ML20149L267
| ML20149L267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1996 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#196-17479 96-713-01-DCOM, 96-713-1-DCOM, DCOM, NUDOCS 9602260038 | |
| Download: ML20149L267 (236) | |
Text
r
/1919
@ffic101 Transcript of Prococdings DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS#f0N O *% FEB 23 P1 :58 l
OFFICE OF SECFETARY 00CKE.flNG & nRVf CF~
Title:
Yankee Atomic Electric Companyerwics Yankee Nuclear Power Station Pre-Hearing Conference i
Docket Number: 50-029-DCOM
' ASLBP No.: 96-713-01-DCOM
^
Location: Rockville, Maryland iO Date: Wednesday, February 21, 1996 i
Work Order No.: NRC-506 Pages 1-234 .
l NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
( (202) 234 4433 DR ADO 050 029 T PDR
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(/ 3 + + ++ +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL I 5 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE 6 ------------------------------x 7 IN THE MATTER OF: :
8 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC : Docket No. 50-029-DCOM 9 COMPANY : ASLBP No. I 10 : 96-713-01-DCOM l 11 (Yankee Nuclear Power : 1 12 Station) :
13 ------------------------------x
?
k 14 Wednesday, February 21, 1996 15 16 Hearing Room T3 B45 17 11545 Rockville Pike 18 Rockville, Maryland 19 The above-entitled matter came on for 4
20 hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
21 BBFORE:
22 G. PAUL BOLLWERK III Chairman 23 DR. JERRY R. KLINE Member 24 DR. THOMAS S. ELLEMAN Member O
(/ '25 NEAL R. GROSS count aspomas ANo inANacnieEns 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
2 1 APPEARANCES:
2 3 On Behalf of the Licensee, Yankee Atomic Electric 4 Comoany:
5 ROBERT K. GAD III, ESQ.
2 6 of: Ropes and Gray i
7 One International Place 8 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 9 (617) 951-7520 10 11 On Behalf of the Intervenor, Citizens Awareness 12 Network:
13 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
(]
\ 14 of: Harman, Curran, Gallagher & Spielberg )
1 15 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 16 Washington, D.C. 20009
! 17 (202) 328-3500 l
l 4
18 l
19 JONATHAN M. BLOCK, ESQ.
20 Main Street 21 Putney, Vermont 05346-0566 22 (802) 387-2646 23 s
24 O 25 y/ .
d NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20@ 236M33 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 33
. .. - . . - - .-. - _ . . - -. .- - . = .
3 1 On-Behalf of the Nuclear Reculatory Commission:
2 EUGENE HOLLER, ESQ.
G 3 MARIAN L. ZOBLER, ESQ.
4 office of the General Counsel 4 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 Washington, D.C. 20555 7 (301) 415-1572 8
9 Also Present:
10 MORTON FAIRTILE, Technical Representative, NRC 11 a
, 12 s
< 13 14 15 i
16 1
17 18 19 i
l 20 21 i
22 23 24 f
g 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER8 i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 4
4
-1 .C:O-N T E:N T S t
-2 Issue of Standing
-3 Ms. Curran ~ 9.
l l
-4
~
Mr.' Gad 13 5 'Mr. Holler 22 6 ' Contention A I 7 Ms. Curran 33 8 Mr.-Gad 48 9 Mr. Holler. 53 10 Contention B 11 Ms. Curran 64 l 12 Mr. Gad 66 13 Mr. Holler' 70 l
0: 14 Contention C 15 Ms. Curran 116 l
! 16 Mr. Gad 118 17 Mr. Holler 125 18 Contention D 19 Ms. Curran 163
-20 Mr. Gad 164 l l
21 Mr. Holler 165 22 Contention.E 23 Ms. Curran 167
- 24 Mr. Gad 170 25 'Mr. Holler 173' l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. ~ l 3 (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 '(202) 2344433
-___-_-_:_______--_-__._____: - _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - 1
4 5 l 1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S fs 2 (9:30 a.m.) l 3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Good morning, everyone. j 4 This morning we're here to conduct an initial pre-hearing 5 conference in the Yankee Electric Atomic Company 6 proceeding. This proceeding involves a challenge to the 7 petitioners -- of the petitioners, Citizens Awareness 8 Network, Inc. and the New England Coalition on Nuclear 9 Pollution, to certain aspects of the proposed l 10 decommissioning plan for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station e
- 11 located in Franklin County, Massachusetts near the town 12 of Rowe.
13 This proceeding is before the Licensing Board i
\ 14 pursuant to a January 16, 1996 Commission memorandum and j
15 order, CLI 96-01, 43 NRC 1, that referred the 16 petitioners' November 30, 1995 hearing request and i 17 proposed contentions to the Board for its consideration 18 in an expedited formal adjudicatory hearing.
19 We scheduled this pre-hearing conference to 20 provide the participants with an opportunity to make oral 21 presentations on the issues of the petitioners' standing 22 to intervene and the admissibility of their prof fered 23 contentions. In addition, we ask that the participants 24 be prepared to address a number of additional matters 25 relating to procedures and scheduling for this expedited NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRISER8 i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 2364433 WASHINGTON, DA 20006 (202) 234 4433
6 I
1 proceeding.
l 2 Before we begin the hearing on the parties' )
0s 3 presentations on these matters, I'd like to introduce the l
1
)
4 Board members. To my left is Dr. Jerry Kline, an 5 environmental scientist. He's a full time member of the i 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. To my right is
! 7 . Dr . Thomas Elleman. Dr. Elleman, who is a nuclear i
j 8 engineer, is a part-time member of the Panel.
9 My name is Paul Bollwerk. I'm an attorney, l
j 10 and I'm the Chairman of this Licensing Board.
11 At this point I'd like to have counsel for 12 the partice identify themselves for the record. Why 13 don't we Jo ahead and start with counsel for the 14 petitioner, Citizens Awareness Network and the New 4
15 England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, then move to 1
16 counsel for the licensee, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, 1~
17 and finally to staff counsel.
18 MS. CURRAN: Good morning. My name is Diane 19 Curran. I'm with the law firm of Harman, Curran, 20 Gallagher and Spielberg in Washington, D.C. With me 1
21 today is Jonathan Block of Putney, Vermont. We represent 22 Citizens Awareness Network and the New England Coalition 4
- 23 on Nuclear Pollution.
24 MR. GAD: Mr. Chairman and members of the 4 /G
- b 25 Board, my name is Robert Gad. Together with my partner, i
NEAL R. GROSS CXXJRT REPORTERS ANO TRAN8CRISER$
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(2W) 23444J5 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
7 1 Tom Dignan, who could not be here today, it is our 2 privilege to appear before this Board on behalf of Yankee U 3 Atomic Electric Company.
4 MR. HOLLER: Good morning, Your Honor. This 5 is Eugene Holler, counsel for the NRC staff, and to my 6 left is Marian Zobler, my co-counsel, and 'to my right is 7 a member of the technical staff, Morton Fairtile, the 8 Project Manager for Yankee, Rowe.
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I understand that Mr.
10 Dignan's appearance is because of a fairly -- Well, I 11 don't know hc;w serious it is, but he apparently had a 12 heart attack or something of that nature? Is that my 1
13 understanding? )
r~~ \
k)) 14 MR. GAD: Mr. Dignan certainly got the l
15 attention of most of the people around him, Your Honor.
16 I saw him yesterday, and he looked pretty good under the 1
17 circumstances and appreciated the Board's accommodation. )
18 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Well, we hope that Mr.
19 Dignan comes through this in good shape, and we will 20 perhaps see him later in this proceeding, l
21 MR. GAD: I'll carry that back. Thank you, 22 Your Honor.
23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Thank you. I would also 24 note for the record that counsel for the Commonwealth of 25 Massachusetts, which is appearing as an interested NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. ]
(209) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433 )
I
__ . ~ .
8 1 governmental entity under 10 CFR Section 2.715(c), was 2 notified about this pre-hearing conference and informed 3 the Board that the Commonwealth would not be 4 participating in today's pre-hearing conference.
5 As to the order of presentations, unless 6 counsel has some other suggestion, what we would propose 7 is to begin with the issue of standing. Because the 8 burden rests with the petitioners on that issue, we will 9 let their counsel address that issue first, followed by 10 counsel for the licensee, and then staff counsel.
11 Petitioners' counsel then will be afforded a 12 short opportunity for a reply statement. We then would 13 move on to each of the five proposed contentions, which 14 we want to do one at a time using the same order of 15 presentation.
16 With respect to each contention, we'd like, 17 to the degree possible, to deal with each of the 18 enumerated bases separately. Do any of the counsel have i
j 19 any comment on this order of presentation or any other l
20 suggestions? l l
21 MS. CURRAN: No.
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. If not, let's 23 go ahead and begin with the petitioners' presentation 24 regarding their standing to intervene this proceeding.
i 7s l
'(_) 25 Ms. Curran, are you going to be presenting the argument?
NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRAN8CRl8ER8 1323 MHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(2tM) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
~ - _ .
9 1 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I will.
- 2 CHAIRHMi BOLLWERK: All right.
'V 3 MS. CURRAN: Yankee Atomic's and the NRC 4 staff's major objection to petitioners' standing in their 5 original responses to our petition to intervene was based 6 on our perceived lack of standing to raise issues related 7 to occupational exposures.
8 In CLI 96-01 the Commission addressed the 9 question of whether petitioners would have standing to 10 raise these issues, and concluded that, if petitioners 11 otherwise have standing and the occupational exposure 12 related contentions would grant them the relief that they 13 seek, then they may litigate those issues. We believe C
\ 14 that that effectively disposes of the question of whether 15 we have standing to raise the occupational issues.
16 With respect to our general standing to raise 17 health and safety issues with respect to impacts on the 18 public, this was not challenged in either Yankee's or NRC 19 staff's original response to our petition, but Yankee 20 raised several additional issues in its further reply, 21 which we would like to address.
22 First, I'd like to say that in our petition 23 to intervene, petitioners included affidavits of several 24 members of CAN and NECNP who live and work within close 25 proximity of the Yankee Rowe plant, some of them who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRANSCR10F.R8 1323 RMOOE 18LANO AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
10 1 have passed trucks carrying materials to and from the j
.n 2 Yankee Rowe plant.
n O 3 One of the principal ways in which they could 4 be exposed to excessive doses of radiation would be 5 through exposures during transportation of wastes. This 6 is one of the vectors that's addressed in the GEIS 7 issued in 1988.
8 In addition, several of these petitioners 9 hike or swim or recreate in the area of the Deerfield 10 River, and during the decommissioning process Yankee has l
11 dumped some radioactive effluent into the Deerfield River j 12 and, hence, they have demonstrated that their interests 13 could be injured by continued discharges into the river.
l\ 14 Therefore, we have demonstrated that we have l l
15 standing to raise health and safety issues in this 16 decommissioning proceeding.
5 17 Yankee makes several arguments against our 18 standing in its most recent reply. First, Yankee cites 19 Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, LBP 20 85-24, for the proposition that a 900 rem difference in 21 exposures, which is the GEIS's estimated difference 4
22 between occupational exposures during DECON and SAFSTOR, 23 it is inconsequential. Therefore, 900 rems exposure is 24 of no moment.
O (j 25 This case, the Boston Edison case, held that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 ANO TRAN8CRISERG 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 2364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
11 1 assertions by a petitioner that they were -- they ate 2 cranberries and fish that could be contaminated wasn' t V 3 sufficient t.o confer standing, because assertions about l
4 contamination through food are too sweeping and too 5 remote and generalized to confer standing.
6 This is one of several cases which hold that l
7 potential contamination of food is too remote and
- 8 generalized in injury to confer standing, and another
~
9 case is Philadelphia Electric Company, Limerick 10 Generating Station, LBP 82-43 (a) , 1982. I think the cite j 11 is 15 NRC 1423.
12 This case is quite distinct. WE have alleged
- 13 particularized harm here, a type of harm that's been 4
14 recognized in the GEIS, which is that the main way that 15 members of the public may become exposed to radiation 16 through decommissioning is through transportation of low j 17 level waste.
18 We have also made -- demonstrated that Yankee 19 has discharged radioactive effluent into the Deerfield 20 River during decommissioning, which could impact 21 petitioners' members and, therefore, this is quite 22 distinct frem the kind of generalized harm that was 23 addressed in that case.
1 24 It's also important to note that an injury 25 does not have to be great in order to confer standing, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRAN8CR10ERS I 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
0100 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (20 0 234 4433
12 1 and a statement of asserted injury which is deemed 2 insufficient as a basis for a valid contention may, (D
3 nevertheless, be adequate to provide a basis for 4 standing. For that proposition, I would cite to you 5 Consumers Power Company, Palisades Nuclear Plant, LBP 79-6 20, 10 NRC 108 at 115. The year is 1979, which cited 7 United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency 8 Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 689, Note 14, 1973.
9 I would also note that the Consumers Power 10 case also observed that the simple failure to prepare an 11 EIS or to comply with NEPA in circumstances where 12 preparation of an EIS is required constitutes cognizable 13 injury for purposes of standing, and in this particular 14 case we allege that an EIS -- supplemental EIS should 15 have been prepared for this decommission plan.
16 Yankee also argues that we have no standing 17 based on potential accidents from dry cask storage drop, 18 because there is no application pending for dry cask 19 storage. However, it is beyond dispute that dry cask 20 storage is described in the decommissioning plan as a 21 potential form of high level waste storage that Yankee is ,
22 seriously considering for the facility.
23 Therefore, because it is being relied on as 24 an element of the decommissioning plan, it is sufficient 25 basis, and a dry cask related accident constitutes NEAL R. GROSS COUMT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCHttER8 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 234 4433 WASMNGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
13 1 sufficient basis to confer standing.
2 Yankee also argues that petitioners may not 3 rely on a transportation accident as a basis for
.4 standing, because Yankee already has a license to 5 transport waste. However, under the proposed alternative 6 which petitioners advocate, which is SAFSTOR or long term 7 storage of low level waste on the site, transportation of 8 waste would clearly be postponed for a number of years.
9 Thus, the timing of transportation of waste 10 is affected by the relief that petitioners seek. Also, 11 through an extended SAFSTOR period, the volume of waste 12 would be reduced, thus reducing the number of shipments 13 that could pose a hazard to petitioners.
/
I x- 14 I don't have any further comments on standing 15 at this time.
1 I
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad.
17 MR. GAD: Mr. Chairman, it is entirely l 1
18 correct that in CLI 96-1 the Commission said that a j 19 petitioner who is petition for leave to intervene is .
I 20 granted may raise the interests of plant workers if that l
21 supports a contention that we grant them the relief that 1
22 is sought. l I
23 i' hat does not mean that any CNP --
and did l l
24 not say that any CNP may rely upon occupational exposure n
() 25 issues in order to ground its standing for admission to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN8CRISER$
1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WA3HINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
14 1 the proceeding, in the first place. So the issue of the 2 900 rem, which was not the point in citing Pilgrim, is 3 not on the table.
i 4 The issue, rather, is whether or not the five 5 individuals whose personal interests are relied upon by 6 the two organizations have-demonstrated a real or a 7 significant prospect of injury, real injury to 8 themselves.
9 I' concede to Your Honors that the staff has 10 conceded standing to both organizations. I believe 11 that's essentially on the proximity theory which says 12 that, if you are close enough to the facility, that is 13 good enough for standing. Proximity has, in fact, O
(msl 14 truncated standing arguments for years and years and 15 years for people doing construction permits and operating 16 licenses; but the point of LBP 85-24 and also another 17 decision, CLI 89-21, is that in an operating license 18 proceeding proximity by itself no longer demonstrates 19 standing.
20 .
The point is that he who wishes to be granted
- S 21 admission must make a demonstration that the particular i
22 item that would be licensed, the issue before the house, 23 has the potential for causing real and direct injury to 24 the petitioner. We submit that that showing hasn' t been
() 25 made here, and would add that this is not a case of a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8048ER8 1323 MHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(300) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23 4 433
15 1 simple omission. I'll explain why.
.f-~g . 2 We start with the proposition that this is
~
3 not a situation in which there is a do-nothing 4 alternative. That is to say, the issue is not do we 5 decommission the Yankee or not. The issue, rather, is 6 which of the acceptable means or modes of dacommissioning 7 do we employ, and th'e two candidates before the house 8 are commonly referred to as modified DECON, which Yankee
, 9 proposes, and a 30-50 year SAFSTOR, which is what the 1 10 petitioners advocate, and your only choice is between 11 those two.
12 Consequently, anything that provides a basis 13 for standing must relate to the difference between those s
14 two. Now in terms of radiological exposure to the 15 public, the difference between those two, and the only
- 16 document that is relied upon for standing, to whit, the 17 FSAR or the ER, the environmental report of Yankee, is 4
18 seven person rems.
4 19 That, Your Honors, is down at the -- but the 20 seven person rems by itself cannot be the basis for 21 standing by the five individuals, because the assessment 22 that comes up with the seven person rems aggregates :
23 complete exposure to every member of the public for every l 24 truck trip that goes from Yankee to South Carolina or
(_,) 25 Yankee to Montana alike.
1 NEAL R. GROSS muar asponreas ANo Twecamens 1323 aHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
i 16 1 The radiological exposure of someone who 2 drives down the highway, goes past the truck, is
\v 3 necessarily significantly less. So let's take a look at 4 the specific things, the particularities of the asserted 5 basis for standing.
6 Number one is that the petition claims that 7 the five individuals live or travel in close vicinity to 8 Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Specifically, two of the 9 affiants live four miles from the plant. One of the 10 affiants lives, and I quote, "less than 10 miles" from 11 the plant. One lives six miles from the plant, and one 12 lives 10 miles from the plant.
13 Unfortunately, there is nothing in the U 14 petition that purports to relate these distances to the 15 potential exposure that the affiants would get if 16 modified DECON were done versus a 30-50 year SAFSTOR.
17 Just can't find it. Is it real? Is it above the noise?
18 Is it diminimus? You can't find it.
J 19 Now one hesitates to stand up before any 20 tribunal and say in essence, well, I win because X is 21 missing. It leaves people with something of an 22 uncomfortable feeling. I would submit to Your Honors 23 that the reason why it's missing from the papers is 24 because it's missing from the real world.
25 The off-site releases from the Yankee NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISER8 1323 RHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
17 1 facility are periodically monitored, periodically 2 performed. Those reports are filed in the public record, 3 They' re on the docket, and they are available. What 4 they show is that since Yankee went into decommissioning 5 mode the calculated annual whole body dosed, most exposed 6 member of the public -- the most exposed member of the 7 public -- is 1 x 10-3 millirem per year, and the 8 calculated annual organ -- I'm sorry. That's from liquid 9 ethylene. Liquid ethylene, most exposed, whole body, 1 x
-3 10 10 l 11 From gaseous effluent the calculated annual
.12 organ dose -- in this case is higher than whole body --
13 to the most exposed member of the public is approximately 14 2 x 10 3 millirems per year. These are calculated doses.
15 Frankly, they are below the level that anyone could 16 measure.
17 MEMBER KLINE: Do you mean -3?
1 18 MR. GAD: I did. I don't know what I said, 19 but I meant approximately 2 x 10-3 from gaseous. Thank i
20 you, Dr. Kline.
21 Now I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, which .
22 oftentimes gets me uninvited to a lot of parties, but 23 these are numbers. So you have to relate these numbers 24 to something in the real world.
25 What you can relate them to is the annual NEAL R. GROSS count nearnas Ano TaAuscaisans 1323 aHoOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
18 1 background dose that these same members of the public get 2 from the sun and the earth. If you exclude the effect-3 of trapped radon -- that is to say, we'll take the i 4 background dose out of doors in Rowe, Massachusetts --
i 5 you will find -- again, it's a matter of public record -
6 -
it's 65 millirems per year plus or minus 10 billirems 7 per year.
8 That, Your Honors, tells you that the 9 theoretical maximally exposed individual will receive --
10 the maximally exposed individual would receive from modified DECON something on the order of 1/100,000 of 11 12 what he would get from the sun and the earth and 13 1/10,000 of simply the annual variation in the normal 14 background.
15 What that tells you is that it is 16 theoretical. It is diminimus. It is entirely 17 undetectable, and that's for the most exposed member of 18 the public. The question before this Board is how does 19 that relate to the five affiants? No one can tell you 20 that.
21 The second particularity of claimed standing 22 is, as noted, that some of these affiants travel the 23 roads in the general vicinity of the plant, There is no 24 connection between -- asserted connection and no
]n 25 demonstration of the roads they travel, roads that low NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRe8ER8 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
t 19 1 level waste shipments travel, and the routes tend to be 2 rather well known. I believe, but I'm not certain, O 3 that they are published.
l 4 If you assume that all five affiants rode on 5 the running boards of every truck that will ever leave .
6 that site for modified DECON all the way to the end, 7 then you get into the levels that we discussed before, 8 which are themselves in the noise.
9 The third claimed basis for particularized 10 standing is, and I quote, "that the affiants wish to be 11 able to enter the Yankee site after it is decommissioned 12 and released for restricted use. They may be precluded 13 from going onto the site indefinitely if it is
(~) decommissioned inadequately and must be restricted to s
(~/ 14 15 public access." ,
16 There are two difficulties with that claim.
17 The first is it doesn't relate to the differential i 18 between modified DECON and SAFSTOR, but far more 19 fundamentally, there is a bit of confusion.
20 The petitioners and the affiants have no 21 legal rights to the site. The site is a piece of )
22 property. It's owned by Yankee. They don't have any 4
23 rights to enter that site today. They don't have any 24 expectation to enter that site in the future.
The site-is privately owned, and the fact
~
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRAN8CRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(20E) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 l
i 20 1 that they may wish to enter at some point in time on a 2 piece of real estate that is owned by someone else on 3 which you cannot enter unless you ask for and are 4 granted permission is not something that is capable of 5 being remedied by any order that would come out of this 6 proceeding. Therefore, it doesn't grant -- It doesn't 7 grant standing.
8 Moreover, it's a bit of a logic bomb, because 9 if you genuinely believe that you were injured by 10 something because you want to get on the site as soon as 11 the site is available for unrestricted public access, you 12 ought to be arguing for a prompt decommissioning, not one 13 that turns the site into a committed facility for 30-50 I"
t 14 years.
15 Finally, the affidavits say -- Not finally.
I 16 There's two. I'm sorry. The affidavits or the petition 17 says that, and I quote, "Some of the individuals would 18 like to swim and fish in the Deerfield River, but they 19 do not do so because of their concern about Yankee's 20 radioactive emission into the river. "
21 Two observations are to be made. The first 22 is that any release into the Deerfield River is done
. 23 pursuant to permits issued by. competent authorities, all i
- 24 of which permits set levels that have been determined by
! 25 competent authority to prevent discharges that are
. NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN80MER$
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 236 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 L-_____---__________.__.
21 1 hazardous to the public, and there is nothing in the 2 decommissioning plan that proposes to change any of those
, t 3 permits.
4 Second, as we observed earlier, this 5 statement of theoretical possibility is not tied to any 6 exposure, in fact, to any individual. The numbers are 7 available as a matter of public record, and they are as 8 I said earlier. I believe it's 1 x 10-3 millirem to the 9 maximally exposed individual.
10 Fourth and now, I believe, finally -- fifth 11 and finally, the petition says that the affiants -- I 12 quote now: "The affiants are concerned about the impacts 13 of an accident at Yankee during decommission." Then they
\
14 cite the affidavits of only two of the five affiants, 15 and that's Albright and vanitaly. I didn't write down
. 16 the first names, 17 So you now repair to these two affidavits to 18 see what they say on this point. What you will find is 19 chat each of the affidavits has the identical following 20 boilerplate, and I quote: "I am also concerned about 21 the potentially devastating effects on my health and 22 safety of a radiological accident at Yankee."
23 That's all it says. There is no indication ;
24 of what sort of radiological accident is referred to or 25 how it might occur or what its consequences might be.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIGERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2'44433 a I
l 22 )
l i Therefore, those claims are too remote and speculative j 4
2 ground for standing.s U .3 The bottom line, Your Honors, is that it is l
4 the petitioners' burden to establish this Board's 5 jurisdiction by showing standing in the form of a real 6 injury prospectively, a non-remote, non-speculative 7 prospective of real injury to one or more of the five i 8 affiants, and I submit to Your Honors that that showing 9 has not been made.
1 4 10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler.
11 MR. HOLLER: Good morning, Your Honors. The 12 staff does not oppose petitioners' standing to intervene 13 in this proceeding, and that the petitioners appear to k 14 meet the Commission's stated standards.
15 Petitioners have alleged an acceptable 16 injury. Five CAN and NECNP members each residing in 17 close proximity, ranging from four to 10 miles to Yankee, f 18 and concern that the alleged inadequate ' decommissioning l 19 of Yankee will impact their health and safety or their 20 environment.
21 These are interests that are of the type .
22 sought to be protected under the AEA or the National 23 Environmental Policy Act, and each of the members has 24 authorized CAN or NECNP to represent them in this 25 proceeding.
NEAL R. GROSS count asp 0anas ao ra4uscasens 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
23 1 They allege injuries traceable to the 2 challenged action, implementation of the proposed O 3 decommissioning plan. Lastly, the alleged injury would 4 be alleviated by a favorable decision, rejection or 5 modification of the decommissioning plan.
l 6 With regard to the size of the injury, staff i
7 is not aware that size of injury has governed standing 8 in an NRC proceeding. The case cited by licensee, 9 Boston Edison, dealt with distance and held only that 43 10 miles was too far to establish standing in a proceeding 11 involving the spent fuel pool.
l 12 The staff is aware of the cases, the most
! 13 notable of which is Florida Power and Light, St. Lucie l
l' 14 Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, COI 89-21, in which l
15 the Commission had cut back on the presumption that a
! 16 person whose base of normal activities, 50 miles of the l 17 site, has an interest and might be af fected by reactor 18 construction or operation.
19 Again, that principle stood, but the 20 Commission held that to grant standing in other cases it 1
21 was limited to those involving operation of the reactor 22 itself with clear implications for the off-site 23 environment or major alterations to the facility, with a 24 potential for off-site consequences.
25 Most notably, the staff, of course, had noted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCR18ERS 1323 RHOOE ISt.ANO AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON. D C, 20006 (202) 234 4 13
24 1 i
. 1 in its briefing the subpart L proceeding dealing with the 1
2 decommissioning of a power reactor, Northern States Power !
i O 3 Company, Pathfinder Atomic Plant, OBV 90-3, 31 NRC 40.
. 4 There, the presiding of ficer considered all 1
l i
5 the circumstances, including residence and commuting l
i 6 within proximity of the plant. The presiding officer !
7 found that a resident whose commute took her in close
, a proximity to the plant had standing. l
! 9 With regard to the occupational dose, the i !
10 staff would again make clear that petitioners do not l
11 represent workers and, as such, may not use occupational 12 dose as an' acceptable injury for establishing standing. l i
! 13 The staff believes that CLI-96-01, the Commission's i
/^ l 14 decision, is consistent with this, and tells us that f i !
15 contentions regarding occupational doses are a different l
! l 16 matter, that once petitioners have established standing i 1
1 17 in their own right, they may be able to raise j i'
18 occupational doses if, in fact, it will effect them the )
l 19 relief that they seek. i
. 20 That, Your Honors, is staf f's position with 21 regard to standing. )
- 22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK
- So I take it, the staff's 23 position is, notwithstanding the dosage figures that Mr.
I 24 Gad has given us, nonetheless, you still believe there's a
25 sufficient injury here to afford the petitioners
$ NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
25 1 standing.
2 MR. HOLLER: That's correct, Your Honor.
O 3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran?
4 MS. CURRAN: Can we confer for one moment, 5 please?
6 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Certainly.
7 (WHEREUPON, the proceeding was off the record 8 briefly at 10:00 a.m.)
9 MS. CURRAN: First, ve would object to 10 Yankee's presentation to the extenn that Yankee 11 introduces new factual information that hasn't been 12 presented previously. Yankee has had two opportunities 13 prior to this to oppose this petition to intervene, and i
's 14 this is the first time that we've had these statistics 15 presented to us on the injury to individuals as a result 16 of Yankee Rowe decommissioning.
17 Notwithstanding that, it's clear from the 18 cases that an injury -- and Mr. Holler has agreed --
19 that injury does not have to be great in order to confer 20 standing on a party. I'm not an engineer either, but it 4- 1 4
21 seems to me that the way these dose statistics are 22 presented that it is not all that helpful to break it j l
23 down by individual, that one looks at the statistical 24 probability that someone will die or get sick as a 25 result of a certain level of radiation, and that is how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 l
26 1 the information is presented in the GEIS.
f3 2 It's true that, if you point a gun into a U 3 huge crowd of people and shoot somebody, that maybe not 4 everybody knows what happened, but somebody got hurt. I
! 5 think that the appropriate way to look at this is the 6 statistical probability of injury, which does exist, and
, 7 we have presented' that in our contentions.
8 I'd like to -- I'm sorry. Yankee has 1
9 admitted that there would be exposure to radiation as a 10 result of this decommissioning process, and we have 11 demonstrated that it is higher if one proceeds with DECON 4
l 12 than if one waits and does the -- uses the SAFSTOR 13 alternative.
[<- Therefore, we have demonstrated a sufficient 14 15 level of injury in order to support our admission to litigate issues relating to the choice of decommissioning 16 17 alternatives. We have also submitted sufficient i
- 18 information to support our standing to litigate the other 19 issues.
20 With respect to the question of access to the u.
21 sihe af ter it's closed, the members of CAN and NECNP 22 asserted that they would like to be able to go onto the 23 Yankee site after the plant is closed. The fact that 24 Yankee now owns the property and may not intend to sell j
[)
(_ 25 it right now is -- That happens to be the situation j NEAL R. GROSS couar upOareas Ano rwesenseens l I
1323 aH00E ISLM40 AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 2364 418 WASH #eGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433 1
l
27 1 right now, but we're talking about a long period into 2 the future, and the purpose of decommissioning is to 3 clean up a site so that it can be transferred, so that 4 it can be opened up, so that those options are 5 available.
6 For instance, if the city or the town of Rowe 7 wanted to condemn the property and turn it into a park -
8 - just speculating, but that is the point of 9 decommissioning, and petitioners have standing to assert 4
10 that they would like to have that option.
1 11 If Yankea never sells the property, then 12 that's one thing, but to have the property never be 13 capable of being transferred or open to the public J
14 because it's contaminated -- that is an injury to members 15 of the public.
- 16 Petitioners' affiants did not say that they 17 wanted immediate access to that property. They said that 18 ultimately, after decommicsioning is finished, they would 19 like to be able to go on the site.
20 With respect to the radioactive release to 21 the Deerfield River, Mr. Gad again provides factual 22 information that was never provided before in either of 23 Yankee's written presentations on this issue, and it 24 would be unfair to rely on factual infcrmation to which 25 we haven't had a chance to respond; but again, Yankee NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE 18LANO AVENUE, N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008 (202) 234 4433
m.
28 l 1 does not deny that it has discharged effluent into the 2 Deerfield River.
O 3 Whether or not that effluent is within permit 4 levels is immaterial. The fact is that discharges have 5 been issued, and we have made a sufficient case that the 6 level of radioactivity on the site would be diminished if 7 decommissioning were delayed. Therefore, the level of 8 those ef fluents could be decreased if the SAFSTOR 9 alternative were chosen.
10 Again, injury does not have to be large in
- 11 order to confer standing on the public.
12 Finally, Yankee attacks the sufficiency of i
- 13 petitioners' statements regarding their concerns about i.
14 accidents on the site. Petitioners do not have to go i
15 into tremendous detail about the type of accident in 16 their affidavit. This is presented in the petition to l 17 intervene. The accidents are described.
18 Petitioners are concerned for their safety.
19 Petitioners have adequately described the kinds of 20 accidents they are concerned about in their petition to I 21 intervene, and Yankee has not objected to the adequacy of 22 that description. They've simply objected to the 23 adequacy of the affidavit.
-24 I have no further comments.
-r I 25 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Mr. Gad, I may have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20W N WASH 6NGTON. 0.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
29 1 misunderstood something you said. I wonder if you could 2 help me out. In discussing the transportation accident,
'.O 3 you talked about the individual who would be riding on
- 4 the running board of the vehicle, and you said that 5 their accumulated doses would be on the order of the 6 values cited before.
7 Were you referring to those 10-2 millirem per 8 year doses?
i 9 MR. GAD: No, Your Honor, and let's make 10 one thing clear. It's not my purpose to present 11 evidence so that the Board makes a finding that those 12 are the levels. What I was illustrating is the fact
, 13 that it is the petitioners' burden to demonstrate the 14 potential of real injury, not theoretical or speculative 4
15 or diminimus or it can never be detected injury.
16 It hadn't been done, and I only offered those 17 numbers, which come out of the public record, to --
18 because I'm uncomfortable saying, hey, let me win because 19 someone left something out. No, the 1 x 10-3 millirem 20 per year whole body liquid and 2 x 10-2 max organ gaseous 21 are the result of effluents; that is, either material ,
22 that comes o.ff the off-gas stack or material that goes 23 in the liquid discharge.
24 There is -- Trucks that tranship low level 25 waste have the potential for a shine dose standing NEAL R. GROSS couar apomas no inescasens 1333 aHOOE ISLAND A'4NVE, N.W.
(2001 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (102) 2344433
30 1 alongside the truck. The level of that dose ic a 2 function of the Part 71 and DOT regulations.
1 3 As the truck parades down the highway, a 4 minute fraction of that exposure is received by each of 5 the people who stand along the highway and wave at the 6 truck. The point was that the numbers that we have for 7 everybody collectively, every person along the entire 8 route for the entire hundreds of --
I don't know how far 9 it is from here.to South Carolina, but it's a lot of 10 miles -- for all of the shipments taken together sum to 11 7 person rem, according to the ER.
