ML20155F581
| ML20155F581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155F563 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811060067 | |
| Download: ML20155F581 (42) | |
Text
- - _ - . . - - . . . . . - . _ - . . - -. - . -. - - -__ . ._ .. - . .
1 PUBLIC MEETING ,
ZION NUCLEAR PLANT DECOMMISSION JUNE 1,1998 Zion Bention High School 390121st Street Zion, Illinois The above-entitled public meeting commenced pursuant to notice at 7:00 p.m.
PARTICIPANTS:
Dr. Don Moon, Chairman Mike Wallace, Commonwealth Edison Tony Markley, NRC Bruce Jorgenson, NRC James Schultz, Lake County Edwin Anderson, Carrolton County US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 9811060067 981029 PDR ADOCK 05000295 P PDR
l d
2
! DR. MOON: Could I have your attention please? Could I have your attention please? We'd like to call the meeting to order. This is an informational meeting, a Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Meeting, on the decommissioning of the Zion Nuclear Plant.
Let me just take a moment to mention the Community Advisory Panel and to introduce us.
- This is a group of people, that has been put together by communities in the area, to enhance the l
communicationprocess between Commonwealth Edison, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the communities. And I, along with Peter Cerone, Peter Cioni, excuse me, Peter Cioni are the chairs of the Advisory Panel, and I'd like to just take a moment to introduce the other members who i are here.
Is Jack Diliberti here? Jack, if you're here, stand up. He's the ESDA Coordinator of the City of i l
Zion. l David McAdams, Fire Chief, City of Zion.
Jim Schultz, Coordinator of Lake County Emergency Management Agency, Paul Hess, Director of Kenosha County Emergency Services. Paul. ,
1 Paul Lass, resident, Village of Beach Park.
l Diana Guthman, President, Zion Chamber of Commerce.
l Glen Jenson, Zion resident.
l l Frank Angelos, a Zion resident. ,
! l And then Jack Edwards, President, Zion District No. 6 Schools. l l
He's not here but will be joining us later.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l - - -
I .
l I
j 3 At this time, I'd like to ask Tony Markley, who's Project Manager for the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Project Manager for the decommissioning of Zion Plant, to come forward and just explain from the NRC's standpoint the purpose of this meeting. Tony.
TONY MARKLEY: Good evening, and welcome to the Zion Decommissioning Meeting.
l And the purpose of this meeting, as Don has indicated, is an informational meeting, it is intended to provide you with an understanding of the regulatory process for decommissioning,as well as our l oversight processes for decommissioning. As I said, it's informational in character. We are going to have several presentations, and we welcome your comments.
l On a personalnote,it's good to come back to Lake County. As a former resident of Lake County and Gurnee,it's good to come back and see some acquaintances, and I wish you all well this evening. I hope you find it enjoyable, and appreciate any input you have to offer. Thank you.
DR. MOON: Thank you, Tony. Now I'd like to just recognize public officials who might be l here. I don't know everyone. I do know that Bob Grever is here, Chairman of the County Board, Bob? And are there other state, local, public officials who would like to be recognized.
MR. LABELLE: Jim LaBelle, Lake County Board.
DR. MOON: Jim LaBelle, Lake County Board.
I MS. LABELLE: Jan LaBelle, City of Zion Commissioner.
l DR. MOON: Jan LaBelle, City of Zion Commissioner.
l- MR. WlGHT: Roy Wight, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.
DR. MOON: Roy Wight, Illinois Department of Public Safety.
MR. WlGHT: Nuclear Safety DR. MOON: Nuclear Safety. Thank you. All right, thank you.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
i l l e i
l I 4
, Now let me just - you've received, I hope, a handout that tells you a little bit about the procedure l
if you wish to make a statement on the topics. There are sign-up papers in the back for people who !
l want a transcript of the meeting tonight, and also the opportunity to put in written statements.
Let me just take one moment to tell you what the agenda tonight will be like. First, there will be a presentation by Mike Wallace, Senior Vice President of Commonwealth Edison, who will i be talking about the decommissioning of the Zion Plant, the plans that Commonwealth Edison has about that. Then Tony Markley will be doing the initial presentation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning the decommissioning,and there may be one or two other members of the NRC who will be joining with him in that. After that we take questions on the presentations. There will be essentiallya question and answer period. Hopefully, it will not last all night, hopefully, less ,
i than an hour, but if there are questions about the presentation, not statements, but actual questions in terms of understanding the presentations,that will be the time for that. Then after that, there will be a period of time for comments, and the comments will be limited to five minutes. If you have longer statements you would like to make, those can be made in writing and given to the NRC and will be published in the hearing document. I'm sorry, it's not a hearing, I'll take that back, it's a meeting, an informationalmeeting,in the meeting documents. So, any comments should be held till after the question and answer, that is just for the purpose of finding out more about the presentation, and, as I said, the comments will last five minutes or less.
Just in terms of facilities,there is a water fountain in the back, there are public rest rooms.
And let me just ask if there are any kind of questions for me about the procedure at this time? All right. Then I would like to introduce Mike Wallace, Senior Vice President for Commonwealth Edison. Mike.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
5 MR. WALLACE: Thanks very much, Don, and good evening. ,What I'd like to do first is identifyjust a few of the Commonwealth Edison people who are here today who will be available to answer questions beyond those in the formal pa'rt of the meeting at the conclusion of this evening's session.
First I'd like to recognize Gene Stanley, Gene, in the front row, is~our Vice President of the Pressurized Water Reactors, Byron, Braidwood and Zion, and has responsibilityfor Zion as we are in the oversight of the shutdown activities.
Next to Gene is Dick Tuetken. Dick Tuetken is our Decommissioning Manager, and has responsibilitiesfor the ongoing longer term activities related to the decommissioning of Zion, which I'll be discussing.
And next to Dick is Dave Bump, who is representing the Zion station, one of the Senior Managers from the site.
And then last I'd like to recognize Joe Trexler, I'm not quite sure where he is, Joe, who is very active in the community and our Public Affairs Manager for the area.
By way of introdocing the topic of Zion Decommissioning, I'd like to back a bit to the decision that the company made in January of this year leading to the shutdown of Zion. In fact, )
throughout 1997, the company had every intention and devoted all efforts toward the re-start of
]
Zion station. Two events came together at the end of 1997 which led to the shutdown decision.
1 One of those events was the passage of the legislationin Springfield which provided the framework for the restructuring of the electric utility industry in Illinois. And, in fact, that legislation contemplated enabling the company to make business decisions like the one we've made at Zion,
! and provides the framework for how that's done. The second event that took place in December US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l l
? l
I 1
6 of last year and January of this year was a technical review of the condition of the steam l generators at Zion. The last of several such reviews that had been undertaken, and it made it l
clear, in our minds, that it simply was going to be cost prohibitive to continue to repair the steam l generators and thereby uneconomicto be able to operate the plant in a competitive environment.
Those two events led the company's Board of Directors to make the decision on January 16th to shut down the plant.
! The priorities,immediatelyat that point and even today, were and are the ones that are the ones that are shown maintaining a very sharp focus on nuclear safety. Second, in faimess to our
, employees, and assistance to them in coping with this very significant change and personal change 1
impactingindividualsand theirfamilies. And then third, community responsiveness and including opportunities for us to participate as we are here today. I'll say more about activities that are underway in each of those three areas in a minute.
Our overall objective has been and continues to be to transition the Zion plant to a mode which we refer to as SAFSTOR dormancy by the year 2000, and I'll explain that in a little more detail.
