 1992, license was amended to POL status.

Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO) was active intervenor in regards to proposed decommissioning plan.

June 16, 1993, NRC issued safety evaluation and environmental assessment of proposed decommissioning plan.

__ - ~ _..

1 i

BP24 (12/96) i

\\

j November 30, 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i

(ASLB) admitted for hearing certain contentions associated with decommissioning funding and costs of Rancho Seco j

independent spent fuel storage installation.

August 1, 1994, ECO reached settlement with Sacramento 4

Municipal Utility District and filed notice of withdrawal;

]

ASLB terminated proceeding.

September 2, 1994 Commission order (CLI-94-14) authorized i

NRC staff to issue decommissioning order.

March 20, 1995, NRC approved the decommissioning plan for j

SAFSTOR by issuing the decommissioning order.

l i

YANKEE ROWE I

i i

October 1, 1991, plant'was shut down and vessel defueled.

l because of concerns about reactor vessel integrity.

l February 27, 1992, licensee announced permanent cessation of l

l operations because of inability to address uncertainties associated with the. safety margin of the reactor vessel.

l August 5, 1992, license was amended to POL status.

July 15, 1993, NRC stated it had "no objection to early i

l component removal activities" proposed by the licensee.

November 16 to December 8, 1993, as part of the early component removal activities, the four steam generators and pressurizer were shipped from the plant to the low level waste burial site in Barnwell, South Carolina.

March 11, 1994, NRC stated it had "no objection" to use of decommissioning trust funds for proposed second phase of activities associated with early removal of components, including reactor coolant pumps, contaminated piping, and l

asbestos.

Activities were completed by June 30, 1994.

March 31, 1994, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) filed a complaint in the Massachusetts District Federal Court claiming the NRC did not follow National Environmental

[

Protection Act (NEPA) in its review of licensee's early j

component removal program..The court denied the complaint

~

I on jurisdictional grounds; however, CAN appealed to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.

i e

February 14, 1995, NRC approved the decommissioning plan for SAFSTOR i

e March 23, 1995, Yankee Atomic applied for a (10 CFR 71) license to enable shipment of the reactor vessel.

The l

vessel will not be shipped before summer 1996.

July 20, 1995, First Circuit found that the Commission erred i

when it rejected CAN's request for a hearing on the l

component removal program, that CAN was entitled to a i

hearing under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, and that the NRC had violated NEPA by permitting YAEC to initiate the component removal program before the agency had i

prepared an environmental assessment or impact statement.

l The Court remanded the case to the Commission for further action.

l

BP24 (12/96)

October 27, 1995, in response to the July 1995 Court of Appeals decision, the NRC staff issued a Federal Register notice offering the public an opportunity for hearing.

November 30, 1995, CAN and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution submitted a joint petition to intervene on the Yankee decommissioning plan.

October 18, 1996, the Commission issued an order which denied CAN's latest petition regarding the decommissioning plan.

October 28, 1996, the NRC staff informed Yankee Atomic that decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.

THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 March 28, 1979, accident occurred in the plant that caused permanent cessation of operations.

January 30, 1990, reactor was defueled.

August 12, 1993, processing of accident-generated water was completed.

September 14, 1993, POL amendment was issued.

December 28, 1993, post-defueling monitored storage technical specifications were issued.

SAN ONOFRE, UNIT 1 November 30, 1992, based on settlement agreement with California Public Utilities Commission licensee permanently shut down plant rather than bring it into compliance with current NRC safety requirements.

October 23, 1992, POL amendment was issued.

Amendment became effective March 9, 1993, when reactor vessel was certified as completely defueled.

December 28, 1993, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.

November 3, 1994, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan for NRC review.

TROJAN January 4, 1993, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations.

January 27, 1993, reactor was defueled.

May 5, 1993, NRC issued POL amendment.

November 1994, licensee commenced removal of steam generators and pressurizer for shipment to the U.S.

Ecology low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.

January 26, 1995, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan.