12 That is a minuscule number, but for an 13 individual whose only ownership of that is the fact that
'\ //D) 14 on a given day they may happen to stop at a red light 15 while the truck goes by, their portion of that is a 16 diminimus fraction of an already very low number.
17 The argument is that that, simply asserted 18 and not converted into anything, does not ground 19 standing, because if it did, we could have anybody trom 20 here to South Carolina.
sf 21 "n* MEMBER ELLEMAN: So you do not then have an 22 estimate of a maximum reasonable public exposure from 23 transportation, as you did for the immersion numbers?
Yankee doesn't collect or report !
24 MR. GAD:
O(_/ 25 those numbers. What I gave to Your Honors came out of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCROER$
1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(alN) 234-4438 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
31 1 the public record. The numbers that Your Honor is 2 looking for, i.e., the maximally exposed member of the 3 public from a Part 71 shipment, would come out of either 4 the Statement of Considerations or the GEIS for Part 71.
5 I will tell you I once read it. I can't 6 tell you I now remember the number, but it's a pretty 7 low number.
8 MS. CURRAN: Your Honor, if the Board intends 9 to rely on what we think is Mr. Gad's effective 10 testimony regarding doses from transportation, it's only 11 fair that we be given an opportunity to respond in 12 writing to that testimony. This is the first time this 13 information has been provided to this tribunal.
14 This is factual information that we -- We are 15 not prepared to testify on that today. We didn't bring 16 our experts, but we would certainly have our experts look 17 at what Mr. Gad has to say and will respond to it.
18 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: We'11 bear that in mind 19 in considering this. Any questions from Board members?
20 By the way, Mr. Gad, it's really up to you 21 in terms of your comfort level. If you prefer to sit 22 down, please feel free to do so.
23 MR. GAD: I've suddenly figured out I'm the 24 only person in the room --
but let me explain, if I may, 25 Where I come from, the cradle of liberty, a lawyer --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TMN8CRSERS I
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 2344438 WA8Hm0 TON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
32 1 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Is it close to 2 Washington? I don' t know what -- What are you comparing
=
3 it to? Go ahead.
4 MR. GAD: -- a lawyer treads --
a lawyer
. 5 will be decapitated for saying as much as " objection, 6 Your Honor," while seated. I don't say that that's the 7 right way to do it. I say that, if you've been doing it 4
8 for 25 years, you're just too old to learn a dif ferent 9 way.
10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I understand. Do
, 11 whatever you're comfortable with, as long as the court 12 reporter can hear you with the microphone. That's my i
I 13 only concern. If he's comfortable, then please do t
C)
V 14 whatever you'd like to do.
i l
1 15 All right. No other questions from any of a
- - 16 the Board members on the issue of standing? All right, 17 let's move on them to the contentions.
18 As I said, we'd like to start --
go through 1
19 these, basically, in the order they've been presented by J l
20 the intervenors. Contention A relates to the question of 21 whether the decommissioning plan violates 10 CFR Section 22 20.1101 in that it fails to maintain occupational public 23 radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable, which is 24 the acronym ALAR which will be used a number of times 25 here, I'm sure, in the next several minutes.
NEAL R. GROSS j count aseontuns ANO in4Nacneens 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE N.W.
(208) 2364433 WASHINorON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
33 i
, 1 The Commission had quite a bit to say on this '
2 subject, at least a fair amount to say on this subject ,
O 3 in terms of guidance in CLI 96-1, and one of the -- I
\
l 4 guess to cut to the quick here, one of the things they ;
i 5 suggested is we need to look for extraordinary 1
6 circumstances.
1 j 7 I guess our question is what are the i
8 extraordinary circumstances here?
l 9 MS. CURRAN: All right. There are three. I
) 10 think they qualify as both extraordinary circumstances or i
11 as misinterpretations of our contention by the Commission i 12 that need to clarified and which would alter the outcome 13 here.
! D.
V 14 First of all, the Commission -- Excuse me.
15 The first problem is that the Commission bases what
! 16 appears to be its view that the ALAR issues are 17 insignificant in this case on a guidance document i
18 regarding the value of person rems avoid'ed.
19 This is not a regulation. It does not bind 20 any of the parties, and we do not accept _the guidance 21 document or we' re not prepared to accept that as binding 22 on us. We seek an opportunity to challenge the basic 23 assumptions underlying this guidance document which i
24 relate to the level of radiation that causes deaths and (O
y 25 injuries and also what is the value of a human life.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN80MER$
1323 RHCOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(308) 2M 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2364433
34 1 Those are all -- As the Commission said, this 2 is a matter of general practice with the Commission, but O 3 there is no binding precedent that says there's an 4 automatic formula that $2,000 is the value for person rem 5 avoided.
6 Another problem is that the Commission 7 assumed that we were in close agreement with Yankee on 8 the decommissioning costs for the facility. That is not 9 the case. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of i 10 our discussion of the present value issue.
- 11 In one of our sub-bases for this contention, 12 we argued that using Yankee's own decommissioning cost i
13 estimates, if instead of using constant dollar values 14 which Yankee uses, one looked at the present value of 15 money, that assuming we agree for purposes of this
- 16 exercise on all of Yankee's other assumptions, the 17 difference in decommissioning costs would be, I think we 18 said, $10-15 million.
19 That sub-basis was addressed only to the 20 issue of present value and did not address our other 21 concerns regarding Yankee's decommissioning cost 22 estimate, which we feel is too low and which we are not 23 prepared at this time to say how much too low it is.
24 Those differences are listed in contention C.
25 They include Yankee's assumption regarding the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200 234-4433 WASHm0 TON O C 20006 (200 2344433
35 l
1 availability of a Massachusetts low level radioactive j 1
e 2 waste facility, which we believe is too optimistic and ,
( )
3 which doesn't consider the cost of transporting the waste 4 to distant waste facilities,.which we think is very 5 likely, and we explain why.
6 Another is that Yankee has not given adequate 7 consideration to the cost of dry cask storage. Another 8 is that Yankee is overly optimistic about the date when 9 epent fuel can be removed from the site. Another is 10 that Yankee's contingency factor is too low. Another is 11 that Yankee's decommissioning cost estimate doesn't 12 include the cost of lead, mercury and asbestos abatement.
13 All of these factors, we believe, would 14 significantly increase the decommissioning cost for 15 Yankee Rowe, and we're not at all prepared to say that 16 our -- We don't have an estimate. At this point, we 17 believe the changes could be --
the difference could be 18 significant, but we are not in close agreement with 19 Yankee Atomic on this and I think this stems from a 20 misinterpretation of that one particular sub-basis.
21 Finally, it is not established in this case 22 that the maximum difference in radiation doses between 23 the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives is 900 person rems.
24 That is the estimate that's provided in the GEIS. It's 25 a generic estimate. The NRC or its consultants also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIGERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200 234 4433 WASHtNGTON. O C. 20005 (20 @ 234-4433
36 1 made estimates for Yankee in a NUREG that we cite in our l 2 contentions.
i 3 In our contentions we cited differing
- 4 estimates of doses that have already occurred at Yankee, 5 and raised the question as to whether -- what the size
)
6 of the doses would be, and we raise this with sufficient 7 specificity and basis to lead reasonable minds to inquire 8 further as to what the total doses would be from 9 decommissioning Yankee Rowe.
10 There is no evidence, no conclusive evidence, 11 here of what those doses are going to be. We do not i
12 accept that the maximum is going to be 900 -- the 13 maximum difference between DECON and SAFSTOR would be 900 p .
O 14 person rems.
15 That addresses the issue of CLI 96-01. I'd 16 like to go on and address other aspects of Yankee's and 17 NRC's objections to this contention.
18 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Let me just interpose a 19 question here. The three points that you've just raised, 20 if-~I'm reading them correctly, understanding them
.g y 21 e M ctly, are the same ones you raise in your motion 22 for reconsideration that's pending with the Commission.
23 Is that correct?
24 MS, CURRAN: That's right.
O(/ 25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: How does that dependency NEAL R. GROSS count nearens ANo TnANacamens 1333 nHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(3W)3344438 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
37 1 of that motion sort of affect our ability to get into 2 those issues? Haven't you really brought those matters i . ('j 3 to the Commission and asked them to reconsider their 4 guidance which they have given us? How does that make 4
5 them extraordinary circumstances, I guess, in terms of 6 what we're here to do?
< 7 MS. CURRAN: We are, of course, concerned that 8 the Commission has prejudged the issues. We are making 9 this argument in the alternative. We would not waive l 10 any opportunity that we have to have the Licensing Board 11 or the Commission consider these issues.
l 12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: At this point, why don' t i 13 we go ahead and have the other two parties comment on t
\ 14 what Ms. Curran said up to this point. Then we'll come
- - 15 back to you on the other, if that's all right with you.
16 MS. CURRAN: Sure.
I 17 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Mr. Gad.
i 18 MR. GAD: Your Honor, the Board's question 19 was, to the extent I can read my writing, what ara the 9
20 extraordinary circumstances. Our answer is none and, 21 frankly, what NECNP has responded to you is a tad non-22 response; that is to say, CLI 96-01.
The commission made some observations about 23 24 the usual expectation in this type of situation, and 25 directed some conclusions for at least the case, and then NEAL R. GROSS
! COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRISER8 1333 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
38 '
l 1 left the ' door open in case something not hypothesized and ]
_. 2 not perceived. The Commission said not apparent to us l 3 on the papers in this case.
1 4 They left the door open, oftentimes a I l
5 mistaken but, nonetheless, they left the door open in 1
6 case comething really unusual comes along. I haven't s
- 7 heard anything but argument as to why CLI~96-01 was in
- 8 error, and I don't think this Board -- My understanding 1
9 --
My assumption is this Board is not going to sit here i
I 10 and judge whether or not 96-01 is either correct or a
11 incorrect or to be followed or not to be followed. So I I
12 don't know exactly what response you're looking for.
13 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler.
b/ 14 MR. HOLLER: Staf f's positica is that CLI 96-01 is the guidance the Commission has given us for this 15 16 case. So I would join Mr. Gad in not addressing the
$ 17 particulars of the extraordinary circumstances that Ms.
18 Curran has raised.
j 19 I would say, though, there are extraordinary 20 aspects that weigh in against a challenge to the 4
21 decommissioning of the Yankee nuclear power station.
22 (WHEREUPON, the proceeding was off the record i
23 briefly at 10:23 a.m. and resumed at 10:30 a.m.)
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Let's go back on the (Oj 25 record. I think Mr. Holler was telling us why there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCRitERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(2W) 2344438 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
39 1 were extraordinary circumstances that mitigated against 2 any change about following the Commission's guidance.
3 MR. HOLLER: That's correct, Your Honor. If 4 I'may, I'll just repeat that it's the staff's position 5 that 96-01 is the commission guidance for-this case; and 6 as I had begun to say, first of all, Yankee Nuclear 7 Power Station there is -- It's a 600 megawatt thermal, 8 167 megawatt electric plant, that the 900 person rem the 9 Commission used in its guidance in 96-01 was based on 10 the difference for a 3,411 megawatt thermal or 1175 11 megawatt electric plant, the model plant that was used in 12 development of the generic environmental impact l l
13 statement. So there is a difference in sizes of the p
\ 14 plants.
15 Secondly, Yankee Nuclear Power Station is a 16 partially decommissioned facility. It has gone through a 4
17 component removal project and activities that were 18 conducted under a staff approved decommissioning plan 19 that was in place from February of 1995 until October of 20 1995. That's resulted in considerable radioactive 21 material being disassembled and shipped of f-site or i
.1 22 stored in the spent fuel pool.
23 As to the transportation aspects, the numbers 24 cited by the petitioners in their petition deal with 25 again the generic environmental impact statement figures, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCR10ER$
1323 RHODE 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(ace) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
i 40 1 the 21 person rem to 3 person rem difference between the g 2 DECON option and the SAFSTOR option; whereas, from the (i) 3 materials that are available on the Yankee Nuclear Power 4 Station, the projected -- those as expressed in the 5 staff's environmental assessment for the transportation 6 aspect to members of the public is on the order.of 10 7 person rem.
8 So I would -- The staff would propose that 9 these aspects again weigh against and allow a challenge 10 using that guidance as provided in 96-01 by the 11 Commission with regard to contention A. Thank you, sir.
12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, you have an 1
13 opportunity to respond to that or to move on to the rest 14 of your arguments, whichever you prefer.
15 MS, CURRAN: I'd like to respond, please.
16 With respect to the assertion that there's I l
17 nothing extraordinary here, we consider that it is )
18 extraordinary where three of the major assumptions i
19 underlying the Commission's guidance are mistaken, and 20 one of those assumptions is something of which the n
21 Commission apparently was unaware that was based on a 22 misinterpretation of our contention as to our view on the i 1
23 decommissioning costs for the plant.
24 This is significant, in our view, and
! /' \ l
(_,/ 25 extraordinary that there was a fundamental misconception l I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN8CRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, G.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
41 1 of our contention. There is also a fundamental n 2 misconception, apparently,. that we would be in agreement b 3 as to the total doses from this plant or the difference 4 in doses between DECON and SAFSTOR, and the economic 5 significance of those differences.
6 With respect to the question of whether --
7 the implications of the fact that Yankee is partially 8 decommissioned, we really don' t know what doses have been 9 incurred so far. We don't know what doses are left to 10 be incurred.
11 There are -- Yankee has provided some 12 numbers. There's a range of numbers that have been 13 provided as to what, if any, doses from the CRP. There t
14 have been further decommissioning activities for which we 15 haven't seen estimated doses.
16 We really don' t know what the remaining doses l
- 17 from the decommissioning activities would be, and the 18 question here is whether we have stated a contention with 1
- 19 reasonable specificity and basis such that reasonable l 20 minds would inquire further, and it would be 3 ,
21 inappropriate to judge the merits of this contention 1
22 before allowing us to have an opportunity to conduct an 23 inquiry into those doses.
24 At this point, I'd like to go on.
. C\
V 25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W. j (20E) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344 433
4 42 1 MS. CURRAN: Yankee argues that petitioners 2 can't make an argument, an ALAR argument, based on doses
.O. 3 to the public or workers during transportation, because 4 NRC transportation regulations contain no ALAR 5 requirements.
6 That isn't -- I think that's beside the i 7 point. The point is not that -- Our contention does not i
l 8 address the way that waste is going to be transported.
9 It addresses the timing of transportation of waste. That 10 is a fundamental aspect of a decommissioning plan, which 11 is the choice of alternatives.
12 Does one ship the waste immediately or does 13 one defer the shipments, thereby reducing the level of I;
14 radioactivity and the volume of the waste? The proposed 15 rule on criteria for decommissioning, which is still 16 pending, of course, although it's not enforceable in this 17 case, it certainly indicates that the Commission 18 considers this question that the impacts from 19 transportation of waste to be a basic consideration in 20 evaluating the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives, and that 21 is cited in our contentions.
22 CLI 96-01 also makes it very clear that ALAR 23 applies to the choice of decommissioning alternatives.
24 That is now very clear. So that where the choice of 25 decommissioning alternatives is based on impacts to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHODE LSLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(200 23HetJ WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (200 23 4 433
- 43 1 workers and the public that stem from transportation, 2 then it's very legitimate to include issues of 4
3 transportation in the' ALAR analysis.
- 4 We also believe that CLI 96-01 has disposed 5 of the question of whether we cite the appropriate 6 ' regulation for ALAR requirements. In its response to our 7 original --
its original response to our contentions, 8 Yankee went 'on at great length with an argument that 10 9 CFR 20.1101 does not apply here and that the applicable
'10 regulations are in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. That 11 question has now been disposed of.
! 12 Yankee and the staff both argue that the 13 portion of the site that's dedicated to spent fuel and
't
()
/ 14 high level waste storage is only a small portion of the l
l 15 site and that this -- I guess this implies that some i 16 portion of the site can be released for unrestricted use, i
17 that this is a factor in favor of choosing the DECON i
18 alternative, but they don't describe the portion that 19 could be released or refute the fact that at least some 20 portion of the site has to be restricted for a lengthy
- 21 period of time.
22 The staff also asserts that removal of low 23 level waste will expedite the release of the site. This 24 is not borne out by the documents that Yankee has V(3 25 applied regarding how the decommissioning process works.
. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(2 2 234-4433 WASHtNGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
44 1 It appears to be that one cannot remove some of the
. 2 major _ low level radioactive waste components such as the O 3 reactor vessel until the spent fuel pool is empty, 4 because it involves carrying the component over the pool.
5 So that it does not follow that, if one 6 removed all the low level waste, thac this would somehow 7 expedite the final decommissioning of the p:. ant. Really, i
8 the opposite is true, that one needs to do something 9 with the spent fuel before one can get to the other
'10 parts.
11 Yankee also disputes petitioners' assertion 12 that Yankee's comparison of the DECON and SAFSTOR 13 alternatives is inaccurate and misleading, because it
(/)
N_ 14 unreasonable ignores the time value of money.
15 As we stated in our reply to Yankee, Yankee's 16 own documents show that Yankee used constant dollars in
, 17 its decommissioning cost estimates, and we've provided 18 expert testimony stating that that constant dollar value ;
19 calculation is inaccurate.
l 20 This seems to be a case of one party saying 21 that the sky is blue, and the other saying that the sky ,J l
22 is yellow. However, we have provided documentation from 23 Yankee's own reports indicating that Yankee uses constant 24 dollar value, and Yankee doesn't seem to argue that j
-t
) 25 that's inappropriate. They are saying they are doing NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReeER8 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(208) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23 4 433 .
L _ _ __ . .
45 i something else.
2 We have raised here a material issue of fact 3 that should go to litigation and be resolved.through 4 further exploration of the issue.
5 Yankee and the staff also contend that 6 petitioners have provided no basis for using a discount 7 rate of nine percent to calculate the present value of 8 decommissioning alternatives. However, again we provide 9 an expert affidavit indicating that the discount rate of 10 nine percent is typical in the industry and is virtually 11 the same as the 9.2 percent rate recommended by the 12 Electric Power Research Institute for evaluating electric 13 utility investments.
14 Yankee argues that we provide no basis for 15 contending that waste volume would be reduced over a 30-
- 16 year period. This seems to come from a misinterpretation 17 of the GEIS which doesn't have waste volume reduction 18 numbers for a 30-year SAFSTOR period, but the GEIS does )
~
19 indicate that waste volume reduces gradually over time I'
20 and that the decision not to give numbers for 30 years )
21 had..~more to do with clarity of presentation than with 22 the question of whether the volume would be reduced.
23 In addition, we believe that a longer period I
24 than 30 years should be considered.
) 25 Yankee also makes general arguments in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CR60ERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
+
1
- . -. . . . . -_ . - =_ _ . . . . . -_-
46 1 opposition to this contention about " notorious general i
f 2 increases in decommissioning costs." Again, this is a b 3 factual issue that's suitable for hearing.
4 The question before the Board is not whether 5 Yankee and petitioners disagree about something. It's
. 6 whether petitioners have provided enough information to 7 make reasonable minds inquire further, and we have done 8 that in this case.
9 We have addressed each of Yankee's criteria 10 for choosing the DECON alternative and raised legitimate 11 and documented concerns supported by expert affidavits 12 regarding the adequacy of Yankee's rationale. That is 13 the standard for whether this contention is admissible.
) ,
v 14 The same is true for Yankee's argument in '
15 response to our claim'that Yankee's criteria regarding l
16 availability of personnel was not judged properly.
17 Yankee, in analyzing the DECON versus SAFSTOR 18 alternatives, said that they preferred DECON because they 19 would have more experienced workers available.
20 Petitioners raised the question of, if Yankee 21 does not intend to remove the low level radioactive 22 wastes until the year 2003 when the Massachusetts
, l 23 facility supposedly will become available, by that time 1
24 Yankee may have lost a significant number of plant 25 personnel.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRt9ERS 1323 RH00E 18 LAND AVENUE N.W.
(20s) 2344433 WASHWGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
47 1 Thus, the supposed benefit of doing -- of 1 2 decommissioning the plant more quickly is that the factor
.t i
3 of availability of personnel does not weigh heavily in 4 favor of DECON. Yankee's objection to this does not 5 lead to the --
should 'not lead to the dismissal of this i
1 6 contention, but it rather raises a material issue of 1
1 7 fact.
l 8 We've provided good reasons to question 9 Yankee's judgment on this matter, and the issue should go 4 1 10 to hearing for discovery and development of evidence.
11 I'd just like to comment on contention A2, 12 the sub-basis 2,_ unless you would like me to stop there.
- . 13 That dealt with basis 1. l l
<t '
1 14 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Why don' t you go ahead
} 15 and continue with basis 2. Then we'll allow the other
- 16 two parties to discuss both b
- ses for the contention.
i 17 MS. CURRAN: In this basis we advocated -- we 18 advocate application of the ALARA principle to the l- 19 transfer of spent fuel from the spent fuel pit to dry
! 20 cask, which is something Yankee proposes to do in the i
21 decommissioning plan.
22 The issue is that Yankee has not committed to i
23 applying the ALARA principle to this issue, and Yankee i
24 claims that this question is premature, because there's A
,U 25 no application pending right now for permission to use NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRAN80RSER8 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 2344433 WASHINGTON, DA 20006 (202) 2344433
?
48 1 dry cask storage. ilowever , the decommissioning plan is a l l
2 document that suppcsedly sets forth the framework for O 3 what Yankee's decommissioning steps are going to be.
l 4 The question of whether and how ALARA is to 5 be applied is certainly a fundamental part of a 6 decommissioning plan. So we think that it is not at all l
7 premature to address the issue of whether Yankee's 8 decommissioning plan should clearly state that the ALARA 9 principle is applicable when Yankee goes to look at the 10 dry cask alternatives that it's considering.
11 The alternatives in that case are that Yankee 12 could transfer the fuel from dry cask to -- from the 13 spent fuel pit to multi-purpose casks that could be used
(
\m 14 for on-site storage and transportation or it could i l
15 transfer the fuel to dry cask -- storage dry casks and i
16 then'later to transportation dry cask. ;
l 17 We think it's important that the ALARA 18 principle be applied so that radiation doses will be ;
19 minimized to the extent feasible and practicable under 20 the ALARA standards when that decision is made.
21 That concludes my presentation on contention 22 A '.
l 23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad.
24 MR. GAD: Thank you, Your Honor. An initial 25 observation, if I may: I am sure it was inadvertent, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20 4 234 4433 WASHWGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
49 1 but the assertion was made during oral argument that i
2 there is a document that demonstrates that you cannot j 3 remove the reactor vessel from the vapor containment '
4 without first dismantling the spent fuel pool.
3 5 I'm sure it was inadvertent. I'm equally 6 sure there is no such piece of paper. I don't want to 7 be accused of testifying, but if you' ve ever seen the 8 diagrams or the photographs or stood there, there's a 9 little hatch, and the reactor pressure vessel will come
- 10 directly down that hatch, and it goes onto a railroad 11 thing that's sitting right on the ground, and it arches 12 away. The spent fuel building is over here, and it's 13 not --
it's not underneath where this thing would be s_- 14 dropped.
15 So just to make the observation. I'm sure it 16 was inadvertent. I'm equally sure that it is wrong.
17 If you step back f rom contention A a moment, 1
18 go back to the day when we first received it and first 19 took a look at it, one was a little bit concerned. The 20 first reason was that it cited 10 CFR 20.1101, and you 21 got out 20.1101 and you started reading, and you got to 22 the end, and. nowhere did it say anything that was on 23 point.
4 24 20.1101 talks about radiation protection
~
, y,, 25 programs, and the selection between DECON or SAFSTOR, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISER$
1323 RH00E 18LANO AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
50 1 like the selection between going BWR or PWR or the 4
, 2 selection between a 700 megawatt plant or a 800 megawatt
%}
3 plant or a 200 megawatt plant, for instance, has never 4 been thought of as being a radiation protection program.
5 One's consternation grew a little bit when 6 you went back and looked at the Commission' a statement of 7 considerations by which Section 5082 'rtas promulgated, in 8 the first place, and you find language such as the 9 following: "It should be noted that for any of the 10 alternatives, occupational exposures will be limited by 11 the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and that, in 12 particular, licensees should maintain exposures to 13 workers to as low as reasonably achievable levels." ]
I lt N 14 Thus, radiation exposure to workers will be
< l
~
15 kept at acceptable levels for any of the alternatives.
16 Likewise, flip the page, you find the following language:
17 " Based on the documents indicated above and on the 18 discussion in the supplementary information..." -- that's 19 a prior document that was part of the GEIS background to 20 the proposed rule -- "
...the conclusion of the 21 supplementary information regarding these two 22 alternatives..." -- At this point the Commission is down 23 to DECON or 30-50 SAFSTOR -- " ...the conclusion regarding j i
24 these two alternatives is that both are reasonable 25 options for decommissioning light water power reactors. l l
NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRSER$
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N.W. i (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2 % 4433 l
I 51 1 As indicated in Section A2, a prior section of the f 2 comments, the proposed rule, proposed 50.82, has been 3 modified to permit use of DECON or SAFSTOR for up to 60 4 years, so long as it is demonstrated that they will be 5 performed in a manner which protects the public health 6 and safety."
7 The third problem that you had was that, if 8 you went and asked one of the fellows who has been in 9 nuclear licensing for years and years and years and you 10 say, well, you know, how is it that you can license a 11 1,000 megawatt plant if a 900 megawatt plant will have 12 lowcr exposure and an 800 megawatt plant a lower exposure 13 than taat, and you can get all the way down to going 14 coal instead --
Actually, coal is a bad example. This 15 is a radiological exposure, but the point is that the 16 notion that ALARA, which was designed to do better than
- 17 good where we can --
after we have decided that 18 something is acceptable, the notion that ALARA could ever 19 be used to say, no, you can' t achieve this objective, 20 no, you can' t go DECON, no, you can't go a 1,000 21 megawatt plant, frankly, is novel. It's never come up. l l
22 Now it's never come up in general, and it was i I
23 not even on the Commission's radar scope when it 24 promulgated Section 50.82. So we asked the Commission to n
- 25 come out and say, wait a minute, this is a misuse of l l
NEAL R. GROSS !
coum neommas ano raansca.eas j im a--,mmu m l
(200 2364433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l l l
- 52 l
1 ALARA. Principle of as low as is reasonably achievable ;
I g 2 was never intended to apply in this kind of circumstance. l
.( '
3 Well, the Commission waffled, frankly, and 4 issued CLI 96-01, and at least for the moment -- I think 5 that's the language -- for the moment declined to accept 6 the categorical position that we had asked them to l
7 pronounce.
8 Ultimately, frankly, I think the Commission 9 will come around, but the fact of the matter is that for 10 today CLI 96-01 is the law of the case, and it binds 11 Yankee -- didn't get exactly what it wanted -- and the 12 petitioners and, frankly, this Board alike.
i 13 The Board perhaps will tell me if I'm in 14 error, but I do not think that the Board really wants to
. 15 hear argument about why either CLI 96-01 should be 16 affirmed or reversed. So I would be inclined to sit i
17 down with the observation that the Commission has decreed 18 that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances --
19 don't know what it had in mind. I don't think it had 20 anything in mind. There are no extraordinary 21 circumstances here. -- in the absence of extraordinary 22 circumstances, a differential occupational exposure, 23 delta worker exposure of 900 person rem, is not an ALARA 24 violation or does not raise ALARA concerns.
25 Now if that is true, then contention A is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(209) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4633
53 1 inadmissible, because by the only document upon which the 2 petitioners have ever relied, the current estimate for
[~T 3 the complete exposure of occupational and public from the 4 beginning to the end, not from today forward and not 5 differential but from the beginning to the end, 6 occupational exposure is 744 person rem. 900 is
]
7 acceptable, and 744 is acceptable.
! 8 So on the assumption that CLI 96-01 is at 9 least the law that binds us all, contention A is simply 10 inadmissible.
j 11 CRAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler.
]
i 12 MR. HOLLER: Staff will refrain from making
!' 13 arguments in support of a motion to reconsider CLI 96-01.
i'
-- 14 As stated before, we regard 96-01 as the guidance for
] 15 the case.
16 Turning to the particulars that petitioners I 17 have raised, first of all, transportation, petitioners l 18 are quite right. In CLI 96-01 the Commission seems to 19 say that an ALARA challenge may lie against the choice j 20 of a decommissioning alternative, but there must be a 21 factual basis for such a challenge.
22 It's staf f's position petitioners fail to 23 raise that requisite supporting factual basis, the 24 extraordinary circumstances. In particular, petitioners
~IA)s- 25 argue that the timing of the shipments will make a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN80MERS 1333 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2544433
54 1 difference.
~ 2 Figures used by the petitioners come from the
~
3 GEIS and talk about a reduction from 21 person rem to 3 4 person rem, the exposure to the public resulting from 5 DECON or SAFSTOR. Again, this reduction --
Turning to 6 the staff's EA, the particular figures applicable to 7 Yankee Nuclear Power Station are a maximum of person rem 8 for exposure to the public under DECON alternative.
9 The point here is that reduction of this 2
10 magnitude is insignificant to support an ALARA challenge, i 11 if one considers the guidance that's given in 96-01.
12 Looking at the partial release of the site, i
13 the petitioners argue that this has no meaning, that t'
14 decommissioning activities, removal of low level waste, 1
l 15 must await the availability of a low level radioactive a
16 waste repository in Massachusetts with a projected year j .17 of 2003.
j 18 Force of logic says that there just is no 19 basis for this in that, while Yankee Nuclear Power 20 Station was conducting decommissioning activities under a y
21 staff approved decommissioning plan from February 1995 to 22 October, shipments were being made and low level 23 radioactive waste was being removed.
24 Petitioners raise a number of arguments with
- (- Staff would defer
(_/ 25 regard to the cost of decommissioning.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISER$
1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20E) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
55 1 its response to those until we get to contention C.
2 It's the staf f's opinion they merely repeated those O 3 matters which, we assume, petitioners will again raise in 4 contention C that form the basis for contention C. So 5 we'll delay until then.
6 With regard to the waste volume reduction, 7 the petitioners argue that again there will be a 8 significant change or reduction in the amount of exposure 9 that will come by delaying, going into a period of 10 extended SAFSTOR and then decommissioning. However, 11 these figures again are based on the generic 12 environmental impact statement.
13 I echo the words that Mr. Gad has said. At 14 most, this is 900 person rem, a difference which the 15 Commission has found in 96-01 not to be sufficient for 16 launching an ALARA challenge, absent extraordinary 17 circumstances not apparent to the Commission for laying l 18 an ALARA challenge against the choice of decommissioning 19 alternative.
20 Touching on the last point that petitioners 21 udde in their first basis for contention A, and that is 22 the workers and the removal of low level radioactive 23 waste, again it's an inescapable fact that low level 24 radioactive waste was being shipped while the plant 25 operated under an approved -- staff approved NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRAN8CRl8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
. . - - . - _ ~ . - _ - _ . - - - .- .-
56 1 decommissioning plan. So there is no waiting, and
- g. 2 workers not doing anything-or losing experienced workers
'O
! 3 until a low level radioactive waste disposal facility 4 became available, if ever, in Massachusetts.
5 Basis 2: Again, petitioners look to launch 6 an ALARA --
or questioned, rather, whether an ALARA 7 principle should be applied to the transfer of the dry 8 cask storage. I think Ms. Curran probably used the l 9 correct words when she said the decommissioning plan is a i
10 framework.
- 11 Within that framework it seems the i
12 petitioners' main disagreement is with Yankee Atomic l 13 Electric - Company's failure to go to the details of
' (,D V 14 carrying out the plan. I would only say that the 15 details are --
would be the subject of separate amendment 16 applications to the technical specifications, if in fact
- 17 they were needed.
- 18 If, in fact, transfer to a chipping cask were 1
19 required, a change to those operations which are 20 currently allowed under the existing technical 21 specifications, that would require Yankee Atomic Electric 22 Company coming to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 23 an amendment of its license to carry out that.
24 Therefore, none of the bases that the
- k 25 petitioners have put forward are sufficient to support NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1333 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(2tm 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
. - _ . . . __ = . . ._. _.
57
, -1 the ALARA challenge to Yankee's choice of the g 2 decommissioning alternative.
3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, your 4 response.
) 5 MS. CURRAN: Mr. Gad claimed I misspoke when 6 I said that petitioners rely on documentation for the 7 proposition that low level waste removal can't be 8 completed until the spent fuel pool is decommissioned.
9 Petitioners rely on text from the final safety analysis d
10 report at page 100-3.
11 It isn't very specific, but it does say that 12 -- Let's see -- dismantlement activities are limited when 1
13 spent fuel is stored in a spent fuel pit. Activities 14 cannot be pursued that could result in the loss of spent 15 fuel pit integrity or in physical damage to the fuel 16 that would reduce subcriticality margin or cause a loss 1
17 of a coolable geometry.
l l 18 Although this language is not specific as to 19 what components can be removed, according to Yankee's own 20 document, there are some activities that can't be done 21 until the spent fuel pit is decommissioned. That was 22 the point that we were trying to get across in response 23 to the staf f's argument that low level waste removal 24 would expedite the ultimate decommissioning of the plant.
25 I'd like to address the scale issue that was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR8ER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHWGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
58 1 raised by Yankee in its argument. That seems to us to 2 be quite relevant to an ALARA analysis, and that is the O. 3 Yankee Rowe is quite - - -
plant is quite a bit smaller 4 than the standard plant that was evaluated in the GEIS.
5 Therefore, in our view, in making an ALARA 6 analysis one has to look at the overall size of the 7 plant when considering things like cost and feasibility 8 and general appropriateness of various measures. That 9 has not been taken into account here.
10 For a smaller plant, one would reasonably 11 expect that doses to workers from decommissioning would 12 not be as great as doses from a much larger plant, and 13 that must also be taken into account.
I
\ 14 I think there was reference made to -- an 15 argument made that the timing of shipments doesn't make a 16 big difference, because it's the difference between 21 17 person rems and 7 person rems. That, of course, is the 18 dose difference for public exposures.
