ML20197F839
| ML20197F839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1996 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197F769 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712300303 | |
| Download: ML20197F839 (39) | |
Text
.- ..- - -- .- - - - -
Pablic Meetin:: Re Maine Yankee (%=ammalt" 4/29/96 - Part 11 Page 4 8
i PROCf1 DINGS mue eastie. 2 MR. ZWOUNSK.1: Good evening Tonight the NRC is w m u v i,. n n m m m u u u n u m 3 8 M8 d',*,,y'h%T'p'o",'*, g,,g,
,M',00,,,,,,,,,i,,o,,,a,ue,,,,,u,,,,,,,,r,cu
. _,... .m. .. -,...mi. , ,
e mm unecimen est. ,a min zum n'*' 6 munty on issues mimed widi Ow augadan of i
' '"" * "*
- inadequacy of this small bruk loss of coolant accident
' s analysis performed for Maine Yankee. This allgation e 1995.
" 10 was Myreceived name is Johnin early December, I'm the NRC man Zwolinsid. i
" si responsible for project activities and licensing l
" 12 affecting Maine Yankee. With me are NRC staff who will
" "'""*" p] 'I h.
.hrig.', "l M.6 **' *' la 14 make short presentatio ts ragedmg recent plant performance and address the allegations. Following our l
" is presentations, we are prepared to answer questions. .
" 1 16 These individuals are 22 Trottier the Maine Yankee 17 Project Manager sad the individual Identified by the i
" is agmcy to be our principal focal point for issues I
to associated with this poww plant. As you have heard, Ed
" 20 led our review team efforts m both December and
" 21 Januarv.
" 22 Ttni Collins, of our technN1 staff is most
" 13 familiar with the issues associated with the Order and
" en upeme ac.p Demand for Information issued in January of this year.
24
" ne"til' b.1[8h' Q Q .?.tM'lllei 25 Tim is not only one of our key technical experts, but
- e. ,. : Page5
' '""'"""" I also a supervisor in our Reactor Systems Branch.
8 ro. to nac 2 Alone with Tim is Summer Sun, of our technical
- staff, wSo is also a technical expert in this particular n go
,io p 3 4 area and has been deeply involved in de Order and ca,*d
& '*m. s Demand for information and ongoing reviews.
6 John Rogge of our Region I o!Tices in King of
- ^'h'd $tj
[t f""
- 7 Prussia, Pennsylvania,is also a supervisor and
- sible fer the inspection im ements at Maine Yankee. program de NRC ro. ,*: er.te ce mi . e
" to ill I.ong, of our Containment Systems Branch, is a
" 'g'c g* staff expert on issues associated with the contamment li
" 12 perfoi. nance, who was a principal contributor to the
" is Order and Demand for information. Bill was also on our 14 December inspection team that bgan investigating de ll is allgation.
16 To my right is Dr. Charles Willis. lie is one of
" 17 the NRC's foremost c2perts in the field of radiatiC3
" is protection and will be happy to address any questions in
" 19 his field of expertise. Dr. Willis is also on Oc
" 20 factilty of Georgetown University.
" 21 Catherine Marco of our Office of General Counsel,
" 22 is familiar with the legal nuances of de Order and
" 23 Demand for Informauon.
24 You should be aware that the allgathi also
" 25 contained issues associated with the accuracy and en.
- Page 6
' "" I completeness of submittals to the NRC. This matter and 8
em 2 staff conduct continue to be evalua'ed by the NRC's
' * " ' ' , ' ,, " * " * " * " ' 3 Office of Investigation and OfTice of Inspecto. General.
l L.t. .I'!.Lu rl 4 8 As such, it is p*remature to attempt to answw a a ra n. e.esi. ,.. ..
6 9"igations.
favest ft!'TW l. m 7 l've asked John Rogge and his resident staff to
[did:iif"l.j .,' '
discuAs plant performance it. the recent inadvertent o ' contamination of sevcral Maine Yankee employees, which chi "
[! .
j [p"jglE I to i1 was Ge subject of a management meeting ot. April 25th in Kira of Prussta.
j
, f al i,
2.m ,
o 12
- )
Following his preamtation, Tim Collins will discuss the issues pertment to our efforts associated t
ll f(L;7j{[f.f$li g ""
14 is with the Order, which imposed a 10% poww penalty until the staff reviews and approves an acceptable model to ll 4I t !! 16 support operation at the 2700 Mwt level.
a %'d.g er ; 17 Maine Yankee submitted for staff review a new small k.! ad u N is break loss of coolant accident analysis methd on April
},, 19 25th. The staff has not begun review of that partic-ular
,,,,c,,,,,,,
20 submittal.
$ .'j'b i'@
- b E II Pp.i'II.2%u. su n.i 21 Since January 16th, ny: lant has been required to
'} *I 'I 22 operate at a redui.w power that is,2440 Mwt, to u 23 assure conformance with nooli le regulations.
9712300303 970814 24 Restrictions placed by de Order remam in place until PDR ADOCK 05000309 25 our review is con Mete and the submittal found p PDR a titi KEPORTING OROUP/ Mason Lockhart Hagopian & R===dall Page 1 Page 6
.- - ._= . . . - . . . . - - ._- -
'4/29/96 - Part !! Condesselt" PuMic Meeting Re Maine Yankee Page 7 Page 10 I acorptable. I whict. is in the was of work process and radiological 2 Prior to our preaentations, I plan to afford 2 controls,is where we do an ad&tional inspection. And 3 each a for your state repreamtives an oppcw* unity to 3 finally reactive inspection. And that's typically witat 4 speak. 4 sets in,the news stum we react to an event at de plant 3 Regarding cuestior,s from the floor, it wwld be my s and w & snatch inspectors. Those inspectors come out 6 intent to anempt to s,ca .adste all speakers. liowever, a of " of' Prussia. If we is:;ed addictional help, we go 7 to a close within a 7 to unrters. And that is in response to the 8 we must bnns reasonable this meeting time. Should tn &viduals have questionss andallegations on the REtus. You see dese specialists e de time dtes not permit us to continue, we will be 9 who came out of headquarters Omt reallyprovide de 10 happy to accept dem in wTiting and append thern to the 10 technical renew that we need to get into mose issues.
ll trar.scnption or we can provide an address to send li With that, l'!! conclude.
12 questions, should you desisc. 12 MR.zwouNsKL nm Collins.
13 I would ask each of you to formulate your thQts 13 MR. cou;Ns: cechnical difficulties regarding succinctly and afford your neighbors an opportumty to 14 overhead projector.)
tr ies to fix the tecimical 14 is address the staff. I will deternune when it is time to is While somebody 16 move on in de spirit of attemptt to afford everyone 16 difficulties, wtat I wanted to do was talk a little bit 17 an opportunity to r.ddress the . 17 about de questions that wy have received. We have is The licensee has remained behind to address is received quite a number o, questions from members of tie 19 questions related to issues beyond de scope of de Nac. 19 public with regard to tie Order that we issued on the to I note that there are 24 in&viduals that have 20 3rd of January.
21 21 Wien we were oreparing the Order we had been 22 time. And when I;do call time I will essentiallysigned 22 up to speak focusing thus, on the safetyI would basis forbe very sensitive operatlon of de plant,on 23 direct the transcriber to bring the meeting to a halt 23 and we tried to be careful about writing that safety't do 24 until we move on to anoder speaker. 24 basis up. And, in the p*ocess, apparently we didn 25 Firstly, though, I would ask Mr. Rogge 'to give his 25 a very good job of writing up de legal technicalities Page 8 Page1i i oversiew of recent events at Maine Yankee. I in the process questions. Well, you quickly picked that
! MR. ROGOth All right. I'll stand up briefly so 2 up, and letters start comi in saying, well, are they 3 you can see who I aru, and den sit down agam. 3 in compliance or not. Ok 7 So we went back and 4 visited de Grder and saw bt we -ally hadn't 4 l'm in charpe of Oc inspection program at Maine addressed thsi very wil, So, what I want to do tonight s Yankee and I m located in King of Prussia, s 6 Pennsylvania. And I have workmg for me dese two A is explain Or compliance questions to you.
7 distinguished gentlemen to my side here. 7 %e received five quewons from tie State of Maine, s The first one is Jimi Yerokun. Ile's de Senior e and what I will do is answer thox questions.
e Resident. Ilopefully, you've seen him about town, e (Overicad pro to And Bill Olsen is resident inspector. 10 Okay. Good. jector came on.)
ll 1hese two gentlemen are at the site daily, and tley si Basically, what I've 12 converse with me every moming and throughout the day to 12 about some regulations,got and trymg to to talkdo aboutis I've not to talk is tell me what's going tell me what they're looking 13 regulations is a complicated convoluted prob!cm, so I'm 14 at, tell me what issues 're fmding.1mm there, 14 tryme to simplify it with a thousand words on this is basically we respond to one inues and inspect dem. 15 view graph maciune. Okay?
16 The inspection program, if it has its design conect, we 16 Basically, the licensee is trying to get their .
17 can come to an assessment of what de hoensee's overall 17 Cycle li from the gags of analysis into compliance '
to do.
with is pe.formance is. Is 10 crR 50 a6. Okay. Inst's what they're Ordmarily, a heensee would take route to Dasicall to 20 performer Wey, doMaine have concernsYankee with is considered their radiological to20be ahere.
good Okay7 That is de first paragraph on . 6 which 21 control programs, how they're implementing that, and 21 says you have to do a certain set of analyses, you have 22 recently work process controls. 22 to do tiem with a method diat has been approved by the 23 WeII Mr. Frir21e introdumd de ven vent valve 23 NRC ar.d you hwe to meet the five entens that Mame 24 event th,at we Imked into recently, lie talked about the 24 Yankee put up before regardmg peak clad temperature, 25 fact that we came out - we sent three specialists up 25 hydrogen generation, and all that stuff. Okay?
Page 9 Page12 i from the regional office. We issued three violations, i Well for large break (DCA, Maine Yankee did just 2 one on radiological controls, two on work processes 2 fine with that submittal. Okay? So they're taking 3 And when we Issue a violation, w wait for their 3 route (a)(1) to get their 50 46 compliance for tie large 4 response to come in typically 30 days. They sent the 4 break LOCA.
s response in on the name day that we had the meeting in s for a small breal: tDCA tley had a different 6 Kma of Prussia. But the purpose of the meeting in King 6 problem. Wien we revisited that model and that 7 of Pirussia was nore to express a heightened concem on 5 we concluded that that model wasn't a the NRC's part on the work control process, hear what J application,for satisfactory getting to 50.46 compliance. Okay?
e they have done about it. We basically had three o And that's why the Order was amt out saying that that to objectives. We wanted to understand the mot causes of to small break LOCA analyris is no good.
li wliy they were having these pmblems, we want to il Well, then, how do you get to 50.46 compliance? Dy understand basicall what they were going to do about 12 De answer is yes, they're in com it is it, and how art oing to Enow they were effective. 13 the 50.46.wayDksy? But how do we act Okay? there? phance wit 14 On the my to t meeting, two weeks prior, they 14 Well, de second h oT 50.46 says if you is which was not discussed, much is can't take the route t first paragraph says, then is had morea- or second event,ificant, is what I want to say. And less sign 16 you refer the problem to the Director of Nuclear Reactor 17 we're currently inapecting that. We'll have our findmg 17 Regulation and le can impose restrictions on plant is is operation. Okay? And if those restrictions are le shortly' The resident program is one of the strongest to tm . then tfe plant is brou to tion program that we have. 20 for smal break tDCA. Okay? ght back into complian aspects of de NRC's in So the Order which went out on January 3rd put the 21 It s basically split into nections. We have a 21 22 which is where they look every day, 22 small break toCA m>de! - or not model, the small break 23 core.
continue program,l'm to ~ tryirgt to talk rast, so keep up with 23 LOCA analysis back into compliance. Okay?
me. The core program is our base program It s de 24 So the farge break is in compliance by wa l
i 24 25 daily actinties. We also have an imtiative program, 25 normal route of the first paragraph of 50 46, y of det Page 7 Page 12 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason lackhart Hagopian & Ran eu
Public Meeting Re Maine Yankee Condennett 4/29/96 - Part 11 Page 13 Page 16 break thcA is b compliance by way of de Director's i MR. COLuws: we didn't say it ended up with a
, 2 Order. Okay? This is called out explicitly in 50 46, 2 safer operation Okay? We said it satisfied de 3 okay? 3 regulations. We did our safety analysis, as discussed 4 Now, Oc second question that we got from de e in de Order itself. Okay7 s Governor was what about !! K330 and !! K331. Okay7 5 MR MYER$: liut wten you talk about ( )(2), that imphed you're im ch ac4.ns that 6
?
Tie answer to that question is Ocy do not meet de requirements of 11 K330 and the 6
7 de plant is safer, posing a restnctio a requirements of !! K.331. Okay?y oo not nxet de MR COLUN$' No,it means that Oc plant meets de o Well, then de neat question is, well, then, how 9 requtrements of the twulations, and we discussed Oc to come Ocy,'re operating if Ocy're not in compliance with 10 safety aspect in de Order itself, ll Gese requirements? ll MR. MYER$' Well, but you did not = you did not Well, ti K330 is a revision to your small break 12 say that de safety analysts which shows that Oc 12 was at least as safe as it was with 3.30 and 3.31. p is tDCA analysis model. If you're poing routa (a)(1), you 13 14 have to sabsfy n KJ30. (ikay? Rey te not going la nat'sa -
is s)(1) for small break LOCA We're going by de is MR. LUNS: Could you go to Oc microphone, sir, 16 (Director's Order. Okay? So I! KJ30 doesn t come into 16 so we can tear you?
de picture anymore. Okay? 17 MR MYER$: My name is IIenry M 17 is !! K3.31 says use Oc model that was approved is life I spent rnanyycars working onlikequ)tts, estions tfus. and 19 under ti K330 and do analyes w1th it. Well, wt just 19 working for the llouse Interior Comnuttee, witich had 20 said that model wasn't any gcod, so you can't do 20 prt' mary oversight junsdiction of de NRC.
21 a.,alysis with it and nret Oc regulatmns Okay? Dut 21 And de questmn is, wten did this (a)(2) 22 Omt s also small break tocA You only red that if 22 esplanation suddenly arise as to a basis for allowing 23 you're going route (a)(1) to get to compliance. 23 Maine Ya. kee to operate or not?
24 So tre Order accommodates de fact that de 24 MR COL,1.Ws: Tttat's de question? Wlen did it 25 licennee has not rnet de requirements of Il K330 and 25 sudd:nly anne?
Page 14 Page 17 i !! K.331 as die plant operates right now. Okay7 i MR. MYER$; That's one question, yes.
2 Does ever)tody understand that? Okay? 2 MR. cot.UNS: It's been uere as long as $0.46 has 3 IIMLY MY! R$: I have a question on this. What is 3 been.
4 Oc first document that rnentions (a)(2)7 4 MR. MYER$; No, butyou did not put this in any 5 MR COLUNS. Tte first document that nentions s document. His is the first time you're talking about 6 (s)(2)? 6 it.
7 MR MYLR$: What is de document that mentions 7 MR. COLUNS No,I'm sorry, sir. It's in $0.46.
s (a)(2)? s hat is an official document.
9 MR, COLLINS Well, you nean teside tie regulation 9 MR. MYERS Yeah but you waived compliance with io itself7 to de post nree Mile ,slandI regulations, wtuch presumably ll MR M*/f R$: No, no. Youre talking about (s)(2) at 11 came mto effect because de previous method of 12 this time. 12 analping small break LOCAS was inadequate. And now
) MR COU.fNS (a)(2)is part of 10 CrR So 46. 13 you vc waived the requurtnent to comply with 3.30 and 14 MR. MY1 R5 What is de first NRC document that 14 3.31, you've imposed a 90% restriction, and you've said, is said that (a)(2) would be the route rader Oum (a)(1)7 15 well, now that's okay, because de net effect of the 90%
16 MR. COLUNS: lie first document? D&*'s a good 16 restnClion corr.pensates somehow for Oc failure to meet 17 qtestion I guess that would be the letter we sent back 17 3.30 and 3.31.
Is to the Govemor hat would be Oc first letter that is Mit COtMNS' The purpose of 3.30 and 3.31 is to 19 would esplain it. 19 show that you've got abundant wre Coolmg for small 20 MR. MYl.Rs: so de initial Order rever said 20 break tDCA analysts. Sectirti(dj of $0.46 - sorry 21 ? 2i about de legal terms. But section (d) or paragra h (d 22 anything about No, MR COLLINS (a)(2)Oc initial Order arrended the 22 says that the purpose of 50 46 is to implement .
23 license. Okay? De initial Order amended the hcense. 23 Design Cntenon 35. Rat's de emergency core cooling i 24 it didn't differentiate 24 system design. Within GDC 35 it says you must hast an 25 It did not between specifically)-(1)
(a)(1) and (a 25 tocs wttich provides abundant core cooling. Okay?
Page 15 Page 18 i MR. MYT.RS Yeah. but you're saying a you're i So 50 46 is satisfied by the Director's Order if we 2 2 have enough confidence that dere's abundant core 3 and uus is first 0.at you)re stahng that this is yo(ursaymg 3 cooling you waived for small brtzk(a)(1 LDcus.and you've nat's chosen what tic power (a) 2) 4 path. 4 reduction was for, to assure that we had abundant core 5 Mp. COLUNS: ho, wt did waive (a)(1). Ok 7 De s colling for small break LDCAs.
6 regulation does not require toth (a)(1) and (a . 6 MR. MER$: liow do you know you hase abundant 1 MR. MYER& Well, you waived compliance w1 de 1 coolint capacity wien you don't comply with the a part of the one witich is 3.30 and 3.31. You just said s %ree Mile Island requirements, which came about use the analysis done heretofore was considered 9 tnat. 9 to MR. COLUN$: we've focad that the licensee was not to ur II in compliance. Okay? De regulation then says,if you li inadngw.te MR.COLuNs: forwcibat p!t, pose?we went back to a pr find .he licensee is not in comphance with (s)(1), you 12 12 13 6 (a)(2). Rat's what the regulation says. 13 analy?
Okay sis done by the liensee back in Cycle 4,1977 14 MR. MYLR$: Yeah, but de rtgulation says it 14 MR. MYERS, Prior to Dree Mile Island.
Is imposes restnetions. 15 MR. cot.UNS: That's contcy prior to Arte Mile 16 MR. coLuNs: Yes. 16 Island. Okay? Now, that analyas was done at 2630 Mw, 17 MR. MYERs: timiting the power to 90% caused the 17 okay? And the peak clad tempers:ure for that analysis is restrictions. Is was 1378 degrees lots of margm. 2200 is 800-and-some 19 MR, COLUNS: That's correct. 19 degrees sway.
20 MR MYERS. Waivmg compliance with 3.30 and 3.31 20 But we were aware that since that analysis was done 2: was a loosening of the regulations, so how can you say 21 changes were made with de model that was used for that 22 that the total - that the walvin 22 analysis Okay? And those changes wriuld hast increased u waiving of 3.31, plus the 9v%g of 3.30, partialrestsictioc.
23 All added that peak claddmg up from 1376 up. So, temperature 24 with a safer operation rather than a less safe 24 instead of allowmg the licensee l _2s operation? % e set into - 25 witich would hast been some powertor: operate at 2630, decid duction, we THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 13 - Page 18
'4/29/96 - Part II Condennelt" Public Meeting Re Maine Yankee Page H Page 22 1 dere feeded 'o be more room for margin becaur of de i it's an oversight program. *Ihe state modehng changes that had not been incorporated. Okay? 2 just cannot mentiored, try.ulate Maine Yankee with regard to health ami 2
3 That's why we went back to 2440, to account for 3 safety. Our purpose is to assure de state h fully 4 uncertainties in changes to de model. 4 infctmed of the activities at Maine Yank.e. We are also s MR. MYERS: How do you know it ac40un 1, because $ a c.hanrel where people can ir put deir .mocrns and a don't comply with 3.30 and 3.31, whir.h came abc.ut 6 comments on tie operation at Maine Yankee. And we'll do
? use ticae models 7 our best to answer them. Ar.:l else, our job is to a cresidered sufficient} for some reason, wer not e monitor not only Maine Yankee, but also the Nuclear s MR. mu.rNS: Well, %e've got - " .
o R latory Commission, t}cir activities in regulating 10 MR MYT.RS: Have de lawyers signed rif on this? 10 lant.
ll MR. COttrNS Oh, yes. Yes. si . with regard to the analysis that Maine Yankee 12 MR. MYE RS: Do you have a document which shows that 12 just recently subnutted to the NRc on smdl break LocA, 13 de lawyers have signed off on the waiving of 3.31 and 13 we will review this irdpendently. Aad how we're gomg 14 3.307 14 to do this, this is obviously a very technical matter, is Mit Cou.rNS: ttey si is Neither Pat nor I are experts at everything. We have is Governor; right? Yes. gtvxi the letter to the 16 our tittle areas of expertime, but we can'tinow 17 MR. MYERS Tte lawcr3
- there is a document Omt 17 everything. It's impossible. And you can see too, m, is says that the lawyrrs approved waiving 3.30 and 3.31 and is here.
19 amending the Mame i ankee license so that it dces not to Dut what we've done, we've hired Dr. Victor Ransom.
20 need to comply with tlese regubtions and without 20 lle's aprofessor at Purdue University and he's also the stating that - 21 lead or Prof.
t}e School Ransom of Nuclear Engineering'inal.
21 22 MR. COLUNS: No, no no, no. It doesn't say that. 22 Now. was one oT the ong
- 2) It does not say that Oc licensee does not need to 23 develope.1 of the RELAP program in Idaho National 24 comply. It says that while dey're under the Order, 24 Laboratory. For some 12 25 okay, Ucir fadure to comply w1th it K.330 and 25 development of that code. years he directed deSo he's Page 20 Page 23 i Il K.331 ate accommodated by t}c restricticms imposed I tie code. What's called the tasic core of tie cr-le is 2 by the Order. 2 RELAP,and there's all sorts of offshoots of that. So 3 MR MYER$ Who said that? Where does it say that? 3 le's very well qualified to conduct this review for tic 4 i don't think de Order says a de Order does not say 4 :; tate.
s it dces not comply with 3.30 and - s lie will also recommend to me another individual to 6 MR. COLUNS: That's right. That's why I ~ 6 work with him to look over certain technical aspects of 1 MR. MYERS: - the Order - 1 reviewing this code. And he could probably give rne the e MR. COLUNS -introduced tiese remarks by saying s recommendation either next Week or the week tiereafter 9 we didn't explain well in the Order tic legal 9 Dut together they will review the code for tie state. .
10 technicalities. 10 The full scone of de state review isn't defined ll MR MYERS: Tic cynics among us would say that this 11 3et. I have jusi received de analysis document today 12 came off as an afterthought, that you're in a box, that 12 rryself, and I'm going to subnut that to Dr. Ransom and is you can't explain the hans for allowing Maine Yankee to 13 give him tirne to review it and some otkr documents, and 14 2) thing, which, 14 Den discuss with him what the full scope of this review is operate, frankly a you andknow, you found I don'tthis
- (a)(doesn't make very much is would be.
16 mense. And I would like to see tie documents that Oc 16 Also, which I didn't mention, I would like to have 17 lawyer have signed off on that says, okay, you don't 17 a chance to discuss what the NRC will do with its review is have to comply with 3.30 and 3.31. is with Dr. Ransom at sorne point, and see how both reviews 19 MR COLUNS Well, I'm sure de letter to de 19 are being conducted, 20 Govemor is going to be in the documents ~ 20 Dut some of tic obvious things that will be 21 21 incluckd in the review, there are some givens:
22 (Audience MR. MYERS: mterrup' Answer de ion.)Govemor's questions. The 22 The model' and trethodology that is being used
- 2) Governor said, please reply to llenry Myers' concems. 2) 1 hat will te 1 - into.
