ML20204E685
| ML20204E685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1999 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9903250103 | |
| Download: ML20204E685 (107) | |
Text
-- myee..
y e-
=
w 3
7 T:
wwM h k,. tN dh.$hb::.sNhb.
I,-
F TM y.T TES$.x.FJAMERICi.$$C~...J T '
w.
.A m
- n
..n.>:,
,x-m 4
.u s
w.
.we n~m c..,.
.. v.n e,m..mr:u..
re-Mgshh,u.hy%fTORY COMMISSION y v.g.. w-
,. '. m.m
..n s ~~ ~
p,;,
- :yj:,,;.rl%,.,
m, r:
..f,.
. x.. x; c.
- .i., +;
.?-
Title:
BRIEFING ON PART 50
.. DECOMMISSIONING ISSUES l
.,".:f
,7..:.. g,.x,, PUBLIC MEETING
- ,y,
. :.. y n.,
y;k %>i,.i.q;. w;g p x kb
.y,,.;., };,,( (.[
g.,.;,
a,,
,[
f, g).g.,g gg$MQgM,y,, ggg$.,4 3,. n -
f%.1 g
.p,
7
%..m79fg.q;j jdf
/
my
.. %w g w.<g
.m
.2
.~-.
dh
)
3 n
w D
N_
9 e
)
~
y:o W~
p
.. a L
j; _
muy-i E
NA QQl&g Q
.. q):
^
~
..w chr l~
n n
,b,j, 17/O.fp,i*?
9-
.;g -
?
g" p.
o
"..'c'
.a s.p*1. y.',,.. - '}ksh?'y"... iff.., %.
- W
~
..h.
J
. ~
,p
[flhk,$
'N),$
p$h $,f hg ww.w w
--mm, q,hf P
e.
g*.;
'?
.r-9 ',J.Qb.y;. (....y Jqc ;e,
....,9,,,,
',3/-
,e v.
p.
an.
w ns.oy3.,.t
' " " m k,.J f5 p Tp % : n' n :; t; f ' +j ! S i M f. ~.6,.#-
4 W7-%.
If M S,m ;
n.
+
L:Af'ny;rp=wl.}1,(ye '~.~ i
- +t....
~,;I,~....9,,.,,, %* c_. *,2 -
i:4 %. ;.g?;.{
?.
. ;,... &.l;,,J.k" 1.. ^V*m'.;. :
iD*$....
-~c..
, y' b,(.%$. 'h. en,, M.A
- r. /.;. >. ;- -
y * * ',. i.:*- ;..
n~,.-
- 37.,-
n...
--y a pg.
t:
.s.
,.:.~-'
sj.
' k ~-$;%
- R.,~'...*
< n %.ig.. %...,&_y. v:,:.,y, n.
. s.. ~.; ;.g..
, x ?,,: s?y,4 *9,;ptw3.,.,,p,5@g%w.?.Q '.,Q*%. 2,.
g
..... )r
.,,.c,
-..,...~.r.
,~
?
.g., ;..,,.
a g.: s.
.- w E, p.g. f, y
>.n. y,,.
.*i...
%y1 e
.pg.{Qy.,,- Q,+;$.g.,..
. ag.c.,
4
.a
,?
- a-3 f M '*
- h.[_'t.D". a;.
-7M &b ': :.
~
C ~ GW.C-s&.v %..'.. '. [
M.A'/jI. !'s MN*MN3.. "
9903250103 990317
.: ; W N/.
PDR 10CFR
';' h N.9.9 PDR PT9.7 1
1., V3ANKRILEYW<W. 9,.@%%$fC:&h:
- yn :g:p. ~ CM4.....i. A.. %. y #....i;G.L. asn. Q.2 -l,,,; u. ".
_--. *.3.g y_:et.M._';:
2.@... % p?g,Ng g m;Y.;.y'5y WWT'"'Wv w
7.. _ D.
'4 cS.I w2
.m.
ASSOCIATES, LTDN. 2N,E' $45^ E "
' - b; '
74 w M.. h) %,! ;Nx@~.i.W;asidaston, D.C/200% R 5
7 WaaaaAai Avenue,NWiSuite 1914 Tc? M.
1 Mf
?f,iMj* ~* *Faj.l.%_ =
L -
1S i
+
.32
=
azez) s<1-oou s:.
w
--....--..m
~..,-r.+
n c.
p-.
. g.we g.
\\#$.g g
f.M ;, N $'t..h5f *i p,N N.b;S'I[Y h[Mi: *! f.',M
'l-***c'+~*'.V-i
- 54 *p-YI
$h Y-e ;;..,
s
?
o S-1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 5
6 BRIEFING ON PART 50 DECOMMISSIONING ISSUES 7
8 PUBLIC MEETING 9
10 One White Flint North 1
11 Room 1F-16 12 11555 Rockville Pike 13 Rockville, Maryland 14 Wednesday, March 17, 1999 15 16 The Commission met, pursuant to notict., at 1:40 17 p.m.,
the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the 18 Commission, presiding.
19 20 COMMISSIONER'S PRESENT:
21 EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, JR., Commissioner 22 NILS J. DIAZ, Commissioner 23 GRETA J. DICUS, Commissioner 24 JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, Commissioner 25 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
a S-2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS' SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 KAREN D. CYR, GENERAL COUNSEL 3
ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK, SECRETARY 4
WILLIAM TRAVERS, EDO 5
CARL PAPERIELLO, NMSS 6
JCHN ZWOLINSKI, NRR 7
STUART RICHARDS, NRR 8
JOHN GREEVP.S, NMSS 9
GARY HOLAHAN, NRR 10 BRIAN SHERON, NRR 11 SAM COLLINS, NRR 12 SY F3ISS, NRR 33 FRANK MIRAGLIA, NRR 14 LARRY CHANDLER, OGC 15 DICK ROSANO, NRR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 1
(202) 842-0034 I
1
e S-3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
(1:40 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
5 The purpose of today's Commissioner meeting is to l
6 discuss issues associated with decommissioning nuclear power 7
plants under 10 CFR Part 50.
The Commission will be briefed 8
by members of the NRC staff, followed by representatives 9
from the Nuclear Energy ~nstitute, including a 10 representative from a licensee undergoing decommissioning.
11 The overall objective of the agency in this area 12 is to establish a safe, complete, and predictable Part 50 13 decommissioning program.
14 The decommissioning program has received increased 15
-attention recently and new questions have been raised.
In 16 this regard, the Commission welcomes the NRC staff and NEI
)
17 to discuss areas that are working well and recommendations 18 for improvement.
Remember, I always like straw men.
19 There has been recent progress in the 20 decommissioning program, including rule-making activities 21 relating to license termination, decommissioning funding 22 assurance, emergency preparedness, and financial protection.
23 In addition, the Commission recently concluded 24 that back-fit provisions should be applied to 25 decommissioning plans and has approved a staff plan to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-4 1
undertake rule-making in this area.
2 In the interim, the Commission directed the staff 3
to apply existing oack-fit ~ provisions informally to 4
decoramissioning plans.
The Commission is interested in 5
feedback from the staff and NEI as to whether these 6
improvements to the decommissioning program have begun to 7
have their desired effect.
8 In addition, in areas where they have not met 9
expectations, we would like to hear your views on planned or 10 proposed remedies.
I understand that copies of the briefing 11 materials are available at the entrances to the room.
So 12 unless my colleagues have any comments they wish to make, 13 Dr. Travers.
14 DR. TRAVERS:
Thank you, Chairman Jackson.
And I 15 should say top of the afternoon to you today.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's right.
17 DR. TRAVERS:
I can't say top of the morning.
18 Today, the staff, as you've indicated, will discuss the j
\\
19 status of power reactor decommissioning activities.
All of 20 the things you mentioned we expect to cover, including j
21 lessons learned to date and staff plans for moving forward 22 with.several rule-makings.
23 Our decommissioning program for reactors is 24 administered by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and 25 the Office of Nuclear Materialc Safety and Safeguards.
NRR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
5 S-5 1
is responsible for the front-end of the reactor 2
decommissioning process; that is, from the point of 3
permanent shutdown until the spent fuel is removed from the 4
spent fuel pool.
5 At this point, decommissioning reactors are 6
transferred to NMSS for the ba' end of the oversight 7
process, including the determination of when the site has 8
been cleaned up sufficiently to allow termination of the 9
license.
10 NMSS also has the overall program management 11 responsibility for both reactor and materials safe 12 decommissioning to ensure that both programs have consistent 13 requirements and are properly integrated.
14 You mentioned that we do have a full crew of staff 1E representatives today.
Let me introduce them to you for a 16 moment.
Carl Paperiello, of course, is Director of the 17 Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards and John 18 Greeves is the Director of the Division of Waste Management 19 at NMSS.
20 Brian Shhron is the Associate Director for Project 21 Licensing and Technical Analysis in the Office of Nuclear 22 Reactor Regulation.
John Zwolinski is the Director of the 23 Division of Licensing Project Management, NRR.
Stu Richards 24 is the Project Director for Project Directorate 4 in 25 Decommissioning.
And Dr. Sy Weiss is the Chief of the r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-6 1
Non-Power. Reactor and Decommissioning Project Directorate in 2
NRR.
3 Now, I'd like to turn it over to John Zwolinski to 4
begin our briefing.
5 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Good afternoon.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good afternoon.
'7 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
As you're aware, the Office of 8
Nuclear Reactor Regulation is about to implement a major 9'
reorganization.
Decommissioning activities, such as 10 rule-making and licensing actions, have been assigned to the 11 project staff.
In short, there is essentially an entire new 12 management team attempting to come up to speed rapidly to 13 address decommissioning issues, moving forward.
14 Based on discussions with the former management 15 team, my senior management, including Mr. Collins, it 16 appears that our staff has been working very hard on a
,17 number of initiatives related to decommissioning of 18 reactors.
19 However, I note comments from industry and views 20 of my management which suggest it would be. prudent to slow 21 our efforts for a short period while the new management team 22 ensures activities in the decommissioning area are fully 23 integrated.
This will result in the development of an 24' overall game plan, including schedules for all NRR-sponsored 25 activities.
It would be the staff's intention to ensure ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 j
(202) 842-0034 l
L
S-7 1
that stakeholders' views be considered in our future 1
2 efforts.
3 Having~ chaired the back-fit review panel on 4-concerns raised by Maine Yankee regarding the staff's review 5
. criteria.-- in particular, a postulated zircalloy fire -- it 6-seems prudent to ensure this criteria is indeed the correct 7
criteria to continue to rely upon, or, using a risk-informed 8
reasonableness test, recommend an alternative.
9 Clearly, this criteria is the major area of 10 contention between the industry and the staff.
11 Further, I feel it's important to note the 12 reduction in'overall risk of plants in the decommissioning 13 phase of operation.
In going forward,.I feel we must ensure 14 the staff remains sensitive to our four key outcome goals; 15 that is, maintain reactor safety, reduce unnecessary 16 regulatory burden, address public confidence, and work 17 effectively and efficiently.
18 I believe using-these filters to focus and embrace 19 these outcome goals will allow the staff to make 20 decommissioning a more efficient and predictable activity.
21 Our briefing today provides some background on 22 efforts underway and begins to provide some of our thinking I
23 in going forward.
Of note, as Dr. Travers alluded, John 24 Greeves from NMSS is the program m' nager for decommissioning 25 and NRR is committed to work with NMSS in its oversight ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-8 1-role.
2 Tom King, of Research, also has an important role 3.
to. play.
NRR will also work closely with Research.
t 4
With that as a brief overview, I'd ask Stu to pick 5
up the presentation.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Before he goes, I'd note that 7
the Commission -- you recently transmitted SECY 99-035 to
)
8 the Commission, the status of the decommissioning program 9.
and site decommiss'ioning management plan sites to the 10 Commission.
1 11 But the paper only provides a summary of NMSS 12 decocimissioning and related activities.
Do you see any 13 benefits in providing a coordinated report that there's an 14 assessment of the status of both NMSS and NRR 15.
decommissioning activities to provide more of an agency 16 overall perspective?
17 I mean, I think that would be helpful.
It also 18 helps in terms of understanding the extent to which 19 everybody is reading from the same page in terms of an 20 appropriate risk-informed approach.
21 In addition, there are parts of at least 22' off-loading fuel-and fuel storage on site or in I'SFSIs, 23 where there'is a crossover between the-Part 50 side of the 9
24 house, so to. speak, and Part 72.
25 I think that having such a coordinated report ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202).842-0034 q
O S-9 I
would allow both you, as well as the Commission to begin to 2
develop that coherent point of view.
Does that seem to make 3
sense?
4 DR. TRAVERS:
Yes, Chairman.
We could certainly 5
look to do that and it would be an appropriate follow-on for 6
some of the other pieces of information you've been 7
receiving in terms of some of the rule-making plans that 8
we've been sending up and so forth.
9 So I think that's something we'd certainly look to 10 do.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madam Chairman,"we did 12 get, last year, SECY 98-258, a very good paper on what was j
13 then planned in the way of the huge volume of NRR-related 14 activity, coordinated with Research, because I see Cheryl 15 Trottier's name on the paper.
16 I think with what Mr. Zwolinski was just saying, 17 NRR has, I think, a bigger job at the moment of getting some 18 coherent 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No one has made an issue about 20 that.
You notice I didn't say do it a month from now.
I'm 21 saying that the next time you send up a full-blown report, 22 which presumably will be after you've had a chance to have 23 your reorganization settle in, and I believe it is a useful 24 thing to have a coordinated report.
25 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
We do send a paper up every six ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I S-10 1
months on the' decommissioning reactors.
2 CHAIRMAN. JACKSON:
You all work it out.
3 MR. RICHARDS:
Good afternoon.
I'm Stu Richards.
4-If we could have the first slide, please.
t 5
This is a overview of what we intend to cover 6
today.
I think John has already talked about the fact of 7
the reorganization of NRR.
There's new people involved in
'8 the decommissioning area.
I'd like to talk b-iefly' about the staff's views on the safety and risk issues associated 9
10 with decommissioning.
We'll talk a little bit about the 11 licensing and rule-making.
12 As you already noted, the SECY 98-258 covered that 13 in scme detail.
We'd like to talk more specifically on our 14 future ac' ions, where we think we' re headed.
