ML20211F907
| ML20211F907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1997 |
| From: | Casey Smith NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Kilkelly M SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710010273 | |
| Download: ML20211F907 (13) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _
Sept:mber 18, 1997 e
i The Honorable Marge L. Kilkelly Maine State Senator l
Post Office Box 180 Wiscasset. Maine 04578
Dear Senator Kilkelly:
Thank you for your support in chairing the October 7. 1997. public meeting on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decommissioning process for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station.
I have enclosed three documents to assist you in preparing for the meeting.
The first is a listing of several administrative i'. ems associated with the i
meeting.
The second is a briefing package containing a short discussion of the regulations governing the decommissioning process along with some useful background information on other nuclear power plants that have either gone through or are in the process of decommissioning. The final document is a l
transcript from the January 15. 1997, public n;eeting held in the vicinity of the Connecticut Yankee nuclec power plant at which the NRC staff made a presentation similar to what will be presented on October 7 in Wiscasset.
If you require any other assistance or have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (301) 415-1427.
Sincerely.
Original signed by Craig W. Smith Project Manager Project Directorate 1-3 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTLOR Docket F1 e (50-309)
R -I
- b. chq ' R -r PUBLIC c.cowDm '
/
PDI-3 Rdg.
C. Sm1th 5 MSS
/
D. Dorman f)
I i: 21%"
idHC RLE CBIER COPY M. Ca.tMm DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SMllH\\KILKELLY.LTR
' see prov6ous concunence
/
T) receive a copy of tNo document. Indmete in the boa: 'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E' = Copy with attachment /enclosupe k efdo copy 0FFICE PDI 3/PM,jg l
PDI 3/PM l
PDIV.2 l
(A)pt % V l
liAME CSmith M DDorman 'b M EPeyton*
REaldn DATE 09/n t/97 09/ d /97 09/17/97 09/ R /97 OfflCIAL RECORD COPY 9710010273 970910 PDR ADOCK 05000309 W
.1
+ --g m,
,s PUBLIC 0FFICIAL NOTES FOR NRC DECOMMISSIONING PUBLIC MEETINGS 1.
Introduce yourself (and your title if you think it's necessary) and indicate that the purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for the j
NRC to describe the decomissioning process.
You may also want to note that the utility has also been invited to introduce some of their key decommissioning team members and to briefly describe their plan for decommissioning.
2.
Stress that this is a meeting to exchange information.
It is 001 a hearing.
You may also want to note that this meeting is to discuss the decommissioning process -- a future meeting will be held to discuss the Maine Yankee Post-shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR). the document that the utility has submitted to the NRC which describes their planned activities.
3.
State that there is an agenda for the meeting and it is available in the back of the room. Or ask anyone who does not have a copy of the agenda to raise their hand and the NRC statf members will distribute copies to them.
4.
Go over the agenda items and bring attention to the public comment section.
Explain that questions about a presentation should be asked at the end of the presentation.
Anyone desiring to make a stateent on the agenda topics should wait until the public comment period.
If pr.'ple desire to make a statement please sign up on the list that will be provided.
Statements should be limited to 5 minutes.
Stress that in the interests o' time you will cut the speaker off at 5 minutes. The NRC will accept any statements or written material on the subject if an individual has more than 5 minutes of material.
Stress that people who want to speak should sign up so that an order can be established for asking questions and making comments.
5.
Comments on a presentation should be raised at the conclusion of the presentation.
6.
There will be a second sign-up sheet in the back that asks for the name and address of anybody who wants to be put you on a temporary mailing list to receive any future correspondence that is issued by the NRC on the issues discussed during the meeting.
After the NRC takes final action on these given issue, people will no longer receive documents.
Caution that this is expensive, may involve substantial paper and in the interest in conservation, we encourage sharing.
Also remember all these documents are in the NRC local public document room located at the Wiscasset Public Library on High Street.
7.
Please note that the meeting is being transcribed.
There will be a third sign up sheet H t N back that asks for the name and address of those who wish to receive.9 copy of proceedings.
Single copies of the transcription will be mailed to anyone that signs up on that list.
Since the transcript could exceed 100 pages, we encourage people to share copies.
8.
Since the meeting will be transcribed. ask that each person who wishes to speak should state their name before they ask their question or make their comment.
If somebody has a particularly difficult name, please spell it for the transcriber. When recognized. questioners or commenters should move to the aisies and use one of the floor microphones.
If they do not, and ask the question from their seat, the transcriber will likely not hear the question.
9.
The NRC will append onto the transcription a copy of all ov chead slides presenteu during the meeting.
If anyone has material that they would liks to place in the transcript, they can provide it to the NRC Project Manager.
li it is a few pages, he'll include it in the transcript, but if it is more than a few pages he will likely ask for a summary page.
10.
The NRC Project manager will review the transcription before he mails it out and will make any minor changes to correct obvious errors (spelling, misidentified terms or acronyms etc) in what was said.
This will be done by pen and ink so the words as originally transcribed will be preserved.
Since this is an information meeting and is not part of any formal proceeding speakers will not get the opportunity to correct their statements before it is released to the public.
This is principally in the interest of getting the transcription out to the public as soca as possible.
- 11. Stress that the agenda is extensive and that in the interest of getting people home at a decent hour you will insist that people keep to the schedule.
(Do not hesitate to cut people off if necessary -- given them a 2-minute warning to complete their presentation and if they do not end in the additional 2 minutes intervene.)
12.
Encourage people to talk to the licensee and the NRC representatives during the break because the NRC does want to exchange information.
13.
Media.
If media is present ask that they conduct any interviews outside of the meeting room, preferably at the break or after the meeting.
Normally an NRC public affairs person will be present to talk to the media.
- 14. Administrative issues.
Identify the location of rest rooms, places where parking is illegal, etc., as you deem appropriate.
1
C BP24 (9/97)
DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 8 Backaround i
Decommissioning means to remove a facility or site from service i
and reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use or under restricted conditions, and termination of the license.
When a licensee announces its decision to permanently close their nuclear power plant, decommissioning must occur.
The licensee's decisions are based on economic and technical considerations.
Some facilities have begun decommissioning before their operating licenses expired and earlier than originally anticipated.
Decommissioning highlights for individual plants are presented in Tables 1 and 9 Discussion Decommissioning involves three different alternatives
- DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.
Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), soon after the nuclear facility closes, equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Under SAFSTOR, often considered " delayed DECON," a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; aftorwards, it is dismantled.
Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally sound material such as concrete and apprcpriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.
To be acceptable, decommissioning must be completed within 60 years.
A time beyond that will be considered only when necessary to protect public health and safety in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.
Reculations The procedure for decommissioning a nuclear power plant is set out principally in NRC regulations 10 CFR Parts 50.75, 50.82, 51.53, and 51.95.
When the NRC initially issued decommissioning regulations in 1988, it was assumed that decommissioning would occur after the facility's operating license expired.
The licensee was obligated to submit a preliminary decommissioning plan five years before the license expired containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date technical assessment of the factors that could affect planning for decommissioning.
Then, within one year before expiration of the
BP24 (9/97) license, (or two years after operation for plants closing before tboir license expires) a licensee had to submit to NRC an tpplication for authority to decommission that facility, together with an environmental report covering the proposed decommissioning activities.
However, several licenseem have permanently closed their plant prematurely without havii.g submitted the documentation required under the regulations.
In addition, these licensees requested exemptions from some safety requirements because they no longer had fuel in the reactor.
Because the regulations did not specifically address prematurely shutdown facilities, these l
situations were handled on a case-by-case basis.
In August 1996, a revised rule went into effect that redefines the decommissioning process and requires licenrees to provide the NRC with early notification of planned decommissioning activities at their facilities.
The rule makes the decommissioning process more efficient and uniform.
It provides for public participation in the decommissioning process and gives plant personnel a clearer understanding of the process for transitioning from an operating organization to a decommissioning organization.
The revisions to the regulations on decommissioning power reactors require that:
(a) Within 30 days after a nuclear power plant licensee decidos to cease operations permanently, the licenseo must submit a written certification to the NRC, and (b) When the licensee permanently removes radioactive nuclear fuel from the reactor vessel, the licensee must submit another written certification to the NRC.
When NRC receives these certifications, the licensee loses its authority to operate the reactor or load fuel into the reactor vessel.
This reduces the licensee's annual fee and eliminates the obligation to adhere to certain requirements needed only during reactor operation.
Within two' years after submitting the certification of permanent closure, the licensee must submit a post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC.
This report must provide a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, along with a schedule for accomplishin3 them, and an estimate of the expected costs.
In the PSDAR, the licensee is required to discuss the reasons for concluding that environmental impacts associated with the site-specific decommiusioning activities have already been addressed in previous environmental reports, otherwise, the licensee has to request a license amendment for approval of the activities and submit to the NRC an environmental report on the additional decommissioning impacts.
BP24 (9/97)
After receiving a PSDAR, the NRC publishes a notice of receipt, makes the PSDAR available for public review and comment, and holds a public meeting in the vicinity of the plant to discuss the licensee's intentions, j
Ninety days after the NRC receives the PSDAR, and generally 30 days after the public meeting, the licensee can begin major decommissioning activities without specific NRC approval.
These activities could include permanent removal of such major components as the reactor vessel, steam generators, large piping systems, pumps, and valves.
However, decommissioning activities conducted without specific prior NRC approval must nott foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, a
4 result in there being no reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for decommissioning, cause any significant environmental impact not previously e
reviewed.
If any decommissioning activity does not meet these terms, the licensee is required to submit a license amendment request, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.
Initially, the licensee can use up to three percent of the amount specified in NRC's regulations (10 CFR 50.75) for decommissioning without prior NRC approval.
An additional 20 percent can be used 90 days after submittal of the PSDAR.
The remaining decommissioning trust funds are then available when the licensee submits a detailed site-specific cost estimate to the NRC.
Rulemakino A proposed rule, entitled " Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste," addresses physical protection requirements for the storage of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste in a permanently shutdown reactor, independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), monitored retrievable storage installation, or a geologic repository.
The Commission is reviewing policy aspects of ISFSI safeguards before any further action is taken on the proposed rule.
Significant revisions to the rule will be subject to public comment.
A proposed rule on nuclear power reactor decommissioning financial assurance implementation requirements is currently under Commission review.
Other rulemakings that are anticipated include: a revision of regulations to address indemnity issues as a function of spent fuel pool cooling periods, site specific decommissioning cost requirements based on actual data, and funding.
BP24 (9/97)
Prematurelv Shutdown Planta since the original decommissioning rule was published in 1988, nine power reactor facilities have shut down prematurely
- Fort St. Vrtin Nuclear Generating Station,
- Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
- Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station,
- Yankee Rowe Nuclear Station,
- San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1,
- Trojan Nuclear Plant,
- Haddam Neck Plant, and
- Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station
- Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, also ceased operation after the March 28, 1979, accident.
In addition, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 and Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3, and Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor, which were shut down in 1974, 1978, 1980, and 1987, respectively, are currently undergoing decommissioning.
Anoroved Decommissionina Plans Before the revisions to the regulations became effective on August 28, 1996, liennsees that had permanently ceased operations were required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC.
The l
NRC reviewed the decommissioning plan and determined its impact on the environment through an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment.
If the NRC found the proposed decommissioning plan to be satisfactory, it issued an order that approved the proposed decommissioning plan and authorized decommissioning.
Upon completion of decommissioning activities, including the final radiation survey, the NRC issued an order that terminated the license.
In June 1992, the NRC issued an order to Long Island Power Authority, approving the Shoreham decommissioning plan.
Long Island Power Authority announced completion of dismantlement of the facility in October 1994.
The NRC terminated the Shoreham license in April 1995.
In November 1992, the NRC issued an order approving the Fort St.
Vrain decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities were completed in December 1996.
The NRC terminated the Fort St.
Vrain license on August 5, 1997.
The NRC approved Yankee Rowe's decommissioning plan on February 14, 1995.
Subsequently, due to a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, the Commission rescinded its approval on October 12, 1995.
A hearing was conducted and on October 18, 1996, the Commission denied the most recent petition regarding the decommissioning plan.
On October 28, 1996, the NRC informed Yankee Atomic that decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.
BP24 (9/97)
On June 16, 1993, the NRC issued its safety evaluation and environmental assessment of the Rancho seco decommissioning plan.
The plan proposes safe storage (SAFSTOR) of the facility for about 20 years followed by dismantlement and decontamination.
Approval of the decommissioning plan was delayed because of contentions raised by the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO).
However, ECO reached a settlement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the licensee for Rancho Seco, and on August 1, 1994, withdrew from the proceeding.
The staff reviewed and updated its previous safety evaluation and issued the order authorizing decommissioning of Rancho Seco on March 20, 1995.
On January 31, 1996, the NRC issued an order approving the Indian Point $ decommissioning plan and authorizing SAFSTOR decommissioning.
On April 15, 1996, the NRC issued an order approving the Trojan decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are ongoing.
CONTACT:
Seymour H. Weiss, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 0-11 BOC, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-2170.
BP24 (9/97)
TABLE 1 DECOMMISSIONING HIGHLIGHTS l
INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 October 31, 1974, plant permanently shut down because its emergency core coolin, system did not meet current regulatory requirements.
January 1976, reactor defueled.
June 19, 1980, NRC order revoked authority to operate plant.
October 17, 1980, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan.
NRC review prompted numerous supplemental licensee submittals.
January 31, 15J6, NRC issued order approving decommissioning plan and authorizing decommissioning.
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 July 2, 1976, plant shut down due to seismic issues.
July 30, 1984, Decommissioning Plan submitted.
f July 19, 1988, SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan approved.
Spent fuel (390 assemblies) to remain onsite in the spent fuel pool until a federal repository is available.
DRESDEN UNIT 1 October 31, 1978, plant shut down to meet new federal regulations and to perform chemical decontamination of major piping systems.
January 7, 1986, licensee announced decision to decommission the plant, rather than comply with regulations imposed from the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
July 23, 1986, license amended to possession only license (POL) status.
September 3, 1993, decommissioning plan approved.
January 25, 1994, licensee personnel discovered about 55,000 gallons of water in tne containment building.
Source of water was a service water line that had frozen and ruptured within the unheated containment.
Water pumped from the containment building for processing by the site radwaste system.
NRC conducted a two-week special team inspection that identified numerous discrepancies that the licensee had to address.
July 13, 1994, licensee submitted a check for $200,000 in response to the NRC-imposed civil penalty for its failure to maintain required systems and adequate staff in accordance with Dresden Unit i decommissioning plan.
e BP24 (9/97)
LA CROSSE l
April 30, 1987, plant permanently shut down.
August 7, 1991, SAFSTOR decommissioning plan was approved.
FORT ST. VRAIN August 18, 1989, plant permanently shut down because of failed control rod drives and degradation of steam generator ring header.
May 21, 1991, license amended to possession only license June 11, 1992, all fuel placed in an ISFSI.
November 23, 1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan.
September 1, 1993, completed removal of the pre-stressed concrete reactor vessel top head.
April 1, 1994, all graphite reflector blocks removed from the reactor vessel and shipped to the low-level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.
December 1996, dismantlement and decontamination complete.
August 5, 1997, license terminated.
SHOREHAM June 28, 1989, licensee's shareholders approved agreement with the New York State to not operate the facility.
August 24, 1989,. reactor vessel defueled.
June 14, 1991, license amended to POL status.
February 29, 1992, license transferred to Long Island Power Authority for decommissioning of plant.
June 11, 1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan.
September 1993, began transfer of fuel to Limerick; completed June 1994.
October 1994, dismantlement completed; confirmatory surveys ccnducted.
April 11, 1995, decommissioning complete, POL terminated.
RANCHO SECO June 7, 1989, plant shut down because voters approved non-binding referendum prohibiting operation.
December 8, 1989, reactor vessel defueled.
March 17, 1992, license amended to POL status.
Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO) active intervenor in proposed decommissioning plan.
June 16, 1993, NRC issued safety evaluation and environmental assessment of proposed decommissioning plan.
November 30, 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) admitted for hearing certain contentions associated with decommissioning funding and costs of Rancho Seco independent spent fuel storage installation.
BP24 (9/97)
August 1, 1994, ECO reached settlement with sacramento Municipal Utility District and filed notice of withdrawal; ASLB terminated proceeding.
September 2, 1994 decommissioning order authorized.
March 20, 1995, NRC issued order approving SAFSTOR decommissioning plan.
l YANKEE ROWE l
October 1, 1991, plant shut down and vessel defueled because of concerns about reactor vessel integrity.
February 27, 1992, licensee announced permanent closure because of inability to address uncertainties associated I
with the safety margin of the reactor vessel.
August 5, 1992, license amenced to POL status.
November 16 to December 8, 1993, licensee shipped four steam generators and pressuriter to the low-level waste burial site in Barnwell, South Carolina.
February 14, 1995, NRC approved SAFESTOR decommissioning plan.
March 23, 1995, Yankee Atomic applied for a (10 CFR 71) license to ship the reactor vessel.
The vessel was shipped in spring 1997.
Yankee considering dry cask storage of its spent fuel; no final decision yet.
l THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 March 28, 1979, accident occuriou the plant that caused s
permanent cessation of operations.
January 30, 1990, reactor was defueled.
August 12, 1993, processing of accident-generated water was completed.
September 14, 1993, POL amendment was issued.
December 28, 1993, post-defueling monitored storage (PDMS) technical specifications were issued.
SAN ONOFRE, UNIT 1 November 30, 1992, based on settlement agreement with California Public Utilities Commission licensee permanently shut down plant rather than bring it into compliance with current NRC safety requirements.
October 23, 1992, POL amendment was i ssued.
Amendment became effective March 9, 1993, when reactor vessel was certified as completely defueled.
December 28, 1993, issued technical snecifications for permanently defueled plant.
November 3, 1994, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan for NRC review.
BP24 (9/97)
TROJAN January 4, 1993, licensee announced permanent closure.
January 27, 1993, reactor defueled.
May 5, 1993, NRC issued POL amendment.
November 1994, licensee started removal of steam generators and pressurizer for shipment to the U.S.
Ecology low-level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.
January 26, 1995, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan.
November 1, 1995, licensee removed large components.
March 31, 1996, issued technical specifications for permanently defueled plant.
April 15, 1996, NRC issued order approving the decommissioning plan.
HADDAM NECK July 22, 1996, reactor shut down.
December 5, 1996, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company announced permanent closure and removal of fuel from reactor vessel.
August 22, 1997, licensee submitted PSDAR proposing immediate dismantlement.
MAINE YANKEE December 12, 1996, reactor shut down.
August 7, 1997, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company provided certifications of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel.
August 27, 1997, licensee submitted PSDAR proposing immediate dismantlement.
BIG ROCK POINT February 27, 1995, licensee submitted SAFSTOR decommissioning plan to NRC in anticipation of May 31, 2000, expiration of operating license.
June 11, 1997, Consumers Power announced planned final shutdown in August 1997.
August 29, 1997, reactor shut down.
l TABLE 2 REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING STATUS DOCKET NO.
THERMAL SHUT PRESENT FUEL REACTOR POWER LOCATION DOWN STATUS ONSITE?
50-3 Indian Point 1 615 MW Buchanan 10/31/74 SAFSTOR Yes (PWR)
New York 50-10 Dresden 1 700 MW Morris 10/31/78 SAFSTOR Yes (BWR)
Illinois 50-16 Fermi 1 200 MW Monroe Co.
09/22/72 SAFSTOR No (Fast Breeder)
Michigan 150-18 GE VBWR 50 MW Alameda Co.
12/09/63 SAFSTOR No (BWR)
California 50-29 Yankee Rowe 600 MW Franklin Co. 10/01/91 DECON Yes (PWR)
Massachusetts 50-130 Pathfinder 190 MW Sioux Falls 09/16/67 DECON No (Nuclear Superheat BWR)
South Dakota NRC Part 30 i
50-133 Humboldt Bay 3 200 MW Eureka 07/02/76 SAFSTOR Yes (BWR)
California 50-144 CVTR (Pressure 65 MW Parr 01/ /67 SAFSTOR No Tube, Heavy Water)
- 5. Carolina 50-171 Peach Bottom 1 115 MW York Co.
10/31/74 SAFSTOR No (HTGR)
Pennsylvania 50-206 San Onofre 1 1347 MW San Clemente 11/30/92 SAFSTOR Yes (PWR)
California 50-213 Haddam Neck 1825 MW Haddam 07/22/96 DECON Yes (PWh)
Connecticut 50-267 Fort St. Vrain 842 MW Platteville 08/18/89 License Yes (HTGR)
Colorado Terminated 08/05/97 50-309 Maine Yankee 2700 MW Bath 12/12/96 DECON Yes (PWR)
Maine 50-312 Rancho Seco 2772 MW Sacramento 06/07/89 SAFSTOR Yes (PWR)
California 50-320 Three Mlle 2772 MW Middletown 03/28/79 SAFSTOR*
No (PWR)
Island 2 Pennsylvania 50-322 Shoreham 2436 MW Suffolk Co.
06/28/89 License No (BWR)
New York Terminated 04/11/95 50-344 Trojan 3411 MW Portland 11/09/92 DECON Yes (PWR)
Oregon 50-409 Lacrosse 165 MW Lacrosse 04/30/87 SAFSTOR Yes (BWR)
- Post-defueling monitored storage (PDMS).
O 8
g 1
UNITED STATES OF AMER 2CA 2
+++++
3-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
+++++
5 PUBLIC HEARING 6
+++++
7 THURSDAY 8
JANUARY 15, 1997 i
9
+++++
10 HIGGANUM, CONNECTICUT 11
+ + +.+ +
12 The Public Hearing was held at the Haddam 13 Killingsworth High School, in the cafeteria, Little City 14 Road, Higganum, Connecticut, Marjorie DeBold, presiding.
15 PRESENT:
16 From Northeast Utilities:
17 TED FEIGENBAUM 18 JERE LAPLATNEY 19 From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
20 DR. MICHAEL MASNIK 21 GENE IIOLLER 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 234 4433 a.h{h?
I_$by,
2 1
A-G-E-N D-A i
2-OPENING REMARKS
-3 BY MS. MARJORIE DEBOLD -
3 i
4 PRESENTATION BY TED FEIGENBAUM 8
{
5 PRESENTATION BY JERE LAPLATNEY 18 i
6 QUESTION AND ANSWER. SESSION 29 i
7 PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL MASNIX 49 r
8 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 66 l
9 PUBLIC.-COMMENTS 89 10 CLOSING COMMENTS F
11.
BY MS. MARJORIE DEBOLD 128 12 t
13 i
i 14 15 i
16 1
17-t i
18 19 --
20 r
i 21-22 T
23 24
'25 1
1 NEAL R. GROSS.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
-(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000lk3701 (202) 234 4433
_,.. _ :.u.....-.. _, _..._._.. ;..
.._..-,___,_-..._-..--,__..._,.,_u--._.u-,..
_. _ -.. -. - _. _.... - - ~,
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(7:00 p.m.)
3 MS. DEBOLD:
Welcome to Haddam, one of the 4
great towns in Connecticut.
We are glad to have you here.
5 I'm Marjorie Debold, the first selectman of Haddam.
6 I'd like to let you know, right away, that 7
this is just an information meeting.
It is not a hearing 8
in the formal sense.
There is an agenda for the meeting, 9
and there were some copies around, I believe.
If there 10 were, they are gone, but I will review it.
11 Is there anyone who doesn't have an agenda, 12 were they passed out?
They may be all gone, but I can run 13 through the agenda, and speak to each of the items.
14 First, a little bit of housekeeping.
There 15 are men's and women's lavatories at the back of the room, 16 around the corner.
There are lavatories down the hall, 17 behind me.
The emergency exits are marked.
18 There is a concert that will be going on 19 shortly, and it is in the auditorium.
You can go there 20 after we finish here, or maybe they will come up after 21 they= finish.