To highlight some of the activities that took place over the first 90 days, subsequent to the shutdown, bringing us to where we are today, consistent with the sharp focus on nuclear safety, the station went through a very well planned, methodical approach to remove the fuel from the reactorvessel of unit number 2 and place it in the spent fuel pool. Previously,the fuel from reactor vessel number 1 had already been removed. That activity, I'm glad to say, was completed by our employees at Zion Station without error, and the fuel was placed in the spent fuel pool, and j completion of moves on February 25th.
l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l
l l
l l 7 in the context of working with our employees through this very difficult and trying time, the
! company took several steps to try and help individuals understand the situation and cope with the
! change. Counseling was provided to those who worked at Zion station, as well as their families, in a number of areas, including financial counseling, retirement and issues associated with l
l retirement, benefits, the impact and the options associated with the benefits that the company has.
Second, efforts were made to provide as much information as we had related to the steps that were going to take place subsequentto the Zion shutdown. And in particularthat meant, what would each individual see as the options that he would face going forward. As clearly as we knew l the answers to those questions, we conveyed it to our employees. A good part of that was clear very early on where our management employees were concerned. Where the union employees
[
were concerned,we engaged in what's referred to as a effects bargaining with the union to bargain, as is required by law, the effect to the organized labor work force of the Zion plant shutdown, and those negotiations are in their final stages right now. Completion of those negotiations will make clear exactly what all the options will be for the remaining employees at the site.
And then third, we provided seminars and workshops on a number of different topics, including resume writing and interview ski lIs to assist those individuals who would choose to i
transition out of the company and seek jobs elsewhere. Next slide.
In the next couple of slides, I'd now like to focus on what we refer to as near-term activities, which are those activities that will take place over the next two years.
First,in the context of our priority on nuclear safety, safe storage of the nuclear fuelis a top priority. In fact, that is the only safety issue that's relevant for Zion Station in the state that it will US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 h
l t
l 8 be in from now on. Safe storage of the nuclear fuelis the only safety issue. All of the fuel at Zion is in the spent fuel pool. That's true of the fuel that was most recently in the reactor vessel, it's also true of all of the fuel that has generated power at Zion over its 25 year history. It is all stored in the spent fuel pool in the same way, in the same manner, with the same support systems that we've been using for the past 25 years.
We will be engaging now in the design of what we refer to as a spent fuel nuclear island.
In essence, Zion Station was designed with mechanical support system, piping and water systems, and electrical systems that go throughout many areas of the plant as they were supporting operation of the reactors, operation of the turbines, a well as cooling and purifying the water in the spent fuel pool. Since we now have only one area that will be functional, the spent fuel pool, m are modifying our design so that the mechanical and electrical systems are focused specifically on assuring cooling and the purity of the water asso ,iated with the spent fuel pool. That will ease the activities for operation and maintenance, focus everything close to the spent fuel island, and in the end facilitate the ultimate dismantlementof the spent fuel pool. And I'll talk about that time line in a minute. That is the major design activity that will be underway in this next two year period of time.
Dormancy planning and execution will also be taking place. In particular, retirement of those systems that are no longer necessary because they do not support activities associated with the spent fuel pool, rather, they support operations of the plant and the reactor, but the plant and the reactor will no longer operate, so there are a number of systems that no longer have any function, and, therefore, will be retired We are also in the process of identifying hazardous materials that are used throughout the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
. . - ~ - - . . . . _ .-. - - . _-.. - . - - - - -.- ...- - . -.-.- - _ .-
1 l- 9 site, and th'at includes chemical cleaning agents, solvents of different , sorts. We are identifying ,
those which we will need as we go forward in the dormancy period and assuring their safe storage, and we will be taking steps to remove those materials that no longer have application because of l 1
the mode that we are now in.
'l And finally, activity in the next two years will be invok'ed in characterizing the site so we have the most information and the most detailed information that we can get about any radiological l
issues associated with the site. That information is important so that as we go through the full decontaminationand decommissioning of the site, we are absolutely certain that we've taken care I of any and every issue out there that needs to be addressed.
Against the second priority, which is fairness to employees over the course of the next two years, we also have activities we will be engaged in.
The management personnel who will remain at the Zion site have taen selected and identified, and they're working in their positions now. Dave Bump, who I introduced earlier, is one l
of the individuals who will be a Senior Manager in the Zion shutdown decommissioning i 1 organization. ;
! l We had 801 people at the Zion site when we announced the shutdown, today we now have 450 people; 350 people have either accepted other assignments within Commonwealth Edison, or they've chosen to leave the company and take jobs elsewhere, or they have chosen to take the severance packsoe which the company provided for employees who would be leaving. By the end of the year, we will be at a work force of a little under 200 people, with additional individuals who j
- j. will either take jobs within the company, or choose to leave, or choose to accept the company's severance package.
l t
j US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
l l . .
10 l
The' plant and contractor transition is underway. As people leave, we are clear to assure their responsibilitiesare known and understood and transferredif they're relevant, or if they're not, we know those are responsibilitiesthat no longer need to be carried out because of the new mode in which the Zion site now exists.
We are also consolidating the responsibilities around the Zion decommissioning organization,the just under 200 people who will remain, and we are modifying and re-engineering some of our management processes in order to focus specifically on those things which need to be done in the mode that we're now in, recognizing that many activities are no longer relevant.
And third priority, in terms of community responsiveness, we are providing assistance during this transition period in several different ways. Economic development assistance to the Lake County area, the company is offering ed working with the Lake County executives on. As the legislation which passed sets up, the taxes continue to be paid by the company through the year 2000, based on the assessed valuations for the years '98 and '99. And we are transitioning down emergency planning activities that are no longer relevant. We are also transitioning the implications for the United Way contributions made by the employees and the corporation through a four year period beginning in 1999. And that latter transition will be accomplished by the corporation picking up a larger share of contribution, recognizing that the employee work force is dropping down rather rapidly.
And finally, we're pleased to be able to engage with the Community Advisory Panel in forums like this and others that will take place in the future to assure free flow of communication and information, as well as to assure that we're fully providing opportunitie:, to understand the concerns of the community at large and attempt to address those.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
I1 Further, our near-term activities over the next two years. In the. area of service reliability, we are converting the Zion electrical generators to what I'll refer to as synchronous condensers.
Unit 1 has been converted and is operating in that mode today. Unit 2 is nearing the completion of that conversion and should be operating in that mode later this week. Converting the electrical generators to synchronous condensersis an electricalway for us to maintain solid voltage support for this area of the region and facilitate the flow of power from Wisconsin to Illinois in both directions so as to assure the reliability of power throughout the northern one-third of Illinois and the southem part of Wisconsin.
Further, the company has been engaged in transmission and distribution system upgrades across the system with expenditures both to our own transmission and distribution system, as well as expenditures to some of the utilities that border on our system where that will help assure adequate flow of power into the Commonwealth Edison system.
And then finally in the context of near-term activities, we will be making a number of regulatory submittals to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reflect the fact that we are now in a mode referred to as the permanent cessation of operations. Since we only have a spent fuel pool and the fuel that is in it constituting the total of our safety issues, there is direct relevance for what that means in terms of how we operate the facility. It is not possible to have any sort of reactor accidentin the future because the reactorwill not operate any longer. Therefore, a number of the systems are not needed, they do not have a function. We will be making submittals to the NRC, referred to as technical specification amendments, identifying those systems that are no longer needed, and which we will, therefore, not need to maintain. The NRC will review those submittals, and upon receiving their approval, we will then cease maintaining certain systems in the plant. We US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
. ~ . - . - . _ ., . - - . - - - . - . - . . . . - - . - - - - - . - - . - . - - . - . - . - . . . .
12 will also be making submittals to the NRC dealing with our emergency plan. The emergency plan that has been in place has primarily been in place in the event that there would be a nuclear .
incident or nuclear accident that requires interaction with governmentalagencies and the public at large. There will no longer be the possibility of the types of events, reactor accidents, that are contemplated in that emergency plan. We, therefore, will file with the NRC a request to amend our plan, again seeking their approval before we make changes and actually affect emergency planning levels that we have.