November 1, 1995, licensee completed the large component removal project.

i BP24 (12/96) i i

December 22, 1995, NRC staff published Federal Register notice offering opportunity for public comment on i

Environmental Assessment and Safety Evaluation for the decommissioning plan.

The 30-day comment period passed without a request for hearing.

March 31, 1996, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.

April 15, 1996, NRC issued the order approving the i

decommissioning plan.

HADDAM NECK December 4, 1996, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations.

l BIG ROCK POINT May 31, 2000, is expiration date of current license.

l February 27, 1995, licensee submitted SAFSTOR decommissioning plan for early NRC review.

February 14, 1996, Consumers Power Company requested that the NRC defer review of the Big Rock Point decommissioning plan until after issuance of the revised 10 CFR Part 50 decommissioning regulations.

1 6

)

l

-i (1 <}

United States

'%,,,,)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission PUBLIC MEETING ON DECOMMISSIONING January 15,1997 Dr. Michael T. Masnik Non-Power Reactor and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

t

=..

NRC POINT OF CONTACT FOR HADDAM NECK:

l t

I MR. MORT FAIRTILE, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER OWFN 11B20 i

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 301-415-1442 OFFICE 301-415-2102 FAX E-MAIL: MBF@NRC. GOV i

I I

REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING STATUS SHUTDOWN POWER REACTORS REACTOR LOCATION SHUT 00WN STATUS Indian Point 1 Buchanan 10/31/74 Storage (PWR)

New York Dresden 1 Morris 10/31/72 Storage (BWR)

Illinois Fermi 1 Monroe Co.

9/22/72 Storage (Fast Breeder)

Michigan i

GE VBWR Alameda Co.

12/9/63 Storage (BWR)

California Yankee Rowe Franklin Co.

10/1/91 Decontamination (PWR)

Massachusetts

& Dismantlement Humboldt Bay 3 Eureka 7/02/76 Storage (BWR)

California Peach Bottom 1 York Co.

10/31/74 Storage (HTGR)

Pennsylvania San Onofre 1 San Clemente 11/30/92 Storage (PWR)

California Haddam Neck Haddam 7/22/96 To be Determined (PWR)

Connecticut Fort St. Vrain Platteville 8/18/89 Storage (HTGR)

Colorado Rancho Seco Sacramento 6/7/89 Storage (PWR)

California 50-320 Three Mile Middletown 3/28/79 Storage" (PWR)

Island 2 Pennsylvania Shoreham Suffolk Co.

6/28/89 License (BWR)

New York Terminated Trojan Rainier 11/9/92 Decontamination (PWR)

Oregon

& Dismantlement Lacrosse Lacrosse 4/30/87 Storage (BWR)

Wisconsin

• Post-defueling monitored storage (PDMS).

DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS Preliminary cost estimate - five years before permanent shutdown Certification of permanently ceasing power generation operations - within 30 days of the decision Certification of permanent fuel removal from the I

reactor - regulatory relief Submission of the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities i

Report (PSDAR) - within 2 years of shutdown l

i Long term storage followed by dismantlement or immediate dismantlement l

t License Termination Plan submitted - approximately two years prior to expected license termination l

i License termination l

I

E POST-SHUTDOWN DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES REPORT (PSDAR)

Description of the planned decommissioning activities Schedule for the accomplislunent of the planned activities Estimate of expected costs I

Discussion of environmental impacts t

[

t

)

i

I ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES The licensee is prohibited from performing any decommissioning i

activity that:

i Forecloses the release of the site for possible j

unrestricted use; or l

i

?

results in significant environmental impacts; or

?

results in there no longer being reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available.

j i

l l

4 l

l i

t LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN l

f Site characterization a

l Identification of remaining dismantlement activities l

l Plans for site remediation Detailed plans for the final radiation survey Description of end use of site if restrictions are imposed Updated site-specific cost estimate of remaining costs

=

t Supplement to the environmental report describing new l

information i

I l

i k

LICENSE TERMINATION License terminated if the license termination plan was followed and the site radiologically cleaned up.

j i

i S

I I

.