ML20202J632
| ML20202J632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1999 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202J621 | List: |
| References | |
| ASB-300-626, NUDOCS 9902090197 | |
| Download: ML20202J632 (170) | |
Text
-
OR/GML OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
INDIAN POINT, UNIT I DECOMMISSIONING MEETING Case No:
Work Order No.: ASB-300-626 LOCATION: Peekskill, NY I
DATE:
Wednesday, January 20,1999 PAGES: I - 132 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
.Nidatn, .
(202) 842-0034 PD ADO K 050 0 03 j
II- =
OR/G NA'.
n OFFICIAL- TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
INDIAN POINT, UNIT 1 DECOMMISSIONING MEETING Case No:
Work Order No.: ASB-300-626 LOCATION: Peekskill, NY '
- DATE: Wednesday, January 20,1999 PAGES: 1 - 132 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 200%
(202) 842-0034 PD A O K 05 03 T ,
' 4 a
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
4 INDIAN POINT, UNIT 1 5 PUBLIC DECOMMISSIONING MEETING 6 ***
7 8
[
9 New York State Armory 10 955 Washington Street 11- Peekskill, New York 12 13 Wednesday, January 20, 1999 14
. 15 The above-entitled meeting commenced, pursuant to 16 notice, at 7:07 p.m.
17 l
18 PARTICIPANTS:
19 FRANCIS X. CAMERON, Facilitator
- 20 JOHN L. MINNS, NRC 21 ETOY G. HYLTON, NRC 22 MICHAEL MASNIK, NRC
, 23 DINO C SCALETTI, NRC l I 24 WILLIAM D. HUFFMAN, NRC 25 TIM JOHNSON, NRC 4
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
,_ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
.m . _ .. _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . _ ._ ._. _ _ . _ .. . . _ . . . . . _
l . 2 1- PARTICIPANTS: (Continued) ,
r l
2 f0NALDBELLAMY, NMSS l
3 ~ ANTHONY DIMITRIADIS, NMSS 4 DIANE P. SCRENCI, NRC '
5 ROBERT TEMPS, NRC :
6 JAMES S. BAUMSTARK, Consolidated Edison 7 CHARLES JACKSON, Consolidated Edison !
P 8 A. ALLEN BLIND, Consolidated Edison 9 MARILYN ELI 6 3,,,,_
10 MARK JACC"s .
L- i
- .11 SANDRA GAYLace TF j 12 PETER JAMES ATHERTON 13 MICHEL RCOZLL M79U 14 MIKE DANPF 15 CHRIS O'CONNOR 16 DAN MOON.
17 JOHN BERNARD
, . g. -
18 SHIRLEY LYS"INSKI- LOSIO' L
-19 MIKE SNYDER l.
h 20 JOAN ?2T"CC-! ' I N D'J 53 31' FELICIAGRANT -
22- MARK JACOBS
- 23- MARGARET EBERLY
- 24 , FIONA FARRELL 25 ROk PEGLER-PIE 5~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
- m. - . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - .
3 1 PARTICIPANTS: .'[ Continued] l l
2 -KATHERINE MCLAUGHLIN 3- 'ABBY LUBY 4
5' 6-7 8
10 1
11- l 12 13' ,
14 .
15-16- l i
17 l l
18' '
i 19 )
l 20 l l
21 l> l
' 22 i.
= 2 3 -'
i
^
24
-12 5 i !
4 n . i.".
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
_, . . _ - . . . . . - . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . - . . . ~ . . - . _ - . _ ..._ . ._.....-- _ _ .--. _ ._ __ . _ .. _.
i 4
l' PROCEEDINGS :
2 [7:07 p.m.]
3 MR. CAMERON: I would like to welcome you to the 4 NRC's public meeting on the decommissioning of the Indian I 5 Point Unit 1 facility. My name is Chip Cameron and I am the i e
6 Special Counsel for Public Liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission, and I am going to serve as your facilitator !
8_ . tonight for the meeting.
9 My role as a facilitator is generally to help you 10 have an effective meeting and specifically what I would like ,
11 to help you do is I want to make sure that everyone has a i
12 chance to speak, that all of your questions are answered, i 13 -and I want to make sure that the information that is !
14 presented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the i
15; utility is clear. I want to keep us on schedule and also !
11 6 keep us focused on the subject of tonight's meeting, which l 17 is the decommissioning.of Indian Point Unic 1.
18 Now'the NRC tonight has three objectives, and one l
- 19. of those is to inform you of the status of the t
'201 decommissioning process, including the NRC regulatory ;
21 framework for decommissioning. l 22 The second objective is to answer any questions t
123 Land try to. address-any concerns that you have about the 24 decommissioning.of Unit 1. ;
i 25' The third objective is to factor all of your :
)
i ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 !
(202) 842-0034 l
l
. - , ~ - - . . . - - . - - _ . - - ~.- - - - . - - . - - - . _ - . . - - . . . =--
i l
5 -
-1 . comments into the NRC's ongoing regulatory process.
2 The meeting tonight was prompted by the-NRC's new l l
3 regulation for'the decommissioning of reactors, and one l 4 objective of this regulation"is to ensure that the public 5 has information on what a particular utility's plans are for
.6' the decommissioning of~a reactor and what the NRC's role in 7 decommissioning is. A public meeting is provided for in the
! 8 regulations and that is.why we are here.
9l I would like to emphasize that there isn't l
10 anything that.has happened in regard to Unit 1 of Indian 11 Point that has prompted us to be here. Rather, the 12 Commission believes that it is important to provide the
.13 public with a status report of any plant that is in this ;
14 decommissioning status and that is why we are here.
15 A few words about the agenda and I hope everybody 16 .has had a chance to pick one up with the other materials 17 that are on the tables over here.
18 We have three presentations on various aspects of i 19- the decommissioning process, but in addition to giving you 20 information, we want to hear from you and we are going to 21 have a question and answer segment after every presentation, 22 and we will try to keep this as interactive as possible and
'23 not just talk at you all night.
24 The first agenda item that we will be getting to 25 in a minute is a presentation by the NRC Staff that gives l
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
o Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 '
i i
6 i
1 you an overview of what the decommissioning process and the 2 regulations are so that some of the specific things that you 3 will hear about from Coned will make more sense to you. !
4 Next, we are going to hear from Coned about the ;
i 5 specific. activities in regard to Unit 1, Indian Point Unit i
- 6. 1, and ther4 we are going to hear from the NRC inspectors ~
P 7' about their inspection activities at Unit 1.
i 8 We do have time at the end of the meetings for ,
9 . items that we may not have covered or may not have had time :
10 ' h to cover after each one of the segments and if someone has a '
11 prepared statement to read and you haven't managed to ,
12 . introduce that into the question and answers after each of 4 13 the presentations, then that would be the time where we 14 would hear from you in terms of a prepared statement.
i 15 We.have a number of NRC Staff here, and I would i
16 encourage you to talk with them after the meeting about any !
17 issues that you have. They are obviously going to be here '
18 to answer questions during the. meeting but I would encourage I 19 you and encourage them to talk after the meeting, and in a j 20 minute John Minns will introduce the NRC Staff that are i
21 .here.
22 We are keeping a transcript of the meeting and 23 there is a sign-up sheet if you want to get a copy of the t
24- transcript and the groundrules are pretty simple for the 25 meeting tonight. If you have a question or comment after ;
i l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 !
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
. ~ _ . . - . . _ -- _ . - _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . - . ._
7 1 lthe presentation is over, raise your hand and -- if you do 2 have a question or comment, raise your hand. I will call on 3 .you and you can do one of two things.
4 You can either go over to one of the mikes on i
~5 either end here, or I'will give you this talking stick and y 6 you can' speak from your seat, if you want to. Just state '
7 your name clearly and any affiliation, if that is 8 ' appropriate, so that the Court Reporter can get that onto 9 the. transcript.
1-0 I think we are going to have plenty of time 11 tonight and I want to encourage everybody to offer any
~
12 comments they have or ask any questions. There may be times
- 13. when I will have~to ask you to summarize, so that we can go 14: .on to other people. I want to make sure everybody has a 15- chance to' talk, but we may be'able to pick up your topic
~
- 16. again at the end of the evening.
17: With that, I think we'll all look forward to 18 having a discussion about this very important issue, and 19 wha't I would like.to do now is turn this over to John Minns, 20 who is the-Project Manager from the Nuclear Regulatory 4 21 Commission for Unit 1. John?
22 MR MINNS: Thanks, Chip. First slide, please.
23 Good evening. I am John Minns. I am the Nuclear !
24 Regulatory Commission Decommissioning Project Manager for 25 Indian' Point'. As Project Manager, I am the principal point ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut-Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
I
8 1 of contact at the NRC for the decommissioning of Indian 2 Point Unit 1. There are three units at the Indian Point 3 site. Units 1 and 2 are owned and operated by Consolidated 4 Edison, and Unit 3 is operated by the New York Power 5 Authority - NYPA. Units 2 and 3 are still operating, so 6 that our discussion is strictly going to be on Unit 1.
7 I would like to thank everyone for being here thie 8 evening. We appreciate that you have interest in the 9 decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1 and have taken time 10 to be here with us tonight. A large part of tonight's 11 meeting will be devoted to responding to your questions and 12 receiving your comments. Next slide, please.
13 As the Project. Manager, I am only one of a team of 14 NRC professionals overseeing Indian Point decommissioning.
15 Joining me this evening are a few of the NRC Staff who will 16 have important tasks to perform as part of the team involved 17 in ensuring that Con Edison decommission activities are 18 performed in accordance with all the regulations. They are 19 available to answer questions for you tonight.
20 I would like to introduce them at this time. From i 21 my Headquarters Dr. Michael Masnik. Mike is the Section 22 Chief for Decommissioning. He has supervised 14 Project 23 Managers such as myself who are responsible for 24 plant-specific decommissioning licensing projects.
25 Ms. Etoy Hylton is in the back. Etoy is our ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. . . _ _ _ . ._ ...___..~._._._____. - _ _._ ____._.-... .__ _ _ .
L 1
pg0 1
L Licensee Assistant -- is here to oversee the administrative 2 aspects of our meeting.
3 Mr. Dino Scaletti and Mr. William Huffman -- would
, 4 t you please stand 90 they are also Project Managers from my 1
5 section.
6 We also have Mr. Tim Johnson -- Tim? -- from our
'7 Division of Waste Management. Tim is a Branch Chief, and 8 will lead the group responsible for reviewing the licence
'l 9 termination plan that Coned Indian Point Unit 1 must submit 10- to NRC.for. review and approval before the-license is
'11 terminated.
I 12 We also have some representatives here from our
)
13' NRC Region I Headquarters in King-of-Prussia. These people !
14 are' tasked to independently inspect the power reactors 15 undergoing decommissioning. They provide a' reasonable level 16 of assurance that activities are conducted safely and in i
-17 'accordance~with regulations.
18 Dr.RonBellamy--RonisBranchChief$ the 19 Decommissioning and Laboratory Branch. He is responsible 20 for inglementing the decommissioning and special program at I 21 Indian Point Unit 1. Along with Mr. Bellamy is Mr. Anthony 22 Dimitriadis. . Tony is the Health Resident Inspector which is
-23 responsible for' Indian Point Unit 1.
I 24 Finally we have Diane Screnci. Diane is a member i
25 of the Public Affairs Department in Region I.
1 1
1-
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
Yph wb 10 foh 1 We also have with us tonight Bob Temps. B(ob? Bob 1 1
2 is our Resident Inspector at Indian Pcine 3 Before going any further, I would like to point 4 out the availability of certain documents in the back of 5 this room. These documents may be of interest to you 6 tonight. First of all, there is a recently-issued document, 7 of the NRC Er~"' -- Response to Frequently-Asked Questions 8 on Decommissioning Power Plants. These copies are available 9 for you to take home. '
10 There are also copies of Con Edison Spent Fuel 11 Management and Funding- the Plank.
12 I also brought along a copy of this book here, 13 U.S. NRC Information Book. This gives you a summary of 14 information about NRC regulation responsibilities.
15 We also have copies of the agenda for tonight's 16 meeting, and as Francis Cameron mentioned, various sign-up 17 lists. In addition, we have copies of tonight's slides.
18 The purpose of this meeting is to give you an 19 overview of the NRC's decoramissioning process f rom an NRC 20 perspective. I will first give you a little background on 21 the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, then 22 discuss the NRC regulations that apply to power plant 23 decommission programs. We will end up with Dr. Bellamy and 24 Mr.. Dimitriadis, who will talk to you about the NRC 25 Inspection Oversight Program and its application to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l
(202) 842-0034
~ 11 1 ' decommission at Indian Point 1. Nexc slide, please.
2 Decommissioning is the last phase in the life of
'3- reactor facilities. Its purpose is to remove-the facilities i
4 safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity at the Level j 5 facility'and' site to let:cr.that to permit the release of the i 6 site and 44HS termination of the NRC license. The focus of
]
7 'the NRC is solely the removal of the radiological hazards j
.8 resulting from the operation of the facilities.
9 The fact that a utility may chuuse to spend-10 additional funds to remove buildings from the facility is of 11 interest to us only if the material that is being disposed !
12 of is radioactive. Next slide, please.
13 Once the residual level of radioactive materials 4
1 14 .are reduced to below certain criteria, either.by 15 decontamination or disposal of contaminated material
_16 :offsite, the NRC license for the facility and site can be 17 terminated. Before the license is terminated, the utility 18' is required to perform an extensive final radiological 19 . survey to prove to NRC that the site is clean enough to
~
20 maf terminate the license. Then ;he NRC erset do a confirmatory p 21 survey to be certain that the site is within regulatory 1
22 limits.
- 23. Once the licensg is terminated, the NRC no longer ll \
L 24 has any regulatory oversig.ht over the facility or the site, i
\
!- f25- 'This is the ultimate goal of decommissioning, the i
\,
1
\
s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 11025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
._ ..m _ .. _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
12 1
l' termination of the license.
- 2. .There is one other key element in the definition 3 of-decommissioning and that is removal of the facility i 4 . safely from service. once a facility permanently ceased ,
5 operation the spent' fuel pool and associated systems must be l
-6 maintained operational to ensure the safe storage of the l 7 spent fuel and to protect public health and safety. The 8, utility's activities that result in disposal of 9 decontaminated or activated material must also be conducted !
10 in such a way as to safeguard public health and safety and i
11 protect the environment.
12 You may have noticed that I have not anything 13 about disposal of the spent fuel that was created during the ;
14 operation of the facility. Initially when the spent fuel '
.15 was removed from the Indian Point Unit 1 reactor vessel it i 11 6 -was highly radioactive and generated a lot of heat. Over 17 time, the' radioactive material decayed and the fuel became
- 18 'less-radioactive and the amount of heat generated decreased 19 significantly, f
'20 However, even after many years of decay, radiation f sep 21 level of the spent fuel is quite high, 9&me radiation ,
22 shielding must be provided. ;
23' -The(nrrentplansprovideforspentfueltobe ;
g 24' . ultimately disposed of in a Department of Energy high-level
.25 Lwaste burial site. However, such a site is not presently i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters 'i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 {
Washington, D.C.,. 20036 ;
(202) 842-0034 f
k
-, - . - . ~ , --,+,---,e -e- , ,.-. e
_ _ . . _. - . _ _ . . .- . . . _ - - - =_- - .- -
i 13 1
1 available. Therefore, the fuel will remain on-site until a 2 decision is made on its disposition. There are currently 3 160 spent fuel assemblies stored in the Indian Point 1 spent 4 fuel pool. Next slide, please.
5 When it comes time to decommission a nuclear power i
6 plant a utility has several options. Our regulation allows ,
7 utilities to begin dismantlement immediately or if they 8 prefer to store the facility in safe, stable condition for j 9 some period of time before they begin dismantlement 10 activities or they may choose a combination of these two l 11 options.
12 Our regulation states that under normal i 13 circumstances the utility has 60 years to complete 14 decommissioning. The decision how to proceed is a utility 15 decision.
16 A few years ago we issued a generic Environmental 17 Impact Statement that looked at this decommissioning option 18 and we determined that as long as the utility complied with 19 our regulation, either option one or a combination of 20 options is acceptable from the environmental point of view.
21 One of the principal reasons for arriving at this conclusion 22 is that the risk to public health and safety and environment 23 at a decommissioned plant is significantly less than at an 24 operating plant. The risks continually decrease over time 25 due to radioactive decay which reduces general facility ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
14
- 1. contamination and reduce both the radiation level and the 2 heat. generated by the spent fuel.
3 This reduction in risk after a period of time is i 4 so significant that many of the regulatory requirements ;
5 associated with plant operation are no longer needed. After 6 a period of time off-site emergency planning and many of the 7 technical requirements associated with plant operation are 8 no longer needed.
9 Another example of our response to this ,
10 significant reduction of risk is elimination of a full-time 11 Resident Inspector at the site and reliance instead on '
12 inspections conducted by NRC decommissioning specialists.
13 Having given you a brief overview of 14 decommissioning, I will now talk about NRC's decommissioning 15 regulations. In August of 1996 the decommission regulations 16 were amended and the process by which NRC oversees 17 decommissioning changed significantly. These changes are 18 based on the experience we have gained in decommissioning 19 power plants since the original decommissioning rule went ;
20 into effect in 1988. Next slide, please.
21 A change in the regulations is the requirement for 32 plants entering decommissioning to submit to the NRC a <
23 document called a post-shutdown decommissioning activity 24 report or PSDAR within two years of permanently ceasing ;
25 operation. This document, the PSDAR, is required by ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Ccurt Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. ._ _.__ _ _ .~._.____._..__._____._._.__._._.m___. _ . .
15 1 regulation-to include'several things -- a description of the 2 planned decommissioning activities, a schedule for the 3 accomplishment, an estimate of the expected cost, and 4
lastly, a discussion of the utility reason for concluding )
5 that the environmental impacts associated with j J
6 decommissioning are bounded by -a previously issued
.7 Environmental Impact Statement. Next slide, please.
8- The PSDAR submittal purpose -- one purpose is to 9 notify the NRC Staff in time to conduct any necessary safety
- 10. inspection before the initiation of any major decommission 11 activity. Another purpose of the PSDAR is to assure that as s i 2
12- decommissioned plane will not result in'any environmental ;
13' impacts that have not been previously considered.
l 14 I would like to point out that the regulations do 15 not require NRC review and approval of the PSDAR. Before 1
- 16 1996 the licensee had to submit a decommission plan, which L17 is about four inches thick, and attemptidto describe the s 18 decommission process-for the facility. The NRC was required 19 to review and approve the plan. The regulation recognized 20 that some plants, such as Indian Point Unit 1, have already !
21 been shut down for more than 24 years and specifically state l
' hyp,$dre !
122 that if such a plant has an appis.imatc= decommission plan, 23 as ih the. case with Indian Point 1, the decomadssion plan is 24 in ;ffcat to b; considered the PSDAR.
25 The NRC approved the decommission plan in January l
1 ANN,RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ,
Washington, D.C. 20036 '
(202) 842-0034 i
16 1 of 1996. We have copies in the back of the room,WLteg. of 2~ this plan? So by provision of the 1996 changes to the l >
L . regulation, Con Edison did not have to submit a new PSDAR.
L3 I 4 The regulations do require that the licensee update the ;
i 5 PSDAR if there are any significant changes in activities or
( 6 schedules associated with facility decommissioning. I t
7 The regulations also require that the NRC hold a 8 'public meeting in the vicinity of the facility once the '
9 licensee submits the PSDAR. Such is the case of Indian 10 Point 1. iAV
'The old decommissiong plan is the PSDAR and we did 11 edt
- not hold a public meeting during the decommission, plan l 12' approval process. The Staff has determined that a public ;
13 meeting is appropriate at Indian Point Unit 1. Next slide, 14 .please.
15 The regulation also imposed some additional 16 restrictions on utilities with power reactors undergoing i 17 decommissioning. The utility is prohibited from performing ,
18 any decommissioning activities that will foreclose the -
19 . release of the site for possible unrestricted use, result in l
20 a significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, .
\
12 1 cn: undermine reasonable assurance that adequate funds will 22 be available for decommissioning.
i 231 The NRC Staff will be looking to ensure that these i 24 .three additional requirements are part of a utility's l 2'5 screening criteria whenever there's a plan to make changes s i
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters !
[ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l l (202) 842-0034 l
? i
l 17 l 1 to the plant.
2 As I mentioned earlier, the utility can place the 3 (facility in long-term storage or immediately begin 4 dismantlement and decommissioned activities or choose a 5 combination of these two options. At'some time before to 6 the end of'the 60 year limited period, the utility will be ;
7 nearing the completion of the radiological cle@SO plan-df the i 8 facilities.. Next slide, please.
61 iod 0 FINE 9
Two years before the plan terminates et.g Indian
%<en*$
10 Point Unit.l Consfolidated g Edison is required to submit a 11 license termination plan to the NRC. As you can see on this 12 slide, the plan requires the licensee to submit a variety of 13 information. I will comment on a couple of these terms used a
14 here that you may not be familiar with.
15 Site characterization is a process.that-e utility Yt-16 will use to' identify where decommissioning efforts at the 17 site need to be focused.
18 Site remediation consists of activities necessary 19 to reduce the radiological hazards to a safe level. Also 20 notice that this termination plan requires the utility to ;
I 21 report any new environmental information associated with the i 22 termination activities. Next slide, please. I i
. 23 The-NRC will notice the receipt of the licensee 24 termination plan in the Federal Register, make the plan 25 available for public-comment, and offer an opportunity for l ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. _ ~ . - _ - - -- . . - .- - -. . - - -.-- - - . - . .. - - ..
.18 1 public hearing on the plan The NRC Staff will also hold a i 2 public meeting in the vicinity of the_ site to the utility to 3 explain the plan to the public and give the NRC Staff an 4 opportunity to discuss the remaining NRC regulab bactivit b f
5 associated with license termination. This meeting also j 6 allows the public to ask questions. ,
7 NRC approval of the license termination plan will ;
8 be a license amendment with authorized implementation of the f
- 9 plan. The utility then continues to clean up the site and 10 perform the final radiation survey. '
11 The NRC Staff will continue to oversee the )
12 process. ;
k'cLVb9% the i 13 The Commission will dcLotmine tc f;1icense if it '
t
'14 determines that the remaining activities have been performed .
15 in accordance with the approved termination plan and if the 16 final radiation survey demonstrates that the facilities and 17 site are suitable for release. Next slide, please. i i
118 With that as a background, I would like to comment i t
19 on our experience with the actual decommissioning of other i 7
20
~
power plants around the United States. L 21 Twenty nuclear power plants permanently ceased Id i 12 2 operation or began decommissiong since the early 1990s. Two '
23 power reactors, Shoreham and Fort St. Vrain, have completed 24- decommissioning and we have get 18 power reactors in the
.q t 25' decommission' phase. I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034 ;
pert. 19 1 -Esx-f acilities are being decontaminated and 2 dismantled -- Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock, Haddam Neck,
=3 Maine. Yankee.
I 4 Ten facilities are in long-term storage: TMI, La 1 5 Crosse.femil) DMd I Ob l o $@g b OoM ,
Qg @ordi I, 4ab 146q3 l 6 Two fdcilities are planning long-term storage -- ,
7 Zion 1 and Zicn 2. !
1 3 One facility is permanently shut down, Millstone 1 9 auxi it is undecided.what th; conscqucmcmo to thc plant are_
10 gsing tc bc.
11 Although you heard this evening'that risks are 12 reduced at a decommissioned plant and certain regulatory 13 requirements are no longer needed, we want to assure you 14 that NRC places significant emphasis on inspecting the i
15 utility performance during the decommission process.
16 Later on, Dr. Bellamy and Tony Dimitriadis will
~
17 briefly describe our regulatory inspection process. Next 18 slide, please.
l 19 Before I turn the mike over to Francis, I would 20 like to say that I hope that my remarks have improved your 21 understanding of the decommissioning process. Your
'22 questions and comments are always welcome.
23 To facilitate communication, L-have prepared--- I 24 have provided my mailing address, phone number, and 25 electronic mail address on this slide. Please note that the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
20 1 NRC also maintains a local public document room in the White
- 2 Plains Public Library. Etoy and I visited the library this 3 week and it appears to be in very good shape.
4- Mr. Cameron-.