And finally, we will have changes to our security plan that we will also submit to the NRC seeking their approval for changes. The spent fuel nuclear island, which is a small area of the facility, again, is the only part of the facility for which there will now be any sort of safety concern. !
l That is the part of the facility that will remain within the security umbrella. And in our phase one activity,we will be maintaining the same level of security that we have had in the past years at Zion, but focusing that in a more narrow area at the site around the spent fuel nuclear island.
As time goes on, there will be a phase two submittal to the security plan where we reduce some of the levels of security that are actually provided because the hazard that we are trying to protect against becomes much, much less significant than what we dealt with when we were in operations.
3 And finally in this next slide, I'd like to give you an overview as to what our long-term activities will be at Zion Station leading to the ultimate decommissioning of the entire site. The
, numbers going across the top and the bottom represent years, starting in 1998, then going out to the year 2033.
The first bar, which is labeled Operations Closeout, refers to the near-term activities that US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
l 1
l 13 l've just been describing. Over these next two years, we will be making the modifications, making the submittals to the NRC, altering our plans, and securing those systems that are no longer needed in preparation for the dormancy period.
l l The second bar represents the modifications to be made to the spent fuel nuclear island.
Again,instead of mechanicaland electrical systems that go throughout a broad area of the plant, we will be redesigning the systems to support the spent fuel nuclear island, so we have everything l
that we need focused directly on cooling and water purification for the spent fuel nuclear island.
The third bar represents the period of time by the present plan during which there will be spent fuel stored at the Zion site. That bar goes from 2000 until 2031. The long duration of that bar is determined by the fourth bar on the chart.
The fourth bar indicates the time frame during which we estimate at this time the Department of Energy will be able to take the spent fuel away from the Zion site. You'll notice that activity does not begin until the year 2015. In fact, we have a contract with the Department of Energy that required them to begin taking spent nuclear fuel on January 31st of this year from Commonwealth Edison nuclear sites. As you may be aware, the Department of Energy has failed to perform to the terms of that contract; moreover, they have expressed no immediate intention in performing to the terms of that contract. Consequently, we have the spent nuclear fuel on our l property, they will not take it away, and it, therefore, remains there until they are able to take it away. Our best estimate as to the earliest they would begin taking fuel by today's plans are the year 2015. To put that in perspective, the site could begin moving spent nuclear fuel away from Zion almost immediately if the Department of Energy were able and willing to perform to the contract and take the spent nuclear fuel. We could move the fuel away from the Zion site as l
l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 1
1 l
lo quickly as six' years if the only limiting factor were how quickly we could put it in casks that are to be provided by DOE and subsequentlyremoved from the site. The DOE is not performing in that mode, and so the time for their first acceptance of the fuel is contemplated as 2015. Their present plans have them taking 17 years to remove that fuel, which is the year 2031. Certainly the company could move much faster than that. That time line, the fourth bar, sets the overall schedule for the ultimate completion of decommissioning for the Zion site.
The fifth bar indicates the time frame for decontamination and decommissioning of the turbine building, the auxiliary building, and the containment buildings. That activity would begin in the planning stage in the year 2010, and be completed in the year 2020.
The next bar down identifies the time frame for decontamination and decommissioning of the fuel handling building. That would be done in the year 2032, immediately following the completion of DOE acceptance of all the spent fuel from Zion.
And then the last activity, referred to as the final site survey, would be completed in the year 2033. That last activity effectivelyinvolves the complete report out of all of our radiological survey results to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking their approval for our license to be terminated, which would mean they would agree with us that we have met the criteria for free release of the Zion site and the Zion property for any other alternative use.
To accomplish the work associated with decommissioning, funds have been collected over the course of the past many years. The decommissioning funds which have been collected and specificallytargeted for Zion site, as of March of this year, total 5387 million. That money is held in trust funds, and the utilization of those funds is overseen by the lilinois Commer Commission.
The company does not have use or right to that money except as the Illinois Commerce i
j US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l
l l
l
I i . .
15 Commission approves it as reimbursablefor costs associated with the decommissioning of the Zion l
site. it is our estimate that the full decommissioning of the Zion site will require approximately $800 million. The $800 million will come from a combination of future collectiens, as well as the growth of the trust funds that are already established. The money that has been collected is invested in a way approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission, and the growth in those invested funds also becomes part of the decommissioning trust fund which is overseen by the Illinois Commerce Commission. And as I indicated, our current plans,in light of the schedule that the Department of Energy has, would have us beginning decommissioning work in the year 2010.
To summarize on this bar, we will be working over the next two years, top two bars, to place the plant in the condition of SAFSTOR dormancy where we have secured all systems not needed to support the spent fuel nuclear island, modify the spent fuel nuclear island with full focus of all systems that are required to assure its safe operability going forward. Once we've achieved that state, the work force at the site will then be reduced to approximately 50 people, and we will stay in that mode until the year 2010 when we would plan to begin decommissioning activities if DOE at that time would seem to be ready to accept spent fuel in the year 2015.
' And finally in the last slide, to summarize some of the things I've already said, our sharp focus has been and is going to be on nuciear safety, and the safe storage of the nuclear fuel remains an absolute top priority. Service reliab;lityimprovementsto assure the adequacy of power and voltage supportin the area have been undertaken. We are transitioningthe plant staff and the physica! systems to the process of dormancy as we get ready for the extended stay. Regulatory l
activities and our interactionswith the Nuclear Regulatory Commission involve changes that they will approve before we implement to assure that we are doing all things that need to be done l
I l
l
! US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 1
l- i l
l 16 consistent with public health and i:rafety as we are in this new somewhat,more limited mode. And finally, keeping the community fumy and currently informed is the company's intention as we go through this process. Our plans all the way to 2033 are not fully defined as I stand here today.
Indeed, the biggest unknown is exactly when the Department of Energy will be prepared to take the spent fuel away from the Zion site. Nevertheless,further detailing of our plans will be going on as we go forward, and it will be our intention to keep the public fully and currently informed of those l l
plans. Don.
DR. MOON: Thank you, Michael. I'd like to ask Tony Markley from the Nuclear Regulatory Comn,~ssion
. to come forward and make a presentation.
TONY MARKLEY: As Mike Wallace has advised you of Commonwealth Edison's plans for the decommissioning of Zion, I will cover the decommissioning regulatory process for the NRC.
First slide, please.
In recognition of a number of the NRC folks that we have here tonight, I'd like to indicate some folks * ..n our headquarters office, Dr. Seymour Weiss is a Director of the Non-Power and Decommissioning Project Directorate. Dr. Michaei T. Masnik, Section Chief of the Decommissioning section. Mr. Lee Thonus, Project Manager in Decommissioning. Mr. Ramin Assa, who's Operating Pro.iect Manager for Zion. Ms. Etoy Hylton, our Licensing Assistant, back at our table when you first came in. From the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Mr. James Shepherd, the Project Manager. From our Office of General Counsel, Ms. Marian Zobier, Senior Attorney. From our Region ill office, Mr. Roy Caniano, Deputy Division Director in the Division Nuclear Material Safety. Mr. Bruce Jorgensen who's the Branch Chief for the decommissioning branch. Dr. John House, Senior Radiation Specialist. Mr. Roland Lickus, State 1
l l
l l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
-. -_ - . _- . - - ~ . - - - - - . . . .. .. .
17 and Government Liaison Officer. Ms. Angela Greenman, Public Affairs Officer. She's also back l
l at the entry table. I would also like to recognize Desiree Calhoun, Resident inspectorat Zion. And Mr. Tony Vegel, Senior Resident inspector at Zion. Next slide.