24 This letter does not reply to llenty Myers' concerns. 24 1he benchmarking of tie code. What types of 25 MR. COLUNS Well, okay 2s physical real expenmentations have been done to Page 21 Page 24
- (Audience interniption.) validate the code to show that it'e not just a bunch of 2 Mn. zwouNsKl: tectore we begin de formal 2 numbers.
3 questions, I would ask tie representives of Oc State of 3 Actual results of the code and any evidence of 4 Maine if they have a presentation or any remarks they 4 oscillations indicating numerical problems. lie will s would like to make7 s also review for that.
6 MR VANAGS: My name in Uldis Vanags, I'm the 6 lie also wants to look at the original concern with 7 state Nuclear Safety Advisor in the Maine State Planning 1 the REtAPsYA code and sce if there s any
- Office and advisor to the Govemor and Lestatve on : may te.trmsfening over to the tew tiecode, and tieproblem that 9 nuttrar safety issues. And with me is Pat D de. lie 9 ANF REtAP.
20 b the state Nuclear Safety inspector, lie is a 10 As I said, the full scope of wtiat we will undertake il ii for our review will te formed in about two weeks, we 12 resident - well, obviously, plant., lie essentially mom tors the plant, sad not 12 thea expect. resident We expect inspector our review,atif all thegoes well, may be 13 lechmcal term of mspectmg 13 done by August ist. But that's assummg everything goes 14 I want to thank tie NRC for having this public 14 well and everything is in order, if it's not, it will is meeting. I hope we cou'd have it more often. I think is obviously take longer. But we will do whateser it takes 16 it's very valuable in explaining to tlw public ell tic 16 to make sure that we feel comfortable with this code, 17 little details of what roes tehind the rtgulation at the 17 because this will justify Maine Yankee's operation to is plant and how your decisions are made. And I'd like to is full power.
19 also thank you Tor de cooperation you've given the 19 So, with that, that's all I have to say on this 20 state with rc 20 matter.
21 iteltEled us, so gard we've to beenthese allegations; sole to that monitor and do ouryou've21 Pat, do you have anything to add?
I 22 job. 22 MR. DOSUE: Not at this ttme.
13 first, to get started, tny presentation is going to 23 MR.VANAos: Okay, 1
24 te short, because I really want to hear your questions. 24 MR. ZWOUN5Kl: 1 hank you. We'll move into the 25 The state omgram to oversee Maine Yankee is what 1 25 question and answer session. I'll remind you that the l Page 19 Page 24 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell I
__ _ ____--A
Public Meeting Re Maine Yankee Condenselt" 4/29/96 - Part 11 Page 25 Page 26 l
i licensee is available as is de state and ourselves to I last six years or so. And we have seen that those
! 2 take questions, and I wtll monitor tie tine on thi,s. 2 allemations have been shown to be substantially correct.
3 De first individual requesting to speak is a Mr. 3 We also teamed that the containnent building, some 4 Bill Linnell. Mr. Linnell? 4 of the calculations to justify the operation of de s t.tt UNNtw Aow icmg do I have7 s containment at increased power were faulty.
6 ML rwouNsu live minutes. 6 All this - trese are three entical systems, and I 7 MR. uwNEw Thank ou, sir. 7 submit dey're sort of some of the last ditch systems in s Before w get I've just rnt a quick a the event of an actual emergency. Dey all interplay 9 question. Was Maine ankte thitd to power dowti to 9 with each other. If de tubes crack, den Oc 10 9(rk, or did dry do it voluntani 7 to core coo ' system may or may not have work h aire il MR coluNs: 7try volun to do it, but we 11 Yankee dn't prove that the RELArJYA would work.
12 confitned it by Order. So - 12 Dev're wty we're tere tonight.
13 Mt uNNLt.b You sort of interpolated what dey 13 The contamment - if that didn't work, then you'd 14 wanted to do? e4 rely on the containment buijchng. Dere are some is Mt cot UNs: Well M confirmod - You know, they l$ questions about that.
16 an3 we confirmed. That was 16 And with these three systems all in place over tie 17 pro 90 sed sufficient it, okay,de assurance that abimdant core 17 to provi last six years or so, these rystems were all in place is cooling was going to be rnet. is with the blessing of de NRC,with Maine Yankee 19 ML UNNEW Okay. My name is Bill Linnell. I'm 19 with de state nuclear safety ins 20 esman for De C"omnuttee for a Safe Energy Future. 20 management, And we now know that they were all And wrong. pector in some 21 next thii,a l'd like to do is I have left a petition 21 cases, to varying degrees; but they wre all wrong. You 22 for you, and for ue benefit of the public, I'll twl it 22 were all wrong.
23 for you. We've got a couple hundred signatures so fa'. 23 So I'd like to know, you know, what has happened in 24 And it says: 24 t!c last few months or something that - you know, why 25 "Make Maine Yankee Accountable to the Public. 25 should we - why should w beheve you folks now? Why Page 26 Page 29
'We the undersigned appeal to the Nuclear i should we televe your judgment, your abibry, all of 2 Regulatory Commission to make Maite Yankee accountable 2 the above, considenns you've tan wmng? And you know, 3 to the comnnmities of Souttern Maine by mandating de 3 some of dese specific questions that have teen raned 4 installation of an isotopic stack monitor and the 4 in terms of Three Mile htand, you know, that was 17 5 issuance of regular reports infonaing us of de $ ytan ago, and we're just getting around to it now.
6 quantities of emissions from Oc plant." 6 MR. ZWotESK! I think your question, if I can 7 We'd like to have that stack monitor that. We 7 summanze remarks, are why can you televe the Nac s don't want to have to run out to the clam flats to find s staff and s. And I would simply refcr to tic 9 out what's going on out in Montsweag Day. 9 manrxr in which we conduct business. De f act that we 10 Now, to some of you folks from De NRC, some of 10 actuaDy ordered in place a 10% power genalty to effect ll I haven't scen before, so if I'm a little heavy handed,you il safe operation of this facility was, in our vcw, quite 12 I apologire, because you may te somewhat new to this 12 a significant step to focus on public health and safety 13 program 13 in de immediate vicinity of th facibry.
14 Dut to the rest of you and through the ~ the rest 14 I would aho argue that the agency's rtcard can te is of you fmm Oc NRC that w've acen before, and to de il translated into utibry performance across Oc country, 16 state nuclear safety advisors and Maine Yankee 16 s.nd thcre's a wealth of statistics that would show that 17 management - I differentiate betwcen Maine Yankee 17 safety sysican actua. ion failures have decrcased over is management and the workers dere, because it's is tune. Reactor tnpa have decreased over time. Dere's 19 management we don't trust. And basically, we just don't 19 an abundance of evidence that reactors in this 20 trust you folks anymore. 20 country have tecome safer om past 10 > tars.
21 Some people have been skeptical all along, and i 21 h that based on what tie Nac bas done solely or on 22 confess I rn one of them, but I think many other people 22 vtat de industry has done as a whole7 1 think it's a 23 don't. And we've heard a lot about, you know, the 23 combination of factors.
24 person years experience, and so forth, and certainly you 24 De fact that you may not trust the individuah at 25 all have much lugher qualifications than some of us in 25 this table is - you're allowert so have whatevcr opinion Page 27 Page 30 i de audience. I want. I thank you opinion, and it's time 2 LINIDEVitfTLD $PECTATOR: Lieuse me. Excuse rne. 2 move on to the text 3 MR. UNNEW Wait, it's my turn to speak, Could 3 ML UNNEW Thank you.
4 you wait? 4 ML zwouwsn Mr. Robcrt Moldaver?
$ srtc1 AtoR it's supposed to be a question and 5 MR. MOLDAVER: Thank you. My name is Robert 6 answr period, not a speech - 6 Moldaver, and I've been involved with nuclear safety 7 ML UNNEW Yeah. Well, when you have a 1 issues pretty much since the Cternobyl Disaster and a question, why don't you sign up? s since 1992l've been on the board of directors of De 9 SPECTATOR: Can you get to your question, p' lease 7 9 Committee for a Safe Future here in Maine. I've 10 Mli UNNELL: l*ve got live Imnutes, and you re 10 also been on the board of ' tc;s of We De People, 11 shortening it up. Il Incorporated, which is a national nuclear safety and 12 SPECIATOR: Well, you -- 12 whistleblowtr protection organization Mr. Zwolinski, 13 MR. UNNEW Thank you vt:y much. 13 this is the second time that I've been at a hearing with 14 ML zwouNsn May I have order, please? De 14 you in attendance.
Is gentleman at tre podium can continue speakmg. 15 It's important to put some of my questions in 16 ML UNNEW Thank . Now, w found out a year 16 context. And I haw some reports with me. I'll just 17 ago that there was 10 plus cracks in the steam 17 kind of pull it up and kind of get a quick glance.
Is generstors We out that thry had been there for a le MR. zwouNsn I want to be responsive, but we 19 panod of time, six, ei 19 don't une unlimited time.
20 cracks wre over 90%ght, ten pars Some of thoseof 20 theMR. way through the MOLDAVER: tubes. IWe I understood have a ecpy of the 21 found out that if six or eight of those ttibes cracked 21 U.S. General Accounting Office Report,1990. It's 22 and broke off, that de plant wasn't even design d to 22 entitled ' Nuclear Safety and llealth: Cocaterfeit and 23 handle that kind of an accident. 23 Substandard Products are a Government wide Conocrn."
24 Den M found out there was some serious doubts in 24 In this report, ooc of the principal f'mdings was, 25 the emergency core cooling system That's also over Oc 25 quote, the NRC is defening it's regulatory THE REPORTING OROUP/ Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 25 - Page 30
A/29/96 - Part II Condenselt" Public Meeting Re Maine Yankee Page 31 Page 34 i responsibility. I also have en NRc inspector Genwal irtina damts?
2 . And this report is tided 'Nac3ailure to 2 hat does it say about the ethics of the NRC that 3 A untely Agulate Millstone Unit 1.* I know you're 3 Maine Yankee is allowed to te without meeting 4 4 requirements issued in the w of the Three Male Island 8 Larhave I also with aboth TimeofMthem. ' covre story of March 4, s acrident?
s 1996 which is bened 1 y on the reportl just cited. s The next questions may be difficult. As you've 1 And lt goes into detail the whistleblowtes in 7 mentioned, some of them are still under investigation.
s that case, with whom I have worked with closely, have s Will the NRC refuse the uest for a p0wer uprate by 9 bad to fight for the correct actions to be taken by the o Maine Yankee in light of safety system to utility and by de NRc, 10 deficiencies? If not, y not?
ll A little more context is that the three Millstone in The NRC has acknowledgcd that Oc 12 plants in "onnecticut, as well as Scabrook and 12 whistleblower's al ons have merit.
13 Ltonnecticut Yankee, art owned by Nordeast Utilities. I i) I'll wrap up qui y here.
14 know you are aware of that. Northeast Utilities owns is Will Mame Yankee be fined for knowingly operatin is 40% of Yankee Atomic filectric Company. Is the plant in violation of the NRC safety ter.uvements? g 16 That brings us around to this last 16 why not?
17 have, the anonymous whist!cbloww , report that i If not,ll letter that brought 17 Wi there be criminal prosecutions of personnel at is this whole heartna into pleoc, de perso.nal letter from is Maine Yankee Yankee Atomic and oc NRcin that de 19 Ge ancnymous whistleblower which implicates Maine 19 falsifications show that fraud has been committed? If 20 Yankee and Yankee Atomic in the case we're discussing 20 not, why not?
21 here today, the f alsified computer models used to test 2 Will the NRC Office of Investigations be involved? .
22 the abilities of the emergency core cooling and 22 I believe that was answered And if so, when will their 22 de containment system under accident tions. 23 findings he made public?
24 Now, there's a bumper sticker I know people have 24 Will thee be a separate investigation into de 25 seen, and this is some more context. Bear with me. 25 repeated collusion between the NRC and the utilities, as Page 32 Page 35 1 'Believe the Children.' And it refers to, i shown by the Millstone case and repeated here? If not, 2 unfortunately, child molestation. Children are supposed 2 why not?
3 and this horrible abuse of 3 When will the NRC inspector General's investigation 4 to behas trust able to trust rtyretably adults,d through our society, sprea and 4 the he comnieted, and when will that report be made public?
s consequences are disastrous. s Ancfjust to close, I want to underscore the need 6 Mame Yankee, Yar' ce Atomic Electric Company and 6 for these documents to be made public. We've leard 7 the NRc have been abustna Oc trust of de workers in 7 soothing assertions from Maine Nankee and the NRC many a the nuclear industry and the public for years and years. s times, even from our own Governor. We need the facts in 9 I know from rny direct cApenence with whistleblowers 9 black and white, 10 that this abuse is widespread in the industry and in de 10 The only ones I trust are the whistleblowers and ll NRC. I think we all know that the violations of safety 11 the representives from organizations that support 12 reauirements have had horrific requirements. We need 12 whistleblowers and work for nuclear power plant safety.
13 only look at Chemobyl and Three Mile Island. And 13 1hc NRC's new chair Ms. Shirley Jackson, said in a 14 violations of the trust of workers and the public also 14 Time ansazine article, ;We haven't always been on top of is have had consequences. Violating de trust of workers is things The ball got dropped. liere's what I'm saying 16 leads to whistleblowers coming forward. Now this at 16 now: The ball will not get dropped again."
17 least has a positive outcome with respect to public if I'll believe that when I see it. And if you have is safetv, but it certainly is still suffering for de is any answers to my qtestions, I'll be tappy to hear them.
19 trhislieblowers. And violating the trust of the public 19 MR.ZWOtJN5rJ.1 tank you for to leads to outrage and calls for justice. 20 respond to some of your questions,your but unfortunately, wecomments.
21 Now, I beheve the whistleblowers. I want to take 21 won't be able to answer all your qtestions. We will 22 a moment to thank this whistleblower in particular, 22 answer them in writing as part of de meeting summary.
23 wherever he or she may be. I believe you. I believe 23 This containment at thisfarticular facility was 24 the whistleblowers. The agonizing decision to come 24 proof tested to 63 pounds, f ar in excess of its current is forward knowing that their career, their family and 25 design.
Page 33 Page 36 I personal security are at ri ' this kind of courage i As far as the prima.y coolant system, extensive 2 abould be rewarded at the est levels. 2 testina was performed at tie loss of fluid test facility 3 let's not forget that compounding the deficiencies 3 in Idaho Falls, Idaho, concurrent with the development 4 that we're here talking about with Oc Eccs is that the 4 of the core cooline system rule makinr, and on s Nac all the while allows Maine Yankee to operate without s into the car y 8 s. A tremendous amount of money was 6 correcting many of the post Three Mile Island safety 6 spt to gain a much better understanding o' the 1 requirements. And naam, I believe the whistleblowers. 1 pw.w.: that would occur should you haw a guillotine s Now on to some oT my questions, and I'd like to a rupture from a large break loss of coolant type event.
t just go thmugh them completely andjust see if you can 9 So, in a way, that addresses your point with respect to 10 answer some of them. 10 the primary system at Maine Yankee, and it does address si There is il de contamment issue.
12 question isis,there proof that proof that Maine Yankee - I'm sorry, Maine Yankee's 12 the Regarding the direction that the staffis going, 13 core coorms and containment building is this is the omcc of Investigations. I'm not at is will cornett accident conditions? 14 liberty to discuss their activity, as I said in my is I sproof more theoretical computer is opemng commets. The resufts of that investigation 16 modeling r 16 could ultimately lead to soite sort of enforcement action 17 If it exists, wlen will it be made available to the 17 aaainst the licensee. I wou d hesitate to speculate la public? is w'hnt the enforcement would be. In so many war the 19 Some of the followine, questions may be difficult 19 findings of our Office o* In vestigation could be 'ng 20 for you to answer immediately. I believe some people in 20 or it could be very sesious. I'm simply not in a 24 the audience could answer them easily. 21 position to provide any insight as to the result of 22 What does it say about the ethics of Maine Yankee 22 that. My understanding of tant investigation is it's 23 and Yankee Atonuc that the computer model that is 23 only about halfway through 24 24 Our Ofnce of inspector General works even more 25 al _ posed to test the Iccs in the whistleblower's letterisand knowingly in the falsined, 25 asautonomous from the OfHce of Nuclear Reactor Page 31 - Page 36 THE REPOP. TING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ratnadell
Public Mooting Re Maine Yankee Condenacit" #29/96 - Part 11 Page 37 Page 40 i Regulation, and I just aimply have no information as to a with the t of Tobacco and Firearms It's time 2 wtwee their investigation stands. 2 for de e to demand reforms.
3 Regardm' s firms and things of that sort, that's in 3 you.
4 the enforcemmt arena. 4 MR ZwOUNsu Peter Christine 7 s You did introduce a number of topics associateo s MR CHRISTINE Hello. My name is Peter Christine 6 with Millstone and the Time Meganne article. While Oc 6 and I'm from Alna, Maine. I'm a concerned citizen and 7 staff feels Oc Time magazine article could have 7 not affiliated with any particular group.
a a number of efforts are Ftrst of all, I'd like to make a Couple of 9 prewnted under way toa atiengthen more balancedareas w view,irre ours, as well as9the clarifications, Den I do have a question related to 10 nuclear mdustry's activities rued improvement. 10 decommissioning.
II As I said earlier, NRC ormance indicators wilich ti It is becomin 12 track a variety of parame such as sutru'ficant 12 Yankee's 100%g apparent that 2440 Mwt is M
) events, safety system failures, so on and so forth, in is to 2700 have been obtained witn data that the NRC itself 14 an effort to and m assessing safety and reliability of 14 has now rejected.
Is de nation's nuclear power plants, have shown is I'd like to make another clarification on a comment 16 considerable improvement in the past 10 years. Ilowever, 16 Mr 1Frizrje made at the beginning of the presentation 17 roorn does exist for continued improvement, both within 17 tontght about the recent exoosure of 18 workers to the is the NRC and the industry. Is radiation at the plant. In the fashion that Maine to Your concludin6 trought that actions speak louder 19 Yankee usually uses, which is soo0dng, he mentioned to than words is certamly being taken to heart, not only 20 that, of course, this caposure was below federal limits.
21 by our Chairman, but down through de ranks Our 2 What he reglected to tell the audience wrs the NRC's 22 Executive Director, our Office Dtrector, and Oc 22 inspection report findmgs, which essentially said il 23 individuals at this table are chall 23 was only luck that prevented that accident from being 24 aasure that our practices and poh,enged every 24 day tocies more menous.wtse trnplemented 25 accurately and to Oc fullest extent. 25 My first question now is I would like to know why Page 38 Page 41
- And I'd jurt as soon now move on to the next itself I it took 13 years and a whistleblower's letter for the 2 speaker. 2 NRC to finally ask Maine Yankee for :lartfication cf 3 MR. MOLDAVER: Thank you. 3 their data as it related to the TM1 Action Plans?
4 MR. 2'WOUNSU Mr. Ilotmes7 julian llolmes7 4 '! hat's my First question.
s MR. IiOLMri Thank you, Mr. Chairman and rnembers of s Now, rny second question relates to knmmissioning.
6 the Commission. 6 MR. ZWOUNSU: If I might address that question, 7 l'm a physicist, retired, and I planned to 7 please?
s brief talk this evening on basic engineermg. But after gives a MR. CHRISTINE: Okay.
o hearing tonight Oc technical presentation and sone of . 9 MR ZWOUN50 That is one of the issues that's 10 the remarks made about reactors have become safer in tie 10 currently under investigation.
ll past 10 years, I decided to cut de technical material, 11 MR CHRISTINE: 7tc delay 7 12 because Oc main problem at Maine Yankee ~ Oc main 12 Mit ZWOUNSU: Yes.
13 one - is not techni it's pohtical. :) MR. CHRISTINE. Okay. Thank you very much.
14 When you have a us machine with a Rube 14 MR.ZWOUNSU And to you and the previous is Goldber witnessed in de last few is gentleman, wien that report is concluded, that report 16 months,g fix like we'vejyou've got a pohtical problem. 16 will become publicly available.
17 Instead of talking about tecfmology, I'd like in 17 MR.CHRi$11NE: Thank you.
is tell you what may be more important, so that the people is Now, my, question on denmmissioning is this: At to will know hert a little bit,Just a tiny bit, about Oc 19 de present ttme electric utility reactors enjoy more 20 NRC. Ud like to icli you what I heard wien I called to lenient fundmg requ rement than nonelectnc -
21 de NRC this morning, wien I called deir hotline. For 21 nonutility reactors in funding their deccmaissioning 22 those of us tere who seek assurance that our NRC is 22 Costs. Whtm Maine Yankee a deammJssioning costs have 23 standing by to take charge in the event of a nuclear 23 only been one-third f and they have 12 3 ears left 24 accident, I have reproduced tetow in a hand out, which 24 on (hett current license, with utility deregulation 25 anyone can pick up if they wish, something that l'Il 25 rapidly bringing rearket forces to bear on these hitrerto Page 39 Page 42 just read, the recorded message that one gets nowadays i rate-guaranteed companies, how will the NRC guarantec 2 when one dials the NRC hothne. Dial 1 800-233 3497, 2 that enough funds wdl be m place not only to 3 and here's what you get. 3 deammission Maine Yankee but to provide for what may 4 After several nngs, you act this, quote: 'You 4 become a long term storage site for highdevel nuclear s have reached the in tor Ge.neral Ilotline at the s waste 7 6 Nuclear Regula ' mmission to report fraud, abuse and 6 Will an electric utility company willingly commit 1 mismanagement, bours of o ? more of its dwi. ' revenues to fund the
- o' clock a.m. until 4 o' clock , Fridayp.m.peration through are from 10 .deammissioning 'ng fund 7 o Monday. If you are calling to report a nuclear accident 9 MR. ZwOUNsu: The staff - and this is to at a power plant or fuel facility, please hang up and 10 spearleaded by Chairman }ackson, has undertaken a il redial" not an 800 number, but '301555 0550. 'Thank is s effort to look at utility restructurin 12 12 i who's going to pay the freight, who'g, s gomg to and, is you Ikepw* hat you hear. That's our Nuclear
- Ihat's 13 nay the bill for deammissioning. We don't want to lose is Regulatory Commission's conocrn about nuclear safety all 14 track of the license.
15 in a little capsule. And I think, from my itfc of being is One of our early on activities is we're actually is conocrneci about nuclear safety and watching the NRC, 16 moving forward with the proposed rulemaking. You will 17 that's pretty accurate. 17 have an op ty to comment on that rule. It is in conclusion, as a physicist, I'd like to say that is addresses very tasue that you raised associated with to the NRC has failed in its responsibility to put the i9 decommissioning and assuring tie fund will he fully 20 brakes on the dangerous kinds of operations like those 20 finded, and any given utility will not be able to be 21 no clearly documented on the two displays in the back of 21 removed from their responskility for assuring that that 22 the room. And, as an amateur observer of political 22 fund is intact at the time that denmmissioning begins.
23 ewnts,1 feel that the nuclear industry and the NRC 23 MR. CHRISTINE: Do you have a tunetable for this 24 operates with a degree of arrogance on a par with that its plan, for these reforms?
25 this Country has experienced recently with the tRs and 125 MR. ZwouNs0 The draft of that rule is not out THE REPORTING GROUP / Manos Lockhart Hagopian & R==ahH Page 37 Page 42
i l 4/29/96 - Part H Condenselt* Public Meeting Re Malte Yankee i for ecmment yet. I telieve it should te out for corr t I accident, what kind of dose would te d Oc 2 in the mid summertime period And that takes typically 2 Ms otRisnNE: No. No,I'm not. I'm saymg that 3 about 18 manda to implement Oc final rule. 3 and de state Nuclear Safety Advisor ML OtRisnNID And from who are you seeking 4 Ocy were aware,d was informed an de NRC Wat informed that during tle 4
s comments 7 5 refuelmg process t!cy were caccedmg ticir annual 6 MLZwoWNso: 4te general public, licensees, 6 radiation dose levels and that they were higler than 7 anyone interested in tie process. 7 usual on de nats, and ticy kept extending the fence.
s ML GuusnNE hnkyou very much. s I'm saying why couldn't, at that time, signs have been 9 MR. ZwOUNsKl: Kns (nnstine7 9 poMed warning of higler dian usual levCIs and that you to Ms atiusnNE: hnk you. Good evening. I'm Kris 10 shoulc' limit your stay on the flats?
ll Christire, and I'm tere tecause I'm a concrrned moder. Il ML ZwouNsK : I think the staff disagrees with 12 . And last year, during oc refueling process, both 12 the premise that dere's a large releme oll site. But 13 de star Sarcty Nuclear Advisor, and tie la let's let de state address the issue. I think you're 14 Ul&swere NRc Vanags,fied noti by Maire Yankce that ticy wre 14 really addressing it to Gem.