5 MR. CAMERON: Thanks a lot, John. John covered a 6 lot of territory there and some of it may make more sense to 7 you after we hear the Coned presentation, but are there l 8 questions or comments about the overall regulatory 9 framework? Again, you can either go to one of these mikes 10 on the side or I can just very simply bring you this mike.
'11 Questions? Comments? Marilyn -- and Marilyn, if you could 12 .just -- and everyone -- state your name and affiliation as 13 appropriate, for the Court Reporter. ,
14- MS. ELME' Certainly. My name is Marilyn Elif' Do '
f 15 you need the address too, Chip? What do you want? Name and ;
116 what? Just name?
17- MR. CAMERON: And your affiliation if you want to
- 18. give it.
19: MS. ELRI My name is Marilyn EliIand I work with L 20 .the Indian Point Project. I live in Cortland, which is in 21 the "no escape zone" from the Indian Point Nuclear Power 22' Comp.ex.
23 I noticed the criteria for public hearing and 24 review. I did not notice anyplace in the NRC regulatory ,
25- framework for a site-based citizen action committee that '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. :
Court Reporters {
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034
i 21 l
I would participate with the whole -- within the whole 2 framework.
3 Rather than having hearings and report-backs and a 4 checklist, what I would like to ask is where would a 5 site-based citizens' committee fit into this particular 6 regulatory framework?
1 7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, great. John or Mike, would 8 you like to answer that?
9 MR. MASNIK: Yes. This is Michael Masnik. The 10 regulations require a citizens advisory board or a citizens 11 based organization under one circumstance towards the end of 12 the license termination phase. There is a license 13 termination plan that is submitted and if the licensee
-14 requests unrestricted release -- I'm sorry, restricted 15 release of the site, they would be required to form a :
16 citizens' advisory committee.
17 Except for that one situation there is nothing in 18 the regulations that do require it.
19 If -- I know at a number of other facilities we do 20 have citizens' advisory panels, and those have been 21 sponsored by the licensee, and perhaps the licensee would 22 like to comment on whether or not they are interested in a 23 citizens' advisory panel.
24 MR. CAMERON: Do you have some further comments?
25 Marilyn? And does anybody from Coned have a comment on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
22 1 this?
2 MR. BAUMSTARK: I would like to say that we are 3 currently working actively with the local representatives, 4 the mayors of the local towns and the various elected 5 officials in the towns. We keep them updated on programs, 6 issues on a very frequent basis through our Public Affairs 7 Office. We certainly -- as alluded to here -- as we draw 8 closer to the time when we are going to be. dismantling the 9 l plant we would welcome any involvement of your group or any 10 other citizens' group to help explain the process as we are 11 going through that and reassure the local community that 12 what we are doing is in the best interest of certainly 13 nuclear safety.
14 MS. elf [ Well, I am reading from the Part 20 -
15 statements of consideration, which does talk about 16 site-based review committees, and I do know that Yankee Rowe 17 and Haddam Neck had that kind of review, and I do realize 18 that they are closer to the end of their decommissioning.
11 9 However, it would seem wise to not only include 20 certainly elected officials but also all the stakeholders 21 involved, and perhaps a dialogue could be started now that 22 would involve those stakeholders who towards the end of the 23 licensing might be involved in a site review committee. It
-24 seems to me that that would really facilitate communication 25 with the community.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
I J
l 23 lL MR. BAUMSTARK: We have no problem at all with 2 establishing such a communications link and after the 3 meeting tonight if you would give us your name and how we 4 might organize such a meeting, again working through the 5 elected officials we would be more than glad to participate 6 in that type of a communication.
7 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, 8 ' Marilyn, and -- is this Mark? Hi. I'm sorry -- again,
~
91 state your name and affiliation.
10 MR. JACOBS: Sure. My name is Mark Jacobs. I am
)
- 11. theDirectorofWCPAC--West [$hesterPeople'sAction -
12 Coalition.
13 I have a follow-up question related to the 14- oversight committee, about the citizens' advisory board.
15 You said you would be willing to talk about it 16 after the meeting, possibly setting something up, and I 17 wanted to raise some aspects of that while we are still in 18 this public meeting and see if you would be willing to
- 19. accept certain aspects of what that citizen advisory board 20' would be able to do.
21 One, I would want the citizen advisory board to 22 have complete access to all the records for Indian Point 1 23 including all radiation incident reports (RIRs) and all 24 unusual occurrence reports.
25 Second, that there be on that citizens' advisory ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
24 1 board aLreasonable balance of those who have supported the 2' plant and those who have been opposed to the plant. j 3 Third,'that this advisory board be given some sort
{
4 of budget, and that budget would be used to call in experts 5 with credentials of independence when something that Con !
6 Edison is proposing to do to make a change, that then this !
7 advisory board would be able to call on experts to be able f 8 to evaluate on their own whether these changes are safe and {
i 9 appropriate. i 10 I wonder if you would comment on this. ;
11 MR. BAUMSTARK: What I would like to do is review
(
12 more in detail the specific actions that you are requesting i
.13 here. I think most of them are matters of public record i 14 already and we could certainly take a look at making i 15 available to you those that might not already be in public i
.16 document rooms. '
l 17 As far as-opening'this discourse, as I stated !
18 earlier, we'certainly are not adverse. _
We are currently j 1
19 working through public officials in that type of a discourse l t
20~ now. If you or any other citizens' group. wishes to
.21 participate, that is certainly again a~line of 22 communications that we would fully ascribe to.
- 23 My only concern is that, as you will hear here in !
L 24 a.few minutes,:we are really not going to be taking much l L ;
25 action as far as decommissioning for about another 15 years, '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 )
(202) 842-0034 )
l
25 1 and the dismantlement activities I will talk about which 2 'will take place sometime after our license expires in 2013 3 will, as,was described earlier, certainly have the 4 opportunity.for'a public forum to discuss exactly how we are (
5 going'to dismantle the remaining equipment at the site.
6' 'I guess my basic point is it may be a little bit i 7 premature to discuss decommissioning 15 to 20 years in 8 advance of when'we are going to be required to submit our !
9 ' dismantlement plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 10 again we would certainly welcome your participation at that 11 time.
4
- 12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think that perhaps you have 13 'the beginning of a dialogue here though on how to approach 14- this, andlet'sgotoAssemblywomanGaylf4.
15 MS.GAYL$R: SandyGayl'NEf, New York State L-16 Assemblywoman.
17 I just had a couple comments about the 18_ presentation that you have made so far.
19 On page 6 when it says the."PSDAR is required to
. 20 provide" and the last point there is " environmental impacts 21 are bounded-by previously issued environmental impact !
I
- 22. statements". I guess I have a question. The environmental j 23- laws were very different when this plant, Indian Point 1, 24- .was' established than they are today, and I wondered if we
- 25. are complying with the environmental impact statements that 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
~
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. - - - - .- _. . - l
26 1- are on the books today, and then just kind of as a 2 follow-up, on page 8, when you talk the fact that the 3 utility can't do decommissioning unless the release of the 4 site is available for unrestricted use, and then on the next 5 page you say-that the plan could have restrictive use.
l 6 Now I guess I want to know what's unrestricted, }
7 what's restricted. I want to know whether the facility can f
8 be used for some other type of plant recreational center --
9 you know, I don't know, and I don't know what the difference '
i 10 is -- the restricted and the unrestricted. ;
11 Then one more question. On the two plants that 12 have decommissioned and you have onsite storage, could you 13 give us some more details of what you consider onsite i 14' storage,'and can the site be used for something else while 15 'the onsite storage is'there? I think the answer is yes, but i
16 I really don't know. i 17 MR. BAUMSTARK: Three very good questions. In 18 reference to the first question on Environmental Impact -
t 19 Statements,-in 1988 the NRC performed a generic !
20 Environmental Impact Statement that looked at 21 decommissioning in a generic way and we. looked at a variety a i
22- of ways of_taking the plant apart and what the impacts might 23 be. That sort of_ defines the envelope. .
24 I am not certain for Indian Point 1 but I believe ,
25 there was a Environmental Impact Statement issued for Indian i
i t
. ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD. *
. Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, . Suite 1014 ,
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
27 l
1 Point 1 as well. That also further defined the envelope, 2 although that impact statement is quite a few years old, if +
l 3 indeed it exists. I am not certain. !
4 But in any event the 1988 GEIS does define the 5 envelope and if the licensee should choose a decommissioning 6 methodology that wasn't considered in that 1988 8
7 Environmental Impact Statement, then they would have to come 8 in and it would be essentially an unreviewed environmental 9 question and we would have to look at it.
10 An example I have used in the past is let's say 111 the licensee decides, and it may not be applicable to. Indian 12 Point but let's say if it had a concrete containment 13 structure and they decided after they cleaned up the 14 internal equipment to explosively demolish that reactor 15 building. I think we would say wait a minute -- we didn't 16 consider that in the 1988 GEIS as a method of removing 17 radioactive material, and you would have to come in and 18 demonstrate to us that it wouldn't cause an adverse 19 environmental impact.
20 So as long as they stay within the environmental 21 bounds of.that 1988 document, we feel comfortable that the 22 impacts will not be unacceptable.
23 Relative to your second question as to restricted 12 4 or unrestricted use, this is one of these few times in my 25 life that I have looked at something and I said, wow, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reportars 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
28 1 ~there's an inconsistency here -- I might be asked this )
2 question some day -- I better be able to answer it.
l )
3 It does seem like there is an inconsistency.
- 4. However, when we say " forecloses the release of the site for 5' possible unrestricted use" what we are saying is that the i
6 licensee can't do anything that would prevent them from 7 actually releasing the site.
f i
8 For example, there is a certain level of '
9 contamination at the site and it is reasonable at the t i
10 present time to assume that the licensee can clean that site !
11 up for unrestricted use. Now they can't come in and then i
12 put some additional radioactive material and say it is now i 13 _too difficult to clean up and therefore we have to go to the !
i 14- restricted use option. !
.15 Now'when we talk about restricted and unrestricted '
16 there is a provision in the regulations that allow that if !
17- it gets to the point where it is too difficult to clean up, 18 and what we did for example.as we looked at several 19 facilities -- not power facilities but some materials '
20 facilities where there is so much contaminated dirt that
, 21- when you look at the risk associated with transporting that 22 dirt somewhere versus putting some restrictions on that
.23- particular location for some unspecified period of time, it :
24' makes better sense to leave the dirt there and restrict ;
12 5 1 . access for some period of time afterwards. !
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD. ]
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 :
(202) 842-0034 1
i i
29 1 Now what I want to tell you is that that 2 primarily -- well, all the plants that have come in for 3 decommissioning, power reactors, we believe will easily meet 4 the 25 millirem release criteria that the NRC has set, and 5 there would not be any restrictive release required.
6 The third question, onsite storage of the spent 7
fuel, a number of facilities in the country are building dry 8 storage facilities for the fuel. We call those ISFSIs or I 9 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations. Those 10 facilities are reasonably small. It's typically a couple of 11 acres of property and there are some considerations. '
12 There are some considerations as to how close the l 13 public can get to them. There are some physical security 14 considerations as well, but it doesn't preclude the use of 15 the site for other activities.
16 For example, at the Fort St. Vrain plant in 17 Colorado they put the fuel in dry storage in an ISFSI and 18 they repowered the facility for natural gas. They 19 dismantled the reactor, removed all the radioactive 20 contamination and then repowered the site for natural gas, 21 and that we have actually had several people, several 22 companies come in and talk to us as to what would be a 23 consideration if we wanted to repower this facility for 24 natural gas.
25 One of the things we would r?.y is, well, you would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i l
30 1 have to look at what the potential impacts are to the ISFSI 2 from bringing, let's say, natural gas onsite. You would 3 have to worry explosions. You would have to worry about ?
4 flames impinging this, but if you could demonstrate to us 5 that that is not a problem then we see no reason why they 6 couldn't repower the site.
7 MR. CAMERON: Is that at least the beginning of an 8 answer? All right, good. Before we go to Mr. Atherton over 9 here, we were going to wait to introduce the people from 10 Coned when their presentation came up, but since we are 11 already talking I thought that it would be a good idea to 12 introduce themselves now.
13 MR. BAUMSTARK: We are trying to answer your 14 questions without your really knowing who we are.
15' 'I am Jim Baumstark. I am the Vice President of 16 Nuclear Engineering for Con Edison.
17 MR. JACKSON: Charlie Jackson, Manager, Nuclear 18 Safety and Licensing at Con Edison.
9 19 MR. BLIND: I'm Allen Blind. I am the Vice 20 President for Nuclear Power.
21 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, and we will be 22 hearing more from all of you later.
l .
23 Our next question is going to come from -- I l 24 believe is it Peter Atherton, and he has a series of 25 questions and I have asked him to just state them all rather ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
31 1 simply now and we can see which are appropriate to answer in 2 this segment and which to answer after perhaps the second 3 presentation or even after the NRC inspection report.
4 Mr. Atherton, if you could just state your name 5 for the record and whatever your affiliation is, if 6 appropriate. Thank you.
7 MR. ATHERTON: Thank you, sir. My name is Peter 8 James Atherton. I used to work for the Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission in the 1970s as an engineer. I have a Bachelor 10 in Electrical Engineering and a Master's in Nuclear.
11 I am here with concerns more on the technical 12 side, having been invited by concerned citizens in this area i
13 to address some of the technical issues. '
14 The first issue concerns the spent fuel pool. I 15 Since Indian Point 1 is going through the safe storage route i 16 rather than immediate dismantling or using the decon method 17 of dismantling the plant, or any other alternative that it 18 may have, I was informed that there was a leak in the spent {
19 fuel pool beginning in 1991 and that it was not reported 20 until 1994, and I had a question concerning the integrity of I
21 the spent fuel pool. l 22 The integrity question then goes to whether or not 23 the seismic evaluation of the building that houses the spent l 24 fuel pool and the spent fuel pool area would be consistent, 1
25 since you are relying on something that was done 20 or 30 I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
.g .- .. . - -. - . . - - - . _. - . . - _
32 .
1- ' years.ago when you have a degraded spent fuel pool.
2 The third issues would concern shared systems 3 -between Indian Points 1, 2 and 3 and whether or not the 4 systems in Indian Point 1 are capable of being available for ;
5 Indian Points 2 and 3 in the event of some sort of an 6 accident and single failure.
'7 The fourth issue would concern the~ projection for 8 short-term versus long term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
9 We don't have in this' country.a long-term storage. plan, 10' action plan, that has been approved by the forces in power. f 11 The alternative appears to be at this time to use the local L
12 facilities including the possible of spent fuel pools and 1
.3 ' dry cask storage to store the nuclear fuel where it is
'14' located.
. 15 'For both concerns, the fifth question goes to the t 16 possibility of. vandalism and sabotage upon these facilities 17 by perhaps' forces which would not be so friendly to the 18 United States. -
s
.19 .These are the general issues that I would have ,
, 20 asked this panelfto address. ;
l~
21 MR ,. CAMERON: .Okay. I think that the first three 22 questions, we'll wait until you are done with your
~
23 presentation because they do go to the specifics of Unit 1.
b I
. 24.. In terms of Questions 4 and 5, the fourth question '
t
- 25. being the short-term versus long-term storage and the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters !
1025 Connecticut: Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
- Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034- ,
i
-1 l _ ,
!=
33 1 question of vandalism and sabotage -- Mike, would you like !
l 2 to begin to address that now?
3 MR. MASNIK: Yes.
I could comment on the last 4 two, I think, a little bit.
5 The Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires the U.S. DOE l 6 to begin accepting spent fuel at a permanent disposal site 7 in 1998 and we all know that that did not happen. In fact, 8 a number of utilities are currently seeking legal remedy j i
9 with the Federal Government over this issue.
10 The U.S. DOE will not be able to accept the fuel l 11 probably until early the next century, probably around 2010 12 is the earliest date that I have heard recently.
13 There are currently 11 operating ISFSIs in the 14 U.S. and there are 14 more planned, and you are absolutely 15 correct -- since there is no place to ship the fuel.for 16 permanent repository, it does have to remain on-site.
17 Now those facilities on site are licensed by the 18 NRC. They go through -- there are two alternative ways of 19 licensing those facilities. They can either do it in a 20 site-specific method or under a general license. The 21 general license basically licenses a system and if a 22- licensee complies with that system they can basically place 23 it on their facility.
24 Those Independent Spent Fuel Storage facilities 25 have emergency plans. They go through a security review to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0031
34 1 determine whether or not they are subject to vandalism and 2 sabotage. I don't know -- you may be somewhat familiar with 3 them but they are large steel canisters that are surrounded 4 by concrete. They are extremely big, probably, you know, 5 many feet in diameter and maybe 20 feet tall. They are 6 benign. They require no active systems. They are 7 surrounded by a protective fence and there ..s a security 8 facility around it.
9 Now at a plant like Indian Point if indian Point 10 should choose to build an ISFSI, and they still have 11 remaining operating units on the site, that facility would 12 be protected by the onsite physical security plan for the 13 site.
14 If after all the Indian Point units shut down and 15 the U.S. Department of Energy still hasn't taken the fuel, 16 then the fuel would have to remain at the site in an 17 Independent Spent Fuel Storage facility and they would have 18 a physical security program associated with it.
19 I think we feel confident that the fuel will be 20 protected.
21 MR. BLIND: Could I comment, just to build on that 22 in terms of our priorities.
23 MR. CAMERON: Just state your name for the record 24 again.
25 MR. BLIND: Okay. I am Allen Blind. I am the Idai RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. . . . .--..~. - ---..~... .-. -. - -- --.- - -. ..
1 35 -
t
.1-' Vice President for Nuclear Power.
2 I guess with regards to the dry cask storage '
3 option, that is our least preferred option. The two things 4 that we are~ working-on as a higher priority is, first, we 5 are working with the' Federal process.to try to solve the 6 problems associated with the permit on-the storage facility. ,
7 There is some progress being made in that 8 I especially in the Yucca Mountain' site in terms of i 1
9 characterizing the site and ultimately making a decision !
d
>10 whether that'could.be a suitable site which would then 1 11 lead -- the'Clinton Administration has said that once that 12 site is found to be acceptable that they would support j l
13 legislation that would build a centralized interim l
14 repository.while the mountain was being finally prepared, i
-15 and that is our preferred option. l 16 We are looking at other options in terms of
- 17. private centralized storage locations, and they do have ;
18 some, we think, moderate chances for success, and those 19 would be our preferred eptions first, before we would !
'20 consider continued storage on site.
l 21- MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you and we are going to 22 get to your three, other three. Do you have a quick 23- ~ follow-up? 13 0 ahead, and.then we are going to go to other .
12 4. people, and then I think we need to move on to hear the
~25- utility presentation. Go ahead.
v ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1
~
l 36 l l
1 MR. ATHERTON: The concern about vandalism and j 2 possible sabotage was raised by the NRC itself when it
'3 conducted a surprise raid on Vermont Yankee this past year, 4 Perhaps you are familiar with it, in which roughly seven i
5- inspectors climbed the fence and made their way towards the 6 .. nuclear power plant, and roughly half of them' succeeded in ;
7 getting to areas critical to the plant before they-were
'8 caught.
9 .This is an operating nuclear power plant, not one ;
10 which~is off-line, and one which would have less of a need '
11 perhaps to keepits premises secure.
12 As a result of that, and this is NRC's own raid l
13 upon the Vermont Yankee site, I lack the confidence that you 14 seem to be expressing. -
15 Mr. Minns,-I know you.
I do not know who is :
1 16 speaking on the other side of you.
17 MR. CAMERON: It's Mr. Masnik. ;
18 MR. MASNIK: I'm Mike Masnik. !
19 MR.-ATHERTON: Mr. Masnik. Mr. Masnik, I do not
- 20. share the confidence that you seem to be exuding concerning 21 security at a nuclear power. plant and that is why I raised 22 Lthat-as a concern. !
7 23 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mr. Atherton. !
-24 . Mike, do you have any comments on the -- l 25 MR. MASNIK: No followup. ;
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)?842-0034
37
'1 MR. CAMERON: No followup on that?
-2 MR. MASNIK: I mean I can say that, yes, we are
.3 constantly concerned about physical security and in fact we 4 do these types of test inspections on the licensee and if 5 there are problems with their physical security program, we 6 make a strong effort to resolve these issues and fix the 7 problems.
8 I want you to know that the spent fuel that is 9 . stored in these are'relatively benign as long as it stays 10- within the container, and these are extremely robust 11~ containers. It is just very difficult to disperse that type 12 of material in a manner where that it would affect a large 13 number of people. It is just difficult to do.
14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, and perhaps if there 15 is any more to discuss about the Vermont Yankee situation 16 you can do that later on.
17 Let's take one more question on this segment from 18 the audience and then we will move on.
19-f0%f.G ;)
MS. REOfi%b: Hi. My name is Michelle Redell. I L-
- 20 am a citizen and I live over in New Paltz.
21 I just want to say it is just amazing to me -- I
- 22. just feel like there's a lot of insanity going on and we are 23 just kind of talking as if it's okay. That's not the 24 comment and I am just going to say one thing is why are 25 we -- why are these plants even in operation? We have no ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1 38 1 place to store this.
I 2 My question again is we have no long-term storage.
3 It is the most deadly thing that has ever been created by 4 humankind or anything that I know of, and we just kind of 5 talk about it but we have got to shut these places down.
6 It's very dangerous.
7 My question is how many spent fuel rods are in 8 Indian Point 1?
9 MR. CAMERON: Are you guys going to cover that --
10 MR. BAUMSTARK: 160 -- and that has already been 11 stated -- in Unit 1.
- 12. MS. R : Okay. I must have missed that.
13 Okay, 160, and, all right, and the other thing that he had 14 asked, and I don't know whether you had answered it or not, 15 but I have heard a lot about the spent fuel pool leaking 16 into the Hudson and I was very interested in finding out 17 about that, and I didn't notice that you answered it. You 18 might have.
19 MR. CAMERON: There are certain things I think 20 that are going to be perhaps addressed in the presentation, 21 but Jim?
22 MR. BAUMSTARK: What I would like to do is present 23 my remarks and then go into those questions. We will answer
'24 those.
< q, 25' MS. RDOEbb: Oh , so you won't forget them? e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. _ . __ _ .. . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._..._m., _ _ _ _ _ .
39 1 MR. BAUMSTARK: No. You won't let me, ma'am, I 2 . don't think.
3 [ Laughter.)
4 .MS. b: Okay. All right. There was one y 5- other thing.is just that your plan, your first Plan A, is to 6 move it, right? -- to move it to Yucca Mountain or wherever 7 and I just ask you, is this not like a radioactive hornet's :
i 8 nest, like it's there but when you move it and you mess with 9 it, it just'goes all over the place and I feel really 10 strongly about that.
11 I am wondering, since your plan is to move it, why <
1 12 you are thinking that way, just in light of what I am 1 13 saying, that once you mess with it, it's bad enough, and 14 when you mess with it, it goes all over the place.
13 MR. BAUMSTARK: I can tell you-that spent fuel is 16 moved frequently in this country, over the roads and over 17 the rails. They're moved in shipping containers that are 18 licensed and can withstand the accidents that it would l 19 normally be subjected to and there hasn't been any -- there l l
20 has not been an accident involving spent fuel that resulted 21 in any release of radioactivity, so it is done. 1 i
22 It.has to be done carefully and we take it very !
- 23. seriously but it can be moved and it is moved quite 24 frequently.
25- MR. CAMERON: Okay. Michel$,let'sletConEddo t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut 1 Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
f 40 1- their presentation and then we will come back to any !
t
+
2 questions you.have. Okay.
. 3 g bM U--
MS. R_ DELL: I can ask another question. Okay. '- l 4 MR. CAMERON: All right. We will get it. We will ,
5 .
get it. We will be back. !
6 Jim, I. turn it over to you. .
7 MR. BAUMSTARK: Thank you, Mr. Cameron, and i
'8 Lwelcome to those who are attending tonight, particularly 9 those that are a member of the general public. We certainly l 10 appreciate your coming and welcome the opportunity to 11 Ianswer, as.best as we are able, the questions that we have ,
i 12 seen so far and, certainly, some more questions that we 13 anticipate will be coming this evening. '
14 My name is Jim Baumstark. As I indicated before, '
bf
~
15 I am the Vice President of Nuclear Engineering for ConEdison 16 -and I= work at the' Indian Point facility. Charlie Jackson, 17- who introduced himself earlier, is,my Director of Nuclear 18 Assurance and Licensing. He is a-leng-term Coned employee. !
r 19 He saw Unit'1 in operation and participated'in the operation
- and: licensing.of that plant, as well as the operation and
~
20 5 21' Llicensing of Unit'2. He is a real wealth of knowledge, 22 :which is one of the reasons we brought him here tonight.
