Full credit to Roger Johnson, who attended the San Onofre meeting and made these great interpretations of what was said and unsaid.
I am storing this on my site for ease of reference and this will be helpful in preparing comments for NRC meetings.
The upcoming NRC meetings open to public are here, 8 of them
NRC Public Meeting on Decommissioning, 2013-09-26
Citizens Oversight (2013-09-26)
This Page:
http://www.copswiki.org/Common/M1387
Source:
Post this topic:
Video
About 7 minutes were omitted at the beginning of Part 1 and 3 minutes at
the beginning of Part 2 which were facilitator remarks about logistics.
Part 1
Includes presentations by NRC staff and first questions from the public
http://youtu.be/bmCQTkREjuU
Part 2
More questions. Don't miss statements by Peter Dietrich of Southern
California Edison near the end, regarding the fact that they are not
planning to return the site as "greenfield" level.
http://youtu.be/xm1Aa_Ftz_Q
Summary by Roger Johnson
Notes on the NRC public meeting at the Costa Omni Resort in Carlsbad, Thursday Sept. 26 6-9 PM
This was a typical NRC meeting: a moderator, 4 featured
speakers (one who made 2 presentations), and a dozen other NRC officials
who occupied the entire center section of the front row (a number of
them gave extensive comments during the public question phase). The NRC
once again chose a plush resort and a huge banquet room which probably
seated over 1000. The NRC claims to have selected this distant site
because they could not find anything suitable in Orange County. Some
said they wanted the meeting at this distant site to reduce public
attendance. The AC was cranked up making the room frigid (perhaps 60
degrees) and uncomfortable. I am guessing that there were about 200 in
attendance, perhaps 75 when the evening ended. Although this was a good
crowd, it appeared small in this huge room. The NRC said they expected
more, but perhaps they were delighted at a smaller crowd which they
could interpret as a lack of public interest. The meeting reminded me
of one of the 18 grievances against King George written into the
Declaration of Independence, namely that inconvenient meetings were
called by the Crown in distant and cold places in order to suppress
attendance.
The NRC had a table in the lobby full of NRC documents about
decommissioning. One color pamphlet is called the Decommissioning
Process. There are before and after aerial photos on the cover (and
inside) showing nuclear power plants before and after they were
demolished. The “after” photos show a green field. The NRC now uses
the term Greenfield to mean site restoration. They also made it a verb:
Greenfielding. This term was used often during the evening apparently
in a public relations/marketing effort to make it appear that former
highly radioactive sites could be made pristine. Before the meeting
started, the NRC had a slide show showing other before and after photos.
One disturbing series of photos showed the Maine Yankee containment
domes being blown up, reduced to rubble, and then planted over. The
photos remind me of the contaminated and bulldozed town of Uravan,
Colorado which is now a "Greenfield." One wonders why they would show
that unless they planned to do the same thing at San Onofre.
The meeting began with happy talk and rules by the
moderator, and the first half of the meeting was monopolized by the
speakers and their power point presentations. As usual, the focus was
on the bureaucratic procedures of the NRC rather than on the substance
of decommissioning.
Few details were given other than lengthy lists of
NRC rulings which had to be followed in a particular order. During the
public questions phase, speakers gave lengthy answers and often passed
the microphone back and forth so that many NRC officials could respond
to the same question.
The net result was that time ran out and many in
the audience could never get recognized.
I was sitting in the second
row center and waved my hand for an hour and was ignored the entire
evening.
The first speaker was Larry Camper who boasted that the NRC
decommissioning team had 300 years of cumulative experience in
decommissioning. They have decommissioned 50 materials sites, 13
research reactors, 11 nuclear power plants (NPP), about 80 in total. He
made it clear that the licensee (Edison) had the right to choose
whether to decommission the site for unrestricted use (for any purpose)
or restricted use (still partly contaminated).
He said that all
decommissionings so far have been unrestricted. He said their goal was
to end up with contamination levels no higher than 25 mrem AND as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA). This was scary and unclear but not
questioned. All their technospeak may boil down to the fact that they
have a procedure which says that they don’t have to do what is safe,
they only have to do whatever is practical and easy to achieve (for
them)..
The second speaker was Bruce Watson who went into many of the rulings such as 10
CFRPart 20 Subpart?
E He says that Edison will have 60 years to complete the process, up to
50 in SAFSTOR and 10 in DECOM. The radioactive waste has to be reduced
only by 90%, not 100%. He made the incredible statement that they
liked to go slow and stretch out the process in order to allow the
decommissioning trust funds to remain invested so that interest would
compound and generate more money over time.
Edison will produce a PSDAR
report about costs and environmental impacts. This plan must be
submitted, but it does not require any approval by the NRC. A final
License Termination Plan LTP must be approved by the NRC. Edison has
until June 7, 2015 to submit their plan but Edison says it hopes to
submit it earlier.