15 were at is Mr. Vanags?
16 exten&ng theirlevels higher than usual annual on Ocdose clamrates and that ded by16 flats use MR VANAQs: ilds is an issue that we did address 17 clarnmers and wormers. 12 and we did investigate, both Pat and I and several I Keeping in mind that restaurants post warning signs is others in tfe state What you're addressing is the 19 of microwave oven usage,it acems reasonable to tre that 19 radiation levels outside de site boundaryi exposure 20 tie NRC or Mr. Vanags should advise de posting of 20 levels.
Il visible signs waming clammers and wormers to limit 21 Ms. OIRisnNE: Uh huh.
22 deir time on de Dats. 22 ML VANAos: Not, you know airborne radioactivity.
23 Why did both de NRC and Oc state Nuclear Safety 23 You're talking about exposure levels.
24 Advisor fail to so n tify Oe public so that we can 24 Ms atRisnNE t1h huh.
25 limit our exposure to excess radiation levels? 25 MR VANAQs And that's regulated by 10 crn Part Page 44 Page 47 MR RocoE 1his is de clam nat issue, and tiere 1 20. And this is common for any facility be it a 2 or whatever 2 hospital, dentist's of0cc, whatever; anyplace where was some de public miscommunication, wtere dey got tie idea that Mam,was e Yankee that occurred 3 in 3
4 irra6ating clam diggers- 4 there's a radiation Ms. GIRisnNE: Andor any do post signs dere in the they s What Maine Yankee basically was doing is they're s hospitals.
6 required to meet tie reFulations to control dose at the 6 MR VANAos: Yes. Well, the area outside the 7 cte boundary. In domg so, Oey have to assess who is 7 fence, and this is I'll talk about Maine Yankee e basically right outside the edge of Oc boundary. And s first is regulated at 100 mr. per year and a 2 mr.
9 Ory take a survey to detennme how long people might be 9 done in one hour. If that - that's called an 10 clam 6gging in tre area in case so Ocy can make 10 unrestricted area, meaning that it doesn't have to be j 1: dese esumates And we riqutre that they control doses 11 posted accor&ng to regulations. !
12 so Oey're within safe limits. So, notifymg people 12 Now,if we de doses didn't exceed that, as far 13 that thmgs are safe is not really appropnate. 13 as we know from our investigation. That was not .
14 Ms. OlkisnNie well I do have documentation here 14 excceded That area of the site was higher than some l' 15 from de NRC and from bir. Dostie sayk that rates were is other areas in tie site, but it did not exceed that.
16 higher than usual at tie fence, and that 0 kept 16 And now the thing is, if we required posting in 17 exten&ng Oc fence and that Oey as that at times 17 unrestricted areas at that site, that would i
is that the annual levels were being exceeded flowever, at is automatically mean that we will have to require posting 19 no ** and Maine Yankee did pronerly notify the state 19 at hospitals m unrestricted areas, dentists' offices, <
l 20 Nuclear Safety Advisor and the kRC. And yet, at no time 20 anyplace in Oc state that uses ra&ation instruments or
!! did they post a sign warning tie clammers that s 21 sources. And that would essentially te a change in the !
22 dey should Emit the amount of ttme spent on e Ha ; 22 rtJulation.1 hat would te a whole rew set of rules we'd !
23 thal 0 shouldn't spend six, seven hours a day there 23 have to promulgate. l 24 every y. And I'm wondering why dey didn t notify the 24 M't GIRisDNE WCll, I'm ap Ma:hing this from a 25 pubhc sat levels were higher than usual, which I think 25 safety concem. I certainly would like to know if I'm Page 45 Page 48 l 1 is just a common courtesy. I receiving higher than expected levels of radiation, and 2 l'm not saying that tius is a significant safety 2 I appreciate the courtesy,of the signs in the hospitals, 3 issre, but it is sorrething that de 3 and I think that we should extend the same courtesy to 4 know, when the levels are are being higher-public than would 4likeOc toneople that Maine Yankee, the NRC,and you know are 3 usual. s usin'g tfose flats rquiarly dunng the summer to earn a 6 MR ROGGE It's not necessarily a public issue. 6 living. So that's why I -
7 What Ory hast some waste storage -- 7 Ma. VANAos: I don't - unrestricted areas in s UNiorNnntD SPECTA7DR Who needs tho9e clams, e hospitals are not posted So you Can be in a hospital e anywev7 9 where thme are x rays or CAT acans taking place m 10 (Various spectator interruptions.) 10 another room, and, of course, some of that ra6ation
- MR. ROGGE what dey have is some waste storage it will leak out and people will te exposed to some small 12 areas, and they have some material that has to be moved. 12 quantity. And that's tie way the rquiations are is When they move that, they have to protect the public. 13 wntten. Whetheryou agree or not, a 100 mr. dose is It And when they do that, Gry have to move tre barrier 1s 14 considered a safe lesel of exposure.
15 out or reestablish tie rone so the public is protected. Is us. attisnNE so, in an unrestricted area, even 16 And whatyou're talking about is posting for the people 16 if there were excessive amounts of rs&ation, you would 17 that would te in the area as if mmething was happentng 17 not post because it is an unrestricted area?
Is that they 6dn't know about. Now, tefore lley're doing Mit VANAos: tt has to meet the regulations for an 19 re going to te 19 unrestricted area and does not require posting in that 20 these checkingevolutions or control, this area to make sure t they' hat they're not 20 instance. So, a 100 mr. per year dose and no more than 2i exccaims the numbers. You want a general 'nsin 21 2 mr tn one hour outside a fenced area.
22 came there is sometaty who's walking by. wouldn't 22 Ms. CHRisTtNE Okay. So,if we're in an 23 te in de area. We expect more controls than t. 23 unrestricted area, then we don't ord notification that 24 So, you're basically asking questions about 24 we're being exposed?
25 contmlling for scactive siabtma; if there was an 25 MR. VAN AGS: No, you don't; not according to Page 43 - Page 48 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason lackhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
- Public Meeting Re Malee Yankee Condenselt" 4/29/96 - Past 11 Page 49 Paec 52 s regulations. I Ma. nAGru so, den, wtat would wr do in the year 2 Ms.CHRis1 Twin Thank you. 2 20007 !st them upgrade again and really put Oc pedal 3 t!NIDENTIFILD SH CTATOR: Do 3 to the metal in an agmg factlity? I mean, I just a 4 ML ZwOUNsn Chuck flagen?you care about 4it? just i scally,le here.it tells me that you people are lere
$ ML nAGtm I would like to Omnk tiu for taking s serve the peop s this time to hear comments from hae Some of us 6 ML ZwOUNSKI Yes, sir.
areJust citizens that live in de area of the plant. 7 MR. nAGLN: 7 tat's true right? Okay. I 1
a wanted to make sure dat that was still true.just e My guestions concern ~ l would like to know if Now, you talked about - briefly touched cm the 9 Maire 1 ankee is now curTently operating at 100% of its e ,
to onginal license? Is that what {his 2630 is that - 10 ha==issicming fundmg.
Il ML ZwouNsKl lie plant's original license, wlen il MR ZWOUNsKI Yes.
reviewed in 1972, was for operation at 2440 MWt. 'lhat's 12 ML nAGEN. Now, are we basing Oc analysis of 12 13 what de plant is currentl 13 decommissioning of all of these agma nuclear power 14 operate at, I should say. y operstmg at, or allowed 14 plantsto in this couny)y an the lessons (hat have alre is ML nActN: That's true. And think that a why is been learned from 16 would de NRC feel that at a time in agmg nuclear 16 haven't toucled any of the ' hdevel waste there, and
've already spent over 4 . more than their onginal 17 facilities in de country, across the country, allow 17 is them to upgrade pour output? I'm just - I'm tiving to is to d=>mmission deir whole plant. I telieve 19 19 had 100 million for decommissionin?, and they've make sense of Wis. right? I thinkMoney that wtat to awe're talking ? It corporstmn 20 spend 400 million without presenting any kmd of 20 21 about heretoisdomoney; has nothing wit h the safety oT de oeople who 21 livtplan decommissioning. And Oey've only mr ved 22 in the area of de nuclear facility. I think that ~ 22 low le el waste.
MR ZWOUNsn One of de reasons ~ de princi H MR ZWOUNsu Tic staff as I said earlier,is H
24 reason we're here is the issue over the small break 24 looking at the decommission,me issue very nearessively, n analysis. H We're taking into account the fesions learnecTfrom Page$0 Page 53 i MR HAGEN.1 tat's true, sir, but what I'm saying i plants is that you - 2 Ranchoacross Seco inthe country, Califorma Fortsuch as Troj'an St. Verraine, whichin O_ rtgon, 2
3 MR zwOUNsKt 1te principal issue - the 3 essentially totally decommissioned, in Colorado; plants 4 prir cipal defining issue that allowed this plant to 4 gning back to Pathfinder, which were essentially test operate at 2700 Mwt was tie reliance on acceptable large s f acihties built in the early '60s, that we bcsan 2
6 and that is a very dominant 6 decommissioning in de fate '60s. Were adopting de 7 break (DCAused methodology methodology,ly priman before Oc TMI accident. ? lessons teamed from Yankee Rowe into our rulemaking, a Since Tut, we teamed that small break tDCA is a : and tint will be available for public comment, e we're 9 MR. RAGEN. Okay. And now, the issue is when do we 10 contnbutor that we have to address sensitive to assure that that's included in de ana In so doing, lysis to actually make Oc nuclear facilities tqtin to prepare ll spectrum, So ~ 11 for that decommissioning? Such as, every time I tum 12 MR. RAGEN: Are we taking into account availability 12 nround, it seems as though they're being granted new 13 of oder electrical sources as well as Oc energy 13 space saving techniques mside of their spent fuel pool, 14 prmided in an area at t!e time that you consider 14 which, in its original design, w,Ls built to hold two 15 allowmg ~ l mean ~ 15 years of sient fuel?-
16 MR. ZWOUNsKl We're looking at de safe operaticm 16 I am aware that tley're still searching for an 17 of de facility solely. 17 answer to their most intractible problem. But the fact is MR. HAGE N. Tlat's true. Is is that the NRC,I think, should be locking at these 19 MR. ZwOUNT.Kl. We're not looking at economics. 19 facilities that are stockpiling spent fuel m 40 by 40 20 M R. HAGEN: Tien ~ 20 rcols; instead of making de spaces tightct, tha. they 21 MR ZwOUNsn we're looki at Oc integrity of 21 should be moving to nome ont of containment that can be 22 Oc facility. The facilit is anal . Can it operate 22 moved offsite; so that we in fact, do know that deir n at this power level safe . And y the stan is 23 intention is to move it ofkite and not leave a 24 still of the beliti that licensing has not 24 permanent dump on the coast of Maine. At least, here 25 demonstrated that they have come into compliance with a 25 l'm speaking ot.
Page51 Paf,e 54 I portion of this Rule 50.46 1 Unfortunately, most nuclear plants are near bodies 2 come in conformance, wtlldry, and remain ur'il2440 at the thelevel, licenwe2 ooes of water, because that's De essential ingrechent,1 3 or incur the 10% power penalty. 3 think, there.
4 ML HAGEN: Now, I would hke you to clarify for 4 ML ZwOuNsKL Noting the time,it Sounds as if 5 that was a commen but I'd like to at least respond.
s de people here that that plant is operating at 160% of 6 its ongmal licensing it s not operstmg at 90%. 6 The staff has en a very agg;r.ssive
? It's ooerating at 90% of an upgraded power situation. ? reevaluation of all nuclear facilities spent fuel pool s So, when I read reports in the mxha that all of you sit systems, spent fuel pool capability, and garnered a much e there in front of me and sa that this plant's operstmg 9 . better understar,dmg of the licensee's final safety to at 90%,like it's tei imed, and they talk to 10 analysis report and de assurance that the licensee is 11 everyone as though 're being somehow hurt because, 11 conducting offloading practices correctly; that is, 12 you know, dry have to go back and regenerate a computer 12 commensurate with its tiemse conditions. And there are L3 leare is procedural controls which assure that the fuel has moved 14 code giving that actually works, the impression that this that, you plant is know(e, h poor 14 safely from the reactor vessel to tie spent fuel a ,
is Maine Yankee, they have to operate at 10% of 15 MstHAGEN: No. No, it wasn't that - Oc question 16 100%, uten,in f they're above 100% when w ere 16 referred to moving it out of the spent fuel pool into a 11 operating for the e' t ) cars that this ret.Ars was ing 17 system that we probably know the most available or the is used as the code. Is safest available system is dry cask storage 19 ML ZWOuMSKl: Tte tioennee made application to 9 ML ZwOuNSKt Yes, str.
20 de staff in the late '70s, and was granMd a power 20 ML HAGEN: And if we went to dry cask storage, '
21 uprate mer a couple of years years fmm the 2440 level 21 which is something which truly can be mwed offsite?
22 to 2630. 'lhey operated at 2630 Mw through to the '89 22 ML ZWOuNSK) Yes.
u time frame, at which time they were granted anoder 70 23 MR. HAGEN: 1 hen which is that l
is probability?y not correct Then, in ultimate 24 Mw increase in power level; thus the 2630 up to the 24 what is going to occur,f we would at least see the 25 2700 25 faimess to the public, i THE REPORTING GROUF/ Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramadall Page 49 - Page 54
W29/96 - Part !! Condenselt"d Public Meeting Re Maine Yankee Pap,e 516 Page55 nuclear industry begin to move in that direction so a course, I'm interested now r1 what - tecause de graph 3 that, you know - I mean I know it's probably not going 2 only went so far - what's the graph ping to look hke 3 D so to Yucca Mountain, as probably you people do as 3 as we further increase tie size 7 1 d hke to see at 4 well. But that if we at least see the nuclear industry 4 what time ~ what happens wien.
5 5 ML COLUNS: All your observations are correct, 6
begin to spend tleir money that spend tiett money on actually showmg us tthey make, hat ticirbegin6 to Okay? Initially, you get a very low temperature because 7 intention is a good one, that Ocy are going to look 7 de high pressure systems can keep,up with a very small s sher us and that they are going to tsy to cIcan up the : break. Okay? So the temperature is low. But as the 9 mess. Instead, I see the NRC,every ture I turn around, 9 break wire gets larger, high-pressure systems Can no Ocy grant anotlar - you know, another terack sort of 10 longer k u with that break flow. Okay? So then you 10 il consortium here that allows Dem to continue deir 11 have to upon the low pressure systems. We:1, it operations with no solution yet in sight for a problem 12 that upon the pressunration rate of the plant.
13 that's growing. 13 This is probably getting into more detail than you want, 14 On Marketplace on public radio this week i just 14 but -
is heard Oc estimate is about $400 billion just for the is MR ltAw No, but it means that sonething else 16 high level waste. 16 cuts in.
17 MR. zwouNso: hank you for your comment. 17 ML CotuNS: Yes. '
18 MR. HAGEN: Wank you. Is ML ltAW %mgs don't cut in until they reach a le ,4L zwouNsK. I will address dry cask st 19 certain point, and then additional cooling capacity cuts 20 The agency position is that we strongly endorse . cask 20 in?
21 storm 8e. And it is being used at a number of facih ies 21 ML COLUNS: ' is Corttet. That's correct abou tie country as we speak, dependent on the amount 22 MR.itAw wc! ~ ; to see sometime what tic 22 of spent fuel in Orge pools. And as I've just 23 dilooks like r 23 gn,L4R. COLUNS'Ilk o along.i at was my quuhon carh,er 24 articulated, the staff is evaluating currenuy tie 24 25 amount of fuel in tiene pools; and if we need to take 25 for the licensee.
Page$6 Page 59 I some sort of regulatory action, I'm sure we will. But i MR. ItAW Yes. Okay. We hope to see it sometime 2 de results of that study re not complete. 2 soon. hnk you.
3 MR. nAorN: out 1 - 3 MR zwcuNso: Maria 110117 4 MR zwouNsu I really ned to move on. 4 MS. HOLT: Centlemen thank you for coming here MR. KAGEN. Okay Well, I thank you for your time, 5 where we live. I'm Man,a 1101t from Bath, I'm a member 6 then, sir. 6 of a citizens monitoring network, and in that capacity 7 MR. ZwOUN$U: hank you. 7 l've received calls from workers at Maine Yankee, e David llall? : sometimes anonymous and sometimes not, mostly about 9 MR. ItALL I've read the copy of the 9 cancems to do with safety and exposure to radiation.
10 whistleblower's letter, and his recommendation - his or 10 One worker told us that he was sent without prior 18 ler, whoever it is - recommendation was for the NRC to il training, on his first job into tie hot side of Oc 12 reduce Maine Yankee's power to the 2440 level. So 12 plant dunng refueling. lie was told not to sit down and you've done what the whistleblower suggested. The other is not to kneel comi out of there, because his sweat 13 ihing the whistleblower suggested was that you fme 14 could soak thro his suit and contaminate him. Well, 14 Mame Yankee, and we'll have to wait and see whether you is later le expenen numbness on one side of his face, is 16 result in doi that. I realire your imestigation is 16 partial paralysis, which still exists, of his mouth, and 17 not com .
17 le lost some of his hair.
is AsI derstand it, with a small loss of coolant, is Maine Yankee management saw to it that he was sent it tic plan' is supposed to demonstrate that with emergency 19 to a radiologist in Massachusetts, not a medical 20 core cooling system it can keep temperatures down at a 20 intemist. And there le was asked right away, what do 21 reasonable level; but at a large loss of coolant, then 21 you think about radiation. And he was told his exposu.e 22 that radiologist is dry have to demonstrate that the containment can keep a was nothing to Iworry about.
Dr. Well, Drum testify at de 22 u maior release from escaping? Am I correct in my 23 Dr. David Drum. have teard 24 understandmg of that? 24 Maine State Legishture on behalf of Maine Yankee when 25 MR. ZWOUNSKl' Cencrally, one, you always want to 25 local citizens were trying to get a proposal through to Page $7 Page 60 i retain the core covered; and, in a It7e loss of coolant i enlarge the evacuation zone, the kind of safety problem 2 accident, you S ill have your contaifunent that will 2 we are concerned about here tonight.
3 respond to the pressure that emanates from the reactor 3 Now, my question is why did the NRC hold a recent 4 vessel itself 'ihis is tie guillotine break I referred 4 meetm' e about worker safety out of state instead of s to earlier? s here, where we could capress our concems to you about 6 .AR. HAlta 50 at that point you may not have enough 6 that safety problem, 1 7 to you ate this seriousasproblem we are exp?ressing our concems 8
cmcrgency upon contammentcore incooling capability a truly large break and y?ou haw to depend s ML 800G10 he reason for the meeting being held 9 MR ZWOUNSU: No. There would have - 9 in King of Prussia was so that we could get om senior to MR. HALL: or is it expected you always will have to manager at to participate along with the inspectors that li 11 came and inspected that. And that's part of our 12 coough sue possi emble break?ergency core coolmg capacity 12 to handle management any meetmg process And those meetings are open 13 ML ZWOUNSU: Yes, tit That's the way these 13 to the public for observatien. And, as you expressed, 14 plans are designed, with redundancy, by de way. 14 de lccal public has trouble getting to those meetings, ho
, is ML HAu; Tte thing that I was mterested in is a is but they're open for public obsers ation and anyone w
! 16 technical thing. We had the h that they showed of 16 wants to attend.
It how wten you increased the e esc - 17 M$. HOLT: Will there be a workers' safety public is ML ZWOUNSU: Right. la meeting here in the future, since we've had some j 19 ML HALL: Tte graph of the temperature. It 19 concerns and problems?
20 interested me that a small increase in leak site, 20 MR. ROGGE: I don't know.
21 starting at the lower end. You had a rapid increase of 21 ML zWOUNsu: It would be possible. 'Ihe thin 6 22 tes.spesture; but Orn, as De leak si2e mercaned, vu 22 that you need to be aware of, and maybe everyone m the l 23 have a falling off of temocrature. And that 23 rog is if the liomste is asked to go to King of 24 kmd of unusual to me hat's what the graph seemed to 24 Prussia to meet with the regional sertior management l 25 to show. And then it started going up agam. And, of 25 team, you're talking about a large number of Page 55 - Page 60 THE REPORTING OROUP/ Mason Lockhart Hegopian & Ramsdell l
4/29/96 - Part D Condgassh"' l PuWie Messias Rs Males Yankas Page 64 Fuge 61 l i As a ma6ter of fact, that has been donc, and it has t supsvisors, maangers, all being able to panicipsee hly. You're tebuus about ineviduals dust 2 produosd results much <-immt with the results 2 l 3 produced by the code.
3 wesM number as many as 10, whoses you would mover find NRCis investigating the use of 4 10 of die llayan I sanear menessamat ima et any cae 4 het COLLINS. ,
s that code as ma'am. I beteve your quazion a 1 s sist .
dgn't w in the use of e 6 ses teoLT: t m see you haaldi and saisry people 6 the staff was 7 REtAPsYA et the other 7 l 7 could send a los up base, wluss we can ok down and share concerns 11 at's fair enough, isa's N7 s M%. EE.LLY: Yes.
8 us.rwouissa As I how basa ens to c<me up 9 Ma.cOtuMS. well m are i
- RELAPs over the last (keers.nvestigating the 9
Io tonight, k wouldn't sepner as that a Region I senior lo 7 11 mensper could come up., Mr. Age, base a first lies ll MS. KELLY: And we will hear the results of that 12 supervisor e sus mestang. is our easept to at 12 investigation? I
~ is Ma cOLuMS. Sure. Yes, ma'am.
is least how a 14 But the point you are making. I undsstand. I 14 MR.zWOuNSn Kim Folta? -l think N's a fair -1 n- L- . I was just trytag to is MS. K4.Tz Hl. I'm going to ask a real Is nops-hai=1 question here in hopes that I'll get a i 16 articulate being able to have enore of our seier 16 17 nontechni<:al answer. Otherwise, I'm lost.
- 17 mensesrs understand firsthand from the luenser allows Given Maine Yankee's long and ongoing history or i
18 - thaum to make naamr and more taforus4)udsmants. Is incidents, has the NRC ever done a global esamination of us MOL7s is tore any pine amongst te officials 19 19 to : of the NaC and the mutinar power plaats across de 20 Maine Yankee? And if not, what can,the icdoto 21 tanke that sort of as cr'ansive inspection 7 21 country to strengthen es safety of wortes? Because k has sounded very las to us, te kinds J tha'nse tat 22 MR.zwOUNSn Your question is one of ve we 22 -
n how been reported to us in the network. Andysople n doneaE ;J "ve ins Of inspectors at one time,pection, or how w analysed thewhether w 24 mostly don't want to tell us their nasus, because 24 i thry're afraid of losing tair jobs. 2$ facility operation globally with a variety of 25 '
' Page 65 Pa i - I thesk you for your coming tonight and your I time.ge having individuals 62 looked at the plant? , ,
MR.zw6uNsn Thank you. You should be aware 2 Ms. POLTz: I'm refernas to a global mspection !
2 l 3 that w do have what's called our $yssematic Assessment 3 that was mentioned in the article ~ in the Time 4 of Licensee performance lt's called the SALP. 4 Magazine article about Millstone Unit 1.
s Ms. HOLTi Yes, I am aware of that. 5 MR.zwouwSu Yes. -
i 6 MS. POLTz: And they requested a global inspection.