23 .And Al, who.has introduced himself before, is our Vice
[
'24- President of Nuclear Power.
"2 5 -' Could'ILhave the first slide, please, Brendan? .i' l
i ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD. l
. Court Reporters
, .'1025; Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
, Washington,-D.C. 20036
'(202)~842-0034
41 1 Indian Point Units 1 and 2 are owned by ConEdison 2 and Unit 3, as you may or may not be aware, is owned by the 3 New York Power Authority. The purpose of this meeting is to 4 inform you of our decommissioning plan and activities 5 related to Indian Point 1. As part of tonight's discussion 6 I will show the relationship of Indian Point to Indian 7 Points 2 and 3, and discuss a little bit about how these 8 plants operate. Copies of the decommissioning plan, as 9 discussed earlier, are available on the table to the side of 10 the room and are available for your use.
11 On March 25th, 1955, ConEdison applied to the AEC, 12 or the Atomic Energy Commission, as it was known then, the 13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as it is known now, for a 14 construction permit for Indian Point Unit 1. That permit 15- was granted on May 4th, 1956. As some of you may know, 16 Indian Point 1 was the first cermercial nuclear power plant 17 in the United States to receive such a permit. ConEdison 18 was the principal contractor, which responsibility for 19 construction, testing and startup of Unit 1. Construction
-20 - conmenced in 1958.
21 In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission issued a 22 provisional operating license and ConEdison commenced 23 operating Unit 1 and generating electric power that year.
24 In October of 1974, a little over 10 years later, Unit 1 was 25 shut down as it was determined to be longer economically ANN RILEY 2 ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, C.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
42 1 viable to operate the plant. In January 1976, the reactor 2 was defueled for the final time, and the fuel was stored in the Unit 1 fuel handling building, and'I will show you that, 3
4- where that facility is on a slide I have here in a minute or 5 two. ,
6 In March 1980 we decided to retire Unit 1 from ,
7 service as a generating facility. In.0ctober of that year, 8 we submitted a decommissioning plan to the NRC. In this 9' plant, we' proposed that Unit i remain in a SAFSTOR 10 condition, or a mothball condition, and that it be j 11- dismantled after Unit 2 was retired. The NRC approved our i
12 plan in January of 1996. Accordingly, we will continue to 13 maintain Unit 1 in a SAFSTOR' condition and plan to dismantle ,
t 14' it after Unit 2 has been retired. It should be noted that .
15- portions of Unit 1 are an integral part of the daily 16 operation of Unit 2. l 17 Next slide, please, and one more. One more, ,
P
.18 Brendan, please. Back two.
19 I would like to describe a little bit about the .
2 01 facility out at Indian Point and kind of point out where ;
21 Unit 1.is, how it operates -- or operated, how Units 2 and 3 l 22- operate and then give you a general flavor for what the !
23 current status of Unit 1 is.
24 This is an overview of the site as it exists ]
25 today. This picture and the next picture you are going to j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, l R Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.-20036 (202) 842-0034
43
- 1. see are reproductions from the two pictures we have over on i
2 the podium here. In the middle of this picture here we have
- 3. Unit 1. Basically, this entire structure here was Unit 1 as l
4 it was built in the 1960s. Unit 2, the unit that we 5 currently operate, is a Coned unit, is this unit right here, 6 and Unit 3, over on the left hand side, is operated by the l
7 New York Power Authority.
8 Next slide, please. And I apologize for this E 9 slide, this is a reproduction, a digital reproduction'of the i 10 picture that you see over here on the right hand side. This 11 picture on the right hand side was drawn from -- or for 12 Nuclear Engineering, for an October of 1961 edition of i 13 Nuclear Engineering and it is an excellent break-away of 14 Unit 1.
15 One of the -- one or two of the things I would 16 like to point out, because they are very different in the 17 way Unit 1 operated, as opposed to the way Units 2 and 3 18 operated, are the super-heater. The super-heater is 19 contained in this area here. And, basically, this is the 20 reactor building for Unit 1. Inside the reactor building is l
21 a totally contained sphere, totally independent of the 22 outside of the building as you see it here, and the reactor l- 23 itself, and associated reactor components, where contained i 24 in that spherical unit.
25 So, basically, we had two methods of protecting l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
- _, _ _ _ . .. _ _ . ~ _ . . _ .. . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . __. ._ _
44 1 Unit 1,'the sphere itself, and then the concrete containment 2 building around the sphere. Over in this area here is where 3 the spent fuel pools are. This.is where the 160 fuel ;
4 modules that remain from Unit 1 are currently stored.
5 Next slide, please. .
6 This isfa basic description of a nuclear power 7 plant ~and, with very few modifications, this is a
.8. description of Units 2 and 3 as they current operate today l l
9 and, as we go through, I will point out the differences l 10- between Unit 1 and Units 2 and 3. !
11 There are three separate systems that contain l 12 water in a reactor plant. None of these systems, by design, 13 come in contact with one another. All the way over here on !
14 the right hand -- or.the left hand side is what we call the 15 primary system.
This is the reactor here. The water is t
16 heated in the-reactor, carried by reactor coolant pumps, 1
17 Lwhich are shown by this figure here, into the steam !
18 generators where they transfer steam to.what we call the ;
i 19 secondary loop. So, basically, this particular part of the '
20 system here does not come in contact, other than through r
e
' 21. tubes, with the secondary loop. !
l 22- The' secondary loop consists of two parts, !
- 23 basically, a steam part, beginning here at the steam j r
24 . generator, and the upper. sections of the steam generator is [
- 25 .where we generate the steam. It is carried over'to turbines i
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 [
Washington, D.C. 20036 ;
(202) 842-0034 j i
.- . . . . _ - _ - .. . . . - . - - . ~ . . . . . _ .- .- . .
J 45 l
l
'l in'a generator from which the electricity is generated.
2 After the steam expends its energy in the turbine, which j .3 then drives the generator, it is condensed by water in the 4 third loop, and, again, remember, this water does not 5 physically come.in contact with water in the primary loop or
.6 in the sea water cooling loop. This water is condensed by 7 water.-- sea water coming from the Hudson River, and it is l
j 8 ;;nt via condensate pumps and main boiling feed pumps back l 9 to the steam generator, again, as water, and, again, it i
l 10 exchanges heat with the water that is generated by the 11 reactor and creates steam, a continuous closed loop cycle.
E. 12 This is a closed loop cycle here.
13 This is an open loop cycle here. This is where we 14 take water from the Hudson River, bring it in to our j 15 ~ condensers'on the secondary side, cool the last of the j 16 energy of the steam and then send that water back to the I I
17 Hudson River. Again, I need to point out that none of these 18 systems come in contact with one another, they are three 19 independent systems, and that is meant primarily because it 20, is good engineering, but certainly to prevent any of the 21 radioactivity that is generated in the primary loops from 22 ' coming in contact with anything in the secondary or tertiary l'
- 23 loops.
l 24- In the case of Unit 1, there is one additional j
-25 component here and this was the super-heater. The )
l i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-_. _ _ _ _ . . . - . . _ . .. . _ _ . _ . _ . _ __.. _ . _.__ _ . _ _ . _._ _ _ . _ .. _ __ ~
l l
I 46 i
1 super-heater is contained in Unit 1 basically in this part l 2 .of the loop right here. In Unit 1, what we did basically )
3 was we took primary water, which was heated to about 520 l 4- degrees and 1500 pounds, and we exchanged through the steam ;
5 generators, and heated up secondary water to a temperature ;
i 6 of about 450 degrees and 400 pounds. So when the water left >
7 here, it was at about 450 degrees and a pressure of about 8 400 pounds.
9 The super-heater, . which isn't shown here, but ;
~
10 which was an active part of Unit 1, took that water at about 11 450 degrees and heated it up to almost 1,000 degrees. It 12- did increase.the pressure of the water, but just heated up ,
13 the temperature of the water, and then that was used to ,
14 drive the turbines and the generator for Unit 1. l 15 So that is basically the operating principles for {
i 16 the plant side of the site. i 17 Next slide, please.
i 18 The Unit 1 decommissioning plant, as approved by l 19 the NRC, stipulated that dismantlement be delayed until Unit l 20 2 is retired. In the meantime, the unit will be kept in a 21 SAFSTOR or mothballed condition. Our focus has been and !
22 will continue to be nuclear safety. Various activities were 23 . undertaken to bring Unit 1 to the SAFSTOR condition. As I 12 4; described, we have defueled the reactor and stored the used
'25 ' fuel from the reactor from Unit.1.
9 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 ;
(202) 842-0034 l
. .- - . . - - - .. ~ . - ~ . . - . - . - - - . - - - - - - . _ . .
47 J1 As various' support systems for Unit 1 continue to i
2 provide support to Unit 2, Unit 1 areas are routinely 3 monitored by plant personnel. Unit 1 will be dismantled
( 4- after Unit 2 has been retired. It is expected that Indian.
-5 Point 2 will continue to operate until at least the end of l 6 its operating license, which expires in September of 2013. l
]
' 7. Next, please. =
l 8 In establishing the SAFSTOR condition for Unit 1, 1
.9 as stated earlier, we performed certain activities. All l J
10 fuel was removed from the reactor vessel in January 1976 and
- 11 is stored.in the Unit 1 fuel handling building. There are 12 now 160 used fuel assemblies in this area. Most plant 13: systems have been sealed closed and isolated to prevent the 14 release of an radioactive contaminant. In addition, the 15 ' super-heaters and major secondary plant equipment, including 16 .the turbine, the generator and the condensers from Unit 1 !
. 17 have been. dismantled and removed from the site. ;
18 Portions of the plant that are being retained to 19 support Unit 2 include chemistry laboratories, radioactive 20' : waste processing facilities, administrative offices, and i
21- emergency response facilities. For example, my offices are l, 22 in what used to be the super-heater building for Unit 1.
L 23 The integrated liquid waste system is used as the p-l L r
'24 main processing system for our Unit 2 liquid waste.
25 Additionally, down on the waterfront, Indian Point Unit 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. -.. . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . - .- - .. . _ ~.- . - _ ....-.- -.- - -.. . -.. - ..
48 1 river water pumps are used to provide river water to various 2 Unit 2 heat exchangers, such as the main turbine oil 3 cool'ers. i
- 4. Next slide, please.
5 Prior to.the start of any major dismantling >
6 activities, we will submit a detailed plan to the NRC for i
-7 ' review and. approval. This was discussed earlier.
i 8 Dismantling will require removal and disposal of I 9 radioactivity'from the site. The site itself and any 10 remaining structures will be cleared for unrestricted use. !
11 Our intention right now,-based on the discussion-a little 12 bit earlier, is to clear.the site for unrestricted use. !
- 13 Following this effort, we will continue to 1
J 14 routinely monitor the. site until the license is formally l 15- terminated by the NRC. This was the last step in the ;
16 process, as discussed earlier. We expect this final )
- 17 activity.to take place after Unit 2 has been retired, or
.I
~18 after the year 2013.
]
, 19 In summary, I would like to repeat that we are
. 2 0 -. committed te maintaining our focus: on nuclear safety during i i
21 fall of our activities, including monitoring.of Unit 1. With' 22 that, I-would like to ask. Charlie Jackson to see if we could '
23 answer a couple of the questions concerning seismic and the I 24 spent' fuel pool that came up earlier.
25 MR. JACKSON: Charlie Jackson. I would like to J 4
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 1 (202) 842-0034 ;
49 1 tryland answer,.I believe it was Mr. Atherton's questions,
-2 the remaining one. You had asked a question regarding the 3 seismicity or. ability of especially-the spent fuel pools for
- 4- withstanding accident, earthquakes. i 5' MR. ATHERTON
- I did, I first asked ~about the 6 leikagelin 1991 that was not announced or made public until 7 1994. 3
.8 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We had detected small 1
9 amountsoof leakage from one of'the spent fuel pools several 10 years ago and we have made provisions to assure that that 11 leakage is collected, monitored and processed appropriately.
'12 The --
13 MR. ATHERTON: Is that a designed leak?
14 MR. JACKSON: No, but we do have systems that are 15 available for collecting it if it' occurs, things like sumps 16 and drain systems, for example. . We.have been working since 17 then to identify and reduce the source of that leakage and 18 we have been. fairly successful. We are - . leak rates are 19 now down approaching the' equivalent of evaporation rates.
- 20. We aren't content with'that,1however, and we are proceeding
, 21- -- Indian. Point 1 has more than one pool available for 22 storage.of fuel, so.we'are now evaluating additional pools 23- to assure their integrity and are evaluating whether to 24- _either completely drain the pool, so that there is not water
.25 to: leak,'or to move the fuel to another pool after we have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
50 1- verified its leak tightness, and those activities are 2I currently underway.
3 MR. ATHERTON: Are your pools separated, the east, 4 the west, the --
5 MR.' JACKSON: Yes. We have two pools that are 6 designated for fuel storage, east and west, but there are 7l other pools'that could be modified, if necessary, for fuel 8- storage. But right now all of'the fuel is in the west pool.
'9 We.have removed all other materials, the radioactive 10; -material storage that was in_an adjacent pool, and we are 11 currently going through evaluation of that pool to assure 12 its integrity.as one option.
13 I'think NRC earlier mentioned the fact that there 14 has been significant time since that fuel was removed from 15 the reactor and'placed in the pool. A significant amount of 16 radioactive decay has occurred'such that'now cooling is not 17 required. All short-lived isotopes obviously have decayed 18 away.
19 We have the option available to us to place -- to
.20 completely drain the pool of water and place a concrete or 21 metal shield over the top of the pool for, you know,
(> > 22 . personnel access, radiation protection. Those options are l 23- currently actively.being pursued and I believe by-later this l'
L24 year we will have our decision as to whether we are going to 25' ' proceed with moving the fuel to another pool or taking the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
' Washington, D.C. 20036 f a- (202) 842-0034' ;
L
y 51 1 other options that are available to us.
2 MR. BAUMSTARK: But your point is well taken, 3 these pools have been there for a number of years, and part 4 of the maintenance of the pools calls'for not only looking 5 at the pools, or the pool that the spent fuel is stored in 6 .right now, but all. pools that are a part of the Unit 1 7 operation, as we intend to use the pools for a longer period 8 of time than was initially envisioned.
9 MR, JACKSON: Okay. Regarding their design, at 10 the time in the late '50s and early '60s that Indian Point i 11 was designed there were.no earthquake or seismic design 12 criteria for the pools. They used standard design criteria,
.13 . codes and standards at the time, with additional 14 conservatism added. Nevertheless, we have performed 15 analyses with various seismic consultants of the capability e 16 of the. pools and the structures to withstand the site design 17 : basis earthquake and have been able to demonstrate that the 18 pools of capable of withstanding that design earthquake 19 similar to Indian Point 2 and 3.
20 Part of the investigation we are going through now 21- is reassuring ourselves of the adequacy of the existing 22 structure, that, as you know, it has been there for a number 23 of years, to assure that it is still in its design condition 24 .so it.will retain its integrity.
25 Regarding shared systems and accidents, Unit 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 r ,
(202) 842-0034
. v.
j .<, ii. .. ..
52 1 systems would not be utilized in an accident.
2 MR. ATHERTON: Before we leave the spent fuel 3 pool, you had indicated or implied that you have no 4 specifically located the specific location or, for that 5 matter, the cause of the leak.
6 MR. JACKSON: Well, we found we had leakage in 7 higher elevation in the pool and were able to eliminate much 8 of that by lowering the water level in the pool and we had 1
9 significant decrease in that leakage. We are still j I
10 pursuing, however, the assumption that there is still i 11 additional small leakage, and we are investigating ways of 12 curtailing it or moving the fuel to another pool so that we 13 -- or completely draining the pool. Those activities are 14 underway right now.
15 MR. ATHERTON: Roughly, how much water has leaked 16 out of the spent fuel pool, either by calculation or by 17 actual measurement, or both?
18 MR. JACKSON: Mike Danpf from our Radiological 19 Protection Group is with us here. Can you give an estimate 20 on the --
21 MR. DANPF: My name is Mike Danpf, I work for 22 ConEdison. I am in the Radiation Protection Department.
23 The lowering of the levels significantly reduced the leakage 24 to the point where now we are talking possibly in the 10 25 gallon per day range. Initially, when -- 1991-1993 range --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
53 1 John, do you have that number? It was about 25 gallons per 2 day. So I would have to do a little bit of math to come up 3 'with'the full gallons.
4 MR.'ATHERTON: Where did it go?
5 MR. DANPF: It went into -- where? There's what
.. i 6 is called the north curtain drain. ,
7 'MR. ATHERTON: Is that a pipe underneath?
8 MR. DANPF: There is a drain that mainly used to 1
9 collect rainwater and then in a storm drain system. This is 10 monitored for radioactivity. We do have monitors on it. We 11 do have totalizer on it, so we can evaluate the amount of 12' water that is going through this system and, also, if there 13 is any residual radioactivity going through the system.
14 We include these numbers along with all the other 15 numbers from Unit 1-and Unit 2 into Radiological ;
16 Environmental Release Reports. We have placed these 17 releases particularly into this_ report and it does go -- a '
18 matter of public record and to the NRC. Just to give you an 19 idea of where we stand in terms of the total releases from 2n .the Unit 1 and Unit 2 facility is terms of liquid effluent 21 releases, our average releases for 1998, for example, was 22' about 1 percent of any limits that has been imposed on us by 23 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We are so much lower by 24, our own standards,:and maintain those: releases low so that
'25 we can work on this problem as we are going through the i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
54 1 engineering effort in Unit 1 to fully remediate the problem, 2 and it is a major ef fort that is underway.
3 MR. CAMERON: Peter, can I just interrupt you for 4 one second? Could we let Charlie answer? I mean with your 5 knowledge of this, you could have a dialogue for hours, and 6 I just want to make sure that we get to other people, 7 including answering Michelle's question. Charlie was going 8 to answer your shared systems question. Can we let him --
9 let's let him do that. Let's go back to Michelle for her 10 question, and let's see who else in this audience has 11 questions that we can get to, and we will come back to you 12 for a dialogue on whatever.
13 MR. ATHERTON: Can I make a suggestion? Rather 14 than cut people off, is it possible to either continue this 15 hearing to another day or extend the time beyond 9:30 so 16 that everybody has an opportunity to have their questions 17 answered. I figure radiological releases to the environment 18 are something these people would like to know more about.
19 MR. CAMERON: No , I agree with you, and that's why 20 we have been continuing that discussion and --
21 MR. ATHERTON: Well, that also goes to the 22 degradation of that building, which is supposed to house 23 this fuel till 2013 or thereabouts. And in the event there 24 is a seismic catastrophe between now and then, is that 25 building going to survive in its degraded condition? These ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
j
55 ,
1 are questions that have not been taken into account through 2 any calculations that I have been able to locate. They are 3 relying upon the equivalent of a not-leaking new building, 4 which we don't have. And we don't know the cause the leak, 5 we don't know whether the degradation is in the line, or 6 whether it is a cracked line, or whether there is a bigger 7 flow that we haven't located, or anything else, and this has 8 the potential for a serious release in the event of a major 9 catastrophe, which is what NRC is supposed to be in the 10 business of preventing.
11 MR. CAMERON: No , I agree with you, they are 12 important questions, and I know people want to hear the 13 answers to those questions. I just want to make sure that 14 we don't -- that we get anybody else on the record before we 15 go into a detailed discussion. So, in regard to your 16 suggestion about extending, I think we are already -- we are 17 willing to stay till, you know, at least 10:00 and we will 18 come back for a discussion on that.
19 I do want to ask Charlie to do the shared systems 20 question.and then we-will go to -- I believe, Michelle, you 21 had a question that you asked before. Let's go to you and
, 22 then there's other people here that we want to hear from.
l:
23 So, Charlie, could you answer Peter's shared systems l
24 question?
25 MR. JACKSON: Yes, I will try quickly to answer ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
56 1 that. In regards to shared systems, Indian Point 1 contains 2 principally the -- what. Jim referred to as the integrated 3 . liquid rad waste system. We' process radioactive liquid 4 waste there. In the event -- we also will divert, if we get 5 leakage in a steam generator, we can divert the blowdown 6 from those generators over to the Unit 1 system. In the 7 event of an accident, of course, the valving will 8 = automatically isolate redundant valving, answering your 9 single failure question, so we would not be transferring
- 10. anything to Unit 1 or using Unit 1 for accident mitigation 11- or processing.
12 There are other interconnections, for example, 13- city water, potable water, supplies come in through the Unit 14' 1 utility tunnel to' serve both Indian Point's 1, 2 and 3-
~
15 power supplies at the thirteen-eight KV -- 13.8 KV level --
16 138 KV level are inter-tied between Indian Point's 2 and 3 v' 17. .and Unit'1, and that provides an extreme flexibility for 18 supplying power to the facility that I would say virtually 19 is unmatched by any other power plant in this country.
20 Other of our -- we have inter-ties that are
- 21. available:to us, for example, in fire protection systems 22 between Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 3, although Unit 3 has 23 ' stand-alone capability. They have -- Unit 3 has stand-alone 24: capability on water storage, just as-Indian Point 2 has 25 stand-alone capability for various events. We meet -- both l
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 o
l l
57 l
'l - Indian' Point 2, Indian Point 3 will meet NRC requirements :
l 2 without relying on Indian Point 1.
3 MR. ATHERTON: Well, when you shut down Indian i
L4 Point 1, did you have to redesign your safety systems to
>5 take into account the additional -- which looks like the 6' availability of additional safety features from Indian Point 7 1 to help out both 2 and 3?
8 MR. JACKSON: No, there was resign required. We 9 maintained in service those systems in Indian Point 1 that {
10 continued to support Indian Point 2, but they are not safety 11' systems, they are not utilized in an accident.
12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Peter, we are going to come 13 back to the topic. Okay.
14 Michel/$,youhadaquestionbeforethatwe 15 deferred until now. Do you still have that question for the 16 Coned people? Why don't you step up to the mike-and, again, )
17 . identify yourself just in case the reporter doesn't have the l
'18 name.
19 MS. $: Miche de [ from Safe Legacy in L-20 New Paltz. As far as the spent fuel pool, I know you were 21 talking about that. This isn't part of the question, this
- 22. is just because I didn't understand. It is leaking, but -- I 123' you are telling me it is leaking into the pipes, but then i
.24 where it is going? Is it going into the Hudson, is it going 254 into the groundwater, and how radioactive is the water?
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) ~ 842-0034
58 1 MR. CAMERON: Mike.
2 MR. DANPF: Mike Danpf again, ConEdison. The 3 water is leaking into what is called the north curtain 4 drain. It is basically like a sewer system, storm drain-5 system around the plant. We do have this system going to a 6 rad monitor. In addition to a radiation monitor -- in 7 addition to the radiation monitor, we take samples looking 8 for radioactivity.
9 And in terms of how radioactive is it, we are 10 required by federal law to put out an effluent report to the 11 NRC periodically. We are talking, it is so hard for me to 12 explain, the orders of magnitude below which we could see 13 these releases, we are talking -- let me look for a second.
14 In 1998, for example, the liquid release summary percent of 15 the limit that is in our site technical specifications, 16 which is between NRC and ConEdison, through health 17 physicists on both sides, technical specifications that were 18 set, our liquid release summary, for instance, was about 19 1.03 percent of the limit. So, it is hard for me -- excuse 20 me -- it is hard for me to talk to you in terms of 21 microcurien per milliliters or whatever.
22 MS. kbbbEb7 But it is radioactive, the water is s-23 radioactive?
24 MR. DANPF: It is extremely low level radioactive, 25 way, way below any -- below any technical specification i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters {
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 j
t I
59 1- limit that has been imposed on us through the NRC.
2 SPEAKER: Let me just try to take that. Yes, the 3 -water is radioactive.
.' t 4 MS. R : That is what I want to know. The t
5 water is radioactive. And now, just -- it is so confusing. '
6- Excuse me?
7 SPEAKER: Where did the water go?
r t ' i . .- u 8 MS, ROGEht: Yeah. Just real simple questions.
9 -MR. DANPF: Let me -- yeah,-let me try to take --
ID? ELL 10 MS. R M bb: Yeah, we are simple people, we are '
11 very intelligent, but we want simple answers.
12 MR. DANPF: Okay. No , I understand that.
-13 MR. BLIND: May I try?