19 The dose difference from occupational 20 exposures are quite a bit larger, and that is part of 21 the basis of this contention, which is not just to 22 address public exposures.
23 Would you excuse me for one moment.
24 That's all I have.
) 25 CHAIRHMi BOLLWERK: All right. Any questions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER8 1323 MHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
.(200) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
59 1 from any Board members?
4 g 2 MEMBER KLINE: Ms. Curran, would you respond U 3 to the argument implied by Mr. Gad relating to the use 4 of piARA to choose among alternatives and what I have in 5 mind in this particular case is that since radioactivity 6 inevitably decays with the passage of time, it seems like 7 the SAFSTOR alternative would always incur a lower dose 8 than DECON.
9 Does your argument, then, preclude, 4
10 generally, the use of a DECON alternative based on ALARA 11 principles?
12 MS. CURRAN: No, it doesn't because ALARA 13 requires consideration of more than just the doses 14 involved. It clearly is a type of cost benefit 15 analysis.
16 What we did in our contention was to
, 17 demonstrate that Yankee-Rowe's cost benefit analysis in 18 which it found that DECON was the favored option, was 19 deficient and that a more reasonable cost benefit 20 analysis would have found that the SAFSTOR alternative 21 was cost effective.
22 So, we are not arguing that in every single i
- 23 case one must choose the alternative with the lower 24 doses. But we have demonstrated sufficiently to raise an b) x_ 25 admissible contention here that, in this case, weighing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSQMERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2M
60
- I the various economic and logistical factors and looking
'2 at the dose reductions, that SAFSTOR is -- that the cost I
O 3 and benefits weigh in favor of choosing the SAFSTOR
- 4 option.
5 MEMBER KLINE: Okay. Now, in Mr. Gad's and 6 Mr. Holler's responses, I believe that had, at least i 7 implicitly, used the GEIS numbers as envelope numbers or 8 bounding conditions, i.e. the 900 person-rem between the 9 alternatives was treated more or less as the out bounds 10 of an envelope.
'i
~
11 If that is the interpretation, wouldn't it 1
l 12 follow that any dose within the envelope is acceptable i
- 13 without further scrutiny?
14 MS. CURRAN: No.
l 15 MEMBER KLINE: Why not?
16 MS. CURRAN: First of all, we don' t 17 necessarily accept that the doses here are going to be I
18 within that envelope. That has not been demonstrated l 19 here yet and we have raised a reasonable question as to 20 what those doses would be.
21 Second, as I mentioned before, it is 22 important to look at the size of this plant. And what 23 is reasonable to expect from decommissioning a plant the )
24 size of Yankee-Rowe. Those doses ought to be in
,Q [
V 25 proportion to the size of the plant and what was :
1 i NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRANSCRISER8 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(2010 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344 433
61 1 expected from it initially.
! 2 MEMBER KLINE: I understand the logic of that 3 argument. What I' don't understand is where the authority 4 comes from. Is there something in the regulations or 5 the GEIS that requires us to scale as you are arguing?
4 6 MS. CURRAN: There certainly isn' t specific j 7 language but in the GEIS, the commission did rely on a 8 NUREG that looked at the size of the Yankee plant and 9 the expected doses from the Yankee plant.
10 And also, in performing an ALARA analysis.
11 one would expect that in doing a cost benefit analysic 12 for any kind of a facility, you look at all kinds of 13 economic and practical factors that would affect an
' 14 overall analysis. And one would be the size, the 15 expected impacts of the facility, and what is reasonably 16 expected to occur from that facility.
17 So, it really follows as a reasonable part of 18 an ALARA analysis.
19 MEMBER KLINE: Could we be expected to find 20 anything extraordinary, vis a vis doses, that lie within 21 the boundaries of the GEIS as opposed to something that 22 exceeded the boundaries?
23 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry. I don't understand 24 your question.
25 MEMBER KLINE: I mean if we have doses or NEAL R. GROSS i covar aponTuns Ano raAnscaiuns 1323 aH00E ISUNO AVENUE. N.W, (200) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
-'e
62 1 projected doses to the public er occupational doses, all
,, 2 of which are within the envelope established by the GEIS, 3 is there any basis for finding such lower doses 4 extraordinary in any way?
5 One extraordinsry circumstance one could j
- 6 envision, hypothetically, le that doses of a particular 7 case would exceed the boundaries in the GEIS. But if 8 they don' t, is there anything extraordinary that we could 9 look to then?
4 10 MS. CURRAN: Well, certainly it would be 11 extraordinary if those doses significantly exceeded the 12 doses that were predicted in the NUREG on which the 13 commission relied in issuing the GEIS. I our view that I
\s, 14 would be extraordinary.
15 MEMBER KLINE: Is it your view that the GEIS j 16 itself is subject to attack in a preceding like this?
17 MS. CURRAN: We believe we are subject to the j
18 regulations in 10 CFR, part 51 which relate to 19 supplementation of an GEIS. I think the standard there 20 is if there is significant new information which shows 21 that some analysis performed in the GEIS was in error or
, 22 needs to be redone, that that is the avenue for an 23 " attack" on the GEIS.
24 But as far as simply walking in here and
) 25 saying the GEIS was wrong, no, we don't believe that we NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRs6ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
63 1 are entitled to do that.
2 MEMBER KLINE: That is all I have.
, (~h
\- 3 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Yes, Ms. Curran, you said 4 you don not accept the person-rem calculations that have 5 been presented. Is there any particular part of those 6 that you challenge or any particular analysis that you 7 could bring before us that would show where those are in 8 error?
9 MS. CURRAN: There is a discrepancy between 10 Yankee-Rowe's 1993 estimates and later calculations of 11 doses from the CRP and that is discussed in our 12 contentions and I think in the reply. At one point 13 there was an estimate of 350 to 400 person-rems from the 14 CRP alone and this would be a large portion of the 15 expected dose from the NUREG, I think it is NUREG 130.
1 16 This is discussed in our contention. I 17 Another aspect is that Yankee-Rowe has been 18 continuing decommissioning activities since the CRP and i
19 those are addressed in our emergency motion to the 20 commission, which I think you were served copies, that 21 have also incurred additional doses to workers and I .
22 assume, the public, because some of that waste was 23 shipped.
24 And we simply don' t know, at this point, what 25 those doses were. So, it remains an open question.
NEAL R. GROSS COUMT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCMSER8 1323 RHOOE i8 LAND AVENUE. N.W.
(2tN) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) ?34 4433 i
i 64 1 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Why don't we
,, 2 then move on to Contention B This contention provides
\- 3 that the proposed decommissioning plan does not 4 adequately describe Yankee-Rowe Atomic's planned-5 decommissioning activities or it control and limits on 6 procedures and equipment in violation of 10 CFR, section 7 50.82, B 1 and 2.
8 I think that the first subdivision under this 9 one -- and I will try to break these down the same way 10 you did and if I don't please correct me and we will get 11 back on track.
12 It deals with an assumption of low-level 13 waste disposal facility will be available in 2003. I IO V 14 guess that is one of the assumptions in the Yankee-Rowe 15 plant. And you contend that that is overly optimistic, 16 that the plan needs to provide measures to accommodate a 17 more lengthy period of delay and for out-of-state 18 shipments.
19 What, if anything, do you have to say in 20 regard to that particular bases?
21 MS. CURRAN: Well, in its most recent reply 22 to us, Yankee-Rowe asserts that delay in availability of 23 low-level waste site in Massachusetts should be okay with 24 us because that is what we are angling for in this 25 proceeding.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(209) 23N438 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 2344433
65 1 But, it is more complicated than that. It is I
,- 2 very clear from our contentions that we think the low- l V 3 level waste should be stored on the site for an extended 4 period of time, of say 30 to 50 years, in order to let j 5 the waste decay.
6 However, Yankee-Rowe's assertion that a low-7 level waste disposal facility will be available in the 8 year 2003 is unrealistic and needs to be changed.
9 Partly in order to present a reasonable decommissioning 10 plan that is understandable and reasonable in terms of 11 making decisions by the government and in terms of the 12 public really understanding what the implications of 1
13 decommissioning the plant are. l 14 It also, affects the cost of decommissioning 15 because if a low-level waste disposal site is not i
16 available in the year 2003 in Massachusetts, then Yankee- l l
17 Rowe may have to ship waste off-site to other states.
I 18 And, as we said I think in our reply, low-level waste 1
19 disposal sites that are closest to being licensed are 20 quite distant from Massachusetts; I believe in California
- a. .
21 and' Texas.
22 And so it is important to look at the 23 practical, the reasonable prospects for doing this in 1
24 order to have a fully informed decommissioning plan.
10
\_) - 25 And it is true that many aspects of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(M 234-4438 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
66 i i decommissioning, at this point in time, are somewhat l i
2 uncertain. But the way to address that problem is not
(- I 3 to just seized on one particular alternative and base 4 one's entire decommissioning plan on that. One must 5 explain what the reasonable array of prospects are and 6 evaluate the practical implications and the costs of 7 those prospects.
8 That is just the reality here. It is the 9 nature of the beast. And we feel that this plan is not 1
10 adequate to describe what the decommissioning activtties 11 or process will be at Yankee-Rowe.
12 Yankee mentions that it has other options 13 besides waiting until the year 2003 and apparently it is t
N 14 now shipping waste to Barnwell. However, Barnwell is l
15 expected to.close, has been expected to close for some ;
l 16 time and the reality is that there are currently no 17 other radioactive wasted disposal sites available to l 18 Yankee.
1 19 So, this decommissioning plan needs to 20 reflect that reality in a more reasonable way and 21 actually discuss the prospects and the costs for low-22 level waste disposal. )
i l
23 I have nothing more on that.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad?
p 25 MR. GAD: If the Board will indulge me for a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRt9ER8 131t3 RHODE 18 LAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
67 1 moment.and go subcontention by subcontention, I think we 2 will miss a little something here.
(
-3 Structure of Contention B overall, is that 4 there are five items that are omitted. The five items 5 are required by sections 50.82 bl or b2 and they are 6 required .n order to do two things: Support the 7 reasonableness of the alternative selection between DECON 8 and SAFSTOR and demonstrate the accuracy of the cost 9 estimates.
10 Now, with the contention thus structured, it 11 really doesn't matter whether the five things are present 12 or absent and it really doesn't matter if the five 13 things are required by sections 50.82 bl and 50. 82 b2, O
v 14 if it turns out that we don' t have to support the I
15 reasonableness of the alternative selection. But CLI 16 01 held with respect to Contention A.
17 And we don't have to demonstrate the accuracy 18 of the cost estimate, but CLI-96-01 held with respect to 19 Contention C.
20 We only care about the cost estimates because 21 we:want some assurance that the costs will' be funded.
22 The number by itself and arguments about the number by 23 itself are irrelevant except in so far as they implicate 24 some question about whether or not it will be paid.
25 Likewise, with dif ferential exposures within NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR88t!RS 1323 RH00E 18LANO AVENUE, N.W.
(200 23H433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23H433
68 1 the limit of about 900 person-rem, about 900 person-rem, 2 the absence of something extraordinary that wasn't even O 3 hypothesized, it is the licensee's choice to do A or B 4 and therefore we don' t have to demonstrate reasonableness 5 of the alternative selections.
6 On that basis alone, and I won't say it five 7 times, I will only say it once, but I think that all of 8 Contention B goes out.
9 Likewise, the structure of Contention B is 10 that the five items are missing and its regulatory basis 11 is that the five items are required by section 50.82 bl 12 and b2.
13 Well, the fact of the matter is that after 14 that statement is made, these five items aren't.
15 The whole rest of the argument is not about 16 anything missing, it is about something that we don't 17 agree with. Indeed, by definition, 50.82 bl and b2 18 don't even apply to the five things that NECNP is 19 talking about.
20 These regulations talk about planned 21 actri'/ities and controls and procedures. Not predictions ,
22 about when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is going to 23 have a low-level waste facility open.
24 A third general observation is that four of
/7 the five items, I should have held this because it
'y/ 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TMANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20s)2 m WASHMGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
69 1 doesn't apply to number one, four of the five items that 2 are in the list are excluded from the term decommission.
3 Therefore don't have to be included.
4 Let me just go back to number one. The 5 availability of a low-level waste facility, there is 6 notiing in 50.82 bl or b2 that says the plant must 7 contain your estimate of when you are going to have a 8 low-level waste facility in Massachusetts. And neither 9 one says you must write about it.
10 The only way this one gets in is based on 11 the assumption that if there is not low-level waste ;
12 facility to which you can ship the material then you 13 ought to just leave it where it is.
e i
14 Now, the fact of the matter is there are 15 alternatives to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Some 16 of those alternatives are available right now and 17 shipments are being made right now. Barnwell is not the 18 only one.
19 So, Contention B-1, which is nothing other 20 than an-invitation to litigate, we could have a week's 21 worth of hearings or a month's worth of hearings or a 22 year's worth of hearings. We could have a long hearing 23 on when Massachusetts is going to have an in-state low-24 level waste facility. And you can call everybody in the 25 Massachusetts state government.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRe8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
I 70 1 But the fact of the matter is, that when all 2 of the witnesses have gone home, if this Board assumes O 3 for itself the obligation of coming up with the right 4 answer to that question, they will never do it. It 5 can't be done.
6 So, a c ..cention to which there is no answer.
7 A contention that doesn't get any relief -- Let's say 8 that the Board decided that it wasn't the year 2003.
9 Let's say that the Board listened to the witnesses and 10 decided that no, the real time that Massachusetts is 11 going to l' ave a low-level waste depository is 2006, what 12 is the relief that flows from that?
13 Presumably it is an order that says that you l i
A 14 mend the line decommissioning plan although I wonder what i 15 the significance of that is if in fact we have other l l
16 places to ship the waste today and are doing so.
- 17 Other requirements of 2.714 is that the i
18 contention must lead to some relief that would assuage 19 the standing issues. Modifying a date in the 20 decommissioning plan for an item that isn't even 21 specified in 50.82 bl and b2 is not the kind of relief l
22 that the commission is talking about in 2.714.
23 Let me stop here.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
25 .MR. HOLLER: Basis 1 to Contention B asserts ,
NEAL R. GROSS CX)URT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRWER8 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
~
(21 4 2344433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
_________________________________________d
71 1 that because a low-level radioactive waste disposal
, r- 2 . facility would not be available in Massachusetts, the
( !
3 decommissioning plan should provide for a delay in the 4 availability of a low-level radioactive waste site and 5 transportation to a distant out-of-state facility.
6 The first point is that the plan does make 7 provisions for the availability of another. The 8 decommissioning plan provides for making use of space 9 within the low-level radioactive waste facility that i
10 becomes available.
11 That, in fact, is occurring with shipments to
- 12 Barnwell.
13 The petitioners argue that Barnwell might t
14 close. And, in fact, they state that Barnwell is l 15 expected to close, but it's not. So, the plan has the 4
16 flexibility to deal with one aspect to dispose in year 17 2003 at a facility in Massachusetts or to make use of 18 other facilities that are available or become available. I 19 Petitioner argue that some provision should 1
20 be made for the distance and the costs that will be ]
21 incurred in shipping to a distant site. The Petitioners i 1
22 said perhaps Texas or California.
23 In fact, the question here is, is there 24 reasonable assurance that the decommissioning costs will O
O 25 be paid and-I would say that is part of Contention C l
NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTER 8 ANO TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE 18 LAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
72 1 which we hope to get to soon. But it isn't part of
, 2 Contention B. It is a separate one. Is there a
!D t
'J 3 reasonable assurance that the decommissioning costs will 4 be paid?
5 I would stop then at basis 1 and say that 6 because there simply is no factual basis in basis 1 to 7 support Contention B that the decommissioning plan does 8 not adequately address Yankee Atomic Energy Corporation's 9 planned decommissioning activities.
10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran?
11 MS, CURRAN: As far as the significance of 12 this legal requirement, it must be remembered that this 13 is a regulation on the books of the Nuclear Regulatory f~)
k/ 14 Commission. So, whatever we or Mr. Gad think is the 15 purpose of the regulation, the regulation exists.
l
- 16 And implicit in the requirement for a 17 description of activities and controls and procedures is l 18 a requirement that that description be reasonable.
19 We are not asking for Yankee to look into a l
20 crystal ball and predict the future with total accuracy.
21 The purpose of this contention is to obtain a mot ,
l 22 reasonable description of Yankee's prospects of disposing l 23 of low-level waste and the contingencies involved and the 1
24 Cost.
~tO V 25 Mr. Gad also says that we claim that items NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS l 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 l
73 1 are missing from the plan. We say that they are 2 inadequately described. We go into detail as to the O 3 deficiencies that we find in those aspects of the
> 4 decommissioning plan.
5 He also claims that we disagree. We think 6 the fact that we disagree in an indication that we have l 7 an admissible contention here. We have challenged 8 Yankee's assertions. We have challenged the sufficiency 9 of those assertions to provide a reasonably described 10 decommissioning plan.
11 The question before the Board is whether we 12 have provided enough information, enough factual 13 information to support an inquiry into the reasonableness 14 of that plan. And we have. We have provided evidence is that the likelihood that a low-level waste facility in 16 Massachusetts will open in 2003 is remote because of the 17 problems that are going on in Massachusetts.
18 Now, we are not the ones that said that 19 Yankee is depending on this Massachusetts low-level waste 20 facility. Yankee, itself, in the FSAR, says this is 21 where they are planning to put the waste. They also say ,
22 that if ther.e are other places available they will use 23 those too.
24 But it is quite clear from the FSAR that 25 Yankee intends to rely on this Massachusetts low-level NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRM48CMSERS 1323 RH00E ISUWO AVENUE. N.W.
(209) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
74 1 waste facility and that even anticipates having to wait
(
2 to use the facility until the year 2003.
O 3 So, it is perfectly reasonable for us to 4 question whether or not that plan to wait eight years 5 and then ship the waste to a Massachusetts facility is 6 reasonable.
7 There was also an argument that the language 8 of the regulation does not cover schedules for 9 decommissioning. We submit that the schedule for 10 decommissioning a facility is one of the fundamental 11 aspects of the plan. Timing is all important in 12 decommissioning.
13 So, to say that a the requirement for a
\ 14 reasonably described decommissioning plan does not is include reasonably described schedules for 16 decommissioning activities is absurd.
17 Mr. Gad also argues that there is no 18 requirement in a regulation to address the availability 19 of a low-level waste site. Well, certainly activities e
20 include disposal of low-level waste. And when one is
. 21 making a plan to dispose of low-level waste, part of a I
22 reasonable plan should include where that waste is going 1 23 to go and when it is going to go there. l 24 We have raised reasonable questions about the 25 adequacy of Yankee's description of that particular NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRAN8CRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 234 4433 WASHihGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
75 1 activity.
2 Mr. Gad also argues that our contention is O- 3 insignificant or that this basis -- litigation of this 4 contention would provide no significant relief, just the 5 change of the dates in the plan.
6 That is not true. The ciecommissioning plan 7 is a public document that is relied on by members of the 8 public, including the neighbors of that facility to 9 maintain some understanding and accountability by Yankee 10 Atomic for the decommissioning activities that it is 11 undertaking. So that as this process goes along, one 12 can refer back to the plan and see if this expectation 13 was met, is it being met, what needs to change?
' 14 To have some process for accountability and 15 public participation int his process. If Yankee could 16 just f a le any document that it wanted and say whatever 17 it wanted and it didn't matter, then that would basically 18 eliminate that element of public accountability.
19 It also relates to costs. We are certainly 20 aware that we have another contention that relates to the
'i 21 tisue of costs, but we think this is one of the 22 fundamental purposes of requiring an adequately described 23 decommissioning plan so that one can make reasonable 24 forecasts of what the costs are going to be.
, (0 V 25 I heard an argument that four of the five NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND rRANSCRISERS j 1323 RHODE 48LANC AANUE N.W.
(208) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20006 (202) 2344433
l 76 1 items on our list are excluded from the term 1
2 decommissioning and I don't understand that argument. l O
l 3 We have in each of these sub-bases described '
4 decommissioning activities and therefore that that !
i 5 argument is wrong. j 6 That is all I have.
l 7 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Board questions?
8 MEMBER KLINE: I am still a little bit )
i 9 confused what it is that you are seeking from the Board.
! 10 In other words, what relief are you seeking in this J
l 11 contention? !
1 12 It appears to be -- and correct me if I am I l
13 wrong. It appears to be a revision of documents, 14 basically paperwork-type relief. Is that correct?
15 MS. CURRAN: Well, we don't look at planning 16 as paperwork.
17 MEMBER KLINE: I mean as opposed to what it 18 appeared in Contention A was that you are seeking the 19 choice of one alternative for decommissioning over 20 another. Apparently that doesn't enter in this 21 contention, is that right?
22 MS. CURRAN: It certainly an element.
23 Certainly, when one has a well-described decommissioning l I
24 plan, it helps to evaluate the alternatives. Yes. We ,
25 weren't abandoning that. Yes, that is relevant. Very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRl6ER$
1323 MHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
4 77 1 relevant.
i 2 But even in addition to that, this is the O 3 document on which Yankee is going to base its 4 decommissioning activities for the foreseeable future.
5 And if it isn't described with reasonable accuracy, then 6 this is a planning document that has no meaning.
7 MEMBER KLINE: Well, what is your response to 8 the argument that we heard that in fact the things that 9 you are describing are, in a sense, uncertainties, for 10 which we are unlikely to come up with better numbers.
11 Take for example the time at which the Massachusetts 12 repository would be available. Let's us grant the truth 13 of that.
O V We just don't know when that is going to be 14 15 available. Maybe 2003 is the wrong number.
16 So what? Is there any relief we can grant 17 on that?
18 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
19 MR.KLINE: What?
20 l MS. CURRAN: One can look -- you can order
, ,cy' 21 funkee Atomic to look at the reasonably foreseeable 1
22 contingencies and plan for that. It is true that this 23 is a case where there is a lot of uncertainty about the 24 future because not many nuclear plants have been 25 decommissioned.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(209) 236 4s33 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
78 1 But the response to that isn't to seize on 2 one alternative response and hope for the best, And 3 nuclear licensees are used to looking at contingencies in s the future.
t 5 So, a reasonable approach to this problem 6 would be to examine what the prospects are for disposal I 7 of low-level radioactive waste and make contingency plans 8 for how to deal with those situations. What has 9 happened here there has been a choice of one particular 10 contingency without regard that is reasonable 11 expectation. And without any type of plan for dealing 12 with whether that falls through.
13 MEMBER KLINE: But I thought we heard earlier
, 14 that in fact they were going to go to Barnwell. Is that 15 not an adequate answer?
16 MS. CURRAN: Well, if they can. But they, 17 themselves, do not foresee Barnwell as the answer to l 18 their problem.
19 MEMBER KLINE: Suppose it is true that we are 20 left without contingencies. Suppose that it was true 21 that after all Massachusetts didn't develop a site and i
- 22. Barnwell closed and there were no others. What order 23 could~we ship them that would remedy or grant you any 24 relief.
25 MS. CURRAN: Well, the order that you can l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSERS 1323 RHOOE ISUND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2364433 WA8HINGTON. 0.C. 20006 (20m 2344433
79 1 issue is to prepare a decommissioning plan that i 2 adequately addresses -- I 3 MEMBER KLINE: Suppose your worst view comes 4 true and the decommissioning plan says we are just out 5 of alternatives. We don't know what we are going to do 6 with the waste?
7 What then would we do about it?
8 Should we halt the decommissioning?
9 MS. CURRAN: Presumably the decommissioning l 10 plan would address the contingency that we have to keep 11 the waste on the site and make a reasonable and 12 practical plan to do that. And that is not in this i i
l 13 plan. There is nothing in the plan that says that in 14 the event that we have to keep stuff on the site for 15 thirty to fifty years, this is what we are going to do.
16 And that needs to be in there. l l
17 Or, in the event that we get access to a 18 facility in Texas, this is what we are going to do.
19 MEMBER KLINE: But if we go back to the j 20 regulation in part 50, 50.82, there is a section in )
21 there that says any alternative which achieves 22 decommissioning within 60 years is acceptable.
23 No,- granted that there is an awful lot of 24 uncertainties and that various contingencies might come 25 true that we didn't anticipate, is there any basis for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR8ERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(108) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 2344433
, l 80 1 thinking that we are going to exceed the 60 year limit 2 in the regulation for decommissioning?
O 3 MS. CURRAN: Well, so far, all predictions 4 about the future of nue; ear waste disposal have been 5 wrong so I am not going to answer that.
4 6 MEMBER KLINE: No, I am asking if you are 7 bringing forward to us a basis suggesting that that 8 regulation is not going to be observed, i
9 MS. CURRAN: But we are not asserting that 10 here.
11 MEMBER KLINE: Okay. That is my question.
12 MS. CURRAN: If all we had to worry about l 13 was if this plant can be decommissioned in the next 60 i
4 14 years, then Yankee-Rowe could turn in a document that 15 said don't worry, we will have the place cleaned up 60 16 years from now.
17 But the purpose of the decommissioning plan 18 is more then that .
19 MEMBER KLINE: We understand that there is a 20 general requirement to be as truthful as you can when 21 you report to the regulators. So, we are not really not ,
22 entertaining,the possibility that they would submit any d
23 old frivolous document.
24 But within the bounds of what can be known, t3 V 25 what basis is there in the regulations for doing what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRANSCRI8ER8 1323 RHOOE 68LANO AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
81 1 you want to do, given that the regulations are not very 2 specific on it? Or in fact, seem to be very loose.
O 3 The only thing they say is that anything you 4 do within 60 years seems to be all right.
5 MS. CURRAN: Wait just a moment I
6 MR. BLOCK: If I might offer an answer and 7 that is it seems to us that the question really goes to 9 the merits rather than the adequacy of the contention as 9 we have framed it. And that the regulation provides a l 10 framework of 60 years, as you direct, but we think that 11 is to be considered in choosing among the alternatives 12 that have been recommended following the National 13 Environmental Policy Act in the generic study on O~ 14 decommissioning, A, B, or C, entombment, DECON, SAFSTOR.
15 Entombment has been cut out, so that leave 16 DECON or SAFSTOR. You could say that the 60 years is an 17 envelope. But, you could also say it is just a way of 18 directing you toward those three alternatives that have 19 been described in the same way.
20 And whether it takes them 5 minutes or 60 21 years or 59 years and 363 and half days to accomplish 22 the task, what we are really dealing with is have they 23 provided an adequate frame work for assessing how this 24 will be done in the context of waste disposal. And we 25 think that we have pointed out the fact that they have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20 4 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
82 1 not provided Luch a reasonable and adequate frame work 2 and thus, that they violate 10 CFR 50.82 in the spirit O 3 and in the letter.
4 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Yes. I am pursuing the same l
5 point that Judge Kline has just pursued, but Ms. Curran, 6 if the licensee had provided in their plan a series of l l
7 alternatives which we all recognize might have had equal 8 uncertainties associated with them in the future, but if 9 they had put in this series of possible contingencies, j 10 would that have addressed your concern on the adequacy of l
- 11 the decommissioning plan? I 4 12 MS. CURRAN
- Well, certcinly that would help.
l 13 Then the question becomes the adequacy of the description
\
b 14 and whether this has been taken into account in looking 15 at alternatives and assessing costs. But that is not l l
l 16 the case that we have here.
17 MEMBER ELLEMAN: I guess I would have the 1
18 same problem I have heard expressed by Judge Kline. If J
19 they had put it in Texas or North Carolina or any of the 1 20 other back up repositories, your uncertainty level might
~y:
21 still be the same as what you fell it is at present, in 22 trying to resolve these issues.
1 23 MS. CURRAN: Well, yes, but then the ;
24 uncertainty is acknowledged and dealt with instead of 25 being ignored and that is part of the importance of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(200 2364435 WASHINGTON, OA 20006 (202) 2m
83 1 planning process. Here it is not acknowledged; it is 2 -ignored. The uncertainty, one has to make an effort to 3 evaluate the degree of uncertainty in some respect and 4 that is one of the things that helps one chose between 5 alternatives.
6 And unless you go through that process, then i
7 in choosing alternatives you are shooting in the dark.
8 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I have several questions.
10 A couple for-the staff first.
11 This problem that Ms. Curran has raised, l 4
12 generally what she feels are lack of specificity in the 13 plans contents, were identified by the commentors on the
, / )
14 rule that originally adopted this provision, as a 15 problem.
- 16 And the commission said don' t worry, we are 17 going to have reg guides, standard review plans. It is 18 now at least six years later; are there any standard reg 19 guides or review plans that deal with what the plan l
20 needs to contain? j a
21 MR. HOLLER: If I may have one moment.
I 22 The best information I have from the staff, 23 Your Honor, is that the standard review plan is currently 4
24 under development. There is an older reg guide, I may O
V 25 be misstating the number; I believe it is number 1.82.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT MPORTER$ AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAmeo AVENUE, N.W.
(2010 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
I 84 )
, 1 It is referred to in a number of places. I can provide l
2 that number to the Board after break for lunch. J
- 3 But that is very old and does not reflect the 4 revision of the decommissioning rule.
l l i 5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: So, the bottom line is i
I 6 no.
l 7 MR. HOLLER: That is correct, sir.
! 8 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Given that then, what t
9 does that tell the Board, or what in terms of Ms. !
10 Curran's argument about this lack of specificity, does 11 that give her more or less latitude in terms of what she :
I 12 can argue is or isn' t specific since the staff really !
13 hasn't come out and told the licensees what they want to A l 14 see?
i 15 MR. HOLLER: I think one would have to take )
- 16 a look at the staff's review and go to the safety
] 17 evaluation report. The word that has been used here 18 this morning is an adequate frame work. Has the 19 licensee provided an adequate frame work to describe its 20 planned activities to accomplish decommissioning of the
- 21 plant within 60 years?
22 That constitutes the decommissioning plan.
23 It is then reviewed by the staff and the staff's 24 reasoning or basis for finding that acceptable is 25 expressed in the safety evaluation.
i'
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO T'4AN6CRe8ER8 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(208) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON. O.C 20006 (202) 23 4 433 i
d 85 1 The short answer would be that absent the 2 standard review plan, one would have to take a look at O 3 the safety evaluations that are generated in response to 4 the submission of the decommissioning plans.
5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: And another question.
6 Assume that we are now at the year 2003 and it is clear 7 that Massachusetts is not going to have a low-level waste
- 8 facility. What would the staff expect the licensee to 9 do with respect to their plan?
- 10 or if it is next year and Massachusetts has 11 announced definitively that they are not going to have a 12 low-level waste facility by 2003. What happens to the plan?
13
, C k 14 MR. HOLLER: That aspect of the plan that had 15 indicated that the low-level waste would be shipped to 16 Massachusetts obviously no longer be valid if a definite 17 decision had been made.
W 18 However, as I pointed out before, there is a 19 contingency in the plan that says that Yankee Atomic 20 Energy Corporation will take advantage of other available 21 sites, which in fact they are doing.
22 The question becomes then, does one need to 23 revise the plan. One answer is, if Massachusetts was 24 the only choice and there was no planning on the 25 licensee to take advantage of an alternate, obviously NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCMISER$
1323 RHODE 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON 0.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
l 86 1 yes.
2 In this case it is not so in that the 3 licensee has indicated that they will take advantage of 4 other sites, and in fact, has done so.
5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: And if the plan is 6 revised, what does that do in terms of hearing rights, 7 that sort of thing? Is there another opportunity for a 8 hearing if the plan is revised?
9 MR. HOLLER: If it would go to the essence 10 of the plan, to the very nature of the plan, outside of 11 the frame work that was acccmplished, one certainly might 12 make that argument.
13 If however, they are minor revisions that V 14 still fall within the general plan for decommissioning 15 the plant within 60 years as expressed in the frame work 16 contained in that decommissioning plan, then I don't 17 think a request for a hearing based on that could l l
l 18 survive. There is no new licenses, no new activity :
i 19 being granted by the commission.
20 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, Mr. Holler 21 has alluded to the fact, that one of the reasons for the )
22 plan is to give the staff something to assess in terms 1
23 of making its determination about its acceptability.
24 This question of public accountability that l
1 25 you have raised, do you have anything in the statement i NEAL R.. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRt8ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
l 87 1 of considerations regarding the rule that indicates that 2 that is a factor that the commission thought was O 3 necessary in terms of the adequacy of a plan? )
4 MS. CURRAN: Mr. Block has a better memory of 5 the preamble than I do.
)
, 6 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
7 MR. BLOCK: Again, this'is from my memory, so 8 I hope I am accurate here. But I believe there is a i
9 section in the preamble following a section where they g 10 say that the overriding purpose of the decommissioning i
11 plan is the protection of occupational, public health and 12 safety.
13 They go on to describe a series of ways that 14 this will be done and one of the things that I believe 15 is included is constantly appraising the state and local 16 officials.
t
- 17 I believe that was a part of it. That is in
! 18 the rule as promulgated in 1988. If that is what you 19 are referring to.
20 MS. CURRAN: We would be glad to supply a 21 c1tation to you, if you would like.
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Another question. Given i 23 what the commission has said with respect to Contention C 24 about redrafting, at least the portion of the plan 25 dealing with financial assurance, what does that tell us NEAL R. GROSS COURT r.EPORTERS AND TRAN8CR18ERS 1323 RH00E 1$ LAND AVENUE, N.W.
M 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000s (202) 2344433
88 1 about your Contention B in terms of redrafting questions?
2 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry. I didn't understand O 3 the question.
, 4 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Well, the commission, as ;
5 I understand it, at least the guidance that they gave us l 6 with respect to contention C, says that in terms of i l
l 7 financial assurance, the questions about numbers and l l
4- 8 redrafting and changing numbers are not something that 1
9 are particularly important. What is important is the
]
4 10 bottom line. I don't want to overstate this. But, is i
11 there reasonable assurance that they can cover the costs, 12 whatever they may be.