6 MA. ZWOuNSn And one of those areas is termed Kind of nuts and bolts, gotas over everythi,ng piece by Plant Support, and in that particular category w do 7 7 '
e address ths very issue of radiation protection, health a piece, thousands of engineers-9 MR.zwouNS".l. Well, first, the agency initiated 9 h in 1985 what's called the senior management to bysics matters and indeed, incidents as those to thatvc just recently occurred can meeting affect the lice 11 score and ultimate mark. And,in so many words, o'ie of, it process. That process brings tgether senior managers the reasons for this manage.nent meeting was to assure 12 from all four regions and hiladquarters, and they 12 ourselves that the licenase was taking this issue very 13 discuss, in so saany words, every plant in the country.
13 3
14 seriously. 14 And they take the vanous views, nadings, observations, MS. hot.T: Yes. I understand that, is on SAlf reports that I aniuded to is i 16 Ma.zwOuNsn Okay, is , they take results ofinterviews that '
MS HOLT 1 hank you. However,we have had 17 've had when they've visited these sites - iust a 17 is incidents like that since the early years of the plant, is of ' ts and data that comes available to
' But vioW that there's attention focused on Maifie Yankee, is gency, the 19 these things are becoming known to the public. I think 20 semi annual basis. y scrutinime that data on aSo t .
, 20 21 that we should have some kind of inerting on health and 21 thought 10, in so many wartis, attempt to assure that '
22 anfety of workers. 22 we're covenna every base.
n Ma. zwouNsn 1 hank you for your comments. n That was a key outcome from the Davis Besse event -
24 Audrey Kelly? 24 of 1985; was, in so many words, the ngian knew
- annwehing, headquarters office knew something, and we 25 M1 KELLY: Iwould b to ask the management of 25 l
Page 63 4 66 1
- - I Maine Yankee the followmg
- Why is (suproving the i meen't shanas it very well. And it turns out that a 2 validity of the suspect computer inodel one of your prime 2 third in our office had oths information. Had we 3 objectives? You gained permission froen the Nac to 3 y worked the information we would how been operate at 10% ovw designed capacity based on 2 4 the Davis-Besse event and it snight not how 4
s snodel and increased your profit ovw a long period of s occuned.
6 time, Now you propose to purchase a different inodel. 6 Sa that was a * ' cant i lesson learned to the 7 le e an adnu,sman that you cannot the validity 7 agency, and, as I'd like to think that the senior .
never have s . management asetina as it's currently structured l
> s of the old code and that the Nac 9 granted penmssion to operate at incseased poww? - e ansepts to take thaf look that you're referns 10- My second euestion is, I would like to ask the NRC 10 to.-
tI the following: Why are you going al ith Maine la MS. POLTZ: so, a global inspection as I'm 12 Yankee's proposaljo try,a new code? aren't you 12 referring to has not Usen done? I mean,y^ou guys -
insistins on a full inveetagstion of the code is
, 13 14 - fnret? H is c5vious that you are more concerned with 14 haven'tbover yet . Aand turned soecific w[o'n inspect ' lle that !
l 'Ma. h*
! 15- their predit9 asking than their compliance with rules and is being conducted at Minanan* is not being
' 16 16 MS. POLTz: Okay. How does the pubFic set 17 regulations. We wishover Maint Yankee's.you would 17 represent somethm' s likeour thatinterests to 7 What F W .e rake? '
Ma.zw)uNsKl Thank you for your question I'll is MA. YgAOIttM can respond"to that.
Is l
to aska antative fresa the utility to speak. is As part of the inspection program for Maine I-l 20 - un. . As we indicased, a coniplete 20 Yanhoe, 'like every other nuclear power plant, we how 2i k. - 9b=i of the original code is, in rect, taklag 21 cegoens '
-
- residents a well as from the 22 plaeslut we dseannined that the most expeditacus u re,qns u u 24-manner in which to satisfy the wac's buvemeent for manalysis of the small break los of o accidset 24 W,Now in theweanos that Team how those. needi arises ans. for reinforc:
Various was to enoloy a consistely different ind=p=d=' code. 2! numbers elinspartars come in to loNthose various 2s 1BB RRPORTING OROUP/Maaos lackhart Hagopina & an-maan Page 61 - Page 66 '
PuMic Meeting Re Maine Yadae 4/29/96 - Part 11 Condenselt" Pge 67 Page 70 i I areas. I ML pouNsK!: 7 tat's through two upgrades Also, as an ongoing process, we have assessment of 2 Ms. Pol.TI: Two We up@ve placed -
2 I 3 each plant. John refermd to - we have the every six 3 ML zwoWNsK!: ,, ,
4 months, every two months, various periods. During dese 4 Ms. FOLTZ,: I'm talking about die origtnal design l 5 assessment processes center managers have a chance to s capacity. Are they operating at 90% or 100% of the !
e look at plant pctformance and decide wtether it's to 6 ongsnal design capacity 7 , ,
7 lead to reinforced inspection activities 'De results 1 MR.zwotA3Kh he ongmal design was at 2440.
of those meetinas are published. s Ms. FOLTz: And what are they o s
So, with all Dene processes in place, when Oc 9 ML ZWOUNsKl: %at number. perating at now7 9
need arises to reinforce inspections, w do that. 10 Ms. FOL12: So that's 100% They're now operating 10 11 The question as to when is Maine Yankee having a 11 at 100% of their ' 'nal design capacity. I'm just 12 12 trying to ,
is slobal over theinspection,formance plant per the various areas, andthere'sis MLnone planned.
zwouwsKl: whenWeOchave plant to wasgoinitially 14 determine de need for reinlorced inspections or not. 14 i.salyzed -
is Millstone has a b;.g one ongoing. 'Dere's a reason is Ms.f0LTz: %ank you. Thank you. Thank you, very is for that. At Maine Yankee Gere are various problem 16 much.
17 areas, and we do look at those areas as required. 17 ML zw0usK!: when the plant was initially So the global inspection is not acheduled. It is analyred,it was anal at tie 2440 Mwt level., Since is and licensee analysts, 19 probably won't happen unless we see a need for that ta 19 then through design 20 happen. 20 staff review and approv , the lant configuration is ns. Pot.Tz: well considering that Maine Yankee has 21 such that it's current) to operate at 2700 21 always said. well, o'kay, m're safe, we're safe, we're 22 Mwt. We've im a1 22 safe. And then incidents come up. 23 Raymond S s, lease? penalty, and thus the 2440.
23 24 MR.YEnoKtlN: Yes. 24 MIL sHADIS: you. Ijust would like to Ms. Fot.12: wouldn't it be wise to circumvent those 25 comment, there was some objections up here earlier about 25 Page 68 Page 71 I incidents? Wouldn't it be wise to go in and say,let's I s;-hmaki.ijg. The NRC also has things to learn from de 2 check that piece? Maybe there's no problem, but let's 2 citizenry. It s part of the rtgulatory process that the 3 check it anyway,just m esc. 3 citizenry are supposed to lave access to informa'.2on end 4 MR YEROKtfN: Tht! Would le wise you're right, and 4 provide information as they find it M NRC. And these s that does happe.n. You don't send in thousands of s public meetinas are a two way process. So,let'sjust 6 inspectors or engineers. I't! give you an example. The e get that straigfit first, because it really bugs me wten 1 recent radiological events that just hap;cned in the 7 I get interrupted.
past few mont'hs, we didn't have instances where we had a trNtDEN11FIED SPECTATOR: I won't interru s
9 additional inspectors come inside to look at the various 9 you don't sermoni2e, you go right on and ~ pt yo ,
areas. I think it'sjust a matter of supplementing the 10 ML SHADis: I do - I do want to remark, too this 10 to fit the events that occur, is a divided house tonight; but I have a lot of fn, ends ll ll la inspectors as business Now, on this - you know, o f trying to on 12 and people whom I sespect who work at Maine Yankee inspections when events occur, we also to do 13 Atomic Power Station. And there are people that I have 13 14 additional inspections in the areas of p to 14 knon for over 20 years that - and, in fact, 15 prevent dese events from occumng. But the only is peoplepeople that were on the starting team. And I 16 answer, houver, is that we look at each performance, 16 respect them.
de vanous areas and reinforce the inspection 17 I will comment diat at the tack of the auditorium, 17 is activities as w deem necessary. Is here, there's a list of various evente that have taken 19 The global type inspectiot is not something that to lace at the plant; mishaps and so on. And that the 20 l'm aware of. It's not something that we plan. These 20 part of them have taken place with contract 21 plans are specific. When there's a need for it, we'll 21 who are poorly supervised.
32 do it. 22 in the newspapers in Ous area, ba:k in Novembe ,
23 MS. Fot.TZ: Are you with de NRC7 23 the management of Maine Yankee bragged that they were 24 MR YEROKLIN: Yes. 24 able to operate with one-half the average number of 25 MS. roLTz: So, in other words, the public has no 25 workers for the nuclear power industry for a plant their Page 69 Page 72 I recoune? The public has no recourse? I siae. It esc pes me why NRC cannot address this, 3 ML YERoKt1N: Tte public does han recourse I'm 2 Now, my firs' question is iust a - what Tommy 3 one of the resident inspectors at the site. The 3 Martin calls a housekeeping detat'l. Is dere a 4 telephone number for the itsident ofnce onsite is 4 ru ' now in progress or has a rule recently been 5 public information. Wlere the p'ublic has concems, we 5 promu about mintmum staffing at nuclear pour 6 set phone calls. You know,that s part of the recourse 6 stations 1 you have. But as far as telhng the NRC that it's time 1 MJL ZWOUNSKl: No.
s to do this global inspection, I don't think that - MR. SHADIS: Nothing in progress?
9 that's a difficult approach to take. Otf.erwise we'll be 9 ML ZWOUNSKl: Not that I'm aware of, to month. 10 ML SHADIS: And you would be aware of it, wouldn't 11 outWethere lookdoing at theglobal inspections proer m We assessevery,t.
i We leave 11 you?
12 special insuuctions when necessary. 12 ML ZWOUNSKl: I'm very Mll read on what tic 13 And just - you know, if de public has concerns, is agency has going on as far as its day-to-day operation.
14 ress it direct to the residents or to the 14 MR. SHADIS: Thank 15 if you exp!Tice regional o or to headquarters, and we try to is ML ZWOUNSKl: 7tu,you.s particular issue has not conc to address those concems as they come up, is across my desk.
19 MS Pot.TZ. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask one more 17 ML SHADIS: Do you have - is there any capability is question? It's a quick one and it's just - it's is or function within the NRC a: this point to assess 19 probably redundant, but a gentleman earlier asked the 19 whether or not a plant is adequatefy staffed?
20 question, and I somehov missed the answer. Is Maine 20 ML ZWOUNSKl: Followmg the accident at TMI, we 21 Yankee o 21 did, promulgate some rules in the area of minimum shift 22 capacity?penting at 90% or 100% of their designed 22 starlms for licensed reactor operators. But 23 ML ZWouNSKl: Maine Yankee is designed to operate 23 that, w did not promulgate a rule which d ta'.k to 24 at 2700 MWt. We'w placed - 24 the su, e of a maintenance crew, a health physics crew, 25 MS. PotTZ: Originally or with an upgrn:le? n an engineering staff, what have you.
Page 67 - Page 72 THE AEPORTING GROUP / Mason Lachart Hagopian & Rainsdell
Public St=g Re Maine Yamham Condesselt" 4/29/96 - Part 11 Page 73 Page 76 l Mt snrols People that are doing refueling, I not operch maki and I'm ren!! not trying to nail you,
' ' - I am trytag to 2 people that are reilthng pipes, and so on and so forth7 2 or anyduo6. but I m trying to 3 Tha't isn't mvaed? 3 get to a int here that speaks the facts. And you 4 MR. zwouN5c: The licensed tor population 4 workers ust might well pay attstion, hum, you '
addressed 5 tell you to go are the individuals that the know, sit in t hat room for a little dile aoyou get a little nas a s
caniakea s following the accident at Tul. s Mt sHADis: well I would suggest to just as 7 count tala on while the beta emitters y, they are 7
a an roterested citiam,,that you should get ing on a decaying into your lungs while you're sittmg around 9 that particular issue with this particular pl . You, 9 going duh, and thm I'm going to get counted later.
10 yourselves, have laid out that there is a pattern; not to So let's talk radiation protection because I know 11 only a pattern of poorly supervised confract employees, il that you all are concerned with it. You know, this 12 12 company -
butNowa pattern I have of needlessforworker a question exposures. health de esteemed is UNtorgnnto srtCTATOR: Ap 13 14 physicist. I'm sorry, sir I forgot your name. 14 Ray. Cet on with your question. preciate you Is ML rwouNso: Dr. Willis. Is Mt sHADis: 1 hank yoJ. Thank you. Thank you.
16 MR $HADIS: Dr. Willis. Sir if you w 16 In the first place,it's amanng, the 11 a few samples in the men's locker room,ere17to takelet's disingenuosness say, of of this panel. This is - this is =
is this facility, and you took some scrapings frort de is we'll stay with the radiation thing. Fine. Fine.
19 floor, and they were running and - and I'm sure you 19 Well, in fact, this panel is disingenuous. You've 20 don't measure them this way, but supp'osing were 20 quoted that the contamment was tested to 63 pounds running in the neighborted of, oh, let s :ay 21 which you neglected to mention was in 1969. I'd call 21 22 disintegrations per minute. What action wou you 22 that a fie by omission.
recommend if any? I mean,I know that's not real 23 ML Zwouwsu: Excuse me, sir.
23 24 sinnit..: ant 24 Mt SHADIS: Yes?
2s when we're, butlet's talking, what say, action a gammawouldemitter.you ruw.d7 And ML zwouwso: I'm sirnpha ret going to aliaw you 25 Page 74 Page 77 i Supposing it's a cesium 137 contamination. I to address us in that manner.
2 DR. WILus: well, Oc numter that you gave, the 2 Mt SHADIS: well, I apologi2e.
3 6000 dpm,is, you know half Oc equatmn. You've got 3 Mt zwouwso: Now if you have a question, please 4 to have an area to go with it, if it were 6000 - 4 ask your question, and let s move on.
ML $HADIS: Supposing you scsape up some crud and s MR. MtADIS: Yes. The mud flats opposite da plant s
6 it were 6000 dpm per kilogram of crud 7 Supposing it 6 in Davey Cove measured 6000 picafarads periods p:r 7 fell out from betwten people's toes, or something like 7 kilogram of radium - of oesium 137 - radioactive s that. Just in Oc ballpark here. Would you recommend s cesium 137 back in 1967. That was one year's 9 any kind of action whatsoever? 9 assessment. Twenty years have gone by. I'll give you to DR. %1t.uS: I think you're talking about fall out to half of it.
Il levels dere. ll Now, Mr. Dostic reported that the - in fact.
12 MR sHADI$: well is it igible in a nuclear 12 several of the fenced TLDs did exoecd de in ' ted power station or :.oti Or is - would there be a 13 dose of 100 million rems per year. We're shine is 14 recommended action? Would you scrub down Oc floor, is there, not inhalation dose. And that the extrapol ted is would you warn people, would they put a purple and - 15 figures for the workers on the flats that is de clam disse 1 and other members of the public outside of 16 whatevu color they call it - velow tape around there? 16 17 I mean, you are a senior health physicist, are you not? 17 Maine Yankee's domain, was 51 mr. per year.
In 1 hat should be at the top of your fe6d. l.ct's stop is Now, what I was trying to get to here was that NRC 19 screwing around and give me an answer. What would you 19 has failed to include Ocir skin-contact, inhalation, 20 do? 20 and ingestion doses along with that 51 mr., and I think 21 DR. %1LUS. I would 1%k at de requirements and 21 You would reach actionable levels in terms of protecting 22 follow dem. All right? You're askmg me a numter that 22 ihe public.
23 is not something that I nwmeriae or use every day. 23 The reason that I asked the senior health physicist 24 MR. SHADIS: Isee. 24 about the locker room is taause I think the public 2$ DR. %1Lus. 6000 dpm per kilogram is a measure of 25 should be accorded the same protection as the workers, Page 75 Page 78 I activity in solid materials, sad it would require some I and maybe more, because that's what regulation says.
2 kind of control for release. 2 That's why we have ALAaA rules,is that not correct?
3 MR. SHADIS: 50 how would you tanslate that by 3 Now, Mr. Ibstie, in the lut meeung we had.
4 saying an ingestion dose or a skan contact done? 4 admitted that he had not been inside the containment 5 DL %1LUS: It would be very small. 3 since 1988, and that the reason he ww not in there is ML 5HADIS: But would it require an action or 6 because he was concerned about ALAaA yes be allowed 6
1 would it be negligibic in a nuclear power station? 7 this condition to esist for owr a wNut s lhat's the question I'm asking you. s . reporting it to the public so that could take a 9 DR. WILUS: I'll get back to you on that. 9 choice as to wheatur or not to take that additional to MR. 5HADIS: Isee. 10 caposure.
Il MsL ZWOUNSKl: Thank you. Il That's my ctanment. I realbr don't have any 12 MR. sHADis: well, the reason I'm asking that - 12 questbns, if I wanted to hear the industry viewpoint, 13 and I'd like to continue this just for necana,if you 13 cv yours, waich in my mind are the sene, I'll read them 14 don't mind. 14 in the Portland Press Herald. Thank you.
15 ML ZWOUNSU. You've had the l1oor ror seven is uit rwouws.u aud,ey Ma,m?
16 minutes. 16 Ms MAnaA: I donated my time.
17 ML sHADIS: Well, part of that has been you le 17 het zwouwsu chris Ellion?
It wasting time not answmng questions. I woul te you is um.nuoTT: ni. I'm Chris Elliott. Maine 19 right now that - 19 Shellfish L.icense 1416, and I'm isot a profcssional 20 ML ZwouNsu: I'll take another question from 20 mbble-rouser and not a - auchar energy is someshire 21 you, and otherwise,I'll stop the metung 21 that I renUy newr wsnted to learn about, you know.
22 AUDREY MARRA l'll give him my tune. Atulrcy 22 But at some point, you know, I lost my faith and my 23 Marra. 23 e<mfidence in I.'.ame Yankee spokesman's releases and what 24 UNIDENTU1ED SPECTATDR: t2t him talk. 24 I was reading in the paper. So I staned to go down to 25 ML SHADIS. Thank you. I appreciale that. l'an 25 the document room down in here Wiscasses.
THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason lackbart Hagopina & Barnadell Page 73 - Page 78
I t
'4/28V96 - Part H t'and====It" PuWie Meeting Rs Maine Yankes rap 7, i issue.
N sf !
I l'!! try la hace my commentary short And over l
, 2 2 Ma. at.uoTT well, I'm seeing a lot of things % '
3 has, viele Gens;you know
, that1you sesauys a small listsut call ans. ofasesame 1 anfety 3 the rer, you know, tryisig to put the fear in u. M 4 werhed in doomment rossa, I started noticing hundreds 4 the sts art gau' g to go out here in the Northeast, !
I s reportable occzarences and L.Aas over the 3 and just would ime - oka .
- e of, years. youAndloow'a l really servo 6.s n'aht now. You know, a andAs far as this clam flats . some other people i
- 7 esposures, violations, emissons that esosaded the 7 bow asked some qu=mW that . I'd hke to know I e e why not taats - this is for Mr. Dostie herv ~ why no e
suydaha.
marted to lose And,fidence con in,the NRC itself a,s ayou knowtests 9 at some point you were actually doneknow,I in the flats, as I understand i
! le segulatory cosanaission. And that's of my little 10 the flats theesslves wasn't toned at all, and I i 11 lacsurt here. I'll start with a . 11 undermand you newr even put any boots on to go out !
i i 12 At what point did you test the ToobE.E code 12 thert. i
- 13 for ~ as a lar is And in my knowle5 of t% whole think the - you l 14 one question.ge break loss of coolant code? 1 hat's 14 know it's 2 anr. an hou'r,100 nr. a year. Pd W ,
is And did you. You know, accept it as it was put in, is to em to me is that - you haow anything
. 14 -you bancelly, the wsy I use it, that REl.APfYA was 16 abow isan you know,is that 17 Or did you actually entnqpolate and see if 17 needs to be reported commi on. Does -
4 le paar cladding temperatures and the containment and is the person actually how sq in an ,
- le - all the the problems that Wet havina with the anall 19 unprotected ares in order for those rates to be j 1 20 break code, you know as its applieslo 2700 Mwt? 20 escendsd? ;
And my nest MR. ZwouNsKl: Is that your final question? ;
. 21 a diameter break ~questlen is do you feel that21 a 73 inch 22 MR Et.uoTTi I have some mort here. I have qu,te i 4
- n. ML rwouwsK): we don't have with us the 23 a few questions.
24 information you desire as far as when we conducted the 24 ML zwouwsti: we'll be to take your ;
2s questions in wntina, then, and y'n to move on. We j 2s _ review of the toonEt code. ,
Page 80 Page83 I
I - ML Et.uo1Ti Okay. I will try to nive you an ansur to these questions.
2 MA. ZwouNsK): 1 hat would be in the summary of the 2 Would the state b to comment 7 i 3 someting. 3 ML DOSTtE: Surt. -[
4 ML Et.uo17: Okay I'll fited out. 4 Oka . The area of concern that we have for the !
s Do you feel that tfie 33 inch break is ustefor s mudfl andI'm ng to try to outline it with my pen i e a1 per end 6 here,is s aren ' m here. This is the small
, 7 of coolant break, you start the ~ which or the is,St'you know,tyou 7 cove that we're ng about that has actually affected a figurt that could happen? And d likeI'agest to knowbreak is that a this entitt area of the mudflats, it's a very small i e the maximum loss or coolant accident that could happen 9 area.
10 at Maine Yankee give- their 1700 ~ and I'm not certam 10 You'rt I didn't go out in mv boots. I'm .
Il the surface area or each stem generator tube ~ but 11 remiss in that. I should go out. But I have 12 given the large volume of repaired tubes? 12 taken dose rates al along over hert. I started frorn i u Ma zwouNsKl: 1he 33 - you're referring to the is across, around this cove, out 33 inch diameter ~ 14 here,liert over andnoing allelse, the and tasmtially bounded 14 il ML El.uo1T: 33 inch diameter pipe ~ 15 to some as to I wmnld consider a reasonable
- 16 MR. zwouwsKl
- - which is the cold les ~ 16 level to be lose to background levels. And it's ,
(
17 Ma Et.uoTT The cold leg. 17 spproximately across from here, this set of rocks, to
, le MR.ZWouNsKt. - on the rwn. Is that set of rocks right there.
1 19 MR. ELuoTTi Right, le Now I did not go out in the center to say that the 20 MR.ZwouNSKI. If you have the gVillotine break, 20 line was, directly acreas. That's the only part I'm 21 that is. it just snaps, completely apparates, that's the 21 remiss. But I have taken sewral snessuruments on 22 worst break that the plant can esperier,ce. 22 sevn occasions to see what Maine Yankee's reporting <
23 ML tt.uo1Ti The worst? 23 sad what I'm getting with my meter. And if you want to l 24 MA.rwouNsKl: Yes. 24 see my meter,it's nght there m tlW't bon. But I have 2s MR. El.uoTT Oscay. 2s taken sneasurements. Okay?
3 Page 81 Page $4 i l ML ZWouNsKl: That's called the large break loss i ML El.Uo1Tt 1 hank you, i 4
2 ch coolant accident, and that's what this plant is 2 ML ZWouNsKl: William l i 3 analyasd to at 2700 Mwt. 3 MA. PHINNEY: ocod evening question for you .
- 4 ML st.uoTTi Okay. 4 has to do with the ' process retriever
' has a hard time in two s ML rwouNsKl: And wt use that information to 5 -
, a formulate the basis for the safety rationale contained a steps, and I can generally the forecast T h our Order and Demand for Infonnation, 1 is.
s ML Etuorri okay. So that's the inanimum siae : My guestion to you is specific and short. and I'd
- e, break that could ' bly on any of the miles of - 9 h my tiene to be laken hi en answer, and I'd like that .
io- pipe that are in Yankee? Io . answer twofold. -
Il ML (VI.uws Well, that's the largest pipe in the in One I would like frosa, preferably, Mr. Frizzle.