14 MR. DANPF: Sure.
15 MR. BLIND: I am' Allen Blind again, Vice President 16 of Nuclear Power.
- 17. MS. Rbbhbl: Just yes or no. In the Hudson -- '-
18 1 MR. BLIND: In clear language, the answer is yes, 19_ the water is radioactive and, yes, it ultimately is released 20T to the environment, which would'be the Hudson River.
21 Now, to put it in terms of how radioactive is it,
!- 22 now I need some help again, Mike. Express it as a percent l>
ll 23 of the-allowable limit that we are allowed to discharge.
24 Can-you put it in those terms? Is it --
j _25 MR. DANPF: Well, that is what I was trying to i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
'1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)-842-0034
60 1- say.
"tM '. -
2 MS, R6BGbL: That's okay. u-3 MR. BLIND: Yeah. It is apprcximately 1 percent 4 of our allowable limit.
5 MR. DANPF: That is how I was trying to explain 6 it.
7 MS. RODELL: Okay. I just wanted yes or no, I 8 didn't want to go on and on. Just -- what I have heard is l 9 no amount of radioactivity is safe. Okay. And I don't want I
10 to hear about the sun. No amount. We got the sun already, 11 we don't need anything else.
12 This was the question, that was ending Mr.
13 Atherton's answer to his question. The EPA issued a
'14 statement that the NRC standards for site release criteria 15 are not protective of human health. The EPA saying 25 1s millirems as opposed to 10 -- or them saying 25 millirems as 17 opposed to 10 millirems. What are your comments on this?
18 And is this related to the unrestricted or restricted 19 classification distinction?
20- MR. CAMERON: This sounds like a question for the 21' NRC to answer. Mike,_would you answer that?
22 , And, Michel , .after this, I am going to see if
.23i banybody_elsehasquestions. Okay.
p 24 Go ahead, Mike.
25 MR. MASNIK: Tim Johnson.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
- g Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 842-0034 V
- _ __ _ . .,_ .. . _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _. _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ . _ _
61 1 MR. CAMERON: Okdy. Tim Johnson is going to do 2 this one.
3 MR.' JOHNSON: The issue that you are referring to
,. 4 .is ourLdecommissioning standard which was completed as a 5 final regulation in 1997. And our standard was for 6' ' unrestricted use. The dose levels would need to be less 7 than 25 millirem per year, including all pathways. EPA has 8 a different position on that, and they feel the standard 9 should be 15 millirem per year.
10~ The difference between 15 and 25 millirem per 11 . years in terms of radiological risk would be the very 12 difficult to measure. For example, natural background on 13 the East Coast is general 200 to 300 millirem per year. The !
-14 . variation'of natural background across the country is two to 15' 300 millirem per year. So the difference between 10 -- or
- 16. 15.and 25' millirem per year relative to the doses people 17 normally get is a very small amount,-but that is basically 18 the issue.
J O Yi.-
19 MS. R9BBht: Thank you. -
-20 MR. CAMERON: Let's see if anybody else has some 21' ; questions here. Yes, ma'am.
i
'22 'MS. O'CONNOR: Hi, my name is Chris O'Connor, I am 23 .a local resident, and these meetings and this issue and the 24
-area are a little new to me, and when I read page 11 in the
-25 handout from the slides, and I read about the decade's worth ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 s
i 62 1 of decommissioning, and the problems going back to the '60s, ,
2 it really turned my stomach. And.all I can say is I don't t
3 understand why these facilities can't be completely shut 4 down. It seems like the humane thing to do.
5 And another comment would be, if Coned is not .
s 6- willing to shut down 1 and 2, then there is a lot of nerve 7 to'ask for a tax reassessment. [
8 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thr.nk you. Do we have i
9 someone else who wants to make a statement? You, sir. All 10 right.
11 MR. MOON: Yeah, Dan Moon. I have been in 12 construction over 30 years and I have been in all kinds of 13 buildings, old, new, from bottom to top, a lot of places.
14 What'I am hearing here is'a rhetoric that disturbs me very >
15 much. I see things worse than they are. I have experienced j 16 tremors with my. house, I know it' shakes. But now I am
.17 really concerned about the pools.
18 .The gentleman over here, how do you catch this
, 19' containment if it spills out of the pool? Do you have a way +
'20 of diverting it, or catching it? You say you are monitoring 21' it. Can you divert it if you have a serious spill? Yes or 22 no?. Don't give me this rhetoric.
23 MR. JOHNSON: Site-specific.
24
. MR. CAMERON: Okay. Hold on a, minute, t25' MR. NOON: Site-specific. You can't give me --
1 ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ;
_ _. . _ _ . a l
c 63 l'
you sound -- you people cound like politicians. Is that 2 'what this is?
q 3 MR. CAMERON: Does anybody from the team have 4 anything to say? Any, answers to this?
5 MR. MOON: Can you give me some -- an answer to 6 that question, please?
7 MR. BLIND: Again, my name.is Allen Blind, and the 8 answer to the question is yes. It-is all collected in a 9 central location.
.10 MR. MOON: Where -- how do you deal with it?
11-- Where"does it go after you collect it?
12 MR. BLIND: It is collected in a central location, 13' it is analyzed in terme of its radioactive content so that 14 it can be quantified and put into the annual report, and 15 .then it is, released-to the Hudson River.
- 16. MR. CAMERON- Okay. That is the answer.
17 MR.-MOON: That is unacceptable.
'18 ~MR, BLIND: But I mean I am being truthful with 19 'you.
You_are asking for honesty, I am being honest.
20 MR. MOON: That is very nice. But that is not the
'21 ~ answer I wanted to hear. I am really surprised, to be
'22 ' honest with you. And you want to take this stuff, you want 12 3 to: dig up Yucca Mountain and put it there and wash your
- 24 hands. You want-to have it safe for people to play on-25: Indian Point so you don't have to deal with the future of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
... . - - - ~ . - . - . . - . . . . ~ ~ - . . . _ . . . . _ - . . . ~ . . -
Mt 64 4
1 watching lthis stuff and monitoring it. Now it is time to l 2 payfthe piper, right, --
3- MR. . CAMERON: 'Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
4' MR. MOON: -- and you don't want to. Wait, I have j
~
i 5- 'some more questions. :
6 MR.. CAMERON: Okay.
7- MR. MOON: I would like to know what is going to 18- happen-this hot equipment, okay, because I know I know about ;
9 live steam, I know about generation systems, okay, power l 1(L plants. What is going to happen vith'the radiated metals
- 11. that'come from this? When you decommission this plant and -
12 when you take it apart, where is that metal going to go? l 13? How are yourgoing to' monitor it down the road when it --
{
14 when you give it out to some private contractor, who says, ,
l j
15' oh,jhere is some great stainless steel? Nobody has to know 16- thatLit is hot,.lets mongotit. You know what that is, 17 right? You know what mon 3o is, that is when a guy gets some f
18- precious metal like copper-and takes it-to the junkyard and-
,19 . :then, you know, then it gets into the. life cycle. Okay. ;
~
20 'How are you going to monitor this 6 n the road? ;
21' .MR. BLIND: Well, that is the function of the ;
t
'22 SAFSTOR option, :bs that it is -kept in . place until' the 23 radioactive' components decay off to the' point where the ,
- 24. material'then.can be free-released as normal, you know, ,
~25 scrap metals and. things like that. .
I ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters '
.1025. Connecticut: Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l' Washington, D.C. 20036 (203) 842-0034 .
i
y 65 1
You-know, in terms of the monitoring of it, you 2 know, there will be instrumentation that is being used and,
-3 you know, the NRC will be following us every step of the way 4 to make sure that it is properly monitored and disposed of, 5- you know, at the time in the future, you know, hopefully, as i
6- free-released material. But that's -- you know, that is the 7 function of the SAFSTOR is using the natural radioactive 8 laws for it to decay off in place.
9 MR. MOON: Well, basically, this looks like a 10 technology here that requires perfection, and we are not 11 perfect. And I am really surprised at what I hear here 12- tonight coming from you educated gentlemen, very surprised.
13 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, sir. We have --
14 [ Applause.]
15 MR. CAMERON: We are going to one more question on 16 thi s segment, and then we are going to do the NRC inspection 17- segment, .and then we are going to come back for the other 18 questions that you might have. And we will you do yours 19 before we --
20 SPEAKER: I have a few comments about the
' 21 - description of Unit 1. Isn't it true that the reason why 22 Unit 1 was closed is because it didn't have an emergency
'23 core cooling system in it? That is the reason why it was 24 closed. And, secondly, the gentleman mentioned 160 rods of 25 spent fuel stored in Unit 1, then he mentioned that there ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-_ ._ . .._-._m ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . ._. _
66 1 was 160 bundles, and there's quite a difference between the 2 assemblies and a single rod, that means hundreds more of
-3 rods are stored in Unit 1.
4 Another thing is when you were describing the 5 operation of Unit 1, you talked about the steam generator ;
6 and saying that was very safe because it didn't come in :
7 contact with any of the other systems that were radioactive.
8 Well, that's the most dangerous part of the whole unit,
- 9. because that is where the leaks occur in the pipes in the 10 steam generator and the radioactivity goes into the water. '
11 And the third thing, another thing is, by my quick 12 calculation, with the help of a friend, we are putting 30 13 gallons of radioactive water into the Hudson, over a 20 year
- 14 period it. amounts of 219,000 of radioactive water in the 15 Hudson River, a cumulative event. :
16 Now, if I am saying something that is incorrect, 17 please correct me. Number 1, Unit 1 was shut because it had 18 no emergency core cooling system. Number 2, the rods are ,
t 19 not 160 rods, but 160 bundles -- assemblies of rods. Number 20 3, the steam generator is in contact with the water, the I 21 steam generator contains radioactive water, and when leaks 22 occur in those pipes, the radioactivity goes into the water.
.23- Fourth, the total amount of radioactivity dumped into the ;
24 Hudson from that small leak that you are making out to be t
25 very tiny is 219,000 gallons of radioactive water. Now, '
i
, 1
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
! 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014.
j Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034 I l i '
\
- - I
- ~-. . - .. . - - ,- - -- . . . . - . ~ - . - . -- . . . . ..
K 67 1; correct me if I-am wrong on any one of those points. F 2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Do we have any comments on 3 that?
4 MR. JACKSON: Charlie Jackson again. At the time I
5 that Indian Point 1 was shut down, ConEdison was in the i
6 process of applying to convert the provisional operating I i
! 7 license to a permanent operating license. In order to do 8' that, we were required to reevaluate Indian Point 1 against
. _9- then current AEC -- then NRC requirements. Indian Point 1 l 10 had an emergency core cooling system.
11~ The issue regarding the emergency core cooling ;
1 12 system was the adequacy of that system in light of new 13 regulations which appeared in the early 1970s. As a result 1 l
14 of that, ConEdison proposed to add an increased capability 15 of a system. We had to fabricate a new reactor vessel head, 16 and we were progressing with those modifications, we had
'17 ordered equipment. Much of that equipment.had been 18 fabricated and delivered to the site.
19 That review continued, however, into other areas l:
20 of plant design and as new requirements began to appear out 21- of the NRC for nuclear power plants, the costs associated
'22' with those from electrical systems, for reactor protection 23 system, emergency core cooling system, a number of other 24 . issues started to come up and each one had its associated L 25 cost. Remember, as Mr. Daumstark mentioned, that about half i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.'20036 (202) 842-0034 l'
68 1 of the power from Indian Point 1 was coming from oil-fired 2 super-heaters.
3 So we were now seeing significant costs that would 4 have to be put into upgrading the facilities to meet new 5 requirements, and then we had something that happened to us, 6 that I am sure will recall, with the increased cost of oil, 7 with the problem with the oil embargo and then the dramatic 8 increase.in fuel costs. At that point, with the increased 9 oil costs, and that was half of the cost of the generation, 10 plus these additional costs to upgrade, we decided that the 11 facility was.no longer economically viable and made.a 12 decision to shut down. But up until that point, we were
]
13 progressing to make these upgraded facilities. )
14 But there was an emergency core cooling system,, it
'15- wasn't called emergency core cooling in those days, but we 16 did have a system. It just did not have the capability to 17 meet the then-developing new NRC requirements.
- 18. SPEAKER: Okay. In other words, in plain 19- langu~ age, the facility was unsafe according to the 20 regulations and it would cost too much money to make it i:
l 21 safe.
l.
22 MR. JACKSON: No , it met existing regulations when 23' it'was licensed and NRC decided that they wanted several of 24L the systems, the protection system, emergency core cooling L 25! ~ system, for excmple, to meet new acceptance criteria. Even l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i f
69 i
1-
.though'we had demonstrated the facility was safe, met 2 appropriate' siting regulations, for example, for all sorts- ,
3 of various accidents, the' requirement existed that if we l
- 4 wanted:to have a permanent operating license, we had to meet i
.I 5- then-new requirements. That required analysis of existing t
j 6 designs and some' upgrading. The upgrading, in combination '
7- with the increased oil costs, made-the facility no longer i 8 -economically viable. But we believe the facility was safe, i
9' it was operated safely up to that point.
~ 10 SPEAKER: I think that --
- 11 MR. CAMERON: . Sir, I am going to have to go to 11 2 another questioner.
13 -SPEAKER: I have another question, a couple more.
14 MR. CAMERON: Could you do it quickly, please, so
.15 ' ~t hat we can get on.
-16, SPEAKER: :Sure, I will be very quick.
17- .MR..BAUMSTARK: I think I know what your other two 18 questions are. They relate to my mistake in characterizing 19 a fuel rod as a fuel bundle. You are absolutely right. A 20 fuel bundle consists of a' series of rods, and there are 160 !
l
- 21. fuel bundles, not' fuel rods, in the Unit 1 storage pool. j
- 22. And I. apologize if I misled you on that.
In regard to-the water discharged from the plant, 24- the water that we discharge is well below the mandated i
25 ' levels of the regulator,'the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, i
- c. ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l f
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L i
l 70 1 as. levels that would have any detrimental effect on the 2 health and safety of the public. This is part of their 3 business, they consider it very seriously in mandating these 4 levels, and we take it very seriously. ;
5 SPEAKER: I am not questioning that at all. I am
-6 just telling you that the total amount comes to 219,000 .[:
7 gallons of radioactive water at the end of 20 years. I 8 MR. BAUMSTARK: Well below the level at which it i
9 . would have any impact on the health and safety of the 10 public.
11 SPEAKER: Well, that is another. question. That is 12 another issue whether it is well below. That is what it is 13 actually.
14 Let me ask a question. A few years back,
- 15. ConEdison asked the NRC to allow them to store the rods 16 closer together because they were running out of space in i
17 the fuel -- areas where they kept the fuel roads, and was !
18 Unit 1 included in that? Did they move the rods closer ;
19 together in the fuel pool? I see someone nodding.
20 MR. BAUMSTARK: We have not reracked Unit 1. l 21 SPEAKER: I see a nod over here.
l 22 MR. JACKSON: We did Indian Point 2, there were
'23' two modifications that were made to the Indian Point 2 fuel 24 storage pools over a number of years to increase the density
~
i 25 -of'the storage racks.in the spent fuel pool for Unit -- I P
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LT40 . j Court Reporters 1 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 !
1 (202) 842-0034 l l
i u -
-. _~ ._- --. - - . - - . . . - - - - . . . - - , - - . - . --
1
-j l
1 71 '
1~ MR.. CAMERON: Sir, I really am going to have to
)
2 ask you to --- )
i 3 SPEAKER: Well, I have'more" questions.
4 MR. CAMERON: Well, we will have to get to them 5' later on because we have other. people.
6? Sir, could you ask your question and could I ask 7: t(t get that projector up so that we have Ton Dimitriadis on?
8' And while are doing_that, we will-just take two quick L9 questions'from^this lady back here.
10 But go ahead, and state your name, please, for the 11' record.
12 MR. PEGLER: Sure. Hi, my name is Ro Pfgler, I 13 -am a, resident of Peekskill. A quick kind of informational, 14 = directional question. This may apply more to Units 2.and 3 15 than to. Unit 1 1. I am wondering if'there is a YK2' 16 remediation, if there has been a.YK2 remediation audit, and 17 if there is remediation -- YK2 compliance audit, and if 18 -there is a remediation plan?
19 MR. CAMERON: Sorry. The question related to Y2K, 20 and I am not sure -- could you repeat the question, please?
o 21 MR. PgpLER: Has there been an audit of systems in i 22 any of the units to see if they are compliant, and is there 1 23 a'remediation plan?
24- MR. BLIND: Okay. My name is Allen Blind.
'25 MR. PbLER: I'm sorry. And just where can I go ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
72 1 to find the information? I know -- I realize that is maybe 2 not.on topic for this.
3 MR.' BLIND: When you speak -- so, if I understand 4 your question, you are saying has there been an audit of our 5 Y2K evaluations?
'6 MR. PNGLER: I mean I am mumbling, but that wasn't 7 -- that wasn't an indirect-question. Yeah.
i 8 MR.-BLIND: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I ,
9 had the question right. I would assume that would be an ,
10 independent type audit versus our own internal audits?
11 MR. PEDLER: Whichever. !
12 MR. BLIND: Okay. Yes. There's actually two 13- things going on. We are preparing responses to the NRC.
14 The NRC issued Generic Letters on that issue. If I recall 15 correctly, the responses are due to that here shortly. And l t
16 then the NRC will be auditing those in the future.
{
17 In terms of Coned, we have had internal audits of i
18 the progress that we are making, you know, all of our ;
t 19 systems, not just our nuclear systems, but also all of our i 20 commercial systems also. And, yes, those audits have been '
21 . completed.
22 MR. CAMERON: And the information that goes to the 23 NRC will be available. That's the question, I guess. ;
24 MR. BLIND: All information is available. >
t i 25 MR. CAMERON: All right. f l:-
1 1031 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 '
L (202) 842-0034 1
. .-- __ . . . - . . . - . .. .~.-.._ _ - -
73 l
^ ss 1 MR '. PEGLER: Okay. Is the k+ a broad timeframe for l 2 that? !
3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Great. While we are getting 4 ready for Tony, we have two quick questions right here, j 4
i 5 . Tony, are.you ready to go soon, right after this?
6' Go ahead and state your name for the record, '
7- please.. '
8 MS. McLAUGHLIN: I am Katherine McLaughlin, I am a s
9 resident of the town of Cortland, and I am also affiliated 10 with the New York League of Conservation Voters. I have two 11 financial questions. One is, what will the cost of 12 decommissioning be, and who pays for it? And, two, what ,
3 13 happens if the Indian Point.2 closes down in 2013, which I j 14 am assuming it will, what are the economic consequences of
- 15. that shutdown in terms of this community? l 16 MR. BLIND: Let me try to -- in terms of the total i
17 cost, I am going to ask for some help on that. In terms of !
18 who pays for it, those costs are passed on to the i 19 rate-payers in terms of the regulated environment that we 20 are in, and as long as we continue to be regulated by the !
21 Public Service Commission, I don't see where that is going 22- to be changing.
23 And the third question, what happens if we shut ;
24' down in 2013? In terms of which parameter? Are you talking 25 about what happens in. general or --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
-r ,
(202) 842-0034
74 1 MS. McLAUGHLIN: Well, there is impact on the 2 community in terms of the town of Cortland. And then I 1
3 .would imagine there is a larger impact because -- well, 4 actually, no. I was thinking that there was a larger impact 5 generally in terms of just plain rates for Coned customers. I 6 MR. BLIND: In terms of the electricity rates for i 7 the customers of ConEdison?
8 MS. McLAUGHLIN: Yes.
.9 MR. BLIND: Gee, you know,-there's a lot of people 10- who would like to be able to answer that question. You 11 know, the electricity business is being deregulated. You 12 know,. for the time being right now, the nuclear power plant
-13 will stay in the regulated part of the business, but in
)
14 terms of the; transmission and distribution side of things, 15 that is. going'into the free market and it will be supply and 16- ~ demand which determines'the cost to the customer, what the 17 customers are willing to pay.
18~ 2013, you know, the projections are right now is 19 .that with a free market, with new entrants into the market, 20 in terms of being able to provide energy sources, there is a 21 good chance the price of electricity will be going down, 22 with or without the nuclear power plant online.
23 MR. BAUMSTARK: Let me see if I can answer your 24 question related to decommissioning costs. In 1993 we 25 conducted a study to determine the decommissioning costs for ;
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 - 034 a____-__-_-__-______ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-___---
.- - - - . _. .- .~ .- . .-
1 75 1 Units 1 and 2. At that time it was determined that in l
)
2 then-year dollars, these are 1993 dollars, it would cost us !
i 3 approximately $657 million to decommission Units 1 and 2.
4 We have collected almost'$270 million over the life of the 5 plant and put it in that decommissioning fund. We are 6- contributing to that decommissioning fund at the rate of 7 approximately $24 million a year. In the 2016 timeframe, I 8 based on escalation of those dollars, we estimate it will 9
cost $1.37 trillion to decommission Units 1 and 2.
10 SPEAKER: Trillion?
11 MR. BAUMSTARK: Yes. l 1
12 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Katherine.
l 13 MR. BAUMSTARK: I'm sorry, not trillion --
14 billion. I'll be all right. Too much watching the ;
15 President on the television last night. I apo2ogize.
16 MR. CAMERON: I don't know what that last comment 17 means. Okay, that's billion not trillion. '
18 MR. BAUMSTARK: $1.37 billion.
19 MR. CAMERON: We are sure it is not million, 20 right?
21 MR. BAUMSTARK: Yes, we are sure it is not 22 million.
23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. We are going to go to Tony 24 Dimitriadis, who is an NRC inspector who is going to talk 25 about NRC inspection activities at Unit 1. Then open it up i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 l
76 1 to questions on his presentation. Okay. When we are done 2- with that, we will go to people who wanted to make comments 3 and we will try to continue the dialogue that we started i
4 earlier on spent fuel. Tony.
5 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Thank you. Good evening, ,
6 everyone. My name is' Tony Dimitriadis, I am an NRC 7 inspector from Region I out of King of Prussia, 8 . Pennsylvania. With me is Dr. Ron Bellamy, he is my boss out 9 of Region I. He.is a Branch Chief for the Decommissioning 10 Branch. !
i 11 I-have six slides for you. It is not endless, and l 12- I will try and make it clear and concise and we can take 13 questions. The next slide.
14- This is in preparation for the public meeting. .h 15L The Decommissioning and Laboratory Branch is one of three 16 branches in one.of three branches in Region I. The NRC has 17 four' regional offices, one of which is outside of. !
18 Philadelphia, Region II is in Atlanta, Region III is in 19 Chicago and Region IV is near Dallas, and our headquarters 20 offices is in Washington, just so you know where we are !
21 coming from. ,
22 The next slide, please.
23 The regional role as -- what we do in the region 24 is we' basically conduct inspections, enforcement, licensing i 25 and emergency response for the nuclear reactors, the fuel [
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 !
i
77 1- facilities and. materials licensees within the regional 2 boundaries. Now, Region I basically goes from Washington, 3 D.C.,- in the Maryland area, all the way up to Maine, so that 4' is Region I. And then Region II and III and IV are various 5 ' boundaries which are contained in the NRC Digest, the 6 Information Digest. It is a pretty good book actually, it 7 is very information.
8 What we do basically is we are tasked with
.9 tracking reactors that are not operating. This is aside 10 from materials licensees that we regulate and inspect on a
' 11 . regular basis, like hospitals and pharmaceutical companies
- 12. and'various other places that use nuclear materials. . What i 13 .we do is we must keep up-to-date information on licensees' 14'- control, maintenance and'overall decommissioning activities,
- 15 and.we conduct periodic inspections at facilities like 16 Indian Point Unit 1.
- 17' An-inspection of Unit 1 facility.was conducted by
. 18 myself and with the help of the Resident Inspector Rob 19 : Temps, who is in the audience-today. Although we haven't 20= issued the inspection report yet, because it is not really a 21 short process, you know, we look at a lot of things, and I 22: will give you essentially the observations that I have made 23' so-far.
24 Okay. Basically, the status of the reactor, as 25' 'you have gotten from all the other people -- I am sorry to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
---v' - - -. - -i .. - .. , .i . . . . , . . - . . _ . . .
.n .
