HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990209 APPROVED 9/7/99 . ,�,„, ¢ \
ti! / �
1
2 • MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
( 4 Regular Meeting
5 February 9� 1999
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on February 9, 1999 at 7:30
8 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
9
10 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT• ChairAlice M. Gordon,�and Commissioners
11 Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey; Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs
12 �OUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT• Geoffrey Gledhill ,,
13 �OUNTY STAFF PRESENT• County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager
14 Rod Visser, County Engineer Paul Thames, and Clerk to the Board Beveriy A. Blythe (All other staff
15 members will be identified appropriately below)
16
17 NOTEi AI �, DOCUMENTS REFERRED IQ IN THESE MINUTE$AR��J�pERMANENT
�$ B�N�A�..��I��RK'S FI E. � RECORDINGS Q�T� MEETING
' •19 WILL B�K��T F�C ,g�YEARS•
20
21 .
22 Introduction ��ie to i�c�Pu ose��ig Work Session: Chair Gordon convened the meeting.
23 5he said that the purpose of the work session is to decide if Orange County should ask the Nuclear
24 Regulatory Commission (NRC)to hold a public hearing on the expansion of the spent fuel pool
25 storage capacity at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. This is a formal process called
26 °Intervention." This process provides a very tight time frame for the Count�r to present its case.
?7 Because of the time constraints public comments will not be accepted. CP&L filed its petitiorr for
( 3 expansion in December of 1998. In a Federal Register Notice issued on January 13, 1999 the NRC
19 announced its intention to amend the Shearon Harris license to permit expansion of its spent fuel pool
30 capacity and offered the public the opportunity to request a pubiic hearing by February 12, 1999. The�
31 hearing is guaranteed to anyone who can show"standing." In order to do that it is necessary to file a
32 Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene. That is one of the decisions that will be made tonight.
33 In mid-January the Orange County Board of County Commissioners asked its staff to recommend
34 consultants who would be qualified to assist in this matter. The Commissioners decided to gather the
35 necessary information to inform them about the CP&L application and to open a dialogue with CP&L
36 officials: The Board of County Commissioners also decided that they wanted to be in a position to ask
37 for a public hearing if it was appropriate. Therefore, the County hired Dr. Gordon Thompson, a
38 recognized nuclear expert, who is in attendance tonight. Also, Diane Curran, an experienced �
39 attorney, wili be availabie by telephone. Chair Gordon pointed out that it is estimated to cost Orange
40 County $20,000 to try to get the NRC to hold a public hearing. The governing boards who have
41 formally joined Orange County in requesting this public hearing include the municipalities of Chapel
42 Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Mebane, Sanford, and Garner as weil as the Counties of Durham and
43 Lee and the Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Systems. Those entities who have
44 contributed funds are Durham County and the Town of Chapel Hill. Chair Gordon then reviewed the
45 process for this meeting and the steps that had been taken to this point.
46
47 R�nort on Carolina Power and Light's A��Ilcation and Evaluation of Risks Associated with
48 High Densi y Pool Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel �t Shearon Harris Plant• Dr. Gordon Thompson
49 reviewed the general layout of the Harris Nuclear Plant which is a one unit plant with one containment
50 buiiding. It was originally designed to be a four-unit plant and consequently there are undeveloped
j 1 areas for three other containment buildings. A fuel handling building was constructed which has a
�2 capacity that would aliow it to serve four reactors. He described the Fuel Handling Building and
53 indicated that pools A& B are licensed and being used. The current application is for the use of poois
54 C & D. The cooling of pools C & D was to be provided by the 2"d unit, which was not built. Now the
. . �, .../\ T��� .
t.l,\ �
2
1 cooling and electrical supply for pools C & D will have to be met from unit one. He explained the
2 design of the facility and how the plant operates. He mentioned that the water in the pools provides
3 both shielding and cooling for the high levels of radioactivity and that fuel is brought to the site from
4 other reactors operated by CP&L. All nuclear plants in the country have a problem with accumulating �
5 stocks of spent fuel because the Federal government has not yet developed a repository for spent
6 fuel. CP&L intends, by putting into use pools C & D, to provide a capacity at the Shearon Harris Plant
7 to accommodate all of the spent fuel that CP&L produces in all four of its reactors. He explained that
8 there are racks at the base of the pools where the spent fuel is stored. The Harris Plant is a
9 Pressurized Water Reactor(PWR). This is a very long, thin structure made up of many small tubes. I
10 These tubes are made of a zirconium alloy and fuel pellets are placed inside them. He described the
11 design of the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) and the Pressurized Water Reactor(PWR). He
12 mentioned that as the quantities of spent fuel have accumulated at nuclear piants, the lice,nsees have
13 switched to more compact storage design. They have moved from an open frame design to a closed
14 box design which allows for the storage of more spent fuel. He stated that the closed box design has
15 an important safety implication which he would discuss later in his presentation. He explained the
16 cooling systern design used in nuclear plants.