12 reactor 12 Fan =am, hily how is it fenable to run this plant?
u ML . I'll go on with my ment - 13 And from you ==aears I would like to know 14 - question so I don't too much time. 14 legisucally how loan is a plant th,at functions this i l$ ML CotMNs. All 1) way, in comparificolo other plants that have been !
16 ML etuoTTi in ' of the three Millstones down is dana ===iamianart - how would you expect this plant 17 in the Haddam Neck - soon to 30 down,I ' you 17 to be continum' a in its 7 i
] le know, due to improper I'm if that is Ma.zwot.pdKl: I'll Mr. Frisale if he'd like l 19 leaves any preemare en Nac to 'conae Maine enkee 19 to comment i 2e ' for a power upgrade without any penalties and keep it 20 ML Patm economics in laterpretmg the plant.,th unshon wi l 21 anhas this mamuner? 21 to the plant is to operate well l 22 l'Il ao on to another question 22 its init 40 year license or not it !
- u. MalwouNstl. that's no connection between the . 23 .
continue to be economic to generate electricity l N activities at the Millstone she or at Hala- Neck vice 24 with Maine Yankee will depend more on what the . -
as - Maine Yankee. We treet once plant as a stand-alone as ahernativt sources of power are than on anythina to do Page 797 Page 84 : THE REPORTING OROUP/Maaos Imeihart Hagopian & m .a.ni
_ __i !
i
~
Publ3.c Meeting Re Maine Yankee Condenselt" 4/29/96 - Part 11 7 age 65 Page 66 I Gentlenen and lady, thank you for being lere. I'm Bob
. I with Maine Yankee.
ML PHINNEY: CDuld you a tefore you complete your 2 Metsell. I leave thrse miles fmm the 2
3 answer, could you tell me what your test estmate is of 3 Westport Island and I storp very thank well, you. plant ove 4 If a member of Maine Yankee management wtre i 4 that economic lorecast?
s MR rRIZzm idon't see anything on the horiron s ' suspected of misconduct, fraud, misrepresentation, I am !
right now with de ability to compete with Maine Yankee a sure leads would roll. Is Maine Yankee, the State of a
economically. 7 Maine or the NRc contemplatme any action, civil or '
7 s ML PHINNEY: Thank you. s criminal against de author of tre anonymous , )
ML ZwOUNSKl: To de technical aspect of de 9 whistleblowtr letter if dere's any perception of his or 9 ,
10 question of 40 year life de agency has, over the last to her misinformation or malicious intent 7 '
five years, developed what's called de maintenance 11 MR. ZwOUNsKE That's a thoug' t provoking question, and I must really defer that there's ongo,mg 11 12 12 13 ruleI and partonofalluelicensees fina imposition ratimateabout for its Ocgeresis country isand is mvestigations that I'm really not at liberty to this very isne of agin 14 discuss. And when the results of the investigations are 14 is effective July 1,1996.g. By the way, de rule is Is completed, individuals such as yourself, de entire 16 in so many words, as we conduct surveillances in is pubhe, will te made aware of ue results.
17 ther plants, as we check e 17 MR. MEtnt.te I have another comment in 20 words or is terform mervice testing,guipment in dese in service inspections, whatplants,is we less.
have you, of any number of components, de componems 19 I would urge de NRC,in de future, to please he 19 to are eiUcr repaired, taken out of service and replaced 20 very reluctant to put any senous consideration on 21 with rewer components. So, in 60 many words, dese 21 veryhing anyt to which De author did not have the personal 22 piteits are renewed as the maintenance program identifies 22 integnty to put his or her name.
shortcomings in various equipment. And it's not unusual 23 ML Zw0t.INsn I believe it's Nancy Anderson?
23 to see a great deal of the plant essentially changed out 24 MS. ANDERSON: I'm one of those 24 cwcr 20,25 yeait Any number of compotents are simply 25 worked hard to bring about nuclear ower in thep[cople forties. who 2s Page 86 Page 89 1 I was very much interested in it. Now I'm very much 1 replaced.
2 Dere was a lot of replacement that took place, for 2 interesteifin stonpi it. I'm a grandmother, I have wonderful gran 'l , I'm concerred about the carth.
3 example in de cabling area with Oc issums of de EQ 3 4 Rule m 1985, and rules such as that essentially drove 4 Now, here are the questions I have. Bey're still s the fundamental licensing bases of dese plants well s seeziving, I guess,60% of the fun.!ing that fhe United 6 teyond de 40 years. And thus you have Oc liceme 6 $tatcssovernment gives in subsidies. We voted fu that 7 renewal process, which can go lor an additional 20 ) cars 7 when I was young We put that through so you could have should a utility with to make application to the agency, a money to develon nuclear powtr. Could you tell me how e One of the comerstones of that particular rule is, 9 much that subsidy is?
10 i de maintenance rule. And a well thought 10 HR. ZwOUNSKl: I'm sor'y, I'm not sure I'm aware it well conceived maintenance program essentially ll of the particular law that you're referring to. I will 12 ident es the rapidity at which you tred to test and 12 say that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a fully 13 monitor each individual component system within the is fee recoverable agency, which means my salaries and that 14 entue facility. And you'll see that those are ver- 14 of all NRC emplo)Tes are essentially paid by the nuclear is robust and elaborate programs is industry. Each utility, on a per umt basis -
16 MR< PHINNEY: Do you have any speculation u this 16 MS ANDERSON: That's inteststing.
n point about what the full age of the plant rQd be when 17 MR ZWOUNSG Each utility on a per unit basis, is it comes to decommissionmg? Is is required to pay approximately $3 million per MR ZwOUNSM l'm not sure I under)tand your 19 not to tre NRC.
19 20 operating unit to de MS. ANDERSON: lederal Now, treasury,dustries are these in that have 20 qtestion.
21 MR PHINNEY: How far would that pmcess take you 21 to pay this amount to pay your salanes, are dev n in number of > tars? What's your test response at this 22 roxiving any funds towards building or repatring? Does 23 poini? 23 Maine Yankee receive any United States funds towards 24 MR ZwOUNsn I have no reason to think that this 24 repairing or taking care of their nuclear power plant?
25 plant will not be able to operate safely through the end 25 MR. ZwOUNSKI That question is really best Page 87 Page 90 I of its licenr:d life, as long as the licensee comports I answred by th: licensee themselves.
2 with all the rules and regulations. 2 MS. ANDERSON: 1he young man there from Maine 3 MR PHINNEY: Thank you. 3 Yankee. Maine Yankee can answer that question.
4 MK ZwouNSR That will te 2008,I'm told. 4 ML VANAas: I don't work for Maine Yankce.
5 John Demos? s ML Zw0uNSKI Do you have any Department of a Mt DEMOS: Actually I just have one brief 6 Energy or the oder govemment related funds?
7 question. If you could comment on the gap in data 7 ut rRIZZLE To the best of my knowledge, we a between the small break and the large break computer : receive no funding. '
9 model that we saw earlier, is that standard for de 9 MK ZWOUNSKI. I'm being told by Oc licensee that 10 industr>7 That's de only questian. 10 they've received no fundmgTrom other government 11 MR.twOUNSKI The gentleman's question relates to ll asp:ncies.
the small break LocA methodology and large break LOCA 12 MS. ANDERSON How much high le- waste do you 12 13 methodology, and Oc gap which w alluded to in our is have in store at Maine Yankee? Ar u know, higfrievel 14 eerher meetme. 14 waste is good for 20,000 years. Sr, my great great is if you recall, the licensee has performed analysis u arent gran&hildren will pmbably reum'bfe over that.
16 up to - for small break LOCA, up to a.certain size, and 16 Ilow much do yciu have m storage at the plant right now?
17 for a large break LOCA it starts at a mmtmum sue and n ML VANAGS. Are you -
le moves forward. And that will be an issue that w will is MS. ANIsERSON: Someone should give an answr to 19 pose to the utility,as we develop questions and begin to 19 that.
20 undertake our review. 20 ML VANAGS: I'm not Maine Yankee.
21 I think de appropriate answer though,is that 21 MS ANDERSON: No. Who's Maine Yankee?
22 there's usually a wll articulated, understanding and 22 MR. ZWOUNSE The actual high level waste that 23 captanation for de full spectrum of breaks. 23 you are alluding to, do I understand that to be spent 24 MLZSOUNSE Bob Meisell? 24 nuclear fuel?
25 ML MEtnu; tw been sitting too long. 25 MS. ANDERSON: That's right; high level wtste. All THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 85 - Page 90
1
'4/29/96 - Part U r'andsmaatt" Public Mastian Rs Maias Yankes
' t And I think that had better mart - :
s af k'. poner is what we mauy !
Ma.1wouMSIU And what's the total amabw of 2 ths'ak e' s 2
went fo'r the and let us take this annount,gf
- 3 aos that me curantly in the gent fhat pool for 3 wim and the e 4 anoney that we'st maaklMng nuclear 1 4 ' Yanhast is that the ausation7 nuclear indudry and use it on el weIWas,to s Ms. ANDSaSON Iwent Cines, s i
- Ma.tw0uNslu. I'm earfy7 6 that the young people who follow us on this earth will l a
Ms. AND$a80N. C tJ-a+E s, Curies 7 l
7 Ma.rwouMSW: Oh, Curies, s beso1 gefer' appreciate thinking about that. This is e
e a very tenaus .
3
. 9 Ms. ANDBasON: That's what I want. : Thank you.
to Ma. twouwsKl: t>nfortunately, that's a level of 10 Mk.zwou si Omichn Jasper?
j ti datau I simply don't have, but ensuy enough for us to Ms.JA80Ea My name is Oretchen Jaeger. I'm a incorporaes in the manunary of the meeting. 12 12
- . MS ANDBaSON: to there a Maine Yankee person here is senior at Waynflete School in Portland, and I live in
- 13 is who knows this? 1his is a thina. 14 Bath.
At the of March I read the Tirne Magazine is Ma.rwouwsW: n's the that is !
article are co
- is you would need one of their emperts.
Ms. ANDan3ON: There's no staff emparts for Maine Is 17 thus ~-Iabout whialeblonere. pies of it backAnd befo '
17 le just like to address, someone was in the is Yankee here tenisht? audianos, I beheve - or this gentissman was asying se Ma. rwouwse0 well, tim number ~ the number le ,
j so we how to 30 that this person doesn't - how can you believe ,
- ao i
newr a theframe like fresar ampberit andconstantly my at thischangea,d perio here's what 21 something when somebody doesn't have the inleyyty to at put their name on it Well accorda' g to that article, ;
22 4 22 - the enount is oeuni to. people baW been blacidi le nsW lostjeg
' Ms. ANDEasdN. This man ~ tomr young man 23 23 said to ask you is it 200 24 le have been harassed, bonuses. And I ve 24 here handed me something i udllion Curies of high ' J waste? You sfon't know? 25 to -ale who were involwd in the 1hree Mile as Page 95. -
Page 92 !
Island disaster; people who worked on the leont team.
1 L 1~ Here's my next questim, which is even more i 2 That was the year I was born. And the fact that it's i
2 important. stillJoeng on scares me.
Ma. ZwOuNsKle Dut I want to answer your question, 3 not woman wamed me, when I came here tonig~ht, she 3
4 4 en that you know what I'm doing. said, you know,IWiK out for college i because Ms. ANDensON: All fight. s 6 if your name goes on a f list this is ng a Ma. twOuNsKl: We Wdi get the answer and il Will i
7 wu can worry about. And that may be unsubstantiated, 7 he part of the meetina summary and you'll see it there. j s Ms. ANDrasow: 1 hank you hat's kind. s ba she was out on a list and she was denied certain L Now, there's a law before Congress this e things that she consiP~l n'ahts.
e minute that I'm very disturbed about, we, the to Anyway, my aues' m is, has there ever been a small 1 to of our country, are moing to 11 break loss of coolant accident m the United States?
- il citisens and the That's what we're discussing here tonight. Has there l 12 pay to ship 16 is vel waste to a place called 12 13 Yucca - Yurca . And it's going to go across our is ever been one? -
l Ma.rwouwsKl: That's what occurred at TMt.
14 i 14 nation us.JAnoen: Okay. Since we know that that's what is Now,in)'I gw.4, trains.m weied about this. I'm sureisif something and these systems are still bei happens to one et ' hose trains people are going to be in 16 occurred le - ' Yankee 17 ysars later, haven't 17 questioned at
. 17 senous trouble. TVs is not a little waste. This is ions been taken that could have been at i high level waste ~ is i- Is Ma. ZWOuNSKl: Yes, ma'am 19 Mile Island as well, and that still aren't being ,
le taken in this area, such as nonradioactive iodine pills i 30 - Ms. ANDEasoNi - that lasts for 20,000 ) ears. 20 21 to block ~ radioactive iodine can be released, and when l 24- Ma.zwouwsKJ: Yes. caught in the thvmid - the thyroid is very sensitive n Ms. ANDEasON: It's going to be hauled across our this week, 22 n to radiation. When radioactive iodine goes there, it i n country to Yucca,if they getthe law this 24 can cause thyroid cancer and thyroid problems, as it has 4 24 're working on it to try to get it in many ==le emW to radiation. Why haven't these ;
as . This is not at your expense, this is at our 2s Page 93 T.,; 96 I sapense. As tampeyers of this country, we're goins to i pills been providad?
2 At ihree Mile Island the official response was that ,
he shipping this weste. Are you at ar, concerned sibout 2
3 they didn't went to scare people before the accident.
- 3 this? after the accident, radioactive iodine has a . i Ma. rwouNsE1
- 1tse agency has under staff review 4 4- And then,f under 10 days, so it would require acting l s right now and we're actually got'ag to V---% a s half life o '
number of dry cask containers that you me hawIheard of 6 fairly quicidy to ewn menswe.
- 6 ' However,in PWassylvania no regi or an
- i. 7 earlier, that are ;c 7 ,sle. And thus, 7 was op up to Lisesrrr.ine wbsther or not were ~
F e multifunctional.1 hey can runnin at the si for a e a in tvnically by 9- le were arrected by tb d caxer or e- period of time, and then ansity be I think that m any aren a train. They're dual purpose. And Met to or birth defecis.
is it seems to sue that there should be some kind of 1
4- ll you con I i 12 rulemeldas, sertamly provide which
=====a is currently under way,ify of those as to the inesp 12 registry so that we're at least marking what the effects 13 are.
is ans ca. And I'm just curious what kinds of pe=a='laan are <
will share with you that I ass aware that they are 14 14 as . : dessend in vocegniten of sonne shpos of accident. I is in place, became certanly it's questiosable that there 46 omenot recite to you the various parameters the casks is were some that could beve bnen taken at ihree Mile -
to,bouvver. 1sland and weren't. And I'm hoping that we've lemmed ,
17 se 17 is from our mistakes since then. So I'm curious, what is l 1a . Ms. i Now, my last aammas= I'm married :
it ' to a wonderful retired colonel in the Manne Corps who - it in place now? I as ; went to observe a nuclear test at Desert Rock 5, where 20 MR. zw0uNst. lat us discuss potassium iodide.
21 is the '
2' - they put off a blast where there was a row of about 30 - DR. wit.us well, the b issue, of course,ilowewr, thyroid center, and it's ' y a conoom n ' ' this oolenets to me if these colonels could live through and them aa=====t the troops. He has suffmed for 22 u the evidence for the thyroid cancer is not wry great. ,
23- Marshall Islanders have showed some thyroid cancer. :
many, many years. He's had brain tumors, he's had 24 24 we're hearias about some thyroid cancer in the very 2s t' as e skin---- i He's had a terrible time.
- Page 91 - Page 96 -
THE REPOR11NO OROUP/Manoa Lockhart Hagopina & Ran=adall
l I
Public Meeting Re Maine Yankee Condennelt" 4/29/96 - Part II !
Page 100 I Pag- 97 s young people around Chemobyl; but, in general, there i country. And the biggest portion of that was emergency l 2 ham't teen a 'or problem in that area. 2 plannmg. And it laid out a detailed way of how it was 3 The use of sium iodide was certainly 3 unplemented, how tie states were involved, how the local I
4 considered, it was decidcd that it wa; a far less 4 commumties were involved. 1 s effective rrechanism for protecting people than 5 And at a previous job that I had, I went around the 6 6 State of New llampsfure and in Maine laying out 7
evacuation, purpose, andbecause htassium that is protect io6deBut de thyroid. onlydeserves one 1 facilities and assisting the state and all de agencies. l 8 th p oid - 6 So I think it would spend a little time to really look 9 MS. JALGER. But the evacuation was voluntary. e at wkt de State of Maine has and what your community ic DR wit 11s so would the taking of potassium to hat i iodide te voluntary. : Ms. J AEGER: Well, I appreciate your response.
12 Ms JArctR: put it wasn't provided it was 12 MR. ZWOlJN50 to y'ou have a final question 7 available to - dey had asked that it please be Ms. JAEGER: Yeah, I m interested - this is is 13 is distnbuted in that arta, and Three Mile Island - 14 somewhat unrelated, but I'm interested in your saying is whoever de authorities were at Three Mile Island denied is you had statistics that no significant or damagmg 16 that there was any need for it, so it was not made is amounts of rad ation at Thrce Mile Island. wcil, what available. 17 about the NRC's involvement in llanford, Washington. It 17 le Dn ult.tJs we have data on what radioiodine was is wasn't a power plant, it was actually a nuclear arms 19 released from Thrte Mile Island, and it simply wasn't 19 plant. But I'm concerned - I rnean, that is still a 20 enough for it to te a reasonable conxrn. So potassium 20 form of nuclear cnergy and it concerns nuclear 21 iodide was not distnbuted then. 21 contamination.
22 As far as present plans, we still do not stockpile 22 And I'm just curious what actions have been 23 taken - what actions were taken then, when tic General 23 24 potassium iodide for it's limited in effectiveness, thevery reasons, difficu really,lt to getthat it's Electric 24 very plant in llanford, Washington, wu releasing 25 distnbuted at the nght time. It's effective if, and 25 very large does of radiaaon into the atmosphere. It Page 98 Page 101 only if, it's administered just before or shortly after I contaminated farms and civilians in that area, and there i
2 the exposure. If de exposure takes place and you get 2 have teen very high rates of thyroid cancer and birth 3 defects, as well as leukemia, in that area. And I'm 3 the potassium iodide to a 4 you re wasting your time. person a few hours4 later, curious to know what de NRC's position is on that and 5 One of the great advantages that de American s what action was taken.
6 public has, however, is ' hat first, unhke Chemobyl, if 6 M1 ZwOtJNsKl. Thank you for your question.
7 there were a radioindme releme, we would, as the 7 DR %1tlis: well, of counc, the NRC did not Dntish did in 1957, control de milk. But that's the s exist, nor did any other regulatory agency of de kind 9 way de " 9 cKist wIrn llanford was lieing first operated dunng the 10 MS JAIGIR But the milk was consumed at Thrte 10 second world war. Ilowever, as far as (le dire effects la Mile luland, and dere was potential for it to have been 11 that you're a!!udmg to, de data are oderwise.
12 contaminated 12 MS JAEGI.R. That's not true. I'm Lorry, that's I) DR WiltJS The radioactive iodite was not 13 cot true, sir.
14 released in sufficient quantity to cause a problem at 14 DR. %1t115: Senator Kennedy demanded and got a is Three Mile Island, and when we had the measurements, we is study dcne by the Natiraal Cancer Institute, which 16 knew. 16 neither the NRC nor the I artment of Energy had 17 Ms. J AEGER: I see. What about evacuation? There 17 anythitig to do withi and concluded that there was is was a fairly massive evacuation at ihree Mile Island. 18 no discemible ill e!!ects.
19 What evacuation possibilities does this area have? ! 19 Ms. JAIGER: I'm sony, sir. I'd like to step 20 was looking over de NRC and the Maine Yankee maps 20 down, but I'm going to have to address that. That's 21 carlier today, and there are app.uximately 19 towns 21 untrue.
22 within a 10-nute tone which could te n!1ected by an 22 l'd like to ask you how radiation exposure of 23 accident. 23 workers at MaineYankee compares with the rest of the 24 Now, I'm curious what the - you're looking 24 industry? Can anyone answer that question for me.
25 confused I was looking on the Intemet today, and 1 25 MR. zwOLINSK : we're moving on.
Page 99 Page 102 I accessed the NRC and Maine Yankee, and dry provided i MS. JAEGER: I'm sorTy, sir. That was not true.
2 maps and so on saymg that there are 19 towns within 2 What you respond:d to me was not true. There were 1 this 10 mile radius that could be affected. I didn't 3 docummted cases of extreme radiation exposure at 4 see any plans for evacuation should there be an 4 llanford, Washington; into de livestock, which means 5 accident. 5 into the food cham, which affects a much wider 6 DR. %TLLt$: I can assure you that Maine Yankee, 6 population. In the stretch between llanford and Walla 7 like every other operating nuclear powtr plant in du,s 7 , Wa'lla, Washington ~ in Washington state. And this was
- country.has an evacuation plan which is not only on s going on - Ceneral Electric was staffed b Pentagon 9 paper, but whien is ~ where they go through drills and 9 oflicials. There was a connection there. was a 10 caercises, so the state pegic and de utility people 10 large c(nee of radiation -
si know what to do. ML zwotJNSu As Dr. Willis said, the NRC is 12 MS. JAEGER: But citizens don't know what to do. 12 simply not involved with the Department of Energy 13 l've rever heard this mentioned. 13 program, and 14 DL wit 11s: They usil te inform:d Believe rne. 14 MS. JAEGER: He said that there were no -
t$ MS JAEGER: Okay. I'll finish this u 15 ML zwollNSKI And the study le cites from I ha\e 16 One other thing that you were saving p quickly. 16 no reason to question. If you want to resiew the study if ML OLsEN. I d like to respond to, a little bit 17 and corresponci with us, we'll be more than happy to is earlier, your qtestion. is respood to you.
19 MS. J AFGER: Yes. 19 1 really must mose on.
20 ML Ol3EN: You wtre talking about that TM] really 20 MS. JAEGER: All right. Well, then, would you 21 didn't bring out any results in ue NRC's eyes. And 1 21 please answer roy question, Dr. Willis? Ilow does the 22 think the ansstr to that is totally different. The NRC 22 ex of wVriers at Mame Yankee compare with he 23 created a document called Ntmmc737,which is the TM1 23 ional level?
04 Acuan Plan, which dictated 1700 items to be 24 ML zwotINsK1: 1 hank you for your question. We'll 25 nocomplished at nuclear power plants throughout the 25 put that as part of the summuy THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIngopisu & Ramsdell Page 97 - Page 102
. _. - . - - - . = . - _ . . - - - - . - - - - - _ - -
'409/96 - Part II Condesselt* hvUc Meeting Re Maine Yankee Page 106 Page 103 ML 2 Aloft uank you very much, sir. ML zwotmsu To answer that question, nobody can j
(
- l Ma. zwotasu we don't have an answr to tell you 1
2 assure that something will never happen ever. As to de i 2
3 c2 this time. 3 airplane industry or automobiles, or wtat have you, 4 thm's sone risk associated with everydu,ng we do in l 4 Peter Di ~ DiGirolamo? life. And thm is a probability associated with a s ut DiotnotAwo nat's okay, s owsible accident at this facility, albeit extremely 6 un.zwotmsn iapologiac. 6 7 ML DiGinotAMo. Wat's all right, it's a foreign 1 low. But it's never going to be acro.
s language. s ML DicinotAMo. when you say extremely low, is the V.R. zwotmsn Can you pronounce it for me? 9 Drobabihty of an accident in a nucicar power plant less 9
10 ML DiGIRotAMo: Yes DiGirolamo. 10 than a probability of an accident in a car?
In I think it takes a lot olcourage to get up here la ML zwotmsn well ~
and 12 ML DiGIRotAMo. I think there are very few nuclear 12 and speak out against something that already exists,dis do powr plants and there have been several accidents. And I thank the people that have de courage to come an is when you count the numbers of cars, then compared the 14 that. 14 is I feel like ~ l feel like we have you guys under is two. But before ~
our thumbs here. We're putting the pressure on you. 16 un.zwotmsn You're making to compare apples and 16 17 And you're supposed to be representina us. And I imd 17 oranges as far as frequency is that it would be absolutely impossible Tor you to do is un. DioinotAM0; sut you can't promise me that, 19 that wten you'IM getting, pressure from us. And you're 19 that's my point.