- What I'd like to do now is provide a brief overview of the presentation for this evening.
Decommissioning. What is decommissioning? What is not decommissioning? What is the NRC's focus during the decommissioning process? In terms of decommissioning alternatives, what altematives does the licensee have to choose from? What are the decommissioning process requirementsthat the NRC has? What is the post shutdown decommissioning activities report that you'll hear more of? What additional restrictions do we place upon the licensee in terms of performing decommissioning activities? What are some of the financial considerations involved in decommissioning? Anotherimportant document, the license termination plan. Next we will talk a little bit about decommissioning experience. While it is new to your community, many other communities have had similar experiences in goir.g through the transition and trauma as well.
Lastly, points of contacts for licensing and inspection over site. Next slide.
l First and foremost, what is decommissioning? Decommissioningis the removal safely from service, and a reduction of residual radioactive materials from the site to permit the release of the l
propeny and termination of the license.
What is not decommissioning? This is very important as well. Decommissioning does not encompassfrom the NRC's regulatory perspective any non-radiological decommissioning. If you have a facility that has been clean from radioactive contamination and is acceptable for release, if Commonwealth Edison chooses to take that facility down, the cost incurred in taking that facility down is not regulatory decommissioning cost.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
. _ _ _ . -._ . _ _ _ _ . _. _ - . - _ . _ . . _ .. _ _ _. . . _ . _ _ ._~
18 Site restoration activities. If the Commonwealth Edison choo,ses to restore the site to original character prior to the building of the facility, those costs, too, are not considered regulatory decommissioning costs.
Lastly, spent fuel management and funding. In the Commonweath Edison's presentation, a significant portion of time is dealt with management and care of the spent fuel, those costs associated with that care and management are not regulatory decommissioning costs. Next slide.
Now what's the NRC process and focus during decommissioning? Quite simply, the NRC focus is on removalof radiological hazards. The first step in that process is to safely remove the facility from service, and the licensee commences a period of reducing radioactive materials to levels that facilitate release of the site. The licence 9 will then perform a detailed final survey, and the NRC may perform a confirmatory survey to ensure that we have adequate assurance that the site is clean.
Finally,if the release criteria are met and the terms and conditions of the license termination plan, and any hearing conditions that may occur are met, then the license may be terminated. At this point, NRC over site would end. Next slide.
With respect to decommissioning alternatives,the licensee has several choices. What we call decon involves dismantlement and decontamination. What the Commonwealth Edison has discussed earlierthis evening is a period of SAFSTOR which involves safe storage. They have the prerogative to store for up to 60 years and then complete decommissioning. Or they may choose, as they indicated earlier in the presentation, a combination of safe storage and followed by decontamination. An important point here is that the NRC has found either of these alternatives, or a combination of these alternatives, acceptable. The risk to the public from decommissioning US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
~. - -. - . = - - ~. -. .-
1 j
i 19 i is significantly reduced from when the facility was in operation. In recognition of that reduced risk, l the regulatory requirements upon the licensee are also reduced over the course of the i
decommissioning facility. Example given as Commonwealth Edison has indicated earlier in our i presentationwould be the staging down of emergency preparednessrequirements. Once we have oeen assured and they have given us an analysis that shows that they cannot exceed the EPA protective action guidelines of exposure to the public should an event or accident occur, then we have a greater assurance that off site emergency preparedness and response is not as important as it once was. Next slide.
Regarding to the NRC decommissioning process requirements, what's involved in that l process? The first thing we expect to see would be certifications that they have permanently ceased operations, which they submitted on February 13th, and the certification that they have permanentlyremoved fuel from their reactorvessels. We received that on March 9th. Once they have submitted these certifications there is no going back. The facility cannot be tumed back, change their mind and go back and operate again, it is a significant and one time step. They cannot go backwards. We expect to receive a post-shutdown decommission activities report.
There's financial requirements and other things I've discussed previously or alluded to, I'll get into later. Next slide.
Now, we talked about the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report, or as we like to callit, the PSDAR. There's always a number of acronyms we use in any trade or endeavor. The PSDAR is required to provide a description of the planned decommissioning activities. In this report we will also have a schedule for the accomplishment of those activities. We expect to see an estimate of the expected costs associated with decommissioning, and we also expect US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
4 I
20 i
Commonwealth Edison to provide the reasons for which they have concluded that the environmental impact associated with decommissioning activities are within the existing bounds of the environmental impact statements associated with the licensing of the facilities or our rule makings regarding decommissioning. Once we have received the PSDAR, we will hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the site.
l Now this meeting tonight is not the PSDAR meeting. Technically, Commonwealth Edison has until February 9th of -- February 8th, excuse me, of 1999, no 2000, to submit to us the PSDAR. Once we receive it, then we will again hold another public meeting in this community. i Next slide.
Now what's the fundamental purpose of the PSDAR? It's to inform the public of the licensee's plans for decommissioning. It allows us to cover it and conduct inspections prior to the initiation of those major decommissioning activities. It also allows us to budget and allocate resources so that we have the inspection and oversight personnelin a position ready to look at their plans and the conduct of the plans. It requires the licensee to re-examine their financiairesources for decommissioning before any activities are conducted. It also requires the licensee to evaluate environmental impacts, as I previously mentioned. Next slide.
Now what are some of the decommissioning financial requirements? Given that Zion Station has already entered the decommissioning process, the next submittal we see regarding finances is a site specific cost estimate that's required within two years of permanent cessation of operations. Once again, we expect that by February 13th, February 12th of the year 2000.
Decommissioning trust fund access. The Commonwealth has indicated that the Illinois Commerw US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
,- . _= -. . . _ . .. . . -_ .-
1
( .
21 l ,
l Commission controls access to those funds, and they are correct in that regard. But from our regulatory perspective, we allow staged access to those funds. At any time prior to and during decommissioning, Commonwealth Edison would have access to 3% of the generic amount of decommissioningtrust funds for decommissioning planning. This is for paper planning, for getting ready for decommissioning. It is not for actual decontamination, demonstration projects, or the like.
They are also permitted access to 20% of the decommissioning trust once we have received the l PSDAR submittal. Once we have received the site specific cost estimate, then they have full l l
access to the decommissioningtrust fund, from our perspective. Now what access they have with the Illinois Commerce Commission is not within our purview or comment.
One caveat to this funding is a SAFSTOR maintenancefunding. As Commonwealth Edison indicated, they do not have the full trust fund funded. We do require licensees to maintain a minimum funding to keep the facility in a safe storage configuration should their decommissioning l
funding become inadequate. In other words, we want them to always be able to put the facility in i a safe condition regardless of how far they've progressed into cleaning, dismantling or clean-up of the site from the operational phase. Next slide.
There are some additional restrictions. Commonwealth Edison is prohibited from performing any decommissioning activity that would foreclose the release of the site from possible unrestricted use. They're also prohibited to perform any activity that would result in a significant environmentalimpact that has not been previously considered or evaluated. Likewise, they're also prohibited from performing an activity that results and no longer provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to complete the decommissioning. Next slide.
l So this gets Commonwealth in a position to really dismantle or store the facility as they i
I US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l
l
22 l choose. When we approach the end of the decommissioning phase, within two years from the time that they expect to terminate their license, we would expect to receive the license termination plan.
1 Within this plan we would expect to see a site characterization. They've indicated their plans earlier l this evening for performing such. We would also expect to see an identification of any remaining dismantlement activities, any plans for site remediation, detailed plans for the final rad survey, and a description of the end use of the site, if it was going to be released uncier restricted conditions.