17 Safetv Issues: Dr. Thompson stated that there were technical issues identified in the License
18 Amendment Application. The design intent of the Shearon Harris Plant was that Unit Two, which was
19 not constructed, would perform the support functions for pools C & D. That is no longer possible. The
20 licensee has calculated that the maximum heat load that will be present in these pools is 15.6 million
21 BTU's per hour. The licensee also has determined that the component cooling water system for unit
22 one cannot accommodate a heat-load of that magnitude. The company's plan for the next several
23 years is to adrninistratively limit the heat-load in pools C & D to one million BTU per hour and to
24 exploit the margin in the existing component cooling water(CCW) systems so as to meet that heat
25 load. This raises what is known as an "Unreviewed Safety Question" because this same system
26 serves safety functions at the reactor. Therefore, the licensee has to demonstrate, and the NRC has
27 to agree that the system has enough capability to meet the additional load of the spent fuel pools and j
28 serve the safety functions of the reactor. The critical point is the ability of the CCW system to serve �� '
29 the reactor in the event of an accident because of loss of coolant. The company's longer-term plan is
30 to upgr�de the CCW system. That upgrade would presumably accommodate the heat load of 15.6
31 million BTU's per hour. This situation alone is sufficient to challenge the NRC staffs determination of
32 "No Significant Hazard". First, because an "Unreviewed Safety Question" exists and secondly that the
33 license application is for the ability to fill pools C & D with fuel even though there is no design on the
34 table for a cooling system that could accommodate a full load in the pools. Another point is that in
35 pools C & D the racks will not be safe against criticality for fuel that has a low burn-up. Low burn-up
36 fuel has been used for a relatively short time or is relatively high in enrichment.
37
38 Dr. Gordon Thompson stated that there are a variety of ways in which these pools could run dry. It is
39 relatively low probability event but it is an extremely high consequence event. He mentioned that the
40 NRC only focuses on the possibility of pools running dry. They have not considered the risk
41 significance of a partial drainage. This is another matter that challenges the finding of the"No
42 Significant Hazard" determination. He explained how cooling would have to occur if all of the water
43 were lost. For relatively recently discharged fuel the fuel temperature can rise in this event to the
44 point where a fire occurs. If that occurs a substantial fraction of the radioactivity in the pool can be
45 released into the atmosphere. This could become significant in the case of pools C & D at Shearon
46 Harris because the intent is to use them to store relatively older fuel. The question as to whether or
47 not this older fuel can ignite in the event of a loss of cooling is an important one that should be settled
48 through the hearing process. This cannot be dismissed with a "No Significant Hazard" determination.
49 He mentioned that in the case of a pool fire there is volatile material that enters the atmosphere and
50 travels downwind as fine particles, settles on structures and the ground, and irradiates people or
51 enters the food chain or water supply. �
52 �
53 Dr. Thompson further stated that an alternative is to return to the low-density type of rack. When the
54 water is lost with this configuration the water does not heat up to the point where fire is possible. This
--- _
_- _ __ __
�-,,� �
�� 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
-- - -- -
��- - -- --- -- t 3'� ,,
4
1 has merit. The staff decides whether to accept or reject the comments. If they reject them, an appeal
2 could be made directly to the Commissioners. After that an appeal could be made directiy to the US
3 Court of Appeais. The determination of"No Significant Hazard" is not final until the NRC considers
,
4 public comment. �
5
6 The effect of a final determination of"No Significant Hazard"would be that the racking of the pools
7 could occur independent of the hearing. It might be that the hearing would ultimately conclude that
8 the license amendment should not be granted and that the racks should be removed. However, that
9 outcome becomes less likely if the action has occurred because the stakes are raised.
10 '
11
12 Questions from the Board of Commissioners to Consultants/CP&UOther Interested,Parties
13
14 Commissioner Brown asked for an explanation of the process that CP&L used to make the decision to
15 use the fuel pools.