~
15 Next slide,.please.
16 The. staff recognizes that when a reactor enters 17-the decommissioning phase, the risk associated with operation at power is eliminated and that the primary 18 19!
' radiological risk remaining is associated with the storage 20 of spent fuel.
Additionally, the risk related to spent fuel then
.21 22 further decreases over time due to decay.
Risk is also reduced as radioactive materials are removed from the site.
23 For the purposes of reduction of regulatory
.24.
requirements at a. decommissioned reactor, a key point in 25.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
'1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 j
f i
- S-11 1
time is when it can be agreed that accident scenarios l
2 involving the spent fuel cannot result in an off-site dose l
3 in excess of EPA protective action guidelines.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask you a quick 5
question.
Do you have some ability to go beyond a 6
qualitative assessment of risk to quantify the changes in 7
vulnerabilicies during decommissioning?
I mean, is this an 8
area where risk assessment methodologies might have a role 9
in a PRA or something like that?
10 MR. RICHARDS:
John already mentioned that the i
11 cornerstone here is the zircalloy fire.
j 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
13 MR. RICHARDS:
I'm certainly not an expert on the 14 zircalloy fire, although I've been reading a lot about it in 15 the last two weeks.
But one of the issues that is clear is 1' 6 that the studies that have been done in the past have a 17 great deal of uncertainty associated with them and then, 18 furthermore, it depends quite a bit on the site-specifics.
19 There's a number of factors; the burn-up of the 20 fuel, the enrichment, the ventilation of the building and 21 whether it's high density.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I understand what you're saying 23 precisely.
I guess really what I'm asking is whether there 24 is whether there is some overall coherent risk 25 assessment-based approach or methodology that could be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-12 1
usefully applied.
The results of the new PRAs, the results 2
are going to fall out differently on a site-specific basis, 3
but you have a consistent approach to assessing the risk in 4
a probabilistic way'and it just strikes me that -- you know, 5
I don't know what my friend Commissioner Diaz thinks, but 6
there is an opportunity here to try to develop some overall 7
coherence.
8 Because much of what we do in the decommissioning 9
area is often influenced by public concern and public outcry 10 rather than simply considering the risk posed to workers or 11 to members of the public.
And so the issue is in looking at 12 the filters that Mr. Zwolinski mentioned, you have the one 13 of maintaining safety at all times, but you have one having 14 to do with effectiveness and efficiency and reducing 15 unnecessary burden and public confidence.
16 But the only way you're going to balance that, 17 keeping your primary focus on maintaining safety, is to have 18 some coherent approach that allows you to really talk about 19 risk and relative risk in a calm way, and that's all I'm 20 really trying to get at.
21 MR. RICHARDS:
I think we'll address that later 22 on, but our intention is to integrate various activities in 23 this area and factor risk into that.
24 MR. SHERON:
Chairman Jackson, we have an 25 integrated program that's already started.
What we are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-13 1
doing is engaging not only our thermal hydraulic people in 2
terms of doing calculations, understanding better the nature 3
of the zircalloy fire, we also have our fire protection 4
4 engineers looking at the whole issue of what is a zircalloy 5
fire, what does it mean, how does it compare to other kinds 6
of fires, what are the combustion products, how do they 7
behave.
l 8
We also have the risk staff, the PRA staff engaged 9
in looking at the overall risk associated with how one 10 arrives at a situation where you actually can get to 11 conditions for, say, a zircalloy fire, whether or not that 12 probability is acceptably low and to what extent you need to 13 consider probability when looking at what the requirements 14 are.
15 The whole plan is to have this all come together 16 in about two months time and hopefully we will have this 17 integrated approach which takes into account balance of 18 maintaining safety, reducing unnecessary burden, looking at 19 risk-informed approaches for this, and come up with a 20 recommended approach for dealing with the whole issue of a 21 zircalloy fire.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I guess what I'm really 23 basically saying is that the risk-informed approach and, to 24 the greatest extent you can, using risk assessment 25 methodologies, is a method of maintaining safety, becoming ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 u
S-14 1
more efficient and effective, reducing unnecessary 2
regulatory burden, and maintaining public confidence.
So 3
that's why I'm pressing you on the issue.
4 DR. TRAVERS:
And you're right, that's just the 5
direction we're heading and we're going to talk about that a 6
little bit further.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
8 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
If I may.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
In the same vein, your last 11 bullet, significant risk reduction when dose consequences 12 within EPA protective action guidelines, I'm trying to put 13 that in this overall context.
Could you tell me what -- how 14 this fits?
Because I don't know.
I really think -- you 15 know, it comes at me like an issue that it's has to be dealt 16-with separately, but are we integrating it?
17 How do we deal with this bullet, significant risk 18 reduction, when we consider EPA's action guidelines?
19 MR. RICHARDS:
Well, I think it really applies.to 20 how we treat the licensees with regard to regulatory relief.
.21 As the plant' shuts down and the fuel decays, of course, the 22 risk. decays likewise.
But the licensing actions that we go 23 through tend to occur in somewhat of a step-wise function.
24 I think as we get into discussion a little further, you'll 25 see that, again, the cornerstone has been, for some of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l S-15 l
1 earlier big ticket items, the zirc fire, if you postulate a i
l
-2 zirc' fire in the fuel, you-can get off-site releases that 3
require you to have an ET plan.
l 4
COMMISSIONER DIAZ:.But, again, building on the 5
Chairman's, there must be intercepts in here on a l
6 risk-informed approach to what these'gu.!delines are and 7
that's what I don't see.
8 Are we connecting them or there's just a separate-l 9
step-by-step EPA creates relief when the radioactivity decay 10 is beyond a certain point?
Is that something that we just 11 look at it as a fact or is it part of a larger scheme of 12 things?
That's what I'm trying to ask.
l 13 MR. RICHARDS:
Well, I think, in the future, as 14' Brian 'Sheron discussed, we're going to try and look at the 15 larger picture and. factor into it the risk and see if what 16 we've been basing our decisions on up to this point, it is 17
.the right way to do business.
It may or may not.
18 All right.
The next slide, please.
H19 In recognition of the risk reductions, the staff 20 has worked with decommissioning licensees to reduce 21.-
unnecessary regulatory burden'in the areas of staffing 22.
reductions, quality assurance, maintenance programs, 23 emergency planning, safeguards and financial protection.
24 Some of these requirements are reduced by 25 exemptions, such as emergency planning and staffing, while ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-16 1
others are addressed in Part 50 and allow prompt reductions.
2 Examples include the maintenance rule, ATWS, the pressurized 3
thermal shock, the EQ rule, and fire protection.
4 Next slide, please.
5 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Madam Chairman.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
7 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
As I was reading this 8
slide, here we're dealing with basically technical -- some 9
of the significant things relate to technical 10 specifications, as well as limitations or exemptions 11 associated with emergency planning.
12 Are you confident that you've got the guidance in 13 place such that reviewers can, when they're confronted with 14 different technical situations, that different technical 15 reviewers are consistently evaluating the matters before 16 them?
17 This is especially important, it seems to me, when 18 you have issues of emergency responsiveness and 19 preparedness,.which, by its nature, goes beyond design basis 20 events.
In essence, is the scope of the review that we have 21 clearly articulated and bounded in a staff guidance or 22 standard review plan?
So that there is some degree of 23 consistency there.
24 MR. RICHARDS:
My experience is limited to my 25 background reading, but I don't think we're.quite there yet, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-17 1
although I think the decommissioning staff recognizes that 2
that's a place we have to go-,
There are draft standard 3
review plans in the works.
There are, of course, the 4
rule-makings, and'all of these things, I think leading up to 5
this time, are headed towards having a stronger framework.
6 Where we've been in the past, unfortunately, on 7
some of these issues, they've been dealt with on a 8
case-by-case basis as exemptions and it's not efficient and 9
it runs the risk of having them treated differently over the 10 years.
11 So, yes, we need to do better in that area.
I 12 think the staff recognizes that and that's where we're going 13 to head.
14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
For me, I'm particularly 15 concerned that we end up having arbitrary decisions that 16 cause a great degree of variation from one licensee to the 17 next, and I don't think that puts us in a good light.
18 MR. RICHARDS:
We want to be predictable and if 19 we're successful in laying down a good framework, it's going 20 to make our job easier, too.
21 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
This is more of a process 23 issue.
Is there-anything that prohibits licensees from 24 submitting decommissioning licensing actions while they're 25 still operating, to avoid unnecessary delays?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 22 84 b34
a S-18 1
MR. RICHARDSON:
In fact, I'm aware that the staff 2
has, in an outreach program, gone out to facilities who have 3
advertised that they intend to shut down, to try and discuss 4
those steps ahead of time, while they're still operating.
5 The next slide, please.
6 This slide. portrays the status of various plants 7.
in the decommissioning phase.
You should note that most 8
facilities have already passed the point where spent fuel 9
heat-up type events are not an issue with regard to.off-site 10 doses reaching the EPA protective action guidelines.
11 Additionally, with regard to Millstone, because 12 it's a multi-unit site, there is really not much benefit to 13 be gained there by a reduction of the EP plan because they 14 already have an EP plan in place for the other two units.
15 Questions on this slide?
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Better go ahead while you have 17 a chance.
j 18 MR. RICHARDSON:
This is one of my favorite 19 slides.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, in that case.
Going back 21 to Commissioner Diaz's question on the EPA protective action 22 guidelines.
Where along this line?
23 MR. RICHARDSON:
Limited spent fuel heat-up.
When 24 you get to that point, that's the point at which we 25 determine that you can't get that off-site release and it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW,-Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
o S-19 1
leads the way for some significant relief.
2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
And now that this is your 3
favorite.
4 MR. RICHARDSON:
I'm going to learn from this.
5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
It's a good figure, but I i
6 don't see the time set up in here, just some milestones.
7 What are the times?
8 MR. RICHARDSON:
The times, I think, are largely i
9 related to the utility and when they want to make the 10 submittal.
J 11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Okay.
But there must be a 12 time in which you're limited spent fuel heat-up situation 13 crosses the EPA, and that, of course, is the subject of the 14 question on the zirc fire and so forth.
That's correct?
15 MR. RICHARDSON:
That's the 64 dollar -- 64,000 16 dollar question, I guess.
17 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
But anyhow, these are put in l
18 here by utilities, but from the standpoint of regulatory 19-decision-making, there will be some times when you get this 20 thing set up properly, we will see a time scale, not only i
21 the milestones.
22 MR. RICHARDSON:
I'd have to stop short of saying 23 we're going to be able to come back to the table and say 12 24 months or whatever the time is, because, again, sometimes 25 you get into site-specific circumstances with the density of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-20 1
the storage of fuel, the burn-up, those kind of factors.
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madam Chairman?
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Two or three months 4
differences?
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think it really does depend 6
on several factors, but that, again, is part of my pressing you on how and whether you have some ability to kind of 7
8 really model -- you know, have some approach to modeling 9
where these crossovers may occur, modeling the risk 10 basically.
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
It may come out differently on 13 a site-specific basis, but you need to be able to do that in 14 order to put things like the zircalloy fire within the right 15 kind of context.
16 Commissioner McGaffigan.
17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Just to follow-up on 18 that point.
I think that's the point that Mr. Zwolinksi and 19 Mr. Sheron have been making, that in some sense, this prior 20 approach that we had was very deterministic and it was not 21 risk-informed,in the sense of calculating what's the probability of a seismic -- that the zirc clad fire issue 22 23 comes up because you have to have a postulated drain-down of 24 the spent fuel pool and then spontaneous combustion, as I 25 understand it,.in the cladding.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r S-21 1-So you have to deal with the probability of spent i
2 fuel pool drain-down and that's the element I think that's 3
going to risk-inform this process,'is looking not just at 4
the consequences, but is it ten-to-the-minus-six, 5
ten-to-the-minus-eight, what is the probability of that --
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Of the initiating event.
l 7
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Of the initiating event.
8 Because there's always, I suppose, some -- as long as you've 9-got spent fuel sitting in a pool, it could be 20 years, it 10 could be one of these places like SONGS-1 that's been shut 11 down forever but if somebody went in there and got the 12 pooled drained and then set off high explosives or
)
13 something, I suppose they could get a pretty good event 14 going.
I don't know.
15 But they've still got a lot of activity left in 16 that fuel. So the question is probabilities, I think.
17 MR. RICHARDSON:
Next slide, please.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You asked for it.
19 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
But the slide also depicts a run 20 of NRR activities, as well-as NMSS activities, and we're 21 engaged for quite a long time and we're going to try to get 22 after that a little bit better as far as our near-term 23 activities.
24 MR. RICHARDSON:
All right.
Areas in which-l 25 decommissioning licensees typically seek relatively early ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-22 1
relief from requirements include emergency preparedness, 2
security, and insurance.
Exemption requests in these areas 3
have been generally site-specific and have been dealt with 4
on a case-by-case basis.
z 1
5 In 1993, the staff initiated a first step to stop j
6 dealing with these issues on a case-by-case exemption basis.
7 This step was SECY 93-127, which related to financial 8
protection rule-making.
Of particular note, SECY 93-127 9
established the zirc fire as a reasonably credible event l
i 10 from the staff's viewpoint.
11 The premise --
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Is it still reasonably 13 credible?
14 MR. RICHARDSON:
Well, that's, I think, what we're 15 going to take under review again.
Up to this point, the 16 staff has been doing reviews on that basis.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You know, the reason it's an 18 important one is that, as I recall, they wouldn't appear --
19 I believe you indicated at the time that it was a seismic 20 event or some design failure mode of a spent fuel pool that 21 could lead to something like this.
22 One could reasonably ask if that's a credible 23 event.
Is it not credible for operating reactor, since they 24 have fuel stored?
And so it's important to answer the 25 question in the overall p'robabilistic sense, because it has 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 22 b4 b3
I--
t S-23
(
1 implications, I would claim, not just for decommissioning
(
2 plants, but for operating plants, anytime you have the fuel 3
stored.
'4 I think that was a point, in a sense, that 5
Commissioner McGaffigan was alluding to, that anytime we l
l 6
have it 7
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Madam Chairman?
1 8
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes, please.
- Good, 9
participatory meeting.