78 1 review it, but I guess a little review isn't too bad. It is 2 in SAFSTOR until the year 2013 when Unit 2 is tentatively 3 scheduled for shutdown and decommissioning. The reactor is 4 defueled and the fuel is being stored in one of the spent 5 fuel pools, and the contamination is primary conf:ned to the 6 -- what this RX basically means is reactor. Instead of
.7 writing it out, this is something that-we used, I guess, in 8- the industry to denote reactor, so I apologize for that.
.9- .The primary loop piping, steam generators, which are also 10' actually more specifically known as nuclear boilers, the 11- circulation pumps and the reactor cleanup system, that is 12 point 1.
13- Characterization is actually a term that we use in 14 the industry when we go out and we initially -- well, when 15- the licensee goes out and initially looks at what things 16 look like on a nuclear basis. And the way that we do that 17 is -- the way that the industry does it is they establish 18 ' boundaries on where. nuclear material is used, what is 19 contaminated, what isn't, and everything is posted. And we 20- ~ will get into that later'on. And, basically, when I do the-21' inspection, I walk around with, you know, a hardhat and 22 whatever else that I need, instruments, and I look at the 23 affected areas, and I determine that they have been
,e, 24 adequately characterized in accordance with-what we expect 25- to see in a nuclear reactor that has been, you know, in ANN.RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
R 1
79 1 SAFSTOR, and identify areas have been cleared of obvious 2 hazards. These are just things that you would look at, see 3 in an industrial facility like a nuclear reactor.
4 Site security, the inspection is confirmed that 5
control of licensed material is being maintained properly.
6 Let me tell you, they are very tough about what -- how you 7
go on site, who can go on site, what you can bring with you.
8 So I can vouch for the site security, they have done a very 9 good job in this unit in figuring out what you bring with
, 10 you. There was a question in the audience about vandalism, 11 things like that. I can tell you that the site security 12 system at this point is very good.
13 Next slide. What is this, page 5? Okay. I only 14 have two more slides, I don't want to bore you to death with 15 anything.
16 The next thing I look at is equipment. When I say 17 equipment, the equipment that is used to establish or 18 determine the radiological aspects of the site, and one of 19 the things that I look at is if the instrumentation that is 20 used at the facility, if it is suitable, if it has been 21 calibrated appropriately, if it works, if the people who use 22 it know how to use it, and that is what I determine, that 23 they are using suitable instrumentation, it is calibrated, 24 the people know how to use it. I determine this through 25 observation, interviews. I look at the records. We do a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
80 1 comprehensive examination of their program for that.
2 The next thing that we look at radiation 3 protection and, basically, when people go out to -- in a f
4 reactor to do work, they have to go on what is called a *
'5 radiation work permit, and that is in the parentheses, 6 called RWPs, radiation work permit. And that basically 7 spells out what one would expect to see in the work that j 8 they are going to be doing, in accordance with the training 9 and so forth.
10 And at Unit 1, I have looked at a sampling of the ,
r 11 records and interviewed the individuals involved that have i
12 been doing work, for example, the spent fuel system. And I ;
13 also look at their exposures for individuals frequenting '
14 into Unit 1. And I have seen, basically, that they are t 15 within the regulatory limits. Everything is basically -- I '
16 hate to say it, but it is pretty boring, and that is what I ,
17 like to see.- I don't want to see any excitement. I don't !
18 like-to see anything that is not -- other than boring. [
.19 The other thing that I looked at is the i i
20 radioactive waste and the majority of the waste is comprised 21 of the spent fuel, which we have mentioned over and over l t
22 'again, and that is being~ stored in the chemical systems i
-23 building, that is'the building, the enclosure that -- where i
24 the spent fuel pools are located. !
25 Next slide,.please. This is the last slide.. The i l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters ,
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 !
Washington, D.C. 20036 !
.(202) 842-0034
- 81 1 next thing that we notice -- we look at is posting and 2 labeling. In'this case'the licensee has provided good )
3 posting and labeling throughout the site. The informational
- 4. postings and boundings were'very clear and well determined.
5 'Anywhere where I wanted to go, I knew what to expect as far
'6 as contamination or radiation levels. They are very clear, 7 .they inform the visitor,.such as myself, which I am a 8- radiation worker at this point, and I know exactly where to
- 9. step, not to step. And if that -- if the information :Us 10 posted to me, then I know, I have confidence that it is also 11 transmitted to the individuals who work there. So, aside 12- from just looking at the safety of the environment, I also
, 13 want to protect the people who work there, as well as the 14 environment, the residents. We look at all aspects of
~15 nuclear safety.
16 The.next thing we look at are surveillance 17 activities. Even though Unit 1 has been. shutdown, what we.
18 do is we want to make sure that the utility makes an effort '!
~
19_ to go out and conduct surveillance activities into areas- i 20' that may.not otherwise be visited if somebody were to walk !
i 21' away from another installation.
In this case, in a nuclear facility, they have i
22 l 23 ressentially -- conduct surveillance activities and they
-24' perform radiation surveys. They check the levels to make ;
.- 25 sure nothing is out of order. They look~at systems. They i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut: Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 '
(202) 842-0034 7 - - - - , m n, . , . - ,. - - , - ,..-g.
82 1 make sure that there's no obvious hazards. They want to 2 make sure that everything is documented and performed in 3 accordance with the technical specifications that they have 4 established and submitted to the NRC. And we go out and we 5 confirm that, in fact, what they promised to do, they are 6 doing.
7 One of the other things that we look at is fire 8 protection. I have reviewed the fire protection program, 9 and this really -- it encompasses a couple of things, one of 10 which is fire detection and suppression. So they have 11 certain fire alarms and then suppression systems, and they 12 are very suitible to the relative hazard that is there. It 13 is not an operating facility. They have a pretty elaborate 14 system there. They have fire brigades which involves 15 nuclear operators, and a backup fire protection has been 16 established.
17 And the last thing that I look at is we have a 18 regulation -- well, we have many regulations, but one of the 19 regulations we have is encoded is Title 10, which is 20 essentially energy for the NRC. CFR means Code of Federal 21 Regulations and 50.75 Part 50 is basically for nuclear 22 reactors, and in 75 it says basically that the utility must 23 keep -- not just the utility, any facility, in this case a 24 reactor facility, they must keep, basically, records that 25 would relate to decommission.
1 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, FW, Suite 1014 ;
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 '
l
83 1 Anything that has happened that we need to know in 2 20, 30, 50 years from now, we need to keep records of these 3 things that happened. And, in fact, in this case, the 4 utility has done a good job in keeping these records. In 5 fact, they keep it in a fire-proof safe. They have done a 6 good job in keeping these records and they are identified, 7 you know, people who are supposed to know where they are, 8 they know where they are, and so they have met that.
9 Essentially, that is the end of my presentation at 10 this point, but I will take any questions that anybody has. ,
11 MR. CAMERON: Let's take questions now that relate 12 to Tony's presentation and then we will go on. We are going 13 to stay here with you as long as we can to answer questions 14 and listen to comments. But let's go to questions on that.
15 Yes, sir.
16 MR. BERNARD: Tony, my name is John Bernard, I am 17 a resident of Cortland. You are an engineer, I take it?
18 MR. DIMITRIADIS: I am health physicist. i 19 MR. BERNARD: Okay. And I am assuming that most 20 of the folks up here are engineers.
21 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Utility or --
22 MR. BERNARD: Engineers. Yeah, I am just curious.
23 I have a high respect for engineers, and health physicists, 24 too. I never heard of such a thing. But I am sure you do 25 your job very well.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
._ .. . _ _ _ . . .____,_m... . m . .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _
84 1 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Thank you.
2 MR. BERNARD: I have a couple of concerns, though, 3 and they relate to your use of the term, when you are doing 4 inspections, your site inspections, when you are using terms 5 like " standard" and " routine" and " repetitive" and " boring,"
6 you' kind of like to see that because you know there are no 7 anomalies and nothing that you need to be worried about.
8 MR. DIMITRIADIS: I use that in a sense that --
9- let's say you have a bank and you have a security system, )
10 you would want to know that your security people are
' 11 drinking coffee and basically talking to each other and they i
12 are.not chasing off people who are trying to break into the 13 bank. You don't want any excitement. I use that as ;
14 analogy, in that sense. That's what I mean by boring. .
15 MR. BERNARD: And I don't disagree with you, !
16- because when I do' site inspections myself for safety, one of 17 the things I want to see is that things are -- you want to ,
18 know what the norm is.
- 19 MR. DIMITRIADIS
- Exactly. 1
- 20 MR. BERNARD: The problem that we both share is i
21 that people are pretty clever, and they understand what 22 their performance is rated on and they understand how to f L
l 23 make things-look normal. Iney know how to make their '
24 records read correctly every day, whether they.have done the ,
?
- 25. inspector, checked their valve, checking the basement for L !
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i i l l
85 1 flooding or not, it looks pretty good to people like you and i 2 me sometimes when we are coming by for a cursory inspection.
3 So I have a concern that maybe we aren't seeing I 4 what we are supposed to see all the time. And how in the 5' world do you protect us when you are not seeing what you 6 should be seeing all the time? And when you do find a 7 problem, like the-list of violations that goes back to when l 8' the plant was first opened, and I read that it takes i
9 .sometimes upwards of 10 years for the NRC to enforce a 10 change when there has been a violation. What type of
.11 enforcement are you capable of bringing to bear if there is 12 a problem?
13 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Okay. The answer to your first 14 . question ~is,'how do we basically ensure that the people who 15 write records and maybe want to make it look like it is
- 16. perfect, the way we try and ensure that is we do surprise )
)
17 inspections. We walk into the site and say hello, we are I
.18 here. And sometimes that doesn't work out for the utility 19- because they have to break their schedules and then try and l
20 accommodate what we want to look at. And we do look at the 21 records. The other thing we do is we walk around and we 22 want to see with our own eyes what exactly is going on, and 23 we take instrumentation. We will take independent !
'24 measurements, we will do a variety of other things. That's 25 number 2.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
86 1 Number 2 is, as far as escalated enforcement, if 2 we see that a licensee is not conducting themselves in 3 compliance with the regulations, if it is clear that they 4 are in non-compliance, we have what is called escalated 5 enforcement and we will basically spell out the violations 6 -- our concerns. I don't want to talk regulatory stuff.
7 We spell out our concerns and the licensee has, 8 basically, an opportunity to allay our concerns and tell us, 9 and if we don't like it, we may -- we can do a variety of 10 various things, one of which is we can issue orders. We can 11 establish civil penalties, and, generally, that is not 12 viewed well by the licensee. They don't like to go to that, 13 you know, extreme. And so when we see something that is a 14 concern, it might be a minor thing, for example, I can tell 15 you that, typically, the licensee will -- when I have 16 meetings and I will say, well, my initial indication is gee 17 whiz, I don't like it is this way, typically, my experience 18 has been that the licensee will make every effort to, within 19 .their procedures, make it so that I am happy when I leave, 20 that it looks this way, not that way. So, I hope that 21~ answers your question.
22 MR. BERNARD: It answers my question as far as you 23 are concerned. I understand that when you go back to the 24 office, your paper work is complete. What I don't 25 understand is what the timeframes are, what the penalties ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. . - . - ~ - - . - - .. - - - - - . . _ . . . - . - - . - - . - - . .
87 1 are?- How is it that it can take 10 years to enforce an NRC )
2 regulation or a violation that has been issued? How can 3 there be these kind of timeframes? Unless what you are 4 saying is that there has been some massive change in the 5 . bureaucracy this year which allows you to enforce a 6 violation order.
7- MR. DIMITRIADIS: I am not sure what the 10 year ,
'8 ~-- I will be-honest with you, in -- ;
9 MR. BERNARD: I have-just been reading newspaper
.10' articles about one of the violations that was issued. :
11 MR. DIMITRIADIS: For Unit 1 or Unit 2?
l 12 MR. BERNARD: I guess just one that took more than 13 10 years to enforce.
14 MR. DIMITRIADIS: I am not sure which one. You 15 .know, we can talk after'the meeting. I am not sure exactly 16- .which one, to be honest with you.
l 17- MR. BERNARD: Okay, t
l 18 MR. DIMITRIADIS: As far as escalated enforcement 19 'and-civil penalties, I am not an expert on enforcement, I i 1
H ~ 20 wish I had the person who is, here. But there's a variety I L
i:
21' of civil penalties and there's a whole regulatory scheme of, f 22 you.know, basically, a rationale as to how we impose them.
l 23 MR. ] BERNARD: Well, I appreciate your candor And L 24' just one' final comment, I would just hope that -- I mean we 25 are all responsible for the pile of waste that is there. We i
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
- _ Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. I
. . -. - - ~ ~ -
l 88 1 all like to use cheap energy, I am as guilty as anyone else.
2 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Myself, too.
3 MR. BERNARD: And at some point we do have to pay 4 the piper, we have to take care of a problem. This is real 5 time, and I am a realist. However, in the process of doing 6 that, I would hope that we are able to keep our eyes open 7 and pay attention to what it is we are saying. In 1954 when 8 Eisenhower launched the medical ship, or the nuclear motor '
9 so that he could bring peace and atoms to the world, which 10 was not a bad thing, I bought into it, I thought it was 11 great. I was a young scientist, I thought that was really 12 good.
'13 And then in 1957 when Junior Scholastic magazine 14 came out, and I read it as an avid science student in the 15 6th grade and they said that they were going to store that 16 fuel, that spent fuel from that ship, from the atoms for 17 peace medical ship, they were going to sink it into 55
'18 galloon drums off the Florida Keys, wrapped in concrete, 19 individual drums, it will be safe there forever.
20 Well, I don't have to tell you, I didn't even make 21 it through the '60s and they were leaking, because somebody 22 bothered to check. And so I fear that sometimes we think 23 our technology -- engineers being what they are, we always 24 try to analyze and check and be sure, and I am afraid that 25 sometimes we oversell ourselves on our technology. And I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
~ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - . _ _ . - . . . _ . . _ -
1 F i 89
'l would very~much rather see that pile of waste stay right l
.2~ where it is, as bad as.that position is, rather than go out j
.l 3 .to~a place like Yucca Mountain, that they are trying to cram !
'4 down our throats, that we know is not safe, and certainly.
5 not safe'over a long time. Thanks.
'6 .[ Applause.] i 7~ MR. CAMERON: Thank you. How about other )
8- questions on Tony's. presentation onLinspection'before we 1 9- move to another segment? Anybody else on inspection?
10 Okay.
Well, let me just ask you to hold one d
11 second.
12 Tony, I guess.we are done at this point.
13 You have a question. Okay. Go ahead, Peter.
- 14 MR. ATHERTON: I think the audience ought to 15 understand where NRC is --
16- MR. CAMERON: 'Could you state your name just for 17 the --
. 18 MR. ATHERTON: My name is Peter James Atherton. l
- 19l -The' audience ought to understand exactly what it is that NRC 1 i
20 isEsupposed to do and what it is that you are actually
- 211
.doing. Is the NRC's ultimate responsibility to protect 22l public health and safety from nuclear power plant radiation i 23 releases, is that one of its primary missions?
24' MR. DIMITRIADIS: That is one.of its primary )
25- mi ssions,1 in addition with cooperation with the licensee, j i
l ANN;RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
' Washington, D.C.~20036 (202) 842-0034
90 1 yes.
2 MR. ATHERTON: And how does NRC independently, i 3 that is, independent of the licensee, monitor radioactive 4 releases into the environment, through the water, through f f
5 the air, or through solid waste? How does NRC, independent f 6 of what the utility says, monitor these releases? And then l i
7 .how can NRC, if it doesn't independently do this, tell the j 8 public that it is doing its job? i 9 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Typically, and I don't want to 10 just focus on reactors, because there's materials and fuel !
11 cycles in all kinds of places, but one way that we confirm 12 licensees' claims that they are releasing this, because we 13 do allow certain radioactive material limits to go out into ,
J 14 the~ environment, low, we do that, and one way that we 15 confirm that is the licensee claims something, and we go in 1
- 16. and we take independent measurements. We might take soil !
17 samples, water samples, air samples, things like that,
' :UB independent measurements with our instrumentation, and that 19 is the way we --
20 MR. ATHERTON: So you are saying the only thing 21 you'can do :Us verify what the licensee says when he says it, 22 .but you are not able to independently, at random, determine
- 23 whether~or not there are radioactive releases to the 24' environment, is that what you are telling me?
25 MR. DIMITRIADIS: I am not sure I understand your ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (102) 842-0034
1 91 1 question.
2 MR. ATHERTON: Do you have any --
3 MR. DIMITRIADIS: What I am saying is if there is 4 leakage'into -- if there is a drain system or a soil, a 5 mound of soil, and whether the licensee tells us or not, if 6 we know that it is a past~ license facility, we would go in 7 there sometimes to take independent measurements, to say; 8 . gee whi=, you know, we think that it is this much. And we 9 keep,that data ourselves, we publish it, you know.
10 MR. ATHERTON: And soil is a solid body, what 11 about liquid?
12 MR. DIMITEIADIS: Various things, yes.
13 MR. ATHERTON: What about liquid wastes?
14 MR. DIMITRIADIS: I'm sorry.
15 MR. ATHERTON: Liquid wastes.
16 MR. DIMITRIADIS: We have taken water samples at 17 various facilities. I mean it really depends on the 18 situation.
19 MR. ATHERTON: On a continuous basis?
20 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Pardon?
21 MR. ATHERTON: On a continuous basis as a result 22 of --
23' MR. DIMITRIADIS: On a continuous basis in a sense 24 that, during inspections, during -- you know, when a 25' licensee, you know, when a license has been terminated, and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i 92 1 we have established that, you know, the confirmatory surveys j 2 show tFst there's nothing, then we cease that.
3 MR. ATHERTON: Okay. Then what you are saying is 4 you have no continuous monitoring of radioactive releases to ,
5 the. environment, is that what you are saying?
6 DR. BELLAMY: Tony, wait a second. The answer is f 7 yes, we do. Tony's job up here is to look at basically the-8 in-plant -- and I am Ron Bellamy. Tony's job up here is to 9 look at the in-plant radiation protection activities here.
10 There is a whole additional segment of radiation protection '
-11 experts that we have in the region.
12- Part of our routine inspection activity at Indian 1
13 Point, at the Indian Point station, is to look at their t
14 effluents program. We have effluents inspectors that come ,
15 up here on an annual basis.
On an annual basis, they will 16 randomly take samples from the environment, they will take ;
17 samples of the effluent that ConEdison is putting out into' i
18 the Hudson River and we will independently verify that the !
19- numbers that they are giving us are accurate. ,
i 20 MR. ATHERTON: Is this a continuous thing?
21 DR. BELLAMY: This is -- this is not continuous i
.22 - thing. !
-23 MR. ATHERTON: Once a year?
-24 .DR. BELLAMY: This is a random program to take 25 samples, to verify --
-i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. f Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 '
Washington, D.C. 20036 :
(202) 842-0034 #
_. _ . . _ . . . . . . . - .-. . . _ _. ___-- _~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _
93 1 MR. ATHERTON: Once a year? I 2 DR. BELLAMY: The samples are taken once a year.
- 3 Now, part offthat inspection is to take an in-depth look of i l
4 exactly how they are doing their measurements.
That means !
1 5- 'that'we have an independent measurements man that can come I 6- up here if it is necessary, and we will monitor exactly what l 7 .they are doing in the laboratory. So we will-take a look at 8 their program, and we will verify that their program-is j 9- adequate'to' continuously analyze the samples and to measure I
10' the radioactive material that leaves the plant.
11 The answer to your question is -- does the NRC 12 continuously monitor the radioactive material that leaves 13 the plant? The answer to that is no. That is not our job, S
-14 that is the licensee's job. But it is our job to make sure !
15 that we have confidence that those numbers are accurate, 16 appropriate and reasonable, and that is the conclusion that 17 we make up here on an annual basis. i 18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much. What I 19 _w ould like to do now is to go to people that we haven't 20 heard from yet, to make sure that'we get all of them. And I
- 21- am going to start with this lady right here. If you could 22 -- -
L , s y: . J MynameisShirleyLhsNinskiandI 23 MS. LY9MtNSKT: L-24- -live in the town of Cortland. It is very dismaying to me, 25 and I have lived here 45 years, I moved here before I knew ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. '20036 (202) 842-0034
o I
I 94 )
i 1 what I was getting into, and I am really very concerned i 2 about the safety of this plant, these plants, and even 3 decommissioned or active, they are both -- in both 4 situations, they are dangerous to us residents. And when I 5 hear things about the leakage into the Hudson, and I hear 6' that the leaks, the leakage has been controlled to the point 7 of evaporation, so whatever toxicity exists is going up into 8 the air and not necessarily into the water, that doesn't 9 make me feel any better.
10 My basic concern is the Public Service Commission, 11 and because our legislator, SandraGaylh5f, is here, I would
12 like to make a point of -- when I hear that the rate-payer 13 has to pay for the decommissioning, I really get sort of 14 angry about that. I am assuming, maybe I am incorrect, that 15 Coned is a profit-making organization with stockholders and 16 et cetera, et cetera, that they are not non-profit 17 organization. Am I correct.
18 MR. BAUMSTARK: That is correct.
19 MS. LhSbINSKI: Is Coned a profit-making '-
20 organization with stockholders, et cetera?
21 MR. BAUMSTARK: That is correct.
22 MS. L&SNINSKI: That is correct. Okay. , ;
23 MR. BAUMSTARK: You can buy Coned stock on the New l
1 24 York Stock Exchange. I 25 MS. LNSNINSKI: Okay. See, I don't have any, so I ___
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
95 1 didn't know. It seems to me that the Public Service 2 Commission is supposed to be an oversight commission 3 protecting the consumer rather than the profit-making 4 organization. And when I think of all the investment 5 companies and big businesses that put their money into 6 building these plants, they were speculating. They were 7 speculating. And most businesses, if they encounter serious 8 problems, sometimes fail, sometimes have to make serious 9 adjustments. And here, everything is being dumped on the 10 rate-payer.
11 And I hope that Mrs. Gaylk f will take this up in L-12 the New York state legislature, because I think it is 13 patently unfair that the rate-payer here is bailing out 14 speculators who speculated on nuclear energy and these 15 plants, and maybe they are putting some money into the 16 decommissioning, but the bulk of it, as you have indicated, 17 will fall on us.
18 So, basically, what I am saying is that we are 19 living with a dangerous situation, and the thought of these 20 spent fuel rods -- and will they be added to? Will be 21 getting rods from other areas of the country stored in our 22 plant, or is it just going to be what we have produced here 23 in our area? Can somebody answer that question?
24 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to quick answer? And I 25 think Assemblywoman GaylI f has something to say. 3-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
96 1 MR. JACKSON: The last part of your question, is 2 it permissible for other people to store their materials?
Ax 3 MS. LYSH1NSKI: Right. c-4 MR. JACKSON: Their radioactive materials on our 5 site. That is strictly prohibited by the regulations, so 6 the answer is no.
7 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Assemblywoman 8 Gayliff.
9 ASSEMBLYWOMAN GAY -
I think that also came up '
10 with the question of low level waste. That is the same 11 response for low level waste?
12 MR. JACKSON: Yes.
13 A
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GAYbtFF. That was an issue that had 6~
14 come up.
15 MR. JACKSON: It is both -- it is all forms of 16 radioactivity, low level waste and high level waste.
17 ASSEMBLYWOMAN GAY . From other sources. I -
18 just want to let you know that the Public Service 19 Commission, representatives from the Public Service 20 Commission will be here in thic Armory -- this is almost 21 like this is an energy period of time -- on February 4th, on 22 Thursday, February 4th at 7:30.
23 And one of the issues that the Public Service 24 Commission is addressing is the impact on energy 25 deregulation on communities. Your question doesn't quite ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-97 1 fit into it, but since the Public Service Commission -- it 2 could fit'into it, I suppose, but the Public Service-3 Commission will be here,-you know, to address your issues.
4- And I would invite everybody to come. It is a wonderful 5 opportunity to, particularly for the people who live in the 6 town of Cortland,-that have the whole issues before them on 7 assessment, to be able to let the Public Service Commission 8: know exactly how it is affecting the community and what the 9 Public Service Commission can do to respond to actually what 10 Coned is doing to the community.
11 MS. LhbkINSKI: Well, these aging plants -- L-12 ASSEMBLYWOMANGAYbhFF: The time is 7:30 on L-13 Thursday, the 4th of February. So if you can come, please 14 do, it will be very important.