The third speaker (and 5th speaker) was Dr. Blair Spitzberg
whose specialty is fuel safety. He carelessly stated that spent fuel has
to go into cooling pools for “several years.” Regular fuel needs to be
cooled in pools for 5 years and the Hi Burn fuel that Edison has been
using since 1996 requires 12-15 years. It was unclear whether Dr.
Spitzberg’s goal was to deceive the public about this crucial issue or
to trivialize it (or both). He stated that San Onofre has two types of
dry casks which are certified for transport: 24PT1 and 24PT4. They
also have another type not yet certified (but Edison has applied for
transport certification). This is all mute because there is no where
for any of it to go, at least during our lifetime. He said that the
exact number of dry casks is secret information but it can be found on
storefuel.com (if someone finds these data here please circulate). He
said there were 55 cannisters at San Onofre as of Dec., 2012.
Here are 2 more alarming statements Dr. Spitzberg made:
First, he referred to a category called “High Risk Activities” with no
explanation. If part of decommissioning involves high risk radiological
activities, this should be disclosed to the public as to when they
occur and what part of the public takes the risk if something goes
wrong.
Second, when talking about contaminated waste, he mentioned that
“MOST” contaminated waste is taken out of state, implying that some
contaminated waste is taken to other parts of California. Since there
are no radioactive contamination waste disposal sites in California,
presumably he means that it is dumped in landfills?
Also discussed was Unit #1 which is not completely
decommissioned because the reactor vessel remains on site. Attempts were
made to barge it through the Panama Canal to a Class C (highly
contaminated) site in South Carolina but there was political opposition
by the countries involved plus the fact that the barge would move so
slowly that it would tie up traffic. Attempts to route it around South
America were blocked by Argentina. The “solution” is to leave it at San
Onofre for the time being (meaning probably decades) which makes San
Onofre a Class C radioactive waste storage facility. The “plan” is to
wait until it is time to move reactor vessels (the largest component
needing removal) for Units 2 and 3, and then deal with them all at the
same time. Since these are too large and too dangerous to ship by truck
or rail, they hope that many years from now a solution will someone
become apparent. It looks like a long time before #1 will get a LTP.
Some other tidbits about #1 which came up (also in Q and A)
include the fact that Edison never removed the large discharge pipe into
the ocean. They decided that there would be more radioactive
contamination to the ocean by removing it than leaving it there
(presumably contaminated), not to mention the fact that doing nothing is
always cheaper and easier.
If they knew before they built this pipe
that it would be too dangerous ever to remove, why was it ever allowed
to be built? This shows the same dangerous strategy of the NRC: build
things first without concern for consequences and put off safety
considerations as long as possible.
There was also discussion of a leak of radioactive liquid
waste being shipped to Clive, Utah from #1. It was discovered at a
truck stop in Utah. Teams went in and patched it up and the NRC claims
that no one was hurt. Later I cornered the staff member who said that
asked if he meant that the radioactivity didn’t harm anyone during the
few days after the accident and he admitted that this is what he meant.
I asked how they could possibly know if anyone was harmed since it
would take at least 5 years for cancer to appear if someone inhaled
radioactivity. He agreed that it was possible and they really don’t
know if anyone was harmed even though they make claims to that effect.
Speaker #4 was Michael Dusaniwskyj, an economist. He said
there was currently $1.7 billion in trust funds for unit #2 and $1.9
billion for #3. He said that $295 million remained earning interest for
Unit 1 of which they expect to spend $206 million. No mention of where
the unused $89 million will go. Back to the rate payers who have been
paying for this since 1968?
Gene Stone opened the Q&A period with a request for
having a citizen group called Coalition to Decommission San Onofre
officially be a part of the decommissioning process. The NRC replied
briefly that they would think about it.. Another question from this
group was whether residents would be warned of any activities which
might lead to environmental contamination. The answer was no, residents
would not be warned. The NRC bureaucratic answer was that all such
activities would be treated exactly the same way as the current
procedures for low level radioactive waste disposal. It was asserted
that all such waste disposal would be carefully documented and
eventually appear in public records. The current procedure is to wait
about a year and then make quarterly reports about radioactive waste
disposal into the air and ocean. The waste discharges are averaged over
90 day periods. NRC regulations carefully state that these averages
must not exceed permissible levels (it is always what is permitted, not
what is safe). In this way, a large release on the beginning of a
quarter could be averaged with 89 days of no releases and the records
would clearly indicate a low permissible average dose. The public will
never know before such releases occur and they will also never know the
dates and concentrations of releases even a year later. The only way to
know is to install real time publically accessible monitoring, a
subject which never came up in spite of all the expressed concern for
transparency and public safety. Supposedly there will be a lot of
radioactive monitoring by Edison and the NRC, but it will all be secret
information.