We expect to see an updated site specific cost estimate regarding residual costs for finishing the decommissioning of the facility and the site. And we'd also expect to see a supplement to the environmental report describing any new information or significant changes associated with the licensee's termination activities. When we receive the license termination plan, we will notify the receipt of it in the Federal Register and it will be made available for public comment. Likewise, since we approved this plan by license amendment, there will be an opportunity for hearing. The NRC will once again hold a meeting in the community,while the licensee would continue to perform the activities to clean up and decommission the site. Once they have completed their site rad survey, or along with that time, we may perform independent confirmatory surveys. The license will be terminated, as I indicated earlier, once we are satisfied 61at the site has met release criteria, j and any conditions or terms that are imposed in the license termination plan, or as a result of any hearings. And that, in essence, is the regulatory process for decommissioning. Next slide.
Now while I indicated earlier that this experien of going through decommissioning and a shutdown and loss of a significantfacility in your community can be traumatic, it's something new for this community, you do share this experience with other communities around the country.
Currently, there are 21 reactors that are engaged in some sort of decommissioning,three who have l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
l
- l 23 actually comp!eted it. The Pathfinderfacility, the Shoreham facility in Ne,w York, the Fort St. Vrain 1
facility in Colorado. There are 18 other reactors in decommissioning. Two of them are currently l
being dismantled. The Yankee Rowe Plant in Massachusetts, Trojan in Oregon. There are five '
facilities that are planning dismantlement after some storage. Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, 1
Saxton, Haddam Neck and Maine Yankee. There are nine facilities that are currently in a storage
- mode. Three Mile Island Unit 2, Dresden 1, Fermi 1, VBWR in California, Lacrosse in Wisconsin, 1
l Peach Bottom 1 in Pennsylvania, Rancho Seco in California, San Onofre 1 in California, and indian Point 1 in New York. Lastly, the Zion facilities are planning storage as well. So as you can see, decommissioningis not a new experience. It is certainly new for your community, and I certainly l
sympathizewith the activities that are going on that surround that, but as some of the Lake County folks who had contacted us earlier, there are other communities for which you can share experiences and thoughts.
l l Lastly, I'd like to leave you with points of contacts. For licensing, please feel free to contact me at the NRC headquarters,and for the inspection program, Bruce Jorgensen at the NRC Region ill Office.
At this time I would like to introduce Bruce Jorgensen. He is the Branch Chief of the decommissioning branch. He has a number of years of experience in the operation of reactors, as well as a number of years in decommissioning for both reactor and material sites. Thank you.
BRUCE JORGENSEN: Thank you. I tried to turn the light down a bit. Maybe it's just as l well, everybody will stay awake. I've just got a few words to say about the inspection program. As Tony said, my name's Bruce Jorgensen. I'm from the local NRC office in Lisle, Illinois, and what l
we do there is inspect, observe, verify, check out. It's something we've been doing with Zion l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l
l I
l 24 Station since it was under construction. It's something we did throughout the operating life of Zion i plant, and it's something we'll continue to do through the decommissioning process.
I've been involvad in the inspection end of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since it was the Atomic Energy Commission,25 years or so. And I'm a firm believer in having an independent
. regulatory oversight, and that process is going to continue.
It's got to be orderly and organized and structured. We are a by the book agency, and manual chapter 2561 is the book for NRC inspection at decommissioning reactors.
l l
l The manual chapter is divided into four areas so that as we perform inspections over the next several months and years and produce inspection reports, got to have a paper product, you'll l see the reports organized into four topics. Facility management and control, decommissioning j support activities, spent fuel safety, and radiologicalsafety, and I'll have a few words to say about each of those areas in a minute.
The purposes of our inspection are to do that external, independent, direct observation on correct performance of activities that could affect safety during decommissioning. We want to ensure that the systems that Comed has put in place and the techniques that they're using are i
adequate, that we're in a position to identify if there are performance problems or adverse trends in performance', and that we're in a position to be involved in resolving issues. And lastly, we need l
to be making reasonable decisions about resource allocation. We're a shr' inking agency, a lot of governmentis. We want to put our inspectors in the best place at the best time to make the best i use of their skills. Those last three items there, in fact, under purposes, kind of fall under the j
' heading of knowing when to be interventionary as an external agency, knowing when to get invo!ved with requesting meetings with the licensee. If necessary, taking enforcement action and i
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l
l l
I
.- ~_~e ... _ .. . . .~_ . . .._ _ . - - - ._.,,-.w..4. -. _. . 4_.. n.,-.. . w, ,-r.,,, __ __ y _~
.... - . .-. - .. - - -._ - - . -.- ___ _ . - .-... -.~ . . ~. - - . - - . - - ~ .
.g 25 l
making sure tNat if things are starting to get off track that they're put back on track. I l Other items that are covered by the manual chapter are master inspection plans, and we're i
in the process of putting together a master inspection plan for Zion, and it'll lay out who's likely to j be here, when, what will they be looking at. Obviously, to a certain extent, that depends on the company's activities, and what are they doing, how significant is it, etc. It addresses the E
implementation of management visits and meetings, if necessary. It talks about the flexibility in l l
utilizing inspection talent from the resident office, the regional office, or, if necessary or appropriate,
)
bringing in somebody from our headquarters office to do inspections. And finally, it talks about writing inspection reports. I understand that a couple of recent inspection reports also structured l in four major areas that came out of operating plant inspection and early shutdown inspection are on the back table for your review, so you can see what's been going on at the plant, and what we've been looking at, and how we've been documen'.ing it.
Then l'Il say a few words about each of the areas where we perform inspection. What I've got on the next four slides is just the titles of the core inspection procedures for each of those areas I
where we'll be doing inspections. And I think the procedure titles are fairly self-explanatory, and I they provide information concerning what we'll be looking at, what areas are of interest to us.
In the facility management and control area there are four core inspection procedures. The program also provides for something called regional initiative inspection procedures, and there are literally three or four dozen of those that we can choose from that have been prepared for circumstancesthat may arise. Most of them are the same types of procedureswe use in operating plants. But the core program is the program that'll be inspected pretty much regardless of how many activities are going on. What we're interested in facility management control is that the right US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
'l y p , ,.w-.- ,,r ..n. -.. _ + ,-_,, - ., ., y ~, , , - , , . . _ . , - , - . - - -
. - ~ . ~ . - - .
)
26 people are aware of what's going on in the licensee's organization,they're doing things in a planned and disciplined manner, they've got procedures in place, they're paying attention to the procedures s
that they've developed, and that kind of thing. We look at the changes that are made in the plant.
The company's allowed to change the design of the plant, provided certain conditions are met, and there are no unreviewed safety questions that may arise. We'll be looking at the kinds of things that involve the creation of that spent fuel nuclear island that Mike talked about. What modifications to existing systems will take olace. And are there any hazards associated with that?
We're always interested in the company's ability to pay attention to its own business and audit itself, identifyits own problems before we do, and initiate corrective action. And sort of on an overview basis we do a performance and status overview. Next slide, John.
The area of decommissioning support activity is a little bit of a cap shell area, it covers some of the spectrum of activities that could possibly have an impact on safety of the fuel and radiation protection at the facility, what maintenance work is being done, what kind of tests are being performed, what kind of activities are accomplished to ensure that necessary equipment is not .
l adverseiy affected by extreme hot or cold weather, what are the protective actions associated with physical security, and so forth. There is a core module addressing independent spent fuel storage installationsthat will not be inspected at Zion unless there's a change in the current plans because Commonwealth Edison does not plan at present to put the fuel into an independent spent fuel storage installation. Next slide.