10 MR. MIRAGLIA:
With respect to the credibility 11 event for operating plants, that issue did come up in the 12 mid '80s, I believe, and it was looked at in a generic way 13 and also a plant-specific way, and the event of that fire 14 was bounded by the other accidents that were looked at in 15 terms of the environmental --
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So that's why you didn't lift 17
'it out.
18 MR. MIRAGLIA:
In terms of safety.
And so it 19 didn't '--
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You didn't lift it out.
21 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Didn't come as a significant 22 contributor and the emergency plans and everything else was 23 in place.
24 So that was looked at in that context in about the 25 mid '80s.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-24 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And I appreciate the point 2
you're making in terms of where the probabilities of some 3
event with potential great consequence for the public and 4
something -- one thing swamping another, but there's still a 5
fact that we get pressed from time to time on the whole 6
spent fuel pool issue.
7 MR. MIRAGLIA:
I understand.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And so the one thing still is it's almost like a 9
bounding for that part.
So it's just 10 parenthetical remark, but it's --
- 11 '
MR. MIRAGLIA:
And if.I could add, in the context 12 of the paper that Stu just mentioned, in terms of financial 13 protection, it was looked at and in the context of 14 developing what model should be used to get relief from 15 indemnity _ requirements, the reasonably credible is tied to 16 the Price Andersen type language and the actions described 17 indicated that it would take a seismic event and that this 18 was probably still very low probability.
19 But in that context, that was a reasonable place 20 to start and I think what we've shown in terms of where 21 we've been in trying to implement that, it deserves a 22 re-look and that's what the staff is engaging in right now.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:.This is a question that 25 maybe is really for the second panel.
But when we did that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,ED.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-25 1
paper in '93, was this issue highlighted and did you get any 2
immediate feedback from the industry at that time saying 3
there might be a problem here or was decommissioning so 4
distant an issue at that point that there wasn't a lot of 5
attention paid to the paper?
6 MR. WEISS:
We didn't receive any' industry l
There was an SRM that came back down from 7
comments on that.
l 8
the Commission to do that effort, to determine what the 9
temperature and the time should be.
10 DR. TRAVERS:
But the issue of a zirc fire, as 1
11 Frank just mentioned, is reasonably credible in the context 12 of Price Andersen requirements, was highlighted in the 13 paper, and it was really the basis upon which the Commission 14 SRM was written. The option that was proposed and ultimately 15 accepted included that as the driving function for reducing 16 ultimately -- I think it's the secondary indemnity 17
. requirements in some cases.
18' COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right,.the Price 19 Andersen.
20 DR. TRAVERS:
Price Andersen.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Merrifield.
22 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Going back to 1993, that i
23 was also at the point where the Commission directed the
\\
l 24 staff to develop an analysis for the appropriate cooling off
]
25 period for a zirconium fire.
Subsequently, Brookhaven did a j
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i
(202) 842-0034
S-26 1
report, which I think was in 1997, which came up with some 2
separate analysis for PWR and BWR cooling off periods.
3 We are now in 1999,.where are we as a Commission 4
in our analysis of the Brookhaven model and when are we to 5
expect a final determination on where we are going to be 6
going with that issue that we've been searching out since 7
1993?
8 MR. SHERON:
I'll try and answer that.
As I said 9
before, we have this integrated study going on.
One part of 10 that study is to do thernal hydraulic analyses of the spent 11 fuel pool using what we believe is a more advanced thermal 12 hydraulic model than what Brookhaven used.
13 My understanding of the Brookhaven model is they 14 sort of instantaneously assumed all of the water was lost in 15 the pool and then the fuel would heat up and there was no 16 consideration, for example, of how one would lose the water.
17 For example, if you only lose the water by a 18 seismic event, I think as the Chairman said, that's a very, 19 very low probability event, for example, then perhaps the 20 way you do it is through losing cooling and then it's a slow 21 boil-off, then you have to look at the heat transfer 22 mechanisms because now you would have steam cooling, as well 23 as radiation effects, and you would have a much longer time 24 to find replenishment water.
25 So, again, one has to look at the whole integrated ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
r' S-27 1
effect, both the thermal hydraulics, from a more advanced 2
standpoint, as well as the actual sequences and relative 3
probabilities, and that's what we're doing now and hopefully 4
in about two months we will have sort of recommendation.
l 5
But I.think to answer your question specifically, 6
we're doing a more sophisticated analysis than we believe 7
what Brookhaven had done in 1996.
8 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I think that's positive 9
and the reason this raises a question for me is, obviously, 10 as a Commission, we should never short-change our commitment 11 to safety and ultimately we want to make sure that we come 12 up with the right numbers and the right analysis at the same 13 time.
14 There are -- I'm a New Hampshire Yankee, not a 15 Maine Yankee, but there are facilities out there where this 16
.makes real dollars.
These are non-operating plants.
)
)
17 Ultimately, the cost of that is going to be passed off to 18 concamers.
19 And I think we shouldn't lose sight of that as 20 owe're going about the process of making sure we make the 21 right determination.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
You just said something that 23 is very interesting to me, which is how you remove heat from 24 this fuel element and, of course, there is always a tendency 25 of just looking at convection.
But in reality, there are t
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters t
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-28 1
many ways in which you would lose heat and, of course, 2
you've got to remember that for some years, the only thing I 3
had to cool fuel elements I was working with was radiation.
4 Radiation is a great equalizer.
You can have fuel 5
element very, very, very cool in here and one very, very, 6
very hot in here.
They might already irradiated into each 7
other.
What they do is actually they share the heat and the 8
masses get combined and you -- is our analysis taking into 9
consideration the fact that in this pool, even if you have 10 fuel elements that have only been out three months, another 11 has been out five years, that there is a tendency to average temperatures when you are in a certain confined environment 12 13 and you have a little bit of conduction, a lot of 14 convection, and a little bit of radiation as the temperature 15 goes up.
16 MR. SHERON:
I don't know.
Is Gary --
17 MR. WEISS:
I think it is.
Some of the licensees 18 have gone to a checkerboard array in loading spent fuel 19 pool, so they'll have the hot assemblies surrounded by the 20 cool assemblies.
21 MR. HOLAHAN:
This is Gary Holahan, of the staff.
22 My recollection of the method used by Brookhaven, I don't 23 recall it including radiative heat transfer.
I think it was probably assumed to be minimal in a tightly packed assembly, 24 25 in a closed box.
So I think that's just an example of one ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I I
I j
S-29 i
1 of the things, one of the assumptions that we want to go j
2 back and re-look at.
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Because if it gets hot enough 4
to get a fire, it gets hot enough to radiate.
5 MR. HOLAHAN:
Yes.
And I think ona --
6 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
A little bit.
7 MR. HOLAHAN:
One of the things we're interested 8
in, of course, these are closed boxes and se radiation to 9
the --
30 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
They radiate inco each other, 11 but the temperature gets more uniform and distributed, yes.
12 It doesn't radiate out a lot.
It radiates inside.
13 MR. SHERON:
If you're not busy for che next two l
14 months, we could do that.
15 MR. RICHARDSON:
The point of this slide is that 16 the staff's use of the zire fire originated somewhat with 17 the paper and that has had impact on exemption requests in 18 EP and insurance and, to some extent, security.
19 Those three areas, as has been mentioned, involve 20 some significant costs to the utility and that's one of the 21 reasons we want to look at that so hard.
22 Next slide, please.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me -- never mind.
24 MR. RICHARDSON:
Based on the staff's experience 25' to date and based on industry connents, the site-specific ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Guite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-30 1
analysis needed to demonstrate that a zirc fire cannot occur 2
are time-consuming to perform and time-consuming for the 3
staff to review.
4 Additionally, dealing with issues on an individual 5
exception basis precludes the degree of regulatory 6
predictability that we desire, hence the need to look into 7
this area.
=
8 Next slide, please.
9 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Madam Chairman.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
11 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Before he removes that slide.
12 It's my understanding that the staff performed what was 13 called a simplified heat-up analysis of the Maine Yankee 14 spent fuel pool in order to expedice their exemption 15 approval process.
I guess that leads me to ask perhaps 16 three questions.
17 First of all,:is my understanding correct?
Then 18 if it is, if this could be done for Maine Yankee, is it 19 possible for the staff to develop some sort of generic I
20 methodology for verifying the results of licensees' analyses 21 or provide an NRC-approved methodology to licensees to 22 perform such analyses?
23 And if my understanding is correct, why couldn't 24 Maine Yankee use a simplified method for these analyses?
j 25 MR. WEISS:
What the staff did was do an adiabatic ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-31 1
heat-up calculation of the fuel assembly and that assumed no 2
heat left the fuel assembly and we calculated -- the staff 3
calculated that it would be ten hours before this particular 4
assembly would reach the temperature at which we'd have to 5
worry about the zirc fire.
6 We also looked at this ten-hour period as 7
providing enough time to evacuate people, if that was 8
necessary, and that was the reason -- the justification for 9
approving Maine Yankee's exemption.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask -- do you want to 11.
continue on this?
12 MR. SHERON:
On the second part of your question
.13 about could we provide any kind of, say, a model, what I'm 14 hopeful is that when we finish this integrated study that I 15 described, that could lead to a number of possibilities.
16 One might be, for example, if a licensee, for example, could 17 demonstrate the ruggednesss, the seismic ruggedness of their 18 spent fuel pool, as well as, say, an ability to provide some 19 sort of makeup water at some certain time, for example, if 20 you had lost coeling, for example, because we may be able to 21 demonstrate, from a risk standpoint.
22 Otherwise, there may be r,vs to come up with a 23 simplified method to do some sort of a heat-up analysis, but 24 hepefully this is what this whole integrated study will 25 flesh out for us.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washingtoa, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-32 1
COMMISSIONER DICUS:
And that goes back, I think, 2
to Commissioner McGaffigan's point that he raised first 3
about probability of initiating event occurring in the first 4
place.
5 MR. SHERON:
Yes.
6 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Commissioner Dicus, in going 7
forward, we may be able to get to the point where we would i
8 even suggest a rule-making in which there would be dates 9
certain and the staff would get out.
he day-to-day 10 reviews of exemptions and amendments.
11 So I'm not sure where our next couple or three 12 months are headed.
We are putting a lot of energy into this 13 activity that will forge a pathway to the future and it may 14 indeed be in the area of rule-making over a case-by-case 15 exemption, for example.
16 So that's the more integrated view and it would be 17 presumptuous to get out in front of that.
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madam Chairman, I'm sort 19 of excited about the integrated approach that the staff is
]
1 20 proposing, because I think there is a real opportunity.
You j
21 know, there is a mass of activity that needs to be done.
I 22 That.was documented in last year's SECY paper.
But that the j
23 opportunity here in the decommissioning area is that we're j
)
24 really laying down a framework for the first time.
25 So all the things we talk about when we have l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 A
r S-33 1
risk-informed Part 50 meetings about all the handcuffs that l
2 are on us-aren't really there as much, I don't think, and a 3
risk-informed decommissioning rule that might encompass many 4
of these rules that were contemplated could be a real 5
opportunity.
6 It's a result that I fondly hope for, although I 7
know it's not guaranteed in the next to or three month 8
study.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Talking about a risk-informed 10 rule and believing you have to be comprehensive, you made i
11 the point earlier on that the risk associated with fuel 12 storage justifies changes in emergency planning, 13 on-site /off-site insurance, safeguards, i
14 How do the assumptions regarding emergency 15 planning relate to a seismic event?
This is for my 16 edification.
In other words, given a seismic event and the 17 collateral damage to the community, loss of power, 18 communications, emergency sirens, damages to highways and 19 byways, is the emergency plan and how you fold risk into it 20 designed to accommodate all of this collateral effect in the 21 event of a seismic initiator?
22 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Going back to the basics, the 23 emergency plan is essentially developed for beyond design 24 basis accidents.
So once we get beyond design basis, you're 25 talking events such as perhaps a zircalloy fire or the l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-34 1
collapse of the spent fuel pool or other events, and then 2
our exercises that we run are essentially predicated on 3
events that would have off-site releases.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I understand that, but you 5
specifically relate to the risks associated with fuel 6
storage justifying changes in emergency planning.
If you 7
get to beyond design basis and you, in fact, do have the i
8 potential for off-site release and if the initiator of that 9
design basis -- beyond design basis event were a seismic 10 event, which, if it's strong enough to cause some 11 destruction of the spent fuel pool and catastrophic 12 drain-down of it, presumably there is collateral damage.
13 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Throughout the entire area.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Correct.
And so the question 15 is do you then -- is that folded into how emergency planning 16 is addressed.
. 17 MR. RICHARDSON:
The question is, is there 18_
emergency planning organization left to respond with that 19 kind of a seismic event.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, no.
It's an important 21 point.
It relates to how you do the planning.
22 MS. CYR:
The Commission -- if I could ask Larry 23 to, address it, because the Commission specifically addressed 24 this in the licensing with respect to Diablo Canyon.
25 MR. CHANDLER:
It was addressed in the mid '80s in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
- M'. W m
S-35 1
the Diablo Canyon proceeding and the Commission, as I 2
recall, ruled that separate consideration of earthquakes in 3
the context of emergency planning was not required under the 4
Commission's regulations.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So, in fact, then there is no 6
specific consideration of collateral damage.
7 DR. TRAVERS:
There is not, but fundamentally, by 8
its very nature, the kind of planning that does take place 9
in connection with being prepared to respond to a 10 radiological event in a nuclear power plant, communications 11 and ability to transmit information and provide state and i
12 local planners with the tools, I think, are ones that we 13 recognize as steps that would put them in a better position, regardless of the extent of the collateral damage that could 14 15 take place.
16 We don't specifically, as Larry pointed out, 17 incorporate or require in the plans a consideration of that, 18 but I think there's a recognition that the kinds of planning 19 that would be done or is done in connection with preparing 20 for these events would put you in better stead.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
We should go on.
22 MR. RICHARDSON:
Next slide, please.
23 As described in SECY 98-258, there are a number of 24 rule-makings and other regulatory actions underway in the 25 decommissioning area.