I 13 Here, we are talking about again about
(/ 14 redrafting and changing things. Does Contention C t
15 suggest anything about how we ought to be treating this 16 contention as well in terms of simply redrafting or 17 making changes? Does the change have to have some 18 significance in some way in terms of health and safety?
19 MS. CURRAN: Well, certainly to the extent 20 that the decommissioning plan allows Yankee to do 21 activities that they might otherwise not be allowed to 22 do, then that is significant.
23 I have already said that we believe that it 24 is critically important that Yankee provide to the NRC 25 and the public, a reasonably accurate portrait of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIGER8 1333 MH00E 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 23H436 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 2344433
89 1 its decommissioning plan is and what that is going to
_ 2 cost. And that is for a number of purposes in terms of
, 3 assessing alternatives. !
4 Now, whether or not the Yankee customers can 5 pay the cost certainly is relevant to the assessment of 6 alternatives what the costs of various proposed 7 decommissioning measures are. l 8 We also believe that it is not very clear, ,
I 9 the customers' ability to pay those costs is assured.
10 And I guess we will get to that when we get to 11 Contention C.
12 That is all I have on that.
13 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Are there any other 14 questions from any other Board members?
i 15 Let's talk about our schedule here for one l l
l 16 second. It is now 11:55 a.m. The Board is interested i
17 in hearing with respect all the contentions, then, i
18 frankly, given the schedule that we are under, our plan i
19 is to make a ruling today on which contentions will or I
20 won't go forward and talk about scheduling at that point.
< 21 Therefore, it means we want to hear all the 22 contentions and give ourselves an opportunity to talk 23 among ourselves and decide what is going to happen.
24 I would prefer to proceed on and then when we
() 25 have dealt with all these, probably take a substantial NEAL R. GROSS i couar apontans no ramscaeeEas l
1323 aHOOE ISLAND AvuMUE N.W.
WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 2344433 (202) 2344433 l
90 1 break, allow people to have lunch and we can deliberate.
2 But I don't want to faint from hunger.
O 3 So, how would you like to proceed. Mr. Gad 4 has his hand up.
5 MR. GAD: A very small motion to amend. I 6 think this is a fine idea, but perhaps we could build in 7 about a two minute recess.
8 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: That would be obviously 2
9 one of the things I would think about. But if it looks 10 like we won' t be able to finish up by 1:30 or so dealing 11 with these contentions, then maybe we ought to take a 12 lunch break.
13 I will leave it to you all .
Y 14 MS. CURRAN: I don't faint, but I do get 1
15 kind of foggy when I don't get something to eat.
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I recognize that. I l
17 MS. CURRAN: If I could have ten minutes to 18 go get a candy bar from downstairs, that would be all 19 right.
20 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. If that is 21 acceptable; would staff have any problems with that? ,
22 Why don't we then take a ten minute break, 23 come back a 12:05 and we will proceed with remainder of 4 1
24 Contention B and then move on from there. !
fT 1 d 25 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the !
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8048ER$ j 1323 RHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE. N W. l (200) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344431 ;
i
91 1 record at 11:54 a.m. and resumed at 12:28 p.m.)
p -2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Let's resume then. With 3 respect to this last contention we were talking about, 4 contention B1, I just had one other question for Ms.
5 Curran.
6 Putting aside the question of the accuracy of
}
7 the plan that certain dates are given that may not be 8 met in terms of low level waste and the question of 9 cost, which obviously if the material is not shipped off-10 site there --
under the plan or under the schedule that 11 the licensees set up, it may involve more cost, is there
- 12 anything.in the plan that would indicate that the long 13 term storage of low level waste at the site, there's a
' (3 14 technical problem of any way with that?
15 MS. CURRAN: The plan really doesn't discuss
.16 the matter, that I know of. It's silent on the issue of 17 long term storage of low level waste on the site.
18 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad, do you have 19 anything you'd like to say on that subject?
20 MR. GAD: Well, Your Honor, a lot of us, 21 including myself are guilty of saying that the issue that 22 divides us this morning is the difference between DCON 23 and 30 to 50 year SAFSTOR. That's because while I 24 started out with the phrase modified DCON, one tends to 25 trip over it after a while and then shorthand.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 MH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2364438 WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
92 1 Actually, if you read the decommissicr plan i
2 for Yankee Nuclear Power Station, it is a SAFSTOR plan.
3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I'm aware you refer to it 1
4 that way, that's how it's referred to in the plan and I i
5 the FSAR, correct?
6 MR. GAD: But, preserves the option of doing l
7 early DCON and dismantlement and off-site shipment to the l 8 extent that facilities are or become available for a 9 whole host of reasons only one of which is take 10 advantage of something while it's around.
l 11 So the basic core plan, the basic plan is and 12 the' assumption that you didn't have existing facilities ,
, 13 right now is that you're in SAFSTOR mode until they come 14 along. Our estimate for low level is approximately 2003, 15 but whatever it is, then we go into SAFSTOR for that.
16 Now it just so happens that events have 17 overtaken us a little bit. There. are available 18 facilities right now today to offsite shipment and final ,
1 19 disposal of a lot of this low level stuff. Yankee has i
20 been using them and is using them today. So it sort of 21 looks like it's a DECON. It really isn't. It's a i l
22 modified DECON or modified SAFSTOR. l 23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler, do you have ,
24 anything you want to say on this?
O h 25 MR. HOLLER: Actually, I come not prepared to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE 18UWO AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 23444M WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
!! 93
- j. 1 discuss this in detail, but-I'm a little bothered that 2 indeed to leave out a discussion or at least an i
\
3 awareness of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Amendments 4 Act of 1985 that has a scheme and a provision for taking 5 care of low level wastes that ultimately results in 6 compact states being responsible, having to take title to 7 and possession of the waste if they haven' t provided 8 within the compact a low level radioactive waste site.
9 I would not want to misspeak and go further 10 than that other than the Board certainly should be aware 11 of that as well as we start on this path of saying what 12 if there is no place to put the low level radioactive 13 waste.
'O 14 MS. CURRAN: I'd like to make a comment on 15 what this decommissioning plan is. It is not SAFSTOR to 16 say that we store the waste until we can get rid of it.
I 17 SAFSTOR is a plan to store waste for an extended period l 18 of time because that is the chosen alternative, not 19 because waste might be left if one can't get rid of it 20 earlier.
21 It is quite clear that Yankee plans to 22 dispose of and is now in the process of disposing of as 1
23 much low level radioactive waste off the site as it can l 24 possibly do and it's never made any bones about that.
(es
(_) 25 And in fact, the environmental assessment for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR10ERS 1323 RHOOE ISUND AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 2SH438 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
94 -
1 this plant describes Yankee's plan as a DECON plan. If 2 it's modified, it's a modified DECON plan in the sense i
D 3 that as a practical matter, Yankee foresees that it may l
4 have to' keep some of the waste on site in its view as 5 long as 2003, but that's DECON. That's not SAFSTOR.
6 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: As we --
any other Board 7 Members have anything on that point? As we proceed 3 through this, I'm hoping there are going to be some 9 economies of scale to the degree we've talked about 10 things before. It's not necessary to repeat them. You 11 can also assume that we have read all these pleadings !
2 12 several times and we're very familiar with them, 13 including a lot of the background documentation that )
R
'h' 14 you've cited. So I hope you'11 bear that in mind.
15 I want everybody to say what they wanted to 1
16 say, but it's not necessary to repeat things again and l
' 17 some of these, I think as we get toward the end, will j 18 begin to hear the same sorts of things because a NEPA 19 contention may look very much like a cost contention, 20 etc.
21 The next basis for this contention B deals 22 with the assumption that spent fuel will be out of the 23 spent fuel pit and into on-site dry cask storage by 1999 24 and that spent fuel will be shipped to DOE by 2018 which
'i3 Q 25 according to the contention or the bases for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR88ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(203) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
95
-1 contention raises several significant issues, the first 2 of which is a question of decommissioning cost estimate, O
i 3 indicates that the spent fuel will be out of the 4 facility by 2018, but the DOE report indicates, there's a S DOE report that indicates-that it's at best will be half l 6 off the site by 2033. There's also a question about the 7 repository and that will likely be available until 2023 8 at the earliest.
9 That's sort of a summary. Have I gotten the 10 essence of it, Ms. Curran, in terms of that?
11 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, what do you 13 have to say on that point?
(}
14 MS. CURRAN: Well, actually what I have to 15 say is in cur reply pleading that we filed on this 16 matter and I don't believe that Yankee or the staff j 17 raised any new challenges to this contention in their 18 pleading and we will rest on the pleadings there unless l
19 there's something more that Mr. Gad has to say that I l l
20 need to respond to. l l
21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad? , .
I 22 MR. GAD: Your Honor, I'11 only add one 1
23 observation to what previously has been written and said.
l l
24 Well, lawyer's measure, two observations.
25 The first one is that subparts 2, 3, 4 and 5 i i
NEAL R. GROSS 1 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. ,
(20s) 2364433 WASHeNGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
96 1 of contention B all relate to items that are not within j3 2 the scope of the term efficient. For that I refer you 3 to 10 CFR 50.75, the footnote; or, page.2.5 of the GEIS.
4 I quote, " decommissioning activities do not include the 5 removal and disposal of spent fuel which is considered to 1
6 be an operational activity."
7 Now, having said that, I might anticipate the 8 question of okay, well, how come parts of the 9 decommissioning plan talk about items 2, 3, 4 and 5?
10 The FSAR amendment, which includes the decommissioning 11 plan, if you take a look at Section 3.3.1.1, it tells 12 you that the information is in there for an entirely 13 separate reason. That document was used to satisfy not t
' 14 only 50.82, but also 50.54 (b) (b) , but the question of the 15 removal and disposal of spent fuel is not a 16 decommissioning activity.
17 The only other observation I' ll make is that 18 you can have a long hearing coming up with the correct 19 date for when Massachusetts will have a low level a
20 repository. We might set a record if we assume for 21 ourselves the decommissioning of coming up through 22 litigation with a correct date when the United States 23 government or someone else will come up with a final or 4
24 an interim means of taking the spent fuel off Yankee and 25 storing it elsewhere.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
l 97
- 1 The fact of the matter is that the plan said, 1
2 this is our estimate, but the plan says we are going to i 3 store the fuel until we can either send it to the 1
4 government depository or until there becomes some 5 interim, some other interim depository available.
1 6 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
7 MR. HOLLER: With regard to this basis for 8 the contention, the staff has nothing further to add in 9 addition to the answer to the petition.
4 10 However, if the Board pleases, it may be an 11 appropriate time to provide that information which the 12 staff indicated it would get, namely, the Reg. Guide on i 13 review of decommissioning plans is, in fact, Reg. Guide 14 1.86. As I indicated earlier, it's the original edition i 15 of that Reg. Guide that has been under consideration for i
16 revision for a considerable number of years. It has not
! 17 been revised since issuance of the 1988 decommissioning 18 rule.
19 Secondly, there is a draft standard format 20 and content for decommissioning for nuclear reactors, a 21 draft regulatory guide task, DD 1005 that was -- the 4
22 date on that is September 1989, that's DD 1005, September 23 1989, that was circulated for comment. Thank you, sir.
, 24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, you have a l 25 response to what Mr. Gad .: aid?
t i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20E) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
96 1 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I do. The footnote to 2 Section 50.75 that Mr. Gad referred to excludes removal 3 and disposal of spent fuel from the concept of 4 decommissioning. None of the items in this contention 5 relate to the removal or disposal of spent fuel. They 6 relate to Yankee's plans for maintaining the fuel on site 2
7 while it conducts decommissioning activities and hence is 8 covered by the rules.
9 Mr. Gad also suggested that if the Board were 10 to-admit this contention that we would all spend months 4
- 11 arguing about what is the correct date for availability 12 of a high level waste repository. I don't want.to beat 13 a dead horse here. This is a similar issue as the low O
, V 14 level waste disposal f acility issue that we just visited 15 earlier.
- . 16 The question is not whether we can come up 17 with an exact date, but whether the decommissioning plan 18 reasonably describes the contingencies that affect the 19 decommissioning of Yankee Rowe and whether it's 20 reasonable to anticipate that Yankee is going to be able 21 to ship the spent fuel of fsite by the date expected 22 which is 2018.
23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything else?
24 MS. CURRAN: No.
25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Any Board questions?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRAN8CRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHMGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
99 1 MEMBER KLINE: If we refer to 50.82, it 2 appears to be silent on the question on any aspect of 3 spent fuel management or handling. And yet, it claims 4 that the staff will grant a permission to decommission if ;
5 it's done in accordance with the plan.
1 6 But it makes no demand for spent fuel to be 7 in the plan, so I'm wondering why the interpretation of 8 Mr. Gad isn't really correct after all, even given your 9 interpretation.
1 10 Wouldn't we be within our rights or within ;
i 11 the regulations to simply not address spent fuel in the l l
12 course of addressing or scrutinizing a decommissioning l
13 plan? !
t
\ 14 MS. CURRAN: Well, for one thing, this 15 footnote in section 50.75 says decommission in section 16 50.2 of this part does not include the cost of removal 17 and disposal of spent fuel or of nonradioactive 18 structures and materials.
19 So there seems to be a focus there on excluding cost 20 issues.
21 MEMBER KLINE: I understand that, but in 22 terms of 50.82, there's just no mention of it. I mean 23 no mention of an affirmative requirement to address it.
-24 MS. CURRAN: Well, if decommissioning is
(~
's 25 broadly defined in the regulations as restoring the site NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
+1 1
100 1 to safe levels, then the means for doing that, all of 2 the means for doing that are certainly relevant to the O 3 question of how decommissioning is done. ,
l 4 And here we are in the phase where the 5 license has, the operating license has ended in terms of j l
6 permission to operate the facility and the only purpose 7 of the operation of thi s facility is now to decommission 8 it, to clean it up. And so storage of the waste on 9 site, the high level waste is part of that 10 decommissioning effort.
11 I believe that up until the point that that 12 waste leaves the site which is the transportation and the 13 ultimate disposal, i.e., the location where it goes, it's o
14 very relevant to the question of how the plant can be 15 cleaned up as to what is being done with the spent fuel 16 on site.
6 17 MEMBER KLINE: Okay.
18 MEMBER KLINE: Do you have any questions 19 about that?
20 y CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Do you agree with Mr.
y 21 Gad's reading of the regulation?
22 MR. HOLLER: And as amplified by Judge Kline 23 that spent fuel is not a consideration, a decommissioning 24 consideration. It's an operating consideration. The O
V 25 short answer is therefore yes.
NEAL R. GROSS count anomas ANO rwecnieEns 1333 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
e 101 1 MEMBER KLINE: Is it true then that we could, 2 that is, if we decided to undertake a scrutiny of a 3 decommissioning plan, that we could exclude from that 4 scrutiny any question regarding spent fuel?
5 MR. HOLLER: Well, Your Honor, any covers a 6 broad spectrum.
7 MEMBER KLINE: I understand that.
8 MR. HOLLER: Given that any question with 9 regard to the disposition, the cost, the ultimate 10 disposition?
11 MEMBER KLINE: Yeah, that's what I mean.
12 MR. HOLLER: The simple answer to that is 13 yes.
n 14 MEMBER KLINE: Okay.
15 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Would you agree with Ms.
16 Curran on the point that until it leaves the site it has 17 to be considered?
18 MR. HOLLER: Only to the extent that it would 1 l
l 1 19 interfere with the licensee's framework for 20 decommissioning the plant, but not considered in terms of 21 storage or its ultimate disposal.
l 22 And again, we need to say this, the licensee l 23 by its possession of a license must maintain the spent 1 l
24 fuel pool or otherwise account for the safe storage of s
s 25 spent fuel, but not in connection with decommissioning i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
!' 1323 RHOOE 18LANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
102 1 matters.
,_ 2 MEMBER KLINE: My questions don't imply that N~ 3 one can neglect the issue of spent fuel, the only 4 question is whether it has to be considered in connection 5 with a decommissioning plan?
6 MR. HOLLER: The short answer I would offer
. 7 is I agree, no, it does not have to be considered in i 8 connection with decommissioning.
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: You have something to 10 say, Mr. Gad?
11 MR. GAD: Very briefly, if I may. Number 12 one, the reason why 50.75 footnote talks about costs is 13 because 50.75 talks about costs. The reason why it O)
(_ 14 excludes the costs of the removal and disposal of spent 15 fuel is because removal and disposal of spent fuel is 16 excluded from decommissioning. The reference is page 2.5 17 of the GEIS.
l l 18 And Judge Kline, my answer to your question i 19 is not could, but should. And in fact, I believe that l
20 same issue came up in Rancho Seko LBP 9323. I think the !
21 citation is 38 NRC at page 246, but there's some 22 uncertainty about that. But the issue there, the i 1
23 language that I'm referring to, and this was a licensing 24 board decision, but they said because the safety and
.(,)
f') 25 environmental matters related to the ISFIRS application l
. NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISER$
1323 MHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. ;
WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (200 2364433 (202) 23&d433 )
l I
i 103 1
1 are outside of the scope of the decommissioning 2 application, and that-case rather squarely presented this
- O 3 issue because with respect to Yankee, at the moment 4 they've said they' re going to leave it in the pool while i
5 we explore other alternatives and if we come back and 6 want to do something else, we will file another 7 application. Rancho Seko, they have two applications t
8 pending at once. One was for the independent spent fuel 9 storage installation and the other one was approval of 10 the decommissioning.
11 It mattered because the potential intervenor
- 12 there did not intervene in the Part 71 proceeding, but 13 was attempting to intervene into the 50.82 ' proce.eding and ;
i* j 14 his contention was excluded because of the language I've l
15 read. j l
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Curran, do you have 17 anything further to say on this? We'll move on. l 18 MS. CURRAN: Well, I've been trying 'to find I I
19 something in the preamble of the 88 rule and haven' t had l
20 time to do that yet, but it seems extraordinary to me i
g 21 that in a process for cleaning up a facility site that 22 no inquiry would be made into how one is going to deal 1
23 with the most radioactive components in the entire plant 24 by far. i n l V 25 My argument is it's irrational and I feel I i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
i 104 1 almost certain I could find something better than that to 2 support it if I had to in 10 minutes, but I don't have O 3 anything more right now.
4 CRAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Judge Elleman, do you 5 have any questions on that?
6 MEMBER ELLEMAN: No.
7 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Just two very brief 8 points. The figures that you're giving using for the 9 2033 date, they' re based on the assumption that you 10 accept the GAO figures, correct?
11 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I believe so.
12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: A question for the staff.
13 If the licensee used the estimate that Ms. Curran has 14 put forth, about 2033, how would the staff handle that 15 in terms of the bounding finding that they made in the l
16 SER and the environmental impact or the environmental l
17 assessment? Basically saying that there's adequate basis 18 to believe it can be held to 2030?
19 MR. HOLLER: That's correct. As far as the 20 environmental impact, the Commission's regulations ,
$' 1 21 specifically provide that no discussion of any 22 environmental impact of spent fuel storage and reactor 23 facility storage pools or independent spent pools 24 following the license or amendment of initial spent fuel 7s
( 25 independent facility, license or amendment is required in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(204 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
105 ,
I 1 an environmental' report, environmental impact statement, l 2 environmental assessment or other analysis prepared in 3 connection with the issuance or amendment of an operating 4 license for a nuclear plant or in connection with the 5 issuance of an initial license for storage or any !
I 6 amendment thereto.
7 The short answer is the Commission by 8 regulation has said that there is assurance that there 9 will be a facility within the 30 years beyond the 10 license life and in this case, I believe this answers 11 your question, Judge Bullwerk, it's 2030, rather than 12 2033. The Commission regulations stands as it is. It ;
1 13 will be available within 2030 and that within the first I' 25, the first quarter of the 21st century, a sufficient 14 15 repository capacity will be available.
16 My answer is the staf f would have assessed it 17 as they have in the SE finding that there is no 18 environmental impact challenge made and there is 1
19 assurance that there will be a spent fuel repository by 20 Commission regulation.
21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, anyone have 22 any comments on that question?
j 23 MS. CURRAN: One more point I'd like to make 24 and that is as I stated before and quoted a page, I 25 think it was page 100-3 from the FSAR, let's assume that i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANf4 RISERS 1323 RHODE 18 LAND AVENUI, N.W.
(200) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016 (202) 23W
106 1 the decommissioning plan has nothing to do with the spent 2 fuel storage. It's what the licensee does with the 3 spent fuel still affects other decommissioning activities 4 at the plant as Yankee has said, there's certain
~5 activities that can't be concluded until the spent fuel 6 pool is decommissioned and therefore to that extent the 7 dates when spent fuel can be removed are relevant to the 8 low level radioactive waste disposal issue.
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Nothing further on that 10 from anybody? Any other questions?
11 All right, let's move on to the second 12 subpart of this second basis which is, I guess, similar 13 to the basis discussed under the contention A subpart 2 14 by the lack of specificity as to dry cask storage 15 method.
16 Anything you want to say about that?
17 MS. CURRAN: I believe the argument here is 18 that there's been no license amendment application for 19 dry cask storage, but again, dry cask storage is an 20 element of this decommissioning plan and to the extent it 21 is relied on as a part of the licensee's description of 22 its decommissioning activities, that description is 23 inadequate.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything else?
A 25 MS. CURRAN: No.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 ANO TRAN8CRISERS 1323 MHOOE '.8 LAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 23H433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 23 4 433
107 1 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad?
2 MR. GAD: Just to remind the Board that the I
3 existing technical specifications for Yankee prohibit 4 removal of the fuel from the pool. Now, and Dr. Kline 5 I'd like to underscore an observation that you made this 6 morning that sometimes for purposes of argument and 7 debate we take things to the extreme, but that doesn't l
8 mean that people are necessarily fatuous in what they 9 file with the Commission.
10 Yankee has been very up front that it has in 11 mind exploring various alternative means for holding onto 12 the fuel other than keeping it in the pool. Now the 13 spent fuel pool is in its own building and it has its
[\ own electricity, so you could leave it there for a long
\
14 l l
15 time if you wanted to. There are other ways of doing 16 it. Yankee is very candid that they are exploring it.
17 It hasn't selected and therefore can' t define it.
1 18 Therefore can't describe it. l 19 But most importantly for regulatory purposes, 20 unless it can select it and define and describe it and a
21 assess it and look at its environmental impacts, if any, .
22 it also can'.t do it. Technical specifications prohibit 23 the removal of fuel from the pool.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
l'~
-( 25 MR. HOLLER: I would just point out that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23 4 433
L 108 1 staff evaluated the decommissioning plan in terms of the
- 2 licensee not having made a decision or taking a decision
(
3 of transferring fue.' or when to transfer the fuel and 4 the finding was based on that it would be acceptable to 5 have it remain in the spent fuel pool until the l 6 statutory -- the. staff's answer to the petition.
7 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, any response 8 to anything that was said?
4 9 MS. CURRAN: No.
10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Board questions? I have 11 one question, I guess, on this point. There's talk 12 about having to get another approval. Would that be the 13 requirement to get a part 72 license for dry cask
[~D
, \_/ 14 storage? Is it covered under the general license of the i
j 15 70.210 or are we talking about a specific order?
16 MR. GAD: No, it would -- it would almost 17 invariably be what is called an ISFSI although that's an 18 awful acronym, but an Independent Spent Fuel Storage 19 Installation under part 72. I guess it is part 72.
20 But once again, there are all sorts of 21 opsions, not all of them are presently on table, no 22 commitment has been made and beyond that we're going to 23 take a look at it.
24 MS. CURRAN: I'd just to like to make one
(~%
(_) 25 comment and that is that the licensing of independent NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN6CRl8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(2tN) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20tm (202) 2344433
- -_ -. - . _ - - - -~ - . -
109 1 fuel storage facilities appears to us to be a separate 2 provision in the regulations. And I think it's somewhat 3 beside the point of what, to what extent does the
'4 decommissioning plan have to describe the situation at l
5 hand and the licensee's plan for making sure that the l
1 6 site can be released from unrestricted use within 60 1 7 years. 1 8 If that is the governing principle here, that I l
9 the site has to be released for unrestricted use within 10 a certain period of time, then the decommissioning plan 11 has to describe how that's going to be accomplished, ;
I 12 including how or in what way the licensee is going to i 13 remove the spent fuel from the site or take care of it
(~~'
\ 14 until it can be removed, that whatever the 15 decommissioning process is, however long it takes, the 16 decommissioning plan needs to describe what is going to 17 be happening on that site until the plant can be fully 18 decommissioned, fully cleaned up.
19 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Is Mr. Gad's response to 20 my question about what kind of license they would have 21 to get in order to go to dry cask storage correct or do l
l 22 you have --
23 MR. GAD: I would just add that a licensee, 24 if it chooses to surrender its part 50 licens,e, terminate f-()s . 25 its part 50 license, then would be licensed pursuant to NEAL R. GROSS count neponruns ANo inANacammas 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, OA 20006 (202) 234M
110 1 'part 72 for a spent fuel storage installation.
, 2 In the Commission's statement of l 3 consideration for part 72, the question was raised as to 4 whether or not a licensee under a part 50 license could
, 5 under that license have an independent spent fuel storage 6 installation. The answer is yes, the regulations allowed 4
7 that. So if one kept a part 50 license, it would not 8 require if one chose to terminate the part 50 license 9 and the part 72 license, they would have to make
. 10 application and an opportunity for a public hearing would 11 be of fered. That's part of the procedure for the 12 issuance of the 72 license.
. 13 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: So part 72 then the
! n
- 14 licensing of the independent spent fuel storage creates 15 hearing rights?
16 MR. HOLLER: That's correct, yes sir.
l 17 MR. GAD: Also the part 50. You need a tech 18 spec amendment.
19 MR. HOLLER: That's correct as well.
20 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything else, Ms.
21 Curran, on that point?
22 MS. CURRAN: No. l 23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, let 's move 24 quickly then to the next subpart. This, I guess, G
lss/ 25 relates back to what we just talked about but goes to NEAL R. GROSS CX)URT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRt8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 2344433 WASHINGTON. 0.C 20006 (202) 234-4433 ;
l l
111 1 the .coint that there's not been a discussion of the i
2 . methods for accomplishing or the way of minimizing the
'( 3 occupational doses for dry transfer of spent fuel and 4 greater than class C wastes which would have to be used 5 if the spent fuel pit is closea in the year 2000.
6 Any point that you want to make on that with 7 respect --
8 MS. CURRAN: Which section are you on now?
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I'm calling this C, but -
10 -
11 MS. CURRAN: Okay. All right.
12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I might have my cun 13 method for doing this, so I'll let you --
'O' i
14 MS. CURRAN: That's fine. I just want to 15 make sura. I really don't think I have anything to add 16 to what we've already said about this.
17 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Do you want to add
! 18 anything?
q 19 MR. GAD: Likewise, you can't do it without a 20 license amendment. There is no commitment at this point 21 to do it. There is the candid assessment that we are 22 going to look at and other than that, same as 3, same as l 23 prior.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
]
25 MR. HOLLER: Staff stands by its answer to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
112 1 the petitioner's petition.
, 2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Any questions? I take it O, 3 whether you lifted it out of the pit or you used a dry 4 transfer method which is one of the things that is 1
5 talked about here, there's going to -- would the latter 1 6 constitute an unreviewed safety issue that you'd have to 4 ;
7 get, would be sent to a license amendment if you take 1
1 j 8 these from one cask to another in terms of the 9 transportation? i 10 MR. GAD: Well, you first have to get them i l
11 out of the pool.
12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Correct.
1 13 MR. GAD: That requires a tech spec change. I i
\ 14 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
15 MR. GAD: Then there has to be, assume we 16 move them out of the pool into a nonshipping can and 17 then have to worry about how we get from the nonshipping 18 cask into -- and ship them.
19 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Correct.
20 MR. GAD: I don't think anybody knows the 21 answer.
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: You're telling me the 23 method has not been --
24 MR. GAD: Selected.
f3 Q 25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Selected. Okay. It NEAL R. GROSS l couar aoom= 4No rn4asca.ua :
1323 aH00E ISLANO AVENUE. N.W. l
<=> w a s,~orou. o.c. - <2 23 muu
113 1 sounds to me like we're talking about a safety question 2 or am I going too far here, if they decide to use that O 3 method at one point?
4 MR. HOLLER: For the staff, it's rather 4
)
5 difficult to assess something that's not concrete, if 6 we're talking about an abstract idea, then it becomes 7 difficult to see that that would involve the change in 8 the licensee's current technical specification or our 9 review safety question. Probably it would be safe to i
10 say in the second aspect, we're talking about something 11 abstract, it has not been evaluated in the FSAR.
12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Anything else l
13 with respect to that, Ms. Curran?
k/ 14 All right, the last part of this bases deals 15 with tech spec changes or supporting safety analycis to
{ 16 deal with the transfer of spent fuel from the pit to dry j 1
J I 17 cask and the possibility that 75 ton cask would have to
+
18 be used, a tech spec change. And I think your argument i
19 is that that needs to be assessed in the plant?
20 MS. CURRAN: Yes. -
- I 21 E CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything you want to add
~
22 with respect to that?
23 MS. CURRAN: No.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad?
25 MR. GAD: Same position. Presently are l
- NEAL R.' GROSS countmE a rEnsANoTannecneEas i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(208) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 406 (202) 234-4433
~ - _ . .. .
114 1 forbidden from doing. l 2
2 CHAIMCW BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
3 MR. HOLLER: Nothing further.
4 CHAIRMAN BOLLHERK: Let me just ask Ms.
5 Curran a question. There is a provision in the rules in l$
1 6 50.82(d) that talks about for decommissioning plans in 7 which the major dismantlement activity are delayed by
- 8 first placing the facility in storage, planning for these 9 delayed activities may be less detailed. Updated 10 detailed plans must be submitted and approved prior to 11 the start of these activities. What this suggests is if 12 there's something that needs to be done that's major, if 13 it's not described in the plan, but nonetheless is .
14 subject to a later approval, that a lack of detail is 15 acceptable. Isn't the same idea, while this regulation 16 may not be exactly on point, isn't the same idea here 17 that there may be something that needs to be put off 18 subject to another approval process?
19 MS. CURRAN: Well, here just to gat back to 20 this regulation you cite, this is for plans in which the 21 p'lant is put into storage which hasn' t been done here at 22 all. So this wouldn' t apply at all to Yankee Rowe.
23 To the extent that the plan describes this
. 24 activity that Yankee foresees using these casks, we think 25 that it should address the related safety issues in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 ANO TRAN6CR18ERS 1323 RHODE 18LANO AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 234 4 438 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
115 1 decommissioning plan.
g 2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Notwithstanding the fact 3 that they probably have to address these same issues 1
4 including environmental issues when they have to have a 5 tech spec change or a license amendment or whatever is 6 necessary to undertake the activity we're talking about?
7 MS. CURRAN: Mr. Block has a comment on that.
8 MR. BLOCK: I think the problem there is that 9 from the point of view of having a meaningful opportunity 10 for hearing in terms of any commonly understood notion of i
11 due process, what you'd be saying then is that people 12 who may have a right to intervene would be expected to 13 keep on intervening over an dover and over. I think 14 what that would result in is incredible cost to the 15 licensee and an insuperable burden on the public. So 16 this would seem to be as best time as any to deal with
- 17 these things and dispose of them, but I guess, if in 18 fact, the regulations make all these interventions and 19 successive periods and phrases of this project permitted, 20 that that's, I guess, we'll all be back over and over 21 again.
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anyone have any other 23 comments on that point?
24 All right. Let's move on to the contention O
(_) 25 C. this is your cost contention and I think I would NEAL R. GROSS couar aeroarnas AND ramecamens 1323 ah00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(ace) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
116 1 like in this instance to change the order or 2 presentations. Again, dealing with the commission's 3 guidance document they've obviously made a specific point 4 about the question of reasonable assurance and the 5 licensee and staff findings with respect to whether the 6 cost, whatever that might be, be covered.
7 Could you deal with that issue first, and 8 then we'll be --
9 MS. CURRAN: That's just how I arranged it.
10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: We're in sync. Good.
11 MS. CURRAN: Well, I'd like to start first 12 with Yankee's and the staff's argument that in 13 challenging the reliability of the power contracts, we're s
14 raising a new contention. This isn't the case.
15 Our challenge to the reliability of the power 16 contract stems from language in the contention which 17 asserts that Yankee has made inadequate provisions to 18 assure the availability of decommissioning funds, that's 19 subhead C. That proposition was stated in the original 20 contention.
21 At that time, based on the information that 22 we had from the FSAR, we made an argument that Yankee 23 had not demonstrated it had sufficient funds. The FSAR 24 indicates that there are three sources, I think three, of I 25 decommissioning funding: investment income, tax NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHWOTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
117 1 carryovers and obligations of the customers under the y 2 power contracts. There's no indication of the
\~
3 relationship between those obligations and we raised a 4 question about the length of the contracts and whether or 5 not those contracts would be enforceable after they 6 ' expired.
7 The text of the contract was not included by 8 Yankee in the FSAR.
9 Then Yankee came back in response and said i 10 here's the language of the contracts. It applies 11 indefinitely and that we can rely exclusively on this as l 12 a source of income. that was not the implication of the
. 13 FSAR. We responded by questioning whether or not those
{\ 14 obligations under the power contracts are, in fact, as j 15 ironclad as Yankee said. Now this is not a new 16 contention. This is simply more a response to Yankee on 17 the original contention.
i 18 I'd like to go on to the contention itself.
19 Yankee argues that we haven' t met the pleading ,
1 20 requirements of the NRC regulations because we haven't 21 shown that Yankee is going into bankruptcy. We haven' t ,
22 given evidence that any of the customers are actually 23 about to default on their obligations. We don't need to 24 do that. We need to raise reasonable questions such 25 that reasonable minds would inquire further. We have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRAN$CRISER$
1323 RHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
118 l
.1 cited Yankee Atomic's own statements that it questions
,. 2 the ability of its customers to pay on its obligations.