Somethingin excess of 99% of all the radiation, radioactive materials at the site, probably 99.9% or greater, is in the spent fuel, and so we will have a focus on the spent fuel just as the l l
licensee does. Some of the activities that are listed on this slide, some of the procedures will be l
June 1,1998 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting l
1
27 applicable on!y if they're activities that involve handling the fuel or moving loads around the fuel, and so as we develop our master inspection plan, again, we'll be looking at what are the actual activities that Comed is engaged in, and if they're not going to be moving fuel, or if they're not going to have loads moved in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool, those inspection procedures will not be performed. Last slide, John. -
Radiologicalsafety. In a way, this is what it's really all about. This is why there is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and before us the Atomic Energy Commission. The unique hazard associated with splitting atoms is the creation of potentially harmful radioactive materials and radiation that's associated with that, so, in a way, all NRC inspectors are focused on what is the radiation hazard, and ho is it controlled, and how is it minimized? This list of procedures covers some of the spectrum am occupational radiation exposure protection for Comed workers, to handling of waste, shippi.ig of materials off site, and so forth. Throughout you will have noted there are some inspection hours in the right hand columns of these various slides. Those hours are indicative that we can inspect over a range if there are very few activities going on, for example, on solid radwaste management, the bottom entry there, we may perform as few as eight hours of inspectionin a year. If there's a lot of activitywe may perform as much as 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of activity. In fact,72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> is not an upward limit, again, depending on the company's performance, we could do initiative inspection to a greater extent.
That's an overview of the inspection program. I have a public service announcement to let you know there is a car in the parking lot with the lights on, an Eclipse, license 2JM506. Apparenty no one from this room.
I look forward to your questions and comments, and at this time l'Il turn it back over to Dr.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
l* l l
l
'?8 '
1 Moon. Thank you for your attention. ,
DR. MOON: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you, Tony. At this point, there will be opportunity !
l for persons to ask any kinds of questions. These are not statements, these are not comments, but !
1 if there are things that you would like further explanation about, there are microphones in either aisle. As you come forward, please be as brief as you can with your question, direct it at one of the presenters,if possible, and, please, before you state your question, would you give your name and your address 'If you've already signed up and your address is in back, don't worry about your .)
l address,just your name. Are there any questions? Would you come fonward to the microphone?
MS. DORGE: My name is Carol Dorge. I live in Lake Bluff. Would the entire process be j
speeded up, including the final radiation clearance, if DOE were to take the waste sooner?
! DR. MOON: Michael.
l MR. WALLACE: The answer to that is unequivocallyyes. The fact that we presently don't i
see DOE able to do that until 2015 puts that kind of time delay in the overall schedule. If they were to move sooner, we would be able to move the entire process up censiderably.
MS. LABELLE: Jan LaBelle. You mentioned - it was mentioned that two facilities are currently being dismantled. Where is that spent fuel being taken?
l MR. MARKLEY: The spent fuel for the two facilities, Yankee Rowe and Trojan . The Trojan l
l facilityis in the process of building licensing and hoping to build an inoependentspent fuel storage installation. Likewise, for the Yankee Rowe nuclear facility in Massachusetts. They, too, are pursuing licensing to build an independent spent fuel storage installation. Once those installations are licensed and built, then they would transfer the fuel from the spent fuel pool to those facilities, then they could proceed with the termination activities for the spent fuel pool and proceed to j.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
29 terminate their Part 50 license. And those are on site facilities. They could not take any additional fuel unless they were to receive a license amendment that would allow that. They can only place their own fuel in those facilities from the fuel that was generated and used at that facility.
MR. TRIPP: Alan Tripp. This question is for Mr. Wallace. You talked about the time frames, and somewhere in your - you were talking about only needing 200 personnel for the island itself, but the decontamination of buildings hadn't taken place yet. Who's watching the buildings if they're all going to concentrate on the island?
MR. WALLACE: Just to clarify that point, over the next two years we will have a work force of just under 200 people, during which time we will be modifying the spent fuel pool to make it a spent fuel nuclear island with fewer electrical and mechanical systems needed to maintain the adequacy of that island. Secondly, over the next two years, those 200 people will be draining the radiologicalfluids out of systems that we don't need anymore, there will be capping piping systems that we don't need anymore, they will be removing hazardous materiais, chemical cleaning agents, and so forth that they don't need anymore, all to be completed by the first quarter of the year 2000.
Once the spent fuel nuclearisland is modified, and the unneeded systems are drained and capped and the hazardous materials removed from the site, from that point forward they need a work force of 50 just to monitor the facility while there will not be physical work taking place while we are in the dormancy period. So they're not doing work, they're just monitoring the facility .
And, maybe, to get to the look on your face. The decontamination and the decommissioning work then begins about the year 2010, and when that work begins we raise the level of the work force on the site, significantlybeyond the 50 people. So we will have a considerablework force brought back on site in the 2010-2015 time period when we are beginning the decontamination work.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
30 MR. TRIPP: I think my question was who's watching the building.s? Once all the fuel is in I the tanks, and we're just concerned about the tanks, we were talking about your employees, only concerned about the tanks at this time. We still have the buildings there, nobody's watching; however, they're not decontaminatedyet. Maybe we're miscommunicatingsomewhere there. I'm sure you've got this covered. These folks up here wouldn't let you get away with anything, but it !
wasn't clear to me as to who's watching that or when that's taking place, if it's taking place before we're not concerned with that area or what have you?
MR. WALLACE: Thanks for follow-up questions so I can be sure I clarifyit. To get to your second comment, they will be watching what we're doing and you all may want to comment on that, Tony. But to get directly to the point, the 50 people who we will have in that period of time from 2000 until 2010, what they will be doing is monitoring all of the buildings, all of the buildings, and assuring that they are staying in an adequate state, if at any time in the course of that monitoring some sort of problem occurs, a roof leaks or something like that requires work that needs to be done, they will bring a work force in to do whatever needs to be done.
MR. PAXTON: My name is Chuck Paxton. I live at 2320 Edina Blvd., Zion. It's very difficut to have a question without also having an opinion, so I'll try to separate them if I can. I believe it was Mr. Wallace who said that the emergency plan will no longer exist. I think that's correct. Is that correct?
MR. WALLACE: Actually, what we will do is file with the NRC for amendments to our emergency plan, recognizing that the safety hazards that exist in the operating mode will not exist the same way in the decommissioning mode.
MR. PAXTON: I think you've answered my question, it just would seem to me that as long US Nuclear Regulato y Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
l' o
4 31 i as these spen't fuel exist in Zion there would be a possibility of an emergency, is that not correct?
MR. WALLACE: We have on site response that a particular emergency may require for us to deal with, but when we file for changes with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission we will identify that there are not radiologicaireleases off site which can occur, and that will all be covered in the filings that we make to the Commission. The exact stage in which that occurs will be part of the filings that will be made to them.
MR. PAXTON: Okay. Is there any treatment to the spent fuels after they're stored? Do they sit in the ground, or are they treated in any way?
MR. WALLACE: The spent fuelis in a pool, a 40 foot deep pool, filled with water, and the water is continually circulated, cooled and purified.
MR. PAXTON: Okay. Another subject. The cost of decommission that you've indicated is about $800 million, and there's a possibility that maybe there isn't enough money available for that. How is that paid?
DR. MOON: Mike?
MR. WALLACE: The amount that exists in the trust fund account today is $387 million. We continue to collect into the decommissioning trust funds for all the Commonwealth nuclear plants on an ongoing basis, and will continue to cohect into those trust funds on an ongoing basis. So as the future collections into the trust funds, as well as the growth by investment of that money, it will take us from $387 to what will ultimately be about S800 million.
MR. PAXTON: And that's in the rate base, is that paid by the customer?