With the reorganization now occurring ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-36 1
in NRR and with a different set of managers taking 2
responsibility for decommissioning, we feel this is an 3
appropriate point to step back, take a fresh look at the 4
work accomplished to date, gather input from our 5
stakeholders, and then ensure that we are headed for an end 6
point that integrates the solutions to the issues before us.
7 To the degree possible, we intend to use 8
risk-informed approach.
We inten6 to establish a working 9
group to accomplish this task and to provide a framework for 10 future activities.
And as we've discussed, we specifically 11 intend to consider the role of the zirc fire in the 12 production requirements.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You mentioned that your output 14 is plan and schedule.
What is your outcome?
15 MR. RICHARDSON:
Hopefully, our outcome is a 16 predictable licensing business that ensures safety, while 17 reducing the burden on the utilities.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I'm just trying to make you 19 fold it back together.
Mr. Zwolinski.
20 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
It's a necessary.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
We've talked about the four 22 filters, and do the four filters come back relative to this 23 outcome to be your four metrics?
24 MR. RICHARDSON:
Well, I think that's what's 25 driving us to our end product is those four filters.
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-37 1
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Madam Chairman, talking 2
about going forward, I want to reverse just a little bit and j
i 3
talk about circling back around to it.
4 I was reviewing -- in the process of getting ready 5
for this, I was reviewing the Maine Yankee back-fit appeal 6
panel results and it was a sentence in the summary that 7
jumped out at me, said the most compelling observation was a 8
lack of staff sensitivity to elapsed time in schedules 9
confronting the Commission and nuclear power plants.
10 Now, I know that Dave Matthews, in a memorandum to 11 Sam Collins, attempted to respond to that particular 12 sentence and focusing primarily on the fact that the staff 13 had been meeting NRR's one-year, two-year and three-year i
14 timeliness goals, and, in accordance with those figures, it j
\\
15 had seemed to have done a f airly good job.
16 But they may have met the goals, but the question 17 to me'is are the goals the right goals.
1 18 So as you are a new management team, I'm wondering 19 if you have considered at all going back and reassessing 20 whether those timeliness goals are appropriate given the unique economic and scheduling pressures confronting 21 22 decommissioning nuclear power plants.
23 MR. RICHARDSON:
I think we've heard the message 24 from the industry on that.
We've had some meetings with the 25 NEI working group.
They've made it very clear that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 2
S-38 1
immediately upon entering decommissioning, you're looking at 2
costs being spent and, in some cases, they don't think they 3
should have to spend.
4 I think the staff recognizes that, like we 5
centioned before, and in at least one case, we've gone out 6
to an operating reactor planning to decommission and talked 7
about getting the submittals headed in that dilaction.
8 The focus of our efforts is to establish a 9
framework that will make it easier to work through and I 10 think today we're much more censitive to the costs involved 11 and need to get on with it, but the staff has been trying to 12 balance that with the need to. serve our public with the 13 safety issue.
14 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
The last two bullets seem to 15 suggest that your comment was a plan that might be different 16 than 98-258.
And if that is so, is the Commission going to 17 receive a revised plan before you get to your final details 18 or this is just an amendment that can be folded in into 19 98-258?
It seems to me like we are going beyond 98-258 in 20 many respects and I think what we might need to see is how
.21 22 far beyond 98-258 we have gone.
23 MR. RICHARDSON:
I don't think we can answer that 24 yet.
I think'that that paper was a good paper.
It p
25 demonstrates a lot of the good work that's been going on.
l f
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-39 1
This is just an opportunity for us to make sure that those 2
actions are being integrated and they're headed towards the 3
final product or at least where we want to go at this time.
4 Whether we need fine-tuning or major surgery, I 5
don't think we're prepared to tell you right now.
6 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
But you will be aware of it 7
and let us know as soon as you can.
8 MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes, sir.
9 MR. SHERON:
If I could just add to Mr.
10 Merrifield's question.
One thing we do have right now which 11 we put in pit.. e just within the past two months is revised 12 office letter 803, which describes the staff processes for
)
13 processing license amendments, and one of the things we 14 stressed in this new process, this revised process, is very 15 early interaction with the licensees when they come in for 16 any kind of a license amendment.
17 And one of the first things in this interaction 18 process is.to establish schedules.
So the licensee will 19 tell us right up front what their needs are, what their 20 schedule is.
We will assign a priority to it based on, 21 again, through our four filters, and then hopefully, in 22 interacting very early on with the licensee, we will make 23 commitments on when we can produce the documents that they 24 need.
They will, in turn, make commitments on when they 25 will respond, for example, to any questions that we have and i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-40 1
so forth.
2 But it will be a much more structured process, 3
much more predictable, and everybody will know when things 4
are going to happen.
5 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
If I may just ask a 6
follow-up.
I know that all the folks in NRR and I know Sam 7
Collins has been doing a terrific job of trying to reassess 8
priorities and restructuring and working with Arthur 9
Andersen.
Have you given any thought to the notion of 10 perhaps having some review that's targeted toward 11 decommissioning?
12 I mean, there's a lot of -- we have folks at NRR
{
i 13 who are doing a lot of projects, doing a lot of work.
Is
{
14 there any usefulness in having a subgroup within NRR that 15 are targeted just on the decommissioning issues, so we can 16 get some greater focus to that from the staff?
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
They are.
That's part of their 18 reorganization.
l 19 MR. SHERON:
The decommissioning will be under 20 Stu.
He will basically be the accountable person, if you 21 want to call it that.
22 Now, granted, he will be, as a project director, 23 he will be responsible for overseeing the entire review 24 process.
From the standpoint of the technical staff that 25 has to do certain parts of the review, there won't -- we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
7 l
S-41 1
don't plan right now to have, for example, dedicated staff-2 in the. systems division or in the engineering division, but 3
as --
4 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
That's my question.
So 5
you don't have staff.
6 MR. SHERON:
Not dedicated.
?
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Not dedicated staff.
8 That was where my question was going.
9 MR. SHERON:
But, again, as Bill just mentioned, 10 we are moving towards a centralized work planning control 11 and that, hopefully, will help us in identifying available 12 resources that can be put on any decommissioning work and so 13 forth.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
In fact, let me, if I may.
15 Sam, may I call on you to talk a little bit about that 16 centralized work planning and control, so that you can 17 provide some context for this discussion?
18 MR. COLLINS:
Good afternoon, Chairman, 19 Commissioners.
Sam Collins, Director of NRR.
I'd like to 20 make two points.
One is in regard to the specific question.
21 We actually had talked about, in our planning processes, as 22 well as a part of the organization, the benefits of having 23 embedded or matrix staff.
24 The issue is not unique to decommissioning.
It 25 also applies to license renewal, it applies to improved i
l ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-42 1
standard tech specs, and other programIs that :ut acrose the 2
areas.
3 There are pros and cons that we have discussed 4
internally and with Arthur Andersen and we may very well 5
start a pilot, but we're not ready to commit in this area.
6 The pros and cons pivot on whether you can isolate 7
staffs by assigning them within technical disciplines to a 8
program area and, therefore, they don't interact with their 9
peers, who are doing a light function in other program 10 areas.
11 Then, of course, there are some benefits to that, 12 as obviously prompted to your question, to having a specific 13 dedicated source.
So we have to weigh those, but we have 14 talked about it and considered those areas.
15 The second point,. prompted by the Chairman, having 16
.to do with the centralized planning process.
Brian touched 17 on this.
Dr. Sheron mentioned that we believe that this 18 will kind of bring together the attributes which will 19 accomplish one of the goals that you have in mind, which is 20 to be able to track work and to track products, whether it 21 be by due dates or labor rates.
2' Specifically, this group will be able to integrate 23 work products with assigned goals and although we're 24 reaching toward the fall program, before this becomes a 25 reality in the permanent context, we would have a template I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 I
S-43 1
for a work product.
In this case, it would be a licensing 2
action for decommissioning.
3 That template would be based on a process or 4
procedure which is formalized, which has expectations, and 5
has staff who are assigned to that type of a product.
6 A. decommissioning licensing action by Maine Yankee 7
would come into the centralized work area and it would be 8
assigned to the staff at the staff level, coordinating with 9
the branch, using this template and using these 10 expectations, and then we would track that by labor rate and 11 track that by d e date.
12 So it manifests itself in a number of the 13 attributes that a dedicated staff would be, but it provides 14 for some oversight and flexibility as well as measuring and
(
15 accountability that would be not unique to decommissioning.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madam Chairman.
l 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I'm pleased with what 19 Mr. Sheron has said with regard to the priority that's going 20 to be given to licensing, decommissioning licensing actions 21 or exemptions.
22 I've read, as I did it as part of the CSS task 23 force, the office letter in its current draft that you're 24 talking with the industry about, the NEI and public 25 meetings.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-44 1
And it strikes me, there is still some ambiguity.
2 Decommissioning is not particularly highlighted in there and 3
it looked to me like a lot of decommissioning items might 4
still be assigned priority three within the current system 5
rather than getting priority two.
They wouldn't deserve 6
priority one.
7 So you might want to clarify, under that office 8
letter, how you're going to handle decommissioning.
I think 9
what I interpret you as saying is that some of these may 10 well be priority twos, based on the cost beneficial, or 11 certainly at the top of priority three.
12 But I think you may want to clarify specifically 13 in that guidance or in that office letter what the 14 decommissioning is, because this is consistent with the SRM 15 the Commission had last June 30th on SECY 98-075.
16 The other point I'd make in response to i
)
17 Commissioner Merrifield that Mr. Collins didn't make -- one 18 problem with the centralized staff i's that you have to have 19 enough workload, and we have the staff at the moment on tech 20 spec conversions that has more than doubled its 21 productivity.
22 You know, I think we're all very proud of it, over i
23 the last year, done wondrous things, but then they're going to hit a lull late this year because people have decided to 24
)
25 delay their applications, and they're going to get another ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 842-0034
S-45 1
tidal wave of applications sometime in 2000, 2001, and it's 2
hard.to smooth out the workload, and then you pull people --
3 so, that's another con, I think, in terms of -- in license 4
renewal, we know we have a growing workload, at least we 5
. hope we do.
l i
6 In some other areas, the workload goes up and down 7'
and the matrix organization may fit better.
]
8 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
There are pros and cons 9
with each.
I'm pleased to hear that's there's serious 10 thought going into whether this should happen or not.
I 11 don't know what the best way is.
12 One of the other issues that's out there, however, 13 is where you don't have a dedicated staff, you sort of run 14 towards.the priorities.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
But that's the whole point of 16 the whc-
- 1anning that Sam and his folks have undertaken, 17 coupled with these playoffs against which things warrant, 18 and this may turn out to be one that warrants it, some more 19 permanent structure, but I don't think it's something that j
j 20 the five of us sitting at this table are going to be able to
)
21 do.
22 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Oh, no.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
It's really more that they get 24 the message both from us as well as from those licensees 25 that are going to undergo decommissioning, you know, that it i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW,-Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-46 1
has to get the attention that it gets, but I'm confident, 2
particularly with their working with Arthur Andersen, that 3
the methodologies that are being put into place with the 4
kind of management attention that they're getting, you know, 5
will allow them to wax and wane as they need to and/or put 6
some more permanent structure into place if it's called for.
7 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I was attempting to 8
respond to Commissioner McGaffigan.
far be it for me to 9
assert that the Commission should be micro-managing at that 10 level.
I agree that that would be inappropriate.
11 As long as they are looking at that and depending 12 upon the preferred solution that they choose, as long as 13 it's appropriately disciplined, I agree.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's why I placed the 15 question of what are your outcomes, because if they're 16 focused on their outcomes, then, you know, as they say, you 17 know, the rest will follow.
18 MR. RICHARDS:
Next slide, please.
19 This slide highlights some of the rulemakings 20 currently underway.
-I think we've touched on most of them 21 up to this discussion.
I'd like to note we have delayed the 22 EP proposed rule and the financial protection final rule due 23 dates to July of this year.
24 Security rulemaking SECY paper is presently before 25 the Commission.
Shift staffing and financial assurance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-47 1
rulemakings are under development.
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madame Chairman, could I 3
ask a question about the safeguards and security paper 4
that's currently before the Commission?
5 When I read the paper, it was one of the things 6
that helped precipitate this meeting, because it didn't 7
address the zirc-clad fire issue at all.
It b-ically asked 8
us to make a decision with regard to whether that rulemaking i
9 should include a vehicle barrier system requirement or not.
10 That's the issue before us.
11 Do you want us to vote on that paper, or do you 12 want us to wait until we get this late-May integrated 13 rulemaking approach and then vote on the vehicle barrier 14 system issue then, or what is the staff's preference?
What 15 is the status of this paper, given everything else you've 16 said to us today?
17 MR. RICHARDS:
Commissioner, I think that we'd 18 prefer that you go ahead and vote on it.
We felt that, in 19 the recotamendation, there was enough latitude for the staff 20 heads that we can work with that.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
But you recognize the I
.22 vote is strictly on whether you have a vehicle barrier 23 system in the rulemaking; it's not on the timing of when the 24 security requirements might be made or might be decreased, 25 which is tied to this overall issue of how you're going to I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l
S-48 1
deal with the risk-informed timing for these -- what we do 2
currently by exemption for the reduced requirements.
3 MR. RICHARDS:
Can we get back to you on that?
My 4
understanding in the security area is that the zirc fire is 5
a consideration, but it's not the only issue.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
7 MR. RICHARDS:
Not being a security person and not 8
wanting to get in trouble, that's as far as I'd like to 9
comment on that.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's fair.
You mentioned site-specific cost estimates with 11 12 financial assurance.
What factors are more amenable to 13 site-specific treatment than others?
I see someone has 14 already anticipated the question.
Oh, you're the security a
15 man.
16 MR. ROSANO:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Let's rewind the tape.
18 MR. ROSANO:
Rewind the tape.
Actually, with respect to the vehicle barricrs, 19 the question has to do with the particular kind of site, and 20 21 it's true that, in certain circumstances, we would feel that vehicle barriers may be necessary regardless of zirc fire 22 but that there are other configurations of the plant where l
23 l
24 zirc fire becomes an issue, and the way the paper was l
l 25 written, it was written in order to give us sufficient room 1
I l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i
(202) 842-0034
4 S-49 I
1 to consider both configurations, and I would go along with 2
Stu's suggestion that we would prefer to have a vcte on 3
that, and yet, it would still be integrated in with the 4
other areas in the integrated paper that goes up later.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Thank you.