20 ML zwotmsu I cannot be sure that nothing could 20 supposed to be representmg our safety, controlling de ti nuclear power people and wtat they 80 for us to create 21 happen at this plant or any other plant. What I can energy. 22 provide you is that this is do ~
22 '
Mn. DioisotAMo: - every possibly can to n Bot I drive across the bridge here. And when 1 23 make sure it doesn't happen. I that. But 24 first moved here and found out about this 24 2s years ago, 'I used to drive over and theitbridge was ~ 2splantthat's about 17 enough Tor me. I don't want to drive a not good Page 104 Page 107 I a lot smaller then ~ and look out over there at that I dragstr. I'd rather drive a vw,okay? I don't have big brick buildmg and the power lines coming out of it. 2 one of those, eider. I've got a Dodge Dakota.
2 3 and I thought, wow that's Maine Yankee. It doesn't 3 um.rwoums. You have -
4 look too bad. And I imagine that is some kind of a 4 um. t'ioisotAMo. aut that plant out there, that one s or a transfer station, or s that w drive by and look at and looks very benign, a
power somethmg. plantAnd out there, it loo ks a whole lot tr,tter to me than 6 thee is no issue. Time (s no high level waste. :
7 to have to have a commission, to have to have a lot of 7 There's just no isim No one even cares that it's out 1 there. Most peopic probably haven't even noticed. If l 8 upset people, on eider side, discussing something that s 9 is creatma waste that we really haven t figured out 9 ewryone knows it's there,I'd be surprised.
10 what to (o with yet. to And thm the second issue is is thare anything ll And everything that we do with nuclear pour has ll being done - if there were an accidet, wtuch this is 12 only been gomg on for a short time. And what we 12 an if, w're all s aned on that, or w wouldn't be here. 1 discover is new things. Chernobyl was a new thing. 13 If this is an issue and if that were to happen, and it 13 14 hree Mile Island was a new thing. And tlere was people 14 has happened in other places in the world, including l 15 that died there. I don't know if dere's anybody here is % country, what happens? l 16 that knows any of those people. 16 I mean, is our pour - the amount that w're 17 If anything did happen at Maine Yankte, Midcoast 17 paying relative to the places that these accidets have i Maine would be absolutely devastated. ' rnean a major is hop - in other words, if Maine Yankee are to burn is 19 accident. 19 i out, w beve to go on to sceneshmg clac. Why 20 And I would like to know that you people who - and 20 dnn't w ust look for scmeshing? Why doesn't the 21 1 know there's a lot of yot here that are for Maire 2 Nuclear tory Commission er sonne other commission, 22 Yankee. I don't know if you work there or ~ l just 22 er same of shoot of you, be appointed to come up with some sort of solution to mow on frtun this, so we don't n don't understand you, to te honest with you. 23 24 Bist can you promise me that this won i happen? I 24 how to sped our time and our m<mey doing this, so we 25 live within Five miles of the plant. We have a 25 can ses out of Maine Yankee and on to someshms ehe, f Page 105 Page 108 I commission - and you're just people. I talked to one I and get started on that now?
2 of you ~ talked to several of you. You're just people. 2 Ms zwotmsta to the Reorganization Act of 1974, 3 A fot of 3 whm the Atomic Energy Commission was broken into 4 worked nuclear,m,yousubs actually or things,- IIdon't think youm said ex know, Navy 4 -
essentially two - prior to that Reorganintion s develop,mg nuclear weepons. I have no idea. It sounds $ Act,the Atomic Commission was an advocate or a 6 like we ve hired the DA to te our defen 3 lawyer. But I 6 y,vpa.a.t for nuc power, as well as other energy 1 understand,you also have to have de technical knowledge 7 sources At that time w broke into two distinct a to do your jobs. ies. One was called the Nuclear Regulatory 9 But I have horses. And when you've been around a 9 'asion, which is not an advocate one way or the to horse enough, you'ic not ofraid of them anymore. You 30 to oder. We assure that safe operation occurs at thes:
It under them, you go over them, you do whatever you have il facilities.
12 to do. You can kick them when they try to kick you. 12 But the other organization that evolved, the Energy is But if you've been around these things enough, ) Research and Development Agency, now it's Department of 14 longer afraid of them. And there is a lelot of , you're 14 no Energy, spends billions of douars on alternative energy is around here that haven't been around tlese s very is sources. And that's where you're tax dollar is gomg as 16 much, and don't want to be, is far as alternate methods to nene=* other if And so I have two questions. O a 17 techniques, whether that be geosciences, geo' 1, is nothirig will happen? NothingAnd magr.
I would you likepromise is me solar, wix1, of that nature.
19 that piomise. I would like it m writing. I would like 19 You may I that during President Carter's 20 to e able to go to you and bold you responsible.1 20 administration there was quite a mandate to seek 21 would like to be able to i old sc aeone responsible. 21 alternate energy sources, and that's the agency that's 22 he:c has t'Jen mr.ny, many seriously cnpphng and even 22 responsible for that.
23 thogs that nave killed people in this country that have 23 De NRC,our area of sibility,is assurmg 24 beesi donc I y large companies. No one is usually held 24 the safe operation of not Maine Yankee, but all 25 accountable. 25 nuclear power plants in s country. We have other Page 103 - Page 108 THE REPORTING GROUF/ Mason Lockhart Ha5@an & Ravandmil
I l Publis Mestiss Rs Mains Yankes condomselt" 4/29/96 - Part H j Page 109 Page 113 ;
I 'bilities =an%ith the use af auelear i ut mast: Can that data *oe inade available, then i 2 s that are in other omcas, but our 2 to the public. f" 3 mandate here at this table is the nafety of 3 Ma. otseN Most of it should be in the public 4 senceers. 4 da=====e room now.
5 Ma. DiolaOtAMo. The of these rencWors. 5 ML sasT: . Thank .
s .I that happens here. I s Ma. zwouNs taanard :
? y do .I that would be absolutely 7 ML DUFF % First of all,I'd to say this !
e devamated anytlues did. s scares the hell out of me, and I'm sure it does a lot of 6 s Ma.zwouwsn iunderstand. 9 other And it annases me how many peo ML DioinotAMo And to be honest with you,I lo show
. And it also annases me ~ now m I'ple did to II- rently - it makes me nervous, and I'd appreciate inoving 11 - the number of le that are applaudina 12 on to something else. And I'm sure everyone will find 12 1 heir are by the nuclear indus'iry i 13 some lasitable work to do, in that or in something else. u in some form oranh=, =probabl it be Maine Yankee or '
14 14 whatever, is ML Best Paul rwouwsu of South Bris thank E7. is Now the pantleman or the individuals that work for !
16 ML sesTi Hi. My name is Paul Best, B ES T, le the "ac,ther *eleries are paid oy the nuclear power ,
- is that correct 7 i 17 South Bristol. 17 oc-is I how a question which is a segue from speaker is zwouwsn 1he Nac receives its payroll from ;
le ausnber 9, and I dichi't get her name. But specincelly, is e federal govermnant. We're t to ng back online with the sierve tubes, what te eloyees. So we receive our from Uncle Sam.
21 code was used. Was that before the setDCA.the hea. Bast: Then I must have nu sonne 22 break IDCA? Was it the mELAPSVA or was it this .. infornmion. e t
23 - new code, which I undesviand is - I think is the one . 23 ML zwouwsn if I might clarify an earlier 24 that's being conducted by Siemens Could that question - 24 wenment, to hel 25 he answered right now? 25 .ee-recoverable,p. Since our agency is fullythe in; Page 110 Pase 113 i ML ZWouNsu The licensee repairsj their three i But they don't write us a Cbck, they send the check To 2- steam generators in 1995. 2 the Department of the T as part of their annual 3 M L sEsT: lu'sht. 3 fees and our fee billing. So we perform technical '
4 Ma.ZwouNski: when restaried in January of 4 such as the review we'll code AEtAPsYAwas reviews do on the of licenset anall material,if we work on thet 200 or break (DCA, s this year we had determined 5 6 le for use for small break tDCAs, thus we 6 500 or 1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, the licensee will receive a bill a power penalty from 2700 down to 2440 to 1 from the for that 1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> at a certain rate i
7 the fact that the small break tDCA methodology a bour,and anoney will go to the Treasury ,
e 9 was unacceotable. . 9 t.
10 Mt sE8h was that safety factor to take lo addition i 11 into consideration the fact t instead of smooth bore 18 amount of mon, ey foreach licenseeunis required to pay a each operetteg 12 tubes in the steam generator, that you now have a 12 anke of the fact that it exists, into the is - in is So there's two ways to put money into :
14 tube inside~diameter sleeve tubes which how with a resultant an abrupt change chasse,d m the riui 14 One, the licensee fias its reactor; it must pay c is dynamics and 114 possibility of a change in the natural is appronunately $3 million to the federal Treasury per 16 frequency of those tubes? What kind of safety factor is umt. There's 6 bout 100 opers'iria reactors, so me 17 was there involved there? in the - 11 Treasury receives about $300 million.
Is ML cot.uNs: No the fact of the ' resulted is The rest of our resources are accumulated via this ,
19 in the removal of se,v eral plugs that were i the sicam 19 billing system in which all technical reviews are paid 20 ponerators. So, as a result, there was a grouer flow 20 for. Anil that money also goes to the Treasury Our annual budget is approximately $450 million. ;
21 area when they were done sleeving than before they 21 '
22 sleeved. 22 ML DUFF % i see. itjust seems to me that
, 23 ML BEST: I'm not talking about the total flow 23 there's a loop there that s very bizarre and it 24 area. I'm talkins about the distinct flow area or the 24 shouldn't be. It shouldn't exist. I'm sure there's 25 possibility of a c'hange in fluid dynamics in each - in 25 things that connect that loop that you're not telling me Page111 Page 114 i en individual tube. Take it as a microcomm, the one I about and a lot of people aren't unaware of. Maybe it's 1 tube which has a discontinuity because of the sleeve in 2 my -
J the inside diameter. What happens right et that stress 3 ML ZwouNsu rm certainly not trying to misiend 4 point 7 What happens with respect to the calculations 4 you in any way.
$ ror book stress, for example? 5 ML DOFF % Tm not that.
6 I smight say this: I'm not a professional ,- 6- Ma.rWouNsu The t of Treasury is a 1 Tm a retired attorney, but my was 1 wholly independent agency than the NRC. They re the
- e a mechanical ' andI y my way - . folks Ihat provide the money for other federal agencies 9 law and tube heat - 9 to pay their employees. So all of us receive lo- en .- So I don't the answers, but I can at to esamtially the same type of paycheck. -
18 loam the question. 11 wa.DUFFw okay 12 MR, cot.uNS. I wasn't involved in the specific 12 - MR. ZwouNSE And, by the way, all that is la s of those tubsa, so I can't giw you en answer n throtgh '
in the normal appropriations as to what 14 now. 14 the ulumane for our agency will be.
Is ML asst: Okay. Can there be an answer is - ML DUFFw I see. It iust seems to me, again, 16 f ' when the final analysis is lened? 16 that there's a i therelhet shouldn't be. +
1 11 ML , rd like to respond to that _
17 Another on. Is Maine Yankee presetly -
is the steam sleeving project, all of that is ML . sacuse ene one minute. On that loop l
.It = was at by the NaC ama by Maine Yankee, and the 19- vou're talking about, a few years back people ,
20 - results indicsed that it was proper to sneeve and that 20 that,lar to you were complaining that the taxpaye a'nu 21 the tubes and the entire structure would take the repair 21 ' nuclear power. I tlunk it may' renale to 22 and with no problems. 22 that other 's mmmmt, which was askmg what kinds 23 > If you need that data, I know it's available. 23 of subsidies. So people just like 'f were raising 34 because it's been in several of our insp=*= rzports 24 concerns that the taxpayer was the nuclesir
. as durian the last cycle. 2s - power plants So the fee billian symem was set up so .
THE REPORTING OROUP/ Mason v nart Hagopian & it .a. 1 Page 109 - Page 114
Coodstasit*' PuMio Messima Rs Males Yankes
'44986 - Part H Fay 115 Page115 for the liesamt So, ownstl l 1 est es inspeyer wouMn't have w psy, ethnisselseest i esassdsd by Maine Yankes.y,Andthe 'm there limit is not a smaandy, so I elsk k hind of selsess, s' i
possettel that in the haue them be sa swounes* Theek you, John. 3 s l sa aum, esseuss of es isok of censumed am 4 reques for inmensing the asaned. 'm not myug 4 but ensei tamance will asw to ;
s that's ' le s b els resen. I'm sannine to semi las Devid and y to answe that the lisait is not be i- Oshee. And you may Ini C s esas ta_ yew position, as a 6 I 1 usE. whmi k semos to es appestaien. But anywey,I'll 1 emessded 's the sist of it. -l s Ma.NouMsKI Do y'ou have a final question?
! s move om. ML DUFFY: Yes. but s see. Am them psademen l is Maias Yamles passady encendug es designed 9 9 or ladies that work for the NaC that weg ongently, lismies for es semaninsant pool for es spent fusi mds? 10
. le let's any,involvellin promoting nuclear is es =h pool for es weses pool, or whotsvar il years l 11 I ase ]
- 12 yen west to seu it, for es spent fuel rods -
na swas.neou: its spent fuel pool and to t 12 is promota,a g nuclear raise et, saling hands how many peo nuclear i
- 13 quergy 7 Can I see a of hiands,just i fusipool syssum em designs. 14 14 in est spent fuel Is for curiosity?
. Is have esas of .
has has ever werbed, thm. Okay. I can i Is They's stomed e es nin apunemy vis liosass is j l tabe that, 17 ammeimat ha, we how eviewed and approwd whoever 17 i
the amount of fuel is tot is in est pool. Is One more question, please. Just one more.
is ML ZwouNsKl: Your question about the old Ateenic le Ms. overy: wlma was the most noemt a- e to 19-J as est limit for est pool?
4 to Enu old gy Commission and were any of us employe al- na twouNeeu.1%S lost amendgant to approw !!
22 Mt DUFFY: I diabi'l any the old Atemic Energy 22 addinosal fusi in the.t pool was in 1994, 23 us. DUrFv And what is the actual perom. ar over 23 Commission. , '
24 MLZWOuNsKl: Y str. '
24 es or%inaldesiend limits? 25 ML DUFFY: Ijust haand on what l'W been j 25 na ewouwseu You'#e a det's a level of s8.asin - Page i19 !
Page 116 1 i sendmg in articles ~ and I haven't been involved in that we're not prepared to get into. I j I any group or an 2
MA DUFFY: eve rund it various tin.;lun and 2 downwind '
ofs thi,ything Iliw in Sheepecott. I'm .
3 monster.
3 there, in articlo and thinas, and it san ns e me thr ; ML ZWOUNsKl: Okay, i
there should be sommeneTuse still, who dne. n't
- lve 4 L 4 s MR. DUFFY: I don't know if are, And I'm a ;
$ anaewhere to no, who can answer that questin. ion.
a little conostned about that q 6 Ma.ZwoudsKl: 1here's a tremendous amount of !
1 information that we're tryina to cover on a broad front, 7 ML ZWOuNsKl: Of the individuals that are still i
I don't have lhe number at my hand. I e on the maff who worked with the old Atomic Energy !
s Commission they work in the regulatoryside of tiiie 4
9 and willincludeI'm sorry$e t number in the meeting summary. I 9 i
didn't say I couldn't get the number for you. 10 not the promotional side of it, ne promotional
! 10 spency,ke ade bro off and ultimately became the Department of f il Ma. DOFrY: Okay. But you're aware that they're 11 exceedins the designed limits? 12 Energy.
12
- 1) uk. DurrY: I see. So none of you gentlemen were i is ML ZWouNsKl: Idon't helleve that to be involved personally in 3 14 accurate. In other words, wtan the agency issues a 14 hasjust informed me License anrndment - Is Ma.ZwouNsEJ: this 15 is that at one time he for the Department of Energy. :
i is ML !
17 Ma. DUrrY:
ZwouNsKI: Okay, - t his is one of those technical 17 - Ma. SUN: Yes.
is reviews I was referring to. The licensee performed an is Ma.ZwOuNsEJ: And so did Summer Sun. '
le analysis. performed a wey caenprehensive review. They is M DUrrY: I see.
y ML DUFFY: I see.
tupplied it to the NaC for our review and ap 20 ;
ao Ma.ZwOuNsKl: That would not be unusual, to h8ve 21 Dat's an independent review and approval. 21proval. our staff have a diverse set of backgrounds. i ML DUFFY: Okay. 22 22
' Ma ZwOUNsKl; we apparently reviewed and approved 23 Ma.DUFm No,I spee. Renanmg in the field, i 23 l 24 One more quick question.
, 24 . and issued an amendment in 1994. The fact that I don't WE ZwOUNsKl: Yes, j 25 have the details of the amendment, we can surely provide 25
+ Page 117 4 120 ;
I that. I ML DUFFY: 1he amount of reds or the amount of radiation that any one individual can handle in a sum!I :
2 Ma. DUFFY: Okay Mr. Frimle ~ 2 I
ML YanoKUN: I'd like to add something to that, 3 period of time, that amount has been doorensed radically 3
over the last, say,10 years, un I correct? The last 20 -;
4 . I think I need to make it clear that currently 4 Yankee is not emmedin s years?
e = bass for their ment fuel pool.g any of their hesnans 6 DR.witus: what we've done is limits.1he ;
Ma. Durry: Present license? - 1 mmount of risk ===ari=aani with a parti unount of i
?
" Ma.Yaa0KUN; Pneset heenseJ And that's what you a radiatage hasn't partncularly obenged The ~ :
e ?
e - have to go back now ~ the t'a===> probably allows more 9- Ma DurrY: In who's excuseam?
10 than it was in the . But the current license, which to . Da.wiuJs:The ' namsmmi . This ~
ar.d approved by the NaC, Maine Yankee it it's hard to charactanas how many are involwd
. t has base in Vienna a 12 is currently within that. 12 in this. Thee were 1400 of us in a I assume, and the 'u le of weeks ano addressing these issues. It's a 13 - -ability ML DUPPY: put snoreAnd into the licones,l than was originally14:
the poo area oiseud :
Ma. DUFFY: Yeah. y.
64 15 was on the basis that there was an is !
or an in the ability to keep thoes rods - is Da.w Lus: And I think weprobably as the '
16
' 11 National Academy of Science has said a, number of years 17 - i is Ma Yan0KUN; That's otruec.,1he license ~ l is ' ago, that radiation is the best naderstood anytronmental to it in emple tornas, is based on being able _ to I w. ed there is, because it has basa studied so long and ,
4 to - ;
so
- ' the pool at some temperature limit tilow 20 . t as eens limit 1he number of fuel you have in the pool 1 21 -ML
- eut we still don't have a law '
21 22 - esuid be a basis for insnesing the amount you ces put . 22 store the wome. That's the biarve thing Io me.to -
as . . in them, as isng as the temperesure limit is 23 Again ~ .
M 24 : an.w Lus. well, political probisen are not " ,
mahemmed.. ~
ML DurPY: n's not solitical. I'm not a as not realli the sianal of what you out the basis' as 11EB REPORTING OROUP/ Massa Lockhart Hagspian & n mind it Pass 115 - Page 120
Public Meeting Re Maine Yankee Condosioelt" 4/29/96 - Part 11 Page 121 Page 124 e political pman. I Just want - you know, these guys a process undertaken by tic licensee.
, 2 are juggimg these hot rocks. and I'm just wonderms 2 ML BRACK: Okay, but in your ~, ,,
3 what's going to happen with this plant, with this thing 3 ML ZwOUNsKJ sut to de question you're raistng, 4 that's 4 I don't feel comfortable rendering a comment without s ML ZwouNsKL We're not aware of any activity 5 allowing our technical e%peits de opportunity to put s associated with the spent fuel pool that is not being s that down on a piece of paper.
7 cunducted safely. 7 MR. BRACK: because one of tie thin;:s that cane up 8 ML DUUY: Okay. 8 in tie safety evaluation reports was thai you did have 9 MIL ZWOuNsKl: 1 hank you for your question And I e attenuated ultrasonic ~ because of de copper scaling to must move en to Mr. Brack. 10 and the tube deposits, tie sludge its, that sort of 11 ML DRACK: Yes. I'm 11. O. Brack. I came down ll thing. So how can you have confi ce in your analysis 12 from Mt. Desert Island to visit tonight. And I have a 12 when your ultrasoruc you're get ' a lot of 13 question on Oc sleevina process that never was 13 backscatter and you can t really ven de efficacy of 14 resolved, in my nund, S.ack at Oc Deamber ist meeting 14 tie weldmg7 That's -Wu that ed me, and it is at de state house. Is was never really resolved at this Decemter meetma is But tefore I ask that questirm, in terms of de 16 hut. ZWOUNsK1: Tien allow our technical staff Io 17 acryioe life of the inner tutes, I have a quick question 17 develop an answer in reponse to the question.
Is of Mr. Trinje. la MR BRACK: Okay, % ell, I filed a treedom of is I noticed tie lady that asked the question about 19 information request for that information about three 20 de current inventory at Maine Yankee, you didn't seem 20 months ago of ue NRC, and I have not got the tesponse 21 to come un with an answer. Are you familiar with the 21 )et.
22 amount of high level waste that Maine Yankee - that it 22 MR. ZWOUNsKl: Okay. And that's -
23 generstes on a per yearly basis, on an annual basis? I 23 MR. BRACK: So, wt'rt not making much progress, but 24 mean, you're Ue president. Don't you know what you 24 I appreciate your anrwtr to that.
25 generate per year 7 25 MR. YEROKUN: If I may just a not to respond to Page 122 Page 125 I your question, but just trying to shed some light to the 2 MR(Audience BRACK: Art you outbursts.)l stil a 2 question.
3 MR ZWOUNsKl: EKcune me, Mr. Brack. At de 3 All de technical details you've discussed, the 4 outset I offered that de NRC de state, and even tte 4 bowing, the sludge pile, the scatter from the ultrasonic
$ licenace were available to address issues s testing, all those issues were resiewed by the NRC and 6 MR. BRACK: Surt. 6 docunented in inspection reports which att available in 7 MR ZWOuNsKL Our agency is responsible for tic 7 the local library lere.
a nuclear side of the equatmn. If y'ou warit to address s So those issues, all the ones you mentioned, were 9 something that's ley (md de NRL s area of responsibility 9 specifically reviewed by our techm' cal experts. And the to to the licensee, den I will allow that question. This 10 mam reason that tie sleeving process was approved and ll question that you've just asked is somethmg that you il Maine Yankee is currently operating with ue tubes or 12 should address the staff in this forum. 12 sleeve is that we found those technical issues to be is MR. BUCK: Well, let me go back to my first 13 resolved.
is question, tien. 14 adequately're So you talking about a request for Fr is De safet eva!uations of tin Office of Nuclear is Information, or whatever.1 hat s -
16 Reactor R lation back at Oc time of Oc sleeving 16 MR. DRACK: Well, m 17 process in cated that you had extensive sludge deposits 17 comfortable with this? In y question otler w% you words,lere really, have art you is in the steam generator; and during 02 heat a the is your choice of getting a new steam gen. eratot or using an 19 weld leat tiratment process, that dese sludge 19 old steam generator that has a significant amount of 20 sits resulted in a certam amount of tute 20 sludge m it. And you're saymg, 21 di lacement and bowing in the sleev' process. And 21 to the conclusion that it was fine.yes, well, we've come 22 you had a certain amount of sludge sits at the upper 22 Would you say that it has an equal senice life to 23 hortwntal cyg crate dnll plates, and s sort of 23 a new steam generator? Would you ao so far as to say 24 thmg. And my question to you is at t this meetm' g at 24 that Oc repaired steam generator wodld have a senice 25 the 1st of Decemter in Augusta, Uldis and tie other 25 life in terms of the - I guess, that would be coequal Page 123 Page 126 i representives from de State of Maine we r very adamant I with a tew steam generator?
