Minutes - 19990209 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

--- _ _- _ __ __ �-,,� � �� s'E:, 3 1 is a much safer option. However,this option would store much less'fuel in the pools. If this option 2 was used, the additional fuel couid be stored in dry-storage in a manner that avoided the fire hazard. 3 This technology is available and is currently in use, which means that CP,&L could continue to � ' operate all four of their plants without using Shearon Harris for additional storage. He stated that a � hearing before a licensing board needs to be held to address these complicated technical questions in 6 a balanced manner. 7 8 Presentation by Carolina Power& Light @ql'Pcan+afiygS• Mr. Jim Scarola, Vice-President of the 9 Shearon Harris Plant in charge of nuclear operations, introduced himself and gave background 10 information on CP&L. He stated that his number one concern is safety. At the Shearon Harris station 11 they have been moving fuel safely for over ten years. They started shipments from the Robinson 12 plant to the Brunswick facility in 1977. CP&L provides over fifty percent of the power nee�ls to the 13 people of North Carolina. He referred to CP&L's safety record and presented an overview of the 14 design of the building. The facility itself is designed to withstand earthquakes, tornadoes and 15 hurricanes. They also constantiy measure temperature, flow and water level in the pool. The building 16 was buiit to support the 40-year operation of the plant plus an additional 20-year license extension of 17 the plant and then beyond that 30-years of storage. Fuel shipping has always been a part of the plan 18 in this industry. In the year 2010 shipments will be sent from the Shearon Harris facility to the � 19 Department of Energy's long-term storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. He mentioned that 20 pools C & D receive fuel that has been out of the reactors for three years or more. Those rods have 21 lost their peak generating capability. He reviewed the safety tests that they put the rods through prior ' 22 to shipping. The fuel that they are planning to accept would originate from their plants in Brunswick 23 and Robinson. He reviewed the licensing amendment request process that they have been involved 24 with since March of 1998. He mentioned that in 1954 the Atomic Energy Act assigned the Atomic 25 Energy Commission with the accountability to both promote and regulate the peacetime use of the 26 atom. In 1974 the Energy Reorganization Act was signed and authorized the abolishment of the ''� Atomic Energy Commission and developed the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory ( Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was at that time given one charter and that's the �� charter to protect public health and safety. They have no other accountability. � 30 31 He referred to the current options and pointed out that they are not dry cast vs. pool storage. They 32 will have pool storage in all of the nuclear facilities in the United States. He asserted that both means 33 of storage provides equal safety. He went on to explain the safety precautions that have been 34 established for the proposed fuel storage and shipping. He mentioned that the personnel training is a 35 significant factor in their safety record. He felt that the plan being presented provides the best of the 36 alternatives available. 37 38 Qescrir�tion of the Regulatory Process: Dr. Thompson stated that there were two key issues before 39 the Board. One is to decide whether to apply as an "Intervener" and thereby precipitate the holding of 40 a hearing and the second is to challenge a determination that has been made by the staff of the NRC 41 that the license amendment poses "No Significant Hazard". He has been requested by the Board of 42 County Commissioners to proceed with the necessary technical component of filing to comment on 43 the °No Significant Hazard" determination. He mentioned that the issue of partial drainage of pools 44 vs. complete drainage of pools has not been addressed and it is an important issue that should be 45 addressed. He said that the professional staff of the NRC has made an initial determination of"No 46 Significant Hazard". The NRC is a Board of Commissioners who vote at public meetings on the 47 issues that have been presented to them from their staff and from their licensing boards. The 48 decisions of the NRC Commissioners can be appealed to the Federal courts. The present 49 determination of"No Significant Hazard" is a proposed determination by the staff. If the determination 50 of°No Significant Hazard" stands then the proposed action, the placing of racks in the pools can occur � parallel with the hearing. L 53 Diane Curran, by telephone, stated that when the comments are filed on Friday the NRC staff would 54 consider them. The Commission does not involve itself with the determination of whether a comment