22
-Let me go over the agenda just very quickly.
23 Itcmust be 7 o' clock on a Wednesday.
If you wish to speak 24 or make comments, there is a sign-up sheet over to my 25 left.
The comment period will be at the end.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE;, N W.
' (202) 234-4433 WASHtNGToN D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
4 1
At the bsginning, after I introduce myself, 2
describe _very briefly, most of you know already, the 3
purposes of the meeting.
Shortly thereafter, Ted 4
Feigenbaum of Northeast Utilities and Jere LaPlatney, also 5
of Connecticut Yankee, plant manager, will outline for you 6
the future plans for the plant.
7 If you have a question following that 8
presentation, and if you would wait until the end, if you 9
can, they will be happy to answer your question.
And if 10 you raise your hands, I will point or whatever.
And if r
11 you go to a mike, to be heard, please.
And I will explain 12 why in just a minute.
t 13 Following that presentation, Mr. Michael 14 Masnik of the NRC will describe the decommissioning 15 regulations and proposed future NRC oversight.
- Again, 16 there will be a short question and answer period,_same 17 relatively easy manner of responding.
18 And then by 9 o' clock, if we could, we would 19-like to open it for public comment.
Several of you have 20 signed up already.
We will try to-limit that, we will 21 find out how many people signed up, and we will divide the 22 hour2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> into the number of people or something akin to that, 23 and maybe try to hold it down to three minutes for l
l 24 comments, if we can.
l 25 And at 10, I would like to close the meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHoOE ISt.AND AVE.. N W.
i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433 l
....u
.. a
-,,_ m _. _ _. _ ___ _.
5 1
I'm sure there will be other opportunition, so if we ccn 2
try to keep to a fairly close time schedule.
i 3
Just trying to skip through and make sure I 4
don't miss anything.
If you wish to give a written j
5 statement, the NRC will accept those.
If it is something 1
6 that is very short, or of a summary nature, it probably 7
will be included with the written communication that will 1
i 8
come out following this meeting.
If it is very long$
a i
9 please try to abbreviate it.
l People that do not want to speak, do not need j
10 f
]
11 to sign up, of course.
But people who do wish to speak or 12 make public comment should sign up.
And that will happen, 4
13 hopefully, starting at 9 o' clock.
14 There is a second sign-up sheet, again, over l
15-to my left, that asks for your name and address if you 16 would like a copy of. tonight's proceedings.
As you have 1
l 17 noticed, we are having this meeting transcribed.
18 Not that it is a formal hearing,.but rather to 19 make sure that we understand what questions were raised 20
..d what comments were made.
Single copies of that 21 transcript will be mailed to anyone who signs up for it.
22 Any group or individual who would like to distribute i
1 23 information should have a table, again to my left, and 1.
24 hopefully that is where you will pick up materials.
25 Since the meeting is being transcribed, please 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N.W.
I' (202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433
6' 1
make sure when you opsak, that you give your noms.
And if 2
it is one that might be confusing to the person 3-transcribing the meeting, if you would spell it.
4 Also, if you have a question or comment, again 5
following the presentations, don't forget, if you will 6
raise your hand I'll point to indicate, and then do go and 7
use one of the microphones in the aisle, so that you can 8'
be heard, and then also so-that it can be transcribed 9
properly.
10 At the end of the evening's proceedings, tl.e 11 transcript and a copy of the overhead slides will be bound 12 into that transcription.
It will be, again, you can 13 receive it, I'm sure I will have it, and any material that 14 you wish to have included there, should be riven to the 15 NRC project manager.
It could go right here to Mort
,16 Fairtile, or to Mike Masnik.
17 Remember, if it is a few pages, I'm sure they 18' will include it, and if it is more than that, if it could 19 have a summary page.
-20 The NRC project manager will review the 21 transcription before he mails it out, and will make minor 22 changes to correct any obvious errors, but it is going to 23 be-done in pen, so you will get whatever the transcription 24 says, as it was originally transcribed.
25 Since this is an information meeting and it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701
'(202) 23W33
y l
1 not part of a formal proceeding, spankora will not get the 2
opportunity to correct -- this is, principally, in the I
3 interest of getting the transcription out, so that the 4
public can have it as soon as possible.
5 As you can see, from hearing the agenda, there 6
is a lot of ground to cover.
I will try to insist that we i
7 keep to the schedule.
I will cut you off, I brought my 8-egg timer.
It has a little 20 second beeping series'that 9
I can stop, but hopefully I will not even have to use it.
4 10 You are encouraged,.by the way, to ask 11 questions and later to make comments.
And I certainly_
12 don't mean to be flip about limiting your time, but it is 13 important' that we try to give everybody a chance to speak 14 who wishes to.
- 15 If we take a break, or at the end of the meeting, you are, of course, free to speak to the NRC 17 people who will be here.
And I'm sure that.the NU
~
18 personnel will be around, also.
19 For those of you who are media people, I would 1
20 ask -- and they've been very good today -- they generally 21 are, I don't mean to say that.
If they wish to interview, 22 I would ask that they do it outside of this room, or 23 during a time when we are not actively going through the 24
- meeting,
.. The NRC people, certainly, as well as the rest 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234-4433
-yy.,,
y.-,--.,,p,--.w.,-.
,-,,,s
,,,.,...y,,,,..w3%-
,%_.,,._,,,-,,,,_c.,w,w,-r%.yymww,
.,,,www.ym.,
_.__,,.,.._m.
.-.--ye m c m.me w-,
r e. r..,,
8 1
of us who are public officials, I'm sure will speak to you 2
at your request.
3 Is there anything that you need to know from 4
me before we continue on?
5 I'm doing very well, it is now 7:10, and Mr.
t 6
Feigenbaum if you would come up, and maybe you would 7
introduce the people who are here with you today, and help 8
us keep going on schedule.
9 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Thank you, Marge.
I'm Ted 10 Feigenbaum, and I'm the Executive Vice President for 11 Northeast Utilities, and Chief Nuclear Officer for 12 Connecticut Yankee.
13 This'is a beautiful facility, and it is a t
14 pleasure to be here.
I tell you, this is a facility that is is unlike one that I went to high school.
I had a school
-16 that as-maybe a tenth of the size of this one.
17 It is a pleasure being-here today.
I do want 18 to introduce some folks that work with us at Connecticut 19 Yankee.
First of all, Jere LaPlatney is here, Jere is the 20 prematurely grey individual here, he is our unit director, 21 and has been at Connecticut Yankee for 12 years.
22 He has over 20 years of experience in the 23 nuclear power business, was-licensed on the plant, and is j
24 licensed to operate the plant.
And, as I said, he is the 25 current unit director.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23 4 433
.. ~
(
1 John Hmooltine is another member of my staff.
2 He is the director of engineering.
John has background 3
not only at Northeast Utilities and at Connecticut Yankee, 4
but was also involved at Yankee Rowe, which was a plant 5
that was recently decommissioned up in Northwestern 6
7 Interesting background on John, his father was 8
one of the firr,c plant superintendents of Connecticut 9
Yankee, in the early 1960's.
And now John has been 10 associated with the plant, and is going to be involved in-11 the decommissioning of the plant, so it is kind of a 12 closing of the loop.
13 Gary Bouchard is here, as well, Gary, if you 14 would stand?
Gary is our director of work services, Gary 15-is over there in the back.
He is also a past unit 16 director of Connecticut Yankee.
He is experienced in 17-maintenance, and he was also licensed on the plant, to 18 operate the plant, and also has more than 20 years of 1
experience.
20 so we have a strong experience base at 21 Connecticut Yankee that remains.
And that is going *.o be, 22 obviously, supplemented with additional new talent, and 23 individuals who are highly experienced in radiological 24 controls, and health physics, which is a very important 25 aspect moving forward into the decommissioning process.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1
Wa are also going to supplomant our existing 2
work force with specialized decommissioning experience, as 3
we need it, going forward as we do our planning process.
4 But I just did want to introduce some of the l
-l 5
key members of my staff.
There are other individuals here l
6 that are also in the audience, and we will call upon them 7
as needed during ti.e evening to answer questions.
Well, today we -- as Marge indicated, we'want 8
9 to start the dialogue.
Decommissioning is a big deal.
It 10 is a major effort, and it is very important for us at 11 Connecticut Yankee that it be done properly.
-12 We are very proud of the 28 years of service 13 of the plant, we want to make sure that the plant is 14 retired properly, and brouga completely to a safe 15 condition and maintained un611 we can off-load the fuel, t
16 and ship-it to a final repository.
17 Now, we recognize that decommissioning is very
-18 different from operating a plant.
It presents different 19 challenges, and special requirements.
But also, at the 1
20 same time, there are radiological issues, there are 21 industrial safety issue.# and concerns, as we dismantle 22 major pieces and buildings, and remove certain equipment 23 in the plant.
And, certainly, there is the need for 24 environmental stewardship throughout this entire process.
25 The process, the initial process of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W..
(202) 236 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
l l
11 1
decontamination and decommissioning and preparing the plans and the engineering for decommissioning the plant 2
3 will take a number of years.
We estimate that that is in 4-the six to eight year range.
5 But, of course, the fuel facility will remain 6
operational, on the site, for many more years, until we 7
can ship the fuel.
And that could be as long as 20 years.
8 We plan to work very closely with the NRD 9
every step of the way, following their rules, learning 10 from their experience, as they regulate other facilities 11 that are decommissioned.
So we will always be up to speed 12 with the latest of what is happening in the industry.
13 And, certainly, we want to carefully listen to 14 the public at every step during the process, 1997 is 15 going to be really a year of listening for us, and 16 planning.
Planning for the decommissioning of Connecticut 17 Yankee.
18 We did not expect to shut the plant down when 19 we did, the plant license life, as you may recall, was to 20 run through the year around 2007.
But we, for economic 21 reasons, which we periodically check all our facilities, 22 we came to the conclusion that it was in the best interest 23 of the rate payers to-decommission the plant early.
24 So this year, 1997, will be a year where we 25 study options, where we determine the best way to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 131; RHoDE ISLAND AVE N.W.
(202) 234 4433 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4#33 -
12 1
docommiccion the plant scfoly and efficiontly, so that the 2
public is satisfied that we've done a good job, and that 3
we meet all the rules and requirements of the NRC, and 4
that we are satisfied that we can shut this facility down 5
and maintain it in a safe condition for many years to 6
come, and remain a good neighbor in the community.
7 We are, as I said, completely committed to 8
public participation.
That is the reason we are here 9
tonight, and I'm sure there will be many other meetings in 10 this facility to provide more details as we get further 11 along in the planning process.
12 But, certainly, before we get into any active 13 decontamination / dismantlement of the plant, there are 14 certain things that we have to take care of, first.
15 Our performance at Connecticut Yankee last 16 year, in the late last -- the last half of last year, 17 certainly was not up to our standards.
We had some events 18 that led us to re-examine the way we do business at the 19 plant, and clearly we have to raise our standards and 20 change some things that we do at the plant.
21 We need to make improvements in several areas, 22 before we move forward, at all, with any major 23 decommissioning.
I'm talking about the radiological 24 control area.
We certainly have talked about this in 25 public forums before.
Corrective action process, that is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHCDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
13 1
the-process of finding problems and fixing them 2
effectively.
3 The way we control our design basis and our 4'
documentation, to make-sure that the parts of the plant i
5 that will remain functional are, in fact, in accordance 6
with the documents that we all use on a daily basis, and 7
that the NRC uses to provide oversight of us.
8 So we shut the plant down, but as we movk 1
9 forward, we have to make sure that all these issues that 10 have concerned us over the last few months as we've had 11 these operational events are, in fact, taken care of.
12 I want to talk about our commitments to the 13 public, to ourselves, to the NRC, regarding our key 14 priorities for moving forward.
Certainly, safety has to is be at the very top of that list.
We are, even though we 3
16 are'a non-operating facility in terms of producing 17 electricity, we are still a nuclear facility, and we will 18 have spent fuel, on-site obviously for many years to come.
19 Now, when we have a shutdown facility with 20 fuel in the fuel pool, the operational risks are, 21 obviously, much. decreased, but there are still important 22 safety issues that have to demand our continuous attention 23 on a daily _ basis.
24 And we recognize that, and safety will come 25 first, in all our planning and design and engineering, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$ 3701 (202) 234 4433
_.. -,. - ~ _ _. _.
14
+
1 beforo wa move into the decommissioning proccos.
2 Also, in the area of resources, our commitment 3-is to provide all the necessary resources te de the job 4
without any compromises.-
We will be doing, in 1997, a 5
research, visiting other facilities.
We have already 6
visited some of the 70 some odd facilities in this country 7
that have gone through different stages of. decommissioning 8
to come up with-the best decision aa to how to move '
9 forward in' decommissioning and how to do it carefully.
10 We will not hesitate to bring in experts when 11-we need them.
We've already done some of that, and we 12 will do a great deal more of.it.
People from other 13 utilities who have gone through this, and from other 14 organizations that have been involved in the 15 decommissioning of plants.
And there certainly is a 16 growing industry of people and expanding knowledge in the 17 area of decommissioning, which we will tap, and taku 18 advantage of.
19 We are going to staff'the CY, Connecticut 20 Yankee organization with the right number of people, with 21 the right talents, to deal with the decommissioning 22 challenges.
And they are different talents, somewhat 23 similar, but certainly the emphasis changes when you are 24-in-a decommiscioned kind of situation.
i 25 Also, I just want you to be aware, because NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
= _ _ _ _.
.a any of the people that1 work'at_the plant are your 1
m We are working eighbors, they live in this community.
2 n
as we transition from an 3
very hard to make sure that the plant operating facility that employed directly at 4
5 about 360, 370 people, and as that -- as we de-staff in that we are working very hard to make sure 6
certain areas, those people are able to continue their nuclear 7
that careers, or continue in other careers as they wish to.
8 We are taking some of the Key talented people 9
and using them in our Millstone facility, wnere obviously 10 We also run a 11 we have great needs at this moment.
I'm responsible for up at Seabrook in New 12 facility that 13 Hampshire.
And we have, just recently, starting I believe 14 Monday of this week, taking some 12 people from the plant 15 and brought.them up to Seabrook to work up at Seabrook.
16-So it is important to us, because certainly we 17 have been criticized, and I think criticized is true, that 18.
sometimes we have not always taken care of our people 19 We want to change that, we want to 20- properly, in the past.
-21
- continue the Connecticut Yankee tradition of aaking sure 22 thatiour people are cared for, and that they can continue
- T to contribute as they wish.
So we are working hard to be able to do that.
24 retaining tia necessary talent at the 25 At the same time, NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOEISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C.- 20005 3701 (202) 2344433 (202) 23M u -
16'l' i - plant,.that wa will need, and we'will certainly need-to 2:- retain' the operational' history, the history of the 3
organization, as we move forward in the decommissioning 4
process.
5 Certainly, in the area of compliance with the 6
rules, we recognize that we have relinquished the right to 7
operate the plant.
We have certified to the NRC that we 8-will no longer operate the plant, but we still have many 9.
regulatory requirements that still exist.
Whether those 10 are in security, for example, or emergency preparedness in 11 the ten mile zone around the plant.
12 Certainly we have quality oversight 13 requirements, surveillance requirements of key components 14 that remain functional, and will remain functional for 15 many years to come.
16 These requirements remain in force.
And we 17 - intend to provide strict compliance with procedures and 18 NRC rules, and that will be a cornerstone of our 19 operations going forward.
20 Another major commitment we have is to a 21-public dialogue.
We are going to listen to our neighbors, 22 and hear what you have to say on a continuous basis, and 23 we will not finalize our plans for decommissioning until 24 we feel that we've heard from the public=and we understand 25 your concerns, and those have been addressed, and factored NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1
into our plans.
2 We-are helping to' create.a community 3
decommissioning advisory committee,-which will hopefully 4
represent a broad spectrum of people in Haddam and Haddam 5
Neck area, and we hope to be able to start getting that 1
6 committee off to a series of meetings beginning in the 7
March time frame.
8 And that March time frame will certainly'be l
l 9
well in advance of any active or major decommissioning 10 work that we are planning (c Connecticut Yankee.
So there
.11 will be many months of this committee, which will have a 12 lot of tentacles out into the various' towns, and key 13 constituencies into the community, to be able to feed back 14 to us your concerns, ' ! at we can work into our plan.
15 We have had a very active Connecticut Yankee 16 information function that has been staffed by Tony 17 Nericcio and a number of people who have done a good-job 18 of keeping people in the community informed of issues and 19 events going on at Connecticut Yankee.
20 We are going to continue to keep that function 21 staffed.
Our practice of giving tours of the plant will 22 continue,-and we invite anybody in this room, or anybody 23 else that has an interest, to come by and see what is 24 going on at_ Connecticut Yankee.
25 We will be holding our own, in addition to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433
~
3 18 1_
advisory committoo, citizen's advisor committee, holding 4
2L meetings ourselves,-when we have-important information, 3
and we have reached certain milestones in the
.4 decommissioning planning process.
1 5
We will hold meetings in public places to
)
[
6' inform you of the directions _we are going.in, and seek 1
~
7 your input where we feel that it deserves to.be. heard.
l
_8 So public dialogue is definitely one of our j.
9 cornerstone commitments going forward in the years ahead.
10 We want your input.
I can't stress that enough.
That is 11 why we are here tonight, and we will have additional 12 forums and opportunities.
Give us a call, you know, we 13-can't always have a meeting every week, but if you hear L
14 something, or you read something that disturbs you, or you-15-just want to ask a question, please give us a call, at the 16 plant, and we promise to get back to you with a prompt i
17 response.
l 18-At this point, I'm going to ask_Jere_LaPlatney i
i
'19 to come up, _the unit director, and talk a good deal more 20- about specific activities in 1997, and what we are going
(
l-21 to-be doing in the process.
22 MR. LAPLATNEY:
I am Jere LaPlatney, the unit 23 director.
My name is not as simple as Ted's, so I'll 24 spell it.
L-A-P-L-A-T-N-E-Y.
That is to--get even for the L
25 prematurely grey comment.
NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REF ')RTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1
I guess I want to tell you a little bit about 2
me, first, before I get started.
I'm a member of this 3
community.
I've lived in the area for 20 years, and that 4
is a newcomer by my family standards.
My wife has lived 5
here her whole life.
Her family has lived here their 6
whole lives, their grandparents lived here their whole 7
lives.
So it is pretty important that I be standing here 8
in front of my community and talk about these subjects.
9 I'm going to give you an overview of the 10 activities that will go on at Connecticut Yankee in 1997, 11 I would characterize these as the big picture look.
There 12 are no details here.
We didn't plan shutting the plant 13 down, so we haven't filled them all in.
14 In 1996, as Ted mentioned, we had a series of 15 performance issues, specifically two contaminations of a 16 couple of individuals, and a nitrogen intrusion in the 17 reactor vessel at Connecticut Yankee.
18 These were both very disturbing events.
They 19 were, I would characterize it as well outside the norms of 20 our performance in the past, and they were quite gut 21 wrenching.
22 In public forums we have told you that we feel 23 that significant corrective actions had to be taken.
We 24 have identified those corrective actions,-and they are in 25 our programs and processes, and will be implemented in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
20 1
- 1997, 2
Those processes will really carry through, at 3
least until the summer, so this.is not a quick-fix, you 4
know, put a band-aid on it and get on with i
5 decommissioning.
These are fundamental changes in the way 6
we are doing business.
It is going to take some time.
7-So the first thing we are going to do in 1997 8
is to correct the performance deficiencies that we 9
identified at the end of 1996.
10 The second item, and it is these items, some 11 of them are going in parallel, this is one of them, is 12 that we need to staf f this organization 'for 13 decommissioning.
The decommissioning needs of a plant are 14 not as large as an operating plant.
This is well 15 documented, across other plants that have gone through 16 this process, 17 We have identified our needs, and we have 18 identified, basically, two phases of our needs.
In 1997 19 we maintained a full 10CFR50 in regulatory parlance, 20.
operating license, even though we have given up the right
-21 to operate-the reactor, we have to maintain compliance 22 with those regulations.
23 In order to do that, we've identified a 24 staffing size, which has been in the newspapers.
It is -_
25 approximately 177 permanent folks, plus additional NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
21 1-contractor support.
2 By the end of the year, we expect to be able-3 to drop that number down to about, in the range of 100, I 4
think 107 is the number I've seen in the newspapers, which 5
is pretty accurate.
And that will carry on for a 6
considerable amount of time in the decommissioning.
7 Taking an organization from 322 people to_177, 8
to 107, is a very emotional event.
These people, a lot of 9
them have been working there as long as I've lived in 10 connecticut, and their lives and their seuls, and a lot of 11 what they've been in the last 28 years, is about this 12 plant.
13
. Managing that process is delicate.
This 14 company is going out of its way to try to place every 15 employee in a place of meaningful employment.
And that, 16 quite honestly, is a big focal item for us.
That is the 17 second big thing that we are looking at this year, is 18 managing the transition to a decommissioning organization.
19 The third thing is very technocratic.
I 20 mentioned our license, that we still have it in effect.
21 Through the licensing processes provided by the NRC, we 22 will make submittals, and we will change our license to 23 reflect the fact that the fuel is no longer in the 24_
reactor, it is now in the spent fuel building.
i 25 Specifically, things like the emergency plan, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
j (202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
22 1-the security plan, and our technical specifications can ba 2
revised to eliminate requirements that simply no longer 3
exist.
4
'We have a technical specification, for 5
example, on how quickly the reactor has to trip.
That is 6
no longer applicable to this unit.
Items like that will 7
be removed from our current requirements, and only those 8
items which apply to a de-fueled reactor will remain'.
9 Next-slide, please.
~
10 I think of importance to this audience is also 11 an activity, a key activity in 1997, will be the 12 development of the post-shutdown decommissioning 13 activities report.
I still haven't memorized the term 14 yet, because like Ted said, we weren't planning on 15 shutting this unit.down.
16 This is the plan.
It is a document--- summary 17 level document on the order of eight to ten pages.
It 18-will have how we plan to tear this plant apart, in 19 accordance with regulations.
20 We will spend the better part of 1997 putting 21 this. plan together.
Right now, our optimistic schedule 22 shows this being completed around the end of the summer-23 time frame, but that will require reviews and everything 24 else, so. understand,-this is not something-that is going 25 to come out in the next month or so.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23W33
..__m..
23 l'
We are _ going to fix the problems f rora 1996, we 2
are going.to staff'the organization and take care of those 3
issues, then we will get to work on the plan.
4 When the plan has been submitted, we'can i
5 actually -- we can begin planning the actual-i 6
decommissioning work.
If you want to think of it this.
7 way, we. submit a plan.to the NRC, and I'll discuss the 8-process in a-minute.
Pending their approval, we can'go 9
off and start figuring out the nuts and bolts, where do 10 you make the cut, how do you remove the component, the 11 detailed planning can begin.
- 12 Those are activities that may occur in 1997, 13 so I put tt.em up here for completeness.
i 14 Last point I wanted to make is, the regulation l
15 says, that we cannot begin any major decommissioning work 16.
until the PSDAR has been filed with-the NRC, and 90 days 17 have elapsed to allow time for public comment.
18-As Ted has already announced, we intend not to 19 live just to the letter of that,-we are going to go to-the-
- 20 spirit, and we intend to involve the public in the 21 development of the plan.
22-The citizen's committee, I see is a key
- 23' resource-to helping us identify those issues that the 24 community is worried about, and we intend to provide good 25 responses.
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. '
(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23M33
24 1
But, again, we cannot do any major 2
decommissioning work until 90 days after the plan has been 3
submitted.
4 So, what I'm telling you is, if you look 5
across the river, or if you happen to be on the Haddam 6
Neck side as you come down the road, the physical plant 7
will appear the same for the next year.