6 Now, back to site-specific cost estimates for
{
.I 7
financial -- decommissioning financial assurance.
What 8
factors are more amenable to site-specific estimates than 9
others?
Do you have kind of a short list?
10 MR. RICHARDS:
Are we talking the insurance
- 11 requirements or accumulating funds for decommissioning?
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I'm talking about 13 accumulating funds for decommissioning.
Maybe that's not 14 what you mean here.
15 MR. RICHARDS:
Well, there's both.
Personally, I 16 can't speak to that last bullet.
I haven't got enough 17 background materials.
So, if there's someone that can help 18 me on that.
19 MR. WEISS:
Is this on the insurance requirements?
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
On financial --
I 21 MR. WEISS:
Accumulating funds?
j 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
23 MR. WEISS:
The latest issue on accumulating funds 24
'was to look at the staff document -- I think it's 1307.
25 This document is revised periodically to adjust the factor ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-50 1
which is how much decommissioning should cost on a yearly 2
basis.
3 The industry had felt that we were not taking into 4
account the latest means that the utilities are using to get 5
rid of waste, which is waste compaction, volume reduction, 6
vendors that will take all this from a utility and process 7
it for them, and Research revised that NUREG, and I believe 8
that the savings -- or the difference in decommissioning 9
cost might be of the order of 100 to 200 million dollars.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
All right.
11 MR. RICHARDS:
Next slide, please.
12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madame Chairman, I've 13 got the security paper in front of me, and I just want to 14 clarify with the security person.
15 My reading of this paper is that the option that 16 the staff is asking us -- the whole issue is the vehicle 17 barrier system.
18 Three options are discussed, one of which is the 19 status quo, retain the current security.
20 The second is rulemaking without vehicle bond 21 protection, without a requirement for a vehicle barrier 22 system, and the third is one that would allow flexibility as 23 to whether they retain the current one or whether they go to 24 some other one, but a vehicle barrier system, as I read the 25 plain English here, is required under option three, the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
f"-
S-51 l
1 recommended option.
~
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Now, I'm going to admonish you.
3 I mean if we're going to get into -- if we're going to tie 4
it back to the decommissioning, then it's fair game for --
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
It is decommissioning.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
It's the decommissioning 8
paper.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
All right.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I want to understand --
you're asking us to decide that a vehicle barrier system --
11 12 a rule should go forward on physical security for 13 decommissioning plants that requires a vehicle barrier i
i 14 system.
I thought I heard you say it might or might not.
15 MR. ROSANO:
Yes, sir, we are asking for that, and 16 let me just see if I can clarify the answer, and actually, I 17 should identify myself, which I didn't.
I'm Dick Rosano 18 from Reactor Safeguards.
~
19
.The request of the staff is based on the belief that there are issues that -- excuse me -- there are risks 20 associated with getting vehicle -- the design basis vehicle 21 22 close to areas of the plants, close to the spent fuel pool, 23 and it depends on the configuration of the spent fuel pool.
It depends on whether it's above ground, below 24 ground, depends on whether there is literally vehicle access 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-52 1
to the pool itself, driving a vehicle into the pool, and 2
that these things have to be considered and that a vehicle 3
barrier would be required, but then it would be 4
site-specific 5
It would be based on an analysis at the site as 6
the configuration, whether further exemptions could be 7
allowed for the vehicle barrier based on the configuration 8
of the plant, but that the vehicle barrier would continue to 9
be one of the expectations and requirements in security.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
That's all I needed.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Fine.
Thank you.
12 MR. RICHARDS:
Next slide, please.
13 This slide lists a number of issues in the 14 decommissioning area beyond what we've already talked.
We 15 don't intend to go into detail on these issues unless the 16 Commission desires.
17 It would be a good time to note, however, that we 18 have a decommissioning board chaired by John Greeves of 19 NMSS.
The board serves to ensure that decommissioning 20 activities are being addressed by the various offices, are 21 being coordinated.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask you one -- since you 23
.did put decommissioning financial assurance, and there was 24 this earliet issue about site-specific estimates, you know, 25 we did have one rulemaking on decommissioning funding I
)
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 t
i
S-53 1
. assurance that related to a number of things, but included 2
in it was-a reporting requirement, and so, I have a couple 3
of questions about that.
4 I mean had the staff worked out what the process
.5 and criteria are to evaluate these reports when they are 6
submitted?
-I think the first submittals are supposed to
.7 come in, in fact, this month.
8 MR. RICHARDS:
I believe you're right as far as 9
we're expecting it this month.
10 MR. WEISS:
We've issued the standard review plan.
11' CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You have.
12 MR. WEISS:
That has been published.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Does that include 14
. trigger levels for -- the staff will use to determine that 15 additional financial assurance or other actions are 16 necessary?
17 MR. WEISS:
I don't know.
We'd have to get back 18 to you on that.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And have you worked out what 20 regulatory or corrective actions the staff would require if 21 a determination is made that the level of decommissioning-22 funding at a particular licensee was inadequate?
23 MR. WEISS:
We don't have the person here that can 24 respond that.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
If you could get back on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW,. Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-54 1
that, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you.
2 MR. RICHARDS:
Last slide.
3 In summary, the staff has gained a lot of
'4 knowledge and experience from past activities.
5 Our intent now is to build on that experience and, 6
with input from our stakeholders, to define a vision of 7
where we want to go with decommissioning requirements and 8
guidance and to establish a licensing process that maintains 9
safety, yet is efficient, relatively predictable, and which 10 recognizes the reduced risk associated with a plant 11 decommissioning.
12 That completes the planned presentation, and we'll 13 be pleased to answer any other questions.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Dicus?
15 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Yes.
16 When Commissioner Merrifield and I visited 17 Millstone, in addition to, of course, touring the plant and 18 visiting with the licensee, we also met with some state and 19 local officials and together with several public interest 20 groups, both those tending to be more friendly and those 21 tending to be not so friendly.
22 One of the issues that came up -- actually, I 23 think a couple of groups might have mentioned it, which --
24 it had to do with the public indicating that they would like 25 to have hearing opportunities or at least some sort of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-55 1
interaction with the licensees and the staff, NRC staff, j
2 regarding the decommissioning alternatives that a licensee i
3 might choose in the early part of the process, even prior to 4
the submittal of a licensee's PSDAR.
5 Have you been giving that any thought?
Have you 6
been hearing that?
I don't know who has been in some of 7
these public meetings, but thinking about the pros and cons 1
8 of more public involvement in the early part of the 9
decision?
10 MR. RICHARDS:
That has come up in my limited 11 experience.
I went out to a public meeting that was out at l
12 San Onofre a few weeks ago.
That question was broached, and 13 my understanding with the staff is that it's not an uncommon 14 question.
15 I think the answer is that the Commission has 16 defined acceptable alternatives for the industry, and it's 17 the industry's choice.
So, to enter into some kind of a 18 process that would allow public participation, I think you'd 19 have to reconsider some decisions that have already been 20 made.
21 But the public docs have some opportunity to 22 participate, though.
You know, the rule now requires, I 23 guess, a meeting with the public within the two years of the 24 plant shutting down, more or less.
l l
25 Of course, they have the opportunity to petition ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
l S-56 1
for a hearing under some of the ametiments that are made.
I 2
understand there is a hearing before the license 3
termination, when that submittal comes in, and if there are 4
other safety concerns, of course, there's always the 2.206 5
petition process.
6 So, if there is a safety concern, the opportunity 7
is there for public participation but so far not for the 8
utility's decision on which of those paths to elect.
)
9 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Obviously, safety was a i
10 concern for these individuals, but it was an issue of having 11 some ability to influence or at least comment on the j
12 direction that the utility was going to go before a decision I
13 was made how that facility would be dealt with, whether it 14 would SAFSTOR or whether it was immediate decommissioning.
15 I'm not saying we. bought in on that, but that was 16 certainly the opinion that they reflected to us, they'd like 17 to have some additional input up front before that decision 18 is made.
19 MR. RICHARDS:
It's a policy decision, and you h
20 know, I don't begrudge you that, because just that one 21 meeting at San Onofre, you've got a group who wants to see, 22 you know, the plant removed and you've got others who say 23 why can't you just leave it there?
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think the point you're making 25,
is that, by virtue of some previous but, in some sense, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
p i
S-5" 1
fairly recent Commission decisions on what the 2
decommissioning approach is -- and we have a rule that the 3
Commission promulgated.
4 MR. WEISS:
When the rule was promulgated, we did 5
not get any comments requesting hearings.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
And so, it has certain 7
things built into it.
That's not to say that it can't be 1
8 revisited, but the staff is following what that rule 9
requires, which was promulgated within the last five years.
10
-COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
What may be appropriate 11 is the same question for the next panel, which may very well 1
12 be what Commissioner Dicus had in mind.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
That might be 15 appropriate, to.give them fair warning.
16 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
In going forward, I would really 17 expect.us to engage stakeholders, in addition to NEI, i
E18 -
members of the public..
19 If we're going.to be credible in our actions going I
20 forward, we do need to ensure the public's been involved.
21 Whether it's at local meetings or here at headquarters, I 22 envision more involvement from the public.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I don't believe that the rule l
24 precludes public involvement.
25 MS. CYR:
The issue is the Commission has ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
L.
S-58 1
established what are acceptable methods of decommissioning.
2 We've said, if you choose one of these, that's okay, and 3
then we set a process in place by which that is implemented, 4
which provides for them to submit this plan and have a 5
public meeting in that context.
6 That's not to say that -- as you say, there can't 7
-- couldn't be more public interaction, more available 8
information earlier on, either from us or the licensee.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's right.
And it was meant 10 to lay out a stable, predictable, hopafully credible process that would allow us to get at these issues having to do with 11 12 both ef fectively doing our job but having expedited a 13 process as the complexity of the issues allows, and by laying out what are the acceptable alternatives, you know, 14 15 the Cc"amission was trying to bound the issue, but it didn' t 16
-- but built into is the oppertunity for meetings with 17 members of the public as a licensee goes down a particular 18 path.
But there are specified acceptable alternatives in 19 the rule.
20 Are there other questions you have?
21 Commissioner Diaz.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I think just a comment.
I 23 think that, you know, looking at this issue, I think the j
24 Chairman just used the word " predictability."
I think what 25 we're looking, you know, from you is some regulatory ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-59 1
predictability that is based on realistic technical 2
assessment of the issues and is bounded by risk assessment.
3 I think that's what the outcome should be.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner McGaffigan?
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
No further questions.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I commend you on your thinking, 7
and I admonish you on outcomes, because that's where we are, 8
waiting for the outcomes.
9 Thank you very much.
10 MR. SHERON:
Thank you, Chairman.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I'll call forward the NEI 12 decommissioning work group presenters, Mr. Meisner, Mr.
13 Beedle, and Ms. Hendricks.
14 Good afternoon.
15 MR. BEEDLE:
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Good 16 afternoon, Commissioners.
17 I would like to, first of all, acknowledge those 18 here at the table with me.
19-Lynette Hendricks is the director of the NEI plant 20.
su' port group, Mike Meisner is president of the Maine Yankee 21 decommissioning effort, and we also have three members of 22 the industry in the audience, Ed Sherer from Southern 23 California Edison, Ken Powers from Consumers, and Jerry Van 24 Ordenaan from Connecticut Yankee, all involved in some phase 25 of decommissioning and members of the working group.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-60 1
We are certainly glad to see the reorganization, 2
'and we look forward to outcome, and I think that the staff 3-is working hard'to try and come to grips with these 4
decommissioning issues, but also I'd like to echo the 5
-industry's support for the goals that the staff has 6
developed for reactor safety, for efficient, effective 7
regulation, for elimination of unnecessary burden, and for 8
public confidence, and all four of those are very operative 9
in the decommissioning effort, in fact maybe more so than 10 the operating plants, as Mike Meisner is going to attest to.
11 So, with that, I'd like to turn to Mike and let 12
-him talk about some of the practical, very deck-plate kind 13 of issues at the decommissioning process.
14 Mike?
15 MR. MEISNER:
Thank you, Ralph.
16.
On behalf of'the'NEI's decommissioning working 17
' group, I want to tell you how much we appreciate the
-18 opportunity.to come here today.
As far as I k sw, it might
.19 be the first time the industry has been able.to brief the 20' full Commission on decommissioning in general.
21 I've got some prepared remarks, and then I'd 22 surely like to take your questions, and I hope you'll ask me
-23 some of the same questions as you asked the staff.
24
' CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And we may'ask you during your 25 prepared: remarks.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
.(202) 842-0034
l S-61 1
MR. MEISNER:
Good.
i 2
First overhead, please.
3 About the only-appropriate place to start, really, 4.
is with safety, reviewing safety, and risk significance of 5
the decommissioning facility.
6-I want you to kind of get a picture in your mind 7
of a plant like Maine Yankee.
When you walk around a plant
.8 that's~ ready for decommissioning, you're struck by one 9
thing, and that's simplicity.
10 At Maine Yankee, the spent fuel is managed in a 11 self-contained nuclear island, it's isolated electrically 12 and mechanically from the remainder of the facility, and the 13 remainder of the facility is in what we call a cold and dark 14
. commission; systems are drained, they're de-energized, and 15 it's literally cold and dark.
16 You have to go in with a flashlight into our old 17; control-room, with a heavy coat, i
18 There.are few moving parts and lots of times for a
19 operators.to react to any condition.
20 So, I want to first take a deterministic analytic 21 view of Maine Yankee safety, and this is reflective of 22 decommissioning plants in general.
23-So, as of January 1st of this year, the time to 24 boil for the spent fuel pool is 85 hours9.837963e-4 days <br />0.0236 hours <br />1.405423e-4 weeks <br />3.23425e-5 months <br />, or 25 three-and-a-half days, and it would take an addition 432
{.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters
~1025 Connecticut. Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
- _~
S-62 1
hours, or 18 days, to boil down to the top of active fuel, 2
and either of those give plenty of time for operators to use 3
a number of different proceduralized means to restore water 4
to the pool.
5 So, given these long periods of time, it's not 6
surprising that the limiting decommissioning design basis 7
accident for Maine Yankee has nothing to do with the spent 8
fuel.