3 We have cited the fact that Yankee's customers which are 4 also part owners of the plant are likely to suffer 5 economically because the plant shut down early. They're 6 not getting the electricity that they originally i
, 7 bargained for or foresaw and yet they are expected to 8 come through on long-term obligations for 9 decommissioning.
- 10 We also cited a case in which a court found 11 that borrowers did not have to pay their bond holders, 12 that such contracts are not enforced in all cases.
13 Therefore, we have provided suf ficient evidence to go
.'f
't l
14 forward with the admission of this contention. ,
1 15 That is all I have on this particular aspect I 1
1 16 of the contention. l 17 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, let's move 18 then to Mr. Gad.
I 19 MR. GAD: What the Commission said in CLI 96-20 06 is, in essence, that a decommissionir.g cost estimate 21 is not an intellectual end, but an intellectual means to 22 the determination of whether or not we have reasonable 23 assurance that the costs will be covered when they come 24 due.
O l V 25 Now, the fact of the matter is that the -- j l
NEAL R. GROSS l couar apomas Ano raAuscamaas l istsa - suno m m.sw. l (200) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 l
119 1 put aside for a moment the reference to tax credits and 2 investment earnings. All the FSAR says is that we're D 3 accumulating this fund. The fund is expected to throw 4 off investment income and the fund is expected to throw 5 off the tax credit and of course, if it does, then 6 dollar for dollar that reduces the amount they pay in.
7 If you put that aside for a moment, the 8 funding mechanism for decommissioning here is two-fold.
9 Ultimately, it is the contractual obligation, that is 10 implemented by a FERC order that in essence requires this 11 funding. All of this is described in the decommissioning 12 plan, but more importantly, all of the documents in 13 question are on the public record. They have been for O,' 14 five and a half years now and required to be submitted 15 under 10 CFR 50.75 and as both the Appeal Board and the 16 Commission said in the Catawba, I think it was the 17 Catawba line of cases, a prospective intervenor has an
+
. 18 ironclad obligation to read the papers on file before 19 standing up and saying along the lines of gosh, there 4
20 isnl.c enough information out there or gosh, we don't know 21 one way or another.
22 Now, as I understand contention C to have 23 evolved, most of it did not survive CLI-96-01. I 24 understand it to have evolved as two possibly 25 implications, one of which is factual and one of which NEAL R. GROSS
- .CUMT REPORTER 8 AND TRAh8CRISERS 1323 RH00E 18tANO AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
1 120 1 is not. If the assertion is made that there is a basis 2 for litigating whether or not the owners of Yankee will O 3 be able to meet their obligations as they become due, 4 that requires a hearing. Your Honor, there has been 5 absolutely no basis for that. All there is is a 6 statement that we are concerned.
7 I suppose one could be concerned about 8 anything and say you're concerned about something is a 9 truism that no one could not -- being concerned is not a 10 basis. There are bases for believing that company X is 11 not going to be able to meet its obligations as they 12 come due company wide. The other half of the contention 13 that has evolved is one that says well, gosh, I think O
k/ the language was are the power contracts, there's 14 l
15 actually only one contract, is the power contract as 16 ironclad as the FSAR says it is or as the brief says l l
17 they are. Assuming that there was a basis for that, and I 18 I submit to you that there isn't because the person 19 responsible for coming up with a basis for saying there's 20 a question about whether or not company x ought to have 21 read it.- But if you elected not to have read it, then 22 you might go read FERC and FERC says their obligations 1
23 continue beyond the expiration and beyond the gambit of 24 this funding order. That is to say FERC made an
-'s n)
. 25 investment of what it may take in order to have things NEAL R. GROSS couar mmas AND rauncanEas 1323 aH00E ISUNO AVENUE, N.W.
(2001 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4 433
121 1 orderly and also have them amortized over a long period 2 of time, but FERC did not say this is the extent of your 3 obligation, what we currently believe it to be.
4 So you might have looked at the piece of 5 paper or you might have read the FERC decision and 6 having done neither, I submit to you, that this aspect l
7 of new contention C lacks a basis. If I'm wrong about :
1 8 that, then you don' t admit this contention and set it 9 down for an evidentiary hearing. What this cor. tract 10 means, this filing that I"m referring to was made July :
l 11 25, 1990, the cover letter bears Yankee's identifier of l 1
12 BYR 90-102. It was submitted in discharge of an l
13 obligation proposed by 10 CFR section 50.75 (b) . It's 14 entitled " Decommissioning Funding Assurance Report and 1
15 Certification." One of the things attached to it in the 16 back is the power contract.
17 Another of the things that is attached to it j 18 is the trust indenture being Yankee Atomic Electric 19 Company and the State Street Bank & Trust Company. Now 20 if this Board were inclined to say yes, there is an 21 issue of what the contract means, the meaning of the 1 22 contract is a pure question of law for the. court, read 23 the contract and you rule. If you rule that the 24 contract lets the owners of Yankee off the hook, there e
\-- 25 would be some interesting repercussions of that, but the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20008 - (202) 23M
122 1 point is you make a ruling.
,- 2 Likewise, to get slightly ahead of myself, 3 there is a little vestigial part of contention C that 4 talks about the segregation of funds requirement. Now, 5 you would not expect the segregation of funds requirement 6 to be discussed at great length in a 50.82(b) 7 decommissioning plan because it is the subject of a 8 separate regulation which requires a separate 9 requirement, separate submission and because part of that 10 submission is the trust indenture itself. Once again, 11 you can read it. Its interpretation is a pure question 12 for the court. If you do read it, you'll find that there i
13 is a single donation that happens to be divided into )
(~'_ l
\ 14 three funds, precode funds, the x-code funds, internal x- l 15 code funds. As to all of them, the trust indenture 16 makes Yankee Atomic the seller. The State Street Bank 17 the trustee and the trustee's obligation is to keep the 18 funds separate from Yankee Atomic and dispense them in 19 accordance with the permission of the United States 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
21 So insofar as we're talking about ,
22 segr' ation, . insof ar as we' re talking about what does the 23 power contracts really say, we don' t need a hearing for 24 that. We don' t have to go back up to Rowe
,~
k_ 25 Massachusetts. These documents are on file and should l
NEAL R. GROSS l couar apontsas ANo Ta4NacaeEa8 l 1323 aHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2364433 WA8HNGTON, 0.c. 20006 (202) 234-4433
v 123 1 have been reviewed before this contention was submitted.
2 The contention should have said on page 3, whatever, of O 3 this filing, there is an issue. The contention didn' t 4 and for that reason it's without basis.
5 If for any reason the Board wants to let it 6 in, this is not a trial type issue. We can just brief 4
7 it.
8 The last observation to make is the question 9 of relief. Bearing in mind that what separates the i
10 petitioners from Yankee is the assertion that Yankee 11 should put off those activities that are presently on l 12 going, exactly what does an argument about the cost 13 estimates or the question of funding have to do with i
/ ,
(
i N- 14 that? Say this Board said, all right, cost estimate is 15 not $200 million, it's $237 million. What are we going 16 to do? Change a line in the plant? We're not going to 17 get any more on your amortization unless someone goes to 18 FERC and gets FERC to agree. You're not going to change 19 by this one iota the obligations of owners of Yankee ,
i 20 Atomic because those obligations are fixed in the first 21 bnetance by the contract. The second is by the FERC 22 order.
4 23 So apart from all other deficiencies, this
- 14 contention really doesn't lead to any meaningful pleading V 25 on the issue of standing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCROERS 1323 RHOOE 18LANO AVENUE. N.W.
(209) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
124 1 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Just a quick question.
2 The FERC order you refer to, is that the same one that O 3 was talked about by the parties in their pleading or is 4 this a different FERC order?
5 MR. GAD: I believe it's the same one that 6 was talked about every time people spoke of it, but the 7 core issue and I can get you a citation, I think it's 8 cited in the decommissioning plan, but what FERC did was 9 say okay, we don't want odd bills coming in. We want 10 this thing level lot. So they went through a proceeding 11 to find out, what the in essence, front end amortization 12 obligation should be before they came up with the fund.
13 Each of the owners was required to pay their share of 14 that amount on a levelized basis.
l 15 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: So that's different than ;
1 16 the FERC case to which you referred about the question l
17 of risk and there's a FERC case that you cited that 18 talks about questions about the risk involved and rates 19 of return, the 1987 decision?
20 MR. GAD: I'm unaware of that one.
21 k MR. BLOCK: Yes, that's correct.
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: The FERC case you' re 23 talking about is what year if you can give me a --
24 MR. BLOCK: A point of information, Mr. Gad, 25 I think you're referring to a later case. You're NEAL R. GROSS 000RT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RH00E ISUWO AVENUE. N.W.
(200 2344431 WASHWGTCN D.C. 20006 - (202) 2344433
125 1 referring to the settlement, aren't you? The final 2 settlement with FERC which is in the FSAR without 3 citation. It just mentions that it exists and we were 4 referring to an earlier document, I think, where there 5 may have been some questions being raised by Yankee in i
6 order to get its rates increased and so it argued to 7 FERC about the instability of the situation and how you 8 could have difficulties and this was a risky enterprise 9 and things like that. I think those may be two 10 different FERC documents that are being referred there.
4 11 MR. GAD: Having no idea what they're 12 referring to, I have a comment very different that I'm 13 referring to. Yes, it was discussed in the FSAR. I C
14 believe the date of it was somewhere around '92, '93. I 1 15 don't want to be held to that.
, 16 MR. BLOCK: We're referring to page 31 of our
- 17 reply, footnote 82, 40 FERC paragraph 6298, October 27, 18 1987 where I believe you find arguments about the 19 instability of the utility markets in order to get a 20 rate increase.
21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: It occurred to me there's 22 two different cases here? l l
23 MR. BLOCK: Right.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
25 MR. HOLLER: Simply stated, contention C l l
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS
- 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(209) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2t005 (202) 234-4433 l
126 I asserts that Yankee Atomic Energy Corporation with its )
l j.- 2 decommissioning plan has not met the funding requirements C 3 of the Commission's regulations. The petitioner then i
4 inserts a number of reasons not including the provisions !
I 5 of the power contract as a basis for why the regulation i i
4 6 is not met. Petitioners argue that it may not have been '
7 clear to them in the FSAR that there were reliance on 8 these contracts.
9 However, it's difficult to step away from the 10 fact that in the staff's assessment of the 11 decommissioning plan documented in the safety evaluation 12 report, specifically at page 28, a very short section 13 deals with financial insurance, and in there the staff 14 found that the purchaser / owners of Yankee are 15 contractually bound to maintain a decommissioning trust l 16 fund sufficient for dismantling the nuclear power I i
17 station. And I quote, "therefore, Yankee Atomic Energy i i
18 Corp., YAEC, complies with NRC requirements on financial 19 insurance." This was the basis for the staff's finding !
20 that there was compliance with the financial insurance p
21 regulation.
22 I' point out at this point this was consistent 23 with the guidance in CLI-96-01. The Commission tells us 24 two things are needed, the cost estimate should be
\ -
25 correct or it must not be in error and/or there is no i NEAL R. GROSS count nearnas ANo inANscamens 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20m 2344433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20008 (202) 234 4433 I
127 1 reasonable insurance that decommissioning costs will be g- 2 paid. I point out if it's in error, it's merely a
(/ 3 matter of correcting that cost estimate. To prevail in 4 this contention would be a showing there's no reasonable 5 assurance the decommissioning costs will be paid.
6 Petitioners did not dispute the contractual 7 obligation of owners of Yankee Atomic Energy Corp. or 8 Yankee Nuclear Power station to do just that in 9 contention C. The effort to raise this is a late filed 10 contention, was failed, absent a showing of their -- of 11 a showing of the late filed contention.
12 Even if though the Board were to accept the t
, 13 late filed contention, petitioners haven't shown a basis O)
(_ 14 for the allegation that the owner / purchasers would not be 1
l 1
15 able to monitor the contract.
16 To summarize, it remains the staf f's position l
[ 17 that absent this all of the other issues raised by '
18 petitioners in contention C are not material as the staff i
19 has found the purchaser / owners are contractually bound to 1
20 maintain cost funds sufficient for dismantling of a 21 nuclear power station.
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran?
23 MS. CURRAN: We would agree with Yankee l
24 Atomic that these decommissioning cost estimates are not l 25 an intellectual exercise. They relate to how much money NEAL R. GROSS count nEponrEns ANo rnANacaeEns i 1323 nH00E ISUND AVENUE, N.W.
(208) 2344 438 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
128 1 is going to be needed in order to make a site safe for 2 public use again and it involves a lot of money and 3 there are questions about whether that much money can ba 4 raised and how. So it is not at all an intellectual 5 exercise. Mr. Gad also argues that there's no meaningful
- 6 relief that we could get from the litigation of this 7 contention because it would just be changed to a line in 8 the decommissioning plan. Well, we are entitled to see 9 that change and to see a reasonable number put in that 10 blank.
11 If Mr. Gad were correct, then it would be 12 fine to walk in and say it wil) cost $10 to clean up 13 this site and then if we need more money we'll just go A
k-) 14 to FERC and get it. And I think the public is entitled 15 to more than that, is entitled to disclosure of what the 16 costs are going to be and so is the NRC, for purposes of 17 monitoring whether this company is going to be able to 18 come up with the money that it needs, instead of at the 1
19 last minute finding out that for one reason or another j 20 they can' t get it.
1 21 So we think this is an important requirement l 1
22 and exists on the books. There's no doubt that the NRC 23 requires a reasonable cost estimate for decommissioning 1
24 costs and it needs to be met. l 25 I also heard an argument here that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCRI8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 ' WASHMGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 l
O 129 1 intervenors or petitioners were under some kind of an 2 obligation to hunt through all the files in the public 3 document room and come up with whatever Yankee filed with 4 the FERC in this power contract. As you know, we were 5 under an expedited schedule to file contentions in this 6 ., matter and we looked at a number of documents, including 7 the principle document which is Yankees FSAR, the 8 application for licensing approval in this case and in 9 the FSAR Yankee did not choose to provide that crucial 10 language that it relied on its response to us and we 11 submit that in framing a contention, we are not required 12 to look through every single file in the public document i 13 room and find the kind of evidence that one would expect O
14 to present in an evidentiary hearing. We're required to 15 look at the license applicatiot. and related documents 16 that were cited therein that we tried to find and we i 17 couldn't get,a hold of all of them and make our case I 18 based on those documents. !
19 I heard an argument that we have no basis for 20; our concerns, that all they amount to is concerns. I've 21 already addressed that and gone through the factual bases ,
22 for our contention. We have real bases that are 23 supported by documentation and expert evidence and so any 24 allegation that we have no more than concern is absurd.
O
-U 25 I also heard an argument that with respect to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(20 0 234-4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433 1
130 1 our argument regarding the lack of description of the 2 provisions for segregation of funds that this is O 3 adequately dealt with in a separate licensing proceeding 4 or under a separate regulation and that it didn't need 5 to be put in a decommissioning plan. Well, that's not 6 consistent with the regulations for what a 7 decommissioning plan is supposed to include and Yankee 8 should have provided enough information to allow the i
9 intervenors to see what measures it was taking to 4
10 segregate those funds. Now maybe after this contention 11 is admitted, Yankee will provide information which it 12 hasn't provided in the decommissioning plan up until now 13 and show that intervenors' concerns can be addressed, but 14 that hasn't been done in the decommissioning plan and so 15 the plan does not meet the Commission standard. We have 16 submitted an admissible contention that it does not.
17 Mr. Holler also argued that had we read the 18 SER, we would have seen that the staff based its own 19 finding on the fact that Yankee had these contracts with 20 its co-owners. But the staf f's review is not the basis 21 for this license application. It is the FSAR itself.
22 The FSAR indicated that Yankee had a number of sources l 23 of funding that it was relying on to satisfy its 24 anticipated decommissioning costs and it appeared quite O
V 25 clear to us that the power contracts were not the only NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRANSCNSERS
, 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 23H433 WASH 6NQTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
\
1 131 1 thing that Yankee was relying on and we're entitled to l 2 base our contention on that license application and not D 3 on the staff safety review. !
l 4 I don't have anything more on that.
5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, Board 6 questions then?
{ 7 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Ms. Curran, in your response 8 that you prepared, you expressed concern that the bulk
)
9 power purchasers would be willing to follow through on 10 their contracts. Is there anything you can offer this 11 panel in support of that contention other than what is 12 in your filing?
J 13 MS. CURRAN: One moment, please.
,, 14 MR. BLOCK: I'm going to address that. The 15 FERC document that we refer to and this raised our 16 concern initially because I had taken some time since
! 17 there were no citations provided in the FSAR to go and j
18 look up the regulatory proceeding as best as I could, 19 first we had some difficulty because the local regulatory 4
20 agencies would not make us privy to the current Rt 21 agreements. They felt that they were still on-going i
22 negotiations, so then we went back in time and I 23 followed what kinds of proceedings I could find and read 24 therein and I think one of the citations is the one that
/%
25 I gave you before where in situations where Yankee was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(2W) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
132 1 concerned with getting an increased return provided, they l
2 were willing to argue about financial instability, the '
O 3 inability of the contract use to pay, etc. etc.
i i
4 When it became imperative that they provide i 5 some assurance, they produced a contract with different i
6 language and since the people who are the participants in j 7 making the contracts have the same benefit, either way, l 8 in one case they benefit financially from getting the l 9 rate increase and in the other case they benefit from I i
10 being able to gain the regulatory blessing by showing the 11 contract that seems to assure financial solvency in i
12 pe rpetuity, we felt that this was something that was !
l 13 worth raising as an issue and pursuing. Which, in fact, i (1) 14 is the right thing? Is it what they say when they want 15 more money or is it what they say when they want to be 16 able to get rid of this liability they now have?
17 MEMBER ELLEMAN: So it's the statements in i
18 the FERC document that form the basis for that concern?
19 MR. BLOCK: Right. And the lack of 1 l 20 clarification in the document that forms the basis of l 21 this proceeding. I mean if there was more in there, if 22 there were more references, if there were more 23 clarification, we might have arrived at a different 24 direction for contentions. We might have arrived at
((- 1 25 other concerns, but we couldn't understand how anyone NEAL R. GROSS muni nepOarnas mO ramsensens 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WA8HINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
133 1 could reasonably decide that this was an adequate 2 document without that information and so we felt that by O 3 bringing it forward it would be something that reasonable 4 minds would choose to inquire further on in order to i 5 clarify and assure themselves that the document, in fact, 6 was adequate and satisfied the regulations in that 4
7 regard.
- 8 MEMBER ELLEMAN
- Mr. Gad, a question I would i 9 like to ask on decommissioning funds, it would appear 10 that funds currently on deposit for decommissioning plus 11 the monthly rate of collection will not yield the needed 12 funds by the year 2000 which I gather is when the FERC 13 authorized collections expired.
14 Could you comment on that point? i s
15 MR. GAD: Say it again, Your Honor? l i
16 MEMBER ELLEMAN: It would appear that the 17 deposits that have been quoted to of money on deposit l l
18 for decommissioning, plus the monthly rate of collections l
\
19 to add to that fund which have been given to us, that 20 the combination of those two items will not equal what !
l 21 the licensee has claimed is the decommissioning cost by l l
22 the year 2000.
23 Now admittedly this is all dependent on the 24 schedule for expending these funds and this is not known r
"- t 25 to us, but it looks like the necessary money won' t be in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TMANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE 18LANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
134 1 hand by the year 2000.
2 Could you comment on that observation?
O 3 MR. GAD: Without knowing more about what --
4 ceeing the numbers and where they' re coming f rom, I can 5 tell you this, funds, the contributions ordered by FERC 6 together with the --
accept the expression internal rate 7 of return on those funds employed by FERC will result in 8 the end of the fund, amount of the fund, decreed by 9 IFERC be appropriate.
10 I really can' t go --
11 MEMBER ELLEMAN: But that appropriate amount 12 is not the amount you have stated is the decommissioning 13 cost, is it?
14 MR. GAD: I don't know whether, when you put 15 them in the same dollars and make the same assumptions, 16 I don't know whether they' re the same or not. Because 17 once again, part of the thing you've got to bear in mind 18 here is that --
I mean if you take vague assertions of
- 19 skullduggery and consignment of what it ought to be, 20 there is no genuine incentive on the part of any one of 4
21 the operating utilities who is our contract or those 22 levelized payments to be lower than they might otherwise 23 be. That simply means you've got a big bunch at the end 24 and you may have a different, a big bunchy of money to i '25 pay at the end and you may have a vastly different NEAL R. GROSS cove nEpomuns um rnumenmEns 1323 nH00E 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
, (204 2344488 WA8HINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
135 ;
l 1 regulatory scheme. So if there is a dif ferential and I i
i 2 don't know whether there is or not, nor do I think it's l 3 a simple question, it would be because FERC had one .
l 4 estimate that it accepted at a point in time when it 4
5 accepted it with the passage of time limitation. That's i
6 the only explanation that comes to mind if the premise I
- 7 is correct.
i 8 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Is it correct that the !
9 company hoped to have in hand by the year 2000 the 10 needed funds for the decommissioning as authorized by 11 FERC?
12 MR. GAD: I think that was FERC's ambition.
13 MEMBER ELLEMAN: But not the licensee's r
?
14 ambition?
15 MR. GAD: The trouble with FERC is that you 16 have to do it at one point in time, right? So they made 17 an estimate of what it is going to take and then they I
18 made an estimate of how you levelize that.
19 And I wasn't there, I didn't do the FERC i
20 case, but intuition and I think reading the opinion tells 21 me their aspiration was to come up with the lucid l
22 correct number that we've spoken about earlier today.
23 part of the problem is that when you estimate 24 the cost of doing a thousand small things, many of which 4
b 25 are deferred into the future, a number of things happen NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCROER$
1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE N.W.
(2010 2344438 WASHWGTON. O.C. 20006 (202) 23N
136 I with the passage of time. Number one, you may get l 2 smarter about what things cost or what trends are.
O 3 Number two, you may have actually accomplished some of 4 the things and therefore you now know that they either 5 cost a little more or they cost a little less than what 6 you had planned. It may very well be that you change 7 the nature of what you're going to do. Remember, this 8 is a decommissioning plan that has always had flexibility 9 built into it.
10 So if you ask me to bet on the proposition 11 that the best estimate today for a point value in the 12 year 2000 is exactly the same as the best estimate when 13 the court case was done, the point estimate for the year 14 2000, if you ask me to bet on that proposition I 15 probably wouldn' t bet much.
16 At the next break, I'll try to get some notes 17 that have been handed to me translated. Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Assuming there's a l
19 problein with the estimate and the amount, how is that 20 corrected down the line? You may have already explained 21 this to us, but I'd appreciate it if you'd do it again.
22 MR. GAD: I don't know the answer to that 23 question. You're asking whether or not FERC levelization 24 has to be kept current? The answer is I know that there
(~
25 is a procedure changing it and decided the delta is big NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCNSERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(20 0 2344438 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (20 0 234-4433
137
, 1 enough, but it is a mandatory requirement for changing it 2 for a period, requirement for periodic review, I don't
- O i
3 know. Because you see, understand something, FERC 4 levelizing is a means of making life easy for 5 accountants, bookkeepers, and rate makers, rate engineers 6 of the various utilities. Yankee does not rely on the 7 fact that FERC set this order. Yankee relies on the
- 8 fact that the power contract obligates the owners of the i
9 plant to come up with whatever it takes.
1 j 10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: But again the point is 11 that FERC has to order them to come up with whatever it 4
12 takes?
$ 13 MR. GAD: No, absolutely not.
V 14 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: What am I 15 misunderstanding?
16 MR. GAD: What FERC does is to hand the pass a
17 through into retail and wholesale rate. The electric 18 company owes me $10 on a contract. They have to pay me 19 whether or not they can get it back from their rate 20 maker. On the other hand, if they know that they're y-21 going to have to pay me a lot of money in the future, 22 they.may elect for their own purposes, get it levelized, 23 particularly if the trust agreement --
I'm sorry, maybe I 24 missed the crux of Your Honor's question, but the legal 25 obligation to pay and how FERC handles the distribution NEAL R. GROSS COURT MPORTERS AND TRANSCRt9ER8 1323 RHODE 18LV40 AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20006 (200 2344433
m 1 1
138 1 of this obligation of the rate payer are separate. FERC 2 can't abrogate that cost with the exception of Mobil 1
3 Sierra, FERC can' t abrogate that cost. '
4 MEMBT' ELLEMAN: Maybe I got a little lost 5 here too in this discussion. Are you implying the 6 licensee could increace the amounts it is collecting on a i
i 7 monthly base for addition to the decommissioning fund if 8 it chose to do so before the year 2000 or is it bound by 9 the FERC contract to the amounts that are currently being 10 placed in the decommissioning fund? .
1 11 MR. GAD: Let me restate your question and 12 I'll tell you I don't know the answer to that. If I 13 understand the question, let us say that FERC currently i ,
14 authorizes the owners to put $100 a month in rate base !
I 15 to pay that into the trust fund and you've asked me i
16 could the owners put $125 in? )
I 17 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Yes.
l
- 18 MR. GAD
- I'm fairly sure the answer to that l
1 19 is yes. But if your next question is what's going to be 20 the rate making treatment of the $125, I don't know.
21 The next question you asked me is would i
- 22 Yankee order the owners to put $125 versus $120 in, and 1 23 I do not know the answer.
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Judge Kline?
1 25 MEMBER KLINE: Nothing.
NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CM68ER8 l
1323 AHOOE ISt.ANO AVENUE, N.W. j (200 2M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (200 2M 1
l 139 1 MR. GAD: May I have a minute, Your Honor?
2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: yes.
O 3 (Of f the record.)
4 MR. GAD: Judge Elleman, let me try this on 5 for size, if I may. The FERC order that we referred to
]
6 in our written pleadings was a vintage of approximately-l 7 1992. As a result of the staff's approval of 8 decommissioning, the original approval of the 9 decommissioning plan, FERC instructed the parties to come 10 back and the parties -- the Commonwealth of 11 Massachusetts, the State of Rhode Island, the State of i 12 Vermont and certain municipal power systems, asked them, 13 probably order Yankee and their parties to.go back and i
t 14 relook at the question.
1 15 The result of that process was a settlement 16 agreement, it was dated in December of 1995. It 17 provides for achievement of amount oy the year 2000. It l 18 makes assumptions about internal rates of return. I am j 19 told that from memory the total amount that it sought is 20 probably less than the amount in the decommissioning plan 21 because it only does forward work, only has to fund work 22 that hasn' t .already been funded.
23 Now having said that this piece of paper is 24 .in writing. It's not present in the rules. If the 25 Board wanted it it's a public record, we could probably NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 23444M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
- .. .- -- . - . . =- .. . .. . -.
140 1 get it. We don' t have it.
1 2 MEMBER ELLEMAN: I think that answers my '
3 question. The implication is that the additional 4 decommissioning funds needed will then potentially have 1
5 to be recovered in some action that is after the year 6 2000,1f those additional funds are not correct?
1 7 MR. GAD: The assumption of the order so far 8 as I know it is that hypothesis won' t occur. You're 9 really asking me about estimation or the dif ference i
10 between estimation and experience and my guess is that
. 11 FERC will take a look at it, but you'll always converge 12 on the year 2000. The bottom line answer for purposes 13 of this hearing is that our companies, these FERC orders 14 do not alter the equal obligations of the power 3
15 companies. They may administer. They make life easier
. 16 for the power companies to get these costs back. As far 17 as the NRC is concerned, its assurance comes form the e
18 legal obligation of the owner, (a) without limit, j 19 whatever it takes.
i 20 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, I think I had 21 a question for you if Mr. Gad is finished.
22 Looking at page 31, I guess, this is where 23 you've sort of outlined where you believe there's a 24 problem with the ability of the purchaser to make the 25 payments require'd, that's a quote from the second to last NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRAN8CRISERS 1323 RH00E 18tAND AVENUE N.W.
(200) 2364430 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
141 1 sentence in the text.
2 The next sentence talks about these O 3 purchasers have financial problems of their own which may I l
4 prevent them from meeting their contractual obligation to 5 buy power and then the citation goes back to this 1987 l 1
6 FERC case. I'm wondering if you can tell me what I
7 problems you're referring to in terms od what's in the 8 case. It's a rather long case.
! 9 MR. BLOCK: Your Honor, I believe that that 10 was concerned with issues arising from the ability of the 4
11 bankruptcy of public service of New Hampshire. That's my 12 recollection. That's what you would find in there.
13 That's among the issues discussed. There were a variety i
14 that were discussed. I mean alse. I think, an issue 15 that this court or tribunal could ta.ke note of currently, 16 the utility prices, the price for electricity is 17 extremely depressed.
18 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: With respect to then the 19 ability of those having responsibility under the power 20 oontracts, they haven' t received the full term for the w
21 t cipated operating life, they haven't received all the 22 electricity they thought they were, other than that 23 statement, is there any reason for which you can tell us 24 there are people who are not going to comply with the 25 contract, given that Yankee Rowe hasn' t produced all the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIGERS 1323 RHOOE ESLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(2W) 2364438 WASHINGTON. O C 20006 (20 0 234-4433
142 1 electricity it thought it would?
2 MS, CURRAN: We don' t have anything current O 3 as to inability of the contractors to pay, but one thing 4 that I heard here today was that to the extent that FERC 5 is involved, that these owners may not get back, may not 6 be able to pass on these decommissioning costs to their 7 rate payers and they may have to eat them themselves and 8 depending on how high these decommissioning costs go, 9 this could be a very severe burden on the stockholders 10 of these utilities and I think its foreseeable that --
11 well, they include several nuclear utilities that also 12 could have significant decommissioning costs of their 13 own, that any one of a number of things could happen to
\ 14 such utilities that would incur significant cost for 15 themselves beyond paying for Yankee Rowe decommissioning.
16 Certainly, it's reasonably foreseeable that 17 if these owners have to pay the full decommissioning 18 costs of Yankee Rowe, that there may be problems down j 19 the lien with them coming up with this money and again, 20 we do not feel that Yankee has given an adequate 21 estimate of what the true cost of decommissioning is.
22 It may be even higher than they're estimating.
23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Mr. Gad, you 24 stood up. You must have something to say.
A U 25 MR. GAD: I did. The standard just NEAL R. GROSS l 000RT REPORTER 8 AND TRAN8CR19ER8 1323 RHOOG 68L ANO AVENUE. N.W. l (202) 2364433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20008 (202) 2344433
143 1 articulated is that it is reasonably foreseeable that l
l 2 there may be X in the future. I submit to you that is O
3 not a basis under Section 2.714, but it doesn't matter l
l 4 what cost estimate is. If you' re going to say that we 5 can speculate that down the line somebody may have 6 trouble and that's enough to trip the trigger that's true l
7 at $100 million, that's true at $200 million, that's true l 8 at $226.42 million and we're not going to get any.
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Since you're standing up, 10 let me just ask you a quick question, the question about l
11 the bankruptcy of the public service of New Hampshire, i
12 since that has been one of your clients in the past and l
13 may still --
are they still in bankruptcy or not? Has 14 that been worked out?
l 15 MR. GAD: The part of PSNH that I represented 16 was Seabrook and Seabook, as you know, has been spun 17 off, but you're asking about PSNH corporate and I don't l
18 know the answer.
l l 19 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
20 MS, CURRAN: Let me just add one thing. I 21 just wanted to note that we're not taking these questions l
22 about Yankee's ability to pay out of the air. We're l 23 quoting a FERC opinion in which Yankee expressed the same l l
24 concerns about its owner's financial situation.
25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anybody else have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTIRS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 23H433 WASH 6NGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 23M433
144 l 1 anything on this point?
l 2 All right, why don't we go ahead and take a lO 3 half an hour break. We haven't had lunch.
4 MS. CURRAN: It seems long.
5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: If someone can get lunch 6 in 15 minutes, we'll take a 15 minute break.
7 MS. CURRAN: Who hasn't gotten lunch yet? If 8 you haven' t had lunch, we'll take a break.
9 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 10 record for lunch.)
11 12 l
13 14 15 16 l 17 l l
18 19 l
20 21 vi l
22 j ,
23 I
24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRIMR8 1323 RH00618 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20m 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344 433
i 145 i
i 1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: We had, I guess, O 3 basically completed, unless any of the parties have 4 anything more to say about the issue of contention C and 5 the first discussion about the ability of the power 6 contract purchasers to fulfill a contract.
7 MR. GAD: Just one bit of information that I 8 learned over the lengthy lunch hour: it is up to 9 Yankee. Yankee, at any time that it decides that it is 10 necessary or prudent, can go back to FERC and ask for an 11 outboard adjustment.
l 12 It just happens to be working out that at the l 13 moment, the collection of funds is ahead of projections.
14 That is to say, things are costing less than they 15 expected.
16 But the fact of the matter is that at any 17 time, it's up to Yankee. They can go back to FERC and 18 start a new proceeding. !
1 19 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Let's move on 20 then if no one has anything else.
21 MR. BLOCK: We wanted to just --
22 CRAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Surely.
23 MR. BLOCK: --
comment briefly on that.
I 24 CRAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Okay.
25 MR. BLOCK: And the question would be*, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE, N.WL (200) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C 20008 (202) 234 4433
146 1 what it they don't get it? What if they don't get their 2 rate increase, and why isn' t there a contingency plan for O 3 that?
4 MR. GAD: I just may have been misunderstood.
5 Yankee would not go back for a rate increase. It would 6 be an order requiring an adjustment in the levelized 7 contributions by -- well, the advanced contributions by 8 the power contract obligees in the fund.
9 What they do on their rate case is something 10 different.
11 MR. BLOCK: And the same response would reply 12 to that.
13 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Anything 14 further on that point from anyone?