We will not cut 8
out steam generators, we will not be cutting out reactor 9
vessels, it will stay the same.
10 The intent of the regulation is to plan your 11 decommissioning, submit it to the NRC, get approval, and 12 then next fit your plan.
That is exact;ly what we plan on 13 doing at Connecticut Yankee.
14 Connecticut Yankee, when we make decisions, we 15 run through a series of decision gates,-and so any 16 decision that we make, we have to pass that series of 17 gates.
The top gate, the gate that you have to pass first 18 is safety.
19 So when we look at -- when we make decisions 20-for decommissioning, or any decision during the day, we 21 look at our priorities.
Our priorities are safety firot.
22 In this case, we always-used to say, nuclear safety, I 23 think.we are going to change our thinking here, it is fuel
-24 storage safety now.
That really is the majority of our 25 nuclear safety.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1
Radiological safety is going to gain 2
importance.
At Connecticut Yankee we have a lot of 3
seasoned radiation workers, and notwithstanding the event 4
of this fall, these people have done this work for a long 5
time, and they are experienced.
6 In the decommissioning mode there will be 7
people who aren't as experienced, taking on tasks that. are 8
more challenging, radiologically.
We need to make sure 9
that we keep radiological safety high on the scope.
10 Environmental safety is another important 11 aspect at Connecticut Yankee.
We have a good 12 environmental record, we do report everything as required 13 by the regulations, and we manage the very lowest level 14 indicators, what is called exceedences.
j 15 As we go through the decommissioning, there is 16 a potential use of chemicals, there is potentials where we 17 have to address the environmental impact of our 18 activities.
Most activities have been evaluated, but some 19 may not have, and they have to'be looked at.
20 And so environmental safety, I think will be 21 coming up, higher on our radar scope than maybe it has 22 been in the past, because of the nature of the new work.
23 And, finally, industrial safety.
This has 24 been around for a long time.
Our industrial safety record 25 is excellent.
We've completed -- I see some employees, it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
26 '
)
1 in over 400 days now without a lost time accident.
l 2
our industrial safety record, I notice 3-reportables is an order below the construction industry.
4 We intend to maintain that kind of focus on industrial i
's safety.
Industrial safe y is -- the benefits of 6
industrial safety, there is a number of them.
7 First of all, is that you return your 8
employees to their families the same way they gave them in 9
the morning.
That is the most important.
Industrial 10 safety attitude also shows an overall attitude.
If a 11 person is focusing on safety, and they safely perform 12 their job, that is a good indicator as to how they do i
13 their job, overall.
14 And, finally, safety -- doing his job safely, 15 usually means you are doing it right.
So it is a good 16 thing to focus on, it has a lot of benefits, and we've 17 kept that high on the' screen for many years, and we have 18 good results, to date.
19 The second major item is quality.-
Do it right 20 the first time.
In the nuclear field, if you do not do 21' something properly the first time, you will always get the 22 opportunity to do it, and do it until you get it right.
23 So there is no benefit in trying to cut corners in a
-24 nuclear power plant.
25 Our focus is do it safe, do it right the first NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433 j
i l
27 1
time.
And finally, the actual performance of the job.
i 2
And just so you know the difference -- go back 3
to that slide for a second, please.
4 The only thing different from the first time I 5
delivered this talk to my first set of shift managers in 6
1990, was the fact that I've added the emphasis on fuel 7
storage and environmental.
The rest of this hasn't 8
changed, at least for me, for the last six, seven years.
9 I'm going to change topics, here, for a 10 second.
I'd just like to spend a couple of minutes 11 talking about the nuts and bolts of decommissioning 12 options.
So this is a small primer on regulation.
13 There are three options in the regulation for 14 the decommissioning.
Prompt dismantlement is DECON.
That 15 is, essentially, filing a plan with the NRC and the plan 16 says, we intend to decontaminate and disassemble the 17 plant, and remove all radioactivity from the site.
And do 18 it, essentially, starting whenever our plan is approved.
19 The second one is SAFSTOR, that one says that 20 you can store the plant up to an overall period of 60 21 years, and at some point in the 60 year period, you begin 22 the dismantlement of the first option, but you can just 23 safely store the plant for the interim period.
24 And the final is ENTOMB, and that is where you 25 do some engineering items to put concrete and entomb NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1
certain portions, but within the 60 year period, you still 2
have to go back and tear it apart and have it dismantled 3
and,--you know, you have to have DECON done at the end of 4
the 60 years.
5 The point I'm making here is they will all end 6
up at the DECON.
The question is, the durations that you 7
wait, and how you configure the plant, while you wait to
~
8 get to the ultimate dismantlement.
9 The final stage for any nuclear facility is, 10 you remove the radioactivity from the site.
11 At Connecticut Yankee, our options will be 12 evaluated.
We have filed with FERC a cost estimate for-13 decommissioning that is required.
The current cost 14 estimate is based on the DECON option.
15 That does not mean we have selected the DECON 16 option.
That means that the current cost estimate is 17 based on the DECON option.
18 When we file our PSDAR, we will in fact have 19-the final decision in that document.
20.
And the final point I want to make is that 21 we've had a lot of questions from the public, and I'm 22 trying to answer some of the questions I anticipated in 23 this slide, about the future use of the facility.
-24 Currently, there is no planned use for the 25 facility.
It is considered to be a -- basically a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.Wi (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
sw 1
liability that we have to dispose of, at this point.
2 That could change at some point, but right now
.3 there are no plans for the facility.
There have been 4
questions about re-powering,-etcetera.
That is not in the-5 cards, currently, at Connecticut Yankee.
6 I got a little bit choked up when I was 7
talking about my family.
But I.really want to reiterate 8
that, you know, Gary has been here at Connecticut Yankee 9
for 25 years, and he is a life-long resident of 10 Connecticut.
11-I'm a member of this community, my daughter l
l 12 just played sports yesterday in the gymnasium, in the 13 shot-put by the way.
And, you know, we are here to make 14 sure that this job gets done right.
We live in the EPZ, 15 we are part of this community, and we are going to make 16 sure this job gets done right.
17 And that is the end of our presentation, 18 Marge.
19 MS. DEBOLD:
Next we had planned a short
=20 period so that you might ask questions-related to what the 21 two presenters have just given you.
If there is anyone 22 who would like to ask a question, if you would just raise 23 your hand or step to the mike.
24-Is there anyone at this point who would like 25 to ask -- go right ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433
30-
.1 MR. BLOCK:
Yes.
My name is John Block,-and 2
I'mLthe attorney for the Citizens-Awareness Network of 3
both Massachusetts and Connecticut, as well as Friends of 4
the Coast, and Nuclear Information Resource Service.
i 5
My question is this.
A point was made that no 4
6 major decommissioning work will be done until the PSDAR 7
has b'een submitted and approved.
}
8 I was wondering if you could describe what t
9 activity will take place that you are not concidering e
10 major decommissioning work.
11 Also, one technical question.
There was a i
I 12 citation to a FERC filing, and I was wondering-if you i
13 could provide the citation, so that - somebody could get a 14 copy of that filing, i
15 MR. LAPLATNEY:
I'll take the first question, 1
16 because that is in my realm, I'm the plant manager.
17 MR. BLOCK:
Thank you.
18 MR. LAPLATNEY:
What we are going to do here, for the next couple of months, is 19 for the first
-20 maintain the spent fuel pool,-and really very little else.
21 The only activity that would be in excess of that, that I 22 can foresee in 1997, is the possibility of a full circuit 23 chemical decontamination of our contaminated primary 24 systems.
25 We would do that to reduce the subsequent NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
31 1
radiation exposure for the engineering evaluations, the l
2 walk-downs, and all the work on that piping.
L l-3 We are one of th'.
oldest plants in the l
4 country, and we are quite contaminated.
5 Other than that, there are -- I don't want te 6
say no eq1Aipment removals.
I mean, if we took out a
.7 circulating pump like you have in your basement, I 8
wouldn't want to be held to that standard.
But we are not 9
moving at.y major equipment out of the plant, we are'not 10 going to attempt to take any out of the turbine building, 11=
or the reactor site.
12 There is no work planned, other than a j
l 13-potential chemical decontamination.
The FERC filing, Ted, l
14 I may have to defer to you on the number.
I 15 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
If you would give me 16 information as to where we can contact you, we will give 3
17 you that citation.
There may be somebody here in the 1
18-audience that might have ir, from my staff, I do not carry 19 that information around with me.
20 But I will get it for you, within the next 24 21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />, if you would just give me a phone number.
22 MR. BLOCK:
It can even be 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
Thanks.
23 MS. DEBOLD:
Is there further questions?
Step
-24 right up.
25 MR. SMITH:
My name is Peter Smith, and I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 8433
i 32
'l from Haddam Nack.
I'd like to know, now that the 2
attention is going to be focused more on the spent fuel 3
area, you talked 20 year storage, somewhere in that-area, 4
but I'm a little
---I don't know, not disbelieving, but I 5
think it might be there a lot longer.
6 Since attention is going to turn to that, 7
rather-than the chamber and the actual reactor _ area, I 8
wondered if they may find a problem with the storage' area, 9
once the concentration -- really looking at that area, 10 specially seeing as there are faults in'the area.
11 Have there been any contingency plans to 12 store, at least the older fuel, above ground?
13 MR. LAPLATNEY:
Okay.
I believe I can address 14 your question.
First of all, I think you allude to a 15 point that at least I would like to drive home.
And that 11 6 is, we are reviewing the design of the spent fuel 17 building.
18 If you remember _I said, we_have corrective 19 actions to complete from 1996.
One of the things that_we 20 found was that the design basis at Connecticut Yankee is 21 poorly documented.
22 Every system that is required to support spent 23 fuel pool' cooling and maintenance of the fuel in the spent.
24-fuel pool, the design basis is being completely 25 reconstructed.
That is one of the reasons why it is going NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433
33 1
to take us somt time to submit our PSDAR.
2 The second -- and the fault and the earthquake-3 proof-is part of that design review.
So that will get 4
looked at.
5 You alluded to the length _of storage.
You 6
recognize -- I'm sure the public recognizes that is really 7
a-DOE issue, they need to take possession of the fuel.
8 I'm not going to comment on, you know, they have an '
9 obligation, they need to deal with that, and it is our I
i 10 obligation to safely store the fuel until such time as 11 they do that.
12 You also alluded to a thing called dry storage 13 option.
Some utilities have gone that way.
There is no 14 way we would make a decision on that now, but it is a --
15 it is considered a viable option, in.act, a very good 16 option that some utilities have pi,rsued.
17 But there is an awful lot of questions that 18 have to be answered in terms of compatibility of the fuel 19 storage canister within the shielding, making sure it is 20 compatible with the over-the-road transporter, so you 21 don't have to undo work that you've done once -
22 You don't want to handle spent fuel any more 23 than you have to.
24 MR. SMITH:
I have one other question.
It has 25 to do with the canal area.
Will that be filled in, at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 n
34 1
coma point?
- 2 MR. LAPLATNEY:
The current cost estimate, 3-which I said.was the DECON, does not' include filling in 4'
the canal.
So it assumes that we will leave the canal 5
essentially _as is.
-6 MR. SMITH:
Thank you.
7 MR. LAPLATNEY:
I'd like to throw in one more 8
thing on that.
I wanted to call Rosemary but -- com& on 9
up, Rosemary.
10 I just said, though, that the canal will not 11 be filled in.
That is-the current plan.
I want to re-12 emphasize, until the final plan is approved, anything we 13 are saying here is preliminary.
14 MS. BASSILAKIS:
Rosemary Bassilakis, a 15 resident of Haddam, and also a member of the Citizens 16 Awareness Network.
Mr. LaPlatney, you are-assuring us-17 that you are going to decommission the reactor safely and 18 --
in compliance with NRC regulations.
.19' However, I would like to bring up the fact 20.
that you've operated that reactor outside-of NRC 21 requirements for the past 28 years.
You have not updated 1
22 your final safety analysis report.
You've been operating 23-with an inoperable emergency core cooling system, as well 24 as containment air recirculation fans, just to mention-a=
25 couple of issues.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS i
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
35 I would like to know how we can be sure that 1
ou will follow the rules now, when you have a long time 2
y j
L 3; history of not following the rules.
f 4
MR. LAPLATNEY:
Well, Rosemary, I'm glad you 5
asked that question.
I guess I've got to be honest, I 6
expected you to ask that question this evening.
.so I A
7 thought about the answer to that, okay?
Let me tell you the story of what happened.
8 You've-cited long-time design basis issues at connecticut 9
30 Yankee, which quite frankly did surface in 1996.
l 11 At the first occurrence of one of those, which i
L.
12 was the CAR fans, which you've pointed out, we could not e
1.
prove that the CAR fans could survive a water hammer event l
13 I
14 after a large break loss of coolant.
n You are looking at the person who made the 15 1
i decision to shut the plant down, based on.that question.
16
-17 So when I became aware of the design basis issue, I~ shut t
1'8 -
the plant down, e
Additionally, information came to light, 4
19 20 subsequent to that, which the NRC brought to our 4
21 attention, I can't take credit for us bringing it out, 22-that showed there were significant design is.3ues at
\\;
2, 3 Connecticut Yankee.
I
-24 That is when we, the local management, pointed
'!7 we have to do a complete design basis reconstruction.
25
- out, NEAL R.- GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
s (202) 23M433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23 4 433
. ~,...-
36
- 1 It is going to cost this much money, it turned out to be 2
about 40 million dollars, and I think this number is in 3
the public record.
4 And that prompted a cost benefit study of the 5
unit.
The cost benefit study-says, well, not only does 6
the 40 million cause you problems, but by the way, you are 7
not economical, anyway.
Which I think this is all off-8 hand.
So quite honestly, When we found out about it, 9
10 and we understood it, we did the right thing.
So I'm 11 going to do the right thing again.
12 MS. BASSILAKIS:
If I may just rebut.
So what 13-you are saying is that you.didn't know you weren't in 14 compliance?
15 MR. LAPLATNEY:
That is what I'm saying.
16 MS. BASSILAKIS:
So what will stop that from 17 happening again?
18 MR. LAPLATNEY:
Well, you know, you want to go 19 back-in history a little bit, I think you have to 20 understand.
Connecticut Yankee was not initially licensed
- 21 to be single failure proof.
We pre-dated those
-22 regulations.
23 The initial design of the plant only has one 24.
suction line from the cutainment over.to the RHR pumps.
25 The initial design of the plant only had one spent fuel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 2000>3701 (202) 234-4433
37
-1 cooling pump, end one spent fuel heat exchanger.
2
-This plant is not a modern plant.
It is a 30 3
year old design.
4 So, for us, we have had to try to meet the 5
regulations as best we could, and there is a program J
i 6
called SEP, which has compared us against the regulation, 7
and quite frankly, we've done an awful lot of 4
8 modifications.
l 9
I'll point out, to rebut the other way, that 10 Connecticut Yankee has voluntarily undertaken 11 modifications since 1987, that have reduced the core melt 12 frequency by magnitude.
13 That gobbledygook means that we voluntarily, 14 over the last decade, have made modifications to the plant 15 that reduced the risk inherent in the plant.
The core 16-melt frequency is our measure of risk, which I know you 17 are aware of.
18 So I-think we are doing the right thing.
19 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
A couple of points, here, 20 regarding oversight of the facility.
We are constituting 21 a new and separate safety oversight board, with specific 22 individuals from outside the company that have 23 decommissioning and nuclear power operational experience.
24 We have never had, in the recent past, a 25 specific Connecticut Yankee focused oversight board, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
38 1
wa are putting one together, and wa hops to have that in 2
place very shortly, that will have, again, special talents 3
from people around the country, recognized experts to 4
watch our performance, to look at our programs and our 5
procedures, to make sure that we are meeting all 6
requirements.
7 In addition to that, we have a new quality 8
oversight manager at the site, and he has brought in' 9
people from another company, completely separate from 10 Northeast Utilities, to provide the day-to-day 11 surveillance and auditing and inspection of activities in 12 the plant.
13 So I feel that this provides an additional 14 level of assurance, in terms of compliance, to make sure 15 that we meet the necessary standards, here, going forward.
16 MS. BASSILAKIS:
Thank you.
17 MS. DEBOLD:
Is there anyone else with a 18 question?
This gentleman right here in the front.
19 MR. REARDON:
Jerry Reardon, Newington, 20 Connecticut.
21 I have two questions for you.
In reg 6Td to 22 your statement about long-term liability, long-term 23 storage of radioactive materials on-site, should Northeast 24 Nuclear go belly up, are you planning for that 25 contingency?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
.W
,i_4 39 1
LAPLATNEY:
Do you want to take that one, 2
since it is financial?
3 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Well, first of all, 4
Connecticut Yankee is a jointly owned f acility.
There are
- 5. 10 ownern of Connecticut Yankee.
We are obligated, going 6
forward, whether it is Northeast Utilities or some subsequent company, whoever takes ownership of the assets, 7
8 is responsible for decommissioning that plant, and tiking 9
it to its full decommissioned state.
We have_done some cost. estimates, as I'm sure 10 11 we mentioned earlier, that indicate based on the prompt-12 dismantlement, that we-need approximately 425 million 13 dollars to complete the job, and that includes the 20 14 years of storage of the fuel on-site.
We have collected, through rates, at least 15
- 16 half of that amount, about 200 million dollars.
We have 17 filed, as the gentleman pointed out, with FERC,_to collect the remaining cost to complete the necessary trust-funds 18 19 to complete the decommissionincj.
We have filed with FERC, who.will do a review, 20 those and hopefully grant the ability for us to collect 21 22 costs over time.
And we expect to be able to do that, and 23 be able to maintain rates, to the rate payers in the area, 24 without any effect, because the_ savings that we are going 25 to get from shutting Connecticut Yankee, and buying the NtEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
.40 powar-elsewhere, at a lowar price, will pay for that 1
2 difference.
3 So we believe that whether it is Northeast 4
Utilities or.somebody'else that takes ownership of. assets, 5
we are all responsible, under the law, to make sure that 6
this. plant-is decommissioned safely.
7 MR. REARDON:
Question two.
Recent newspaper articles indicated that the NRC will require CY to update 8
9 the FSAR before proceeding with decommissioning.
Could you elaborate on your plans of updating 10 11 the FSAR?
12 MR. LAPLATNEY:
Jerry, that is very accurate.
only do we have to revise the design basis of the 13 Not 14 systems required to support spent fuel operation, but part 15-of-that is we have to update the FSAR.
We have to maintain an active FSAR right 16 17 through decommissioning, as well as a set of tech specs.
We will have a plan, we will have a security plan.
It is 18 the scope of the documents, the FSAR will be maintained.
19 20 It has to be updated and maintained.
21 MR. REARDON:
Thank you.
22 MS DEBOLD:
The gentleman right on the aisle, and then we will follow him by the woman to his right.
23 t
24 MR. GUNTNER:
Thank you.
My name is Paul I'm director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for 25
- Guntner, l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1'J3 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433
-~
41 1
Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, 2
D.
C. and I think one of the reasons that we are here, 3
today, up from Washington, has to do with what we believe 4
to_be a precedent that is likely to be set with the 5
Connecticut Yankee decommissioning under the new NRC
.6 decommissioning rules.
7 But what I'd like to address, just briefly, 8
Mr. Feigenbaum's remarks with regard to the fact that the 9
anticipation of 10 co-owners in Connecticut Yankee 10 basically pooling their efforts to cover what we see, in l
11 Washington, as an ever escalating cost of decommissioning.
12 I'm sure you are aware that the cost of 13 decommissioning Yankee Rowe is a moving target right now, i
14-And, already, it is up to nearly 400 million for that much 15 smaller plant.
16 The concern that I just think that shouldn't 17 be glossed over, here, is that-this whole issue of 18 decommissioning is occurring at a very unstable time for 19 this industry, in-terms of deregulation of the-electricity 20 market.
21 And at the same time that your 10 co-owners 22 who are all nuclear-power operators, would be seeking to
-23 raise the cost to their consumers.
There is going to be 24 increasing competition, in New England, particularly, with 25 regard to cheaper, safer, cleaner sources of electricity.
NELLL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2",4 4433
42 1
And this is part of the problem that we are 2-facing, because -- and as the gentleman brought up before 3
us, the risk is that you will default on an un-4 decommissioned plant, leaving the whole issue of safety, nvironmental quality, basically in limbo.
5 e
6 And it shouldn't just be glossed over with 7
just a casual remark.
This gentleman had a very good 8
question.
9 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Mr. Guntner, I'm not trying 10 to gloss over the issue.
It is an'important issue.
The Public Utility Commissions in the various states around 11 the country, are struggling with this issue of stranded 12 13 assets, of which decommissioning is part of that.
14 Certainly, the Federal Energy Regulatory
. 15 Commission is well aware of it, as are the utilities in 16 this nation.
It is a responsibility that we have to make 17 sure that these facilities that provided power all these 18-years, are safely decommissioned.
19-We understand that, I think the public utility 20 commissioners around the country understand it.
It is 21 being discussed on agendas on a daily basis.
22 And I believe that it will be worked out, 23 because it is the responsible thing to do, it is the only 24 thing that is necessary to do, and the monies that we 25 collect, I just want you to understand, that the monies NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433
_m
43 1
that are collected through ratos, cro put in trust funds, 2
where this money is dedicated, it can't be touched by the 3
utility for any other purpose than for decommissioning.
4 And this is overseen and regulated quite a 5
bit.
So that money is protected, once it is collected, 6
for.the purpose of decommissioning.
And, yes, the 7
industry is going through restructuring, and there is 8
deregulation and competitien coming.
It is a very 9
important issue to us, and I think to all of you in the 10 community, and this is an issue of stranded investment, 11 and commitment for service provided in the past, that has i
12 to be dealt with.
I 13 So it is important, and I'm not' glossing over 14 it, but I do believe that through the process that we have 15 in the government of -- before we move into deregulation, l
16 that-these issues-will be fully aired and worked out, and 17 resolved successfully, so that-we can be sure that plants, 18 like Connecticut Yankee, are decommissioned nafely.
19 MS. KATZ:
Hi.
My name is Debby Katz, I'm 20 with the Citizen's Awareness Network.
21 I have-a couple of questions.
I was a little 22 confused about some of the things that you presented.
Not 23 that you were confusing, but it just raised some issues 24 with it.
25' You were talking about doing evaluations for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202)1144433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 w
44 1
the iccuoc that woro out of compliance with the recctor, 2
where the NRC is mandating that you do that.
3 But I had some confusion.
It sounds like you were possibly only going to do the compliance issues that 4
5 would be effective under decommissioning, so that you were 6
not going to correct all the 50.59 errors that were 7
happening in the reactor, in total?
8 MR. LAPLATNEY:
That is correcc.
9 MS. KATZ:
Which is correct?
10 MR. LAPLATNEY:
I'll try that again.
That is 11 correct.
Yes, we will, right now we have to plan the configuration with a limited number of systems required to 12 13 safely protect the fuel.
We have deficiency, and I'll give you the most 14 15 glaring one.
Rosemary mentioned it, Okay?
We had a 16 problem with the containment sump suction not being adequate to provide net }.,ositive suction to the RHR pumps 17 18 on recirculation.
That means that we may not be able to get 19 l
20 enough water from the containment to cool the core after a 21 large break LOCA accident.
22 There is no longer fuel in the core, we have 23 certified to the NRC that we will never put fuel in the 24 core, it is a waste of money, of the citizen's and my 25 community, to fix that deficiency.
There is no reason to NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1
go and fix that doficiency.
2 We should focus our resources on safely 3
maintaining the fuel in the spent fuel building, and 4
fixing the things that are a problem.
l 5
MS. FATZ:
Oh, I agree that maintaining the l
l i
6 radiated fuel pool is terribly important.