16
17 Jim Scarola of CP&L stated that the Shearon Harris station was originally planned for four units. The
18 load projections caused the construction of three of the units to be cancelled. However, the decision
19 was made to complete the Spent Fuel building in such a way as to provide space for the original four-
20 pool capacity. CP&L expected that the Department of Energy would begin taking possession of the
21 fuei in 1998. They are at 75% capacity and are exercising the existing plan to put the last two pools
22 into service. It was not a decision that was made recently but was part of their long-term contingency
23 plan. They did look at alternatives to this option. The fuel rods that would be delivered to the plant
24 are now being stored in fuel pools at Robinson and Brunswick. Each of these plants, Robinson,
25 Brunswick and Shearon Harris, are at 75% of storage capacity. This is what is motivating the current
26 expansion plans at Shearon Harris. He felt confident that the Yucca Mountain facility wouid be open
27 sometime in the future to house spent fuel. ��
28 �
29 Commissioner Carey asked for clarification regarding the current license. Mr. Scarola said the license _
30 currently allows for off-loading from Brunswick and Robinson. The current license amendment is
31 strictly to put the C & D pools into service.
32
33 Citizen Question: I read in a recent issue of the Raleigh News & Observer that the Shearon Harris
34 plant was accidentally shut down recently because a worker left a sheet of paper between a few
35 instruments and a back up system took over. It seems very easy for an accident to happen. What if
36 the back up system does not come on, what will happen? Are arrangements being made to anticipate
37 any Y2K problems? Commissioner Halkiotis added that he saw an add several weeks ago with
38 respect to how CP&L is preparing for Y2K and a representative of CP&L stated information would be
39 coming out in the Spring billing. Also, the advertisement stated that CP&L intends to recommend in
40 the spring billing that citizens stock up on non-perishable food items and batteries. This is
41 disconcerting to hear CP&L suggesting these types of warnings.
42
43 Mr. Scarola stated that nuclear facilities are designed to put themselves in a condition of safe
44 operation. For a nuclear plant that would be a shut-down condition. There are many systems that
�� n
45 would shut down the plant if they sense a problem. There was a maintenance error which caused the
46 plant to shut down, however, no back up generators were needed. The plant operated as designed.
47 With regard to the Y2K issue, they have done a detailed review and testing on over 300 software
48 systems. He expressed extreme confidence in the safety of this facility.
49
50 Cornmissioner Brown stated that CP&L have stated that they go above and beyond the NRC
51 requirements. She asked for an explanation of how they are going beyond the requirements with �
52 regard to the pools. Mr. Scarola stated that the design of the pool storage at the Shearon Harris -
53 facility is above the minimum standard required and beyond the standards of other facilities in the
54 United States.
---
._ _
� \
�'�° � \
� z' 3" i' �
5
1
2 Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Scarola to explain what benefit it was to Orange County citizens to
3 have more storage at Shearon Harris. Scarola stated that risk is something that they look at on a day-
� ' to-day basis. They are going to move the same number of fuel bundles on a given day now as is
,, proposed to be moved ten years from now. The only thing that will change is the storage capaciry.
6 The analysis that has been done on this plant has stated that it is "Beyond Design Basis." That
7 means that there is not a credible scenario that they have been able to develop that would lead to that
8 event. He stated that there is no increased risk.
9 .
10 Commissioner Carey mentioned that he has received several questions regarding what source of
11 money the County is using to pursue this endeavor. He clarified that the Commissioners are using
12 taxpayer money because the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for protecting the
13 public's interest. This is an effort to get information out to the pubiic so that the public can make
14 informed decisions.
15
16 Commissioner Carey asked about the issue of unreviewed safety questions that Dr. Thompson raised
17 in his presentation.
18 ,
19 Mr. Scarola first referred back to the comments about the N advertisement and stated that CP&L did
20 not run the N advertisements in question. With regard to the "unreviewed safety questions", Scarola
21 said that he had not seen that information before today. The license proposal that goes to the NRC
22 with the comment"Unreviewed Safety Questions" does not mean that it has not been analyzed. Each
23 issue is analyzed. Some of the scenarios that were presented were not analyzed because they have
24 not been deemed credible events in the industry and therefore are not required to be analyzed.
25
26 Citizen Question: Why can the Robinson Plant not continue to store its spent fuel in its dry storage
''� facilities? Isn't it primarily an issue of cost in deciding to ship to Shearon Harris? Mr. Scarola stated
( that after the initial safety review, then economics is factored into their decisions. They are required to
�9 provide cost efficient service. It is much more expensive to provide dry storage.
30
31 Citizen Question: What are the safety consequences of recent staff reductions at the Shearon Harris
32 plant? Which safety related positions were eliminated? Mr. Scarola stated that there have been no
33 staff reductions since he began at the facility in August 1998. Throughout the industry there is a drive
34 toward more efficient operations and computer systems have been implemented that have taken over
35 manual operations.