Much of the discussions involved the problems caused by the
use of Hi Burn fuel which is much hotter, much more radioactive, and
requires about triple the amount of time in cooling pools. The NRC
could not answer exactly how decisions were made (and kept from the
public) about the switch in fuels. They could not answer questions
about the dangers of dry cask storage for this fuel. Dr. Spitzberg
admitted that Hi Burn fuel required more time in cooling pools but he
did not know how much longer. At one point he said it might be 7 years
(half the time that other experts cite). The NRC was quick to blame the
Dept. of Energy and national politics for the failure to have any
permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. They were happy to talk at
length about this problem involving other parties. They maintain that
they are blameless and can do nothing about it.
Many people in the audience made articulate statements of
concern coupled with questions which were often brushed aside. Some
mayors and city council members weighed in. One interesting speaker was
Patrick Christman, Assistant Chief of Staff at Camp Pendleton who was
involved in environmental protection for the camp. He later told me
that the marines were concerned about the radiological dangers but
considered themselves mostly observers. He was not aware that San Onofre
might be a major target for terrorists, and he was not aware of the
newly funded cancer streak study which will be carried out by the
National Academy of Sciences in the next 2 years (all of Camp Pendleton
will be part of the study).
There was only one pro-nuclear comment from the audience.
This came from a representative of the Chamber of Commerce who was
outraged that the general public was allowed to weigh in at all. He
suggested that the NRC should stop wasting its time listening to the
public and make all the decisions on their own. The NRC gave him
effusive thanks for his comments. I suppose everyone knows that Edison
has contributed heavily to every Chamber of Commerce in most of Southern
California.
I was disappointed that there were almost no questions or
discussion of the disposal of low level waste (everything that is not
the fuel rods). Will they blow up the containment domes as they did in
Oregon and Maine (think of all the contaminated particulate blown into
the air and settling in the ocean and on our rooftops). Will they
bulldoze contamination and let it stay? Will they let everything
underground stay, contaminated or not? If Class A waste goes to Clive,
Utah, what will be the route for the thousands of trucks? What safety
precautions will they take? We assume Class C waste will go to Texas
(how?) but what falls into Class B and where will it go? Who makes
these classifications and how can they be trusted? Will they try to
classify contaminated waste as less than A so it can go into EPA
designated hazwaste sites or into landfills? How much of San Onofre
will end up at the landfill off Ortega Highway, and how much will
somehow end up in the ocean? Will they leave forever the 18 ft diameter
1500 ft long into the ocean? This pipe has been carrying liquid
radioactive waste for a third of a century. Will the public be notified
on days of “high risk” demolition? They have hazmat suits but we don’t.
What about the 3 upwind schools only 2 miles away? What about the
surfers?
Two low points stuck out for me. First was the discussion
about the safety of the spent fuel pools. The NRC went on and on about
how it had a 5/8 inch steel lining, walls 4 feet thick, and a foundation
3 feet thick, and it was way above sea level (19.75 feet to be exact).
Therefore it would be impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis. When
asked about safety from above, perhaps by terrorist attacks, the
question was cut off and never answered. When pressed about drone
attacks and terrorism, Bruce Watson dragged out the old study claiming
that an airplane could crash into the containment dome and not cause it
to collapse. He would not respond to attacks on the fuel pools or dry
cask storage and used the NRC line that San Onofre was just as safe as
any other nuclear power plant in the country. (Which is true because
all of them are unsafe.) I am familiar with the National Academy of
Sciences special study about the vulnerability of NPP to terrorism and
the research done by Sandia Labs about 9/ll type plane crashes.
Privately he admitted that such crashes or missile attacks or any high
explosives might lead to catastrophe if they targeted the pools or dry
casks (which is why the NRC only takes about containment dome safety). I
told them that the Sandia Labs also found that a truck bomb exploding
at a NPP perimeter a few hundred feet from a fuel pool would likely
cause a catastrophe. He did not know this. But he did know that the
fuel pools and openly stored dry casks are about 200 feet from public
road Old Pacific Highway and about 300 ft from Interstate 5. Everyone
knows that NPP designed in the 1960s were never designed to protect
against terrorism. The NRC pretends that no such attacks are likely and
it is the Pentagon’s problem, not theirs.
The other low point was the last question from Pete
Dietrich, Edison chief nuclear engineer. He complained about the
continual reference to “Greenfield” status which suggested that Edison
would have to make the site pretty when they leave. When pressed, the
NRC said that the site would not have to be returned to a “Greenfield”
which pleased the public. They only had to please the US Navy, the
owner. The bottom line is that Edison has to do only what is acceptable
to the Navy, perhaps what one might find at a military base used as an
artillery range. This is a clue as to what we can expect from Edison.