But since 7
reactor workers are going to be decommissioning the 8
reactor, just as they were operating the reactor, and they 9
are going to have to cut it apart, and they are going to 10 potentially be contaminated in the process, the issue of 11 knowing how that reactor worked, and knowing what the 12 blueprint really means, and whether it is accurate, would 13 seem very important, given the kinds of exposures that 14 we've seen at Rowe, in a reactor that was one-third the 15
- size, 16 MR. LAPLATNEY:
Okay.
There were no 17 deficiencies noted in the structural prints or any prints or any design features that you would have to have 18 that 19 knowledge in order to safely dismantle it.
20 The deficiencies were noted in the operation, 21 how does this system work, what is its flow, what is the 22 operating characteristics.
23 The issues you raised, if there happens to be 24 one out there, we will certainly deal with it, but we are 25 being conservative, and we are including more things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000$ 3701 (202) 234-4433
46' I
rcthar then loss in tha thinga thnt wa cro danling with.
2 But something which clearly no longer applies, 3
is a waste of resources, and that is not appropriate.
4 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Just to complete our answer l
5 on that, though.
Jere talked about specific systems that
)
6 we may be dismantling them, and it doesn't make sense to 7
spend a lot of time and effort and money to update 8
drawings and specifications.
9 But there are some generic programmatic 10 issues, such as our radiological control program, which we 11 will fix generically across the board.
Corrective action, 12 that is when we find a problem, how it gets fixed and 13 implemented throughout our processes.
14 Those kind of generic issues will get 15 addressed, everywhere, across the board.
16 MS, PATZ:
You see, from the Rowe experience, 17 there were major prol.. ems, potentially, with the reactor IP vessel.
When that reactor shut down, those problems 19 disappeared.
And, as of yet, what has happened with the 20 Rowe reactor, has not fully been understood, even though 21 it could be very helpful, to the industry, in terms of 22 understanding embrittlement of reactor vessels.
23 We are concerned that the problems that may 24 have come up at Connecticut Yankee, will in fact be 25 buried, as the problems in Rowe were buried, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 214-4433
47 1
But I went to ack you ebout what maintenanco 2
operations will be -- this is my last question.
3 MS. DEBOLD:
Well, the time -- if you will 4
make it quick.
5 MS. KATZ:
It will be a very quick question, 6
it may be a lenger answer, I can't guarantee that.
7 I wanted to know what maintenance operations l
l 8
would be taking place during 1997, on the reactor, by 9
reactor workers.
10 MR. LAPLATNEY:
The only activities that will 11 occur on the reactor vessel, as I see it now, is we may 12 take a radiation survey of the internals of the reactor I
'3 vessel, in order to make the calculations to safely ship 14 it.
15 So a radiological survey that would be 16 performed under water.
The people are on top of the 17 water, the shielding protects them from the vessel, so I 18 would characterize it as very low risk, compared to some 19 activities, such as assembling and disassembling the 20 reactor.
21 MS. KATZ:
So there is no other maintenance 22 work going on?
23 MR. LAPLATNEY:
We do not need to maintain a 24 reactor that is no longer going to be used, so we will not 25 waste exposure time or money on that.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000 5 3701 (202) 2344433
._____.__..._.___.....___.m.._____
48 1
MS. DEBOLD:
I did say that I would call on i
2 One other' person at this section, so I will call you to I
3 the microphone, then we will-judge whether we move on to 4
the second part of the program.
5 MR. FARBER:
Doug Farber of Middletown, 6
7 In the event that less than rational minds-8 prevail in the method of decommissioning chosen is prompt 9:
dismantlement -
this is a multi-part question.
What is 10-the anticipated mode of transporting contaminated j
I 11 materials and components from the site.
12 And will the public be made aware prior to i
13 transportation, as well as the route being taken?
And 14 finally, what safeguards will be.taken against, you know, 15-not that I want to sound paranoid, but vandalism and/or 16 terrorism, 17 MR. FEIGENBAUM:- We have made no decisions as I
t l
18.
far as method of transportation, yet.
And I think this is 19 the kind of issue, because it is an important issue, 20 about, you know, barges or trucks going through the 21 community, and what is the best way to do that with the 22 least risk and the least environmental impact.
23 This is the kind of an issue that we would i
24 expect the. citizens, community advisory committee to help 25 us with, to air before we move forward, to talk about the NEAL R. GROSS -
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE LSLAND AVE., N W.
'~
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 1...
.~ - -.. _...._._,__._._._,__.__,_..._,___.,__,_,,_._,,,_,,,_.._;._._.,__,
49 i
1 1
way wa are going to transport theco major components, tha l
l 2
way it is going to go through the town, and get feedback l
3 from the community about their feelings about that, and t
4 how we should look at other options.
5 So I would say that we made no decisions in 6
that regard.
We will get input from the community before 7
we go forward and make any decisions in that regard.
8 MS. DEBOLD:
I'd like to move on to the NRC i
9 part of this, just to try to keep to our time schedule.
10 Save your questions.
At the end, I'm sure, the people i
11 from Northeast Utilities will be happy to answer them.
12 I've been a little flexible.
Hopefully, some 13 of the questions that you asked at this point will not 14 have to be asked again later.
l 15 At this point, I would very much like to ask -
16
- I've got-to look at my -- Mike Masnik, from the NRC.
17 DR. MASNIK:
Good evening.
My name is Mike l
y 18 Masnik, I'm the section chief of the decommassioning f
2 19 section of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I work 20 in Rockville, Maryland, at NRC headquarters.
21 I hope that most of you have gotten a copy of 22 a handout of my slides.
Unfortunately, I didn't expect 23 quite so many folks tonight, and I did not provide enough i
24 copies.
However, it will be bound in the transcript.
l-25 Also, what we will do is we will put several NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
50 1
shoots of paper up on ths' table there, and if you would 2
like a copy of the slides, you just leave your name and 3
address and we will mail them to you.
4 I have a number of other NRC people here with 5
me tonight, and I would like to take a few minutes to 6
introduce them.
7 Steve Dembek, also from NRC headquarters, is 8
the immediate task project management for the Haddam' Neck 9
plant.
Mr. Mort Fairtile, who is the current 10- decommiss4oning project mat <,ger for Haddam Neck.
Mort is 11 an important person in the decommissioning of the plant.
12 He is the principal point of contact for the NRC.
13 Your second slide has all the pertinent 14 information for contacting Mort, if you have any questions 15 about the plant.
i 16 Also with me, today, is William J. Raymond, 17 who is the Senior Resident Inspector stationed full-time 18 at Haddam Neck.
Mr. Raymond's immediate supervisor, John 19 Rogge, and his branch chief, John White, from our regional 20 office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, is also with us.
21 Also Mr. Dave Matthews, the Deputy Director of 22 the Division of Reactor Program Management.
One of our 23 senior managers out of Rockville Maryland.
24 And Mr. Gene Holler, an attorney from the NRC 25 headquarters, with the of fit:e of General Counsel.
Gene is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TPANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200(5 3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1
an export on the legal aspects of decommissioning, and hco 2
been an attorney on several recent shutdown reactors.
)
3 Also with the NRC is Diane Serenci, also from i
4 King of Prussia, and she works in the NRC Office of Public 5
Affairs.
l 6
And finally, I have also brought along Ms.
l 7
Etoy Hylton, from our branch, who is our licensing 8
assistant.
9 As you can see, we've brought a lot of folks, 10 here, tonight, primarily to be sure that we have the right 11-people here to answer your questions, but also to listen l
12 first-hand to your concerns about the transition of Haddam 13 Neck from an operating plant to a decommissioning plant.
14
_The purpose of today's public meeting is to l
15 provide you with a little background on decommissioning of j
i 16 nuclear power facilities, and to. share with you the NRC's 17 experiences in our role of oversight of decommissioning of 18 power reactors.
And, finally,-to explain the commission's 19 new regulations on decommissioning, v
20 I first want to talk a l'ittle about l
21 decommissioning of power reactors.
There are definite 12 2 stages in the life of a nuclear power plant.
There is the 23-planning, the construction, the licensing, the operation, 24 and finally decommissioning.
25 Decommissioning is the last phase in the life NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C, 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
. - - - ~
52 1
of a nuclear fccility, and its purpose is to remove the f
2 facility safely from service, and reduce the residual 3
radioactivity of the facility, and the site, to a level 4
that permits the release of the site, and termination of 5
the NRC license.
6 Now, this definition is important'as to what 7
it says, and what it does not say.
The' focus of the NRC 8
is limited, solely, to the removal of the radiologicil 9
hazards resulting from operation of the facility.
10 The: fact that the licensee may choose to spend 11 additional funds to remove buildings from the facility, is 12 of interest to us, only if the material that is being 13 disposed of is radioactive.
^
14 Now, once the residual levels of radioactive 15 materials are reduced to below certain criteria, either by 16 decontamination,-or disposal off-site, then the NRC
.17 license for the facility and site can be terminated.
18 Before the license is terminated, the licensee 19 has to perform an extensive, final survey that proves to 20 the NRC that the site is clean enough to terminate the j
21 license.
22 The.?TRC may do-a confirmatory survey to be 23 certain that-the site-is clean enough, once the-license 24 is terminated, the NRC no longer has any regulatory 25 oversight over the facility or site.
l NEAL R. GROSS' court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
53 1
This is the ultimate goal with l
2 decommissioning, the termination of the license.
3 Now, there is one other key phrase in the j
4 definition of decommissioning, and that is removing the L
5 facility safely from service.
Once the facility 6
permanently ceases power operation, there are a number of 7
systems that still are required to protect public health 8
and safety.
9 They relate, principally, to the safe storage 10 of irradiated spent fuel.
The spent fuel pool and its 11 associated systems are the principal structure systems or 12 components that must be maintained operational.-
13 Licensee activities that result in disposal of 14 contaminated and activated materials-must also be 15 conducted in such a way as to safeguard public health and 16-safety, and to protect the environment.
17 Now, you may have noticed that I have not said 18 anything about disposal of the spent fuel.
The spent fuel 19 will ultimately be disposed of in a U.S. Department of 20 Energy high level waste burial site, 21 Today, however, the U.S. Department of Energy 22 does not have an approved burial site-for disposal of the 23-spent fuel.
Therefore, the fuel will remain on the site 24 until a decision is made as to its disposal.
25 Initially, when the spent fuel is removed from NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
54 1
the reactor, it 10 both highly radioactive, and it 2
generates a lot of heat.
Over time, the radioisotopes 3
decay, and the fuel becomes less radioactive, and the f
4 amount of heat generated decreases dramatically.
5 However, even after many years, the radiation 6
levels of the spent fuel are quite high, and radiation 7
shielding must be provided.
B What most licensees are doing, are 9
constructing on-site storage facilities that store the 10 fuel in a dry condition, in large casks.
These dry 11 storage facilities are thoroughly reviewed by the NRC 12 prior to approval.
13 The storage facility is, typically, only a 14 couple of acres in size, and requires minimal maintenance.
15 Concrete and steel shielding reduces the radiation to very 16-low levels, an$ the storage-containers-'are constructed so 17 that there is no leakage of radioisotopes to the 18 environment.
19 So to summarize, decommissioning is the 20 removal of the facility from service, reducing the levels 21 of radioactivity of the facility and site, the levels that 22 will ultimately result in terminction of the license.
23 NRC oversight activities relate directly to 24 the continued safe storage of the irradiated fuel, and the 25 proper decontamination and dismantlement of the facility.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
55 l
1 Now that I've provided you with some 2
background on the concept of decommissioning, I'd like to l
l 3
talk a little about your experience with the actual 4
decommissioning of other power rer.ctors in the United 5
States.
i 6
We've had 15 nuclear power reactors i
7 permanently cease operation, and begin decommissioning l
1 8
since the early 1960's.
These plants, their locatioit and 9
status, are given on the next slide.
10 I realize that it is difficult, for those of 11 you in the baet, to read it.
And, again, if you do not 12 have a copy of the slides and you would like one, t
immediately after the presentation you can sign up for 13 F
14 one.
-15 As you can see, we've had a fair amount of 16 experience in the area of decommissioning oversight.
A 17 number of plants are in long term storage.. A number are i
j 18 actively being decontaminated and dismantled.
i L
l 19 And one, the Shoreham plant, has actually had 20 its license terminated.
The Fort St. Vrain plant in 21 Colorado, is also very close to having its license t
22 terminated, as well.
23 You will notice under the column, " status" I 24 indicate for the most part, that we have facilities that 7
25 are either in long term storage, or decontamination and
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C.- 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
_, - _ _. ~.,
. -... ~. _. _ _, _ _.
56 '
1 diamantlemont.
2 I would like to tali: a little about these two i
3 options.
Our regulations allow licensees, after 4
permanently ceasing operations, to decide if they would 5
like to begin dismantlement immediately, or if they prefer 6
to store the facility in a safe, stable condition, for 7
some period of time, before they begin dismantling.
8 or they may conduct a partial dismantlem&nt, 9
followed by a storage period, ending with final 10 dismantlement.
Our regulations say that under normal 11 circumstances, th.e licensee has 60 years to completely 12 decommission the facility.
13 The decision as to store or dismantle 14 immediately, as I said, is a licensee decision.
Some 15 years ago we performed a generic environmental impact 16 statement that looked at decommissioning options, and we 17 determined that as long as the licensee complied with our 18 regulations, either option, or a combination was 19 acceptable.
20 One of the principal reasons for arriving at 21 this conclusion is because the risk to the public health 22 and safety and the environment associated with licensee 23 activities at a' nuclear power plant undergoing 24 decommissioning, is significantly less, than those at an 25 operating facility.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20E3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1
This risk continues to decrocco over time, due 2
to radioactive decay, which reduces both the radiation 3
levels, and the heat generated by the spent fuel.
4 This reduction in risk, after a period of 5
time, is so significant, that many of the regulatory 6
requirements associated with plant operation are no longer 7
needed.
8 For example, off-site emergency planning'in 9
many of the detailed technical requirements applicable 10 only to operating plants.
These regulatory requirements 11 are generally reduced gradually, based on a detailed 12 evaluation by the NRC staff of the risk.
13 Another example of our response to the 14 reduction in risk is the ultimate elimination of the full 15 time resident inspector at a site, and the reliance on 16 inspections conducted by NRC specialists in the field of 17 decommissioning.
18 Some regulatory. requirements are eliminated 19 immediately when the plant permanently ceases operation.
20 An-example would be the monitoring program for reactor 21 vessel embrittlement.
22 So to summarize, there have been a number of 23 power reactors in the United States that are permanently 24 shut down, and are in the process.of decommissioning.
The 4
25 NRC staff has considerable experience in the oversight of NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
58 i
i thoso activition, 5
2 There is a gradual reduction in regulatory 3
requirements on the licensees, as the decommissioning
)
t 4
progresses.
And this reduction is based on significant 5
reduction in risk to the-public due to permanent cessation l
6 of power generation operation.
7 I next want to talk a little about the
-8 regulations governing decommissioning.
9 Now, the first comprehensive regulaLons 10 dealing with reactor decommissioning were promulgated inf I
11 1988.
Based on the experience gained over the next seven 12 years, the-Commission extensively revised the regulations l
13 in the summer of 1996.
14 In-July of 1996, the NRC published a final i
15 rule making that substantially changed the decommissioning 4
16 process.
Perhaps the easiest way to explain how the new 17 decommissioning rule works is by describing the process of 18 decommissioning from the regulatory perspective, for a 19 hypothetical nuclear power reactor that is nearing the-end 20 of its normal life.
.t 21 The licensee has decided not to pursue license 22 renewal, so the reactor is destined to permanently shut 23 down.
The process is summarized in the next slide, and we 24 will talk a little about each of these steps.
25 Each power reactor licensee will, about five NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 235 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 234-4433
..u
59 1
yearo prior to the projected and of operations, submit a 2
preliminary decommissioning cost estimate.
The purpose of 3
this' cost estimate is to force the licensee to evaluate 4
how much money it would need to decommission the facility,
-5 and compare it to how much it has in its decommissioning 6
trust fund, 7
If the amount of money is inadequate, the-8 licensee has approximately five years to adjust the amount 9
of money they have in their decommissioning trust fund.
.10 The decommissioning trust fund is a fund.that 11 each licensee is r2 quired, by our regulations, to set up 12 to assure that there is sufficient funds to radiologically 13 decommission the facility when the time comes.
14 Our regulations requ11c about 350 to 400
.15 million dollars, in today's dollars, for the radiological 16 decommissioning of an average 1,000 megawatt electric 17.
reactor.
18 Typically these funds cannot be used for 19 anything.other than radiological clean-up of the facility.
20 Obviously, if a plant shuts down prematurely, as did 21 Haddam Neck, it cannot submit a preliminary cost estimate.
22 However, they still are required to collect 23 the funds necessary for decommissioning the facility.
24 Five years go by, or the licensee decides to prematurely 25=
shut down their reactor, and they cease power generating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
~ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.
60 2
- 1 operatione.
2 The reactor is permanently shut down.
The 1
J j
3 licensee is required to submit written certification to 4
the NRC, within 30 days of the decision to permanently t
4 5
shut down.
j The date of cessation must be specified.
Once i
6 i.
7 the fuel has permanently been removed from the reactor vessel, the licensee will submit a second certification to 8
9 chat effect.
Then the licensee will no longer be allowed 10 operation of the reactor, or allow the movement of fuel 11 12 back'into the reactor vessel.
This eliminates the 13 requirement to adhere to other certain regulatory 14 require cents only necessary for power -reactors.
Once these two certifications have been 15 16 received by the NRC, the licensee can begin some limited 17 decommissioning activities, and can begin reducing its
- 18 licensing requirements on the facility.
19 For example, the regulations require certain 20 minimum staffing requirements in the control room of an 21 operating reactor.
Once the two certifications _have been 22 received, the licensee may apply to amend its license to 23 reduce the staffing requirements, and revise the based on the 24 qualifications to certify fuel handlers, 25 assumption that the licensed power reactor operators are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND11LANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344(33-WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
.__.--..-__.~.-,__u-___-_.
_ ~,.
61 I
no longer nooded.
2 After receiving the two certifications, the 3
NRC staff will likely hold a public meeting in the 4
vicinity of the nuclear site, to discuss the 5
decommissioning process with interested members of the 6
public.
That is what we are doing tonight.
7 Within two years of permanently ceasing 8
operations,- the licencee must submit a post-shutdown' 9
decommissioning activities report, PSDAR, to the NRC, with 10 a copy to the affected states.
11 The PSDAR must include a description of the 12 planned decommissioning activities, along with a achedule 13 for their accomplishment, an estimate of the expected 14 costs, and a discussion that provides the reasons for 15 concluding that the environmental impacts associated with 16 site-specific decommissioning activities will be bounded 17 by appropriate, previously issued environmental-impact
~
18 statements.
19 The NRC shall notice the receipt of the PSDAR 20 in ths Federal Register, and make it available to members 21 of the public.
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting 22 in the vicinity of the nuclear plant to allow the licensee 23 to present their plans for decommissioning of the 24 facility, to describe what the role of the NRC in the 25 decommissioning of the facility will be, and to listen and NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(E02) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
62
.1 reopend to questions from mambors of the public.
2 The licensee is prohibited from undertaking 3
any major decommissioning activities until 90 days after 4
they_ submit the PSDAR.
The purpose of the 90 day period 5
is to allow sufficient time for the NRC staff to examine 6
the PSDAR, to publish notification of the receipt in the 7
Federal Register, to hold public meeting in the vicinity 8
of the facility-to discuss the licensee's plans for
i 9
decommissioning, and to conduct any necessary safety 10 inspections prior to initiation of major decommissioning 11 activities.
12 Ninety days after the NRC receives the PSDAR, 13 and after certification of permanent cessation of 14 operations, and permanent _ removal of fuel from the reactor l
15 vessel, the licensee could begin to perform major 16 decommissioning activities, without specific NRC approval, 17-using a process described in Section 50.59 of the 18 Commission's regulations.
19 The new rule also imposed some additional 20 requiretr4nts on decommissioning activities by licensees.
-21 The licensee is prohibited from performing any 22 decommissioning activity that would foreclose the release 23 of the site for possible unrestricted use, or result in 24 significant environmental jmpacts not previously reviewed, 25 or result in there no longer being reasonable assurance l
NEAL R.' GROSS.
CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433
63 1
that edoquate funds would be available'for l
2-decommissioning.
l l
3 So now the road ir : lear for the licensee to l
4 begin decommissioning in ea, est.
The PSDAR may call for 5
the nuclear reactor to be plac.d in long term storage.
So 6
systems would be drained, certain electrical systems 7
deactivated, and the nuclear reactor placed in a safe, 8
stable condition.
9 Or the PSDAR may call for immediate 10_
dismantlement, in which case the licensee would begin to 11 take the nuclear reactor apart, and ship the contaminated L
12 material to a burial site.
13 This activity is expected to take several 14 years.
The NRC staff would actively be involved in the 15 areas of reducing unnecessary regulatory requirements, on-16 site inspections, and licensee documentation of the safety 17 basis of their activities.
18 The NRC staff would continue to have 19 interactions with the public and the affected states.
20 Two years prior to the planned termination of 21 the license, the licensee would submit a license 22 termination plan.
The license termination plan would 23.
include a site characterization, identification of 24 remaining dismantlement activities, plans for site 25 remediation, detailed plans for the final radiation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOC ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHNGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
64 1
ourvey, a description of the and uno of the oite if it in 2
restricted, and an updated site-specific estimate of 3
remaining decommissioning costs, and a supplement to the 4
environmental report describing any new information or 5
significant environmental change associated with the 6-licensee's proposed termination activities.
7 The NRC staff would, again, notice the receipt 8
of the licensee termination plan in the Federal Regiiter; 9
make the plan available for public comments, and offer an 10 op1.ortunity for a hearing _on the plan.
11-The NRC would also hold a public meeting in
- .2 the vicinity of the site to allow the licensee to explain 13 the license termination plan to the public, and to discuss 14 the remaining NRC activities associated with terminating l
15 the license, and of course, allow the public to ask 16 questions.
17 The NRC approval of the license termination 18 plan will be by license amendment, which would authorize 19 implementation of the license termination plan.
20 The licensee would then continue to clean up 21 the site, perform the final radiation survey.
The NRC 22 staff would continue to provide oversight during this 23 process.
Next slide.
24 The Commission shall terminate the license if 25 it determines that the remaining activities have been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
i 65 1
performad in accordence with the approved licenso 2
termination plan.
And that the terminal radiation survey 3
and associated documentation demonstrates that the 4-facility and site are suitable for release.
5 Now, the above decommissioning process, from 6
permanent cessation of operations to license termination, 7
could take, at a minimum, 3 to 5 years, and at a maximum, 60 years, since the regulations allow for a licensee'to
~
6 9
take 60 years.
-10 It would likely take, if the licensee pursues 11 immediate dismantlement, and commits to a reasonable level
.12 of effort comparable with what we've seen at other 13 facilities to date, approximately ten years, with 14 approximately 150 to 200 people on-site, using contractors 15 to do much of the work.
16 I'd like to end with a few specific comments 17 on Haddam Neck.
The licensee has notified the NRC of its 18 permanent cessation of operations, and permanent removal 19 of fuel from the reactor in a letter dated December 5th, 20 1996.
21 They now have two years to submit a PSDAR.
As 22 we've heard tonight, they probably will submit that
-23 sometime this summer, or late this summer.
24 During that time, or during the time between 25 now and when they submit the PSDAR, they will submit a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE NW.
(202) 23M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 31Ji (202) 23W33
66 1
numbar of cmandmont requesto to thair licence, acking ter 2
elimination of unnecissary regulatory requirements.
3 For example, we would expect the licensee to 4
submit an amendment request removing from the license 5
those requirements that deal with operations.