15 MS. LhSIINSKI: Well, these aging plants are 16 really a source of worry to all the residents around here.
17 This .si a non-escape zone in case there is an accident. And 18 it is dreadful -- well, it is really anxiety-producing in me 19 to think that this license doesn't expire until 2013. Just
'20 keep my fingers crossed that nothing happens between now and
- 21 ' then.
22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you,
'23_ Shirley. All right.
24 Again, let's hear from -- is there anybody else 25- that we have not heard from tonight? Please come up.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I 98 ,
-1 DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDE "
How are you doing? My name 2 :Ls Mike Snyder, I am the Deputy Mayor in the village of ""
3 Buchanan, home of the Coned nuclear power plant, as well as 4- the' Power Authority nuclear power plant. A couple of very I 5 simple ~ questions. I. appreciate you guys coming tonight, and 6 I appreciate the fact that you had an open public meeting :
7 discussing this.
8 My big question-or concern has to do with the ,
9 decommissioning process will not occur until the year 2013. l; 10 When will we have another opportunity to discuss the !
T 11 decommissioning of the plant?
12 MR. CAMERON: Mike.
13 MR.'MASNIK: Mike Masnik. There will be another >
14 public meeting when the licensee submits their new schedule,
' 15 - which would essentially talk about the dismantlement of the 16- plant. I don't know if -- you weren't here earlier, but we !
17 went_through the process and John Minns mentioned that if l
18' there is a significant update to the licensee's schedule or !
19 activities, they have to update a document called a _j L20 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report.
2 11 When you-go from a storage situation to an active '
22' dismantle situation,-we have determined that that is a 4 23 significantIchange. They would require an update and we 24 would,1 in most likelihood, have another public meeting to J25 discuss that, because that :Us a significant change from what ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
,, Court Reporters m 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
., Washington,_D.C. 20036 (202)-842-0034 J l
I i
99 1 we have experienced previous to that. So, sometime in l
2 advance of 2013, we would probably have another public i
- 3) ~ meeting.
- 4. -There would also be a requirement for a public l
5 ' meeting after they dismantled the-majority of the plant and 6 prior to the termination of the license, and that would be, ;
7 you know, some number of years after 2013.
1 l 8 '
DEPUTYMAYORSNYDEN: Is ConEdison the license "'
9' holder for all three plants?
10 MR. BAUMSTARK: No, we'are the license holder for 11 Units.1 and 2. The New York Power Authority is the license L
! 12 holder for Unit 3.
~ 13 DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDd : So that license is "
- 14 -transferred now. How do you -- when you transfer a license, 1.
l 15: who is involved in that process?
16 MR. BAUMSTARK: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l 17 is.
181 MR. MASNIK: Yeah. Actually, I am not exactly
'19 sure of the arrangement that was done quite a few years ago, j -20 but I don't believe the license was -- well, I was guess it 21 was. transferred to the New York Power Authority. I mean
. 22' there is a process, a review process.
23 MR. JACKSON: I was around at that time.
24 ConEdison obtained the original construction permit to build c
l 2 51 Indian Point'3 and at the point it was ready to go into l :- <
I 4
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,,D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
100 1 operation, we sold Indian Point 3 to the New York Power l
2 Authority, and the New York Power Authority obtained the 3 license, applied for and obtained the license to be the '
4 owner, and.for the first few years of operation, ConEdison 5 held the operating license and operated it for them.
6 When the Power Authority developed sufficient 7 staff and support capability, they had to demonstrate that 8 capability to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It went 9 through a formal license proceeding. After they satisfied 10 the NRC that they met all of the requirements, they then 11 received their own operating license. At that point, 12 'ConEdison no longer operated for them.
13 DEPUTY MAYOR'SNYDEN: The transfer of licenses -
14 between nuclear power owners, a simple process, a difficult
- o 15 process, public hearings involved? What is the sequence of l 16 events?
17 DR. BELLAMY: It is a difficult process. A
- 18 . license amendment like that would' require a notice in the I 19 Federal Register, the opportunity for a public hearing.
20 There would be a significant review by a significant number 21 of technical experts in-our headquarters office before 22 something like that would be approved. It is not easy.
4 23 DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDER: Okay. ~But it has and can L-
- 24 occur? ;
i 25 DR. BELLAMY: Yes. i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters ,
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036
.(202) 842-0034
101 N'
.1- DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDEP': Okay. Thank you. -
- l 1 I 101. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. j 3
, Yes, ma'am. I THD C fmL+ s ?
4 MS . ANGUGC.L. -Good evening, I am Joan Anducci and "
5 I-am from Ossining,-which is about six miles south of here.
6 I first want to make sure that I understand your procedure,
'7 and then I have some questions. My understanding is that 8 you are going to stay with safe storage and then eventually
'9 take the plant apart and put it somewhere else.
10 MR. BAUMSTARK: We will remain in the SAFSTOR 11 condition until approximat'ely.the 2013 timeframe, and then 12 -we will go into what they call a dismantlement phase, which
'13 will involve the dismantlement of components in the plant.
14 MS.kbDbNi: So you will dismantle them and truck *-
15 .them somewhere else, truck the components somewhere else, or 16 transport? t 17 MR. BAUMSTARK: Simply stated, yes. There is l
18 clearly a lot of requirements we have before we can truck 19 anything that is potentially contaminated anywhere, but 20 simply stated, yes. ,
7,s i.a .4 21 MS. !!OUCCI. Okay. That was my understanding. I 22 am looking at NUREG-1628, staff responses to frequently 23 asked questions by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 24 and you have pros and cons on the DECON alternative and the 25 SAFSTOR alternative. And the pros, the benefits for the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. ~ _
.. _-_._.._...---_____..__.___.__._.__...m.__.._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ .
102
-1 SAFSTOR alternative is substantial reduction radioactivity, reduction in worker dose of radioactivity, reduction in l l 3- public exposure of radioactivity, reduction in the amount of L 4 waste disposal space. And it seems like the human element t 5 would be to reduce the amount of radioactivity that anyone 6 :is exposed to. -And I would like to know why that is not j 7 . considered a priority and why you just don't stay in the- f i
8 ' safe storage space,-the safe storage indefinitely.
l 9 MR. BAUMSTARK: The material as it is safe-stored 10 right now, in its: original location, with the necessary :
i 11 precautions taken, will naturally decay. And the reason why {
- 12- we want to leave it in the SAFSTOR is that when we get to i 13 dismantling phase, the radiation that was there in 1974 when !
= 1-4 we shut down the plant will be significantly less than the
[
15 radiation was'in the seventy -- in other words, it will f i
16- decay over the 30 or 40 years between the time the plant is
[
17 shut down and the time we dismantle it, reducing, as you.
1 18 say, all the exposure that the people who would have to go
- 19. in there do that would be exposed to, i 20 MR. MASNIK: This is Mike Masnik. I think your f I
12 1 question is, why don't they stay in SAFSTOR forever? [
N(YLGJ s- i 22 MS . [nnavCCrm Exactly. Exactly. [
23 MR. MASNIK: Well, first of all,'the Commission ;
. . t 24 has made a determination that all nuclear reactor sites 25 ultimately have to be' cleaned up. We can't get into a l
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 '
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ,
103 1 situation'where we would allow them to remain forever.
2 Now, there are certain radioisotopes that decay 3 away quickly. There are certain that decay away after 60 4 years. But there are radioisotopes at facilities that have 5 operated that do not decay away for a very long time, in l
6 thousands of years. So there is a hazard there, even after ;
i 7 you go through the 60 year storage period, and we -- the 8 Commission has decided that the licensees are responsible 9 for cleaning up that hazard.
10 So even though there is a substantial benefit 11 associated with storing the facility for that period of I
12 time, the Commission has decided that they still have to j l
13 dismantle the facility and remove the residual radiation l 14 prior to the end of the 60 year period.
THDJ.S I 15 MS. A:!CUCui : I don't see the sense in ;-
16 contaminating two locations. There is already a location 17 with radioactive, highly radioactive material on it. I 18 don't see the sense in trucking it or moving it, or 19 transporting it to another location, and you really don't 20 even know where that location is at this time, and then 21 contaminating it.
22 MR. MASNIK: Well, you know, there are two answers 23 to that question. One is that I believe the Commission felt 24 that it was not wise to have 105 waste storage facilities, 25 that's the number of operating plants there are in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I 104 1 country, and that it would be more prudent to, after some 2 period of time, move that waste to an area and put it in a J
3 configuration that will allow storage for nany, many years. '
4 I mean when they designed the plant, they didn't design the 1
5 plant to last a thousand years. The burial sites that are 6- ' licensed are designed to provide protection for the period 7 of time to which the radioisotopes are harmful to the .
'8 public.
tnt as t 9 MS. ANBUC-@M And what about the risks in getting L-10 theLradioactive materials to those sites?
t 11: MR. MASNIK: Again, as I mentioned earlier, there 12- is very stringent regulations on the transportation of 13 radioactive waste. Waste is transported daily throughout 14 the United States and the Commission felt that it was an
.15 acceptable risk.
CND %l y 16 MS. ANBUCCT: Well, I appreciate your responses.
l 17 My comment _is that I think it is foolish. I think that that 18 material should remain there. 'I think it should be stored ,
'19 there. I don't think it should be moved. I don't think 20 another site should be contaminated and mostly for -- to '
21 minimize risks and to minimize exposures. Thank you.
1 22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Joan. ]
_23 Mike, is there any literature that discusses these I 24 pros.and cons that you could get to Joan?
25 MR. MASNIK: Yes. In fact, if you would talk to l
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i 105 1 either myself.or John Minns after the meeting, we can give 2 you some literature on transportation of waste as well.
3 MR. CAMERON: All right. Yes, ma'am.
4 MS . .GIUdEP: My.name is Felicia Grant and I am 5 .Yorktown resident, and I am also a member of the Greater 6
Peekskill Area of the Westchester Black Women's Political e '7 Caucus. Now, my question was to the gentleman who did a 8 presentation on the inspection of the NRC. I was wondering 9 'when was the last inspection done.
10 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Of Unit 1?
11 MS. GRANT: Yes.
12 MR. CAMERON: Please use the mike, Tony.
13 MR. DIMITRIADIS: The inspection was conducted 14 November 30, it began, through -- I was on the site through 15 December 4th, I believe. I don't remember the date.
16 MS. GRANT: Of '98?
17 MR. DIMITRIADIS: And it continues as I ask more 18- information and so forth. So it is not like a one day 19 thing, nor is it endless. It is, you know, it is a 20 considerable time, with the holidays and everything, you 21 know. But the last one would have ended January of '99, 22 MS. GRANT: .Okay. And when -- I know you said 23: that the report is extensive. When is it expected to be out 24 and made public?
25 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Within -- yeah, within 30 days ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
106 1 of, you know, I guess next week. Sometime in February.
2 MS. GRANT: Okay. And the other question was, I 3 know there are some questions about how often some of these 4 samples were done, and the answer was annually. How often 5 are these inspections done?
6- MR. DIMITRIADIS: The inspections --
7 DR. BELLAMY: Yeah, I think that is a very 8 ' excellent point and that.want to make sure you get to. And 9 my name 'is Ron Bellamy. There is a permanent NRC staff 10 located at the Indian Point site, and Rob Temps is here 11 tonight. He or one of his staff gets over to Indian Point 1 12 at least once a week, so there is at least.a once a week 13 view of exactly what_is going on at Indian Point 1.
14 There are morning staff meetings that he or his 15 staff attends, and they re fully aware of what is going on 16 at Indian Point 1 at all times. So I don't want you to get 17 the. impression that Tony's inspection is all that gets done 18' up here. There is basically a continuous oversight of what 19 is' going on. Mr. Temps lives in the area, his resident 20 inspector lives in the area. They are here' permanent, 21 full-time and there are also staff at Indian Point Unit 3 22 that we can call on if we have to.
23 MS. GRANT: Okay, 24 DR. BELLAMY: So it is a very extensive inspection 25 program, what"is going on up there.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034
107 1 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Let me point out that one of the 2 reasons that we did an. inspection this year is because for 3 ' man years, because the site is in SAFSTOR, a lot of times, 4 'not just in' Indian Point, but at various facilities, when 5- they are in SAFSTOR, a lot of times there is nothing 6 essentially that happens. Then something happens, and then 7
nothing happens for a while. 'And so we take the opportunity 8 when activities are happening, like spent fuel storage 9 cleanups lor wh'atever, that we make, you know, we make 10; ourselves available, make sure that we are on site to do 11- this.
12 So, sometimes even though we may come out annually 13' or six months, or every week, depending on who is looking
-14 - at, with what pair of eyes, basically, it might be that 15 'nothing is happening, and I might show up and ask the 16 licensee -- Hi, I am laere to do an inspection. What is 17 going on?. And they might sey, well, basically, not much.
18- So.this year it just so happened that it was -- some
-19 activities were happening and I.have something to report, 20 you know. Does that answer your question? Sure.
21 MR. CAMERON: All right. hark is sort of tied to 22 his camera here, so we are going to let him ask a question.
23 MR. JACOBS: Yeah, I have three questions, I think 24 they are probably not that long. I think they are mostly 25 for the NRC representatives. I wondered if there was going ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
108 1 to be any requirement for a site-specific environmental 2 impact assessment, or environmental impact statement, 3 whether that was going to be required, because I think a lot 4 of the analysis is done based upon general environmental {
I 5 information and not site-specific. '
l 6 My second question is, from looking over 7 ConEdison's plan, there are some references to thing that 8 they think will happen in the year 2013 or later. Are any j 9 of the loose plans for that time period binding? Is there l 10 , any reason that -- why we would be unable to bring them into i
11 question in the future, such as when the next hearing would 12 take place? l 13 And my third l question is that we have been talking 14 about the spent fuel rods and that they -- the plan is to !
15 move them at some future point when the federal government i
16 provides some place for them to be moved. Let's work for a 17 second under the assumption that the federal government ,
18 never finds a place for them to be moved. I am not saying [
19 that is going to take place, but it is an option we have to :
consider.
20 If that were to' happen, how long can they safely 21 be stored at IP-1 and could'they then be stored even longer 22 if changes were made to the physical plant?
23 MR. MASNIK: Okay. Reference your -- I'm Mike f 24 Masnik. Reference your first question, there is no !
25- requirement to a do a site-specific environmental impact j t
i
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut ~ Avenue,.NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 r (202) 842-0034 i t
109 1 statement. The Commission did a generic environmental 2 impact statement in 1988, published that, and that is -- I 3 think you remember during John's talk, he talked about the 4 three additional restrictions, one of which was that the 5 licensee, before they do anything at the plant, have to ask 6 themselves the question -- Will this result in environmental 7 impact that was not previously considered? So there are 8
bounded by the envelope of the generic environmental impact 9 statement. So, to answer your question, no, there is no 10 requirement. '
11 The second one references what will happen in 12 2013. This has always been a problem in that we are trying 13 to predict what is going to happen way into the future.
14 They are required by the regulations in this to submit this 15 post -- the PSDAR to conjecture what they might do. That !
16 document, as John mentioned during his talk, is primarily 17 for us to marshall our resources, determine what sort of l
18 inspections are needed and to have the licensee think about 19 things like cost and environment impact. It is not a 20 binding document.
21 The regulations say that if things change, you 22 need to update your PSDAR, and we have some Regulatory 23 Guides that talk about what kind of things would be a l 24 requirement on the part of the licensee to update. For 25 example, if they make significant changes in the cost ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
110 ,
1 estimate, they would have to tell us that. If they change ;
2 -from SAFSTOR to DECON -- a number of utilities, because of 3- the availability of low level waste burial capacity are 4 thinking of not taking the full 30 or 40 years that they had ,
planned for SAFSTOR, but actually beginning to DECON now.
~
5 i
6 If they choose to do that, they would have to update it. l 7 So, yes, they make some projections, but they do
-8 have the opportunity to change those in the future. And if i 9 they are significant enough, it would trigger another f 10 meeting. I 11 The third --
12 MR. JACOBS: Then we could call into question any t 13 of the items related to that? I mean none of the items ,
14 predicting what is going to happen in 10 years in this -- in 15 their request, or in their license now, none of those items l-lL 6 ' are binding? That is what I am trying to be clear on. If !
17 they decide -- for example, there is -- we talked about this i i
18 earlier, a distinction between whether the site would be t
19 restricted or unrestricted, and they say they plan for it be 20 unrestricted, unrestricted use after the nuclear waste is 21 moved away. Now, at some future point, if we are here at l
l' 22 another meeting, because they have requested to move to the 23 next stage, we would then be able to call into question ;
.24 items such as their use of the plant after things have been 35 moved? All those things would have to be reopened, is that l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW,. Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 ;
(202) 842-0034 i
G i 111 1 correct?
2 MR. MASNIK: You know, for example, your issue of 3 restricted versus unrestricted, clearly, that is a 4 significant change. It would affect their license 5 termination plan, and that would be opened up, and there 6 would even be an opportunity for a hearing for that.
7 But if -- let's say they decide to change the 8 schedule from -- they decide to start the cleanup, instead 9 of 2013, buc do it instead in 2014, that, in our mind, at 10 least now, is not a significant change. You know, they 11 would have to notify us of that, and we would have to make 12 that information public, but it may not necessarily trigger 13 another public meeting.
14 MR. JACOBS: I am sorry, I am just not -- maybe I 15 am not being clear. If we have another hearing in the 16 future because of a change that you deem is significant 17 enough to have the hearing, we would be able to address any 18 items having to do with the status or the changing in status 19 related to IP-1? It is not that there is something that is 20 in their current licensing that has happened now that we are 21 not going to be able to discuss? That's my question.
22 MR. MASNIK: The answer is, if we have another 23 public meeting, that that -- everything is back on the 24 table. We can discuss everything.
25 MR. CAMERON: Does that answer your --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
112 l' MR. MASNIK: Well, I haven't got to the third opv, 2 I think.
3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Go ahead.
4 MR. MASNIK: If there never is a federal 5 repository. The Commission has determined that spent fuels, 6 spent fuel. pool storage of fuel is adequate at facilities !
7 that shut down for 30 years past the actual expiration date !
8 of the license. So, assuming, obviously, that there is no f 9 significant leaks or any structural problems associated with ,
1
.0 the: pool,'and, of course there would be some monitoring of 11 the pool and monitoring of the groundwater around the pool, !
12 the licensee could keep the fuel for 30 years after the l 13 expiration date of their license in the spent fuel pool. Of 14- course, the licensee could also come in and ask for dry 15 storage, or, as they pointed out, they could move it to some !
16- interim storage facility that the government licenses, or if f 17 there is a commercial interim storage facility, they could .
18 move it to that location as well.
19 MR. JACOBS: When is that 30 year date for IP-1?
20 MR. MASNIK: I am not certain of when the IP-1 s
21 license would have expired. It is in that blue book, 22 actually. We could look that up. I could'look it up i 23 afterwards and talk to you. I 24 MR. JACKSON: I can generally tell you that the 25 Indian Point provisional operating license was continued on e
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters ;
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ;
Washington, D.C. 20036 !
(202) 842-0034 !
. -_-_. , .-- --.-_- - . - - . . - ~ . - .- .
113 .
1 an "as requested". basis. So since we had' entered into the l 2
proceeding to convert, until such time as NRC said you 1 3 couldn't continue to operate, that license continued. So, 4~ you know, it'wasn't like the Indian Point 2-license that has 5 a finite 40 year end date. We were in the middle of a 6 conversion proceeding.
7 MR. MASNIK: I guess the answer to your question 8
is I am not -- I don't know and I would have to look into 9 and ask our lawyers probably.
10 MR. JACOBS: Can you get back to me?
11 MR. MASNIK: Sure. Sure.
12 MR. CAMERON: All right. We are going to go to i 13 Marilyn, who'I' believe has a question or a ststement. For 14 your information, all of you out there, we-were originally 15 going to end at 10:00. We will stay till 10:30 formally on 16 the record, and then adjourn at that time, but the NRC staff 17 and others will be here for you to talk to. And is that --
18 that.'s okay with you guys? All right.
19 So, Marilyn.
20 MS. ELII Thank you. In England it is not the L' 21 nuclear activities.that are closing down power plants, it is
- 22. the accountants. And I think that we may well be looking at l 23 a very similar situation with deregulation. Should the
'24 - numbers not crunch properly, I think it is entirely possible
- 25 to consider a scenario where one plant is in SAFSTOR, l
I W
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters ,
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
- - . - - ~ - - - . - _ . - . - . - . . . . . - _ . - . - .. . . - - . -. - ,
114 '
r 1 another plant is. closed not 2013, but whenever it becomes 2 unprofitable and no longer makes money for the stockholders.
3 And that plant then, if it is IP-2, would go into '
i 4 decommissioning. If that one doesn't work, would IP-3 make 5 money? Probably not. t 6 So, I think it is entirely reasonable to consider 7 a scenario where we have two power plants going off-line, '
8 ' going.either into decommissioning or SAFSTOR, one power 9 plant being decommissioned, and a whole, totally different f
-10 kind of scenario than the one that has been envisioned here, i
11 one'that I have not heard talked about and I think one that ;
12 needs be discussed.
13' And I do have to say that when you talk about !
waste for 1,000 years, for 2,000 years, for 3,000 years and
~
14 f
15 longer, because that is the half-life of some of those :
16 radioactive isotopes, and you say, well, we have to plan for [
17 it, I don't think you can reasonably and rationally plan 18 that far in the future, whether it is on-site or whether it 19 is at Yucca Mountain or some other place. Who has that kind l
20 of crystal ball? No one, absolutely no one. No one can t 21 ' plan a thousand years in the future. And even now, with the
[
. :2:2 safest possible storage, which is dry cask storage, the cask ;
23 crumbles away way before the half-life of the radioactive ;
i 24 . isotopes'in the spent fuel are -- well, it crumbles away ;
'25 -while they are still deadly and very, very toxic. And that !
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters !
1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
.- ~. . .. .. . - -
8 l
115 1
~
l 1 is'the safest way we can do it.
2 p Those casks have not been tested, they are 3 computer models that say what they would do in a crash. j 4 They haven't been tested physically, and there have been )
5 .' problems. Has it resulted in radioactive contamination?
.6 Well, I am not sure, but there have been problems and there 7 have been crashes.
8 The-Department of Transportation, the United i -9 . States Department of Transportation says a number of crashes 10' to be. expected given a certain number of transports. And 11 you'are talking massive transports across this country. And
'12 you are also. talking massive transports to a site that if --
' Yucca Mountain, which is right at the top of the list, 13 I 14 there's all kinds of information emerging about that, about
( 15 -how geologically active the site is, how water is moving. j 16 Where are the voices at this hearing that are talking about 17- the alternate scientific methods of -- of some scientific 'i 18 facts?
/
19 Now, I do appreciate the NRC is here. I do 20 appreciate.that ConEdison is here. And I have learned 221; something. And because I have done some small amount of i
22 ~ homework and have been to these meetings before, I know ;
23 there is a whole lot not being addressed and said. What 24' about:the position of the Nuclear Institute for Research 25 ._ Se rvices ? . What about the. Don't Waste America campaign that I l
l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l' Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034-i
-.~ --
116 1 -' talk specifically about transport? Where are the voices 2 with the scientific information regarding alternate points 3- of view? I do take. exception to people who are in the 4 field, trained professionals, complacently, reassuringly 5 giving us information that I can not accept as accurate and
- 6. I can not' accept as final.
- 7. 'These things-need other voices here. They need to 8- be looked at in other ways, and we need more information, 9 not from the Nucl' ear Regulation Commission, which is
-10 supposed to be a guard dog of the public, frequently in the 11' past, looking at specific incidents, if you care to, has 12 been a lapdog, not a guard dog. And ConEdison, who is a 13: . profit-making institution -- please tell me any nuclear 14 power plant in this country that has had adequate money to 15 pay for the decommissioning of that power plant. The facts ;
16 and figures are not there, and you can talk about the money 17 .that it takes.
-18' In fact, while you are talking about, please tell 19 me'the true millions of dollars that will it will cost to 20 decommission that plant, how is that being considered in
.1 2 : your profit ratio? And no wonder Yucca Mountain is first on 22 -your list.
. Who.wouldn't want to use up the energy, get the 23 profit'and.then hand'over the storage for how many thousands 24 of years, to the government, to the taxpayers, to the
~ 25 ' rate-payers? 'I certainly would prefer to do that were I in. ,
l l
l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202). 842-0034-L- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____-________ ___________ - - - _
. . . . . . . ~ -. . _ - - - ~ . . - . -
i 117
-I business and making a profit. I certainly'would not, were I 2 in business and making a profit, care to maintain on-site 3
. storage where I might, in my business, have to figure in my 4 profit, in my cost analysis, thousands of years of storage.