2 in suggesting that these sludge deposits and de bowing 2 MR. YEROKUN: I'm tr 3 and ue lateral displacement of Oc tules that would 3 cconomical issues again.yt'ng Uc- to stay away from t 4 occur during the post weld leat treatment really 4 MR. BRACK: How about the safety issues 7 s wouldn't have any significant effect on the senice life s MR YEROKUN; well, I'll address the safety issue, 6 of the tubes. 6 but ncJ economical issues. The safety issue is if you 7 Do you agree with that? Are you comfortable with 1 sleeve all the tubes, tlet the generators will still s that conclusmn that, in fact, in a jokma sort of way, a perform safely. And that's ue - Maine Yankee proposed 9 if I remember correctly, we even say tfat Oc corrosion 9 1c sleeve all their tubes. The NRC appmved tre repatt 10 and the sludge deposits in Oc steam tules actuall to process And the soproval was granied because we found 18 a little more structure to the old steam generator?y So 18addthe process to be sate, 12 if you get a water hammer ma wce't get so much 12 The tubes are sleewd and the life expectancy for 13 movement at these horirontal ? Areyou 13 the sleeved tubes are till the end of tic plant life is comfortable with that analysi 14 currently. So that's been found to be safe and is Mil ZWOUNsKl; I I would prefer to answer is acceptable.
Is that on the record not giw you a ibp comment. 16 As far as the option of sleevtng or replacing 17 MR. BRACK: because, certamIv a conce.o that I'm 17 those, that's economical, and the NRC doesn't Itally is surprised wasn't more addresseda,t this meeting was, arw' is is is still, the safety isstes of your
~
steam 9 have any tusay,bes have been found to be safe.as the sleeved lo 20 pencrator with these estensat sl deposits that the 20 MR. ZWOUNSKL 1 would ask that you look in the 21 NRC documented in Oc safety eval 'ons. Why would 21 Library and see if you can fmd the respceive reports.
22 you - 22 If 39u can't, please call our rcsident and he wul be n Mil ZWOUNSKl: Well, we feel very comfortable with n more than happy to --
24 it. The laser welded siteves were thoroughly evaluated, 24 MR. BUCK: In fact I have all the reports prior 25 comprehensively analymd, and we're comfortable with the 25 to January 1st in my p,ossession, as the editor of THE REPORTING OROUP/ Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 121 - Page 126
l
~ W2996 - Part D Condannett" PuWie Mee8ing Rs Maine Yambes ;
Page 127 Page 130 !
i-l 8 some of thsee am revismed ow Interest I question liam that is asks 4 and you all sit up them how most of it. 2 quietly ~ s couple or even know the angeer and j 2 pegs.
i a um.EwOuMSW: 3 wry't answer the question, dgn hb8theenounta r think just
. 4 Ma.saAca: out was looking to see what you had a mdission in the spent fuel .I i 8 fresa about )$th ou, and I haven't anything s about now you're the spent . It's :
new then. And I haven't netten anything fress who e nasy hard for me to that over j
- 6
' 1 used to send see a lot of sIuff. Not too muc6 lately. I 1 leve'at Maine Y who is far amore at than ;
s don't want to get on your case, because i know you've e most of us. to sit and how no idea of how snony l 9 base real , o Cunes in the 10 May I one more =====t about the
- level 10 But I like s to'tell us how does Malne .
! Ii wune7 Hip level wame novos can be on the i Yankee sack up with the rest of the nuclear industry in ;
! 12 Internst.11e Oak Vational laboratory has what is 12 tenas of workar esposure? I think the werhers have a ,
12 called the - . 13 right to know the answer, and I'm sently disappointed i
. 14 A moglel1 water reactor produces 9,400,000 14 tiirat didn't come forw.at earlier. j year. Maine Yankar is a is ML VAN . I think it was arveral ago that i 15 Curies or levelwame
- 16 model reactor and would nimanaly that 16 1 did the last - I do an report I i 17 amount, about 9 million of level weste it =====Hally out indiostors and !
j is year. You're producing about 1,000 l is statistics Main: ankee's o.peration. One of them !
is wasne ser hour. You're 1 level le is workar exposurr reassenber the last time I did it l 30 weste for every $20 in anlos eine Yankee to at Maine Yankee la a bove the average with pressurised
- 21 electricity. And I think it's a scam Like a lot of 21 water reactor operation.
22 le in this room benefit from that scam. 22 ML uNNEW You mean abow average caposure7 j l Ma. VANAOS: No, above the industry everage. ;
l 23 ut I think you're going to have a hard time 23 4
24 marketing this particular t r,f the Maine Yrakse 24 Ma. tJNNEW You mean more esposure per worker i 25 situation, because we all electricity. I happen 's 25 then the avenge nuclear plant?
' Page 131
< age 128 2 1 buy $10,000 worth a year of your electricity for i MR VANAOS: On the average. .
numerous business and les that I own. And I'm a 2 ML UNNEW Okay. So 1
2 3 little bit uncomfortable wi senerati this I hrie of 3 performance is sort of below, hi other words, thi i 4 high-level waste for mery $201 4 radiation a bad thina7 s And I think you .4,nuld really liar with the s MR.VANAOS: I tiiink it's only fair to give you a ,
6 fact that you sto 9 milhon Curies of high level s cavest that I drew that I tracked this a
, 1 waste per year. it now, the last time vou disposed 1 ML uwNtw 1his was last year; in your last s- of low-level waste, it was running 18,0M a Curie, for a s year's report? ;
e few periods a litter over 8. 9 MR. VANAQs: Yes. Starting 1988, they kept a I i to So the question is who's 10 think 1988, or before that. Maine Yankee is actually on i 11 date?,If there is no health rectser.joing or accidents to pay or any at a latersi en improvina trend, a downward '.:end. <
' ML UNNfW They're improving 7 12 f~ther problems with Maine Yankee, who's going to pay 12 13 for the disposal of elevel waste, and when are you 13 ML VANAOS: Improving * ,
, 14 poing to start col that money? 14 MR. uNNELt.: You mean, mindful of the recent And another questi that would come up is who's is is exposure of 16 workers, pu think they're innproving?
16 16 MR. VANAOS: I haven t seen the figures for last ,
1 17 to,,,
Inese pay dryfor the multipurp'e canisters, th old models, areoacifcanisters year )et, that 30 *you i is obsolete. The new multipurpose canis'ers are on the is ML uNNEW 1 hen how do you know it's improving?
19 drawing board. They're very complicatedpieces of 19 MR. V ANAGS: 1he last I lanirmd it was improving.
j[ 20 equipment.- They'll weet $60 to 5100 millson for a sotur 20 for last year. -
31 for Maine Yankee. Whue's the money for that goin ti ML uMNEW Thank you. Uldis is ~ l consider 22 come from? Who'ssoing to get stuck with the tab?g 22 to you a fnend of mine, and I'm putting you on the spot.
1 u So there's a lot orquesuons tiere, and I think 23 Thank you, Uldis.
24 this idea of selling us on Maine Yankee at 3 cents per 24 Ma.zwouNSM: Thank you. You're the last 25 kilowatt hour is runnias a little bit thin riaht now. 2s speaker Page 129 Page 132 <
i ML zwouwsK 1 hank you very much. I UNinerrmED SPEAKER: Mr. Trottier amid that there ,
2 Peartman7 Georri Pearlman7 Mr. Pearlman7. I would be additional opportunity for people to ask 3 responseJ 3 questions, and I ~
4 's the and of my list of speakers that signed 4 Ma.zwouNsm would you please snove forward?
- s up. Noting the time,I m inclined to bring the meslag s ML MocoNNEW Thank you very much. I have a i 6 to a clone, and - - -
6 -. question and na-mania -
~
1 ML uNNEW Could I ask a follow-up ousslion7 I 1 ML ZWouNSM: May we have your name7
} s how some more questions. Could I ask a follow up e - MR.MccONNEW My name is Mike McConnell. m 4
9 question, something you were referrina to earlier 7 e from Boorhhay. I have three children and I am th* r 10 - miles from the plant as the now fliesc lo - ML zwouNso: t really must - looking at the '
il hour, l'il nive you just a couple minutes, and we're 1: Apparently the en'ginal design criteria for the '
la to close it. 12 - reactor was 2r440 Kwt and it was increased to 2700 Kwt 13 UNNEL.L.1 hank you. The last time that the 13 approximately arven Sears ago. And doing that, I'm not 14 Nec was up here for one of thsee asetinas. Mr. Willis . 14 sure enactly what to empress. If you incrosse the '
. Is was asked - Dr. Willis was asked how Maine Yankee is nuclear reaction and turn un the weier or 4 16 equapares to other nuclear plants in the country in terms is if you increase the flow of the water to it at the '
< 17 af worter . He gave the same answer then - I'm 11 - asene tasperature. But in some fashion in le sorry I'm an the spot Dr. Wdlis - he anve - le synse it seems to me that the weer sad tear of 19 the same answer ; he didn t know and he'd getTeck is nuclear environment, erosion. the conceion,
, as to us. 20 asabrittlement is inmessed wissa you've increased the -
- . 2 And I know the answer to that quesuon. Uldis 2 '
in the reactor. The reactor itself, I don't 22 Vensgs knows the answer to that quesuon. I'd like to 22 - has been emaned as haar somebody up there answer it. And if you evw - 23 MR. zWouNSM: Sir, your question 7 24 wonder why some of the satis are all hot and bothered 24 ML uMNsW My question is, in inmensing thet as and nivian wu such a hard time, when I sit hem and a 25 tensoreture the past seven or so veers, and continuins !
Page 127 - Page 132 THE REPOR11NG OROUP/ Mason lackhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
PmWie Masting Re Maine Yankee Condammelt" 4/29/96 - Part 11 Page 133 en to the end of the licopee, will you lurumar the mer
, j 3 I wondd think that in doing that you would think 4 that the sypleens are safe at this point to increase it, 8 but )eu consider the incsonerd moor and leer and 6 shones of the license itself to operate l
? And you 't aand to answer that. I would ust -
s like you to consider it if you give them this incr) ease 9 hefL ZWOlJNSKl: Thank you for your obettYhtion, 10 Wnen we noticed this meetin il the inseting to 30 to 9 o'Pye clock. g, we attempted originally to give noticed 12 an unity topresent cernimmt or uestion.
13 I it w be ap to 14 close, noti the tiene.propnate And we will to bringback rarude the d if wi to 'de an address, any questions in is wn y what have you, on our getting 17 Iding.
18 for our attevinnae thfs l'
eveni,wiWe that, thankbe at the that we bring the ao maall toCA issue to closure.
28 Thank you for attention.
22 Che , ngs concluded at 10:15 pm) 14 25 1 nomem 2 % -w, m . d I ennent .nasar .mo of my smenyeplus asas innme of 4 ena % .amedamme 6 sessw. . .
7 Assummed Dye ame IWeeer 9
10 11 12 13 14 19 16 87 18 19 20 28 23 n
24 25 11tB REPORTING GROUP / Mason 14ekhart Hegopias & panandall Page 133 - Page 134
e l<
! QUESTIONS (Q)FROMTHEPUBLIC
- AND .
- NRC RESPONSES (R)
M - Page 20, Line 22 Answer the Governor's questions. The Governor said, please reply to Henry j Myers' concerns. This letter does not reply to Henry Myers' concerns.
- i. E In a letter dated April 26, 1996, the NRC staff responded to questions sent to Governor. Kileg by Mr. Henry R. Myers that were forwarded to the NRC. .
1
! E .- Page 33, Lina 11 ;
i [1]s there proof that Maine Yankee's emergency core cooling systhe and l containment building will perform correct y under accident conditions? Is i this proof more than theoretical computer modeling? If it exists, when will j . it be made available to the public?
L M
involvesVerification both of the adequac testing.and anal ofsis. the emergency Testing is core usedcooling to develop system and (ECCS) verify the e
- capability of computer codes t at are then used to analyze the plant. Testing
- includes separate effects and integral tests, such as NRC-sponsored tests
- under simulated accident conditions performed at the Semiscaie and Loss of 4
Fluid Test (LOFT) facilities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in ,
4 the 1970's and 1980's. Information on these test programs is publicly !
i available in NUREG/CR-3005 'Su
- LOFT Program Research Findings,mmary " dated April 1985.of the The ECCS Nuclear Regulatory evaluatson models Commiss '
- include conservatisa in-accordaace with Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50.
Analyses using the models are done to assure that the ECCS provides abundant core cooling In accordance with General Design Criteria (GDC) 35. (The GDC :
!. are set forth in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50). These ECCS models are applied -
- on a plant-specific basis to define sM tem requirements. l Before fuel was first loaded into the Maine Yankee reactor core in 1972, a j
. preoperational test program was conducted to verify that the design and operation of the ECCS was consistent with that required by the plant specific !
ECCS analysis. For every fuel reload, Maine Yankee is required to perform
- plant specific re-analysis to confirm equipment requirements. ,
It was determined that RELAP5YA was not applied for Maine Yankee in a manner ,
conforming to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Appendix K, nor had !
it been applied in a manner conforming to the conditions specified in the staff's safety evaluation report (SER), as necessary for acceptance of the use of RELAP5YA for Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA)-analyses for Maine
- Yankee. ' As a result, the staff issued an order and demand for information
- restricting power-to 2440 Megawatts-thermal (MWt). As discussed in the order. -1 since operatinglimits have been developed for power levels up to 2700 MWt based upon liu ting events thtt' have been analyzed using approved methods, and ;
a power reduction margin was: imposed to account for SBLOCA modeling j uncertainties.: the staff finds that Maine-Yankee operation at 2440 MWt does not pose an undue health or safety risk to the public. l ENCLOSURE 3 e
s =s,e *.v,-, 3w..- y, ,,yw.,-,y,wgr. ..v-, -,._,,-r-w,-c-wwm.-.-,-ry.wwr ---,,,-.,,n4.wv.,,_s.,_,,,,,.y,- v-.-r,,,-33,w.,. -,.,,y. . - . . .,-m. --,
l . -
2-In addition, the Maine Yankee Technical Specifications require that approximately every three months the licensee verify the operability of the emergency core cooling system by performing tests to demonstrate that the system will perform as intended if it should be required. The tests verify instrumentation, actuation signals, pumps and system flow rates, and valve operation. If the tests do not demonstrate satisfactory performance, the licensee is required to submit a licensee event report, a copy of which would j be placed in the local public document room.
With regard to containment performance, computer modeling is used te detemine, among other things, the peak accident pressure in the cotainment that would resu t from a design basis accident. The design basis accident for peak accident pressure in containment which licensees have to assun.e is a hvpothetical, double-ended, guillotine break of the largest diameter pipe in
- the primary coolant system. The primary coolant piping is austenitic '
stainless steel, a very ductile material. Several distinguished pipe crack study groups have concluded that with austenitic stainless steel, a through-wall crack would result in a " leak-before-break' and not a sudden splitting of the pipe. Thus, the calculated loss-of-coolant accident assumed as the design :
basis accident represents the maximum conceivable loss of water from the
- system. 1his was the accident assumed when the first nuclear 21 ants were i j being designed and, even though later tests and studies have s10wn that it is a very unlikely accident, it'has remained as the ' design bases accident.' The containment must perform adequately when subjected to the peak p ossure !
postulated in the event of such an accident. l Containments for nuclear power plants are designed to withstand the peak pressure and temperature conditions to which they might be subjected by a hypothetical design basis accident. Computer thermal-hydraulic codes that ,
have been bench-marked against experimental data are used to calculate the The containment is designed to ASME Code peak pressure and temperature.
criteria and proof-pressure-t'ested to a pressure in excess of the calculated peak accident pressure. The containment was designed to 55 psig and tested to 63 psig. This provides a high degree of assurance that the public is
. protected from any postulated pip 6 failure.
As required by NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water Cooled Power Reactors) ad the Maine
- Yankee Technical Specifications,-the licensee periodically must perform tests to verify the leak-tight integrity of the primary reactor containment.
Section V of A>pendix J requires that a summary report of the tests be submitted to tse Commission. These reports are placed in the local public document room.
H - Page 33, Line 22 What does it say about the ethics of Maine Yankee and Yankee Atomic that the computer model that is supposed to test the ECCS is knowingly falsified, as alleged in the whistle blower's letter and in the supporting documents.
--e,n -n--..-- - - . --- m--.-n, . - . x -----+r om~- ~w -- ,c.. ---+w-w6- - - -------*e -eww=.-w-+. ----w,-em. w-+--==,wo+--*--,m -,.+,eww--v
$1TheNRC'sOfficeofInvestigationshasconductedaninvestigationintothe
, a legations. The NRC staff is reviewing the results of this investigation.
M - Page 34, Line 2 What does it say about the ethics of the NRC that Maine Yankee is allowed to
- operate without meeting requirements issued in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident? ,
\
- M The NRC's Confimatory Order and Demand for Information (Order) to Maine i 4
Yankee, dated January 3, 1996, was issued for the explicit purpose of ensuring safe operation of Ma'ne Yankee pending completion of the staff's evaluation of the Maine Yankee emergency core cooling systems and containment design. The Order included restrictions and cited as a basis for those restrictions that Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCo) had not applied computer code RELAP5YA, as proposed by MYAPCo for cycle 15 small-break loss-of-coolant i
< accident (58LOCA) analyses, in confomance with the requirements of 10 CFR l 50.46, and did not satisfy TP.I Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and 3.31. The l Order did not waive TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and 3.31. To the !
contrary, the Order required the sube.ission of a 58LOCA analysis t%t, if submitted and accepted, would bring MYAPCo into conformance with Thf Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and 3.31. Maine Yankee submitted a new SBLOCA analysis ;
on April 25, 1996, which the NRC staff currently is evaluating. l M - Page 34, Line 8 i Will the NRC refuse the request for a power uprate by Maine Yankee in light of ;
~
these safety system deficiencies? If not, why not?
M The NRC will not allow Maine Yankee to resume operation at its maximum i licensed power level of 2700 MWt until the plant s safety systems are shown by l acceptable performance analysis to be adequate for operation at 2700 MWt.
H - Page 34, Line 15
) Will Maine Yankee be fined for nnowingly operating the plant in viciation of ,
the NRC. safety requirements? If c9t, why not?
M Any potential enforcement action against Maine Yankee, which could include civil penalties, will be considered as part of the review of the NRC Office of ;
Investigations (01) report. See response to Question 3. -
E - Page 34, Line 17 ,
Wilt re be criminal )rosecut ions of personnel at Maine Yankee, Yankee Aton) A the NRC in tint the falsifications show that fraud has been i comr.1, ,d7 If not, why not?
1 t
..U,..- - ,%,..__..E-,,,.-~..,
, . , -.m,y-~ - . , - 1,w .m %,rmr,..,- ,-,v. , ,-,ww.m y , my v,,
7 RZ The NitC Office of Investigations will refer any findings of wrongdoing'by Maine Yankee or Yankee Atomic to the Department of Justice for censideration of possible criminal prosecution. The NRC Office of Inspector General (0!G),
which has the responsibility for investigation of NRC staff wrongdoing, issued its report, 'NRC Staff's Actions Related to Regulstion at Maine Yankee" (Case No.96-04b) on May 8, 1996. A copy of this document has been placed in the' Public Document Room, and also was sent to the Local Pub'lic Document Room at the Wiscasset Public Library on June 6, 1996. Although the OIG report concluded that the NRC staff review of the RELAP5YA SBLOCA evaluation model for emergency co're cooling system suffered from several weaknesses, no finding of fraud on the part of the NRC staff was made.
QA - Page 34, Line 21 ,
Vill the NRC Office of Investigations be involved? I believe that was answered. And if so, when will their findings be made public?
E8 See responsn to Questions 3 and 6 above. The synopsis of OI reports are released to individuals and licensees against whom action is taken, based on the reports. Such synopses are generally released at the time of the action.
Q1 - Page 34, Line 24 Will there be separate investigation into the repeated collusion between the NRC and the utilities, as shown by the Millstone case and repeated here? If not, why r,at?
El See response to Question 7, above.
01Q - Page 35, Line 3 When will the 'NRC Inspector General's investigation be compleced, and when will that report be made public.
ElQ See response to Question 7, above.
Q11 - Page 6), Line 19 Is there any plan amongst the officials of the NRC and the nuclear power plants across the country to strengthen the safety of workers?
Ell Ti s .ommission's regul nions in 10 CFR Part 20, Standards For Protection Against Radiation, control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual (including doses resulting from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and fram radiation sources other than background radiation) does not u ceed the standards for protection against radiation prescribed in the regulations. Alt licensees have extensive programs to meintain radiation exposure to radiation as far below the dose limits in the regulations as is practical. These programs are usually referred to as ALARA e
l
(
(acronym for 'as low as is reasonably achievable") programs. In addition to NRC regulatory requirements, plants must meet applicable state and federal safety requirements, such as those imposed by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).- The NRC.has no current plans to change its
.present program of required procedures for worker safety.
Q11 - Page 63, Line 11 Why are you going along with Maine Yankee's proposal to try a new code? Why aren't you insisting on a full investigation of the original code first?
Eli These questions were responded to by both the Maine Yar.kee staff and the NRC staff at the meeting as noted in the transcript.- As stated therein, the
.NRC has investigated the use of RELAP5YA. As the Maine Yankee spokesman pointed out it is very desirable to verify the results of the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analyses using a completely different independent code. See also response to question 3.
All - Page 7D, Line 12 At what point 'did you test the T000EE code for--as a large-break loss-of-coolant code?.
R11 By letter dated January 17, 1979, from the NRC to Yankee Atomic Electric Company, the NRC approved the use of YAEC's ECCS evaluation model consisting of RELAP 4 EM, REPLAP 4-FLOOD, and T000EE2, for analyses of loss-of-coolant accidents at Maine Yankeo. The NRC did not specifically test the code but did review the analyses and concluded that the code could reasonably predict thermal-hydraulic performance based on tests performed at various scales. The evaluation model's prediction-of the results of these experiments were part of the NRC's basis for approval of the model.
l Gli - Page 90, Line 12 How much high-level waste do you have in store at Maine Yankee? As you know, ,
high-level waste is good for 20,000 years. So my great grandchildren will probably stumble.over that. How much-do you have in storage at the plant right now? I want curies.
RL4 Maine Yankee has approximately 1204 spent fuel bundles. stored in its spent fuel storace pool, plus a few (approximately six) reconstituted fuel bundles.
' A reconstituted fuel' assembly is one in which one er more of the fuel pins in the bundle have been replaced with new fuel pins, fuel pins from another fuel assembly or.with non-fuel pins.
We do not have an estimate of the number of curies contained in the spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool. Such an estimate depends on the exposure of each of the fuel elements, the length of time each fuel element has decayed and other factors. The total curies of activity in the spent fuel is not a number used in any analyses and has not been calculated.
p o= a All _ : Page 95 Line 15-Okay., Since we know that thet's what occurred there, and these-systems are still being questioned at Maine Yankee 17 years laten why haven't precautions been taken that could have been taken at Three Mile Island as well, and that still-aren't being taken in this area, such as nonradioactive iodine pills to block--radioactive iodine can be released, and when caught in ,the thyroid--the thyroid is very sensitive to radiation. When radioactive iodine goes there, it can cause thyroid cancer and thyroid prehless, as it has in many people exposed to radiation. Why haven't these pills been provided?
Bli This question was responded to by Dr. Willis at the meeting. The NRC has seriously considered the-question of whether to require- the provision of
. potassium iodide (KI) to people who live near nuclear power plants and is currently reconsidering this issue. as discussed below.