15 MS. CURRAN: No.
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, I think then 17 what we have with respect to the other -- I think what 18 we've essentially covered is -- I have it down as
[
19 subparagraph, well at least part of basis 3 or basis C -
20 -
I don't remember if you used a number or a letter.
21 MS. CURRAN: I hopelessly bolixed it up, I'm ,
22 sorry.
23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Well, I'm using numbers 24 and you were using letters. I don't remember what --
25 MS. CURRAN: You could try just going from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
147 1 page-20, I think.
-1
/( 2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I guess what we can do le l 3 move back to the first sub-basis, I guess, under basis 4 1, which' deals again with the assumption about the low 5 level waste site. )
6 And a lot of these, I guess, relate to the 7 same question, the question of what are the costs that 8 will be incurred.
9 And if you want to -- if there is summary 10 you want to give here rather than going through each 11 one, and I guess there's five of them, feel free to deal 12 with it whichever way you prefer.
13 MS. CURRAN: All right.
a 14 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Since we' ve heard some of l
15 this already I think.
16 MS. CURRAN: One ge aral comment, which is 17 that Yankee generally characterizes our contentions here
- 18 as being a dif ference of opinion between the parties.
19 And we would like to reiterate that the issue -- yes, we i
20 have a difference of opinion.
- 21 The issue before the Board is have we 22 challenged Yankee's assertions with sufficient basis and
- 23. specificity. And we believe se have.
! 24 Ye.nkee seeks dismissal of Petitioner's claim i.
s 25 that the decommissioning plan. unlawfully fails to include NEAL R. GROSS COURT HEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ;
1323 MHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433 l
148 1 the cost of hazardous material abatement in its decommissioning estimate.
(q) 2 3 As we.have previously stated, the cost of 4 non-radioactive clean-up is relevant in this case and 5 should be addressed in the plan.
6 The goal of decommissioning is to release the 7 site for unrestricted use. If a licensee also has 8 sufficient funds to clean up the contamination on a site, 9 but not the non-radioactive contamination, that goal will i
- 10 not be realized.
11 And in addition, if the full costs of 4
12 cleaning up this plant aren't disclosed then again, it is 13 unclear how much money the cleanup is going to cost and
% 14 where Yankee is going to get the money.
15 In their contention, Petitioners criticize ,
-l 16 Yankee's failure to make an adequate comparison between 1 l
17 'present funds with its cost estimate.
]
18 Yankee says that this is merely statements of 3
19 disbelief or unreasonable pleas for more detail.
20 However, in the contention, we do demonstrate 21 that Yankee's estimates and statements about what money l l
22 it has --
well first of all, the decommissioning plan 23 itself, or the FSAR, doesn't disclosure the amount of 24 funding presently available. I A 25 And the decommissioning plan itself appears l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 2344 433
149 1 to be out of date. There's been a lot of discussiot 2 here about the FERC settlement and what is the effect of O 3 that settlement on the decommissioning funds for Yankee 4 Rowe.
5 And it seems to me that things have gotten 6 markier rather than clearer as a result of this pre-7 hearing conference, and that the decommissioning plan 8 ought to state quite clearly what money Yankee Atcmic 9 has, what money it's going to be getting, how it's going 10 to be getting it, and how its prospects compare with the 11 funds it has on-hand.
p12 One of the Petitioner's contentions, sub-13 contentions, in this contention was that Yankee has used I
i\ 14 a contingency factor that is much lower than what one l 15 would reasonably expect to see in a case like this.
16 And I believe Yankee's response was that we i 17 do nothing more than disagree with them. That isn't the l 18 case. And we go into extensive detail supported by an
! l l
19 expert affidavit regarding what our appropriate
! 20 contingency factors in cases like this. l 21 This is a very important element of the l
22 decommissioning funding estimate and Petitioners have 23 provided more than sufficient basis to gain admission of 24 this; part of the contention.
,^fG} 25 I don't have anything further on this one.
I
. NEAL R. GROSS COURT FSORTERS ANO TRANSCRIGER$
1323 RHODE 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(209) 2344433 WASH 4NGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234M
1 1
150 1 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Okay, any --
Mr. Gad?
J 2 MR. - GAD: I'm a little lost at exactly what l 3 we're doing.
- l 4
4 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I think I what Mr. Curran {
4 5 did is cover several of the dif ferent -- I offered her 1 i 6 the opportunity to either cover some of them or cover to i
{ 7 do it individually. And she appeared-to cover at least !
l 8 two of them -- I guess three of them, in fact.
9 MR. GAD: Okay. Very briefly. CLI -- the j
10 assertion was made that apart from whether or not we 11 have any admissible contention that the decommissioning i
12 costs may not be paid, we're nonetheless entitled to have 13 a public statement as to what the -- as to what the
\
14 amount is. a 4 l
- 15 And that, frankly, is in conflict with what i 1
- i 16 the Commission said in CLI 96-1. What the Commission !
I I
~
17 said was that if a party demonstrates that it has 4
! 18 standing to intervene on its own accord, that party may i
19 then raise any contention that, if proved, will afford 1
l 20 the party the relief -- let me say it again -- will !
21 afford the party relief from the injury it relies upon l l
22 for standing. l 1
23 Now the injury -- the injury relied upon for 24 standing is the supposed radiological impact on folks who q
k_) 25 live four to ten miles away from the plant.
NEAL R. GROSS }
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
. = . . = - . . _ . - - .. . _ - - . - =_ .-
1 1
151 1 _To be perfectly honest with you, changing the 1
l 2 numbers in the decommissioning cost estimate affords no O
1 3 relief on that issue.
. 4 And the Commission adverted to that when it 5 said the following about contention C in its entirety:
l 6 "The purpose of - the 50.82 requirement for a cost estimate j 7 is to provide reasonable assurance of adequate funding i 8 for decommission."
i 9 "The contention that a licensee's estimate is
- 10 not reasonable, standing alone, would not be sufficient i;
- 11 because the potential relief would be the formalistic 12 redraft of the plan with the new estimate."
l 13 Skipping a sentence, "Thus to be entitled to 3
\ 14 relief, the Petitioner needs to show not only that the 15 estimate is somehow in error, but that because of this, 16 there is not reasonable assurance that the funds required 17 will be paid."
l 18 So I think we've sort of forgotten the 19 Commission's guidance here if we talk about admitting 20 five or six specific cl allenges to be --
to be cost 21 estimates. ,
22 Indeed -- indeed, think about this for a i
23 moment. What would be the relief if this Board were to l l
24 conclude that there is no reasonable assurance that the 25 funds will be collected or that the costs will be paid?
. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 2344433
152 1 I submit to you that at that point, you begin p 2 to do as much' decommissioning zith presently available t
3 funds, presently available repositories, and presently 4 known costs as you possibly can.
5 The last thing this Commission would order, 6 if there genuinely was that concern, is hey listen, 7 button it up and come back in 30 years.
8 So I guess I have a certain problem with the 9 whole thrust of the convention. With respect to the 10 assertion that we can talk about -- that we can litigate 11 in this proceeding someone's estimate of the cost of non-12 radiological heat commissions, the Commission's dictate 13 on this is pretty plain, once again page 2.5 of the
'i
\ 14 GEIS, which refers back to the definition of
+
15 decommissioning in Section 50.2 and is carried forward in 16 the footnote of 50.75.
17 " Decommissioning activities do not include i
l 18 removal and disposal of spent fuel ... or the removal 19 and disposal of non-radioactive structures and
! 20 materials."
t 21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler? '
i I 22 MR. HOLLER: I hesitate to do this. I would 23 just add though that the Staff does not take the 24 position that there need not be reasonable assurance that O
f V 25 decommissioning costs will be paid, that that is one of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
l (2010 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234W
. - -- . .- .. . . _ . . --~ . ~ - _ . . . - ~ . _ _ .
J 153 1 the standards that is reinforced -- the standards
,g '
2 required by the regulation, as reinforced by 96-01.
3 But there has been -- the Staff has made a f 4 finding that there is reasonable assurance, and I-have
- 5 nothing more to add on this, i
6 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Board questions? Mr.
! 7 Elleman?
j 8 MEMBER ELLEMAN: On the non-radiological I
(
- 9 costs, which are not a part of the decommissioning plan, j
i 10 will the funds for those activities come out of the il funds that are being reserved for decommissioning or will 12 they come out of some alternative funding source?
13 MR. GAD: You' ve asked two questions . And O 14 once again, I don't really know -- I can't stand here 15 and certify the anawer to either one.
16 The fact of the matter is, administratively, j 17 I don't know whether or not you an put in ten dollars I
18 for doing "X" project, which only 75 percent is directly l 19 radiological.
l 20 The ~ fact of the matter is that from time to !
21 time, you have to be prepared to certify that the funds 22 remaining in the estimate are more than -- equal to or )
23 greater than the projected costs of finishing up the 24 radiological decommissioning. ;
' . 25 So I'm not sure it really matters. But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
154 1 you've asked an administrative detail, and I don't know 2 the answer.
O 3 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Well, I guess the question 4 I'm basically answering 1s if the non-radiological l l
- 5 aspects are not a part of the decommissioning plan, are 6 they a part of the budget though that has been 1 7 submitted?
- 8 MR. GAD: Of the cost estimate.
l
} 9 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Of the cost estimate?
- 10 MR. GAD: It's different from a budget.
L 11 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Yes, I' m sorry, a cost i
i 12 estimate. ;
13 MR. GAD: And I suspect the answer to that i[
14 is yes. But primarily, I suspect that the answer to l\
15 that is yes because I know how engineers do cost and --
! 16 the cost of taking down something. It's so many man-4 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> at such a rate, so many blocks, so many gallons of i
18 fuel and the like.
19 And it's a little hard to desegregate. But I 20 do not know for a fact.
21 CHAIRMAM BOLLWERK: Anything else? I have a 22 question for the Staff. What is your position with 23 regard to Mr. Gad's argument that the decommissioning 24 cost analysis doesn't have to include clean-up of non-25 radiological hazards?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANf,CRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON 0 C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
155 1 I don't think the Staff has spoken to that 2 issue.
3 MR. HOLLER: The regulations require that the 4 radiological aspects of the plant -- that the 5 radiological --
those things associated with radioactive l
6 contamination, it does not go to non-radioactive i
7 contamination, 8 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: And then who is 9 responsible for that? ,
1 10 MR. HOLLER: If 1 may just have a minute?
11 CRAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Sure.
12 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 13 record at 2:39 p.m. and resumed at 2:40 p.m.)
i 14 MR. HOLLER: I thank the Board for its 15 indulgence. I just refreshed myself by taking a look at 16 the environmental assessment. And although the Staff 17 assessed the environmental impacts of non-radiological i 18 contaminants, I'm not prepared to answer now the first 19 part of the question, whether or not the Staff, as a 20 matter of policy, holds that that must be included in i
21 the decontamination of the plant.
?
s l
. 22 The second question, Judge Bollwerk, if not l 1
23 the Staff, then who? Since I'm not able to, at this 24 point, answer your first one, I can't answer the second
- 25 either.
- NEAL R. GROSS i
' I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS
< 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. )
l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
156 1 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
2 MS. CURRAN: Could I address --
O 3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Yes.
4 MS. CURRAN: -- some of these points?
I 5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: ' Absolutely. l l
6 MS. CURRAN: Okay, I would just like to 7 point out again the Footnote 1 to 10 C.F.R. S 50.75, 8 which in defining the word decommissioning with respect 9 to costs is a little bit different from the GEIS.
10 It says that " Amounts are based on activities 11 related to the definition of decommission in Section 50.2 12 of this part, and do not include the cost of removal and 13 disposal of spent fuel.or of non-radioactive structures 14 and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the 15 license."
16 So there certainly is an implication in here 17 that if abatement of hazardous material is necessary to 18 terminate the license, then that needs to be included in 19 the consideration of decommissioning costs.
20 And I don' t know if we have enough j 21 information based on, I think we had a piece of .
22 correspondence, to determine whether these particular 23 abatement activities are necessary for termination.
24 But one would assume that removal of i
('~~'\
, (_). 25 hazardous materials is necessary for this Agency to NEAL R. GROSS f COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCR18ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
157 i i release the site to the public.
2 Also, as you pointed out, Judge Elleman, if O 3 the same pot of money is being used.for decommissioning 4 of radioactive materials and decommissioning of non-5 1:adioactive hazardous materials, then it becomes relevant 6 what portion of that pot is going to one activity and U
7 what portion is going to'another, so that you actually a have a fair idea of how much you have for each activity.
9 I would like to just get back to a few other J
- 10 points that were made here. One had to do with, I i
l 11 think, relief, and the injury that was relied on by 12 Petitioners in order to establish standing.
l 13 I believe Mr. Gad argued that the injury that
!(
l% 14 we're relying on is solely radiological impacts. But 15 it's a little more complicated than that.
i 16 One of our concerns raised in our petition is
- 17 that there will not be sufficient funds to safely clean 18 up this site. And that as a result of that, the plant 1
19 will pose a risk of contamination to the public.
l 20 So that's directly linked to the adequacy of 21 funding for this' decommissioning effort and to the 22 standing that Petitioners have is people living nearby.
23 We also find it remarkable that Yankee seems ,
24 to be arguing that there's basically no need for accurate 25 decommissioning funding projections in a decommissioning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO A'/ENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C,20006 (202) 2344433
1 158 i 1 plan because they' re going to get the money anyway. l 4
p 2 But again, it is more complicated than that.
d 3 It involves the responsibility of the company to assess 4 what the costa of decommissioning are, and to set aside 5 sufficient funds.
6 And I would not be very surprised that if 7 Yankee behaved irresponsibly and did not do reasonable 8 cost estimates and attempt to manage its funds in a 9 responsible way over the years, if it ultimately went to 10 FERC or any of the' owners for funding for this plant, 11 that it would not be met with an unqualified yes, that 12 Yankee could have those funds.
13 The purpose of -- the NRC went through a rule
' O' 14 making to assure that instead of the hope by which l 15 licensees just decided that they would come up with 16 whatever money they could come up with when they needed ;
17 it, that licensees had to plan ahead and had to set 5
18 aside money as they went along to be sure that they 4
19 would have sufficient funds.
4 20 Then I just wanted to mention that I didn't l 21 go into the details of two of the sub-contentions. I
]
22 think one had to do with the cost of dry cask storage, 23 and another had to do with the timing of the 24 availability of high level waste disposal sites.
)
25 We felt this falls into the category of l l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
l 159 1 issues where Yankee merely claims to have a dispute with 2 us, and that we have -- indeed, we have a dispute, but s
3 that we have supported our disagreement with Yankee with 4 reasonable basis and specificity, and therefore have 5 submitted an admissible contention.
6 Mr. Block has a comment.
7 MR. BLOCK: I just wanted to respond to 8 something that Mr. Gad had said before. He seemed to be 9 saying, well what would you do if you knew the money was 10 going to run out? You would just do everything you 11 could right away until the money ran out.
12 And it would seem to me that there is another 13 prudent answer. And that is, if you have a fund that is 14 growing over time, that it might behoove you to shut 15 down and sit on it, knowing that the waste volume will
- 16 reduce automatically.
17 And see if you can't do something to get that 18 fund to grow by properly managing it over the period of 4
! 19 time that you're going to be sitting there simply 20 maintaining the site as a repository, so to speak, of 21 slowly decaying material.
! J
- 22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran comes --
sort I 1
23 of went into a couple of things that we didn't raise in l l
l
! 24 the initial round. If anyone has any comments -- and I l lo
,V 25 think she just said -- we'll hear them briefly.
1 NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
l 160
- 1 MR. GAD
- I'm struggling to find something 2 that I know is in the Statement of Considerations. But-3 phraseology was used to the effect that -- the point is 4 that this Agency has responsibility for things like lead 5 contamination and other non-radiological contamination 6 because it's up to this Agency, and I quote: "The
-i i 7 Agency will release the site to the public."
) 8 And that triggered a recolle'ction. There is I
9 a discussion in the Statement of Considerations wherein
- 10 the Commission points out that the Agency doesn't release 1
11 the site. And in fact, the site need never be released.
i 12 l
l 13 In fact, it goes on to say once you've taken
- rQ
!V 14 out of --
once you've cleaned up the radiological
) 15 inventory, so that from a radiological perspective, one i
16 could, if one wanted to, release the site, that is the 17 end of NRC's jurisdiction and interest.
18 And in fact, the bu. ldings never have to come 19 down so long as they -- as the radioactivity has been 20 cleaned up.
21 I can't exactly find it. But the factor of 22 the matter is, as I stated earlier, that the definition 23 of decommissioning does not include non-radiological 24 matters.
25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything else further on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
161 1 that point?
l 2 (No response. )
3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Another one 4 'of the bases for this contention deals with a comparison 5 between a cost estimate and present funds is inadequate.
i 6 It's not' clear whether Yankee Atomic has the $235 million 7 FERC settlement or received the settlement.
8 What is the nature of the bank, the trust i
9 account, in which the money has been placed, and whether
, 10 all the receipts go to that account? Have we discussed
- 11 that already sufficiently or is that something you want 12 to say something about?
13 MS. CURRA'.4 : Briefly. I -- it's in the 14 pleadings. I don't have anything to add on that.
15 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Okay. Another basis then 16 is -- deals with an inadequate plan for sharing the 17 availability of funds. We've already talked about the 18 power contracts in some detail.
19 It also mentions the point about earnings 20 realized from investment of contributions and tax laws 21 carry-backs. Is there anything you wish to say about ,
22 either of those points?
23 MS. CURRAN: What page are you reading from 24 now?
25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: This would be probably 26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANC TRANSCal8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N,W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
162 1 'and 27.
2 MS, CURRAN: Yes. I think we've covered 3 that.
4 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Then~the last 5 basis here is the question of inadequate description of 6 the segregation of funds, no information on the trust for 7 the power contract revenues or discussion of other Yankee 8 Atomic income dedicated to decommissioning.
9 That's, I guess, part D that you had, basis 10 D.
11 MS. CURRAN: Right. And I think as we were 12 discussing before, apparently there's some other document 13 somewhere that Yankee contends satisfies our concerns.
14 But this was not adequately described in the 15 decommissioning plan. And therefore -- and the 16 regulations require this information to be provided.
17 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Any other i :
l 18 comments from any other parties on that? Mr. Gad?
i 19 MR. GAD: Pass.
20 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Nothing else j
\
' 1 i 21 on contention C with anyone? j l
- 22 (No response. )
23 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, let's move to i
l 24 contention D then. And this one asserts that a plan I i0 V 25 fails to include --
the plan fails to include measures l
1 3 NEAL R. GROSS
- . COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCAISER$
- 1. 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
i' ,
(20 @ 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 2344433 l l
163 1 necessary to ensure the workers and the public are 2 -adequately protected from health damage caused by the 3 excessive doses received during the Component Removal 4 Program, also known as the CRP. Ms.-Curran?
5 MS. CURRAN: All riy t Yankee argues the
-6 CLI 96-01 holds that contention D is not a part of this 7 proceeding. In that decision, the Commission said that 8 to the extent that contention D is based on past 9 regulatory violations, it should be treated as a 2206 10 petition.
11 I'd like to clarify that contention D is 12 based on the need for prospective action to deal with 13 the risk of nuclear contamination.
14 In effect, what has happened here is that 15 Yankee Atomic has contaminated the environment in a way 1 16 that is not amenable to being cleaned up.
- . 17 And the Commission has precedence for dealing
' 18 with that situation. There is a requirement in 10 i
19 C.F.R. 550.75 (g) (1) that the licensee maintain records of 20 spills, including spills that are not capable of being
! 21 cleaned up.
22 The Commission is now considering 23 decommissioning regulations that would provide for
! 24 monitoring and protection of sites where contamination O(./ 25 simply can' t be cleaned up, for whatever practical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433
164 l 1 reason. l 2 In this case, as a result of the Component O 3 Removal Program, Yan'kee Atomic contaminated the human 4 environment, issued radiation into the human environment 5 where it is now residing'in the bodies of human beings 6 or in the environment where it will be taken up.
7 And there is no way that Yankee Atomic can go 8 and' clean that up.
9 And just as with these other forms of 10 contamination, it is essential that some provision be 11 made to monitor the effects of this contamination and to 12 provide for some remedial measures to prevent further 13 damage'.
14 And that this needs to be done in the form 15 of a documented tracking of the extent of this 16 contamination and the health effects on the human 17 population.
-18 This contamination is going to affect people 19 for generations into the future. It has already 20 occurred, and measures need to be taken in order to 21 anticipate the effects of this and deal with them.
1 22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything else?
l 23 -MS. CURRAN: No. l 24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad?
r
(. >
25 MR. GAD: Yankee stands on CLI 96-01 which l
NEAL R. GROSS !
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 234-44M WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
165 J
1 ruled this cont ention to be beyond the scope written. )
2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
'O 3 MR. HOLLER: I would add to that the scope 4 of any URC proceeding is limited, or it's well 5 established that the contentions can only be admitted if 6 they fall within the scope of the issues set forth in 7 the Federal Recister notice of the hearing and comply 8 with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.704 (b) .
9 The notice of hearing in this particular 10 proceeding clearly stated that the hearing --
the 11 contention shall be limited to matter relevant to the 12 order under consideration.
13 The order under consideration is whether an 14 order approving the Yankee Nuclear Power Station 15 decommissioning plan should be issued.
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Ms. Curran?
17 MS. CURRAN: I'd just like to comment.
18 There's nothing in CLI 96-01 that rules this contention i 19 to be inadmissible. The decision says that to the i i
l 20 extent we're upset about past violations, that we should i
21 seek enforcement action.
- 22 We are not looking for enforcement action on l l I
- 23 past violations. We are looking for future remedial or '
1 24 anticipatory action regarding contamination that has been 25 placed in the environment by Yankee Atomic. That's all
{ l l NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS
( 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
WASHtNGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 2344433 (202) 2344433 l l
166 l
i I have. :
2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Any Board I j O r
3 member questions for contention D?
I 4 (No response . )
4 1
- 5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK
- No? All right, then
- 6 we're at contention E. The contention is that the Staff 7 violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing
] 8 to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 9 for Yankee Rowe decommissioning.
i 10 And this one has, as I count them, five sub-l 11 bases. The first is a statement that deals with the 12 fact that a GEIS, the Generic Environmental Impact 1
13 Statement, failed to consider impacts of potentially 14 inadequate decommissioning financing for a prematurely f
15 closed reactor.
16 And then it references contention C with ;
i 17 regard to costs that haven't been included, and it
}
t
! 18 indicates that the costs are likely to be significantly 1
i l
19 higher than Yankee Atomic estimates.
- i
! 20 If the site is not decommissioned adequately, i
i 21 there will be significant environmental impacts. Ms. ,
22 Curran?
23 MS. CURRAN: Would you like me to go basis 24 by basis? Is that --
O 25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Unless you prefer to wrap
'Q NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON,. D.C 20006 (202) 234-4433 l
167 1 them al'1 up into one. I'll leave it to you to do 2 whichever way you prefer, j 3 MS. CURRAN: I'll do that. There are a 4 couple of preliminary matters that I 'nned to address. l 1
5 One is just to reiterate the standard for supplemental 6 Env3 onmental Impact Statements, which is found in 10 7 C.F.R. S 51.92, which is that if the proposed action has 8 not been taken, which it has not in this case, the NRC 9 Staff will prepare a supplement to a final Impact 10 Statement where (1) there are substantial changes in the 11 proposed actin that are relevant to environment concerns; 12 or (2) there are significant new circumstances or 13 information relevant to environmental concerns and O)\s 14 bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
15 And that is what these bases are addressed to 16 here: the change in circumstances and new information 17 which warrant the supplementation of the GEIS, and for 18 which the EA prepared by the Staff is inadequate.
19 I would just like to address at the outset 20 Yankee's argument that Petitioners somehow waive their 21 right to a hearing on the NEPA issues when they failed 22 to challenge the environmental assessment when it was 23 issued. I think it was in -- when was it, Gene?
24 MR. HOLLER: December of 1994.
25 MS. CURRAN: December of 1994. At that time, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS
' 1323 RHCOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 224-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344 433
168
(' - 1 1
1 Citizens Awareness Network, one of the Petitioners here, '
2 had made repeated requests to the NRC for a hearing on 3 Yankee's ongoing decommissioning activities and had been 4 denied.
l 5 And Yankee --
and the paries were still in s-6 court in the First Circuit over that when the l
) 7 environmental assessment came out.
8 For CAN to have gone to the NRC and asked 9 for a hearing on the EA when it was perfectly clear that i
10 the NRC intended to go on allowing Yankee Atomic to 4
- 11 conduct the illegal decommissioning activities that were 12 supposed to be subject to a prior environmental
, 13 assessment would have been futile. It would have been 14 ridiculous, i 15 And the law does not require Petitioners to 16 exercise futile remedies.
17 At that point, it was also premature. We did 18 not obtain the opportunity for a hearing on the 19 decommissioning plan until CLI 95-14 was issued and the 20 environmental assessment was writcen in support of that 21 decommissioning plan.
22 So there would have been no point in asking I 23 for a hearing that was related to a decommissioning plan ,
1 24 in which the Petitioners couldn' t get a hearing. 1 L 25 And to move on to the basis for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 8 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
169 1 contention -- excuse me for one moment.
2 (Pause.)
3 MS. CURRAN: I think that in terms of this l
4 first basis, that the objections to this basis were 1
)
5 essentially the same as the ones that Yankee and the NRC 6 Staf f voiced with respect to contention C; in effect 7 that, since Yankee has these iron-clad power contracts 8 and is going to get the money for decommissioning anyway, 9 that the question of the premature shut-down and the 10 financial impact on the decommissioning fund is 11 irrelevant, 12 So we would go back to what we said with 13 respect to contention C for our response to that.
14 But certainly, it is true that in the GEIS, 15 the Commission did not anticipate the contingency of l l
16 prematurely shut-down reactors. l 17 And this plant was a plant that was supposed i 18 to be accumulating decommissioning funds during it's ,
1 19 operating life. And it was not able to complete that i 4 i
20 term and accumulate those funds. I i
21 And as we have already discussed, Yankee's l l
)
~
1 22 ability to acquire the rest of the funds that it needs 23 is problematic. And thus, there is significant new
!- 24 information, circumstances that are different than were 25 considered in the GEIS, that warrant supplementation of NEAL R. GROSS l I
couar asponrens Ano raAuscaisens j 1323 aHo0E ISLAND AVENUE. N W. l
<2an axu23 wAssworos. o.c. acons caoa 23uo3 )
- - - - _________-_______A
170 1 the GEIS with respect to this particular case.
, 2 That's all I have on this one.
O 3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: The second one deals, I 4 guess, with -- - I' m sorry, please --
5 MR. GAD: I was just confused, Your Honor.
6 Are we going --
7 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I think this time we're ;
8 going to go basis by basis.
9 MS. CURRAN: Right.
10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Is that what you've 11 chosen?
12 !1S . CURRAN: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Okay, that's what we're O
t V 14 going to do. !
15 MR. GAD: Okay, my apology. In order for 16 anything to trigger the requirement of supplementing a 17 Generic Environmental Impact Statement must be able to l
! 18 say each of the following things about whatever it was I
19 supposed to pull this trigger.
20 First, it has to relate to the licensing l l
21 proposal before the Commission. Second, it has to relate f
W
- 22 to Yankee Rowe. Third, it has to portend some l r ;
23 significant effect upon the environment, not simply the -
t- i
! 24 -
must portend some significant effect upon the f 25 environment.
k NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS i 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
i f
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 -
(202) 2344433 (202) 234 4433 {
171 ,
1 Fourth, it has to be something that was not $
3 2 assessed or captured in the GEIS. Fifth, it has to be O 3 something that is other than remote and speculative.
4 Overlaid on those five attributes are the s
5 rules of Section 2.7 (1) and (4), and that is that for 6 whatever extent --
to whatever extent you assert that ,
7 these five attributes are met, you must have a basis for 8 doing so.
9 Now, the entire basis for sub-1 of proposed 10 contention E is that there is a possibility that ten 11 operating utilities were on the hook for decommissioning 12 Yankee Rowe of Mako Bus.
13 It was said a moment ago that we've already 14 ) " scovered that the funding for this was problematic.
15' .11, that must have happened while I was at lunch.
16 The fact of the matter is that the only thing 3 that has been offered for bases are speculations and 17 18 truisms, along the lines of life is sometimes hard; with 19 the passage of time, things change and public utilities 20 have to come in and get their rates approved -- and 1
21 public utilities have to go in and get their rates 22 approved.
23 Now with the possible exception of the public 24 utility factor, those same speculations could be offered 25 against any institution in the United States of America NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
172 1 today or, perish the thought, any of the individuals in
. 2 .this room.
, i i 3 It's entirely possible that any one of us 4 could have financial difficulty ten or 15 years down the ;
) 3 pike. But that's not enoug.a to get over the hurdle.
6 The hurdle is you have some specific reason 7 for believing that that's going to happen in this case.
8 Now, while it is perfectly true that the model.of 50.82
- 9 is that we'll be collecting the funds over the life of 10 the plant -- in fact, that's never been true for any of 1
! 11 the plants because that collection rule came in after
]
12 most of them, if not all of them, were licensed.
i 13 So there's been catch-up to play for 14 everybody. But the fact of the matter is you'll never 15 have a case in which you have greater reasonable 16 assurance that the funds will be paid for because you 17 will never have a case where there are ten utilities who 18 have signed a piece of paper, a contract, a legal 19 contract, that says we will pay whatever it takes.
20 So I submit to you that sub-part E is 21 entirely lacking in basis. It is something that is 22 remote and speculative. It does not portend any 23 significant effect upon the environment, and it ought not 24 to be in here.
25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(209) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
173 1 MR. HOLLER: The Generic Environmental Impact 2 Statement doesn't consider decommissioning of a plant 3 with inadequate funds to assure that the decommissioning 4 costs are paid.
'5 Among other things, the regulations require 6 that a licensee must have reasonable assurance that the 7 decommissioning costs will be paid.
8 In fact, in a discussion on financial 9 assurance in the GEIS, this fact is brought out in which 10 the GEIS notices satisfaction of this objection requires 11 that the licensee provide reasonable assurance that 12 adequate funds for performing decommissioning will be 13 available at the cessation of facility operation.
m 14 I would just say that this is not an issue 15 for the same reasons -- for Yankee Nuclear Power Station 16 for the same reasons that we've gone over in the Staff's 17 position in contention C. i l
18 Therefore, there are no unique facts here i 19 that would trigger a supplemental Environmental Impact l 20 Statement to explore the environmental impacts of 21 inadequate decommissioning financing. .
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, response?
23 MS. CURRAN: Well, the fact that the rule
- 24 requires the payment of decommissioning funds doesn' t i.
25 have much to do with whether they get paid, as several
, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
.,w,. , - __ .- ._
174 i 1 of the judges sitting on the Secuovah Fuels case might l 2 agree with me.
,J
- 3 Here, we have raised a reasonable inference 4 that the costs of decommissioning here will not get paid.
5 It's an inference worthy of further investigation in this 6 licensing proceeding, to ensure that, in however many
{ 7 years, when the Commission -- the Commission's i
8 regulations require that this plant be cleaned up, that
', 9 it will be, that there will be funding to assure that 10 this plant is safe.
11 Mr. Gad said that we'll never see a case i 12 where there is a greater assurance that decommissioning
- 13 funds will be paid because there are ten owners of this ;
- I l 14 plant.
l 15 I don't -- (A) that's a new assertion here, 4 16 and I don't find it to be any more credible testimony
- 17 than anything else in this case as to whether the owners 18 are likely to pay the decommissioning funds.
4 19 It has everything to do with the financial 20 situation of the owners, and not much to do with how 21 many of them there are. l 22 It has a lot to do with what the cost in and 23 what the where-with-all is of the owners, what their l
24 circumstances are and what the FERC's willingness is to
}
25 pass the rates through.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
175 1 We have raised reasonable questions about i
2 those issues that deserve a hearing in this proceeding.
O 3 This concerns a reasonable assurance of whether or not i~
4 this plant-is going to be safely decommissioned. !
! 5 This is the opportunity, this is the time f 6 when this Agency must address that and assure that such
- - 7 funding is going to be sufficient.
l 8 And the Agency does not have a basis for 9 dismissing contentions that adequately challenge Yankee's l
Jl 10 assertions on this matter. I don't have anything else
- 11 on this.
t 12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Any Board i
l 13 questions on this? ,
{ 14 (No response. )
- 15 -CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK
- Okay, the second basis in '
i 4
16 contention E deals with the Staff's assertion in the
- 17 environment assessment that occupational dose estimate is i
l 18 within the range evaluated in the GEIS. And that's
.f 19 improper based on a failure to scale doses to the size 20 of the plant.
21 MS. CURRAN: We addressed this before, I I 22 think, in that the NUREG, which is referenced in the l'
23 EIS, NUREG 130, which I believe is from 1979, has l 24 different -- lower figures for the anticipated 25 occupational doses for decommissioning of the Yankee Rowe
- NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCm8ERS j 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. I
~
(209) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
176 1 plant.
2 And that the environmental assessment does ij 3 not take into account the fact that anticipated 4 occupational doses for Yankee Rowe were lower in that 5 study than they are in the Generic Impact Statement from 6 1988.
7 (Pause.)
8 MS. CURRAN: Okay. And therefore, the 9 radiological impacts -- well, strike that -- that in this 10 particular case, so far it appears that Yankee Rowe may 11 have already incurred radiation doses as a result of the 12 Component Removal Project that are a significant 1
1 13 proportion of the anticipated overall occupational doses l n
14 from decommissioning the whole plan, as they were 15 foreseen in the documents supporting the EIS.