5 Where is the common sense? Where is the reason? And where 6 are the figures that support what you are doing? And more 7 than that, where is the common good? I don't see it and I 8 have not seen at this commission tonight.
- 9. AndIhopethatSandyGayl$f7whohasdonemany ~
10' fine forums, will organize a forum, not a presentation, but
! 11 a forum where other voices can be heard and these issues can L
12 be discussed with proper scientific credibility on all 13 sides. Thank you.
- 14. [ Applause.]
l .15 MR. CAMERON: And I take it, Marilyn, that there l 16 is information on the table here for people who might want ;
l- 17 to access the nearest web site and the forum you are talking 18 about would be a forum on spent fuel storage, 19 transportation, disposal, and that would be the focus of it?
E2 0 - MS. ELE [ Transportation costs, health and safety.
21 MR. CAMERON: Right. Okay. The one comment that i 22 was made that the NRC may want to comment on is the 23 availability of adequate. decommissioning funding. Is that 24 .something that you want to address, Mike?
i
- 25. MR. DIMITRIADIS: This is Anthony Dimitriadis
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 8
(202) 842-0034 1
_ ~ . , _ _ -
i 118 1- _again from Region 1 -- oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.
2 MR.'MASNIK: I just want to say that the 3 regulations require that licensees establish a trust fund, 14 _which all licensees have, decommissioning trust fund, and '
l
'5 ..that they need to contribute a certain amount of money, and l
'6- -each-year there is a reevaluation of the amount of money 7 that is in that trust _ fund. There are a number of factors ;
8 that are looked at, the cost of waste burial, the cost of ;
9 energy, the cost-of labor, and each year the licensees are
- required to recalculate what amount of money is going to be 11 needed to clean that-plant up. It is based on the size of 12- the plant. '
13 Most facilities have done site-specific cost '
14 estimates and there is also a requirement in the regulation i 15 that once they do shut down, they have two years to complete ;
16 an.up-to-date site-specific' cost estimate. Licensees have '
17 been putting the money aside. Now, for those facilities 18 that have prematurely shut down, obviously, they didn't have l
19' the fund fully-funded. We have had a number of facilities, i 20 one that comes to mind is the Trojan plant that prematurely !
.21 shut' down. They have begun active dismantlement. They are '
32 .probably one of the farthest along plans, that and Yankee !
23 Rowe.
t 24- In the case of Trojan, I am somewhat familiar with
- t 25 it, they have done some cost estimates and they seem to -- f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters f 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l 2 84 - b3 l
j
1 1
i 119 1 well, the figures seem to suggest that they will have 2 sufficient funds to clean the plant up. We are confident 3 .that they will. Additionally, since the cleanup has begun, 4 the actual. cost of the cleanup is actually less than what 5 they projected, so they are in pretty good shape.
6 So, are we concerned'about adequate funding for 7 decommissioning? Yes, absolutely. Do we monitor that 8 funding? We just recently enacted a new regulation that 9 requires the licensee to notify.us every two years of the 10 status of the fund and how much money is in it, so we will 11 be monitoring it at all facilities starting this March.
12 So, we believe the funding issue is a difficult 13 one, but.the licensees will be able to accomplish the 14 cleanup with the money that is available.
15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's -- do want to make that 16 comment into the microphone? And then we are going to go to 17 Michelle, who has been waiting patiently. But we haven't 18 heard from you before. State your name, please.
19 MS. EBERLY: My name is Margaret Eberly, I am from 20 White Plains. I am just wondering if you have inspectors 21 monitoring leaks from the decommissioning fund.
.22 MR. MASNIK: All decommissioning funds -- well, 23 first of all,-the regulations of 1988 required licensees to 24 have the decommissioning trust funds. There were very 25 stringent requirements as to how those funds are set up and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
120 1 the licensees don't --
can't commingle the money. For
'2 example, they can't use it for operating events during the 3 p operation of the plant, and there are stringent requirements j
'4
~
as to what they can and can't use the money for. So the 5 ' answer to your question is yes.
6 MR. CAMERON: All right. Michelle.
.7 , MS. R I don't know if I should direct this L_-
8- to the health physicist. Your name again?
9 MR. DIMITRIADIS: Tony Dimitriadis.
- f. , ,,. c .,__
10 MS. R6Dshi: Tony. Yes. I am interested in -
11 ~ finding out about the potassium iodide and the status as far
-- I have been looking and talking to the Health Department 13 :- in -- New York State Health Department, who have told me
.14 that all milk farms around the Indian Point reactors have 15_ .been' shut down within the last 10 years because of 16 ' strontium-90 and other things. Dr. Romalwi, specifically, 17- for the Health Department. So that is one thing, just as 18 _far as the_ danger of the emissions.
19 But in case of a nuclear accident, I have heard 20 .that the NRC has okayed the distribution of potassium L21 _ iodide. Now, nothing is happening here, we are in a 10 mile 22' radius. Nobody here has potassium iodide. Is the NRC 23' getting the potassium iodide? Will they give it to New York 24' State?
'25' 'MR'. DIMITRIADIS: No , let me -- I am not an expert ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
~
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 11 (202) 842-0034
.~_ __ _ _ _ _ - . _ ._ . . _ . _ _ _ _ -
121
- 1. on potassium iodide, but I will let Dr. Bellamy address 2 that, and we can get to the milk farm, the questions that 3 .you had.
4 DR. BELLAMY: Yes. What the Commission has 5 decided on potassium iodide is that we will support the 6 state's distribution of that prophylactic measure.
7 MS. R$hh[nI:' Will you be giving it -- -
, 8 DR. BELLAMY: It is not -- it is not -- it is not l
9 the NRC's-responsibility and we are not responsible for 10 obtaining and distributing those tablets, that is the j
11 state's responsibility.
m . .-
12 MS. ROBEbb: So you are not going to get the k~
13 tablets or pay for it? !
14 DR. BELLAMY: Correct. i 15 .MS.RidkFbL: I thought that the NRC was. __
16 DR. BELLAMY: No.
17 SD:CG '
MS..ROO9hL: Okay. So, well, I know in Chernobyl, during the meltdown in Chernobyl, that people that did have 18 19 the potassium iodide were able -- children did not get i
20 thyroid cancer if.they were given the potassium iodide. We 21 know about this, and I think it is reprehensible that 22 anybody around here does not have this, just as a 23 . prophylactic measure. And I know that also potassium iodide l 34 is not the answer, there are many other radioactive gases l 25- and elements that are released during a meltdown. But in i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters n' 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202). 842-0034 l-l
122 li the event, at least we should have this. It has saved many ,
l
[ 2 . children in Poland. i 1
l 3 My last comment is just -- I know you probably are l' .
4 going'to be going home, it is a late night, and you are l 5 -- going to be going home and say, boy, this is a tough crowd. t L. 6 I call on God, the Creator, right now, we have done an L 7 insane thing, it is a failed technology, and I don't care l
8 how much money anybody is making on it, some people are, and [
9 this.is why it is in existence right now. It is a {
. 10 dangerous, horrible technology and we are poisoning our
' [
+
11 environnent for-thousandsHof years to come, and we are '
l 12- poisoning the people. The cancer rates around here are
- l 13 astronomical.
t l
14 I went to Peekskill to talk to mothers just to get t
them to a meeting, and a number of people were telling me 15 i b
16 .about kids that have been born -- a disproportionate number 17 of kids born with Down's Syndrome, that kind of things. '
I 18 Maybe it is a tough crowd, maybe you are getting paid really i 19 well, and well enough to ignore this, but I am asking you, I ?
i 20 am asking you, please, shut these disasters down before 21 something like Chernobyl does happen. And please don't tell ,
22 me that it is not Chernobyl, you can not compare it, because b 23 it-is the difference between different cars -- okay, maybe a 24 Volkswagen and a Cadillac,.but'they both can crash. And I ;
25 'am asking1you when you go home tonight, and go to sleep '
F t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 w
~ - . - . - ~ . . - . - . . _ - - - . - - . - .
123 1 tonight, and for all the nights coming, please think about i
2 that. Think about that you are killing people by letting
( 3; this' place stay open.
4L MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Michelle. John is 5 going to -- if you could Just pass the microphone to him. t 6 DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDER:
t-Again, thanks, all of you, as i 7- for being here. It is most appreciated by all of us, even 8 though it may not seem that way. I think my question is for 9 Mike, I believe, being the area rep for the NRC.
10 MR. ;MASNIK: Ifam having trouble hearing you.
- 11. DEPUTYMAYORSNYDEN: I'm sorry, Mike, you are the R 12 regional representative, .the area rep?
13 MR. MASNIK: I am the Section Chief of the 14 Decommissioning Section down in headquarters. Ron is the 15 regional representative.
16 DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDE : I apologize for the pecking : -
17 order mistake. Then the question is open for the NRC, all 18 representatives of the NRC tonight'. Our government-is 19, spending a good deal of all of our money on trying to make a 1
- 20 repository out of Yucca. Mountain. I don't know what the
- 21 number'is right now. Do you know the amount that has been f
)
22- spent?
~ 23 . .MR. MASNIK: You know, I hate to sound like a 24 bureaucrat, but that is a different part of the government I
'25 and I really don't know, I really don't.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters L"
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034-g e.- p 9- el
i 124 !
N
-1 DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDER: All right. Well, you might
- 2 be able to respond to the real question, and that is I am :
23 going to guess, hazard a guess, that the number that has !
4 been spent right now is around $32 billion on getting Yucca [
5 Mountain up and running. And, of course, right now,.they
{
- 6 haven't begun, this has all been in the testing of it. It f
7 is a fairly cizable amount of money. It is not enough to !
i.
- 8 ' decommission -- well,1 no, I guess that would be enough to }
i 9 decommission Indian Point 1 maybe 20 times over. ,
i 10 It is a considerable amount of money that has been ;
11: spent, and there is a considerable amount more to be spent j
'12 iffYucca Mountain or any facility is going to be the one l t
13 that is. going'to take all the waste from the nation. Since-
[
14 theLwhole industry, we have only been using nuclear fission 15 -for what -- a little over 50 years? Correct. And in that 16 time we have created a huge problem for ourselves around the I 17; world, i
18 It is a very young industry, there is a lot yet to i
19 be learned. And I am wondering if the government is funding i
20 efforts to learn how to reprocess these wastes into ;
21 something that is not quite so toxic? Are we funding an 22 effort to do something different with these wastes at the l 23~ same level that we are funding in the hole in the ground at i J24 Yucca Mountain?
i 25 , MR MASNIK: There is a lot'of research being done i 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
.1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
125
- 1 at-the Department of Energy on waste.
2- DEPUTYMAYORSNYDEk: Is it being funded to the 3 same' level?
4 MR.RMASNIK: As Yucca Mountain?
5 DEPUTY MAYOR SNYDER: Yes. -
6 MR. MASNIK: I don't know the answer.
7 DEPUTYMAYORSNYDEk: My guess is it is not.
I am -
8 just guessing becau'se I have not read about any massive
'9 . amounts of money going into that type of research and, yet, 10 long-term, it would make sense to me that if we eliminate 11 the waste as a problem, then we don't need to store it in i
12 some place that has to have a predicted life of several 13- thousand years. But it might be something you might want to 14 look.into. I'll try to also. Thanks.
15 MR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, John. Before we
' 16 .go to Peter,1we are going to hear from Fiona Farrell. If 17 you could just introduce yourself.
18 MS. FARRELL: My name is Fiona Farrell, and I work
-for the New York State Public Service Commission, and I 20 wanted to enlarge on Assemblywoman Gayliff's invitation to
'21 our meeting, which will be held right in this location on 22 Thursday, February 4th. I am hearing discussion of issues 23 that are'within the PSC's bailiwick, namely, costs, 24~ allocation of the cost burden, the economic issues, and we
.:U5 are starting a proceeding that is going to go on for a year. -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1 126 )
L 1 And'it.is going to be a collaborative proceeding, as open as ;
2: we can possibly be, and we would like to get as many '
i' +
l 3 . comments and hear from you. So that is just my little l i
4 '
interruption, commercial interruption here. Thanks.
5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Fiona. Peter. l 6 MR. ATHERTON: My name is Peter James Atherton 7 again. To the NRC, does the NRC have any desire or has it !
8 .made any study to determine whether or not it should have an l 9 . independent capability to have instrumentation to 10 continuously monitor radiological releases to the I f
-11 environment? '
L i 12 DR.'BELLAMY: The specific question is, are we i l-13 considering such an option?
14 MR. ATHERTON: Does NRC want such an option? Has '
l
'15 it considered such an option? If it hasn't, why not? If it .
16 has, why? I 17 .DR. BELLAMY: I think the best way to answer that
, 18 would be to indicate that what we are doing now we consider )
19 appropriate and sufficient. I can't speak for the entire <
i 20 agency and say whether such an option has ever been H21 considered. After the Three Mile Island accident, the l I
22 Environmental Protection Agency did come in and they i J .
i
! 23 continucasly monitored everything that left that site for a e 24
- number of years. But I am not aware of any effort or 25 . consideration on the part of the Nuclear Regulatory
-ANN RILEY &~ ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters .
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
127 1 Commission that that is necessary.
2 MR. ATHERTON: Necessary for the NRC to tell the 3 public that it has independently confirmed whatever the 4 utility is saying and that public health and safety is being 5 protected?
6 DR. BELLAMY: Both, 7 MR. ATHERTON: The State of New Hampshire, for 8 general information, has taxed its utility, I think it is 9 the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, and provided part of the 10 tax receipts and proceeds to a health physicist to set up an 11 airborne radiological monitoring system around the land area 12 of the nuclear power plant. And I figured there was concern 13 in New Hampshire, and I don't know -- primarily, I suspect 14 it is because the state has had difficulty believing what 15 the utility in New Hampshire has told them, and you ought to 16 be aware of that.
17 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank 18 you very much, Peter. Do we have one comment? Yes, ma'am.
19 MS. LUBY: My name is Abby Luby, I have a concern 20 about the Y2K problem and the generator that runs the pump 21 that. keeps the water running in the pool of the spent fuel.
22- If there is a problem and tha generator breaks down, and the
' 23 water ceases to flow, -- and I hope I am getting this all 24 right -- what happens?
25 MR. BLIND: Okay. The question was, where the i
e i
AJRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
128 1 fuel is stored, if the pump that circulates the water ;
2 through that pool stops, what happens? !
l 3 M S.
- LUBY
- Correct.
l 4 MR. BLIND: Gkay. Let's give you an answer for !
S the Unit 1 pools, which is what we have been talking about l
6 here, and then also the Unit 2 pools which have the fuel, ;
7 the newer fuel in it. -
8 Charlie, do you want to go ahead and answer that
- 9 question?
10 MR. JACKSON: First, for Indian Point 1, nothing 11 happens. Charlie Jackson, i 12 MS. LUBY: So if the generator --
13 'MR. JACKSON: Nothing happens. There is 14 insufficient heat being released from the fuel. It has i i
15 decayed sufficiently that it doesn't even provide i 16 supplemental heating to the building.
17 MS. LUBY: So if you were to stop the generator L 18 now, nothing would happen? !
- 19. MR. JACKSON: That's correct. I 20 MS. LUBY: It would stop and would nothing would ;
l 21 happen? ;
22 MR. JACKSON: That's correct.
12 3 MS. LUBY: And the other one?
i 24 MR. JACKSON: Other than the fact that water I i
- 25_ wouldn't flow. All right. There would be no effect, there ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 '
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 k _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
. ., --. ~- . - - .- .--. .., .- . - . . . - - - - - - .-
129 I
1 .would'be no boiling, no heat up. All right. There is just ;
2' -basically insufficient heat generation left. And even if 3 all the water were:to boil away, you know, sufficient i
4 cooling would be provided just by the air, so that there is .
1 i
'57 not an issue associated with having to provide continuous :
6' cooling.
1 7 For Indian Point -- i 8 MS. LUBY: Wait a minute. Let me understand this.
9 If the water boils off, where does it evaporate to?
10 MR. JACKSON: If all of the water were to 11 evaporate from that pool, all right, it would go into the 12 atmosphere in the building.
13 ~ MS. LUBY: So that is radioactive vapors in the 14- atmosphere?.
15- MR.. BLIND: No, it would not be. radioactive, It i 16; would be like'an evaporator like a still. When something 17 . evaporates,.it leaves all of the constituents behind, so all 1 1
.18- you have is pure vapor, just pure water vapor. All the 19' radioactivity would be left in the pool.
- M) MR. JACKSON
- We are not talking about volatile
'21 radioactive material. The-low levels that would be in the
-22 water would be principally a particulate form and they would 23- remain behind. But what I was trying to address was the 24 question which was really aimed at the ability to cool, or 25 'the need for-cooling. There is no need for cooling was what ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW,. Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
130 1 I was trying to say for the Indian Point 1 pools, and for 2- the Indian Point 1 fuel. i 3 As far as Indian Point 2, many of the fuel 4 assemblies have not had as long a decay time as the Indian l
.5 Point 1 fuel, so it is important that we maintain cooling ;
6 for the Indian Point 2' pools. In that regard, we have 7 redundant pumps backed up by several power supplies, i 8 including backup from automatic starting emergency diesel 9 generators and we have also backup from three gas turbines.
+ 10 There is extensive backup power supply and redundant --
?
11 MS. LUBY: And all these systems have been tested?
12 MR. JACKSON: Yes. And they are tested regularly..
13 MS. LUBY: When was the last time they were 14 tested?
15 MR. JACKSON: They are tested regularly. The !
16 emergency power supplies are tested monthly. l 17 MS. LUBY: And they are all Y2K compliant? i i'
18 MR. JACKSON: Excuse me.
19 MS. LUBY: All the backup systems are Y2K
'20 compliant? .
21 MR. JACKSON: There is nothing associated with a '
22 diesel' generator that is associated with Y2K.
l 23 MS. LUBY: There are no micro-chips in the diesel l
! 24 generator? ,
25~ MR. JACKSON: No. '
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters l 4 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
-Washington, D.C. 20036 1 (202) 842-0034 I
?
131 I 1 MS. LUBY: It must be old.
i i
2: MR. BLIND: But to answer your question you asked, t
1 3 what would happen if the pump-completed failed? And, you l j
4 know, Charlie described to you the safety systems that would 5 keep the pumps from failing on Unit 2 pool. But if they
[
i 6 were to fail, what would happen is the water would vaporize, L 7 and I don't mean -- you know, it would -- the heat of l
l 8' vaporization would be-added to the water And it is t 9- actually a very good heat sink in that regard, because it !
i 10 takes a lot of BTUs per pound of. water to do that, and it l l 11 would condense in the air. And then what we would have to l 12 do is add more cooler water to the pool makeup to that tank, 13 andLthen~that water eventually would also be vaporized, and 14 it would just be a continuous cycle. And it would be a form 15- of natural cooling then that-would take place.
16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Is that -- does that take L 17 care of it?
18 MS. LUBY: More or less.
19 MR. CAMERON: All right. Thank you. The NRC l
L 20- staff and probably some of the Coned staff will be here 21 after the meeting. We will be available to talk. And I
'22 would just like to thank all of you for your patience and !
l23 attention. There were good questions and good comments. !
! 24 And~thank the Assemblywoman for being here and giving it her I
l 35 personal attention. And also,.I would like to thank our
! l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,'D.C. 20036 ,
(202) 842-0034 ;
, .. _ . . . .- .. - - . . - ~ . . . - - . . . .. . - . . . - . . . - . =
l
, 132
'1 hosts,-the-New York State National Guard and the town, and thank'you and we'are adjourned,
~
12
~3' [Whereupon, at 10:21 p.m., the meeting was ;
4 . concluded.] ,
5-6'
.7 .
8 I
'.9
'10-11- !
t
.12 i
- 13.
- 14 7
.15L 16L ;
17 i
18- t 19 20 21
~22 3 23
.24'
.25: .
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters- .
'1025 Connecticut Avenue, IM, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 842-0034'
- s. '
s _ _ _ - 3
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: INDIAN POINT, UNIT 1 PUBLIC DECOMMISSIONING MEETING l
I DOCKET NUMBER:
1 PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Peekskill, NY were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
$0% 0LY/\ . L GAtLL z J
Mary Ann Francis Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
AGENDA INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR STATION , UNIT 1 DECOMMISSIONING STATUS MEETING JANUARY 20,1999 l
6:30-7:00 pm Sign in for member of the public.
7:00-7:10 pm introductory remarks Francis Cameron NRC i
I 7:10-7:30pm NRC's Regulatory Framework for Nuclear Power Reactors. l John Minns, NRC l 7:30-7:45 pm Questions and Answers on regulatory framework.
7:45-8:15 pm Status of Indian Point Unit 1 Facility and future plans for completing decommissioning of the facility.
A. Allen Blind, James S. Baumstark d/6 c/e1 < 4.
, Consolidated Edison 8:15-8:30 pm Questions and Answers on status ofIndian Point 1.
8:30-8:45 pm NRC inspection oversight ,
Ronald Bellamy, Anthony Dimitriadps, NRC 8:45-9:00 pm Questions and Answers on inspection oversight.
9:00pm Questions and Answers on any remaining issues.
10:00 pm ADJOURN
+-
E
- p. ....g
- 1 UnitedStates
%,.....) Nuclear Regulatory Commission PUBLICMEETING ON '
INDIANPOINTNUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 DECOMMISSIONING i
Non-Power Reactor and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management January 20,1999 i Peekskill, New York John L.Minns Project Manager
PUBLIC MEETING ON INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 ;
Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation NRC Staff Present Office of Nuclear Reactor and Regulation Region I Dr. Seymour H. Weiss, Director' ;
. . Dr. Ronald Bellamy, Chief Non-Power Reactor and Decomm.issionmg i
Decommissioning and Laboratory l Directorat Branch, NMSS Dr. Michael T. Masnik, Section Chief ,
i l Ms. Etoy G. Hylton, Licensing Assistant Mr. Anthony Dimitriades, Health Physicist Mr. John Minns, Project Manager Decommissioning and Laboratory ;
j Mr. Phillip M. Ray, Project Manager Branch, NMSS i Mr. Dino C. Scaletti, Sr. Project Manager Ms. Diane P. Screnci, Public Affairs Officer Mr. William D. Huffman, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Materials Safety Office of the General Counsel
& Safeguards Ms. Ann P. Hodgdon, Senior Attorney i Mr. Timothy Johnson, Chief Facility, LLW, NMSS Mr. Francis X. Cameron, Deputy Assistant i General Counsel and Special Counsel for ,
Public Liaison ,
2 i
DECOMMISSIONING OVERVIEW What is decommissioning?
Decommissioning is the removal of a facility safely from service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the license.
What is NOT decommissioning
+ Non-radiological demolition.
+ Site restoration activities.
+ Spent fuel management and funding.
3
DECOMMISSIONING OVERVIEW i (CONTINUED)
NRC Process and Focus Overview
+ NRC focus is on removal of radiological hazards
+ First step is to remove facility safely from service t
+ Utility reduces levels of radioactive material on site
+ Utility performs detailed final radiation survey l
+ NRC may perform confirmatory survey i
+ If release criteria are met, license is terminated
+ NRC oversight ends ;
4 m _ __ . , ~ . . . _ . - _ _ . - . . - - - , - , - - , , . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
i DECOMMISSIONINGALTERNATIVES Utility has a choice of decommissioning alternatives
+ Dismantlement and decontamination (DECON)-
+ Safe storage (SAFSTOR) for up to 60 years
+ Combination of DECON and SAFSTOR NRC has found these alternatives acceptable as long as the regulations are followed
+ Risic to the public from decommissioning is significantly reduced from when the facility was in operation
+ Regulatory requirements are reduced from those for an operating plant 5
i POST-SHUTDOWNDECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES REPORT (PSDAR)
The PSDAR is required to provide:
+ Description of planned decommissioning activities
+ Schedule for accomplishment of planned activities
+ Estimate of expected costs l
+ Reasons for concluding that environmental impacts are bounded by previously issued environmental impact statements The NRC staff will hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the site.
6
PURPOSE OF PSDAR SUBMITTAL
+ Inform the public of the utility's plans for decommissioning
+ Allow the NRC to conduct inspections prior to the initiation of major decommissioning activities.
+ Allow NRC staff to budget and allocate resources for decommissioning inspections.