MR. WALLACE: As a part of the legislation that was passed in the fall of this year, there l is a separate rider on the electric bills for all the customers that are within the Commonwealth i
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
- . . ~ == . .. . - . - - . . - . - . - - -
l 32 Edison territory, and it amounts to .15 cents, or a tenth of a penny per kilowatt hour added to the electric bill. In the aggregate, to put that in perspective, Commonwealth Edison customers provide into the trust funds a total of about $82 million a year through this rider that's now part of legislation onto the electric bill.
MR. PAXTON: My math figured about $250 per customer. Would that be about right? I guess what 1 - to make a statement, I'm sorry, it's very difficult to pay $250, whatever it is, for you to go out of business.
MR. WALLACE: Yeah, we might chat a bit afterwards. I'm not quite sure I see where the
$250 comes from.
MR. PAXTON: Well, you say it is coming out of the rate base. I thought you said it is coming out of the rate base.
DR. MOON: Could we save this for the comment? If you'd like to make a comment?
MR. PAXTON: Sure. ,
l DR. MOON: Thanks. l l
MR. MARKLEY: One point of clarificationon the off site emergency preparedness. As their risk declines, such that they could no longer exceed the Enviror. mental Protection Agency protection action guide there, we would look at their request for exemptions, amendments to reduce their level of emergency preparedness. This is normally characterized by a release from 1
off site emergency preparedness responsibillies. However, they still have spent fuel on site, and they still will be required to maintain some level on site for emergency preparedness and deal with emergencies and events that could occur on site. A key point here with respect to when the off site emergency preparednesswould be expected to phase down involves the cooling of the spent fuel l
- US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l'
33 pool or othsr accidents or scenarios that could cause the exceeding of the EPA PAGs.
DR. MOON: Further questions, yes?
MR. LABELLE: I think I understood the comment that the NRC would allow a phased spending of the trust funds, and I'm not sure what Comed's reaction was to that, but if it were possible, say, to dismantle the cooling tower and that sort of thing, in the near-term, what kind of approval would be needed by ICC to allow that?
MR. WALLACE: There are two agencies that from an economic point of view look at the decommissioning trust fund, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Illinois Commerce Commission. We have to meet the requirements,of course, of both bodies as we go through this process. Tony went through major stages where quantities of the decommissioningtrust funds are made accessible to the company from the NRC's point of view to allow us to do certain work. In addition to that, we annually make submittals to the lilinois Commerce Commission to then get the exact dollars reimbursed to us for the work that we would do. So we need to be meeting both the NRC's criteria for accuracy of our trust funds, as well as the specific authorization of the Illinois Commerce Commission for expenditures. When we would choose to spend the money would really be a function of what our ability is to decontaminate and decommission the site and make it available for an alternate use. Right now, as the plan that I showed you indicated, no physical work after this two-year period would take place until after 2010. That's governed by the fact that we will have spent fuel on the property for a long time, it's also governed by assuring the adequacy of the trust fund balance, that monies that have been collected to support the work that would be done. So maybe the bottom line to it is, we are responsive to both the NRC's criteria and to the i Illinois Commerce Commission specific authorizations for expenditures.
US Nuclear Regclatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 i
34 MR.'J$NSEN: Glen Jensen, Zion. I believe this question would be for the NRC. Most recently we've had headlines in Zion that there's an organizationinterested in purchase of the plant for conversion to a gas-fired generating station, and with that I am curious what, if any, restrictions would apply prior to the final rad survey and there's a lot of spent fuel on site.
MR. MARKLEY: That's a good question and it's very pertinent because there has been some press releases lately with respect to that. First off, any repowering of this site would involve bringing in a new technology. My presumptionin this case would be a gas-fired technology which would involve piping of gas to the site, possible storage tanks for the gas. We would be concemed and looking at the safety precautions that would be established for those facilities. We would be concerned for whatever accidents that could incur involving that gas. Our fundamental concern would be to look at any accidents scenarios or problems that would be associated with that facility in terms of its effect on either spent fuel storage or other contained radioactive materials in the existing structures, storage buildings, or what have you, that would have the potential for causing a release of radioactive materials, and, therefore, jeopardizing the public health and safety. We've looked at that sort of thing, in the licensing of plants which were first licensed, an example being a fertilizer plants in the near proximity to the plant, transportation routes where you have gas trucks going up and down the highway, this would be another example in which they brought another technology, gas in this case. We would have to look at what precautions, what safety measures, and look at the analysis for potential impact. And, it would require, probably require a license amendment to do that. So there would be an opportunity for public hearing about that.
MR. DANSON: My name is Lee Danson, I live in Zion. In the NRC inspection report there I were numerous references to configuration control and material condition deficiencies. Having said 4
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 l
c l
(
l-
^
i l 35 i
that, my question is, does the chilled environment still exist at Zion? And if so, how will that affect i
f l
l those employees who raise safety concerns about these deficiencies? .
1 DR. MOON: To whom are you addressing the question?
MR. DANSON: I guess it would be the NRC.
MR. JORGENSEN: I think the question of the chilled environment is one that we're continuing to follow, and one which will be of interest to us as the inspection program unfolds, but i i
we haven't made a conclusion on that. We'll continue to have an open and accessible inspection l
process so that we can hear about employee concerns, and we'll monitor the company's actions in areas where employees bring concerns forward, but we're still reviewing the whole issue of a 1
potentialthat there's a chilled environmentin Zion. It's not a closed book, but we don't have all the answers yet either.
DR. MOON: Further questions?
MS. DEBRUYN: My name is Sandra deBruyn, and I didn't quite understand. Does Commonwealth Edison have the decision to make whetherthey will dismantle it or entomb it? Was j that what was said? And if so, have they made the decision and when will we know?
MR. WALLACE: We do not intend to entomb the facility. That is one of the modes that Tony talked about in his remarks. We intena to decontaminate and dismantle the facility, and that's l what the time line that i put up there contemplates as the end point.
MR. TRIPP: I'm still Alan Tripp. Mr. Wallace, you alluded to the fact that there's a third party not here that is in breach of contract and that's why this time line is taking so long. I'm wondering if there's a chance that they might change their mind or ways, number one? And number two, how are they getting away with this breach -if it is so?
l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
1 I
36 MIKE hVALLACE: And you're referring of course to the Department of Energy. They are in formal breach of contract. The utilities had sued the Department of Energy, several state authorities, including our Illinois Commerce Commission, have sued the Department of Energy.
We have received favorable rulings in the court. The industry and Congress are now moving legislation. Congress is moving legislation with the industry's supportc Literally, wnh the debate of the final bill, beginning tomorrow on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in an attempt to force the administration and the Department of Energy to live up to their obligation to take the spent fuel. )
l It's an issue that is replete with litigation by the parties that I just identified, and several years worth '
of legislativework on the part of the House and the Senate to attempt to get the administration and the Department of Energy to carry out their responsibilities. I might also add, on the Department of Energy most recently, two weeks ago, has asked utilities whetner we would be interested in l
agreeing to a settlementfor the breach of their contract, and the utilities and the other parties are real quick to say that we are not interested in the kind of settlement that they are talking about, we don't want money, we want them to take high level waste, and we are putting all the political and core pressure to bear that we can to try and make that happen.
MR. WELSH: My name is Steve Welsh and this is directed to the NRC. I understand that when the announcement to close Zion Station was originally made, the NRC had concems regarding the true motivation behind Comed's decision, that perhaps it was not truly economic but it was Comed's way of dealing with troubled plants. Has this concern been adequately resolved and if not, is the NRC concerned about safety at Zion for decommissioning process?