9 It's a low-level waste resin spill that results in 10 off-site dose consequences of 100 millirem TEDE.
That's 11 nearly four orders of magnitude lower than the operating DBA 12 consequences and well below the 1-rem EPA protective action 13 guideline that would lead to off-site emergency action.
14 A probabilistic look, now, provides additional 15 confidence and a minimal safety significance of 16 decommissioning.
You need to remember that, in these simple 17 machines, there is really little opportunity for human error 18 to introduce significant failure modes.
19 We rely for the most part on passive components 20 and long times to failure.
21 In fact, the only event that even comes close to l
22 the radar screen is a -- beyond the design basis event is 23 the notorious zirc-alloy fire that we've been talking about, 24 and as you know, it requires as its initiating event a 25 catastrophic seismic event that drains the spent fuel pool, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
n
)
S-63 1
and by the way, that catastrophic seismic event, in most 2
cases, is about three to four times what the plants are 3
designed for, their current design basis seismic event.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What's the magnitude or 5
intensity of the seismic event at this frequency that you 6
have here are we: talking about?
7 MR. MEISNER:
If I remember correctly, the Maine 8
Yankee design basis is.15 or 2 g ground motion.
The event 9
that's required to disrupt our pool and drain it is in the 10
.6 to
.7 g range.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And what about -- what damage
-12 to the reactor would you expect?
13 MR. MEISNER:
Well, the reactor, of course, is l
l 14 de-fueled, and if it were to occur at an operating facility, 15 of course, the plant wouldn't be designed for it, and ue 16 would see-leaking systems all over the place.
17 Would it_be'something that goes to core damage?
I 18 couldn't tell you.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
20 MR. MEISNER:
In analyzing this event, the zirc 21 fire event, it's really been wrapped up in a lot of 22 significant conservatisms that we don't have time to go into 23 now, but even with.the conservatisms, when you get down to 24 the probabilistic evaluation, it can't rise above a 25 probability of two times 10 to the minus six, t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L
(202) 842-0034 l
1 I
S-64 l
J 1
Now, that probability was calculated by NRC 2
contractors some 10 years ago.
When you take into account 3
more recent Lawrence Livermore seismic hazard curves, you 4
obtain an additional at least fivefold reduction in event I
f 5
probability.
l 6
In fact, we have some folks looking at this now.
7 We think it's more like a 10-fold probabilistic reduction 8
using current Lawrence Livermore seismic hazard curves.
If 9
you then use the EPRI seismic hazard curves, you can add 10 probably an additional 10-fold reduction.
11 So, for facilities like Maine Yankee -- and this 12 two times 10 to the minus six is generic.
If you take into 13 an account a facility like Maine Yankee, where we're already 14 in a quite low seismic environment, it's virtually obvious I
1 by inspection that we can't -- we put a zirc-alloy fire in 15 16 that pretty much into the same category or bin as an 17 airplane crash into the spent fuel pool.
18 It's very, very low, 10 to the seventh, 10 to the 19 minus eighth, and one thing you're struck by when you go out i
20 to the plants really is that the real risk in 21 decommissioning is occupational.
It's radiation protection
)
22 for the workers on-site and hazardous waste exposure for 23
'those workers, as well.
24 Next overhead, please.
With that as a bnckdrop, with some sense of what 25 ANN R7 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
)
r S-65 1
we face from a safety point of view, I want to talk about 2
some of the constraints licensees face in decommissioning 3
their facility, and the first is cost.
4 The major' issue with us and with cost is that it's 5
fixed.
It's usually capped by rate-makers, and it's 6
effectively capped by 10 CFR 50.82.
j 7
Fixed prices, as you know, lead to problems when 8
licensees must spend large amounts of their budget 9
unnecessaril'y early in decommissioning.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The issue of 11
" effectively capped by 10 CFR 50.82" I don't think is right, 12 because you know, the Commission, as recently as a ruling a 13 week ago, pointed out in -- I think it was in a Seabrook 14
' case, a footnote to an order we issued that we recognized j
15 that our decommissioning costs don't include everything, 16 ISFSIs, green fields, etcetera.
17 So, we've made it very clear throughout the whole 18 history of 50.82 and our interpretatio's of-it that there's n
19 a difference between what'we can do on the radiological side 20 and what a state regulator or FERC or someone might decide 21 is prudent on a broader basis to include in decommissioning 22 funds.
23 MR. MEISNER:
I need to explain that more.
Given 24 the short time, I'm speaking a bit in shorthand, but what I 25 was referring to is there's a test in 50.82 that says, if ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 S-66 1
you're going to significantly increase your decommissioning 2
costs that you've already estimated, that you can't do it.
3 and that's the effective cap I was talking about.
4 You can't do it, but -- we could come to the NRC 5
and get approval to do it, but we are not allowed under the 6
regulations to increase our costs once that's estimated any 7
significant extent.
8 So, if there were a major delay, for instance, in 9
decommissioning, for whatever reason, we would need to come 10 to the NRC to get approval to proceed, else we could not do 11 that, and I think we can find that in 50.82 later.
12 MS. CYR:
The requirement as I recall it is that 13 licensees can spend the money as long as it doesn't go 14 significantly above, because the idea was we wanted to make 15 sure we retained sufficient amount of funds to get it to a 16 stable state at the end, and so, that was why there was this 17 test in here that you could spend at a certain rate based on j
i 18 predicted costs before you had to come back to us and sort 19 of revisit with us why they needed to spend.more.
20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I see.
(
21 MR. MEISNER:
So, how do we get in this situation 22 where we're kind of capped and we can get stretched at the 23 same time?
24 I think it's largely as a result, clearly, early 25 in decommissioning, a result of delay in granting timely ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW ', Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
)
S-67 1
regulatory relief.
2 As a rule of thumb, the difference between 3
operating plant and decommissioning plant costs for 4
emergency planning and security are on the order of a 5
million dollars per year for each.
6 Insurance runs about $2 1/2 million a year.
7 Significant other costs are associated with operator 8
licensing and training requirements, technical 9
specifications, and the like.
10 We can quantify the level of unnecessary expense 11 using NRC's NUREG-1353 12 The NUREG -- next overhead, please.
Oh, I'm 13 sorry, keep it where it is.
1 14 The NUREG provides a quantitative analysis of the 15 potential radiological impact of releases to the environs 16 from a burning fuel bundle or burning fuel pool, for 17
.mstance the number of days fuel has been stored.
18 The impact of radioactivity releases decreases i
19 from 2,600,000 person-rem to four person-rem over a one-year 20 period.
That's 2.6 times 10 to the minus six down for four 21 person-rem.
22 So, at the end of that one-year period, using the 23 traditionally $2,000 per person-rem averted measure, I'm i
24-justified in spending only $8,000 to completely eliminate 25 the zirc fire risk.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-68 1
But you note all that is -- that evaluates the 2
exposure, the off-site dose exposure, but we haven't 3
considered risk.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me make sure I understand 5
what you're seying.
6 The 2.6 million in terms of person-rem --
7 MR. MEISNER:
Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- is calculated, in the case 9
of a zirconium fire, at 30 days.
Is that correct?
10 MR. MEISNER:
Two point six is immediately after 11 you've off-loaded the fuel, or actually, I think, within 12 12 days.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, whatever, but it really 14 has the fire scenario built into it.
15 MR. MEISNER:
That's right.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Whereas the four is no fire, 17 you know, and after a year.
Is that correct?
18 MR. MEISNER:
The four really reflects the 19 difference in radio-nuclide mix.
Most off-site dose is due 20 to iodine and iodine with a half-life of, if I remember 21 right, seven to eight days, a year after shutdown is 22 virtually gone.
23
-It also reflects the somewhat reduced failure mode 24 of the fuel.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I S-69 J
1 Well, my understanding is that this figure is not
)
2 a generic figure, that it actually relates to specific fuel, i
3 you know, cylindrical PWR fuel, you know, low-density but 4
not necessarily high-density fuel that's racked that way, 5
and so, one has to be careful, I think, in making these i
6 kinds of comparisons -- fire, no fire, fire a short time j
)
7 after shutdown versus no fire as long as a year after 8
shutdown, specific kind of fuel and specific kind of racking j
9 density -- and so, I think one has to be careful.
I mean i
10 one has to compare, you know, apples to apples in order to 11 draw some broad-based conclusions.
12 MR. MEISNER:
I agree, and the broad-based 13 conclusion is still coming up.
I'm not trying to give you a 14 detailed review.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No, but this is the kind of 16 chart that ends up -- and I'm not trying to be 17 argumentative, because I think there are some issues we have 18 to deal with in terms of decommissioning, how it gets dealt 19 with by us, you know, costs, etcetera, but to make the case, j
(
20 I think one has to be careful that one is doing apples to i
21 apples, same scenarios, that you understand what kinds of j
i 22 reactor fuel you're talking about, that you understand how l
23 it's racked, otherwise it's not fair to wave this around.
I 24 mean there are many tnings that we and/or the staff could be 25 criticized on, but if we're going to make the criticism, 1
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l l
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-70 1
then we ought to make it on a consistent basis.
2 MR. MEISNER:
Okay.
I agree.
3 The point I wanted to get to is that -- I've only 4
talked about consequences and not probabilities here, and of 5
course, risk is the product of probability and consequences.
6 So, when we introduce the probability of a zire 7
fire at two times 10 to the minus 6 per reactor year, then 8
immediately after shutdown -- and this is apples and apples, 9
where we're talking about the full 2,600,000 person-rem and 10 a zirc fire -- immediately after shutdown, when we apply 11 probability to this situation and determine what am I 12 justified in spending to completely eliminate that risk, it j
13 comes out, as you see, to $10,400.
14 That's clearly not a lot of money and surely does
.15 not justify keeping in place different programs for up to 16 two years at multi-million dollars per year, and of course, 17 this two times 10 to the minus six, I haven't even reduced 18 to take into effect the current Lawrence Livermore seismic 19 hazard curves either, and it would be on the order of five 20 to 10 times lower than that were we to do that.
21 The only point is that we haven't, up to this 22 point, risk-informed zirc fire.
When you add risk into the 23 calculations, you get, I think, a fairly different look at 24 what's going on.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's what we're stressing ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
f S-71 1
with the staff, but I guess I want to repeat that you 2
risk-inform from a common base if you're going to make l
3 comparisons.
{
4 MR. MEISNER:
Agreed.
4 l
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And that's all I'm really 6
saying.
7 MR. MEISNER:
Agreed.
l l
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madame ChL rman?
l 9
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Please.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The zirc-clad fire 11 issue, the staff points out in their presentation that there 12 was a '93 SECY paper and a staff requirements memorandum at 13 that time in the context of insurance or financial assurance 14 or whatever, and I raised -- at the time, I told you -- I 15 was going to ask the question of you, when you came up, why 16 did the industry, given you believe this sort of analysis 17 today, why didn't you raise the issue then as an industry 18 that we might be off-track?
19 MR. MEISNER:
Let me take the first shot at it.
I 20 think the obvious answer is that, as an industry, there was 21 little decommissioning going on at that time.
It takes a 22 lot of attention to run these plants, and it's hard'to 23 divert that attention 20 years into the future and answer a 24 ques-ion that may not come up.
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
L
S-72 1
MS. HENDRICKS:
To add on to that, we did comment 2
on the proposed rule that caue out on financial protection 3
for permanently shutdown plants, and we commented that if --
4 they failed to talk about probability of the zirc fire in 5
that rule.
It was just it happens and here is the 6
consequence.
That was one of our comments.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
This is the rule as it 8
finally came out in '96 --
9 MS. HENDRICKS:
Uh-huh.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
-- as a proposed rule 11 and that is now being reconsidered before it goes to final, 12 but there was a multi-year period there where the staff was 13
-- I guess the '93 plan said okay, here's the rulemaking 14 plan, this is what we plan to do, then the rule -- proposed 15 rule came out, you did comment then, but there is an 16 opportunity, I think, to sort of catch us quicker, before a 17 lot of resources get invested, and I just make the point 18 I know you all have plenty to say grace over in terms of 19 running these large reactors, but I also think this is not 20 the first time.
21 I mean I think the first time this thing came up 22 was in the case of the weld inspections and whether -- a 23 very fresh rulemaking in 1996, which almost instantaneously 24 the BWR folks said, you know, we can't do, and furthermore, 25 it isn't risk-informed.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-73 l-1 I remember asking them why did you let the l
l 2
rulemaking go through if, you know, you're instantly going i
3 to come in and say it's impossible?
So, I hope that people 4
just pay more attention and engage us earlier, because I 5
think it would be more useful.
l 6
MR. MEISNER:
Understood.
j 7
I'll finish that section by pointing out that, if
)
i 8
you at all believe these numbers -- and we tried to use the 9
NRC's numbers, this $10,400 -- you compare that against what 10 Maine Yankee actually spent, and that was, for this about 11 two-year period of time, roughly $8 million against the 12 10,000.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask you, what role do 14 you think PRA should play in decommissioning regulations, or 15 how would you propose to incorporate risk-informed insights 16 into decommissioning regs?
17 MR. MEISNER:
I'm going to talk about it a little 18 later, but I completely agree with John Zwolinski.
I think 19.
we need to take the information that the industry and the 20 NRC has already developed -- there's really no new 21 information that's necessary -- take a look at what it tells 22 us and ure that to go forward and come up with a 23 risk-informed Part 50 for decommissioning.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
How should public concerns be 25 folded in?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court 'eporters 1025 Connecticut / venue, NW,- Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
S-74 1
MR. MEISNER:
I was talking with John just before 2
this session started, and we have a very positive community 3
relationship up in Maine, and we do it through a community 4
advisory panel.
One of the persons on our panel is a 5
prominent anti-nuclear activist.
6 I would propose that the Commission -- the NRC not 7
do this in a vacuum for the next two to three months, 8
involve the licensees, the working group here, and I would 9
involve some of these anti-nuclear folks as well as 10 interested community people and working through the process 11 so we all understand it.