36
37 Citizen Question: With reference to fire hazards there were several questions. One was with regard
38 to the minimum cooling time to avoid fire hazard in a partially drained fuel pool. Another question
� 39 asked if fire hazard was used as a basis for prior interventions and what had been the result. Finally,
40 there was a question about the pool building leaking radiation if there was an accident.
41
42 Jim Scarola stated that the component cooling water capacity was sufficient for the initial racking
43 needed to put the "C" pool into service. CP&L has told the NRC that they have a limit that they would
44 not go over before reanalyzing and addressing additional component cooling water capability. With
45 regard to the implications of an off-site accident, he emphasized that the work that has been done is
46 far"Beyond Design Basis" events which means that they have not come up with a credible scenario
47 that could lead to an event causing an off-site accident. However, the C & D pools will have fuel that
48 has cooled down and the analysis shows that fuel that is greater than 17 months old does not pose an
49 off-site hazard by the possible drain-down of that pool.
50
� Dr. Thompson said that when the nuclear industry was established in this country, initially the
_t spectrum of accidents was defined in such as way as to encompass all credible events. It was
53 subsequently realized that there were other possible accidents beyond the design basis.
54 Furthermore, the NRC requires all of its licensees to conduct an "integrated plant examination"which
-- __--------- —--_- __ _ ____- _ __ _ - _ _ .__----___
/ �' r
. . . �.� �/ (.g
6
1 seeks to estimate the probability and nature of accidents "beyond the design basis." It is not accurate
2 to say that these kinds of events are not credibie. That is an outdated concept. Because it is not
3 possible to require all plants to be retrofitted for"Beyond the Design" accident possibilities, a
4 compromise has been reached. The second question that was asked was "how old does spent fuel �
5 have to be after discharge from the reactor before it can be safely placed in a pool that will be drained
6 of water. The Brookhaven laboratories have concluded that after 17 months fuel rods will not burn in
7 the event of complete water loss; however, the analysis does not consider the question of partial
8 water loss although that was identified in 1979 as a more severe case. That issue has not been
9 addressed properly.
10
11 Chair Gordon asked about the more dense nature of the racking. She asked about the buffering
12 between the assemblies. She also asked about the 9 inches in the fuel pool vs. the 8.5 in,ches in the
13 reactor.
14
15 Dr. Thompson stated that with 20-inch spacing an open style rack could be used. If it is compacted
16 further to increase capacity, then criticality becomes a concern and neutron-absorbing materials must
17 be placed between the fuel assemblies. The neutron absorbing materials creates the possibility of a
18 �re hazard; the open style rack would not create a fire hazard in the event of water loss because air
19 circulation would occur. The further compactions from 10 '/Z inches to 9 inches creates a further
20 problem, namely, a potential for criticality if fuel outside the intended boundary of enrichment and
21 burn-up is placed in pool C. A licensing board should address the probability of that event.
22
23 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the compaction of the spent rods was a function of improved
24 technology or reduced storage capacity.
25
26 Dr. Thompson stated that historically the compaction has been because of reduced storage capacity
27 because there is no place to put the fuel. The licensing hearings that have permitted re-racking have �
28 done so because it has been the judgement of the licensing boards that this was an acceptable risk. �/
29 Dr. Thompson said that there are site specific issues, which need to be addressed, as well as the �
30 partial water drainage question.
31 �
32 Commissioner Halkiotis asked if it was standard procedure that a nuclear utility has refused to
33 cooperate by sharing information or allowing access to facilities and documents.
34
35 Dr. Thompson stated that the licensee has no legal obligation to permit people to visit its facility or to
36 provide any other assistance. There is documentation in the public domain at public document rooms
37 in Washington and around each site. When he was first contracted by Orange County he was lead to
3"8 believe that CP&L was being highly cooperative. However, in fact, CP&L was not cooperative with its
39 documents.
40
41 Citizen Question: Does the NRC consider transportation as a factor in "No Significant Hazard"
42 determinations?
43
44 Dr. Thompson stated that he did not know if that was a factor in the staff's preliminary determination in
45 this case. He also stated that the issue of pool fires has been used as a basis for prior intervention,
46 although he has not followed all of these cases. He mentioned that as a result of his testimony in
47 1979 in Germany the compact pool storage option was denied and cast storage was required. He
48 has been involved in pool issues finrice since that time; however, his testimony was not admitted.