MR. MARKLEY: Let me see if I understand your question correctly. You questioned, that l when Zion announced that thny were going to shut down, were we concerned about that was their i
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 r
4 37
~
mannerin treating troubled plants, and do we have any concems about the safety of the plant at this time? Okay. We tend to handle each of these situations as they come. We look at - we do not go into the motivations of the licensee in terms of why they choose to shutdown. We'd rather cleal with the health and safety issues associated with whether they're operated or whether the decommissioning mode. With respect to concerns for their safety at present, I think Bruce Jorgensen has indicated some results of some additional inspection reports. Our efforts are d
ongoing, they will continue to be ongoing throughout the decommissioning process. When we do find safety concerns or issues of contention, we will elevate them and take appropriate enforcemert action, and' I think if you look at our regulatory reports and inspection reports, you'll find those situations, and there still actions pending, none of which I can discuss.
DR. MOON: Any further questions? All right, then we've arrived at the period for comments. There are two persons who have indicated in writing in the back that they would like to make comments, and so I'll call on those two persons first, then if ot.iers wish to make comments they may. Please, as I've stated before, limit your comments to five minutes. If your comments go over that time I will ask you to stop and submit the rest in writing. And remerr Nr, the comments are on the decommissioning process and on that process as has been talked about tonight, so please keep your remarks to areas that b6ar on the decommissioning process. The first
, person who signed up is James Schultz.
MR. SCHULTZ:I'm Jim Schultz,I'm the Emergency Management Agency Coordinator for
! 9 e County. I'm on the Community Advisory Panel, and I want to thank Comed for the opportunity to participate. I can assure the public here that I've asked them a lot of questions.
They haven't given me answers to all of them, but they're working on some of them. I feel that in US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
- - , = _ _ . . .- -. .-.
1 38
~
all our dealing's they've been very forthcoming and given us honest answers. So I think the things you're hearing are things that are the truth today, subject to change as any government processes is. That's my comment, and I have a statement to the request I'd like to read into the record.
Commonwealth Edison has maintained 32 siren systems in the emergency planning zone i around the Zion nuclear Station for many years. urpose of these sirens has been to notify the public of a nuclearincident at the plant involving off site consequences. Commonwealth Edison anticipates that significant off site exposure danger will not be a factor in the emergency preparedness after the summer or fall of 1999, and siren systems will no longer be required.
Comed has tremendous investment in these siren systems as emergency public notification devices, and they should not be allowed to fallinto disrepair. In the past, Comed personnel have been responsive, judicious and thorough in the system maintenance of these critical warning devices. The public has come to rely on these systems as the first method of warning for nuclear incidents, as well as for tornadoes and severe weather. Discussion with Commonwealth Edison officials about siren status after plant closure have been inconclusive. In the interest of continued public safety and emergency preparedness, I'm requesting that Comed maintain their siren systems in Lake County until all nuclear risk has been removed from Lake County, whether in the form of power generation or storage handling and transfer from spent or active nuclear fuel materials or high level waste. The cost of nWntenance should be considered an appropriate J
expenditure of Comed funds already identified and reserved for nuclear plant decommissioning.
DR. MOON: Thank you. Edwin Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: My name is Edwin Anderson, I'm from Kenosha County, and as a member of the Kenosha County Board for a number of years, I'm no long.>r a member, but as a US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
39 l
private citizen,'l've been very concemed about e at has happened at Zion City and the nuclear power plant here. I would say that my confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have been strengthened if it had been the Commission that would ask for Zion to be closed. I 1
certainly feel sorry for the employees that are going to be out of a job. I have gone through my work career a couple of times where I was on the street for a number of yet.rs, I mean a number of months, because the company had shut operations. I'd like repeat a little history. Back in j 1
December,l believe it was, of 1995, channel 4 from Milwaukee, a TV statiors, breached the security l l
at the Zion nuclear plant with a van filled with electronic equipment. Now if that van had been filled I with explosives, as was the van that destroyed the federal building down in Oklahoma City, we wouldn't be here tonight at this meeung. A company spokesman said that Commonwealth Edison had received - had gained permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to cut its force, its security forces for this van from TWTMJ-TV to come down to the plant. So I'm happy to hear that safetyis one of the main concerns of Commonweath Edison and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency as far as decommissioning is planned. That's fine. We've got a whole bunch of rules and j regulations, the idea is are they going to be followed. In considering today's world and all the terrorists and other people out trying to do this country harm, I'd like to ask the expert opinion that's here tonight what would happen if a van loaded with explosives got close to the cooling pond for these radioactive spent fuel that's going to be stored? What would happen if there was an explosion and these spent fuel rods were dumped into the Lake Michigan? I'd like to ask you that.
The lake itself, as you know, is only a stone throw a way from where this pond is located. As the previous speaker mentioned, Amoco Power Resources has indicated interest of taking over the plant and using them for a gas-fired facility.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998
40 Now if the Amoco or some other company should come in and take over this plant, who's going to have oversight, who's going to determine whether this company is responsible enough, or has the l capability to run thm plant, especially as long as this cooling facility is there? So I think, as has been mentioned, safety is going to be the primary concem, but I had to ask them, based on the
- experience that we have had over the years with the Zion plant, and the responses of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to the problems that have been shown they exist at the plant, I think there has to be considerable concem as to whether or not this will take care of these actions will be taken care of.
DR. MOON: Thank you. Are there other statements or comments for the record? Any closing statements by Commonwealth Edison or NRC7 MR. WALLACE: I might just make one clarifying comment to the gentleman earlier who was asking about the costs that were yet to be collec+ed for decommissioning. I'm sony I don't remember who you were. Okay. Mayor Paxton. I mentioned that Commonwealtn Edison's customers currently pay on their electric bill .15 cents per kilowatt hour for the decommissioning costs associated with all the Commonwealth Edison facilities. A betterway to look at it, I suppose, is in terms of what that means to the average customer. The average customer, included in his electric bill, pays 75 cents per month into the trust funds for all of the Commonwealth Edison nuclear facilities, and it's that money that gets collected and will continue to be collected, approximately one-sixth of it being dedicated for Zion, which is a little over ten cents, per month, by the average customer, goes into the trust fund and creates the monies that are ultimately available for the decommissioning of this facility. And then just a final overall sort of comment, if I may I'd like to reiterate the last point I made on my last slide, and that is, the company very much I
i US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 i
i
l t ?
41 welcomes a c'ontinued dialogue with all members of the community, governmental agencies, bodies, that are affected by the decision that we've made in the closing of Zion station. It's our intent io decontaminate and decommission the facility and retum the site to whatever the next alternative use is to provide economic value to the community in as safe and timely a fashion as we possibly can, and we will be continually reviewing our plans and our options, including ways of dealing with the Department of Energy and the impact of their non-performance on the Zion site, so that we can return the lake front property to whatever the next altemative economic use or recreational use might be. The company is very much concerned about the impact that our decision has had on the Zion community, and we're committed to do all that we can to minimize that impact going forward in the future.
Thank you.
MR. MARKLEY: First off, I'd like to say thank you to Zion Benton Township High School for their generous support of this meeting. I would like to also thank the Community Advisory Panel for their initiatives and their work. We regard that as an important initiative and an excellent vehicle to make citizen concerns heard and provide a means for ensuring that they're communicated to Commonwealth Edison. I'd also like to thank Don Moon, who's President of Shimer College, and for his generous support at this meeting tonight. And I would also like to advise all of you that we still have informational materials available, if you haven't gotten some of them, and that the NRC staff will be availab'e after the mee'ing for further questions and discussion. Thank you so much.
We appreciate your coming out .his evening and taking your time to get some interest in our regulatory process in decomrdnioning and the experience that you will be going through as a community. Thank you.
l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 i
i i
-)
42 DR. MUdN: And the Community Advisory Panel thanks all of you for coming, and we will continue to hold meetings on a regular basis and let you know the times, and everyone is welcome to come.- Thank you.
l l
l l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meeting i l
June 1,1998 l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting June 1,1998 E