On July 24, 1985, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (which chairs the Federal Radiological Coordinating Committee) published in the Federal-Register (50 FR 30258)-the-* Federal Policy on Distribution of Potassium Iodide Arour.d Nuclear Power Sites for Uses as.a Thyroidal Blocking Agent." The notice stated that "the Federal position with regard to the predistribution or -
stockpiling-of potassium iodide for use by the general public should not be required." The. notice discusses the reasons for this policy. The position paper noted that "since FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-has authorized the nonprescription sale of KI, it is legally-available to individuals' who, based on their own personal analysis, choose to have the drug immediately available." -
The NRC-staff has previously recommended that the Commission, working with the other pertinent Federal agencies, revise the 1985 Policy to make potassium iodide available to the States if they wish to include this in their emergency plans. The background for.this is-discussed in SECY-93-318 (November 23, 1993) and SECY-94-087-(Narch 29, 1994), both of which are available to the public. The issue is currently being reconsidered and reevaluated. .
Alft - Page 102, Line 21 -
How does the exposure of workers at Maine Yankee compare with the national level?
Bli A review of nuclear power plant performance indicator averages for collective radiation exposure for the U.S. nuclear power industry over the 11ast 10 years (1986 through 1995), shows the average-plant's collective
. radiation exposure was 376 person-Res. Over that same 10-year period, Maine Yankee's-average collective' radiation exposure was.399 person-Rem, or 5.7%
above the industry average. During calendar year 1995, Maine Yankee was .
- - shutdown for. essentially the entire year-(50 weeks). for refueling and sleeving the-steam generator tubes. When a plant is shutdown for refueling or major maintenance, collective radiation exposure is higher due to the large number
- of contract workers in the plant and the nature of the tasks being performed.
i.< {
T 1:.
7-and considering the nine year average exposures'for the period >
Excluding 1986 to 1994,-t 1995,he average plant's collective radiation exposure was 396 ;
person'Res. However, Maine Yankee's average collective radiation exposure over this 9 year period was 334 person-Rem; about 15% below the industry ,
- average. The average collective exposure rates are variable, in part because
' of the length and timing of plant shutdowns, at Maine Yankee in particular and e in the industry as a whole, g
all - Page 115, Line 23 i And what is the actual percentage over the original design limits [for fuel pool' storage capacity)?
2
- .Bil When-the plant was originally licensed to operate in 1972, the design basis of the spent fuel-pool was .that the pool should acconnodate one and one-
. third of the core capacity, with margin. Because the core contains 217 fuel elements, that was cciculated at 217 plus one-third of 217 (or.72), which
- equals-289, and 29 extra. spaces were allowed for margin. Thus the original license allowed for storage of 316 Spent f.el assemblies. In 1975, this number was increased, by license amendment, to 953 assemblies. In 1983, the
': license was again amended to allow storage of 1476 spent fuel assemblies, and on March 15, 1994, the NRC approved'an increase in the storage capacity of the s >ent fuel ool to 2019 fuel assemblies. This represents a 635% increase in tte originally licensed capacity for storage of spent fuel assemblies, with j-each license amendment reviewed to ensure that each increase in storage casacity would maintain adequate cooling capacity, seismic ruggedness, ,
4 su> criticality margin and radiological safety.
c All - Page 122, Line 24 -
And my question to you .s, at-this meeting at the 1st of. December [1995) in Augusta, Uldis and the other representatives from the State of Maine were very adamant in suggesting that these sludge deposits and the bowing and the lateral displacement of the tubes that would occur during~ the post-weld heat 3
treatment really wouldn't- have any significant effect on the service life of s the tubes. Do you agree with that?_ Are you comfortable with that conclusion thati in fact, in a joking sort of way, if I remember correctly, we even say that the corrosion and the sludge deposits in the steam tubes-actually add a
- little more structure to the old steam generator? So if you get a water hammer maybe you won't get so much movement.at these horizontal plates? Are you comfortable with that analysis? -
. Eli Maine Yankee provided a discussion of the effects of bowing and bulging during the public meeting held in Wiscasset on September 14, 1995. The. Maine
- Yankee presentation materials, discussing resolution of this.ites, were 4
included in the meeting minutes issued by the NRC on' September 29, 1995. In
. summary, Maine Yankee.provided a discussion as follows: Westinghouse built and tested full size mock-ups of tubes and supports that duplicated the .
condition of the Maine Yankee steam generators. For the installation methods usediat Maine Yankee, the. maximum amount of post-weld heat treatment-(PWHT) 2 -t
- . y . . ,,w__. ., , ,,.%,_.. __ _.- . - _ . . . , _ , , , _ , . , . _ . , , . . _ , . _ . _ _ . . . , ,
w l
l 8- ,
induced bowing was found to be less than 3/64-inch. The maximum amount of ,
PWHT induced bulging was found to be approximately 1/64-inch. The staff notes ,
that this amount of bulging is comparable to the diameter tolerance of newly manufactured tubes.- The bulge has no structural effect on tube integrity.
To put_the' tube bowing from sleeving into perspective, it is about the same amount as that normally resulting from fabrication or operation. The bow does not weaken-tta tube. The amount of bow resulting from heat treatment is insufficient to cause a tube to touch another tube. Even if slight contact .
-did occur and the tubes rubbed in such a way as to cause a small wear spot, such wear would proceed at a slow rate and take years before substantial thinning would result. Such an unlikely condition, should it occur, would be easily detected during the periodic inspections long before the wear spot would become thin enough to pose. risk of a leak.
With respect to the sludge pile restraining the tubes from bowing, although that effect could occur, it is not credited in analyses nor relied upon by the NRC staff in assessing tube integrity. With regard to possible corrosive effects from the sludge, the sleeve material is alloy 690, which is even more resistant to stress corrosion cracking than the alloy _600 tub' e material.
Based on prior inspections of the steam generators, there was no indication that the sludge had caused any significant thinning of the tube outside surfaces. Even if the sludge might cause some general corrosion of the alloy 600 tube material, this is no longer the primarf coolant pressure boundary.
The alloy 690 sleeve is now the primary coolant pressure boundary and extends H; well above any projected sludoe buildup. Even if some sludge buildup occurs on the-tubesheet, we do not expect this to have any si?nificant effect on the service life of the steam generators.
1 911 - Page 124, Line 11
, So how can you have confidence in your analysis when your ultrasonic--you're i getting a lot of backscatter and you cen't really verify the efficacy of the 4 welding? That's something that bothered me, and it was never really resolved at this December meeting.
1 i Elf The ultrasonic tests (UT) were accomplished using refined procedures that were developed specifically to address potential problems that could affect the Maine Yankee inspection. The main potential probles faced by the UT analysts was the inadvertent rejection _ of good welds along with. unacceptable
~
- welds. .The UT system had no problem detecting unacceptable welds. However, it also would reject some acceptable welds. This problem was verified by -
sectioning different test welds and comparing these-results with the UT 4
results. This problem was most prevalent where there were heavy deposits on the outer diameter (00) of the tubes, Oltrasonic tests were performed at-the Westinghouse -laboratory using tubes i with varying types and thicknesses of scale on the 00 of the tubes. These tests demonstrated-the effects of the various 00 scale types upon the UT
--m--- r&-as- ry w +m = -er vaime-r 'TTT- ---er4--*ra ' war i. w- *l-*T- -" -T
c
_ , f _;:
l-' _
t k
lc
-g-t.
L 2 l-signal. The important finding for the restlution of the effect was that a j
. marginally acceptable weld width (too smal') or unacceptable weld width was '
signal. The' reduced back
' accompanied by a noticeably: reduced back wall wall signal effect thereby gave further evidence, (00)in addition to the primary :
UT. signal from the weld itself, that a questionable weid was present. Any L
such welds were subsequently repaired and reinspected. -The UT was aided by n
- the fact that the sleeve and inside of the tube were cleaned to bright' metal prior to welding. The welds were made from the inside of the sleeve and tube assembly using a laser welder with a remote, fiber-optic weld head inserted ,
i inside the-assembly. The weld fuses the sleeve to the inside of the tube (no-4 welding is performed on the 00 of the tube). Sleeve lengths were selected to ensure each weld was above the sludge pile at that location. Placing the welds above any heavy deposits on the tube exterior further aided the UT i- _ inspection. Therefore, the staff has confidence in the UT test results and
> verification of the efficacy of the tubes. Heavy deposits could have weakened
. the reflected 00 signal for acceptable welds. This would have resulted in the rejection of some: acceptable welds along with the sleeves that actually had unacceptable welds.
Q2.Q - Page 124, Line 18 Okay. -Well, I filed a Freedom of Information request for that information about three mor.ths ago of the NRC, and I have not got the response yet.
B29 This Freedom of Information request (96-011) was closed by'a letter response dated May 8,1996, which provided the material requested.
QH - Page 125, Line 22 Would you say that it [ repaired steam generator) has an equal service life to i a new steam generator? Would you go so far as to say that the repaired steam generator would have a service life in terms of the--I guess, that would be coequal with a' new steam generator?
E n Sleeved tubes are regarded as-a long-term repair. They.are not regarded '
as having unlimited service life, nor-are they expected to necessarily have the service life of a new steam generator incorporating all of the current technical improvements. Consequently, there are special requirements for periodic inspections of sleeved tubes to ensure their continued integrity.
922 - Page 128, Lines 10 and 15
-So-the question is who's going to pay at a later date? If there is no health
-effects or accidents.or any further problems with Maine Yankee, who's going to pay- for the disposal of high-level waste, and when are you going to start collecting that_ money? And.another question that would coce up is who is ;
-going.to pay for the multipurpose canisters that you need?
BZZ-In 1977 under the Carter Administration, the U.S. defined the nation's policy regarding the permanant disposal of commercial nuclear power plant fuel
r
-; j by~rejectingtheoptionofreprocessingspentfuel._'TheNuclearWastePolicy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments _Act (NWPAA) of 1987 as the Federal agency responsible
- for designated disposal of thehigh. Departmentlevel waste of Energy-(00E)ich (HLW) wh includes nuclear power plant spent fuel;- the Environmental Protection Agency .(EPA) as responsible for -
developing appropriate environmental standards for high-level waste; and the NRC as responsible for licensing activities related to the disposal and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel. -The NWPA calls for DOE to begin accepting spent fuel from utilities in 1998;-however, progress on a' permanent waste-disposal ~ site has been stalled.
The 1982 NWPA authorized DOE to enter into contracts with any person who holds title to spent nuclear fuel, of domestic origin, *for the acceptance of title,-
subsequent transportation, and disposal of such waste or spent fuel." To -
-cover the costs, the Act imposed a fee of 1.0 mil per kilowatt-hour for
--electricity that was or would be generated by a civilian nuclear power
' reactor. The money is deposited in a separate fund referred to as the
" Nuclear Waste.F6nd."
As-noted, DOE-is responsible.for the disposal of spent fuel from commercial
. nuclear reactors. However,fa high-level waste repository will not be ready to accept spent fuel until at least 2010. -Thus, DOE was proposing to provide storage canisters for spent fuel to the utilities until-the repository is available. DOE was developing a multi-purpose canister (MPC) to meet the requirements for. storage and transportation of radioactive materials, and possibly be suitable for final disposal. This MPC was to be used both for temporary on-site fuel storage and for transporting the fuel to-the high level waste repository, thereby reducing fuel handling operations. The first phase
, of developing a design for the MPC is underway. In summary, DOE is responsible for providing and paying for the multipurpose canisters, for transporting thes6 canisters to a storage site and for long-term storage of L the spent fuel. All of these costs are being and will be funded by the-
" Nuclear Waste Fund.,
.023 and 24 - Page 132, Lines 14 and 24
! My question is, in increasing that [ primary] temperature the past seven or so i years, and continuing on to the.end of the Ticense, will you increase the wear '
and tear?
R23 and 241From a- theoretical statedpoint, operating a steam generator (built i
- with alloy 600 tubes) at a higher temperature may-result in shortened service
- . ' life.- However, ~1n an operating power plant, this_ effect-.is relatively small
- compared to the many other variables that have a much larger impact on service life. More important to steam generator service life are other variables, l such as water chemistry control, mechanical design, and tub metallurgy, i
Accordingly, while-itereased prleary coolant temperature may_possibly increase
- i. ' wear and tear" of the tubes, this effect is negligible compared to other L -factors.
i i
l'
. - . - . - - . . . , - .. - . = . - - - - - . - - .
The following are questions handed to the NRC staff at the conclusion of the public meeting, followed by the NRC staff's response:
Q2]i Does Maine Yankee ever do a full core offload earlier than the standard time limit? What is the time limit?
Eli Maine Yankee Technical Specification 3.13.B states, ' Irradiated fuel shall not be moved until 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> after the reactor has been made subcritical."
Moving irradiated fuel from the reactor sooner than the time specified in TS 3.13.B would be a violation. Although the minimum time specified for ms.ument of irradiated fuel from the reactor has changed since the plant was first licensed to operate in 1972, Maine Yankee has never moved irradiated fuel earlier than the specified time limit.
Q1fi Should the licensee look over the shoulder of the independent investigator? ["To ensure we knew what the answer would be, we exercised -
extensive oversight."- Bob Jordan] .
Elfi A careful review of the meeting transcript (a' page 25, line 14) finds Mr.
Jordan's complete statement quoted as 'We didn't just turn Siemens loose on the small break LOCA analysis and just let them run their computer codes and simulations without some direction. In fact, there was a great ceal of direction. To ensure that we knew what the results were coina to be with the e hiahest decree of confidence. and to ensure that their calculations were reoresentative of Maine Yankee. and that they answered the Confirmatory Or_dit of the NRC with resoect to satisfyina 10 CFR 50.46. and the three TMI action Items..." (emphasis added). It appears to the NRC staff that Maine Yankee, being a purchaser of services provided by Siemens Power Corporation, is attempting here to describe its interest in ensuring that the work provided addresses the specific need for which it was purchased.
QZZ At what rate was the (containment] pressure pumped up to 63 psi?
Ell Because of the volume of the containment, even the most modern, high capacity air compressors take many, many hours to reach typical containment design test pressure. Maine Yankee states that to the best of its recollection, it took from 24 to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to reach 63 psig when the construction test of the containment was performed.
QZ8 How can you possibly justify shipping high-level nuclear waste to Texas, effectively making the whole country downstream from Maine + Vermont? This is illeaal environmental racism, placing nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, i:. a county of 2500 Hispanics.
RZA No one is proposing to ship high-level waste to Texas. If the proposed Texas site is approved, only low-level waste would be shipped there from Maine and Vermont for disposal.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) made the~ states responsible for the disposal of commercially generated and certain federally
(
r .
generated . low-level waste (LLW). The legislation encouraged the states to form compacts.to dispose of LLW regionally.
The LLRWPA also designated January 1,1986, as the date after which compacts could rettrict the use of their disposal facilities by excluding waste generated outside the compact region. However, by 1983 it had become clear ithat no naw disposal-facilities would be nperational by the 1986 milestone.
As a result, in January 1986, the LLRWPA Amendments Act was enacted. The LLRWPA extended the January 1, 1986, deadline by ten years, to January 1, f 1996. By that date, many new LLW disposal facilities were expected to be o
- rational, and the rights of the LLW generators to dispose of theit LLW at tie three operating sites would end.
^
'To help ensure that the states make adequate progress to develop new LLW disposal facilities, the Act established six milestones by which the states should make decisions and commit to certain actions. The majority of the states met the requirements of the early milestone dates.
The-proposed' disposal site for Hudspeth County, of which Sierra Blanca is the county seat, is for low-level nuclear waste. The State of' Texas has proposed a 16,000-acre tract near the Devil Ridge Mountains for this site.
The site would receive low-level contaminated waste--such as-tools, clothing, syringes, and glass tubing--from nuclear power plants, hospitals, research centere and military outposts. Maine and Vermont have entered into a contract with Texas to send their low level waste to tha site for disposal. This compact is before the U.S. Congress for approval, but the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Comunission (the-state's environmental agency) eventually must license the facility. The site would receive no high level waste. The NRC is not a party to these regional compacts; as noted above, the LLRWPA made
, the states responsible for arranging for LLW generated in the state. If
- someone has concerns about the proposed disposal site negotiated by the State of Maine, the comments would more appropriately be addressed to State officials.
.021 Dr. Willis shows a frightening lack of concern + imagination about iodine pills. Why don't you issue them to steryone now?
R21 See response to Question 15, above.
4
- According to Iht Washinaton Egjil, Hudspeth County is about the same size as-the State of Connecticut and has about 1350 registered voters, 60 l percent of whom are Hispanic. Sierra Blanca has a population of 700.
August 14. 1997 Part 2 of the public meeting began at approximately 7:00 p.m. with ,
introduction of NRC staff membcrs and a summary of the public meeting held in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, on April 25,1996. Questions from the public began with a discussion of 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria for emergency core
-cooling systems for light water cooled nuclear power reactors, and continued on various subjects until-approximately 10:20 p.m., at which time this public meeting was adjourned.
As noted previously, the focus of the public meeting was intended to be on the adequacy of Maine Yankee's SBLOCA analysis. The NRC staff present at the-meeting was prepared and did respond'to questions related to the SBLOCA and-containment analyses. During the course of.the public meeting, however, several questions unrelated to the SBLOCA issue were raised by-persons in attendance at the meeting. The persons who raised questions beyond the scope
,of the announced meeting agenda were advised that their-questions and an NRC
-response would be included in the summary of the meeting. These questions, identified by their page and line location in the transcri)t, along with NRC-responses, are presented in enclosure 3. -In addition to tie oral questions during the meeting, two people submitted hend-written questions to the staff following the public meeting. These questions and the NRC response are identified and ir.cluded at-the end of enclosure 3.
Original signed by Richard J. Clar Nn b N$ect Manager Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Docket No. 50-309
Enclosures:
- 1. Transcript of_ Part I of Meeting
- 2. Transcript of Part II of Meeting
- 3. Questions and NRC Responses cc w/encls: See next page D11TRIBUTION *w/ enclosures Hard-Cooy
- Docket File
- PUBLIC
- RClark E-Mail _
SCollins/FMiraglia
~
CHehl JRogge ACubbage RZimmerman DDorman SSun SVarga/JZwolinski- WLong CWillis EPeyton -GLongo GTracy EJordan~(JKR) Wolsen GHolahan *Previously Copcurred 0FFICE DRPE/PM , PDIV-2/LA (DUA/D M ,0GC* DRPEM 7 NAME RClar' @ EN haha[ Ryeisman JZwofinIki DATE M /o3/97 P;/N/97- (/h97 04 /09/97 D/k /97
-0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: MY4-29. SUM
-_. t ,
Partjtof:the:ptblicmeeting' began.atapprdihathl/7:00p.c.withi
?
- introduction..of, NRC staff members and T st.amary of the public meeting held in _
tKing of PrussicEPA on-April,25, 1996 3. Questions from therpublic began with a--
- discussion of 102CFR 50.46, acceptance criteria:for; emergency core cooling-systems for light water cooled nuclear power reactors,1and continued on variousEsubjects until approximatelyL10:20 p.m.,; at which time the_ pu_blic' Leeeting wast adjourned. * - ,#
f f j J ;)
' adequacy.of.
As noted previously; the focus of the Ibli[ Noti 'was'idtendedtobeon-the-h sis. The NR l staff?present at the Maine Yankee's SBLOCA1 anal meeting was prepared and did respond toi_ questions relatedsto-the'SBLOCA and-containment analyses.: During the cou'seiof= r the'public meetingL however, several questions unte1 4ted,to the.SBLOCA issue were raised byJpersons in:
attendance at the meeting. 'The persons who# raised-q~uestionstbeyond the:scopeL
- : of the: announced seeting igenda were: advised that their-questions and4an-NRC -
-response would be included in the' summary of the meeting.ilhese questions -
> identified by their page and line location in the transcript,7 along with NRC-responses,: are presented in Attachment 3.(In7 addition to the oral questions ~
s
-during the meeting,=two: people subm_itted-hand; written questions to the staff- '
- following<the public meeting. These questions:and the NRC responses are-identified and included at the end of Attachment 3..
Richard J. Clark, Serior Project Manager -
Division of Reactor Projects -'I/II
-_ Docket-No. 50-309 Attachments:- IL . Transcript of Part I-of Meeting
-2.- Transcript of Part II of Meeting-
- 3. Questions and NRC Responses cc w/atts: -See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Hard Cony DRPE r/f
-Docket File - OGC, 0-15B18 PUBLIC- ACRS,_TWF '
E-MAIL. - . _RCooper:(RWC).
- FMiraglia/AThadant,-.(FJM,ACT) D0orman (DHD)-
RZimmerman (RPZ)- WLong (WOL)-
SVarga-(SAV)- Longo(GML)
- JZwolinski1(JAZ)' W01sen-(WT01)-
!EPeyton-(ESP). .RConti RClark-(RJC2)- SSun (SBS)-
EJordan (JKR)' . .CWillis (CAW) iTCollins,:(TEC) GTracy (GMT)
- 4W0 -
0FC. LA:DRPE-- D:DSSA PM:DR gP ; DD:DRPE-OGC[S NAME. DCLAdE[cdw EPEYTONE GHOLAMAN M l JZWOLINSKI DATEi dM/97T / 2
/97 /j J/97 9 / 0 9 I97' -/ _/97 OFFICIAL: RECORD'COPYJ .
- Document Names' St\DC0429. SUM- -
ae -
u~ g ,
3
%:_ ~.% -g- ,
~
, A 9-N ' - _ ., "J _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- Part .2 of the-public meeting began' at approxicately /:00 p.a. with- -
-introduction of NRC staff members and a summary of ~the public meeting _ held in
-King of Prussia, PA on April 25, 1996. Questions-from t.te public began with a-discussion.of 10 CFR-50.46, ~acceptanca criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light water cooled nuclear power reactors, and continued;on various subjects until approximately 10:20 p.m., at which time the public-meeting was adjourned.
As noted previously, the focus of the public meeting was intended to be on the ;
adequacy of riaine Yankee's SBLOCA analysis. __ The NRC staff present at the meeting was prepared and did respond to questions related'to the SBLOM and >
containment analyses. During the course of the public meeting, howev, ,
several questions unrelated to the SBLOCA issue were raised by persons in attendance at the meeting. The persons who raised questions beyond-the scope of the announced meeting agenda were advised that.their questions and an NRC response would- be included in the summary of the meeting. These questions, ,
identified by their page and line location in the transcript, along with NRC responses, are presented in Attachment 3- In addition to the oral questions during the meeting, two people submitted hand-written. questions to the staff following the publie- meeting. : _These questions and the NRC responses are identified and included at the end of Attachment 3.
Richard J. Clark, Senior Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.- 50-309 Attachments: 1. . Transcript of Part I of Meeting
- 2. Transcript of Part II of Meeting
- 3. Questions and NRC-Responses cc w/atts: See next page DISTRIBUTION:.
Hard Coov DRPE r/f Docket File OGC, 0-15B18 PUBLIC ACRS, TWF
. 'E-MAIL- RCooper (RWC)
FMiraglia/AThadani, (FJM, ACT) DDorman (DHD)
RZimmerman (RPZ) WLong (WOL)
SVarga (SAV) Longo (GML)
JZwolinski (JAZ) W01sen (WTOI)
EPeyton (ESP) RConti RClark (RJC2) SSun (SBS)
EJordan (JKR) CWillis (CAW)
TCollins,(TEC) GTracy (GMT)
OFC PM:DRP g . LA:DRPE SRXB:DSSA OGC DD:DRPE NAME DC w EP5 N N TCOLLINS LONGO JZWOLINSKI DATE 43/// /97-- 3 /_M /97 / /97 / /97 / /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Namo St\DC0429. SUM i
l
l NRC Form 8-C (4-79)
NRCM 0240 i
COVER SHEET FOR CORRESPONDENCE Use this Cover Sheet to Protect Originals of Multi Page Correspondence.
C O
h i - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ %.
J