16 And therefore, these doses are greater than 17 anticipated in the EIS, and have to be evaluation as 18 unforeseen impacts, as new information that shows greater 19 impacts than were previously anticipated.
l l
20 Yankee and the NRC Staff both make the 1 l
l 21 argument that the intrinsic dose of operating the -- or 22 of decommissioning the standard size PWR is the measure 23 here, and that there is no need to scale down the doses 24 because the Generic Impact Statement is the valid measure O
() 25 of what is an acceptable dose.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 2344433 (202) 2344433 (
l
'177 1 But if one looks at the GEIS, it doesn't make J
2 a. judgement about the acceptability of the doses. But O 3 it rather makes them in the context _of comparing DECON 4 and SAFSTOR and says well, the alternative of DECON is 5 acceptable because although there are relatively high 6 radiation doses in comparison to HAFSTOh; it achieves the 7 early release of the site.
8 And that's a benefit that balances the 9 radiation doses.
10 SAFSTOR, on the other hand, has much lower 11 radiation doses, but the site can' t be released for an 12 extended period of time. ;
i 13 So the Agency essentially compares those two 14 alternatives and says they -- they cancel each other out !
1 15 based on the fact that they each have cost and benefits i 16 that are --
or that they are roughly equivalent because i
, 17 they have costs and benefits that balance each other, so 18 that there's no implication in there that 900 or however I j 19 many rems in a standardized plant decommissioning is 20 acceptable regardless, i 1 21 (Pause.) I 22 MS. CURRAN: I don't have anything more on l
l l '23 this. 1 1
24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Mr. Gad? J s' 1 25 MR. GAD: Your Honors, this sub-part of I. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCm8ERS l 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. j (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON O C 20006 (202) 234 4433
178 1 contention E, I-submit-to you, is based on a fundamental 2 misreading.of the GEIS. And it's a little hard to O- :3 articulate, but the notion of scaling. implies that GEIS 4 found 1,215 person rem to be okay, but it was okay l
5 because, and only because, this was thrown off by a 1 6 gigawatt --
plant.
7 You can spend a lot of time trying to find 8 support for that interpretation in the words of GEIS.
9 And after having spent a lot of time, will fail.
10 What it actually said was that taking a look 11 at expected exposure levels generically, qualitatively, 12 down to the last -- qualitatively, what it was -- what 13 they found was that expected exposures were acceptable in 14 comparison to the already acceptable -- acceptable i 15 exposures from operation.
16 And I quote to you the language on page 15-1 17 of the GEIS. This is the analysis that GEIS went 18 through: "The radiation dose to decommissioning workers 19 should be a small fraction of their exposure experience 20 over the operating lifetime of the facility and usually 21 be --
and usually be within the occupational exposure ,
22 limits imposed by regulatory requirements. "
[
23 This is the basis on which the GEIS concluded )
24 that DECON and SAFSTOR were essentially equivalents, r
5 25 Now if, in fact, you wanted to come in and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 734 4 33 WASHWGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234 4 33
, 179 1 contend.that the GEIS had~to be supplemented on this 1
2 point, you would have to contend that for some reason, l
j -3 that Yankee Rowe expected exposures from the modified 4 DECON or modified SAFSTOR approach would be other than a
.! 5 'small fraction of the workers' exposure experienced over 6 the operating lifetime of the facility and usually well 7 . within occupational exposure limits imposed by regulatory j 8 requirements.
l 9 If you want to shoot at this part of the 10 GEIS, you've got to aim at that target. And NECNP
- 11 hasn't done that. I'm sorry, the Petitioners haven't 12 done that.
! 13 Second, for purposes of what divides the
- O 14 parties before the Board today, which is not the full --
15 of issues discussed in the GEIS, but rather whether at
! 16 not we would mandate that Yankee do 30 to 50 -- versus 17 what it has elected. That is the issue before the 4
} 18 Board.
- 19 For that purpose, the significant number is I 20 the Delta exposure, the differential exposure between the 4
2 21 doing the one or doing the other.
j 22 THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear that.
23 MR. GAD: The dif ferential exposure between
- 24 doing one and doing the other.
i \ 25 Now for the -- for the surrogate plant, the l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE. N W.
(209) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
I 180
]
1 referenced plant in the GEIS, they came up with numbers 2 for doing SAFSTOR. They came up with numbers for doing 4
=O 3 DECON. And the dif ference was approximately 900 person 4 rem.
5 This is the same 900 person rem that the 6 Commission has said does not trigger an ALARA concern.
- 7 But that's the number that is significant.
4
, 8 Now for Yankee, we do not know from the --
4 9 from the decommissioning plan exactly what somebody has j
l, 10 computed the differential to be because the exposure 11 projections are done for our plant only.
12 But you do know that the difference --
the i
13 differential has to be less than 744 because that's the 14 total that's projected for DECON. And 744 is less than i 15 900.
l 16 And once you're doing this comparison of 17 option one versus option two for the same plant, that 18 mathematically, as well as logically, scaling drops out 1
J ,
19 of the equation.
J 20 That led the Commission, when it published 5 21 the GEIS, to the following language, which is on page 22 24039 of the Statement of Consideration: "The 23 Commission's primary reason for eliminating a mandatory 24 EIS for decommissioning is that the impacts have been
- s 25 considered generically in the GEIS."
NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
3 (202) 2 % 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
, 181 1 Skipping over a little bit, it says, "The 2 GEIS shows that the difference in impacts among the basic
- 3 alternatives for decommissioning is small, whichever j 4 alternative is chosen, and in comparison with the impact' ;
i e 5 accepted from 40 years-of licensed operation."
l 6 Now, that statement remains true of Yankee
{ 7 Rowe and it has not been challenged. That statement has i
2 8 not been challenged with respect to whatever we're up to, i
, 9 the second of the two sub-parts of -- the scaling 10 contention under contention E --
sub-contention under
, 11 contention E.
12 (Pause.)
. 13 MR. HOLLER: Just to refresh ourselves, basis
,(
lk}
i 14 2 as alleged by the Petitioners, says to us that the 15 dose impacts of Yankee Nuclear Power Station are not 16 evaluated because the dose estimates in the environmental 4
17 assessment were not compared to the GEIS dose estimates, 18 adj.sted for the size of the Yankee Nuclear Power 19 Station.
1 20 First of all, the Petitioners here have made 21 the statement that the doses are --
strike that. The 22 Petitioners make the statement that the doses are not i
I 23 greater than those anticipated in the GEIS or state --
I 24 if I may restate that.
O V 25 They make the assertion that the doses are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCR48ERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(208) 2364433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
. . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
182 1 ' greater.than those anticipated in the GEIS. That.just 2 is not true.
3 The GEISfcompared or took a look at those 4 estimates for decommissioning, the bottom of the reactor, 5 the'3,411 megawatt thermal plant, and found that the
, 6 doses.that~were a resultant from that were' acceptable.
i l J 7 They also found that whether DECON or SAFSTOR
! 8 were used as a decommissioning alternative, that the 9 doses resulting .theref rom would be less than that from an i
- 10 operating plant, i
11 As Mr. Gad has said, there eis no place in k
i 12 the GEIS that talks about scaling down for another plant,
! 13 a particular plant that may be a lower power plant.
l0 i 14 There has been no assertion from the l
15 Petitioners that the doses from Yankee decommissioning j f
16 will be higher than the Yankee Nuclear Power Station
- )
i I
- 17 operating doses.
i 18 Petitioners, instead, are arguing that the 19 comparison must be between DECON and SAFSTOR. Again, i'
20 they are raising the ALARA challenge. This is contention
) 21 A again, discussed earlier.
l 22 One of the things that escapes the Staff is r
l h 23 that, although Petitioners argue that the acceptable dose 24 limit must be scaled for Yankee and it would produce an 25 additional result, fail to see the connection.
i' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHtNGTON, D.C.13006 (202) 234 4433 t
._ . - - ,e
, - . - - -. . -- ~ -. .- - - . - . - . . . . -
183 1 If the.public.and occupational dose --
and 2 the workers would receive a particular dose, and the GEIS 3 has found that a particular one is acceptable, then I 4 fail -- the Staff fails to see the connection of where 5 the dose from a smaller plant must be less in order to 6 be acceptable.
7 I would just finish by reminding the Board ,
8 that CLI 96-01 tells us that.a 900 person rem or the 9 3,411 megawatt thermal plant, the bottom plant, was not 10 sufficient to support an ALARA challenge to the method of 11 decontamination.
12 As Mr. Gad has laid out in detail, if one 13 follows that logic, he cannot come to the conclusion that I\
! 14 the 755 person rem difference between SAFSTOR and DECON
- 15 for Yankee would be sufficient to support an ALARA 16 challenge.
17 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran?
18 MS. CURRAN: Well, what's happening in the EA 19 is the comparison of applies to oranges, that the dose
! 20 from -- that's -- say the dose from the CRP that's being i
! 21 estimated is being compared to an overall dose for an .
22 overall plan, and saying that this is -- (A) it's a 23 small portion of that overall dose; and that (B) it's a l 24 small portion-of the dose from the operating life of the
- ' 25 plant.
NEAL R. GROSS 1 COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20006 (202) 2344433
, - . . . . . . . . - - - . - , . - , . . . . , . , . , , ,_ .- 3
.-.. - -= - _ . - - - . . . . _ . - - . . - . _ _ - - . _ . . _.
184 1 And what is wrong with that is that it does 4
2 not compare the dose to what would be expected from that
- 3 plant in terms of the dose from decommissioning or to 4 the operating dose that the plant would have experienced 5 during its operating life.
i 6 And that information needs to be corrected in 4
7 a supplemental EIS because the numbers are outside the 8 range that was predicted in Che decision document that 4..
9 supports the GEIS, which is NUREG 0130. That's all, i 10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Any Board questions on 11 this scaling question?
12 (No response.)
i
~
13 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: The next basis for this O 14 contention deals with the potential for a dry cask drop i
- 15 accident that's not analyzed, Petitioners assert, in the 16 GEIS and should be in a supplemental Environmental Impact 17 Statement. e
- 18 Ms. Curran, anything on the cask drop
- 19 accident?
I
, 20 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I do. I'm sorry. Yankee 21 argues that a supplemental EIS is not required to i
22 evaluate a potential cask drop accident because Yankee 23 has not applied for a license amendment permitting it to l
24 use dry cask storage.
25 However, dry cask storage is described in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 MHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20 @ 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
185 1 plan as one of the elements of the plan that Yankee 2 intends to implement. And NEPA requires the NRC to O 3 evaluate all' reasonably foreseeable consequences of a 4 proposed decision.
5 If dry cask storage is a part of this 6 decommissioning plan, then a supplemental EIS should be 7 prepared to evaluate the reasonably foreseeable impacts 8 of that part of the plan, including dry cask drop 9 accidents.
10 ~ Yankee has not challenged this description of 11 the accident that we have provided, but merely says that 12 it's essentially not right because no application is 13 pending.
14 However, this is a reasonably foreseeable 15 effect of the plan and needs to be evaluated.
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad?
17 MR. GAD: Very briefly ,a nd I have a vague
. 18 recollection of having done this this morning. But it
- 19 was a long time ago and I'm not sure it's right.
I 20 Yankee presently doesn' t have authority to
- 21 move a 75 ton cask over the spent fuel pool. The e
22 approval of the decommissioning plan would not grant that t
l 23 authority.
24 The approval of the decommissioning plan
.() 25 would not create a scenario where moving the 75 ton cask NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE LSLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 2344433
186 1 becomes a practical necessity.
1 I
2 Here's the killer: the probability or )
,. l 3 utility of the scenario involving the cask that ;
i
- 4 Petitioners talk.about is not affected. The probability 5 or utility of that scenario is not affected one way or 6 another by the difference between DECON or SAFSTOR.
! 7 Fifth, when as and if Yankee elects -- and 8 the decommissioning plan says that what Yankee is going 9 to do is to take a look at options as time go by and as 10 options become available with respect to the fuel.
11 When as and if Yankee decides it wants to do 12 something akin to what NECNP is talking to, or for that i
i 13 matter anything else that involves taking the fuel out of 4
14 the pool, then it is going to have to figure out what
]
15 it's going to do, figure out what the engineering 16 consequences are, figure out what the accident 4
17 consequences are, figure out whether or not they're 4 18 bounded by existing studies, do new studies if it turns
~
19 out that they are not captured by existing studies, none 20 of which has been done.
) 21 And we couldn't go to trial on this issue 22 tomorrow because Yankee hasn't decided what it is --
23 whether it's going to move the fuel out of the pool; and 24 if so, what it's going to do.
25 You can' t have this contention until there is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON 0 C. 20006 (202) 2 % 4433
i 187 l l
1 a proposal for taking'the fuel out of the pool.
2 Two other quick observations: NECNP relies 3 on a CEO, Council on Environmental Quality, regulation, 4
4 which supposedly requires that an EIS --
by the way, 5 that is otherwise required. This is not a triggering ;
1 6 requirement. This is a scoping requirement if an EIS is 1
- j. 7 otherwise required. !
l 8 Nonetheless, the regulation says that if 4
l 9 you're otherwise required to do an EIS, you must address 10 indirect impacts which are defined to be impacts that, !
i 11 and I quote, " caused by the action, but are later in 12 time."
i 13 The idea that the -- that moving a 75 ton
}' 14 cask over the pool is cause-is caused by the approval of 4 ,
15 this decommissioning plan is contrary to the face of the
)
16 documents and the licensing structure itself.
17 One hardly needs to add that the Commission i 18 has said that it will not follow that CEQ regulation.
1 19 All of which comes back now -- I do remember 20 this. All of which comes back to the Rancho Seco 21 proceeding that we did talk about this morning, where 22 essentially the same contention was offered in a i
23 decommissioning plan case.
- 24 The Licensing Board said "No, under the 25 regulations, that must be addressed in connection with l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 433 4
__._____u , ._ _ w
188 1 the pool applications."- In that. case, the pool
[
- 2 application is pending. In this case, the pool 3 application may never be done.
] 4 MR. HOLLER: Your Honors, just briefly from l.
5 the Staff, there is no proposal to lift dry cask over 6 the spent fuel pool. If that option -- made to-use that 7 option, that is one that would have to be evaluated when l 8 the particulars regarding the particular cask that would 9 be used was available.
10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Ms. Curran, 4
11 'any response?
12 MS. CURRAN: Yes, First of all, this basis i
l 13 does not relate, or primarily anyway, to the choice 14 between DECON and SAFSTOR.
j 15 It has to with the need to supplement the EIS 16 to address an accident that wasn't considered in the EIS.
17 Second, the notion that we have to wait until J l
18 a license application is filed for dry cask storage i
19 violates NEPO, which forbids the Agency from segmenting l 20 this action.
21 The decommissioning plan is supposed to , ,
22 describe Yankee's plan for decommissionir.g the plant, 4
23 which in this case includes the use dry cask storage.
24 To chop this thing up into a lot of little 25 different licensing proceedings and not allow us to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2M WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
189 1 ' challenge the adequacy of the EIS to evaluate all
- 2 . reasonably foreseeable consequences of decommissioning i l
3 would illegally segment the process into very small 4 pieces in which the whole of the-action could not be j 5 seen.
i
- 6 So we think that this is ripe now. It needs 7 to be addressed, that the plan is a plan of action that 8 Yankee is seeking approval of, and that the Agency needs 9 to evaluate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of 10 that proposal.
j 11 As far as whether the NRC has rejected the l 12 CEQ regulations, that's not my understanding. That 4
- 13 basically, the NRC has agreed to follow them with very i j 14 limited exceptions that don't include this particular l i
- 15 provision, as far as I know. ,
j 16 With respect to the Rancho seco case that Mr.
l 17 Gad cited, I don't believe it was cited in any of i 18 Yankee's earlier pleadings here, and we don't have a 19 citation to it here. There's no way to comment on it.
h 20 I don't think it's relevant.
21 MEMBER KLINE: Ms. Curran, can you cite a --
22 either a health and safety or environmental interest that 23 requires that this matter be decided now, as opposed to 24 the time when the application comes before the NRC?
l-O.
25 In other words, why is it better to deal with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
. - - .- . . . . . - . . ~ . - .._. - -_ - . . . . _. - . . . _
190
- t. 1 it now than later when there's an application?
2 MR. BLOCK: If I might try to answer that O 3 for-you: our point is that under the National n
4 Environmental Policy Act, the -- again and again, the l l
4 5 United States Supreme Court, in dealing with what it i
\
l j .6 means, we believe, has said that when these issues are !
7 available to be addressed before action is taken that l
! 8 could result in what the NRC has called, in a number of
! 9 circumstances, "the foreclosure of various other 1
i 10 options," that it is prudent, in fact it's required by
- 11 the Act, that the full environmental consequences be 1
i 12 considered and disclosed.
13 And now is the time to make the disclosure 14 and consideration, especially when the Agency has before 4
15 it a plan that discusses this as one of the things that i
l 16 might be required.
I 17 And by making the evaluation and doing the 18 kind of environmental planning that's involved, the i 19 Agency merely carries out the will of Congress in this 20 area.
i 21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Although Mr. Gad has l
22 asserted that whether you use DECON or SAFSTOR, either 23 option, this may be done. I mean, what is the options 24 foreclosed? I guess that's what I don't understand.
25 MR. BLOCK: Oh, this would -- the option
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRI8ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ' (202) 234 4433 l
- . _ . _ _ _ _ -. _ _ . . . . - . . . ~. . _ _ _ _._
191 i
i foreclosed would be a commitment of resources to an 2 eventuality that could not be changed without adequate O 3 pre-consideration of the environmental consequences.
4 And if it could be. happen whether you use 5 SAFSTOR or DECON, then it should be considered now, and 6 it should be fully scoped out.
7 Because apparently, no matter which way you 8 go , this is something that may be waiting down the road.
9 And it is a something, an accident possibility, whose 10 environmental consequences have not been taken into 11 account.
12 MEMBER KLINE: Well, it's -- I'm still 13 confused because it's certain that it's not going to 14 escape scrutiny. The only question is when we do it.
I 15 And I don't --
it still isn't clear to me l
16 why its' better to do it now before the planning has l 17 taken place and before we even have solid information 18 apparently than it is to do it later when the people --
! 19 when the company applies for permission to do whatever I 20 it's going to do, i l
21 At the moment, we wouldn't even know it is J
22 what they're going to do. So, how can we do an 23 assessment now or what would we order be done now?
g 24 MS. CURRAN: I think one of the issues here 25 now, and I wish I had our engineer with us, is that all NEAL R. GROSS
=
COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRl8ERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
3 (200) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
-. 192
-1 of the issues that relate to the decommissioning of this l
2 facility are somewhat related, and that although --
cC:) 3 although this sub-contention doesn't directly address the j 4 choice between DECON and SAFSTOR, it still relates.to the
{ 5 issue of what you do with all of the waste on the site.
6 Because what you do with the spent fuel pool i 7 affects how you decommission the other parts of the 8 plant. And you can' t really take them apart. It has to
$ 9 be looked at together.
1
. 10 And so this -- in other words, one reason to 11 use dry cask storage is to get the fuel out of the pool 12 so that other low-level waste decommissioning activities i
13 can go on that are being delayed by the fact that the
< /*
- 14 fuel is in the pool, a
4 15 So then in evaluating whether to go to dry 16 cask storage, one would want to look at all of the
! 17 environmental implications of going to dry cask storage.
i 18 And so that's why we think it needs to be 1
- 19 done now, because these steps are inter-related. They i~ 20 can't be pulled apart like this, and inter-dependent.
- 21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Anything
,22 else?
l 23 (No response. )
i 24 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right, the fourth 25 basis for this contention deals with GEIS failure to NEAL R. GROSS 5 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR68ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
193 1 consider a low-level radioactive waste transportation
- 2 accident involving long-duration, high-temperature fire Ii 3 that melts the plastic resins and vaporizes radioactive 4 ions -- radioactive ion exchange resin matrix liquid.
5 That may be my own notes. I think I took i
6 down -- put down too many words there -- for releasing 7 unacceptable radiation doses.
8 But the point is, there is an under-analyzed 9 accident dealing with transportation of radioactive 10 resins. Ms. Curran?
11 MS. CURRAN: Yes. Yankee makes several 12 arguments with respect to this contention. First, Yankee I 13 argues that the transportation accident described by
.(
14 Petitioners is one that could happen, whether or not the 15 decommissioning plan is approved.
16 And thus, it's not capable of being remedied 4
17 by the denial of the approval.
i l 18 However, if the SAFSTOR alternative were !
l I 19 implemented, as Petitioners advocate, the volume of 1
l 20 radioactive waste at the plant would be significantly i
21 decreased, and there would be fewer shipments of low-22 level waste.
23 And this would affect the likelihood of an 24 accident.
25 Yankee also cites language in the Sandia l NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. j (202) 2364433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433 i
. _ . . . - _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . _ . . __._.._._._m _.__ _ _ . . . _ _ - _ . _ . _ . . -
194 1 Report on which Petitioners rely, which .L states that
! '2 - existing regulations "are - suf ficient to prevent excessive
[ 3 external radiation exposure to an individual following a severe transportation accident."
,. ~4 5 And that a burning ion exchange resin 6 accident is considered to have "a very low probability. "
r 7 And that's from NUREG 0170 1977.
l
- j. 8 However, as the Third Circuit held in I 9 Limerick Ecoloav Action v. NRC, mere compliance with NRC 10 safety regulations does not relieve the NRC of its 11 separate and independent obligation under NEPA to j
- i
! 12 evaluate and mitigate reasonable foreseeable accident j 13 risks.
- o i 14 And in fact, that the NRC has already --
- 15 already evaluated other transportation accidents of 16 similarly low probability.
17 I would like to talk a little bit about the 18 Limerick case because the NRC Staff argues that Limerick
!, 19 holds only that the NRC may not rely on a policy i- 20 statement to avoid NEPA obligations.
1 i 21 Now, that was part of the holding of the
- 22 Limerick case, but there's more to it than that.
j 23 That case concerned the NRC's refusal to 24 include in an EIS a discussion of sever accident 25 mitigating design alternatives. And the grounds for that
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE. N W.
(2 4 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 2344433
- - . . .- - .. - = . , , -
195 1 refusal included (1) a policy statement that said 2 " Existing designs were sufficiently safe to exclude 3 consideration of alternatives;" and (B) that "NEPA could 4 not logically require more than the safety provisions of i l
- 5 the Atomic Energy Act. " That's at 869 F.2d.'at 733.
1 1 6 The Court also-observed that a finding ~of no ,
! -j
- 7 undue risk under the Atomic Energy Act was not equivalent 8 to a finding under NEPA that risks are remote and i
9 speculative.
i
- 10 And then the Court concluded that contrary to i
j 11 the NRC's contention, " simply meeting the requirements of 12 the AEA does not exempt the Commission from complying i
! 13 with NEPA's procedural requirements. " And that's at page !
14 734, I believe.
i 15 So it's clear that whether or not Yankee )
i 16 complies with the safety regulations, or even if the ,
s l 17 probability of an accident is low, if it is reasonable j
- 18 foreseeable, it needs to be considered in an Impact i
j 19 Statement.
4 20 And that -- yes, that's all.
21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad?
4 22 MR. GAD: With some trepidation, Mr.
l l 23 Chairman, this one is going to take a little bit of 24 time.
4 O
, Q 25 This is one of those contentions where for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
4 (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
196 1 basis, all that is proffered is a document that is I
2 written -- that was written by someone else.
3 And ALBP 919 teaches that in such a case, 4 what you have to do -- you cannot accept the
.i
, 5 representations about what is inside the document. You I 6 have to go back and take a look at see if, in fact, it 7 carries the water that it is asserted to carry.
8 Now, the first thing that is interesting to 4
9 note is that the GEIS has an evaluation of public 10 exposures from the various decommissioning alternatives, 4 11 including an assessment of transportation accident 12 consequences.
13 Now it doesn't happen to mention this resin )
if J \ 14 fire accident. And that leads you, I suspect, to the
, 15 conclusion that that's because this report came out a i
16 copulae of years after GEIS. At least, that's what I 1
17 assumed. )
- 18 And it took a long time before I got through 19 the first page. And in fact, it's the -- it came out at 20 exactly the same time. This is not new material.
j 21 And so that leads you to the question, well, 22 my goodness, why didn't the commission, which had been 23 preparing these materials for a long time, take into 24 account this work that is simultaneously going on about 25 resin toxins?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCR10ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE N.W.
(208) 234 4433 WA8HINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23M 4
- 197 1 .The answer to that is that resin accidents 2 are not related to decommissioning. The assertion was
(/ 3 made a moment ago that there are some resin shipments 4 being made.
j 5 By the way, this accident is limited to 6 resins. It has nothing to do with low-level waste f 7 carriages. It's one particular. kind of waste.
8 The assertion was made that the -- that these 9 shipments are going on all the time, that they have been 10 going on, and - that's true .
11 And in fact, the fact that that's true makes 12 -- combined with the fact that we haven't been j 13 decommissioned over the last 20 or 30 years ought to 14 raise your attention. And here is what you are going to i 15 find out.
- 16 Because these --
this analysis is limited to i 1 17 resins, you have to say to yourself, well, what is the i i 18 connection between the resins and a nuclear power plant?
4 19 i l
20 The answer is that resins are used in what 21 asebbnts to liquid rad waste treatment systems. And as a !
1 22 practical matter, they are generated by two activities.
, 23 One of them is the operation of the spent 24 fuel pool. The other is decontamination operations in 25 general.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCROERS 1323 MHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 j (2001 2344433
198 1 Approval of the decommissioning plan is not l f- 2 needed for either one of those two. The operation of
, t 3 the spent fuel pool is a Part 50 undertaking for which 4
4 Yankee already has authority.
5 Decontamination of systems was specifically 6 called out by the Commission as something that could be 7 done without the approval of a decommissioning plan.
8 MS. CURRAN: I want to object here. These I
9 are technical arguments that have not been made in the 10 pleadings here. And we have no way of controverting 4
11 what Mr. Gad is testifying to here.
12 MR. GAD: It's in the report.
i 13 MR. BLOCK: It's irrelevant.
je 14 MR. GAD: This is the document -- excuse me.
15 16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I note your objection.
17 Let's let him continue. And we will take that into 18 account or not, if we should.
19 I don't want to sound -- want to make his 20 argument --
as long as he -- can you give us references f
21 to the documents, because we do have the documents?
22 MR. GAD: In some places. I'm not entirely 23 sure -- most of what I'm about to go through comes out 24 of the first, oh, 20 or 21 pages.
-t 3.' 25 The second thing that you have to ask l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSER8 1321 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20m 234 4433 WASHNGTON. O.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 i
E l
199 1 yourcelf is whether or not this resins accident is other 2 than remote inspection. This is-the Petitioner's burden.
O 3 The only basis that they offer is this particular piece 4 of paper, under ALBP 9-19. We have to take a look and 5 see what the piece of paper says.
6 All right. The first thing we find is that 7 for the accident scenario that Sandia was asked to 8 assess, we have to assume that the resins sustained a 9 combustion after they had been ignited, put the resins 10 down, bite them off, take away the ignition source, and l
11 they continue to burn. That's the assumption.
12 However, according to Sandia, and I quote, 13 page 6 --
yes, page 16. "However," and I quote, "during 14 these tests, it was found that self-sustained combustion 15 of the resins could not be initiated by exposing them to 16 a fire, probably because of the liberation of water of 1 I
17 hydration." So they started out in saying, "All right.
, 18 We have to get the resins to burn, and we tried to burn i
19 them and they wouldn't burn."
20 This sort.of presented a problem to Sandia, 21 but-they were supposed to report on the worst case.
22 That comes from page 1. So Sandia did the following, I
-23 according_to their report, which is relied upon for 24 basis.
25 Number 1, they assumed a full load of_ diesel NEAL R. GROSS count nearens ANoimNecamans 1323 MH00E 48LANO AVENUE, N.W.
(20E) 2364433 WASMNGTON, D.C. 20005 ' (202) 234 4433 LE__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
200 1 fuel in the truck that was transporting the resins.
f 2 Number 2, they assumed that there was an accident, and 3 as a result of that accident all of the diesel fuel 4 burned. Number 3, they assumed that all of the fire was 5 perfectly situated to burn the resins, an assumption, 6 they said, that --
and I quote -- "would require an 7 extraordinary coincidence of fuel and resin in a specific 8 geometric arrangement." That should be on page 17.
9 Next, in order to get any consequences from 10 this accident, you have to -- you have to -- and I hope 11 I pronounce this right -- I have not run into this word 12 before. But you have to aerosolize the resins, and 13 Sandia couldn't figure out how much of the resins would 14 aerosolize, and the issue is how much of the embedded 15 radioactivity in the resins goes up in smoke, literally, 16 versus just staying on the ground at the scene of the 17 fire.
18 And so how did Sandia handle this problem?
i l 19 Easy. They just assumed that the aerosolization rate was 20 100 percent. Now --
21 MS. CURRAN: I'm going to have to object , l )
l 22 again. You.know, Yankee has had two opportunities to !
23 prevent -- present its evaluation of this document. The 24 NRC passed -- amended the Part 2 regulation several years 25 ago, I guess in 1989, to make it more difficult for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN8Cf40ER8 1323 RHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
. 201 1 intervenors to get contentions in. And one of the
, 2 things they said was you really should try to provide 3 expert affidavits.
4 Well, we had an expert look at this accident, 5 and we had an expert --
you know, we based our 6 contention on what the expert said to us. Yankee passed 7 up two opportunities to raise these issues in a written 8 pleading that we could have asked our expert to evaluate 9 and respond to. And now Mr. Gad is reading selections 10 from a Sandia report that I personally am not capable of 11 evaluating myself. I would imagine one would have to 12 read the entire thing to put what he is saying into 13 perspective.
14 And I don't think the Board should entertain 15 this kind of argument. There has been opportunities J
16 before to say these things. We are handicapped by the 17 fact that our expert, who is the one who understands
! 18 this Sandia report and can comment on it, has had no 19 opportunity to review the things that Mr. Gad is saying, 20 or to quote from some other part of the Sandia report 21 that supports his position.
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Again, I'm going to --
23 Mr. Gad is talking about the report. We have the 24 report. In fact, we have read it, basically the whole
, 25 thing. So to the degree he wants to characterize it, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(2CE) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (kid) 2344433
202 e 1 that's fine. But I've read the report.
2 MEMBER KLINE: I've read it.
Q 3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Kline has read it.
i 4 If there is a technical decision to be made here, that 5 may well create issues of fact. He is sort of skating 6 on that here right now. He may cause himself problems 7 that he doesn' t know about. We'll see.
8 But I'm going to let him continue his 9 argument. I note your objection, and I'm aware of what 10 you're saying. You haven' t had a chance to respond as a 11 technical matter, but I will tell you that all of the 12 members of the Board have read the report . So what he i,
l 13 is talking about is not anything we have not seen 14 before.
15 MS. CURRAN: But we haven't had a chance to 16 point out to you other things in the report that may i ,
17 contradict what he is saying, or even to effect your j l
la perspective on the report. That seems unfair. The only 19 person who is having a chance to effect your perspective 20 on all of these things in the report is Mr. Gad.
21 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad, what else do you 22 have to say on this subject?
a 23 MR. GAD: I was at --
I think I was at the 24 end where I was going to say -- but before I do, I --
23 frankly, this illustrates something. The fact of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433 l 1
203 1 matter-is that it is the Petitioners who offered up this 2 report as their basis. What ALBP 9-19 teaches is that
<- 3 that's not enough.
4 What I --
the analysis I'm going through 5 right now, which frankly is simply a question of reading 6 this thing. I read it again yesterday, but that's only 7 because the airplane was cancelled. But the fact of the 8 matter is that that analysis should have been gone 9 through by the Petitioners. Simply flopping the fish on 10 the table and saying, "That's my basis," doesn't cut it.
11 Now, I was going to say that as a result of 12 the analysis, which basically I think is -- starts around l 13 page 12 and ends around approximately page 17, you can
(
14 only reach only conclusion about the accident scenario I
l 15 that Sandia was asked to take a look at, and that is 16 that it is extremely remote and speculative. In fact, l l
17 they couldn't make it.
18 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: And that's your 19 characterization, and it uses the word " extraordinary."
4 20 Let's go on from there. I 21 MR. GAD: Okay. It is the reason why Sandia 1
22 concluded by saying that the accident analysis -- the 23 accident scenario they were asked to take a look at did 5
24 not require any change in the transportarion regulations. -
!O U 25 So the basic contention here is that the document relied NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANScal6ERS l 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(200 2344433 WASHtNGTON, 0 C. 20006 (202) 2344433
204 1 upon does not provide a basis to conclude that this !
2 accident is other than remote and speculative, or that 3 this scenario has the potential for significant 4 environmental impact. That's not a burden I -- that's 4
5 not a preposition that Yankee carries the burden of 6 negating.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
9 MR. HOLLER: The Staff would just point out 10 that the resins to be transported would have to be 11 transported in conformance with the Commission's 12 regulations in Part 71. Staf f's position is that the --
13 that this is a challenge to the Commission's regulations. ;
14 The Petitioner's desire to do so, they must show the 15 special circumstances pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758.
16 The second point I would like to make, very 17 briefly, is that the Petitioner's reliance on Limerick we i
i 18 believe is misplaced. That if one reads Limerick, 19 they'll find that the Limerick court was distinguishing a
(
20 policy statement from a rulemaking, finding that the 21 final policy statement was not an agency rule, and thus 22 couldn't be invoked as a basis for excluding 23 consideration.
24 That is, the careful consideration and D-V 25 disclosure required by NEPA at 869 F.2d 739, I believe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCR68ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344 433
205
,- I 1
1 the court summarized this by finding that (quote), "The !
I i
2 policy statement was not a rulemaking. Therefore, it did i 3 not absolve the NRC of the required consideration of l 4 environment effects."
5 Part 71 has its own environmentalist i
6 considerations, its own -- it satisfies the NEPA 7 requirements. It is the Commission's regulations on l 8 transportation. If it is to be challenged, then it can 9 only be challenged in this proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR ;
- l 10 Section 2.758, 11 Thank you.