- Now, d
depending on what the licensee plans to do, the licensee 7
will either begin planning for dismantlement, or place the 8
plant in a s fe stable condition for long-term storage.
9 That concludes my prepared remarks, and I 10 would like to entertain questions at this time.
Yes, in 11 the front, there?
12 MR. BLANCH:
My name is Paul Blanch, from West 13 Hartford, Connecticut, ex-employee of Northeast Utilities.
14 Again, a lot of mistrust here, between the 15 public, the NRC and Northeast Utilities, and what we've 16 heard tonight, really, doesn't further instill that trust.
17 We are calling this a decommissioning plan.
18 This is a decommissioning meeting.
But, as you said 19 yourself, and out of the rule, it says, the NRC definition 20 of decommissioning excludes interim storage of spent 21 reactor fuel.
22 What is actually being accomplished here is a 23 transition from a power operation license part 50, to the 24 establishment of a high level waste site.
25 Now, the decommissioning rule does not address NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
l
4 67 e
l 1
the otorage, the safeguards, and no on and no forth, of l
2 the spent fuel..
That comes under another regulation that j
3 was designed specifically for the storage of high level 4
waste and spent fuel, 10CFR72.
5 What the NRC is doing here, with this new 3
6 decommissioning rule, is' ignoring, and I do mean ignoring,-
l 7
the requirements for storage of high level waste.
We have f
8 specific regulatory requirements, l'n part 72, that l-9 require, number one, a safety analysis of the dangers of i
'10 the spent fuel, such that you can-determine whether
)
)
11 emergency planning is or is not required.
i 12' What I_would like to hear, from the NRC, is j
13 that because you are establishing a high level waste site, I
[
14 here, how can you in good conscience ignore the l:
15 requirements of 10CFR72?
l 16 DR. MASNIK:
Well, as you've said, there are
'17 two separate sets of regulations, here, of course.
And l
4-i l
18 nothing in the decommissioning -- the new-decommissioning 19 rule leads me to believe that we are ignoring the other i
20 regulations, j
21 The other regulations are still in force.
The 22 licensee can safely store the fuel in the spent fuel pool 23 for an extended period of time.
That is permitted by the l
24 regulations.
If they should choose to go to a dry storage l
25 option, they_would be required by the regulations to NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS
[
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 200C53701 (202) 234 4433 l
e-
68 1
submit n licenso application, just like every other 2
licensee, and that license application would be reviewed,
- 3. and if it is determined that the proposal is acceptable, 4
under the regulations, they would be licensed to maintain 5
an independent spent fuel storage facility.
6 MR. BLANCH:
But, again, part 72 addresses any 7
type of storage.
You are alluding, or trying to convince l
8 the public that it only applies to dry storage.
It 9
applies to any storage of spent fuel.
10 These are the requirements that were 11 essentially approved by Congress, dictated by Congress, 12 and now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going to 13 license a high level waste facility here, and not apply 14 the regulations.
This is ludicrous.
15 We have regulations, we have a purpose, and as 16 a member of the public, I think'that we need to impose 17 those regulations, because that is what we are winding up 18 with, for probably the next 50 years.
19 MR. MCCORMICK:
I would like to know, from the 20 NRC -- my name is Tom McCormick -- if NU could do anything that would result in them not being determined to be of a 21 22 fit corporate character to receive a license from you, to 23 decommission this plant.
24 We know they lie in public, consistently, 25 about safety matters, telling us there is containment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1
accidents, when clearly tha NRC, in one of your studies, 2
is saying there is at least five pathways out, not even
)
3 including going through the steam generator, directly to 4
the environment.
l 5
So they lie about that.
They lie, lie about 6
radiation dangers.
They keep telling us safe, safe, safe.
7 Yet when the International Commission on Radiation 8
Protection tells us at least 400 people die, per year, per 9
reactor year, from the mining of the fuel alone, they say 10 that is safe.
11 We know they lie to the state of Connecticut, 12 consistently, consistently, consistently, on matters 13 involving the cost of Millstone III.
The plant cost 4 14 billion dollars, - and I followed this very closely, the 15 best I can remetaber NU ever saying that plant was going - to 16 cost was something like 2.6 billion dollars.
17 I think that if you are a company, and you are 18 building a plant at 2.6, and it comes in more like 3.8, 19 you have a fiscal management problem, perhaps?
20 Do you foresee any circumstance where you 21 would not allow them a license?
They are being 22 investigated by the Attorney General for criminal 23 activities regarding polluting the Long Island Sound.
24-j We know that there is a strong possibility 25 that they are going to receive further fines from you, and NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8 EMS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
70 1
possiblo othar criminnl indictmanto from the Attornoy 2
General of the United States, for material false witnesses 3
regarding the sump screening at Connecticut Yankee.
4 Is there anything they can do, or do they have 5
carte blanche, sir?
6 DR. MASNIK:
They do have a license, and we 7
are charged, as the NRC, to assure that the licensee 8
either operates the facility, or in this case, dismai.tles l
9 the facility in a safe manner.
10 And we will continue our oversight of the 11 licensee, and obviously there have been some problems that 12 have been identified in the past, and they are serious, 13 and we acknowledge that.
14 But we will provide the oversight to assure 15 that the activities that are planned will be carried out 16 in a safe manner.
I guess --
17 MS. DEBOLD:
Would you step up to the mike and 18 repeat the question, please?
11 19 '
MR. MCCORMICK:
The questions are, what could 20 Northeast Utilities do, as a holding company, to prevent 21 you from granting them a license, in this case?
The 22 senior stock is going down, down, down, they could end up 23 in bankruptcy court.
24 l Do you think they are a stable corporation?
25 What could prevent it?
Just give me a little list, four NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 l
71 1
or five factors that would prevent, if proven, different
.2 factors-of granting them a.licen n to carry forward.
3 DR. MASNIK:
Well, first of all, they have a 4
license,-there is no granting --
5 MR. MCCORMICK:
But they will need a new 6
license, they will need a renewal.
l 7
DR. MASNIK:
There is no renewal of the 8
license planned, here. 'They are in the process of 9
terminating the license.
I guess, you know, ultimately if 10 the situation is such that we no longer have any 11 confidence that the licensee can safely dismantle the 12 plant, there are provisions, under the Atomic Energy Act, 13-that the federal government would take over the facility.
14 However, you know, for years I worked on Three 15 Mile Island, and there was a situation where there was a 16 tremendous-amount of money, there was a possibility of a 17 default involved..But through the efforts of the 18 licensee, and our efforts at oversight, that money was 19 scraped together, and they accomplished what they set out 20 to do, and that was, basically, place the plant in a safe, 21 stable condition.
22 Fo I don't know how else to answer your 23 question.
24 MR. MCCORMICK:
One financial, do you think'if 25 they were financially able to carry forward, you would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.CJ 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
72 1
remove them from the job of decommissioning and bring in 2
another agent to do it?
-3 DR, MASNIK:
I think before we got to that, we 4
would compel them to provide the money.
I mean, it is not 5
a question of whether or not they choose to, they have to, 6
okay?
l 7
If the company no longer exists because it 8
goes into default, and there aren't sufficient asseth to 9
finish the job, then under the Atomic Energy Act', the 10 federal government has the authority to step in and take 11 over the process.
12 But I think that -- I mean, that is so far 13 down the road, we are nowhere near that point, yet.
In 14 fact, this plant is in reasonably good shape, compared to 15 other plants that have shut down prematurely.
16 They have a considerable amount of money put 17
- aside, If they choose to place the plant in long term 18 storage, there is sufficient money there to take it for 19 quite some time, until other funds become available.
l 20 Yes, in the back?
21 MR. HYMAN:
My name is David Hyman.
You said 22 that the NRC asks that the licensee have 350 to 400 23 million dollars for a 1,000 watt reactor, is that correct?
24 DR. MASNIK:
That is correct.
25 MR. HYMAN:
It is my understanding that Yankee
]
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433
73 1
Rowe has spent in excess of 400 million dollars for their 2
decommissioning, and yet they are a third that size.
Have 3
you considered revising your numbers, perhaps?-
4 DR. Mn3NIK:
Well, first of all, they haven't 5
spent that money.
I 6
MR. HYMAN:
I believe the actual number is I
l 7
365.
L 8
DR. MASNIK:
Well, they've estimated 425' 9
million dollars.
I 20 MR. HYMAN:
They originally estimated 50, so -
1.
12 DR. MASNIK:
Yes, I grant you that.
13 MR. HYMAN:
But still, they are one-third the 14 size.
I mean, what you are talking about is funds that 15 would, in fact, cover one-third of the dismantling here.
16 What does the NRC suggest 17 DR. MASNIK:
No, no, no.
The number 350 to 18 400 million dollars is an estimate for 1,000 megawatt 19 plant, electric.
This is --
20 MR. HYMAN:
Well, what is the megawatt at 21 Yankee Rowe?
22 DR. MASNIK:
That is roughly one-third of 23 that.
24 MR. HYMAN:
Correct.
Therefore, if Yankee 25 Rowe has spent 360 million, and they are not done, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
74 1
they aro one-third the size, if you multiply that numbar I
2 by three, I believe you come up to somewhere a little over 3
one billion dollars, is that correct?
4 DR. MASNIK:
I guess I'm having trouble --
5 MR. HYMAN:
Isn't that correct?
6 DR. MASNIK:
No, they have not spent anything.
7 MR. HYMAN:
It is a free job?
8 DR. MASNIK:
No, they have not spent any' money 9
yet.
They have not accessed any of the funds that are in 10 the decommissioning cost fund.
11 MR. HYMAN:
How much has Yankee --
12 DR. MASNIK:
Oh, Yankee, I'm sorry.
13 MR. HYMAN:
Rowe spent to take apart that 14 reactor, sir?
How much?
15 DR. MASNIK:
I don't know the answer to that, 16 at this point.
17 MR. HYMAN:
Well,_I'll tell you what, if you 18 could possibly come up with a number at some point, it 19 would be nice.
Let's move on, if you would, because I 20 know that there are other people that would like to talk 21 to you.
22 There is a handout over here on the table, 23 that I was looking at, and there is a quote here from a 24 Federal District Court Judge, in a case that the Citizen's 25 Awareness brought with the NRC.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200054701 (202) 234-4433
75 1
And the quote goes as follows:
"This courne
-2 of conduct by the NRC suggests a concerted bureaucratic 3
effort to thwart the efforts of local citizens to be heard 4
about an event that vitally affects them and their 5
children.
It calls to mind the activities of Charles 6
Dickens' fictional Office of Circumlocution in Bleak 7
House.
The prospect that this tax may be used nationally, 8
as more nuclear plants shut down, and more local citizens 9
groups express concern about the impact of the process on 10 their lives is to put it mildly, disquieting."
11 So this is a federal court judge talking about 12 you.
Now, somebody here, earlier, made reference to the 13 trust that is trying to be established here.
14 I was wondering if you could comment on this 15 quote, and what the NRC is doing to try and regain our 16 trust.
17 MR.- HOLLER:
If I may, sir, my name is Gene 18
- Holler, and I'm an attorney with the Office of General 19 Counsel with the NRC.
20 The court case that you referred to, CAN 21 versus the NRC, was addressed to the regulations in force-22 at the time that the Yankee Rowe facility began its 23 decommissioning.
Subsequent to that, the commission has 24 published and promulgated the new regulations.
25 In more detail, for those that are interested, NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23M433 A
76 l'
in the statemsnt of considerations accompanying the now 2
regulations that talked about; referred to, and that were 3
published on July 29, 1996.
4-The Commission addressed those matters that 5
the Court in CAN v US found to be deficient.
Primarily 6
the Court perceived that the Commission had not adequately 7
provided the' reasoning for the NRC's change in 8
decommissioning.
9 That has been explained, and has been 10 promulgated with the new rules that are in effect.
The 11 Court also had some problems with decommissioning 12 activities taking place prior to meeting the appropriate 13 National Environmental Protection Act reviews.
14 Again, the Commission, in the new rules, has 15 provided for that.
Specifically, a licensee may not I
l 16 undertake decommissioning activities, as allowed in this j
.17 PSDAR, without explaining how they fall within the l
18 environmental' impact that had been previously assessed in 19 the generic environmental impact statement,-or the 20 specific-environmental impact statement for the plant in 21 question.
22
-Lastly, the Court also perceived that the l
23 Agency had approved the expenditure of funds for 12 4 decommissioning before approval of a decommissioning plan, 25 and thereby triggering hearing rights, or possibly NEPA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 m
w-.
e
+
-y-
--j,
,y m,
,,..%...e
.,.,g 9.7-+7,
77 1
reviews, National Environmental Protection Act reviews.
2 Again, the new-regulation sets forth specific 3
rules, criteria, for the expenditure of those funds, and 4
those specific NRC approval, therefore, is needed to do 5
those.
l 6
In sum, the Commission takes the position that i
7 it has explained the rational for its revised l
8 decommissioning rules, that the Court in CAN v U.S.
1 9
despite the colorful language that you cited that the 10 Court used to emphasize certain points, that they -- the 11 Commission has addressed those concerns that the Court had 12 with the 1988 rule, and as it was applied in the Yankee 13 Rowe proceedings.
14 And that the Court did not specify any 15 specific approach that the Commission must take in 16 promulgating decommissioning rules.
17 MR. HYMAN:
Thank you for addressing these 18 concerns.
I was wondering if you could address.my 19 original = question.
What are you doing to try-and regain 20 any confidence that we might or might not have?
21 MR. HOLLER:
Yes, sir.
Briefly,-the 22 Commission, in the new rules, has provided for, as Dr.
23 Masnik has pointed out, first of all, the opportunity for 24 early public participation in the form of a meeting.
25 MR. HYMAN:
Does that include public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1
disclosure of documento, specs, radiation doses to public, 2-to the vorkers?
We are talking about operating this 3
decommissioning in the light of day, are we not?
4 MR. HOLLER:
Yes, sir.
I-think we are sort 5
of getting into speculation, and if you have a specific 6
question there?
7 MR. HYMAN:
No, that is not speculation.
I'm 8
really quite --
9 MR. HOLLER:
So that we don't become 10 argumentative, let me answer the first part of the 11 question, first.
And your question was, what is the NRC 12 doing to re-establish trust?
To begin with, as Dr. Masnik 13 has pointed out, the NRC conducts, early on in the 14 process, the public participation meeuings.
15 The licensee submits the PSDAR, it goes onto 16 the docket, it is publicly available in the local public 17 document room, as well as copies can be obtained.
The 18 public is invited to comment on it, a public meeting is 19 held, where it is discussed.
20 So early on in the process, that participation 21 takes place.
More importantly, as the decommissioning 22 process proceeds, and prior to termination of the license, 23 which is really the more important step, because that is 24 the part where the NRC, after the termination-of the
.25 license is no longer in the procesa.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C.- 20005 3701 (202) 2364433
79 1
Again, the licensen must submit a termination 2
plan, which includes specific radiation surveys, a report 3
on those things.that are still required before 4
decommissioning-is finished, an update on the cost and
-5 monies available for decommissioning, and the approval of 6
that is through a license amendment process.
7 Which, again, provides-not only the 8
opportunity for public participation and comment,_ but for 9-the public to request a hearing on the final approval of 10 the termination plan.
11 So in sum, through the long process, early 12 involvement with the public, when the licensee first comes with its post-shut down decommissioning activities 13 out 14 report, and a continuation of having things available in 15 the public docket, and finally with an opportunity to 16 review and comment on the termination plan.
17 MR. HYMAN:
I respectfully submit, sir, that 18 despite the opportunity for hearings, discussions, 19 etcetera, concerning Yankee Rowe, there was no movement 20 until court was brought into it.
'21 It leads one to believe that your process of 22 hearings and panels and meetings is merely a lot of hot 23 air, and that it is not taken'very seriously by the NRC.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. HOLum:
Yes, sir, I take your opinion.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
80 1
Thank you.
2 MR. MELLOR:
Russ Mellor.
Just to provide a 3
point of fact for Dave Hyman.
Rowe's cost of 1
4.
decommissioning, as estimated in its 1995 FERC case was 5
341 million, and that is on out through the entire 6
decommise3oning.
That includes dry storage, it includes
)
7 things that the NRC isn't concerned about, such as removal I
8 of buildings.
i l
9 So it'is a long process, and that money hasn't i
10 all been spent, nowhere near has it been spent.
f 11 MR. KATZ:
My name is Fred Katz, I live in 12 Rowe.
It is my understanding, and I think you sort of
-13 said it, that the only time for the public to have an 14 opportunity for a-hearing, that is an adjudicatory
- 15. Hearing, is after the entire process is complete.
Am I 16 right?
17 DR. MASNIK:
No, it is not quite right.
18 Whenever there is an amendment to the license, there is an 19 opportunity for a member of the public to request a 4
20 hearing.- And there will be a number of-license 21 amendments, as this plant proceeds down to 22 decommissioning.
23 MR. KATZ:
I didn*t quite understand what you j
j 24 said.
But I'm still laboring under the assumption, or the 25 understanding that the only time that the public will have i
4 NEAL R. GRCSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W.
(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23M33
81 1
an opportunity for a hearing on decommissioning, is after 2
decommissioning is complete.
3 DR, MASNIK:
Well, the only time that -- the d
4 license termination plan that I-spoke of, and that Mr.
5 Holler also talked about, requires a hearing, an 6
opportunity for a hearing.
7 But, during that period of time, any change to 8
the Haddam license, which requires a license amendmeht, 9
there is an opportunity for a member of the public to 10 request a hearing.
11 MR. KATZ:
Well, hasn't there been a change in 12 the license of Yankee Haddam in terms of their shutting 13 down and going into decommissioning; or is that not a 14 change?
15 DR. MASNIK:
No, that is-not a change --
16 MR. KATZ:
Is there an opportunity for a 17 hearing?
18 DR. MASNIK:
That is not a change in-the 19 license.
20
'MR.
KATZ:
I see.
It is not a change in the 21 license, but it is a change somewhere?
22 JR. MASNIK:
Well, it is a change in the 23 status of the facility, that is correct.
24 MR. KATZ:
Which doesn't require the offering 25 of an opportunity for a hearing.
Now, the opportunity for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
g (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 200053701 (202) 234-4433
S2 hearing was available under the old rule, was it not?
1 a
2 MR. HOLLER:
Excuse me, sir.
If I understand our question correctly, the question was, was-there an 3
y And the pportunity for a hearing under the old rule?
4' o
and there is an opportunity under the new 5
answer was, yes, 6
rule.
7 The difference it the timing of it.
Under the 8
old rule --
9 MR. KATZ:
When the amendment for -- at the 10 possession of the license, and now the opportunity comes L
11 after the decommissioning is over.
12 Now, in this not a concerted bureaucratic 13 effort to thwart thr ability of citizens to have a voice 14 in matters that affect them?
15 MR. HOLLER:
I would submit to you, sir, not.
16 I think what Dr. Masnik was trying to explain, and perhaps this may clarify it;.if the licensee were able to go from 17 18 an operating plant, and doing those activities that are authorized by its license to the point of completing all 19 20 of its decommissioning activities without the need for any 21 amendment of its license, a theoretical case if you will, 22 then they could get to that point which you suggest.
23 However, it is highly unlikely that a licensee would be able to go from the point of operating a plant, 24 25 to conducting all the activities necessary for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
-33 1
decommissioning without the need for some license
~
2 amendments, changes to its license.
3 Now, each change to its license presents the 4 -
opportunity for notice to the public of that change, and 5
an opportunity to request a hearing.
I 6
Ultimately, when the licensee has gone through 7
the process of just prior to terminating the license, he 8
still has a license, then the mere fact of presenting its I-9 final plan for termination of the license, itself, 10 presents the opportunity for another hearing, for the 11 opportunity to request a hearing.
12 MR. KATZ:
So, in other words, Connecticut 13 Yankee is operating -- or its license is an operating 14 license right now?
Whatever activities are going to take 15 place wi21 take place under its operating license?
16 MR. HOLLER:
Correct.
Yes, sir.
17 MR. KATZ:
So that will make it possible for 18 them to use the opportunities that are presented by the 19 50.59; is that right?
20 MR. HOLLER:
What the gentleman is referring 21 to is l'0CFR, the code of Fede al Regulation 50.59, which 22-allows the licensee to engage in other activities, as 23 described in its FSAR, if it meets certain criteria?
24 MR. KATZ:
See, this is very circumlocutious, 25 -
you see?
Because at Rowe what we experienced was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 200CT-3701 (202) 234-4433
84
-1 10CFR50.59 being utilized in a closed reactor, and usually 2
that regulation is used for operating' reactors, which we 3
found very puzzling.
4 But now you are telling me that since the 5
license has been changed, they can use it, and it is 6
perfectly all right.
7 In terms of invoking any trust, what I'm I
.8 experiencing right now, is having my head twisted around 9
in a circumlocutious way.
I think that this is an example 10 of what Judge-Ponzer was talking about.
11 MR. HOLLER:
All I can say, sir, I take your-12-point.
I think we have probably reached the point of 13 where we both understand the positions that we've taken, 14 and I don't know if we will accomplish anything more.
15 MR. KATZ:
Well, I understand it perfectly 16 well, but we will have-no opportunity to have a hearing on 17 the choice of the decommissioning option.
18 MR.
HOLLER:
That is correct.
19 MR.-KATZ:
That is corr'ect.
Thank you.
It
-20 doesn't leave me feeling very trustful.
21 DR. RAYBLATT:
Please stay, because I have a 22 question that involves --
23 MR.
HOLLER:
Your name, please?
24 DR. RAYBLATT:
My name is Dr. Rayblatt, and 25 I'm from Bridgeport, Connecticut.
I received a letter NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCJIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
85 1
from Mr. Seymour Weiss, who unfortunately is not here 2
tonight.
And_in that letter _which-is concerned with 3
information regarding the fraudulent tests on TMI II, that 4
resulted, finally, in the worst disaster in the history of 5
generation of nuclear power in the United States.
6 And the reason why.I was denied the
~
7-information I was seeking, was that there-is no health 8
significance, anymore, since the plant is shut down.
l 9
My question to you is, since the Haddam Neck 10 at CY is going to be, or actually is, permanently shut 11 down, does this mean that any information that otherwise 12 would have been made available to citizens, would not be 13 available anymore?
14 DR. MASNIK:
In the situation that you've 15 explained with TMI, I think your request was to require
'16 us, the NRC, to produce that information. 'And require the 17 licensee to submit it.
18 And, basically, we came to the conclusion that 19 since the plant -- could you let go of the mike, please?
20 If you would let go.of the mike please, it is causing _
21:
interference in the system.-- Yes, that is fine.
22 The Agency took the-position that they were 23 not going to compel the licensee to provide that 24 information.
Now, any information that is provided to the 25 NRC, and any information that is provided by Haddam to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 23M433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 23 4 433
=
86 1
NRC, or that wa require of Haddam, is put in the-public
.2 docket.
-3 And that-public docket is available to 4
everyone.
That information is down at the local public
-5 document room in Middletown.
We were_there today, and it 6
is accessible.
~
7 DR. RAYBLATT:
This is not true.
Simply, I 8
have a document which says that the report of the vif.al 9_
leak rate test of the containment system on TMI II has 10 never been placed in the public documents room, until 11 February-of 1996, 18 years, or 17 years after the 12
- disaster, j
[
-i 13 The report on structural integrity test, the 14 test that shows whether the containment can withstand 15 pressure, is not available even today, has never been
-16 placed, according to response to my FOIA.
17
-And Mr. Weiss,_he is_the person who is 18 responsible for such things, for violations, severe
}
-19 violations of Freedom of Information Act.
20 As a matter of fact, today, I filed a petition 21 to punish Mr. Weiss and the NRR, much more than it was 22 done by removing Mr.__ Taylor and other heroes, Russcll.
We 23 must change the staff.at the NRC.