+ Requires the utility to reexamine financial resources for decommissioning before any major activities are conducted.
+ Requires the utility to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with planned decommissioning activities against existing ,
environmental statements.
7 f
i
D ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
. . ~ . _ _ _ __ ..- . _ _ _ _ __ - - _ . . , _ - _ l The utility is prohibited from performing any decommissioning activity that: !
+ Forecloses the release of the site for possible unrestricted use; or
+ Results in significant environmental impacts not previously considered; or
+ Results in there no longer being reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available.
8 i
I
LICENSE TERMINATIONPIAN The plan will describe:
+ Site characterization
+ Identification of remaining dismantlement activities
+ Plans for site remediation
+ Detailed plans for the final radiation survey
+ Description of the end use of the site,if restrictions are imposed
+ Updated site-specific cost estimate of remaining decommissioning costs
+ Supplement to the Environmental Report describing any new information or significant change associated with the utility's termination activities.
9 I
License Termination Plan (continued)
+ Plan receipt will be noticed in the Federal Register and the plan will be made available for public comment
+ Opportunity for a hearing on the plan will be given
+ NRC will hold a public meeting
+ The plan will be approved by issuance of a license amendment
+ Utility continues to decommission the site and perform a site radiation survey
+ NRC may perform a confirmatory survey (s)
+ The license is terminated if the license termination plan was followed and the site meets the release criteria 10
Deconunissioning Experience 2 Power reactors have completed decommissioning
+ Shoreham & Fort St. Vrain 18 power reactors are in decommissioning;
+ 6 facilities are being decontaminated and dismantled: Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Haddam Neck, Maine Yankee
+ 10 facilities are in long-term storage: TMI-2, Dresden I, Fermi I, VBWR, La Crosse, Peach Bottom 1, Rancho Seco, San Onofre- 1, Indian Point 1, Humboldt Bay 3
+ 2 facilities planning long term storage: Zion 1 and 2
+ 1 facility permanently shutdown, undecided, Millstone Unit I 11
POINTS OF CONTACT
+ Licensing + Inspections U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: JOHN L. MINNS ATTN: DR. RONALD BELLAMY Washington, DC 20555-0001 472 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 199406-1415 Telephone: (800) 368-5642 E-Mail: JLM3@NRC. GOV !
12 i
REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING STATUS SHUTDOWNPOWER REACTORS Thermal Fuel Reactor Type Power Location Shutdown Status Onsite Indian Point 1 PWR 615 MW Buchanan NY 10/31/74 SAFSTOR Yes Dresden 1 BWR 700 M W Morris Il 10/31/78 SAFSTOR Yes Fermi i Fast Breeder 200 MW Monroe Co. MI 9/22/72 SAFSTOR No GE VBWR BWR 50 MW Alameda Co. CA 12/9/63 SAFSTOR No Yankee Rowe PWR 600 MW Franklin Co. MA 10/1/91 DECON Yes Big Rock Point BWR 67 MW Charlevoix MI 8/29/97 DECON Yes Humboldt Bay 3 BWR 200 MW Eureka CA 7/02/76 SAFSTOR Yes Peach Bottom i HTGR 115 MW York Co. PA 10/31/74 SAFSTOR No San Onofre 1 PWR 1347 M W San Clemente CA 11/30/92 SAFSTOR Yes Millstone BWR 2011 M W Waterford, CT 7/21/98 Undecided Yes 13 i..., . , , , . . . . . , - .
REACTOR DECOMhdISSIONING STATUS SHUTDO WN PO WER REA CTORS (CONTINUED)
Thermal Fuel Reactor Type Power Location Shutdown Status Onsite Haddam Neck PWR 1825 M W Haddam Neck CT 7/22/96 DECON Yes Fort St. Vrain HTGR 842 M W Platteville CO 8/l8/89 License Yes t Terminated Zion 1 PWR 3250 MW Zion IL 2/21/98 SAFSTOR Yes Zion 2 PWR 3250 MW Zion IL 2/21/98 SAFSTOR Yes 1
1 Maine Yankee PWR 2772 MW Bath ME 12/6/96 DECON Yes Rancho Seco PWR 2772 M W Sacramento CA 6/7/89 SAFSTOR Yes l
! Three Mile PWR 2772 MW Middletown PA 3/28/79 SAFSTOR* No l Island i Shoreham BWR 2436 MW SufTolk Co. NY 6/28/89 License No ,
Terminated l Trojan PWR 3411 MW Portland OR 11/9/92 DECON Yes Lacrosse BWR 165 MW Lacrosse WI 4/30/87 SAFSTOR Yes 14
0 c,to Enclosure 2 9
g 4 UNITED STATES i j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ # WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 4 001 December 8, 1998
% . . . . . j/
MEMORANDUM TO: Seymour H. Weiss, Director j Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning '
Project Directorate I Division of Reactor Program Manage erkt, NRR FROM: John L. Minns, Project Manager b Non-Power Reactors and Decommis b' Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE l DECOMMISSIONING OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING l STATION, UNIT 1 l l
DATE & TIME: Wednesday, January 20,1999 .
7:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. I LOCATION: New York State Armory,955 Washington Street, Peekskill, NY PURPOSE: To inform the public of the licensee's plans for decommissioning the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1. The NRC staff will present information regarding the decommissioning regulations and inspections oversight of the facility. The licensee (Consolidated Edison Company) will present information regarding their planned decommissioning activities. Following the presentations, the public will have an opportunity for questions and comments. The meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter.
The public meeting agenda is attached. Francis X. Cameron, Deputy Assistant General Counsel and Special Counsel for Public Liaison, NRC will host the meeting.
PARTICIPANTS: NRC Consolidated Edison J. Minns A. Hodgdon A. A. Blind M. Masnik R. Bellamy C. ':cEccr S. Weiss James s Gauth SMk l Docket No.50-003
Attachment:
As stated cc w/ attachment: See Next page CONTACT: John Minns, NRR/PDND (301)415-3166
' Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants or licensees are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, intervenors, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to " Commission Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public" 59 Federal Register 48344, 9/20/94.
1998 (Volume 63, Number 236)]
[ Notices]
[Page 67940]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais. access.gpo. gov]
[DOCID:fr09de98-121]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket No. 50-003]
Consolidated Edison Company; Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1; Notice of Public Meeting The NRC will conduct a public meeting at the New York State Armory, 955 Washington Street, Peekskill, New York 10566-5815, on January 20, 1999, to discuss plans developed by Consolidated Edison Company (Con Edison) to decommission the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1. The Indian Point Station, located in Buchanan, New York includes the permanently shutdown Unit 1 and two operating units. Unit 2 is operated by Consolidated Edison Company, and Unit 3 by New York Power Authority. The meeting is scheduled for 7:00-9:30 p.m., and will be chaired by Mr. Francis X. Cameron, Deputy Assistant General Counsel and Special Counsel for Public Liaison, NRC. The public meeting is being held pursuant to the NRC's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.82(a)(4) regarding the requirements of a public meeting on the licensees plans for decommissioning the facility as described in the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR). Con Edison submitted a decommissioning plan, which was approved by the NRC in January 1996, prior to the rule change promulgated at 61 FR 39301 (July 29,1996), requiring a PSDAR.
Decommissioning plans approved prior to the revision are considered to meet the requirement for a PSDAR and are subject to the revised regulations, including the requirement for a public meeting. The rneeting willinclude a presentation by the NRC staff on the decommissioning process and NRC programs for regulatory oversight of decommissioning activities. There will also be a presentation by Consolidated Edison Company on planned decommissioning activities.
There will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of NRC staff and Con Edison representatives and make comments related to decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1. The meeting will be transcribed.
Con Edison's decommissioning plan provides a short discussion of the plant history, a description of the unit's radiological conditions, and a description and schedule of planned decommissioning activities.
This decommissioning plan and the NRC's safety evaluation associated i
T s
2 with the plan is available for public inspection at the White Plains Public Library,100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. For more information contact John L. Minns, Non Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- ,
0001; telephone 301-415-3166.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of December 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seymour H. Weiss, Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-32634 Filed 12-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P e
[yn**:0 k UNITED STAT 3S S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20065-0001
% 4 9 . , , , , *# December 28, 1998 The Honorable Sandra F. Galef New York State Assemblywoman Albany and Ossining, New York District Office: 2 Church Street Ossining, New York 10562
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE DECOMMISSIONING OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1
Dear Ms. Galef:
'The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites you to attend and participate in the upcoming public meeting at the New York State Armory,955 Washington Street, Peekskill, New York, beginning at 7:00 p.m., on January 20,1999. The meeting willinclude a presentation by the NRC staff on the decommissioning process and NRC programs for regulatory oversight of decommissioning activities. There will also be a presentation by Consolidated Edison Company on planned decommissioning activities. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of NRC staff and Con Edison representatives and make comments related to decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1.
The meeting will be transcribed. Detailed information is provided in the Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1) and the meeting notice (Enclosure 2). For more information, please contact John L. Minns, the NRC Project Manager for Indian Point, Unit 1, at (301) 415-3166.
Thanks for your interest.
Sincerely, t
. W Dr. Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decernmissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-003
Enclosures:
As stated
g@ C*o o y 04 UNITED STATES E
f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!M001 December 28, 1998 I
The Honorable Frances S. Gibbs Mayor of Peekskill 840 Main Street Peekskill, New York 10566
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE DECOMMISSIONING OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1
Dear Ms. Gibbs:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites you to attend and participate in the upcoming public meeting at the New York State Armory,955 Washington Street, Peekskill, New York, beginning at 7:00 p.m., on January 20,1999. The meeting willinclude a presentation by the NRC staff on the decommissioning process and NRC programs fo-regulatory oversight of decommissioning activities. There will also be a presentation L Consolidated Edison Company on planned decommissioning activities. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of NRC staff and Con Edison representatives and make comments related to decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1.
, The meeting will be transcribed. Detailed information is provided in the Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1) and the meeting notice (Enclosure 2). For more information, please contact John L. Minns, the NRC Project Manager for Indian Point, Unit 1, at (301) 415-3166.
Thanks for your interest.
Sincerely, I <
. @J Dr. Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-003
Enclosures:
As stated
p stero O 't UNITED STATES s g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I e
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4001 s,
..,,+
/ December 28, 1998 I
The Honorable Alfred J. Donahue !
Mayor of Buchanan Municipal Building Tate Avenue j Buchanan, New York 10511
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE DECOMMISSIONING OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 j i
Dear Mr. Donahue:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites you to attend and participate in the l upcoming public meeting at the New York State Armory,955 Washington Street, Peekskill, l New York, beginning at 7:00 p.m., on January 20,1999. The meeting willinclude a presentation by the NRC staff on the decommissioning process and NRC programs for i regulatory oversight of decommissioning activities. There will also be a presentation by l Consolidated Edison Company on planned de::ommissioning activities. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of NRC staff and Con Edison representatives and make comments related to decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1.
The meeting will be transcribed. Detailed information is provided in the Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1) and the meeting notice (Enclosure 2). For more information, please contact John L. Minns, the NRC Project Manager for Indian Point, Unit 1, at (301) 415-3166.
Thanks for your interest.
4 Sincerely, t &
Dr. Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
Docket No.50-003
Enclosures:
As stated
l put 3, t UNITED STATES s* j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.c. 2006 Moo 1
\...../ December 28, 1998 Ms. Linda D. Puglisi 5 Town Supervisor Cortlandt Town Hall 1 Heady Phce Cortlandt Manor, New York 10566
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE DECOMMISSIONING OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1
Dear Ms. Puglisi:
i The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites you to attend ar.d participate in the upcoming public meeting at the New York State Armory,955 Washington Street, Peekskill, New York, beginning at 7:00 p.m., on January 20,1999. The meeting will include a presentation by the NRC staff on the decommissioning process and NRC programs for regulatory oversight of decommissioning activities. There will also be a presentation by Consolidated Edison Company on planned decommissioning activities. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of NRC staff and Con Edison representatives and make comments related to decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1.
The meeting will be transcribed. Detailed information is provided in the Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1) and the meeting notice (Enclosure 2). For more information, please contact John L. Minns, the NRC Project Manager for Indian Point, Unit 1, at (301) 4 iS-3166.
Thanks for your interest.
Sincerely, W .
h I i
Dr. eymour H. Weiss, Director l Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning l Project Directorate l Division of Reactor Program Management l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ;
I Docket No.50-003
Enclosures:
As stated
TIP:24 -- Decommissionina Nuclear Power Plants Technical Issues Index l News and information l NRC Home l Backaround Decommissioning is defined as the safe removal of a facility from service and reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. When a licensee announces its decision to permanently close their nuclear power plant, decommissioning must occur. The licensee's decisions are based on economic and technical considerations. Some facilities have begun decommissioning before their operating licenses expired and earlier than originally anticipated. Decommissioning highlights for individual plants are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Discussion Decommissioning involves three different alternatives: DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.
Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), soon after the nuclear facility closes, equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Under SAFSTOR, often considered " delayed DECON," a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards, it is dismantled.
Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally sound material such as concrete and appropriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level
2 permitting unrestricted release of the property.
To be acceptable, decommissioning must be completed within 60 years. A time beyond that will be considered only when necessary to protect public health and safety in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.
Reaulations The procedure for decommissioning a nuclear power plant is set out j principally in NRC regulations 10 CFR Parts 50.75, 50.82,51.53, and 51.95. In August 1996, a revised rule went into effect that redefines the decommissioning process and requires licensees to provide the NRC with early notification of planned decommissioning activities. The rule allows no major decommissioning activities to be undertaken until after certain information has been provided to the NRC and the public.
Several opportunities are provided for public involvement during the decommissioning process. The NRC must hold a meeting in the vicinity of the plant to discuss the decommissioning process and to listen to public comments. Proposed changes to the plant license and decommissioning activities that could adversely impact the public require NRC review and approval of a license amendment, which provides an opportunity for a public hearing. Additionally, a licensee's termination plan must be approved by license amendment, thus providing another hearing opportunity for affected members of the public. The requirements for decommissioning follow.
.Within 30 days after a nuclear power plant licensee decides to cease operations permanently, the licensee must submit a written certification to the NRC. When the licensee permanently removes radioactive nuclear fuel from the reactor vessel, the licensee must rubmit another written certification to the NRC. When NRC receives these certifications, the licensee loses its authority to operate the reactor or load fuel into the reactor vessel. This reduces the licensee's annual fee and eliminates the obligation to
3 adhere to certain requirements needed only during reactor operation.
Within two years after submitting the certification of permanent closure, the licensee must submit a post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC. This report must provide a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, along with a schedule for accomplishing them, and an estimate of the expected costs. The PSDAR is required to discuss the reasons for concluding that environmental impacts associated with the site-specific decommissioning activities have already been addressed in previous environmental reports. Otherwise, the licensee has to request a license amendment for approval of the activities and submit to the NRC an environmental report on the additional decommissioning impacts.
After receiving a PSDAR, the NRC publishes a notice of receipt, makec the PSDAR available for public review and comment, and holds a public meeting in the vicinity of the plant to discuss the licensee's intentions.
Ninety days after the NRC receives the PSDAR, and generally 30 days after the public meeting, the licensee can begin major decommissioning activities without specific NRC approval. These activities could include permanent removal of such major components as the reactor vessel, steam generators, large piping systems, pumps, and valves.
However, decommissioning activities conducted without specific prior NRC approval must not:
foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, I
result in there being no reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for decommissioning, cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed.
4 If any decommissioning activity does not meet these terms, the licensee is required to submit a license amendment request, .
which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.
Initially, the licensee can use up to three percent of the amount specified in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Part 50.75) for decommissioning without prior NRC approval. An additional 20 percent can be used 90 days after submittal of the PSDAR. ..
The remaining decommissioning trust funds are then available when the licensee submits a detailed site-specific cost estimate to -
the NRC.
Rulemakina A proposed rule, entitled " Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste," addresses physical protection requirements for the storage of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste in a permanently shutdown reactor, independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), monitored retrievable storage installation, or a geologic repository. The Commission is reviewing policy aspects of ISFSI safeguards before any further action is taken on the proposed rule. Significant revisions to the rule will be subject to public comment.
A proposed rule on nuclear power reactor decommissioning financial assurance implementation requirements was issued in September 1997 to reflect conditions expected from deregulation of the electric power industry. Among other things, this rule proposes requiring nuclear power plant licensees to report to NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds at least once ;
every two years and annually within five years of the planned end of plant operation.
Other rulemakings that are anticipated include: a revision of regulations to address indemnity issues as a function of spent fuel pool cooling periods, site-specific decommissioning cost requirements based on actual data, and funding.
gg r NRC PRINCIPLES OF
$.y! GOOD REGULATION INDEPENDENT Nothing but the highest possible standards of ethical performance and professionalism should influence regulation. However, independence does not imply isolation. All available facts and opinions must be sought openly from licensees and other interested members of the public. The many and possibly conflicting public interests involved must be considered. Final decisions must be based on objective, unbiased assessments of allinformation, and must be documented with reasons explicitly stated.
@ PEN Nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it must be transacted publicly and candidly. The public must be informed about and have the opportunity to participate in the regulatory processes as required by law.
Open channels of communication must be maintained with Congress, other govemment agencies, licensees, and the public, as well as with the
' international nuclear community.
EFFICIENT The American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and licensees are all entitled to the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities. The highest technical and managerial competence is required, and must be a constant agency goal. NRC must establish means to evaluate and continually upgrade its regulatory capabilities. Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve. Where several effective afternatives are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be adopted. Regulatory decisions should be made without undue delay.
CLEAR Regulations should be coherent, logical, and practical. There should be a clear nexus between regulations and agency goals and objectives whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Agency positions should be readily understood and easily applied.
RELIABLE Regulations should be based on the best available knowledge from research and operational experience. Systems interactions, technological uncertainties, and the diversity of licensees and regulatory activities must all be taken into account so that risks are maintained at an acceptably lowlevel. Once established, regulation should be perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably in a state of transition. Regulatory actions should always be fully consistent with written regulations and should be promptly, fairly, and decisively administered so as to lend stability to the
( nuclear operational and planning processes.
,. + .,,*..;,.a '
s .- - . <
~
Intogrity in our working relationships, practices and decisions t
Excellence both in our individual and collective actions
,k Service to the public, and others who are affected by our work s
Respect for individuals' roles, diversity , and viewpoints Cooperation in the planning, management, and work of the agency 9
1 1 Commitment to protecting the public health and safety g
>~ Openness in communications and decision-making Mission
~
) The mission of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to s ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, the
. common defense and security, and the environment in the use
, of nuclear materials in the United States.
l r fpdarc.,,%
e .s 0 ' lei ([S NRC ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES E. , '.";. - ..
;g[ f. f .a O
44*++
.l !!!i ! i N K R N -
O A SO 1
L _
I D Y TP I
EW NG -
OIS P S I Y N M I
LN A M OA I DO
- SP NC 9
. NM O
l E
9 9
1 C C O D 0
. 2 y
r a
- u n
a J
4 . >
Indian Point 1 History Received Construction Permit - 1956 Construction Started - 1958 Commercial Operation - 1962 Power Operation Suspended - October 1974 Reactor Defueled - January 1976 Plant Retired - March 1980 Decommissioning Plan Submitted - October 1980 NRC Approved Plan - January 1996
M C W g o Y .%
4 ob iG n
=
.- em
.C m a>
m W
, _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ . . . _ _ . . - - - - -- -
m -
a 1
x q
y.
w
[. ,
j .,
-l' Y
k '
_ W
_d
, g .-
.l [ t . .
l <'E
- gh i'
- $ ' '
i i '. .
1 f
ih
- f E**4 ,
g..'.'g. . ,. .r 4 .-
.- j.,.
-J_,- I
., . ~ ), _ .
. .; t . I
- i
$ 84 .t i
i
- ~ ',' i
-- L. -.,
r
= >r r'; '~ } . , *p ' ,esu f%
. a i
- s.1: ,,. .- . -
. . . . s,i .
.. .p l,
i i
A
.'.,em,
_ _ _ . [f .f s
~'c ' '
1; -~ , y
,'T.s".Givsv q s,;
- s y,a s D. >
/
p . t[. o ,r., , g+ ?) . ete
$ ~,]2**-l '
- s.; $ ,j, - "*^ _ .
-t'
. ,.i, d ,
' d
}<
t i;.
t ' "
('\t ..
yp ,
{
l sr m(' ,;A .*
.t f
e
~
_s
- f. - -
.. ,- f.
l>. g T.
.. , y
_ ~ , , , .
cz ... >
n m. : . .. .'
.a i l.e :
?w"
. -n -
- $we.e.,' Tgg 5
s-
..erp 'v
.c.~~--+-
.;.('p- - '
.! pg.' j :
l e q t7 e t pq, -
. r. . .j , ; c.
- t. >
, 4< <i,.w.29 'T _ ' ' ' . . , - % - ' ' ',
'h . + k';" .. ,
\,
- 1. .
- qq . ~
,['E 6 ?
. __ ff CJ g -pt af s5 ,*
s am ',f*-
i 1
WAu:.4rs-4Je. i J-asun a.6i=.deM--.Ma4 e. e Ahwe.-a<sar.e.eio- S-WWM-4.h-.4 'ein-idE'mA=64.6--e6*N ap4ML*L as. eshaalius .e.ima m aur.
- p am. p.mm -
ekmamv.--e-uma-ewe-M+We h
j t
' i * * ;"
- li I..-. ij kj.fr.\t j Ilr OmeN m$}
U i
1 i - 7
^ m t.m-ta
(
~
1
._$ ,s. . !
. ,I i
,. . _Akh._ _ w,.__.
5p w .
i 3
'D ,,5
, ,E's!ij0!!y gi l
{ h "
'- i s w, % y ,,
'd_: $j
, [.,!
_Tg' y.:t 'q' ay t:
l i
@&hQi@
me u;hy, x 4 b =e us c.: E 1.
l db i a 5 l *
- rr j h4 a ,
i4 i Ir1 ,h
- 5
~
.h
' ; * ; ' Ut %g, ;
- g.
! it .l 35 l#'
-J' ,
,;j ;
.-f iic I
mm (73 - *3!!$p!E. l ... ['$:
a ; .Yq i
. h;- p 4 '
.J.
ti.o.1 -
2
- gg s % y- ,* .
- 4 .. ,
f '*
O' '
~
3
,}.l:,...,5$ l3 4 ;h .
~
li[k 5 'l 1. .i 5
, .
- j~bMs 2'/ { ;, .
]k.g:.6-n.
l
$ $$A} p g: '
D i.
f.f ? #
9 $4 j I$
\ ! m.f h $,, h i G.;; ,
L p ,t ; .
n.- m n - ' -
i m" "
.1,7 e
'I .'
E[
v.: M z a.
9
,I,l: -
RWY 7)h x ,, A._ j J. g.& ,
I
==
E ? L *).
p'3 5[b :t. . 4
- y en b,% %,7 r fi,
< j 3R8v!i' j;,p, ?7gpi g- , s-l p; S 'A 3r g' 2 d.
2 ..._ = a t :
1
---.--,---,-w----,--_w.., . , - - -.#4_ e,aga,__s;e,,a.m_-. -
.a .4-s Aau a-4.m Weu,.hw ed e w e 3, _ A M . Awa a 4_JaA ma A.4, ,4 Q A J h dd _ A pa 4%-A6 a N 4 E 4 III g3 & 0 3 6 j l
[,
-- I I
- c. 1
~ : a w ,
N E i l
&p : .. .
r, c,L, s a .
1
-e -1, I
)
=
F ;
i i /R ;g l 3 1 R Ili- }s 5 9 l 5 i
=
Indian Point 1 Decommissioning Option Chosen "SAFSTOR" SAFSTOR: Those activities required to place and j maintain a radioactive facility in such a condition that the risk to public safety is within acceptable bounds, and that the facility can be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated to levels which permit release of the facility for unrestricted use Unit to be dismantled after Unit 2 has retired _ _ 4
Indian Point 1 Current Status Reactor Defueled and Fuel In the Fuel Handling Building Superheaters and most secondary plant i: turbine, generator, condensers) have been removed Portions of plant retained to support Unit 2 operations <: chemistry labs, radioactive waste processing, administrative offices, emergency response facilities)
m Indian Point 1 Future Activities When Decommissioning starts, all radioactive materials will be removed from the site j The site will be restored for unrestricted use , License Termination by NRC t t a _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -}}