12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Madame Chairman, there's 13 one
..at's a little perplexing to me, and we had Comed 14 in here recently and I just in passing asked how they were 15 doing on decommissioning, and they had not yet submitted 16 many of these relief requests for the Zion plant that's been 17 shutdown for some time and cold longer, and there's some 18 sort of different calculus at Zion, apparently, than at 19 Maine Yankee, and if there are $8 million of costs to avert, 20 I imagine I'd be trying to do that.
21 I guess what I'm trying to do.is question is the
-22
$8 million real for everyone, or is it somehow less in some 23.
specific circumstances?
24 MR. MEISNER:
It's less in some cases.
For 25 instance, if you at a multi-unit site, where you've got a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
S-75 1
couple of reactors operating and one shuts down, you 2
probably need to throw out the emergency planning portion 3
and maybe even the security portion of that.
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Because you have to 5
retain that anyway.
6 MR. MEISNER:
You have to retain that anyway.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
But Zion is closing down 8
t i units.
9 MR. MEISNER:
Yes.
I can't comment on Zion, but I 10 can point out that Maine Yankee, for instance, is a 11 single-asset utility.
That's all we're focused on managing.
12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
13 MR. MEISNER:
Whereas at Commonwealth, it's one of 14 10.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Twelve units, 10 operating.
16 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
There may be some 17 geographical reasons for that, too.
Yankees aren't prone to 18 liking to spending any money more than we have to.
19 MR. MEISNER:
I think I better go on.
20 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
The cheap Yankee is not i
21 a new term.
I'll put it that way.
22 MR. MEISNER:
Let me briefly shift gears, talk 23 about total solution, decommissioning licensees can't 24 fulfill their responsibilities without total solutions.
It 25 may be obvious, but we can't leave a single bundle in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-76 1
spent fuel pool, just because it's high burn-up or has some 2
other unique characteristic.
3 We need timely sitpport f rom NMSS to provide' all 4
our fuel a home in a dry cask, and we've begun working with 5
NMSS towards that end.
6 Similarly, we can't eliminate our Part 50 license only to find that EPA site clearance standards apply.
We 7
8 recognize that a Congressional solution is necessary and 9
that industry has the lead, and we'd be very much interested 10 in your views on various legislative options as we develop 11 them.
12 Thirdly, we've only got one chance at this.
13 Decommissioning licensees don't go through fuel cycles like 14 operating plants.
15 We only have one opportunity to correctly 16 decommission our facility, and every dollar we waste up 17 front'is unavailable for use later either in ALARA or return 18 to our rate-payer later, because.after all, it's not the 19 licensees that really pay for this decommissioning; it's the 20 rate-payers ultimately.
21 Next, overhead, please.
22 I'd like to pose a question, and that's what's the 23 problem here, and with all this as a backdrop, I believe~the 24 answer is twofold.
25 First, in large measure, the regulations did not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 m
S-77 1
anticipate or provide for decommissioning.
While 10 CFR 2
50.82 was a good step forward, it left a number of holes 3
that still need to be filled.
That's why we have exeiaptions
'4 and disputes over exemptions.
l 5
Secondly, in dealing with these holes, the 6
regulatory staff, up to this point, has not applied the 7
appropriate safety significance to their decisions.
8 In that respect, let me quote from a recent staff 9
report, the Maine Yankee Backfit Review Panel, addressing 10 the zire fire issue, and the panel noted that "Tbe panel l
11 believes that the staff sought to develop an absolute safety 12 finding rather than a risk-informed reasonable assurance 13 finding," unquote, in other words that staff was attempting 14 to make their decisions without considering event 15 probabilities and doing so by. regulating to a zero risk 16 standard.
17 That's why Maine Yankee was forced to spend that i
18
$8 million to achieve the zirc fire risk reduction.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So, what would you say with 20 respect to those two points in light of what the staff 21 presented to us?
22 MR. MEISNER:
I would say what my next overhead 23 is, and that's to suggest what the solution is.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, given that you've l
25 suggested this is the solution, do you think the path the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
S-78 1
staff has laid out moves along that line?
2 MR. MEISNER:
I do.
In fact, I think, today, NRR 3
and the decommissioning working group are quite in 4
lock-step.
We're in agreement on what the solution is.
5 You heard what John Zwolinski talked about, about 6
slowing down some of these ongoing actions and trying to 7
integrate all this together, and I think that's what we 8
need.
9 We need to use our combined deterministic and 10 probabilistic knowledge to risk-inform Part 50 for 11 decommissioning.
In our mind, this would involve an 12 integrated, holistic resolution across Part 50 using a 13 consistent safety basis.
14 It would address emergency planning, security, 15 insurance, operator licensing and training, and even 16 seemingly trivial issues such as station blackout.
17 I say this because we'know there's really no new 18
' safety issues in decommissioning.
We have enough technical 19 information developed over the years by the NRC and the 20 industry to answer any decommissioning question, and it's 21 only a matter of sufficient resolve to get on with it, and I 22 think today we have that resolve on the part of the industry 23 and on the part of the NRC.
24 The pending organization changes at NRR and the 25 willingness of management to pursue a holistic solution, I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-79 1
think, will benefit the staff and the industry.
2 And what can we achieve?
I talked a bit about 3
this at the regulatory information conference.
4 I think we can have regulations and staff i
S decisions that accurately reflect decommissioning safety 6
risk, and licensees can receive automatic regulatory relief 7-during the transition to decommissioning through 8
comprehensive rulemaking.
9 And how long will this take?
I think not long at 10 all.
11 You have before you, for instance, a staff 12 proposal on decommissioning security rulemaking, SECY 13 99-008.
In there, the staff is budgeting 2.4 FTE over a 14 two-year period to complete just the security rulemaking.
15 I'm confident -- and I'll echo what the staff said 16 earlier -- that if NRR would commit the right staff at a 17 level of just about one FTE over a two-month period, that 18 together we can provide an integrated solution across Part i
19 50.
1 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So, you think risk-informing 21 Part 50 can be one FTE over two months.
22 MR. MEISNER:
I do.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
In the decommissioning area.
24 MR. MEISNER:
I do.
And I think it's because 25 decommissioning is simple, and I might suggest, too, that I
f I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
S-80 maybe that would provide a road-map or a template for doing 1
2 the harder part, and that's the operating plants in the 3
future.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Are you speaking for all 5
nuclear power reactor licensees in wanting to risk-inform 6
Part 507 7
MR. MEISNER:
I'm-speaking for the decommissioning 8
working' group, and based on who I work for, I can speak for 9
sore of the other operating plants but not all of them.
10 I'm sure, though, that the operating facilities, 11 if tulo were put forward to them, wouldn't have any 12 objection.
13 Ralph, why do you think?
14 MR. BEEDLE:
I think the risk-informing is an 15 option that we need to certainly look at, and I think you're 16 looking at the body of decommissioning experience right here 17 in this working group.
18 So, to try and translate to the operating reactors 19 where they aren't currently looking at decommissioning, you 20 have the same problem we have with the 1993 rule-making that j
posed a problem in decommissioning that was never really
.21 uncovered or considered because we weren't really looking at
)
22 23 the decommissioning.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And that's why I raised the 25 issue about what does quickly mean and one FTE over two ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 d
r
(
S-81 l
1 months.
2 The process has to be one that engages all of the
)
3 stakeholders, including other reactor licensees, so that, in 4
the end, wherever we move, you know, we're sure that we have 5
a good sense of where the consensus is and that we've 6
involved the public, as well.
l 7
MR. BEEDLE:
Well, I would add that I think that's 8
one of the reasons that we probably see a different 9
situation today than we did in '83.
I think there is more 10 engagement between the industry and the NRC in dealing with 11 these issues; indeed, more engagement with the stakeholders 12 in general.
I think it will get us better results in the 13 long run.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
Commissioner 15 Merrifield.
16 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Madam Chairman, I don't 17 know whether there's -- I don't know what the truthfulness 18 is or accuracy of one FTE for Part 50.
I didn't know 19 whether the Staff wanted to take a crack at responding to 20 that or not.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I don't know that I -- well, 22 you can answer it, but I'm trying not to put you on the spot 23 on that.
24 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Well, perhaps it will be l
25 inappropriate --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
S-82 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
2 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
-- but I didn't know
--I 3
saw a lot of whispering in the back.
I didn't know whether 4
they --
5 (Laughter.]
6 MR. COLLINS:
On the contrary, that would be an 7
efficient and effective approach.
8 (Laughter.]
9 MR. COLLINS:
So that would certainly be met.
But 10 we are committed essentially at this point to do what it 11 takes.
We have to evaluate the effort.
Certainly working 12 with the industry, whether it's with the post-rulemaking 13 body industry or working through the efforts in conjunction 14 with the guidelines from OGC, my general feeling would be it 15 would be a bit more than that, but I'm not prepared to say 16 now.
17 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Okay.
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Twice?
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No, no, no, we are not 20-that's it.
I 21 MR. MEISNER:
Of course, I do want to include OGC 22 in that.
23 (Laughter. ]
24 MS, CYR:
Hey, we've got a good track record this 25 year.
_I got a license transfer out in three months on the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters J
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.-20036 (202) 842-0034 3
1
S-83 1
final rule.
2 MR. MEISNER:
My comment was predicated on the 3
notion that we know everything we need to know today.
It's 4
just a matter of pulling it together.
5 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
The reason I interjected 6
is I didn't want to leave the audience the impression that 7
we necessarily agreed with the one FTE, and that was really 8
the primary purpose, i
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
And I don't, either, but 11 I think Mr. Meisner is making a good point, that if a single 12 rulemaking is budgeted at 2.3 FTEs, there may well be a real 13 synergy in the holistic approach the Staff talked about 14 earlier.
2.3 times 5 or 6, whatever number of rulemakings 15 we finally have under way is a lot, and we hopefully can do 16 better than 15, you know, so we'll see.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
18 MR. MEISNER:
My last overhead, please.
19 Finally, a few words on the backfit rule.
I hope you know that all industry desires are regulations and Staff 20 decisions that do accurately reflect safety significance, 21 22 and there's really no benefit to spending a million dollar 23 per person-rem averted; in fact, it sends a very counterproductive message to the public, and that message is 24 25 that zero risk is valuable and achievable.
But we all know ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l k
S-84 1
that is not the case.
They are not achievable.
So what do 2
we put'in their place?
Well, simply put, we need a test 3
that balances safety benefit with cost impact on ensuring 4
that immediate safety issues are addressed, and that's all 5
the backfit rule does.
6 I think the industry, Staff, and Commission should 7
embrace the rule as the preferred means to ensure regulatory 8
balance for operating and decommissioning plants.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think we have done that.
10 MR. MEISNER:
And I believe that's the case with 11 the Commission, but I believe that the Staff has gotten into 12 the habit of avoiding its application, and this leads to a 13 very cynical outlook on the backfit by industry people.
if 14 you take a look at SECY 99-008, decommissioning security, l
15 and read through what the Staff discusses on backfit, I 16 think you will start to get a feel for what I mean.
It's a 17 very good example of avoiding the application of the backfit 18 rule.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What are your views on the 20 results, without putting you on the spot, of the backfit 21 appeal panel with respect to, you know, your issues at Maine 22 Yankee?
23 MR. MEISNER:
Very frankly, if you read the report 24 carefully, the panel backed up Maine Yankee on every single 25 issue.
Clearly indicated that the Staff did not risk-inform ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,,LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)-842-0034
S-85 1
this decision, they should have; that they were going for l
2 zero risk rather than reasonable assurance.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You know that the Cominission 4
has in fact embraced the concept of using the backfit rule 5
for decommissioning plants, and in fact has given the Staff 6
guidance to use it as much as possible and as is legal, 7
informally, today, in specific cases.
8 MR. MEISNER:
I do.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
10 MR. MEISNER:
My only point is to -- maybe to the 11 Staff, to make it the preferred mode.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I think we have given 13 them that guidance, and I would not like to see this 14 particular discussion on what are preferred approaches we 15 should take become an adversarial thing of, you know, versus 16 the Staff.
17 MR. MEISNER:
I agree.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Or Commission versus the Staff.
J 19 That's not going to help us.
20 MR. MEISNER:
Okay.
I guess I am trying to come l
t 21 to a common sense. view that if someone had evaluated the I
22 imposition of the zirc fire event a year and a half ago, and 23 brought probabilistic notions into it -- in other words, did 24 a backfit evaluation -- I firmly believe that your Staff and 25 my staff would have saved thousands of manhours over the f
r-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
i m
S-86 1
last year and a half, and much of it management time, and 2
set the stage for a rigorous decommissioning safety basis 3
today.
4 I sometimes think it's something -- we don't i
5 recognize what a valuable tool these safety cost-benefit 6
evaluations are and tend to shy away from them.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could I ask a question 8
with regard to the backfit analysis in the SECY paper you 9
just referenced?
I happen to have it with me here.
The 10 thrust of it is is there's an exception that applies, and 11 that seems to be what you are taking objection to.
Does 12 that -- the heart of this paper, as I said to the Staff 13 earlier, is whether we require a vehicle barrier system in 14 the post-shutdown state, although albeit presumably a 15 different one from what was there for the plant itself, or 16 whether we don't.
Option 1 is require everything we have 17 today; option 2 is go forward without a vehicle barrier 18 system; option 3, the preferred option of the Staff, is 19 including one.
20 Are you suggesting that if we subjected that to 21 not an exception approach but to backfit analysis, we would 22 end up with option 2 rather than option 3, or -- I'm just 23 trying to understand what you are saying in terms of its 24 implications for the options before us.
25 MR. MEISNER:
I'm saying a couple things.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I S-87 l
l.
1 First of all, the initial reason the Staff gave 2
for backfit and applicability, if I remember right, and I 3
don't have it in front of me, was that licensees can 4
continue to operate under the current regulations.
Is that 5
right?
Or am I --
l 6
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Well, I don't want to 7
hold them --
8 MR. MEISNER:
But that's the first step.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
i 10 MR. MEISNER:
And I would point out that there are 11
-- the fallacy in that argument is that there are holes in 12 the regulations.
50.82 didn't cover everything.
Thac's 13 what the Staff told us on emergency planning for Maine 14 Yankee.
You cannot decommission and still have on offsite 15 emergency planning program.
You cannot decommission and 16 still have a full-blown security program.
Eventually that's 17 got to go away, and for the Staff to say that licensees can 1E just continue to follow the regulations, I think is not 19 appropriate.