24 Until people like Weiss and other heroes are 25 there, we are not sure that things will be done right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 l
-____n
87 These people are simply puppets of the industry.
1 2
MR. CLEW:
My name is Harvey Clew, C-L-E-W, 3
from Haddam, I'm a selectman here, which is our version of 4
the Town Council.
5 Several years down the road Haddam may wish to make sure of the Connecticut Yankee site to produce tax 6
7 revenue, or for residential purposes, or recreation 8
purposes, or something or other, 9
Forgive me if you've covered this, but have 10 any decommission -- are any decommission sites now in use
'll for something other than nuclear power generation, and do 12 any of these sites contain nuclear fuel, high level 13 nuclear fuel, or other nuclear waste?
14 DR. MASNIK:
We've only -- of course, Shoreham
'15 is the only one that has -- a recent plant that has been 16 decommissioned.
I know that there is some plans at other 17 facilities, but they haven't come to fruition, yet, to re-18 power the sites, using gas and gas turbines.
19 In fact, one of the plants that I work on, 20 Trojan, is actively pursuing that, and they plan to have 21 an independent spent fuel storage -- this dry storage 22 facility, so the fuel would be on-site, and they are 23 planning to convert--the turbine deck into a couple of gas 24 turbines.
25 So I don't believe that there are any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 4
88 1
facilities that,have undergono-that. sort'of conversion, 2
but there are some that are planned.
And there is no
}
- 3 reason why that can't occur.
I mean, we would have to
\\
4 look at the safety significance of whatever activity is-5 planned for there, if we do have one of these dry storage j
6 facilities, there.
-7 of course,-if the license is completely 8
eliminated, and the fuel is shipped off-site to a
[
9 permanent repository, then the licensee would be free to i
10 do whatever they want with the site.
11 MR. CLEW:
I'm aware of that.
My point is 12 that'it may be very difficult to get anyone else to occupy
'13 this site for any other purpose, as long as there is 14 nuclear fuel there, or any other suspicion that the site 15.
is still contamina'.ed, or dangerous in some way.
Jt.
16 Now, the-Trojan plan, of course, they are very.
^
17 familiar with radioactivity and-so on.
But most people 18 aren't.
My point is, won't it be difficult for -- to make 19 some other use of this site, as long as there-is nuclear j
20 fuel there.
21 DR. MASNIK:
.You may be right, I clearly can't 22 answer further than'what I just said.
23 Yes, Debbie?
24 MS. KATZ:
I just wanted to make a clarifying 25 point, because you keep bringing up the Shoreham reactor
)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
' 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 234 4433 i
89 1
as the one reactor that is' decommissioned.
That reactor 2
was-only in operation for 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />.
And so it-really
-3 didn't operate for very long, so its decommissioning isn't 4
quite the same as Connecticut Yankee or Yankee Rowe.
5 I just felt that was clear.
And the other 6
point is that the site will, in fact, remain contaminated.
-7 Reactors are-allowed to leak 15 milli-rem a year about 8
background radiation, at site, according to your own I
9 regulations.
10 DR. HASNIK:
The gentleman in the back with 11 the black shirt.
12 MR. MALONEY:
Hi, I'm Tom Maloney, from the 13 Connecticut River Watershed Council.
And I would just
~
like to re-emphasize a question that was raised by 14 15 somebody over here, and maybe follow up on selectman 16 Clew's point.
17 Did-I hear correctly that there will be no 18 opportunity for a public Hearing to discuss-13 decommissioning options?
Which I think the community here 20 would be very interested in having that opportunity to 21 discuss what options the utility might take in the tuture.
22 MR. HOLLER:
Gene Holler, again.
Just so we 23 are clear, there is an opportunity for the public to 24 comment, both in writing, and there will be a public 25 meeting similar to this one, once the licensee has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
90 1
submitted its PSDAR, the post-shut down decommissioning 2
actjvities report.
3 If.you mean-a hearing in the sense of an 4
adjudicatory hearing, then the regulations do not provide 5
for'an adjudicatory hearing.
They do provide, though, for 6
public comment on what the licensee chooses to put'in its 7
8 MR. MALONEY:
Even in the event that the PSDAR 9
prescribes something that-is a fundamental change in the 10 existing license?
11 MR. HOLLER:
Well now, again, we are-getting 12 into the previous discussion we had.
If the licensee were 13.
proposing to do something that is not allowed under its 14 license, such that it would require a fundamental change, 15' if that is the background-you set up, then that-16 fundamental change would require a license amendment, and 17 then there would be an opportur.ity for a hearing.
18 But,- again, we are talking hypotheticals and 19 it is difficult to'do that.
20 MR. MALONEY:
Right.
But in the event that it 21 is just a PSDAR there is not a public hearing?
22 MR.
HOLLER:
That is a correct statement.
-23 MR. MALONEY:
Okay.
24 MR.
HOLLER:
And the licensee then is 25 proposing in its PSDAR to do those things that are allowed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoOE ISt.AND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
d 91
.1 under its current license.
l=
2 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Ted-Feigenbaum from Northeast i:
3 Utilities.
Again, as I said earlier, once we go through l
4 1997 and decide on the options, and research and evaluate i
5-the-best methodology, we will come to the public, we.will a
i 6
talk about why we selected the option ve did, and we want i -
7 to hear your. input, we want to get your input.
8 And if you don't feel comfortable at a p'ublic i
9 meeting, you can come to my office, we will-sit down, we i
10 will go over it in detail, what the issues are, and we'd 3
11 like to hear your input.
l 12 You can mail us information.
So I thir there 13 will be plenty of opportunity for the public input, nd we-4 l-14 do want to get it, and we do want to receive it, and we do i.
j 15 want to consider it.
4 16 MS. DEBOLD:
I know that_your. question relates 17 to this statement, is that correct?
4 18 ANSWER:
Yes, ma'am.
19 MS. DEBOLD:
If you want to come to the mike I J
20.
will recognize one quick short question, and-then, if we 21 may, in an effort to keep this to the timetable that we-j-
_22 established earlier, I'd like.to begin a comment period.
23 The names that-are on the list who have signed 24-up, we will go through them, but I will explain that after 25 your question gets answered, and hopefully -- thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 236 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23&M33
~
92 1
QUESTION:
What we are trying to say, sir, is 2
that you are making a-decision, and then allowing us to 3
comment on it, or vent.
4 What we are saying is, we would very much like 5
to be a part of the decision making process.
And that is 6
not allowed, at this-point, by you._ We are asking for 7
that to change.
You are asking.for our support and our 8
trust.
9 By excluding us from the process, I believe 10 you are diminishing, greatly, that trust.
Thank you.
11 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you for helping us get 12 through the-question and answer period.
The next part of 13 the session is a period of public comment.
I had hoped 14 that we would have time for a break, but I think in the 15 interest of giving everyone-a chance to say what-they wish 16 to,-we will. continue.
17 If you need to leave, if you would just leave 18' quietly, and otherwise we will go right ahead.
19 There are two papers that are sign-up sheets 20 that people have signed up on.
Some of you who have 21-signed up may not wish to speak.
There are about 40 names 22 listed.
23 It was not clearly, and that is my fault, 24 noted that the two sheets I'm holding are for making a 25 comment that would be record, and hopefully will be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 23M
93 1
responded-to atua later time, not at this time, by either 2
the utility or the NRC.
1 3
So I'll start with the names on the list, and 4
read them and'we will go right in order.
If you wish to 5
be excused or excluded or say pass or whatever, we will 6
take you-off the list if you don't want to speak.
7 I'll give you the first five names, and you l
L 8
can arrange yourselves in that order.
Thomas LaGuar'ia, d
9 Donald Eggett, Paul Jacobson, Charles -- sorry about that.
10 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, if you 11 could give us the name yourself.
12 And then-I think the fifth one is Nick 13 Williams.
So is Thomas LaGuardia interested in speaking?
14 Good.
Step right up, and after him it will be Donald 15 Eggett.
16-If you keep it.to two minutes, please.
17' MR. LAGUARDIA:
Thomas LaGuardia, President of
.18 TLC services.
We are in the decommissioning planning and 19 field services business.
20 The work-that has been done in-decommissioning.
21 the plants, to date, has been done safely and with public 22 interest at heart.
Public health and safety, as well.
23 The work that goes on during decommissioning ic. drastically different-than what goes on during 24 b
25-operations.
The systems that are used to maintain and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
~
E
(
94
=1 operate a_ plant in c' safe operating condition,-are not of 2'
concern in decommissioning.
3 In decommissioning the only concern is, where-4 is the contamination, and how do we deal with it?- And
-5 this has been done safely, repeatedly, at decommissioning i
6 projects dating back from.the early 1960's.
7 The planning _that is being done now by this 8
utility, and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a'nd'all 9
of the contractors that work in this industry, is done 10 with the interest of protecting public health and safety, l
11 and our own workers.
12 I have a stake in this.
Every time I bid a 13-job my house is on the line, to fund and to support the 14 project.
I have an interest in public safety, and the 15 safety _of my_ workers, and all.the co-workers.
16-This is a_ safe industry.
It is the safest 17 industry in the decommissioning field, because it has been 18 done with experience based, now, some 30 odd years long.
As Thank you.
20 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you.
Donald Eggett, 21 please.
Followed by Paul Jacobson.
22 MR. EGGETT:
My name is Don Eggett, I'm with 23 Commonwealth Edison in Chicago.
I didn't really plan to 24 come here, it was-just an opportunity to come here because 25 I was in the neck of the woods, here, at Tom LaGuardia's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
95 1
office.
2=
.I;just' wanted to respond to one of the 3
questions regarding re-powering or other-future 4
alternative uses that was brought up by one of the 5
comments.
6-Fort St. Vrain in Colorado has re-powered a 7
gas turbine unit, 133 megawatts, and they plan to re-power l
8 two additional 133 megawatt gas turbines, on site.
They 9
do have an independent spent fuel storage facility, which 10 is on site, under the part 50.72 license.
11 I agree that the spent fuel issue. is somettiing
-12 we have to deal with.
But as you probably know, that is 13 the Department of Energy's responsibility, today, and we 14 have-to work with them.
15 Thank you.
'16 MS, DEBOLD:
Thank you.
Paul Jacobson?
Nick 17 Williams, please.
18 MR. WILLIAMS:
My name is Nick Williams, from 19-radiological services of New London,-Connecticut.
I'm a
.- 2 0 lifelong Connecticut resident.
-21 I'd like to echo Mr. LaGuardia's comments.
I 22 was a radiation protection manager on the Shoreham 23-decommissioning, which is mentioned with a reactor that 24 didn't operate very long.
25 However, there were about four million pounds NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
i (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 f radiocctive material shipped f rom that site, and dose 1
o 2
rates of up to 1200 R per hour, so it was fairly 3
significant.
And we had very good cooperation and 4
reaction from the public, and also we had extensive NRC 5
involvement, even long after the license was terminated, 6
we still had follow-up and review, and incredibly thorough 7
work by the NRC in that project, to the satisfaction of 8
the general public on Long Island.
9 That is it.
10 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you.
Let me give you the 11 next few names.
James McClear, if you would speak next.
12 Then we have Ted Feng, Ernie Woods, Adam' Levin, and i
I 13 William -- looks like -- I'm going to say Fair, but it is 14
-- but we will get it in a minute.
15 How about Ted Feng, please?
Ernie Woods, 16 please.
17 MR. WOODS:
I have a short, prepared Good evening, my name is Ernest Woods, I've 18 statement.
19 lived in Haddam for forty years, and I've been an employee 20 at Haddam Neck for 15.
I have spoken to you many times, in the past, 21 I'm here on the techs and economic viability issues, but 22 23 tonight to reassure you that the decommissioning of the Haddam Neck plant will be performed safely.
24 confidence in the leadership 25 I have the utmost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
n w
97 1-of. Bruce Kenyon, President and CEO of NU nuclear, and the 2
management'_of CY.
3 At the.Haddam Neck plant, safety is stressed 4
over and over, every day.
Station management continually 5
states that no job is so important that safety has to be 6
compromised.
l 7
The employees and management are sensitive to 8
the-concerns of the public and safety, environmental, and j
9 radiological issues.
10 We, myself as a worker and also a town 11 resident, is confident that the decommissioning process at 12 Haddam Neck will be completed correctly, safely, 13 professionally, and in a timely manner.
14 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you.
Adam Levin, please.
15 MR. LEVIN :
No comment.
16 MS. DEBOLD:
William --
17 ANSWER:
No comment.
18 MS. DEBOLD:
I'll never find out the last 19 name.
Kim Medeiros, please.
.20 MS. MEDEIROS:
I'm going to forfeit my time to 21--
Debbie Katz.
22 MS. DEBOLD:
Fine.
Although she is down here-23 later.
Do you want to go now, Debbie?
24 MS. KATZ:
Yes, I'll take it now.
25 MS. DEBOLD:
hank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433
' WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l-
4 98
-1 MS. KATZ:- What wo experienced at the Rowa 2
reactor in-Massachusetts was the meltdown of democracy.
3-Yankee--Atomic engaged in experimental decommissioning that we believe exposed workers and the public to unnecessary
'4 5
radiation.
6 And the people that are accountable for this 7
are the NRC, Yankee Atomic is a corporation,. it is their i
8 job to do the decommissioning and to get rid of the '
9 radiation.
L 10 Therealityaboutnuclearpo4tristhat it is a dirty technology, and it contaminates everything it 11 t-12 comes in contact with.
And:what you have left after 30 1
13 years of-operation, is an enormous amount of contaminated 14 waste that is really deadly, and you have to find another 15-community to dump it on, to get rid of it from the site it 16 is on.
17 This rsises ethical issues about what we do 18 with waste, in terms of who do we contaminate, what 19 communities suffer the sacrifice of increased exposure to 20.
radiation, and increases in disease.
21 In our community, we have an epidemic of 22 disease that we fear is related to long-term exposure to 23 radiation from that reactor going into our local Little 24 River.
25 But Rowe removed over 136,000 curies from that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344 433 b
j
s 99 1
rocetor without on approvod decommicoloning plan.
And 2
when we won a court case against the NRC, and the NRC was 3
found to be arbitrary, capricious and utterly irrational, l
4 in their allowing the stripping of the Rowe reactor, and 5
when the NRC was found to have violated the national 6
environmental policy act, the administrative procedures 7
act, and the atomic energy act, and was told by the court 8
that decommissioning is a major federal action, anu you 9
cannot skirt that by calling it another name.
10 The NRC made a new rule in which 11 decommissioning is no longer a major federal action, in 12 which there are no longer hearings allowed for citizens to l
13 be involved in matters that vitally affect them, like how 14 do they want their community contaminated, and do they 15 want other communities contaminated in the process of 16 having themselves cleaned up.
17 And what do we do with this incredible problem 18 of nuclear waste that, in fact, we have no solution for.
19 And what we are doing is shifting it from pillar to post, 20 because this whole process is bankrupt, and nobody knows 21 what to do with it.
22 And instead of creating a policy that will 23 allow looking at it, we are creating a very dangerous 24 precedent.
I want to acknowledge that we think that NRC 25 is in violation of CAN v NRC at this point, in terms of i
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TIMNSCRIBERS i
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 2000<' 3701 (202) 2344433 r
100 1
that Appelloto Court decision, and that you are operating l
l 2
outside the law.
3 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you.
Brian Wood.
All 4
right, I'm not seeing Brian.
How about Tom Cleary?
5 MR. CLEARY:
No comment.
l 6
MS. DEBOLD:
N> comment.
Paul Blanch?
7 MR. BLANCH:
Again, Paul Blanch from West I
8 Hartford, Connecticut.
9 Just to expand on some of the issues that I l
10 brought up in the questioning of the NRC.
We have a basic l
l 11 credibility problem, here, with the NRC and with Northeast l
l 12 Utilities.
13 I have six inches worth of Inspector General 14 reports on my desk, that report on the incompetence and l
I 15 fe.lse statements made by various levels of NRC people, to 16 the public, to Congress, and so on and so forth.
-17 We just don't have the confidence that the NRC 18 is going to do their job.
We've already seen an 19 indication, tonight, how they are going to ignore the
(
20 requirements for high level waste storage.
21 If we remember, a few years-back, it was 22 proposed to site low level waste storage here in 23 Connecticut.
There was a public outcry.
We don't have, 24 and will not have low level waste storage.
-25 But yet, what is going on, what I hear tonight NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433 l i -,.-.. _
L 101 L
1 is, we are going to have high level wcoto storago, and wa I
2 are going to have no requirements for a high level waste 3
storage.
i 4
Why do we need requirements?
We need 5
requirements, specially a safety analysis report, which is 6
required by part 72.
This safety analysis report will-H 7
determine what the risk is associated with the storage of 8
spent fuel.
9 Why do we need that?
We need it so that we 10 can determine whether there is a-credible risk, such that 11-do we need off-site emergency planning?
Do we need safety 12 related cooling systems?
Do we need qualified operators?
13 All these questions beg answers.
What we are 14 seeing tonight is, anyone can do just about anything they 15 want, because there are a total of 102 words covering 16 spent fuel storage in 10CFR50.
17 We look at part 72, it goes on for pronably 20 18 or 30 pages, and it is a reasonable regulation, and I urge
?. 9 you to address everything contained within part 72.
20 Thank you.
21 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you, Pattl.
Next I have 22 John Block, followed by Paul Guntner, and Gerald Reardon.
23 Do those people wish to speak.
24 MR. BLOCK:
My_ comment is addressed to 25 something that has not been discussed this evening by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 MH00E tr, LAND AVE., NW, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTOPs. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
102 1
cither tho NRC or the utility.
And perhaps it wasn't 2
included in the agenda, because it seems to have been left 3
out of the NRC's rules, even its new rules.
4 And that is, the need, in the NRC's rules, to 5
have a mandated, economic decommissioning plan for every 6
area of the country that is affected by the process of 7
shutting down-a large scale industry that employs many, B - many people, and moving it away, so that the tax bas'e of a 9
community is sometimes irreparably damaged by that shift.
10 And people have been speaking of Shoreham.
11 Well, the people out in Shoreham got a real surprise after 12 they had been continuing to tax Wilco to run their school, 13 and found that mil. ions of dollars that they had taxed the 14 utility for, have to be paid back.
15 And I think that unless something is done to 16 demand this kind of an economic plan that includes 17 planning to retrain workers, relocate people, and in the 18 long term assure the economic viability of towns that have 19 come to live on the largesse of having a very large 20 employer there, that is suddenly going to go away, that 21 nothing will be done, the towns will be left in ruin, in 22 addition with being left with big piles of waste sitting 23 there for long periods of time.
24 So I think that my comment is addressed to the 25 NRC, that it is time to have a rule making, not only to NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT P.EPoRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISt.AND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 u._ ;
u.
2-
103 e
1 deal with the nood to increase decommissioning funds.
2 I mean, this was mentioned here previously and
}
3 it-is absolutely ludicrous for you to stand up there and i
i 4
listen to somebody tell you that a reactor a third the j
5 size of this one is going to cost, you know, something on 4
i j
6 the order of 360 million, and you are not requiring that 7
they have funds sufficient to pay for the decommissioning.
4 8
Why isn't there a rule that requires tha't 9
there be economic dislocation planning for every community 10 that has to experience what this one is going to l
j 11 experience, and what Rowe experienced, and what Shoreham 4
l 12 experienced.
l i
13 So it is time for that rule making.
That is j
s j
14 my comment.
1 15 MS. DEBOLD:
Paul, you are the next one, 16 Thank you.
j 17 MR. GUNTNER:
Just briefly.
I think that 18 we've heard, quite eloquently this evening, that there is 19 some very real concerns that the public is being removed
]
20 from this-process, and that the Nuclear Regulatory I'
21 Commission -- when the rules don't work to shield the 22-industry, the NRC changes the rules.
23 And I think that given that in this era of 24 electric industries deregulation, when the rising 25 competition associated with this out of control NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEP.S AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200f63701 (202) 234 4433
104 2
1 dscommissioning costs, what we are faced with is the 2
public left holding the bag, without a voice.
3 And I think that my message here is that the 4
warning clearly goes out, tonight, that it is our I
5 responsibility as a democracy,-to reclaim our voice, and 1
6 take our stand.
7 MR. REARDON:
Gerald Reardon, Newington,
-B-Connecticut.
The spelling is the same.
9 I have in my hand two documents that were 10 recently issued.
They both speak to the public's trust 11 and confidence in Northeast Utilities and the NRC.
12 The first document is a 300-plus page report 13 that was issued by the Department of Public Utilities, 14 State of Connecticut, on December 31st, 1996.
15 It says a lot of things about Northeast 16 Utilities management.
None of them very flattering.
17 The second report was issued in November, by 18 the Citizens Awareness Network, and-the Nuclear 19 Information and Resources Services.
20 It-is a petition for enforcement, a 2.206 to 21 the NRC, and it is focused on CY operations and its 22 management.
Again, it is not very flattering to that 23 organization.
24_
In total, they represent serious doubts 25 whether NU is capable and ethically -- on an ethical and NEAL R. GROSS
' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
.(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
105 1
compotoney basis, to cparato as well as decommission any 2
of their nuclear units.
3 And I urge the NRC, I beg the NRC, to-tonight 4-establish a commitment that will address and resolve all 5
the issues raised in both these documents, prior to any further steps to be taken about CY's decommissioning.
6 l
7 I'd like to speak, also, to the point of
.8 estimates in the nuclear industry.
I want to bring to.
9 your attention that when Millstone III was initially --
10 began its construction, and these are very round numbers, t
11 these are estimates of estimates, it was estimated that 12 that plant would cost 800 million dollars.
13 When-it was completed, the cost of that plant 14 was 3.6 billion dollars.
It is the nature of the nuclear 15 industry, in my past 25 years in it,'that estimates are 16 grossly-under-estimated in factors, as a previous 17 gentleman mentioned, of three to five, and I would not be 18 surprised in the order of magnitude, would be the final 19 cost-to CY's decommissioning.
20 Thank you.
21 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank_you, Mr. Reardon.
Next we 22 have -- I'll_ read through the names of the next few, so 23 you-can get ready.
I'have Peter Smith, Rosemary 24 Bassilakis, I've got Debbie Katz again, but maybe you will 25 wait until the end, this was the second request.
We will NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHMGTON, D.C. 2000 53701.
(202) 236 4433
106 l
t 1
go to David ~ looks like Koffer.
{
2 We will do those in that order, if we may.
3 Peter?
Peter must have left.
Rosemary?
4 MS. BASSILAKIS:
I want to make it very clear 5
that thin meeting does not satisfy our decommissioning 6
concerns.
7 Nhat we want is'an adjudicatory hearing, where 8
we are allowed to question both the NRC and the util'ity, 9
under oath, and that we have disclosure of their records.
10 We want to have meaningful input in the decommissioning 11 process.
12 We want to participate in pollution prevention P
13 and control.
We don't accept the new decommissioning
[
14 rule, and we believe it is unconstitutional.
i 15 We further want decommissioning to be 16 recognized as a major federal act.
And because of that, 17 we would like it to have to be in compliance with the l
18 national Environmental Policy Act.
19' Further, as a good neighbor policy, we would 20 like prior notification to all releases from the reactor, i
i
-21 into both the air and the water.
And we would like prior L
22 notification-to any waste shipments off the property, 23 starting now..
24 We would like something like an 800 number set 25 up, where we can call to be notified of this information.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 234 4 433 l
.u...
1 107 1
Wa-would like to have a resident inspector on-sito, 2
throughout decommissioning, given Northeast Utilities' 3
track record, or bad track record, should I say.
4 They are under criminal investigation, that is E
not a petty deal.
We would like a resident inspector j
6 there at all times.
]
7 And although this has never been done before, 1
i 8
I would like to see the reactor put on the watch lis't.
9 Although it is not operating, it should be on the watch 10 list, until they are proven to be willing to fcllow NRC 3
11 compliance.
j 12 Thank you.