3 12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran? ,
13 MS. CURRAN: Again, our interpretation of j l
,\ 14 Limerick is different, and the fact that, for instance, l l
15 the Sandia report found that the safety regulations !
i 16 didn't need to be changed to address this accident does 17 not resolve the question of whether an environmental l O
18 impact statement needs to be prepared to address the 19 accident. They are two distinct questions, and the 20 Limerick court made that clear.
21 The other thing that I would like to do is ,
22 locate the flopping fish here. I feel the need to 23 return to that image, because we certainly -- we filed a 24 contention supported by an expert affidavit. When we got O
(/ 25 a response from Yankee Rowe that cited portions of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHWGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
206 1 Saudir. report to which we needed to respond, we did so,-
4 2 and then Yankee filed a further written reply that didn't O 3 include any of the information that Mr. Gad just gave l
4 you. l l
- 5 And it seems to me that the flopping fish was ,
4 1 6 brought into this room by Mr. Gad and not by the i l 7 Petitioners.
8 MR. GAD: Boston scrod. ,
< l 9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Any more 10 questions on this point?
11 MEMBER KLINE: Ms. Curran, is there an SER l
12 reference, or some other analytical reference in this j 13 case that establishes that ion exchange resins are, in d 14 fact, required to be used in a decommissioning process?
15 MS. CURRAN: I don't know of any.
4 16 MEMBER KLINE: Okay.
17 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry. Just a moment, 18 please. Well --
19 MR. BLOCK: I may be misunderstanding what 20 you're referring to, but isn't the cleanup of the ion 21 exchange pit, for example, something that involves the 22 removal of resins?
23 MEMBER KLINE: I don't know whether an ion 1 24 exchange pit is.
A --
25 MR. BLOCK: I believe it's referred to in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
- 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
'(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
! 207 i
1 decommissioning plan, and I think it's one of the things 2 that we referenced.
3 MEMBER KLINE: I just don't recognize that 4 name.
5 Well, the reason I ask is I said -- as the 6 Chairman has indicated, we'have ree.d the report for 7 ourselves, and on its face it is an analysis for an 8 operating reactor. And it does outline ways in which 9 resins are generated from operating reactors, and we 10 don't have anything before us right now that says, "Well, 11 yeah, decommissioning also generates resins."
12 And we just don't know that -- the answer to 13 that question, and --
14 MS. CURRAN: It was certainly my 1
! 15 understanding from our expert that this was typical, but 16 I don't have him here in the room. l l
i a '
17 MR. BLOCK: If it's in the FSAR, is it
\
~
18 before the Board?
\
19 MEMBER KLINE: Well, yes, I think it would !
l 20 be. I am just -- I simply don' t know what the 21 requirements of decommissioning are, whether, in fact, ,
I 22 resins are generated. It's already established that they 23 are generated by operating reactors and that they have 24 been shipping them for a long time.
25 Now, are they generated in the NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRl8ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(2W) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
208 1 decommissioning process?
2 MR. GAD: Can I help?
O 3 MEMBER KLINE: Well, if you can, yes.
4 MR. GAD: The answer is yc s.
5 MEMBER KLINE: Okay.
6 MR. GAD: That, first of all, it has nothing 7 to do with the ion exchange pit using terminology. Ion 8 exchange resins are generated, not quite the right word, 9 but they are part of what you can think of as a filter.
10 Actually, it's a chemical filter.
11 MEMBER KLINE: I understand what they are.
12 MR. GAD: All right. It is -- they are the 13 result of putting process water through your liquid
( 14 radwaste stream. So to the extent that you are still 15 doing the kinds of things that you would be doing when 16 you were operating the plant, while you're l i
17 decommissioning the plant, yes, there would still be some 18 of them going down there.
19 MEMBER KLINE: It appears there is no 20 controversy over that.
l 21 MR. BLOCK: Okay, I would just refer the 22 Board, for clarification, to 207-1, where there is a 23 description of the purifications systems.
24 MEMBER KLINE: Okay.
25 MR. BLOCK: That speaks of ion exchange resin NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 23H433 WASHWGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23 4 433 i 1
209 1 beds, filters necessary, associated valves,-pipings, 2 fittings, etcetera.
3 MEMBER KLINE: Okay.
4 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything further?
5 MEMBER KLINE: No.
6 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I have a couple of 7 questions. Is the Staff aware -- I know, for instance, 1
- 8 that the decommissioning -- or the transportation 9 regulations were recently -- some new regulations were
- 10 put out, I guess last fall. Has this accident or this 11 report ever been analyzed by the Staff in any way in 12 terms of a rulemaking change, or anything that you're 1 13 aware of? I mean, there is -- obviously, from the 14 document, I guess copies clearly went to the Staff. I 15 was just wondering, is there any report or analysis the 16 Staff has ever done on this, with respect to this -- the 17 Sandia document?
18 MR. HOLLER: When we looked at this, when it 19 was raised, we could -- the Staff did not -- was not 20 aware of any, nor did we come across any, other than the 21 reference in the report itself --
the Osmeier report --
l 22 that the existing regulations were sufficient to prevent
- 23 external radiation exposure to an individual following a 24 severe transportation accident. j b 25 But as far as evaluating this in a subsequent j l
NEAL R. GROSS )
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCm8ERS J 4 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
4 (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON; D C. 20006 (202) 2344433
210 1 rulemaking, I am not aware of that. And to the best of 2 my information, the Staff is not aware that that has 3 taken place.
4 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I guess a question for 5 Ms. Curran, I guess one of the problems that this report
! 6 raises is that while it does -- it does an analysis of 7 an accident, but then it makes the decision -- it makes 8 the determination and reaches the conclusion that nothing 9 should be done. I mean, the regulations are sufficient a
10 at this point to cover this -- to cover the problem.
! 11 Doesn't that sort of undercut what you're 12 talking about here in terms of the need to assess this 13 any further? I mean, you're the ones that have put the l\ 14 report before us, and the report's conclusion is --
i 15 MS. CURRAN: Right.
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: -- there shouldn't be any 17 change to the regulations. Nothing needs to be done.
18 MS. CURRAN: Well, again, 6thether or not 19 there needs to be a change, they did i3ay that it was a a 20 low probability accident, and that this may have been the
. 21 ground that they decided that a safety regulation wasn't ,
22 needed. But, again, that doesn't answer the question 23 raised by NEPA, which is, should it be considered, and 24 as we said in our reply that this ties back into the
. (~%
(_) 25 number and frequency of low level waste shipments that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
\
211 l l
1 would ba involved under a SAFSTOR alternative versus 2- DECON alternative. 1 O 3 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: And, again, looking to l
4 the question I guess of relief here, if this report is 1 1
5 analyzed and placed supplementally, I ask, what is the 6 result going to be vis-a-vis the GEIS? What is going to ,
l
.7 change? l 8 MS. CURRAN: We'll inform the choice between 9 the alternatives for decommissioning, between DECON and 10 SAFSTOR.
11 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Gad, do you want to 12 say something on that point?
13 MR. GAD: I just want to clarify something in 14 response to Dr. Kline's question. Resins are generated 15 by liquid streams that get cleaned up. This is the 16 spent fuel pool, and it is also the decontamination l 17 primarily of liquid systems.
18 It is not related to the number of low level l 1 l 19 waste shipments that you send off --
20 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I understand.
21 MR. GAD: -- the plant. Now, the point that i 22 I made at the outset, at least I intended to make and !
l 23 hope-I made, is that the operation of the spent fuel l l
24 pool is not something for which decommissioning plan l 25 approval is required.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
I (209) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
212 1 Likewise, the decontamination system, when the commission first promulgated 50.82 requiring n 2 3 decommissioning plan approval, and then it enumerates the 4 things that you can do before you get that approval and 5 the things that you can't do until after you get it.
6 One of them is the decontamination of these systems.
7 That's the point I made at the outset, why this is not 8 related to approval of the decontamination plan.
9 It may be temporally contemporaneous. Now, 10 that's a redundancy. It may happen at the same time as 11 decommissioning. It is not part --
it is one of those 12 activities that you can do on your own. You don't need 13 a license.
[ Well, that -- my question was 14 MEMBER KLINE:
15 asked in the context of our earlier discussion in which 16 we tried to set out the formal regulatory boundaries of 17 the decommissioning plan, i.e. whether it -- you know, 18 what it included, what it excluded. And that discussion 19 took place in the context of spent fuel, whether that 20 was included or excluded.
21 And so my question, again, is are there 22 liquid streams to be cleaned up in the decommissioning 23 process that is formally included in the decommissioning 24 plan, without regard to what is in the spent fuel pool 25 or other streams that now seem to be outside the t
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLANO AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
213 j i decommissioning plan, the formal plan?
~
2 MR. GAD: I believe the following is Oc 3 responsive to your question. That is that whether the 4 plan was approved or not, under the 1988 statement of 5 conditions, Yankee could proceed to decontaminate all of 6 the systems that generate resins, with the possible 7 exception of, I don't know, maybe -- something like that 8 that happens to go inside a building that has some 9 activity on it.
10 But the point is that the resins are related
'll to DECON -- decontamination of liquid systems and the 12 spent fuel pool, neither of which requires approval of a j
'13 decommissioning plan before you undertake those lo l
- activities, and that's why Sandia isn't related to GEIS.
14 l
15 That's what I was trying to say. I may have garbled.
16 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything else on this 17 point? ,
l 18 MEMBER KLINE: Well, does the Staff agree 19 with that? I mean, the -- and this is really quite a I l
20 technical question of where the boundaries of the )
, l 21 decommissioning plan are and whether the resins are l 22 within it or outside of it.
23 MR. HOLLER: Well, I understand the question, 24 Judge Kline, and I understand now the point that Mr. Gad 25 is making. If these are activities that one may take NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCR48ERS 1323 RHODE LSLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(M 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
214 1 without approval of a decommissioning plan, minor 2 decontamination that would generate resins, and those
\
3 resins then shipped pursuant to Part 71, the fact that 4 one now has a decommissioning plan, does that cause 5 additional activities to take place that are going to 6 generate resins that are particular to the 7 decommissioning function, the dismantlement of major 8 things?
9 In fact, unfortunately, it's a factual 10 matter, one that the Staff has not particularly addressed 11 or has not made me aware of at this point so I'm unable 12 to --
13 MEMBER KLINE: Our confusion stems from the 14 fact that the basis proffered to us is a basis for
.15 operating reactors. We understand you can ship resins 16 for, you know, cleaning up waste streams from operating l
17 reactors. The question before us is whether anything 1
18 further has to be done vis-a-vis a decommissioning plan, 19 and if, in fact, one doesn't use resins in a 20 decommissioning plan, it would have one -- it would have 21 implications for the contention.
22 If, in fact, you did need resins to conduct a 23 decommissioning plan, then it would have other 24 implications. So I think it's kind of important to 25 resolve it, and that's why I asked for a reference. Is l NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 wASHm0 TON. O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
215 1 there a reference somewhere that says, " Yeah, in order to 2 .ac:complish decommissioning, we have to use resins to l 3 clean up some liquid waste stream somewhere"?
-4 MR. BLOCK: I would refer the Board again to 5 207-1 of the Yankee Rowe FSAR, referring to the process 6 of cleaning - up these various types of purification -
7 systems that involve dewatering resins. And it says 8 specifically all resins should be sluiced from the ion 9 exchange capsule.
10 Then, at the beginning of that, at page 13, 11 we have an upgrade which talks about how the estimated 12 tritium _ leakage attributed to the ion exchange pit needed 13 to be upgrade. So this is, you know, a fairly serious
~
14 place for collecting not only resin but radioactive 15 material. It's something that has to be tracked, and it 1
f 16 seems that it is in the plan. I don't know if that 17 answers your question.
18 I think the other factor is whether this is 19 minor activity or not, because if we go back to the 20 rule, we're talking about minor decontamination and 21 disassembly, not major. And the question is, how big a ,
22 mess is this. that -- you know, to be cleaned up?
- 23 MEMBER ELLEMAN: I guess my question keys on 24 Dr. Kline's question that I would like to address to n
h 25 Staff.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE. N W.
(20 0 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 2344433
216 1 Okay, Jerry, do you -- go ahead. Oh , I'm s 2 sorry. If I blew out an eardrum, why, I apologize.
3 I guess from my experience with nuclear power 4 plants, I'would certainly be startled if ion exchange
! 5 resins were not going to be used in decommissioning.
6 And~the question that occurred to me is what determines 4-7 the life of an exchange resin in an operating nuclear 8 plant is very likely a necessity of maintaining high 9 conductivity water. You have to maintain sufficient 10 purity that you don't corrode the primary coolant system, 11 and this results in resins being discarded before they 12 are fully saturated.
13 In Staff's review of the decommissioning J
i e
k 14 efforts, where it is no longer necessary to do this, do 15 you know if there was any consideration of whether these 16 resins would be loaded to much higher radioactivity 17 levels than what they might otherwise be in an operating 18 plant?
19 MR. HOLLER: If I may consult with the Staff i
20 technical person --
21 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Surely, yes.
22 MR. HOLLER: Dr. Elleman, if I understand the 23 question, it basically must -- in an operating plant, one 24 changes out a resin because of the age considerations 25 perhaps before it would have finished its. filtration.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(20f) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
217 l 1 MEMBER ELLEMAN: Yeah, conductivity 2 requirements.
3 MR. HOLLER: Conductivity requirements. Is 4 that necessarily true in decommissioning, or can one take 5 it to the maximum of where it's still effectively working 6 as a filter? Unfortunately, the technical staff is not 7 aware that specifically was a consideration in the resins 8 that they used in the decommissioning.
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything further on this 10 point f rom either Board member? Mr. Gad?
11 MR. GAD: One more try and see if I can 4
12 resolve Dr. Kline's furrowed brow.
4 13 One response I might have is that if you
(
14 can't tell from the Petitioner's basis whether it applies 15 to decommissioning, then the Petitioner loses because 16 that's the Petitioner's obligation. But I want to make 1
17 sure I'm not misunderstood.
I 18 I.did not tell you that no resins would be i 2 l 19 generated during the period of time that a facility was 20 being decommissioned, almost by whatever mode. The point 21 that I was making is that if you look at the very, very l 1
22 top of page 24026, actually I guess you have to start on 23 the bottom of 24025, one of the activities that a 24 licensee may proceed to do under its existing authority m
25 in Section 50.59 is decontamination.
NEAL R. GROSS J COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCRt6ERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(200) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
218 1 Now, apart from -- and decontamination and
, -- 2 running the spent fuel pool are where you' re going to t
3 generate resins. Forget about the rain that happens to 4 leak in on the floor, something like that. But 5 virtually most all of the liquid radwaste anywhere in the 6 plant has to go through the liquid radwaste systems.
7 And so the point was not so much that it is 8 not physically related to decontamination, but rather 9 that it is not approximately caused by the approval or 10 disapproval of a decommissioning plan. I hope I got 11 that. That was the point I was trying to make.
12 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran, do you have 13 anything further on this point?
O
-(O 14 MR. BLOCK: Our comment, I guess, would be 15 that our concern in looking at the same portion of the 16 rule is whether this is a minor or major activity that 17 is a part of the decommissioning process. If it's a 18 major activity, it needs plan approval. We find 19 discussion of the activity in the plan. It is, 20 therefore, a reasonable inference to base one's 21 contention on that this is something that has to be 22 taken care of.
23 Additionally, this was raised in a context 24 that is quite specific, and that is the context of an A
U 25 unanalyzed -- a previously unanalyzed accident. And now NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRt9ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
219 1 that we know from the admission of the party, of the 2 licensee, that this is an ongoing activity that goes on 3 throughout the process, it would seem that rather than 4 undercutting the basis what he has done is give a basis 5 to the fact that there is going to be resin being 6 transported off site. And if that's the case, then this 7 is something_that really should be taken care of and 8 looked at now.
9 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Anything further? All 10 right.
11 Last, basis for contention E that a 12 supplemental environmental impact statement needs to be b 13 done to discuss the change in the balance between the O
14 DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives, given the lack of an 15 early disposal site for higher level radioactive waste.
16 MS. CURRAN: Essentially what the GEIS did
)
17 was compare the --
look at the costs and benefits of the j 18 DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives and found that for each ,
l 19 alternative the alternative had negative aspects and i
20 positive aspects.
21 And for the DECON alternative, the positive
. 22 aspect that outweighed the higher radiation doses was 23 that if one decontaminated and decommissioned the site j 24 immediately, it could be immediately released for O
A/ 25 unrestricted use. It would not have to go on for a long )
i I
NEAL R. GROSS I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(209) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 2344433
}
220 1 period closed off.
2 Well, now we know that there is, at this k
3 point, no disposal site available for high level waste, 4 and there may not be until some time at the --
in the 5 first quarter of the 21st century, if then. This has 6 dramatically altered the cost-benefit analysis that the 7 Commission used in order to find that DECON and SAFSTOR 8 were comparable in terms of their net cost and benefits.
9 Therefore, we submit that this Board -- we 10 have -- that we have provided sufficient evidence to 11 require a renewed inquiry into the comparison of costs 12 and benefits of the SAFSTOR and DECON alternatives.
13 Yankee argues that this -- the question of 14 the timing of availability of a high level waste i
15 repository isn't part of this -- isn't within the scope j 16 of this proceeding because spent fuel disposal isn't 17 included in the scope of the proceeding. But it's clear 18 that the GEIS considered the timing of the availability 19 of waste disposal sites in its analysis, and that 20 included the timing of availability of high level waste 4
21 disposal. ,
4 22 Again, that's a question of timing, not the I 23 method or location of the disposal, but whether or not l
- 24 --
what is the' timing for the licensee's ability to 25 clean up the site and release it for unrestricted use.
NEAL R. GROSS couar neponrens mo ramsenesens l
5323 naoos amo avenue n w. j (202) 2344433 WAsHINGrON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 1 I
221 1 Yankee also argues that the NRC should apply 2 an obviously superior standard to the selection of 3 decommissioning alternatives. This argument has no 4 merit. The only context in which we are aware of the 5 Commission to_have applied an obviously superior standard 6 is to the citing of a nuclear power plant, and that was 7 in the Seabrook case back in the late 1970s.
8 Yankee hasn't suggested any reason, nor are 9 we aware of any, why that doctrine should be expanded 10 here. There isn't -- the licensee hasn't purchased a 11 piece of property or anything like that that might 12 warrant the application of an obviously superior 13 standard, and it is a doctrine that eviscerates the I
t N 14 purpose of NEPA, which is to take a fair look at the 15 alternatives that are available for a proposed action, 16 and to make an effort to mitigate the impacts of those 17 alternatives, or of the impact of the alternative that's 18 chosen.
19 That's all I have for the moment .
20 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Okay. Mr. Gad?
21 MR. GAD: The so-called high level waste 22 subcomponent of contention E is based on a syllogism that 23 says as follows. Number 1, GEIS only found DECON 24 acceptable because, and only because, the site will 25 always be available for unrestricted use up front.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ ANO TRAN8CRl8ER$
1323 RH00E ISLANO AVENUE N.W.
(208) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
l 222
'l Number 2, or premise 2, in order to release a site for I i
2 unrestricted use, you have to get the spent fuel off ch c
V
)
l 3 site, and Yankee intends, in fact, to keep its spent 4 fuel on site for a long time.
5 Therefore, the conclusion goes Yankee doesn' t 6 propose early release of the site, and, therefore, it 7 fails the sine qua non of the GEIS. That's the 8 syllogism on which this one is premised.
9 The Petitioners are wrong on virtually every 10 point. What the GEIS said that whilst there were 11 different pros and cons for DECON and SAFSTOR, each as a 12 decommissionin7 method was essentially environmentally 13 equal. And the primary basis for this conclusion was O
) 14 that neither portends more than a minor fraction of the 15 environmental impacts of operating a plant, which had 16 already been concluded to be minimal.
17 And as a matter of law, if a proposal implies 18 only a small amount of environmental impacts, then, 19 frankly, NEPA no longer has any interest in it.
20 Now, it is certainly true that if you go 21 through the GEIS, you will find a number of places where .
22 the relative.-- comparative, rather -- pros and cons of 23 DECON and SAFSTOR are addressed. And on occasion, they 24 talk, amongst other things, about early site o
b 25 availability.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN8CRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433 l
223 1 But if you get down to page 417, which is 2 where the overall comparison is made, you find this
(- language, and I quote, "From a careful examination of the 3
4 data, it appears that DECON or 30-year SAFSTOR are 5 reasonable options for decommissioning and PWR." DECON 6 costs less than SAFSTOR, and its annual -- and its l
7 larger annual occupational radiation dose, which is 8 similar to the routine annual dose from plant operations, t
9 is considered to be of marginal significance to health 10 and safety.
11 That's the ultimate comparison, and what do 12 we find? We find that early site availability isn't 13 even mentioned. So it was far from the sine qua non of 14 DECON acceptability.
< 15 Point 2, it is not Yankee's intention to keep 16 the spent fuel on site for 30 years. In fact, it is not 17 Yankee's intention to keep the spent fuel on site for 18 more than about a week longer than it takes to find 19 something to do with it. And, frankly, as we sit here 1
l 20 today, or if we through a hearing, we would not be able l
21 to,say exactly what the future holds through this this !
22 morning. l 23 We do know that the United States of America 24 has cerfain obligations. We do know that there are 3
(d 1
25 proposals out there for interim solutions, which could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN8CR10ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
224 1 come along in a couple of years. The essence of 2 Yankee's decommissioning plan is to preserve its options.
3 It is to be able to avail itself of advantages and 4 options as they come along, if they come along.
5 What the Petitioners contend for is 6 essentially signing up right now for a guarantee that 7 you' re not going to do anything with this site for 20 8 years. It is, I submit, that in the context of the GEIS 9 analysis, a sufficient validation of Yankee's selection
- 10 of a decommissioning method, that it preserves the 11 option.
12 Finally, the syllogism assumed -- not finally 13 -- the syllogism assumes that you have to get the spent 14 fuel off site in order to have early site release. This 15 treats the site as if it were an indivisible part. And 1
16 if we have one square foot that has residual activity 17 that would permit --
that would prohibit making it 18 available to the public, then the whole site is no good.
19 There is absolutely no basis for that. The 20 Petitioners have available to them the site diagram. j 21 Somebody might have tried to assess it and figure out i l
22 that the site contains about 2,000 acres. That part i
23 where the buildings are is about 10 acres. And if you 24 simply made the spent fuel pool stand alone, fcu would
\ 25 tie up a very minor fraction of an acre, whatever the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAM 8CR19ERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W. i (208) 2364438 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 1
f 225 I dimensions of the building are.
2 That there is a -- there is, I believe, in 3 there -- well, I'd better be careful. I don't know 4 where the drawing is that depicts where the independent 4
5 spent fuel installation would be. But the fact of the 6 matter is that if you did it Yankee's way, and you got 7 -- managed to continue to be fortunate about where you 8 could send the low level stuff, and you got everything 9 else off site except the high level waste, you could 10 take this site and you could put an office building on 11 it, you could put another power plant on it, you could 12 put a hotel on the site, and that is' exactly -- that is 13 exactly the early site recovery that the GEIS was 14 referring to.
15 However, the killer on this part is as 16 follows. In order -- one of my criteria up front --
in 17 order for something to be inserted -- trigger of a 18 requirement to supplement the GEIS, it must be something 19 that wasn't considered in the GEIS.
j 20 If you go to page 4-20 --
4 hyphen 20 -- of 21 the GEIS, you will find that the possibility of being 22 able to do everything, except you've got to keep the 23 spent fuel on site for a long time, was explicitly 24 addressed. And the GEIS says, and I quote, "While DECON 25 and conversion of the spent fuel pool to an independent NEAL R. GROSS count aEaOmas AND nw.ecainas 1333 aHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(200) 2344435 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
226 .
1 spent fuel' storage pool is certainly a possibility, or 2 the case where all other radioactive wastes can be O 3 removed off site, there does not appear to be any 4 significant safety dif ference between this alternative 5 and SAFSTOR, and the choice should be a licensee 6 decision." End of quote.
7 Thank you, Your Honor.
8 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Mr. Holler?
j 9 MR. HOLLER: I would just say that the basis 10 5 is an ALARA challenge to the choice of DECON over 11 SAFSTOR, that the impacts from both DECON and SAFSTOR 12 were evaluated in the GEIS, and that the inability to 13 release the entire site does not, as the Petitioners l l ) I
\d 14 urge, dramatically alter the balance, that ones must look 15 to what the Commission's guidance was in 96-01. And the 16 question presented by Petitioner's ALARA contention is 17 whether the Petitioner's assertions regarding those 18 savings and cost effectiveness provide an adequate basis.
1 l
19 For the reasons that we discuss in 20 contention A, the difference in dose between DECON and 21 SAFSTOR, using the guidance provided in 96-01, simply do 22 not provide that adequate basis to support an ALARA 23 challenge. It's the licensee's choice.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Ms. Curran?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEMS AND TRANSCRIGERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE N.W.
(20f) 2364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
227 1 MS. CURRAN: Okay. I'd just like to read p 2 from the EIS two sentences. The first is from page 4-4.
3 It says, "DECON is advantageous because it allows 4 termination of the NRC license shortly after cessation of 5 facility operation and eliminates a radioactive site."
6 And then over on page 4-7, "SAFSTOR is advantageous in 7 that it results in reduced occupational radiation 8 exposures in situations where urgent land use
, 9 considerations do not exist."
10 MEMBER KLINE: The part I don't -- I don't 11 understand your view on that, in that the duty to 12 consider alternatives and the weigh and balance factors, 13 you know, for and against each alternative has been done 14 in the GEIS, or at least purportedly have been done in 15 the GEIS. And it is my understanding of the role of a 16 generic statement that having done it, it is done once 17 and for all.
18 And the --
otherwise, if it's necessary to 19 recast the cost-benefit analysis in every specific case, 20 it just nullifies the GEIS, doesn't it? I mean, why do l
% l 21 that, why do the generic statement if, in fact, each 1 22 time you're confronted with a specific case you have to 23 go and recast that cost-benefit analysis?
24 MS. CURRAN: Well, certainly, we're not 25 asking the Commission to recast it where it's not I
NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRISER$
1323 RHOOE 18LANO AVENUE. N.W.
(20E) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (2@ C4 4433
228 1 approprj ate . But here the assumptions that underlay the 2 GEIS changed, and that is the assumption was that DECON l
O 3 was advantageous because it would result in early release 4 of the site.
5 Now, Mr. Gad argues that some portion of the 6 site can be released, but we don't have the details on 7 that. And obviously, some part of the site is going to 8 have to continue to be restricted.
9 In addition, the section of the GEIS on which 10 -- that he cites for the proposition that this was l
11 considered, the possibility that waste would be stored on 12 site for a lengthy period of time, is off hand. It 13 says, " Consideration was given." It doesn't say we -
1,
'k 14 you know, we've thoroughly evaluated this. And then it 15 says the safety implications appear to be the same.
16 It's just -- it's an -- this is on page 4-20.
j 17 This is a pretty off-hand discussion of what 18 is a very major issue, what the fundamental assumptions 19 underlying the favorable comparison between DECON and l l
20 SAFSTOR. And we submit that that fundamental situation 21 has? changed drastically since this was written in 1988.
22 And the primary consideration that the f 23 Commission should return to and revisit is how does this 24 stack up when you know that the site cannot be released 25 for quite a number of years? That's a fundamentally NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(209) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
t
- 229 1 changed element.
2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
Y, /
3 Anything else, Dr. Elleman? No?
4 MEMBER ELLEMAN: No further questions.
t 5 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. At this 6 point, let us huddle for a second here and talk.
7 I do have one quick question for the Staff.
'I 8 I just -- so that I understand. I want to make clear 9 something in my own mind. The nature of the order that 10 was put out here, that the Commission has said where 11 they're contemplating issuing an order that would approve 12 the decommissioning plan, or the notice of hearing dealt I
_ 13 with the order, what is the nature of that order in
'Q)
14 terms of its -- of a licensing action?
4 15 Is it -- does it have any effect on the 16 operating license? Is it a separate -- I mean, is it
] 17 attached to anything? Is it simply an order that would 18 approve the plan that now becomes part of the license?
37 Can you give me any help in terms of what the status of 1
20 this order is, or the approval of the plan is?
1 21 MR. HOLLER: I would suggest that we can take 22 --
look, for example, for guidance of what the order 4
, 23 that accompanied the Staff's SER and the EA that issued J 24 in February of --
February 14th of 1995. Part of that
^
(~
\/
) l 25 was the ordo. approving the decommissioning plan and i NEAL R. GROSS cOUnr nEpOnruns ANO ramscnieEns !
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(208) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433 j l
1 230 1 authorizing decommissioning of facility.
2 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Okay.
3 MR. HOLLER: And in it is enumerated, as has 4 been.in other decommissioning orders, those things that 4
5 have been to the Part 50 license by authorizing those 6 things that were now permissible activities pursuant to 4
~
7 the decommissioning plan.
8 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
9 MR. HOLLER: Does that address your question, 10 Judge Bollwerk?
11 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Well, I guess maybe the 1
1 12 sum and substance of my question is, does the approval 13 of the plan or the order that's issued amer.d the O
14 operating license, or is it a separate authorization that 15 has nothing to do with the operating license? Or what 1 16 -- I mean, there is a possession only license that they ;
1 17 have been given my understanding is. Is the operating 18 license still in effect? What does this approval do? I 19 guess that's what I'm asking, i
20 MR. HOLLER: Yeah. I understand, Judge 21 Bollwerk. We have had some in the past of where the 22 order approving the decommissioning plan was also 23 accompanied by amendments to the operating license to l 24 provide those necessary technical specifications to
,k 25 maintain the plant in a possession only status and carry l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRAN8CRISER8 1333 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(208) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
231 i
1 out the activities.
2 Yankee Nuclear Power Station currently has
. O- 3 possession only license and has the necessary technical 4 specifications to carry out its obligations under the 5 possession only license. The order, then, that would 6 issue, to the best of my knowledge at this point, would 7 be to authorize them to proceed with decommissioning and 8 would not necessitate further amendment of their license 9 in the way of amendment to the technical specification.
10 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Of their possession only 11 license?
i 12 MR. HOLLER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right. Good enough.
14 We will return by 5:30. We want to sit down b
15 and consider everything that has been caid today. As I l
16 said before, we've read these -- all of the pleadings 17 several times and talked about them several times -- and 18 give you a determination with respect to the standing
^
19 question and the admissibility of the contentions. And 20 at that point, then, we'11 decide what way we need to 21 move forward.
22 Question?
23 .
MS. CURRAN: Judge Bollwerk, I'd just like to i
24 ask, I need to get with my family as to what time I'm
.C's
.V 25 going to be getting home tonight. Can you give me a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERC 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(som 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2W
232 1 sense as to how much more we're going to be doing this 2 evening?
3 CHAIRMAN ~BOLLWERK: If there are contentions 4 admitted, then we' re going to need to talk about 5 scheduling.
6 MS. CURRAN: You' re planning to do everything 7 today?
8 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: I would like to. I have 9 the Court Reporter until 6:30, so that --
10 MS. CURRAN: Okay.
11 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: -- is sort of the outer 12 limits. I have family responsibilities as well.
13 MS. CURRAN: Okay.
-(%
14 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: But unfortunately, those 15 are going to have to -- my 11-year old is going to have 16 to watch the ship here, so -- does that cause you a J
17 problem?
. 18 MS. CURRAN: No.
19 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: Can you stay until 6:30 20 if necessary?
21 :e MS. CURRAN: It's fine. ,
22 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: All right.
23 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
24 (Whereupon, the proceedings were off the (h
V 25 record from 4:36 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEMS ANO TRANSCM18EM8 1323 RHODE 18 LAND AVENUE, N W.
M 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
233 1 CHAIRMAN BOLLWERK: The Board has evaluated f 2 all of the pleadings that were filed in this case, as t
3 well as the arguments of the parties that we heard 4 today. And we have reached a conclusion among ourselves 5 that the Intervenors do have standing in this case.
6 However, we have decided that they do not have any 7 litigable contentions.
8 It would be our intention within the next 10 9 days to issue an order to that effect. We feel -- we 10 could issue an order now dismissing the proceeding. We 11 don't think that's appropriate. We think that the issues 12 here are important enough they ought to be discussed ,
I fully by the Board, and Ms. Curran ought to have the l 13 14 opportunity to look at that and file her appeal at the 15 same time rather than having to worry about her appeal l l
1 16 running from the time we might issue an order dismissing j l
17 the case. l l
18 So the order will not issue, and our reasons i
19 will not issue probably until around the first of March.
20 will do the best we can to get it out before that p$C 21 tis $b,. but that would be our intention at this point.
22 Any questions? All right.
23 Then, the next thing you will receive from us 24 is a memorandum and order that indicates that we find A
U 25 there is standing but no contentions, and an explanation l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN8CRSERS l 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE N.W.
I OMm 2M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 90@ 2 % 433
234 1 of- our reasons, and obviously you all can proceed from ;
f 2 there.
3 Thank you very much, everyone. Appreciated 4 you spending the time with us today.
5 (Whereupon, at 5:31 p.m., the proceedings in 6 the above-entitled matter were adjourned. )
}
< 7 8
J- 9 10 11 12
- 13 i
' 14 l
3 15 16 i'
17 N
i 18 I
19 20 4
21 22 1
23 l
24 O
.C/ 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 8 ANO TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE t$ LAND AVENUE, N.W.
(4 N WA8HINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433
. . .- - .~. . - -
l i
V )
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
Docket Number: 50-029-DCOM Place of Proceeding: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 3
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 1
transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear J
Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and i
- accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
A f JONATHAN ZILINSKI Official Rqporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
i i
f f
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPoMRS AND MMSCR895 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, NW (202) 234 4433 wAsenNGTON.D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433