20 MS. HENDRICKS:
I think for clarification, the way-21 it was stated that was so disconcerting is that the first 22 exemption was it's a relaxation, therefore, backfit doesn't 23 apply, and if that is applied carte blanche, then anything l
24 in decommissioning inherently will be some relaxation, and 25 so backfit would never apply.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L
4 S-88 1
Now if you applied backfit between the options, 2
you may have a basis for doing --
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think what you really want to 4
say is you want to have some kind of safety benefit, I mean j
j 5
cost-benefit or --
I 6
MS. HENDRICKS:
Right.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- analysis done.
I think when 8
you -- everybody locks themselves into backfit language, 9
backfit does have a very specific, or has heretofore.had a 10 very specific meaning relative to, you know, increased 11 requirements, as opposed to reduced requirements.
And I 12 think what you are really trying to make the argument for is 13 that there needs to be a risk-informed cost-benefit 14 approach.
15 MR. MEISNER:
Also going from operating to 16 decommissioning, we don't evaluate what the level of burden 17 is for an operating plant to a decommissioning plant, but 18 evaluate.the requirement against the current condition of 19 the plant and see if the requirement is excessive with 20 respect to that condition.
21 But let me iust finish with one more sentence.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
If I can just add, I 23 think that points out the wisdom in that, yes, we apply 24 backfit, but I think what -- we also recognize that there is 25 a need for --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
S-89 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Absolutely.
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
-- rule language that 3
would have bette applied to the decommission state, because 4
the current language lends itself to sort of this legalistic 5
analysis that I think these folks are pointing out, and so 6
we can apply it to backfit and then it doesn't apply.
7 MS. HENDRICKS:
Never applies.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
9 MR. MEISNER:
So we wholeheartedly agree with the 10 Staff that now is the time to take an integrated approach to 11 risk, and to risk-informing Part 50 for decommissioning, and 12 we hope that it will be done by developing in short a 13 rulemaking package with a safety and backfit analysis as its 14 basis.
15 Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
17 I am going to go in inverse order.
Commissioner 18 Merrifield.
19 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Although I recognize 20 this is not as significant a problem at all for 21 decommissioned plants, given the public interest I feel 22 somewhat obligated to ask what is the current status of the 23 decommissioning plants as it relates to Y2K readiness?
24 MR. MEISNER:
Well, Ralph, I am sure, can answer 25 in detail, but one of the things you will see when you come i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1
Washington, D.C. 20036 (102) 842-0034
S-90 1
out to visit is that, like I said, everything is passively a 2
virtual computer system you have got to even perform a 3
function in the plant.
I can tell you from Maine Yankee's 4
point of view, we have got -- the only thing we are 5
concerned about is our general ledger, and that will be 6
fixed by the summertime.
7 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Well, I recognized that 8
that would be the answer.
I just wanted to make sure it was 9
on the public record.
10 Ralph, do you have anything about any of this?
11.
MR. BEEDLE:
We are confident there are no issues 12 associated with safe shutdown at Maine Yankee.
i 13
[ Laughter.]
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner McGaffigan.
15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
No further questions.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Diaz?
17 COMMISSIONER DIAS:
No further questions.
j 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Dicus?
19 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Well, I have to ask my 20 question that I asked about public involvement in the 21 decommissioning decision, if you have any thoughts on that.
22 Any of you.
23 MR. MEISNER:
I do.
I think a regulatory body can 24 ~
only go so far in dealing with public health and safety.
I 25 think there is a responsibility of the industry that picks i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i S-91 1
up at that point that gets out and involves its o
l 2
stakeholders, involves the community, to ensure that they l
3 have a stake or have input into decisions that really are 4
not part of the regulatory. oversight purview.
I think 5
that's very important.
6.
In fact, I am surprised I am talking so vehemently l
7 about this, because I am not sure I would have said that two 8
years ago, but it is clearly the case in decommissioning 9
Maine Yankee, We have had a lot of benefit from involving 10 the public, and we -- for instance, you have SAFSTOR versus
{
11 decon, that initial decision.
We had our community panel l
12 and a lot of attendees.
We had about three or four meetings l
13 over a period of four months where we talked that decision 14 in detail, and wanted to know what their feeling was on i
15 that.
It's a real valuable thing to do.
I don't think it's 16 your responsibility, though, so much as ours.
17 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Okay.
Let me just follow up 18 on that.
I have no compelling reason to change' our policy.
19 I am comfortable with where we are, and I think it's the 20 licensee's decision.
I just simply was a little taken aback 21 by what I heard, and then apparently it's a problem at SONGS 22 as well, or an issue at SONGS.
So I think as a 23 deconmissioning working group, just to raise your awareness, 24 if the public is getting in some areas concerned about this, 25 you should be aware of it.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L.
S-92 1
MR. MEISNER:.Thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
And you may want to 3
share your experiences with other members of the industry so 4
that perhaps this can be avoided at other plants that have 5
to go through this in the future.
i i
6 MR. BEEDLE:
We will do that.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think Commissioner Diaz had I
1 8
an additional question.
9 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I just wanted to say that we
{
l 10 seem to be compiling a list of elimination of zero factors, 11 zero risk, and I think the Staff talked about elimination of 12 zero heat transfer, and that's a very good one.
i 13 MR. MEISNER:
I agree, very much so.
j 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I would like to thank the j
i 15 NRC Staff and NEI for an informative briefing on Part 50 i
16 decommissioning issues, and I commend the NEI 17 decommissioning working group for its proactive efforts to 18 assist in highlighting areas for improvement.
And as I 19 mentioned in my opening comments, there have been some 20 successes in the NRC's decommissioning program, and there i
21 are obviously areas requiring additional attention, and 22 today's discussion helps to provide valuable insight into 23 areas where we should concentrate our future work effort.
24 And I am going to speak to the Staff because we are a 25 learning organization, and I believe that you have come a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
S-93 1
long way down the line.
2 As I say, you know, I commend you for, you know, 3
where you are going.
We await the outcomes, but I think we 4
are all part and party to the migration of a 40 year old 5
regulatory framework and all of the thinking that goes along i
6 with that.
And so I just want to encourage you along the
)
7 path that you have already started.
)
8 Thank you very much.
9 (Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m.,
the briefing was 10 concluded.]
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
j n
I
. i l
1
)
)
i i
1 l
4 I
{
I b
4 4
9 O
1 CERTIFICATE
)
l This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting i
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON PART 50 l
DECOMMISSIONING ISSUES PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland
)
DATE OF MEETING:
Wednesday, March 17, 1999 was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company Transcriber:
Natalie Renner Reporter:
Mark Mahonev 1
G N
NNM A
9
,N
- %, 1e$o, MT I
9 is k
d s,
MS sr 1
+
7 na e
ll O M a
1 ih v
loc e
+
C A h
wie
+
E R Rr c
r Z
G D
a t
G r
n n
M a
RO h
uh ot o
AER
a W
E IVR EV gn O
s k
i e
a N
g m
n O
2 a
e l
I h
u T
m c
r A
a e
d e
T t
u n
s a
N t
n s
g E
e n
i k
s S
m i
s s
n E
e ir n
o g
e R
a d
i t
c P
n n
c i
a a
a l
t m
y n
e r
t e
u w
e c
t f
e a
e u
N S
R F
=
s la ec ir n
e e
ta u
m qe) sG f
o G
nA o
S N a
c (P l
EI vo es UN m
se SO od e
di SIS r
u d
nG I
YIS n
e a
h n
wio RM y
t 3
OM a
nc c
oA T O d
e i
t A C c
v e
d c e L
h ui E
u t
dt U
d D
e w
e c i
r e
G r
t s
k o
ER k
e sr s
s iP RO r
ir a
A F
e t
n r
n P
o c
a a
d f
n e
cE i
t i
i r
i e
k nh p
s gt i
i i
O R
Sw
~
n i
seg n
n i
s a
e h
g c
n s
G a
e S N c
h i
f i
EI t
s UN S
u T
SO j
s e
SIS e
g e
if e
a c
l S) r i
YI t
c o
n s
n t
a t
RMn u
a s
r 4_
s u
j r
OMo l
k um e
s s
s a ugn T O (c issr f
ni A C r
i nag h
n e go L
niyo t
t ni E
i r
t a s U
cip wl t
i D
f t
l G
a u a e dpf o
redu c
ER peqn e yd s
t c
d RO o
f a
a nr r
n F
gon ce aa i
ne e
oge u
n efipn srt g
i t
f seies ga oi f
c a amn a aSSM kEOS nt s
C R
h i
n iaVm r
a t h e e Se ta s r
S t
n n r o oh i
N me I FS c
ri eL O
T 0
G 0
I 0
T 2
N CI n
i l
UN a
e s
s s
n n
o t
DO a no o
p t
al x
s l
Wh a a
d i
EI Tg S
S d
I l
R S qe0 s
s0 e
iu s0 s
iLL1 ed EI 1
v e M
m r s C
oo o
tcp N M t
t s
o ai B
ed EO r
5 e
ihR
&e l
ga e
mcW s
UC r a es t
r i
or s eeB ge QE of FPV av f
tS O1 o o r
r E D y
t r
F st c D
S 3
ya SG t
2 r
e ek n
y dr ec oi e
1 k e co w
a N N nNeP o
n B
dd t
i1 ee a
S R
o et OI Ymoc e1 Pnsl nn l
l k
d t t C R e ah o
'n e s eso aa nd ob le nd cR 2 mm ak gas r
jnnieCm U
u id n I
ss F
aaaiMo aod g
r r a u ii d
p et u MHRBTTYSInDLH dd E D nt I yy t
S mpe aa r r ea i
LSH mm i
O 1
iir r e2 PP D
+
n&
o1 1 2 t
E n n sn t
M e w lio l
n o Mi ITya Z
s imd f
i e
t tr r u t
eeh o
CPS N
\\
l l
ll IilJ'
!l
~
ec no "e
n a
E r
i l
t t
o c
b p
C e
d eg f
i T
e o
e c n I
d t
i r
ck r
C ir p
c a a a
y om A
v a
t l
lb nle R
s c
a u
i i
P a
n n
dr h
a o
ed Y
s n
s v n i
R n
s f
a l
e oa o
n e
r v s s
O i
t s
o t
e n i
T pe s
it e
eo 6
A mn p
f r
ri f
i it ed m
o f
f c
L xe y
ya U
er e
7 a
x o
og 2
G gp e
l l
1 a
an ne l
c cis E
ir a
3 r
r vp c
9 n
R o
i i
i z
z e r
ys t
pcde n
Y f
c T
pnr c
e C
7 oi 2
l ae n
d E
nr a
1 S
gu a
S i
oo r
r gr o
3 i f A
o eeu n
n 9
s a f
P smfa s o
ui Y
l r
n s
ESi M
C ce i
u ei s
t a
h R
E r
r B
T S
S Pc l
llll lll l
l l
-e m
i t
dna de d
t W
a e
c n
E o
i l
i p
t IV m
se T
o u
c N
q 7
e y
E r
t a
i R
l i
s b
R e
a U
s t
y c
C a
d l
i n
e a
rp e
r g
y f
n r
i o
i ym t
o a
u l
las u
cn g
io e
r Zc R
l l)
de ta i
t i
s n
n i
re e
c b
n o
o t
c s
d s
g e
r D
s n
e d
e k
e i
d R
r i
)
d a
r s
s A
d m
e n
h d
o t
W a
e n
is c
l l
o u
n s
R l
e i
m r
w o
r l
O f
c o
u 8
F h
o t
o d
c h
c w
e a
n c
a t
h G
o o
a f
(
c r
t o
k p
s i
N p
a r
s u
p u
p d
I ir o
O a
p r
n la a
t G
d v
n G
a e
e d
e n
g t
e e
d a
n a
r l
m n
p i
r e
k g
d r
e e
o p
r s
t t
f e
o i
n a
n d
W tu r
i i
g k
e C
p w
e s
m R
u t
e t
i i
N n
R T
N O
I l
l l
{ll
)se ta m
i ts E
t S
s U
o T
C A
c if T
)
i e
c S
c e
s p
n G
a d
S r
r N
u a
e u
t I
s K
n g
S i
e
(
I A
(
f g
a e
n M
n S
c o
E n
/y n
i it a
L c
n t
i r
e a
r u
U u
s t
l o
P c
g s
R rP y
e n
A i
c S
ff l
la n
a a
l e
a t
i ic g
c S
cn i
n r
s t
f a
a e
y i
n m
h h
n i
F E
P S
F i
ll\\l l
!11 l1l1 SE e
l U
u r
S n
)
S o
n t
s o
I i
e i
l G
a n
a e
c t
n o
e r
n i
l N
i t
g e
p a
i m
m I
a a
a r
t N
r u
t e
r r
o t
o o
m c
ss O
t e
p s
d r
a IS s
s n
n e
e o
l t
f a
S e
a s
a d
c t
i l
I c
r a
a n
o n
M s
w m
t i
i l
i d
o r
a M
e n
p C
a e
n h
a s
f t
p i
O t
s n
e g
i f
e d
s o
C o
g a
c m
n E
n a
e l
i i
r t
f t
n D
o o
s C
o o
(
t t
a n
e n
s t
i i
a s
w a
s e
s R
t h
a l
m m
E n
e e
t e
l i
e u
v r-b H
m e
e e
l f
m m
r T
e n
t l
ta e
o o
O p
e w
e e
l t
c p
o r
r n
e m
S L
G F
E D
I
\\llll Il 1
i l
sgn n
ik e
a d
m r
e u
b lu r
y y
r r
m o
a t
o h
a m
r l
c u
f 1
a t
1 m
d o
u g
e r
p e
u n
p n
r y
S a
r p
i i
g a
re a
d d
s s
s e
s l
th e
t o
e g
u a
h c
r s
g e
e is s
k n
e n
i t
a n
i s
n t
u s
e s
i b
e e
e e
l s
r r
c a
s u
u u
u a
s s
d la e
n n
e V
R E
E R
r 4
)
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a mr
'g of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on March 17, 1999, in the Commission's office at One White 1
i Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
l The transcript is intended solely for general I
informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is i
not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this tre.nscript do not necessarily reflect final determinatinn or beliefs..
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
6