}
13 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you.
David?
14 MR. KOFFER:
Yes, my name is David Koffer.
1
]
15 was puzzled.
This was originally going to be a question 16 having to do with the NRC's additional requirements on i
17 decommissioning activities, and I was confused in that the 18 licensee, which in this case would be Haddam, was 19 prohibited from performing any decommissioning activity 20 that results in significant environmental impacts.
21 And it occurred to me that since the only dump l
22 actually available for radioactive waste disposal in this 23 country is Barnwell,,which is in South Carolina, and since i-24 it is an acknowledged fact that the Barnwell dump is i-25 leaking into its aquifer, and since the dump is unlined, l
l.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2.W l33
. _ _. _. _,., _ _. ~. -. _ _..
108 1
cnd cinca, if you w nt into Heddam tomorrow cnd caid, you 2
propose the Barnwell dump is what they should do for their 3
municipal waste, they would laugh you out of town.
4 Clearly, putting nuclear waste in an unlined 5
dump that wouldn't make standards for a municipal waste 6
dump in most states, is going to result in significant 7
environmental impacts.
8 And I was going to ask what interpretation of 9
their own rules the NRC was able to use to spin thib 10 around not to be a problem.
11 But since the question period is over, I'll 12 just frame it as a comment, and just ask people to 13 remember that the end of the process that the NRC is 14 proposing here isn't some magic -- isn't a technological 15 quick fix answer, it is just that a small town in South 16 Carolina gets poisoned more, as it has been for a number 17 of years.
18 And it is not really any reason -- they didn't 19 buy into that, they didn't ask for that, and that is 20 something that we should consider when it is a question of 21 Haddam trying to get rid of all the radioactive liability 22 on land it owns, to fulfill what it sees as its 1
23 responsibilities for its shareholders.
24 That is all.
25 COMMENT:
There was a gentleman who wrote a NILAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR10ERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000 5 3701 (202) 234-4433 t
109 1
book about the truth about Chernobyl.
He was the high-2 Soviet bureaucrat in the nuclear agency there.
And he 3
went there to investigate and report to the Politburo, and 4
basically he was kind of given the charge, find out the i
5 truth, but make sure the truth is this.
6 And I think that is too much happening in this 7
country, also.
And he refers to the international 8
agencies, and the NRC, and the nuclear utilities, as'the 9
nuclear mafia.
-10
-And I think that is really a quite accurate 11 assessment of the situation.
That you simply are engaged I
12 in an act of criminal syndication to-foist mass murder on 13 the population of the earth.
14 Whether it be the 400 that die per reactor 15 year, from the mining of uranium, from those that die of 16 breast cancer all around plants around the United States, 17 those that are dying from Chernobyl, those that are dying 18 and have died from atmospheric nuclear tests, you simply 19 are engaged in mass murder, and thus are criminal, and are 20 part of a criminal conspiracy or syndicate, 21 And there is really no other way to view you,.
22 and I wish my fellow citizens would delve into that view a 23 little further.
Because it is certainly my belief very 24 true.
Mr. Feigenbaum says he wants to be a good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
110 1
neighbor.
Logic; simply dictates, a good neighbor does not 2
dump poisons in one's public waters.
Does that mean, Mr.
i 3
Feigenbaum and Northeast Utilities are now going to cease 4
dumping chemical and radioactive poisot.s into the 5
Connecticut River from Connecticut Yankee?
I 6
Or if -- because if we follow logic, that 7
means if they dump poisons, they are not a good neighbor.
8 So, are they going to be a good neighbor?
9 And that leads me to a request.
I would like 10 the NRC's best estimate for further releases, airborne, 11 and affluent, involved in decommissioning from Connecticut 12 Yankee, precisely what types, kind, and radioactive levels 13 will we be seeing during the decommissioning of
, Connecticut Yankee.
15 And I'm simply concerned -- I'm very 16 conservative.
Right, liberty -- what is it, life?
Would 17 some conservative help me here?
Life, liberty, pursuit of 18 happiness, U.S. Constitution?
19 I consider the dumping of poisons in the 20-public water an attack on my right to life.
And I-would
+
21 hope myLfederal. government would protect my right to life.
22 And if you are not, I guess you just proved my point, you 23 are part of that criminal syndicate.
24-And I will close with one observation.
We 25 heard a comment that closing down Connecticut Yankee was NEAL R. GROSS l'
COURT REPORTERS A 40 TRANSCRl8ERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
j (202) 2344A33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 236 4433
l 111 1
going to savo the rato payers money.
And by saving the 2
rate payers money, we are going to be able to have more 3
money for decommissioning costs.
4 Well,-I'm not sure what Connecticut Yankee 5
cost is to produce power, but we will say five cents a 6
kilowatt hour, for the sake of argument here.
Millstone 7
must be over 20 cents a kilowatt hour, Seabrook must be 25 8
cents plus.
25 cents, 30 cents a kilowatt hour.
9 Does that mean Northeast Utilities is going to 10 shut down Millstone III, shut down Seabrook, and buy 11 cheaper power and give the money back to the rate payers?
12 Thank you.
13 MS. DEBOLD:
David Hyman, followed by Fred 14 Katz and Stacy -- is David here?
Fred?
15 MR. KATZ:
I'm Fred Katz, and I just have --
I.
16 briefly want to say that my presence and my little-17 participation here, I want to make sure is not construed 18 as my assenting to this process as satisfying, in any way, 19 the requirements under the Constitution, and under the 20 Atomic Energy Act.
- 21 That an opportunity for a hearing be presented 22 at the point that a license amendment is required at 23 decommissioning.
So that I believe that NRC is engaged in 24 a concerted bureaucratic effort to thwart the intention of 25 the Constitution, the-Congress, the Atomic Energy Act, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
- (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
112 f tho citizen'a participation in evento that vitally 1
o
-2 affect them.
3 Thank you.
4 MS. DEBOLD:
Stacy, Barbara Day?
Tom Maloney, l
5 you are next, followed by Art Collins and Walt Czaka.
6 Tom, did you wish to speak, is he still here?
All right, 7
he may have spoken his words earlier.
8 How about Arthur Collins Junior?
Walt Czaja.
9 After Walt is Robert Groves.
10 MR. CZAJA:
My name is Walt Czaja.
I'm a 11 minority selectman in the town of Haddam.
12 Being a mechanical engineer, I've always felt 13 that there was a place in this world for nuclear power.
14 And I base:d this on the f act that several years ago, one of the very few times he was on public television, Admiral 15 16 Rickover said, that it is the safest type of power you can have, providing you have the right people running the 17 18 show.
He always maintained th'at the problem between 19 20 nuclear reactors on a nuclear submarine, and the commercial reactors are, they have professional people 21 running the reactors on a submarine, and they have people 22 23 with MBA's running nuclear power plants.
.This is Hyman Rickover' talking, and I agree 24 25 with him completely.
And this is what has happened.
NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 lt
113 1
Now, wo are in a position in town, where wa 2
are going to suffer from the standpoint of taxes.
But, if 3
decommissioning shall take place, it shall take place.
4 But the things that I cannot fathom, as I just spoke with 5
Mr. Nericcio about, and I've talked many times with Ernie 6
Woods, you people are dedicated people that do your job.
7 You've worked over there to the best of your 8
ability.
The problems are, I feel, are in the top echelon 9
of Northeast Utilities, which always have said,_we are 10 your good neighbor.
I have no trust in these people, even 11 today.
Including Mr. Kenyon, after that public address 12 statement he made over to our people in the business i
13 community, in East Haddam, here about a month ago.
j 14 Just a bunch of drivel.
The same general, run is of the mill statements that any politician would make to 16 its-constituents.
17 But let me tell you why I suspect, and have no 1
L 18 trust in these people.
They have told us they are going 19 to shut down this facility, which I think, from a l
20 standpoint of maybe 40 to 60 million dollars, could be put 21 on line to NRC specifications, and continue to live its 22 life and generate-power.
23 Now, remember this.
That-this facility has i-24 had an outstanding record over the years.
It was number t
25 two reactor in the country, okay?
Now,.we are in a NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 2344433
- , n _. ;. __n.L
_ -, f ; n_.... __-
114 1
position where wa cro going to retire this reactor.
2 Okay, our top echelon management in Northeast
[
3 said they are going to save 120 million dollars.
And yet 4
our Public Utilities Commission, our Attorney General only
[
5 recently said, that they suspect mismanagement to the tune 6
of 600 to 800 million dollars of Northeast Utilities, over 7
the last several years.
8 Now, does it take a kid in the first grade to 9
understand the mathematics of what that statement I just 10 made to you, is?
Now, who in heaven's name is really 11 telling us the truth?
I suspect that either what the 12 Attorney General is telling me is true, and if it is, we 13 should never be shutting this plant down.
14 But if this is the case, we have no choice.
15 This is why I have no confidence in these people who are 16 now going to direct the decommissioning of this facility.
17 Thank you for your time.
18 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you, Walt.
Bob Groves is 19 next.
Ray, he must have left also -- Mr.
I'm not sure.
20 Rich Badon.
Next name I don't have a. good --
21 COMMENT:
I already spoke.
22 MS. DEBOLD:
Thank you.
Tony Nericcio?
Peter 23 Bowman.
24 MS. BOWMAN:
Peter is out of the building at 25 this time, and my name is after his, so if you want me to NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
_ _,, _, -, _ _ _ - _ _, _, _,., _. _ _ _ _ ~
115 1
2 MS. DEBOLD:
Sure, why don't you please come l
3 up.
4 MS. BOWMAN:
Thank you.
I think we should be 1
5 talking about the decommissioning of all the plants right 6
now at Northeast Utilities, and under their control.
I 7
wish we were.
8 I was-going to ask a question, and I also 9
didn't realize that the question and answer period would 10 be over.
But I have something on my mind that worries me, 11 and I do need a response.
12 The Department of-Energy is planning to er:11st 13 nuclear -- commercial nuclear reactors to volunteer to 14 have plutonium loaded fuel roads, called MOX, mixed oxide 15 fuel, in commercial nuclear power plants, for the reasons 16 that they've listed in the papers, I don't have to go into 17 that.
18 I would like to know, since Northeast 19 Utilities is in a pretty precarious position. financially, 20 in a period of deregulation and possible competition, 21 whether Northeast Utilities is looking to the Department 22 ot Energy to volunteer either Connecticut Yankee or any of 23 the other plants, to be rebuilt, as they have to do, and 24 to; process these plutonium fuel roads, which is weapons
'25 grade plutonium, which would be then transported, and then NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHMGToN, D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 234 4 433
--- - - ~
116 1
finally put into the reactors.
2 And I understand that 13 utilities have 3
volunteered already, and I would like to know if there is 4
any discussion going on, I would alert -- if you haven't 5
already thought of it, the public here, to keep your eyes 6
and ears open, and try to monitor this.
7 And I would like a response from the NRC, and 8
if it_is directly directed to me by letter or by pho'e, n
9 then I will pass it on.
But another correction -- a 10.
question was asked, whether any other. nuclear plant that 11 had been decommissioned was in a position where other
.12 forms of energy were being used, j
13 And, actually, the Sacramento Municipal 14 Utility District shut down a nuclear plant, which-I 15 believe was Diablo Canyon, I'm not sure which one.
Rancho 16 Seco, thank you.
17 And they are presently using clean energy and
-18 conservation to service their public.
And it would seem 19 to me that the public here, the people here, should get s
20 right on the ball with their legislators, and in this l.
21 period of deregulation and reconstruction, insist that 22 Northeast Utilities either shut down completely, as a l
23 corporation, or_ convert as Sacramento Municipal Utility 24 District.did, to alternate clean energies and 25 conservation, or that the public -. public control of its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPoR11RS AND TRANSCRISERS l
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 23M433
....,-,~.:.
-......, -., ~. _. - -.. - _.
4 117 i
1 utilities, public control of the electricity that has to l
2 be put into people's homes and into factories and 3
businesses, that this be a major change.
4 That we have clean energy, clean safe jobs for 2
5 the workers who are presently, specially the transients 6
and the people who go into the hot parts of the plant, who i
l 7
are risking their health and their children's futures --
4 1
8 their children's health, and have to work in these filthy i
l 9
dangerous plants, where you don't see, smell, or taste the 5
j 10 danger, but it is there.
{
]
11 These people would then have jobs in clean, i'
12 solar based energy, and would be able to use their skills l
13 effectively, there, for the people, i
)
14 Thank you.
15 MS. DEBOLD:
And is Mr. Bowman here?
4 16 MS. BOWMAN:
He hasn't come back.
l 4
5 17 MS. DEBOLL:
He hasn't come back.
I have no i
18 further names on my list.
But I did agree that I would
+
t 19 stay until 10.
If there.is anyone else who wishes to 20 speak, or I don't know what Northeast Utilities or the NRC 21 be willing to take a question or two, since we cut people 4
22 off early.
l.
23 If you would like to ask a question, if you 4
24 would step to a mike after you've gotten the okay, then we i
25 will let you announce who you are.
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND A\\E., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20E3701 (202) 2344433 u.
118'
-I Let's start with the next hand that is up.
If 2
you would make sure to identify yourself and who you want 3
to answer the question, so that they will start listening.
4 MR. MCCORMICK:
Tom McCormick, it is for the 5
NRC.
And Paul, if you would please help me out here.
In 6
New London, there was an NRC hearing where I asked about 7
the possibility of criticality in a spent nuclear fuel 8
pool, and what would happen if there was a loss of c'oolant 9
in a spent nuclear fool pool that was fully loaded, or at 10 least say five or six years of fuel in there.
11 And a gentleman from the NRC said, yes, that 12 pool could go critical, conceivably, at least in terms of 13 physics, if there was a loss of coolant.
14 And at that time, I believe, there was a 15 statement from an NRC person that as part of re-opening 16 the Millstone facility, that there would be a full 17 evaluation of what would happen in a loss of coolant 18 accident to a spent fuel pool.
19 Yes, I've heard it, and other people have 20 heard it.
I-would like to know.what is the status of that 21 study, and when we will be seeing a full-fledged spent 22 fuel pool study of a fully loaded pool.
23 DR. MASNIK:
I'm not prepared to answer that, 24 because I know nothing -- well, I don't know nothing, but 25 I know very-little about what is occurring at Millstone.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
' (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 j
i 119 1
Is there anyone else on the NRC staff here 2
that has a response to that?
3 (No response.)
l 4
I can address in general terms what might 5
happen.
obviously, it is highly dependent on how long the 6
fuel has been taken out of the reactor.
And, over time, 7
the danger decreases.
8 So after a number of years, there could be a 9
loss of coolant accident with very little consequence, 10 other than extremely high radiation fields in the area of 11 the pool.
12 Now, if it occurs early on, there is the 13 possibility that you could have a fire, basically, and a 14 release of radioactive material to the atmosphere.
15 The pool is designed so that a loss of coolant 16 accident is a very, very small probability.
There-is 17 other sources of make-up water to the pool.
They are 18 typically redundant, in some cases, five or six different 19 sources of water.
20 The probability of a pool failing 21 catastrophically, and the loss of liquid at such a-rate 22 that it could not be made up, is close to incredible.
23 MR. BLANCH:
Again, this is Paul Blanch in 24 respense.
And you just supported my point, before, that I 25 made before.
You are not sure what that probability is, NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
)
1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433 E
~
.. _ - _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ~. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....
120 1-I'm not ouro what it is, I don't know what the 2
consequences are.
I have a good idea.
3 This is why we need a complete safety 4
analysis, to determine what that risk is.
Nobody knows.
5 The NRC has promised it to us, we are still requesting it.
6 Now they are reneging on their promise.
1 7
But I believe that before Connecticut Yankee 8
goes into decommissioning, we need a full safety analysis 9
to determine. What these risks are.
And the NRC is l
10 extremely reluctant to provide that.
11 MS. DEBOLD:
Is there anyone else who would 12 like'to ask a question?
Rosemary.
Again say your name l
13 for us, and to whom you wish to ask your question.
4 14 MS. BASSILAKIS:
Either the NRC -- actually i
l 15 the NRC should be able to answer this.
Rosemary l
16 Bassilakis.
I 17 As far as the reactor goes, since there is 18 going to be no maintenance bei'ng done, I'm just curious 19 whether or not anything like cutting up control rods are 4
20 considered maintenance.
21 MR. FAIRTILE:
That is an operation that is 22 commonly done at operating plants, and it is done 23 underwater, and it is a routine operation.
24 MS. BASSILAKIS:
But it won't-be done prior to i
25 the decommissioning plan being submitted to the NRC.
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS.
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 3701
-(202) 234-4433
121 1
MR. FAIRTILE:
I have no idea what the 2
licensee schedule is.
Ted?
3 MS. BASSILAKIS:
I was hoping the NRC would be 4
able to answer it, since they are the ones overseeing the 5
utilities.
6 MR. LAPLATNEY:
My understanding of the 7
regulation is, there is nothing prohibiting us from 8
cutting those up, okay?
We have 45 control rods in the 9
cavity.
In order to take the water out of the cavity 10 right now, we would have to do something.with those rods.
11 We may choose to cut them up, we may not.
It 12 is not a major activity, it's been done many times.
It 13 was done at Connecticut Yankee a couple of years ago.
14 That is not a major decommissioning activity.
15 That is my take on it, Rosemary.
16 MS. BASSILAKIS:
So you may do that, before 17 you submit your partial decommissioning plan to the NRC.
18 My point is that 19 MR. LAPLATNEY:
We may or we may not.
And 20 we've done it before at Connecticut Yankee.
That is an 21-activity under our current license that we have 22 participated in.
23 MS. BASSILAKIS:
I guess my point is, since 24 you are no longer an operating facility, what happens from 25 now forward is part of decommissioning, and that if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1
workoro are going to incur a certain done of radiction, 2
that this should be considered under decommissioning.
3 MR. LAPIATNEY:
I understand your point.
You 4
are asking about the total dose commitment.
You know, I 5
think we will end up discussing that.
I think that will 6
be one of the issues we will be talking at our meetings 7
with the Committee, and I'm sure you recognize we are 8
going to invite your group to-be on this committee.
9 Quite frankly, we are aiming to reduce the 10 dosage to extremely low levels.
Connecticut Yankee is one 11 of the most highly contaminated plants in the country.
12 The Environmental Impact Statement is something like 1200 13 rems at Connecticut Yankee.
We intend to come well below 14 that from this point forward.
15 That is our goal, so there was questions about 16 will we give numbers, will we give effluent?
We will give 17 you everything we have.
This stuff is in the docket.
We 18 docket every six -- it used to be every six months, now it 19 is every year, all the offluents from Connecticut Yankee.
20 We will centinue doing that.
This information 21 is provided as a matter of record.
If you want to come 22 visit Connecticut Yankee, I'll give you a meter, and you 23 can measure the radiation yourself.
This is going to be 24 an open process.
-25 MS. BASSILAKIS:
I would like to find out NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (207) 234 4433
123 1
before-ths six months are up.
I know that you filo every 2
six months, but we want to know before the beans are out 3
o.! the can.
4 MR. LAPLATNEY:
You are talking if we are 5
planning a release or something like that?
You know, we 6
will talk about that.
I just -- right now I'm trying to 7
think of a process to do that, but we can certainly 8
discuss it.
It is all a matter of public record.
9 MS. BASSILAKIS:
Call an adjudicatory hearing.
10 MR. LAPLATNEY:
I don't preside over 11 adjudicatory hearings.
12 MS. BASSILAKIS:
I understand.
Thank you.
13 MS. BOWMAN:
I wanted to ask my question both 14 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to Northeast 15 Utilities.
16 And that is, if my previous point, if my 17 previous question, if there is any approach by either the 18 DOE or the utility to consider restructuring for the use 19 of MOX, will the public be told; at what point in the R20 process will the public be told, and who and how.
21 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Ms. Bowman, Ted Feigenbaum, 22 Northeast Utilities.
There'is absolutely no plans to use 23 mixed oxide fuel in any of the Connecticut reactors.
24 And if there ever was a change in that-25 approach, we would certainly make that public.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433 1
124
- MS.-BOWMAN:
How?
2 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
But there are no plans to do 3
that.
4 MS. BOWMAN:
How and when would you make it 5
public, at the first contact, or after the decision?
6 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
All our contacts with the NRC 7
are public, those are in the public document room I 8
mentioned earlier.
i 9
MS. BOWMAN:
I'm talking about the DC E.
10 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Same thing.
Same deal.
We -
11
- all those letters and correspondence --
-12 MS. BOWMAN:
Well, I wouldn't know how to 13 access that information.
Could you tell me how?
14 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
Well, anything that deals 15 with the regulations, we send on the copy of.the NRC, and 16-that ends up in the public document room, which is here in 17 Middletown.
So it is all a inatter of public record And 18 --
something as significant as that, we would also have a
[
19 press release,'and a public statement.
20 But, again, I'm talking about a hypothetical.
21 There is absolutely no plans to-use mix oxide fuel.
22
.MS. BOWMAN:
In any of your plants?
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM:
In any of our plants, that is 24 correct.
25 MS. BOWMAN:
Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200(5 3701 (202) 234 4433 e
--re-~w't--=te r-"-
u-6 v, ent-cer-e-,-e--evw--
r
-r-wrm, e -e.e e
+-i 5-+--
wew--
n--2-.---t
- w. n - w e y -t"e-T
-r 7 --
fr--9' ve t -
-e
125 1
MS. DEBOLDi-tiayba this could be the last 2
question.
Let's have this one be the last question, and i
3 then I will make a comment or two.
Yes, Debbie?
4 MS.-KAT2:
I had my hand up, as well.
4
.5 MR.-REARDON:
Jerry Reardon, Newington.
My 6
question is for Dr. Masnik of the NRC.
7 In-your presentation you listed a series of-8 new plants that have been shut down for decommissioning.
9 Amongst them are Dresden.
I recollect, some years ago, 10 where the NRC had issued an inapection report, identifying 11 that that utility had allowed their containment heating to 12 be shut down, which subjected their cooling water pipes =to 13 the spent fuel pool; to freezing conditions, and had also 14 allowed their spent fuel pool water quality to degrade to 15 the point where there was actually algae, as an=old 16 swimming pool that has not been chlorinated.
17 Has NRC obtained any lessons learned from that 18 activity, and what have you put in place to assure the 19 public tht.t such violations of just general maintenance 20 conditions don't occur, again, under the NRC's nose.
21 DR. MASNIK:
The Dresden' plant was in long-22 term storage, and you are correct in saying_that there was 23 a rather cold weather, which resulted in the freezing of a 24 pipe.
25 And after we -- after we did an investigation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
___m 126 1
et Dreadon, which resulted in a civil ponalty, we 2
conducted a series of inspections at all shut down plants 3
that had fuel in spent fuel pools.
4 We've also reviewed all the procedures 5
associated with cold weather precautions at these plants.
6 And to answer your question, yes there was a lessons 7
learned document that was prepared in response to that 8
event.
9 And we are confident that the licensees have 10 gotten the word, and additionally, our inspectors are also 11 sensitive to that issue.
12 So the answer is yes, we learned a lesson.
13 MR. REARDON:
In response to my previous plea 14 to you, and the NRC tonight, can you commit to the public, 15 the general public, to address and resolve both those 16 documents that I spoke to, in my previous discussion?
The 17 DPUC report, and Citizens Awareness Network's petition 18 before proceeding further?
19 DR. MASNIK:
I can't commst to that, no, I
-20 cannot.
21 MR. REARDON:
What do you need to do to -- I 22 mean the --
23 DR. MASNIK:
Those documents will be handled 24 in the manner -- the normal manner that we do.
One is a 25 2.206 petition, and that document will be handled as we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR18ERS 1523 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
127 1-handled 2.206'patitions, by the regulations.
So it will 2
be considered, yes.
3 MR.-REARDON:- Well, judging by how long it 4
took you to handle George Galatis' petition, which is 5 -
still pending, it is several years.
By that time it is 6
too late.
7 That petition and the DPUC report contain very 8
serious information regarding the competency of NU 9
management to decommission CY.
10 MS. DEBOLD:
Debbie, you have a quick 11 question?
1'2 M3. KATZ:
Yes.
Thank you very much for your 13 generosity'in letting me do this.
14 I would like to know if Connecticut Yankee 15 would, in fact create a good neighbor policy, in which 16 they would give prior notification of all releases into 17 the air and water,=and prior notification of all shipments 18 of radioactive waste out of this community.
l 19 To whoever fron NU will-answer that, because 20 it wasn't cleur that you would do that, and Rosemary 21 didn't really ask for an answer.
But I'd like an answer.
22
.MR. LAPLATNEY:
And the answer is, this 23 evening I will not make that commitment, I have to figure 24 out what that means to us.
How=ver, I think thic is an t
t 25 excellent first topic for the citizens decommissioning NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORT??.S AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDL ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHNOTO.x D.C. 20005-3701 (2C".) 2344433 l
M
^
128 1
advisory committee.
2 If that body decides they want that 3
information, so it-is a-representation of the entire 4
community, not just one particular' faction, we will 5
definitely consider that request.
It is not something L
6 that-we can't do.
I 7-I'd like to-hear from the rest of the 8'
community, first.
9 MS. KATZ Because in Maine, Maine Yankee, 10 provides that information to the whole community, as a 11 public service.
12 MR. LAPLATNEY:
We'll h&ve-a representation, 13 let the whole community be heard.
I'd rather hear it from 14 everyone -first, before we go and commit the resources to 15 do it.
16 MS. DEBOLD:
I want to thank everyone-who has 17 come tonight. -If you will be patient'with me long enough
-18 to say thank you to the Northeast Utilities people, and to 19 the NRC people.
And-I will say that the comments-and the 20- questions left a--lot to be considered, and I think they 21 are taken in the right vein.
I notice the Nuclear Energy.
22 Advisory Council had members here, tonight.
23 And also, there are several people here who
.24 may bave membership on the -- at any rate, thank you for 25 coming, and I hope there will be more meetings, and we NEAL R. GROSS COUR r REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND ate. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 37T
-202) 234 4433
_1
129 1
will try to help got them before the public.
2 Thank you.
l 3
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 4
concluded at 10 : '.0 p. m. )
- s 6
7 8
9 10 l
11 I
{
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
t i
I 1
i Connecticut Yankee Decommissioning NRC Public Meeting Haddam-Killingworth High School l
January 15,1997 e
I
C Introduction Ted C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President &
Chief Nuclear Officer - Connecticut Yankee S
~
Agenda
- Decommissioning Ted Feigenbaum Overview / Commitment to Public Participation
- Plans for 1997 /
Jere LaPlatney Decommissioning Priorities and Options
- Closing Remarks Ted Feigenbaum
Our Decommissioning Commitments
- Safety
- Providing Adequate Resources
- Vigilant Compliance with all the Rules and Regulations
- Public Participation
"'mA_-AL4.LO,"
' m M Ais emMas,ma mp m.p a,s,_ a m.m w a w aw w,mm..we
--w
__m-,,._,_w-_
'j e
1 k
i
)
l
'I l
i G
i i
c me 4=8 OM N
b,O u
LA=
o i
@ Q 'C.
J
.%, oy
\\
GD$
6
\\
oo
""3 l
i i
J f
i i
l CY in 1997
... a year for improvement and planning
- Complete Corrective Actions for 1996 Performance Problems
- Organize and Staff for Decommissioning
- Change License to Reflect Defueled Plant
CY in 1997 R
... a year for improvement and planning i
1
- Develop and Submit Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR)
- Begin Planning of Actual Decommissioning Work
- No Major Decommissioning Work Will Be Done Until at Least 90 Days After PSDAR is Submitted Gr
CY Decommissioning Priorities i
- Safety
- fuel storage
- radiological
- environmental
-industrial
- Quality
- Performance
Decommissioning Options Prompt Dismantlement (DECON), Safe
]
Storage (SAFSTOR), or Entombment (ENTOMB)
All Options Will Be Evaluated Current Cost Estimate Based on Prompt Dismantlement PSDAR will include the Final Decision and Cost Estimate There are no Future Plans for the Site L.____
t a'
b 4
AGENDA 1.
6:30 to 7:00pm. Advance sign up for public. Each person, depending on number of sign ups and time available, will be able to make comments during public coment period.
2.
7:00 pm. Mrs. Marjorie DeBold, First Selectman of Haddam chairs meeting.
She describes purpose of meeting, b*iefs attendees on agenda and establishes ground rules.
L 3.
7:10 pm. Mr. Ted Feigenbaum of Northeast Utilities and Mr.
Jerer LaPlatney, Plant Manager will outline future plans for the plant. -Open to questions after presentation.
4.
8:00 pm. Mr. Michael. Masnik of NRC describes decommissioning regulations and proposed future NRC oversight.
Open to questions after presentation.
5.
9:00 pm. Public comment period.
.6.
10:00 pm. Closing remarks by Chair and adjournment.
j
BP24 (12/96)
DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Backaround Several licensees have announced their decisions to permanently cease power operation of their nuclear power plants.
The licensees' decisions have been based on economic and technical considerations.
Thus, these facilities and several others have entered the decommissioning process before their operating licenses expire, earlier than originally anticipated.
Decommissioning highlights for individual plants are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Decommissionina Title 10 of the Coder of Federal Reaulations, Section 50.2 (10 CFR 50.2), defines deconmissioning as the safe removal of a facility from service and reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Decommissioning involves three different alternatives:
DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.
Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are l
removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Under SAFSTOR, often considered " delayed DECON," a nuclear facility is-maintained in a condition that allows the decay of radioactivity to reduce radiation levels at the facility; I
afterwards, it is dismantled.
Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material such as concrete and the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.
To be acceptable, the method selected must provide for completion of. decommissioning within 60 years.
A time beyond 60 years will be considered only when necessary to protect public health and safety in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.
Regulations The procedure for decommissioning a nuclear power plant is set out principally in NRC regulations 10 CFR Parts 50.75, 50.82, 51.53, and 51.95.
An underlying assumption embodied in the regulations when the Commission issued the original decommissioning regulations in 1988 was that decommissioning wonid occur after the facility operating license expired.
Five
BP24 (12/96) years before the licensee expected to end operation of the plant, it was obligated to submit a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect planning for decommissioning.
Then, within one year before expiration of the license, (or two years after operation for plants closing before their license expires) a licensee had to submit to NRC an application for authority to decommission that facility, together with an environmental report covering the proposed decommissioning activities.
However, severel licensees have permanently ceased operations prematurely without having submitted the documentation required under the regulations.
In additien, these licensees requested exemptions from some safety requirements to reflect their status of no longer having fuel present in the reactor.
Because the regulations did not specifically address prematurely shutdown facilities, these situations were handled on a case-by-case basis.
Throughout fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the NRC staff worked on revisions to NRC regulations to clarify their applicability and to make certain changes in decommissioning policy regarding permanently shut down reactors.
On July 20, 1995, the Commission issued a " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants."
On July 2, 1996, the Commission approved the final rule.
The rule was published in the Federal Register July 29 and became effective 30 days from the date of publication (on August 28, 1996).
The final rule redefines the decommissioning process, defines terminology related to decommissioning, requires licensees to provide the NRC with early notification of planned decommissioning activities at their facilities, and explicitly sets forth the applicability of certain NRC requirements to permanently shutdown reactors.
The Commission believes the amendments will enhance efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process for nuclear power reactors.
The amandments allow for public participation in the decommissioning process and furnish the licensed community and the public a better understanding of the process as the operating personnel at a nuclear power reactor facility undergo the transition from an operating organization to a decommissioning organization.
The revisions to 10 CFR 2, 50, and 51 related to the finul rule on decommissioning power reactors require that:
(a) Within 30 days after a nuclear power plant licensee decides to cease operations permanently, the licensee must submit a written certification to the NRC, and (b) When the licensee permanently removes nuclear fuel from the reactor vessel, the licensee must submit another written certification to the NRC.
BP24 (12/96)
When NRC receives thes; certifications, the licensee *'s authority to operate the reactor or load fuel into the reactor vessel will be removed by regulation.
This will entitle the licensee to an annual fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to adhere to certain requirements needed only during reactor operation.
Within two years after submitting the certification of permanert cessation of operatiens, the licensee must submit a post-shutdc wn decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC.
This report must provide a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, along with a schedule for accomplishing them, and an estimate of the expected costs.
In the PSDAR, the licensee is required to discuss the reasons for concluding that environmental impacts associated with the site-specific decommissioning activities have already been considered in environnental reports or environmental impact statements prepared previously.
If this has not been done, the licensee would have to request a license amendment for approval of the activities and submit to the NRC an environmental report on the additional impacts.
After receiving a PSDAR, the NRC must publish a notice of receipt, make the PSDAR available for public review and comment, and hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the plant to discuss l
the licensee's intentions.
Ninety days after the NRC receives the PSDAR, and generally 30 days after the public meeting, the licensee can begin to perform major decommissioning activities without specific NRC approval.
These activitjes could include permanent removal of such major components as the reactor vessel, steam generators, large piping systems, pumps, and valves.
The final regulations state that decommissioning activities conducted without specific prior NRC approval must not:
foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, result in there being no reasonable assurance that adequate e
funds will be available for decommissioning, cause any significant environmental impact not previously e
reviewed.
If any decommissioning activity could not meet these terms, the licensee is required to submit a license amendment request, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.
Initially, the licensea could use up to three percent of the amount specified in 10 CFR 50.75 for decommissioning activities without prior NRC approval.
An additional 20 percent could be expended 90 days after submittal of the PSDAR.
The remaining decommissioning trust funds would be available for decommissioning activities when the licensee submits a detailed
BP24 (12/96) site-specific decommissioning cost estimate to the NRC.
Rulamakina A new-rule, entitled " Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste - 10 CFR Parts 60, */ 2, 73, and 75" (SECY-95-104), addresses physical protection requirements for the storage of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste in a-permanently shutdown reactor, independer.t spent fuel storage installation, monitored retrievable storage installation, or a geologic' repository.
The commission-published the proposed rule on August 18, 1995.
After a period for public comment, a final rule was scheduled to be issued April 15, 1996.
However, the NRC staff is requesting a Commission policy review of ISFSI t
safeguards based on public comments and staff reviews.
Fol3owing the Commission policy review, the proposed rule will be revised and will be submitted for public comment if significant changes occur.
Other rulemakings that are anticipated in the decommissioning area include a revision of regulations to address spent fuel cooling periods and indemnity issues; decommissioning costs, funding, and financial assurance.
Prematurelv Shutdown Plants i
Since the original decommissioning rule was published in-1988, seven power reactor. facilities have shut down prematurely:
e Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station.
- Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
- Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating = Station, Yankee Rowe Nualear Station, e
San onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, o
e Trojan Nuclear Plant, and
- Haddam Neck Plant.
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, also-ceased operation after the March 28, 1979, accident.
In addition, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 and Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit-3, and Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor, which were shut down in 1974, 1978, 1980, and 1987, respectively, are in the decommissioning process.
Annroved Decommissionina Plang In June 1992,. the NRC issued an order to Long Island Power authority, approving the Shoreham decommissioning plan.
Long Island Power Authority announced completion of dismantlement of the facility in October 1994.
_N
BP24 (12/96)
In November 1992, the NRC issued an order approving the Fort St.
Vrain decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are nearly completed.
The NRC approved Yankee Rowe's decommissioning plan on February 14, 1995.
Subsequently, due to a U.S.
Court of Appeals ruling, the Commission rescinded its approval on October 12, 1995.
A hearing was conducted and on October 18, 1996, the Commission denied the most recent petition regarding the decommissioning plan.
On October 28, 1996, the NRC staff informed Yankee Atomic that decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankes Rowe.
On June 16, 1993, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation and environmental assessment of the Rancho Seco decommissioning plan.
The plan proposes safe storage (S.'7STOR) of the facility for t
about 20 years followed by dismantlement and decontamination.
Approval of the decommissioning plan was delayed because of contentions raised by the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO).
However, ECO reached a l
settlement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the license.e for Rancho Seco, and on August 1, 1994, withdrew from the proceeding.
The staff reviewed and updated its previous safety evaluation and issued the order authorizing decommissioning of Rancho Seco on March 20, 1995.
On April 15, 1996, the NRC issued an order approving the Trojan decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are ongoing.
NRR/NMSS Memorandum of Understandina on Decommissionina On Mcrch 15, 1995, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) reached agreement on a realignment of certain responsibilities regarding power reactor decommissioning.
In the future, NRR will maintain project management responsibility for power roactor facilities until fuel is permanently transferred fror.. the spent fuel pool.
CONTACT:
Seymour H. Weiss, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-2170
l BP24 (12/96)
TABLE 1 DECOMMISSIONING HIGHLIGHTS INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 October 31, 1974, plant was permanently shut down because its emergency core cocling system did not meet current
-regulatory requirements.
January 1976, reactor was defueled.
-e June 19, 1980, NRC order revoked authority to operate plant.
' october 17,-'1980, licensee submitted prop. sed decommissioning plan.
NRCl review has been ongoing since then and has prompted numerous-supplemental licensee submittals.
January 1996, the proposed decommissioning plan was submitted to Coramission for approval.
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 July 2, 1976, plant was shut down due to seismic issues.
e.
July 30, 1984, Decommissioning Plan submitted.
e l
July 19, 1988, SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan approved.
Spent
-fuel (390 assemblies) will remain onsite in the spent fuel-pool until a federal repository is available for it.
-DRESDEN UNIT 1 o'
October 31, 1978, plant was shut down to meet new federal-regulations and to perform chemical decontamination of major piping systems.
January'7, 1986,1while plant was still out of service,
-licensee announced its decision to decommission the plant, rather than. comply with regulations imposed in response to the March 1979 accident at Three' Mile Island Unit 2.
July.23, 1986, license was~ amended to possession only license (POL) status.
September 3, 1993, decommissioning plan was approved.
January 25, 1994, licensee' personnel discovered about 55,000 gallons of water-in the containment building.
The source of the -water was a service water line. which that -had frozen - and -
ruptured within the-unheated containment.
The water was pumped-from the containment-building for processing by the site radwaste. system.
The NRC responded by conducting a two-week special team inspection that identified numerous discrepancies that the licensee had--to-address.
July.13, 1994, licensee submitted a check for $200,000 in response to the.NRC-imposed civil penalty for its failure to maintain. required systems-.and to staff unit in accordance with Dresden Unit 1 decommissioning plan.
BP24 (12/96)
LA CROSSE April 30, 1987, plant was permanently shut down.
August 7, 1991, SAFSTOR decommissioning plan was approved.
FORT ST. VRAIN August 18, 1989, plant was permanently shut down because of failure of the control rod drives and degradation of the steam generator ring header.
May 21, 1991, license was amended to possession only license (POL) status.
June 11, 1992, all fuel was placed in an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).
November 23, 1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioaing plan.
Jeptember 1, 1993, removal of the prestressed concrete reactor vessel top head was completed.
April 1, 1994, all of the graphite reflector blocks had been removed from the reactor vessel and ' shipped to the low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.
July 1, 1996, dismantlement is nearly complete.
(
SHOREHAM June 28, 1989, licensee's shareholders approved agreement with the New York State to not operate the facility.
August 24, 1989, reactor vessel was defueled.
June 14, 1991, license was amended to POL status.
February 29, 1992, license was transferred to Long Island Power Authority for decommissioning of plant.
June 11, 1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan.
September 1993, transfer of fuel to Limerick began.
Fuel transfer was completed June 1994.
October 1994, the licensee announced completion of the dismantlement.
Confirmatory surveys conducted.
April 11, 1995, decommissioning complete, POL terminated.
RANCHO SECO June 7, 1989, plant was shut down because voters approved non-binding referendum prohibiting licensee from operating facility.
December 8, 1989, reactor vessel was defueled.
March 17, 1992, license was amended to POL status.
Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO) was active intervenor in regards to prvposed decommissioning plan.
June 16, 1993, NRC issued safety evaluation and environmental assessment of proposed decommissioning plan.
BP24 (12/96)
November 30, 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) admitted for hearing certain contentions associated with decommissioning funding and costs of Rancho Seco independent spent fuel storage installation.
August 1, 1994, ECO reached settlement with Sacramento Municipal Utility District and filed notice of withdraval; ASLB terminated proceeding.
September 2, 1994 Commission order (CLI-94-14) authorized NRC staff to issue decommissioning order.
March-20, 1995, NRC approved the decommissioning plan-for SAFSTOR by issuing the decommissioning order.
YANKEE ROWE October 1, 1991, plant was shut down and vessel defueled
-because of concerns about reactor vessel integrity.
February 27, 1992, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations because of inability to address uncertainties associated with the safety margin of the reactor vessel.
August 5, 1992, license was amended to POL status.
e July 15, 1993, NRC stated it had "no objection to early component removal activities" proposed by the licensee.
November 16 to December 8, 1993, as part of the early component removal activities, the four steam generators and pressurizer were shipped from the plant to the low level waste burial site in Barnwell, South Carolina.
March 11, 1994, NRC stated it had "no objection" to use of decommissioning trust funds for proposed second phase of activities associated with early removal of components, including reactor coolant pumps, contaminated piping, and asbestos.
Activities were completed by June 30, 1994.
March 31, 1994, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) filed a complaint in the Massachusetts District Federal Court claiming the NRC did not follow National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in its review of licensee's early component removal program.
The court denied the complaint on jurisdictional grounds; however, CAN appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.
February 14, 199f.., NRC approved the decommissioning plan for SAFSTOR.
March 23, 1995, Yankee Atomic applied for a (10 CFR 71) license to enable shipment of the reactor vessel.
The vessel will not be shipped before summer 1996.
July 20, 1995, First Circuit found that the Commission erred when it rejected CAN's request for a hearing on the component removal program, that CAN was entitled to a hearing under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, and that the NRC had violated NEPA by permitting YAEC to initiate the component removal program before the agency had prepared an environmental ascessment or impact statement.
The Court remanded the case to the Commission for further action.
j
BP24 (12/96)
October 27,-1995, in: response to the July =1995 Court of Appeals decision,-the NRC staff issued a Federal Register notice offering the public an opportunity for_ hearing.
November 30,=1995, CAN and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution submitted-a joint petition to intervene on
=the Yankee decommissioning plan.
October 18, 1996, the Commission issued an-order which 1
denied-CAN's latest petition regarding the decommiss1>ning plan.
October 28,-1996, the NRC staff-informed Yankee Atomic that
-decommissioning-activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 March 28, 1979, accident occurred in the plant that caused permanent cessation of operations.
January 30, 1990, reactor was defueled.
August 12, 1993, processing of' accident generated water was completed.
September 14, 1993,-POL amendment was issued.
December 28, 1993, post-defueling monitored storage-technical specifications were issued.
SAN-ONOFRE, UNIT 1 November 30, 1992, based on settlement agreement with California Public. Utilities Commission licensee permanently shut down plant rather than bring it into compliance with
-current NRC safety requirements.
-October 23, 1992, POL amandment was issued.
Amendment became effective March'9,_1993, whenfreactor vessel was certified as-completely.defueled.
December 28, 1993, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.
November-3, 1994,-licensee submitted proposed decommissioning-plan-for NRC review.
TROJAN:
e January 4, 1993, licensee announced-permanent cessation of operations.
January ^27, 1993, reactor was defueled.
ze May 5, 1993,1NRC issued POL amendment.
November 11994, licensee commenced removal.of steam generators and pressurizer for shipment to the U.S.
Ecology low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.
- January 26, 1995, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan.
November 1, 1995, licensee completed the large component removal; project.
BP24 (12/96)
December 22, 1995, NRC staff published Federal Register notice offering opportunity for public comment on Environmental Assessment and Safety Evaluation for the decommissioning plan.
The 30-day comment period passed without a request for hearing.
March 31, 1996, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.
April 15, 1996, NRC issued the order approving the decommissioning plan.
1 HADDAM NECK i
December 4, 1996, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations.
BIG ROCK POINT May 31, 2000, is expiration date-of current license.
February 27, 1995, licensee submitted SAFSTOR decommissioning plan for early NRC review.
February 14, 1996, Consumers Power Company requested that the NRC defer review of the Big Rock Point decommissioning plan until after issuance of the revised 10 CFR Part 50 decommissioning regulations.
i 4
s e
I 1
3
o i
United States l'%..... )1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
PUBLIC MEETING ON DECOMMISSIONING f
i i
t P
January 15,1997 i
i Dr. Alichael T. Alasnik l
Non-Power Reactor and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Aianagement Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
t
NRC POINT OF CONTACT FOR HADDAM NECK:
MR. MORT FAIRTILE, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER OWFN 11B20 U. S. NUCI, EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 l
301-415-1442 OFFICE 301-415-2102 FAX E-MAIL: MBF@NRC. GOV 4
e
REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING STATUS SIIUTDOWN POWER REACTORS REACTOR LOCATION SHUT DOWN STATUS Indian Point 1 Buchanan 10/31/74 Storage (PWR)
New York Dresden 1 Morris 10/31/78 Storage (BWR)
Illinois Fermi 1 Monroe Co.
9/22/72 Storage (Fast Breeder)
12/9/63 Storage (BWR)
California Yankee Rowe Franklin Co.
10/1/91 Decontamination (PWR)
& Dismantlement Humboldt Bay 3 Eureka 7/02/76 Storage (BWR)
California Peach Bottom 1 York Co.
10/31/74 Storage (HTGR)
Pennsylvania San Onofre 1 San Clemente 11/30/92 Storage (PWR)
California Haddam Neck Haddam 7/22/96 To be Determined (PWR)
Connecticut Fort St. Vrain Platteville 8/18/89 Storage (HTGR) colorado Rancho Seco Sacramento 6/7/89 Storage (PWR)
California 50-320 Three Mile Middletown 3/28/79 Storage' (PWR)
Island 2 Pennsylvania Shoreham Suffolk Co.
6/28/89 License (BWR)
New York Terminated Trojan Rainier 11/9/92 Decontamination (PWR)
& Dismantlement Lacrosse Lacrosse 4/30/87 Storage (BWR)
- Post-defueling monitored storage (PDMS).
l
DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS Preliminary cost estimate - five years before permanent shutdown f
Certification of permanently ceasing power generation operations - within 30 days of the decision i
Cc;G5 cation of permanent fuel removal from the reactor - regulatory relief Submission of the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) - within 2 years of shutdown Long term storage followed by dismantlement or immediate i
dismantlement License Termination Plan submitted - approximately two years i
prior to expected license terminatmn i
License termination j
1
'i, POST-SHUTDOWN DECOMMISSIONING i
ACTIVITIES REPORT (PSDAR) i l
Description of the planned decommissioning activities Schedule for the accomplishment of the planned activities i
Estimate of expected costs i
Discussion of environmental impacts l
t r
I f
i
~.
\\
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES 1
The licensee is prohibited from performing any decommissioning activity that:
Forecloses the release of the site for possible unrestricted use; or results in significant environmental impacts; or results in there no longer being reasonable assurance that a
adequate funds will be available.
P e
o
f LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN
.l Site characterization Identification of remaining dismantlement activities 1
Plans for site remediation Detailed plans for the final radiation survey Description of end use of site if restrictions are imposed i
Updated site-specific cost estimate of remaining costs i
Supplement to the environmental report Ascribing new information i
i i
i a
LICENSE TERMINATION L
License terminated if the license termination plan was followed and the site radiologically cleaned upi L
l e
k i
- i
]
I 4
l l
'