49
50 Commissioner Brown asked CP&L how the fuel rods would be brought to this area. She also asked -
51 what other strategies exist for keeping these rods indefinitely at the other facilities. j
52 �_
53 Jim Scarola stated that there has been an extensive licensing process involved in moving fuel to this
54 facility. The process is by rail at the current time. They are shipped dry, in casts that are designed for
�� � 1
�i �
7
1 shipping. He mentioned that the dry cast is an option which would allow them to remain at the facility
2 of origin. The dry cast and pool scenarios are both safe. As the safety officer he sees more potential
3 for complications by having finro methods. Also, the economics are considerably in favor of putting the
� 1 pools in service at Harris over having the dry casts at three stations. They cannot replace the wet
.i storage at Shearon Harris. When bundles are first removed from service they must be stored in
6 pools, so the pool storage wiil continue to be used. The pool storage must be expanded.
7
8 Commissioner Brown asked for further clarification of the long-term strategies for the three plants.
9
10 Jim Scarola stated that in the early 1980's it was decided to go ahead with the spent fuel building.
11 That was a part of the long-term strategy for nuclear generation within CP&L. The shipments to
12 Shearon Harris began the year after the facility was licensed. They did not expect opposition to a ,
13 program that had been in place for ten years.
14
15 Commissioner Jacobs stated that CP&L is not licensed to take spent fuel rods from other utilities. He
16 asked what assurances there were that CP&L would not ask for that right. He also asked if it was a
17 possibility to move ahead with pool C and not pool D.
18
19 Jim Scarola stated that any intent to take fuel from another facility would compromise their own
20 strategy for license term and license extension. Logistically and legally that is not an option. He
21 mentioned that they do not see any technical obstacles that would prevent them from putting both of
22 the pools in service. There is no advantage to them to go through the licensing process twice.
23
24 Commissioner Halkiotis stated that there were earth tremors in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. He
25 mentioned that he has been a Commissioner since 1986 and he has been consistent in his opposition
26 to Shearon Harris. He has grave concerns about the nuclear power industry. There was concern that
�7 the Yucca Mountain area could experience a significant earthquake. There are still people who
( believe that it might happen. He is convinced that CP&L is committed to the public safety; however,
�9 history has proved that humans cannot control nature. That is what scares people about this safety
30 issue. If the nuciear power industry is so safe and if the risk of hazardous accidents is so low, why
31 does the private insurance industry place such a high price on liability insurance coverage?
32
33 Jim Scarola stated that the nuclear business is governed by technical and politicai decisions. His role
34 is to support the decision made by the Federal government. He believes the energy policies will serve
35 the citizens of this country. He believes that there will be a storage facility at Yucca Mountain. There
36 are options and hazards associated with each of the energy options for the future. He feels that the
37 insurance companies will continue to insure nuclear power facilities based on the possibte risks.
38
39 Commissioner Carey asked if the original ten-year plan included racking the fuel rods more tightly.
40 Also, he stated that it appears that CP&L has not supported a public hearing with the NRC. He asked
41 for an explanation of that apparent position.
42
43 Jim Scarola said that he did not know if the ten-year plan included racking the fuel more compactly.
44 The rack designs throughout the country have changed as the material used for this process has
45 changed. The new process has allowed the ability to stack the rods more efficiently. Also, pools C &
46 D are not taking freshly offloaded fuel rods, which allows them to be stacked closer. With regard to
47 the public hearing process, he stated that the decision on public process is not a CP&L process.
48 They have responded appropriately to the requirements of the Federal government who are
49 surrogates for the pubtic. The NRC makes that decision.
50
� � Commissioner Gordon asked Dr. Thompson to give an overview of the risks and consequences
1 mentioned during the proceedings.
53
/ �Y y.� Sp
' _ `;°11.i-
$
1 Dr. Thompson stated that without looking at the legalist structure, the present practice of storing fuel
2 in pools A& B creates a risk that adds to the risk posed by the reactor. The density currently in use in
3 pools A & B creates an accident potential that would not exist if low density racking were used in
4 those pools. This is an existing situation and cannot be challenged at this time. The licensing risk �
5 adds a further risk. The relative scale of the risks is a complex question, but only the licensing
6 amendment for the risks at the C & D pools is open for review at this time. If there was a hearing on
7 pools C & D, it would make people more aware of the risk being posed by pools A& B and the
8 company might ultimately choose to adopt a storage strategy that greatly reduces the risk posed by �
9 pools A, B, C & D. The probability of consequences are low; they are not everyday events. However,
10 the consequences can be very large. The consequences of accidents fail into two categories. The
11 short-term consequences arise from exposure to the short-lived radioactivity that might be released
12 from a reactor. Most of the emergency response measures that the government has prep.ared for are
13 directed at protecting people from the short-lived radioisotopes. A pool accident would involve the
14 long-term consequences of the release of seiziumSP. The Chernobyl accident proved that there are
15 long-term consequences of this type of accident. If these pools were to be filled and an accident
16 occurred they would be storing more than ten-times the amount of SP seizium SP stored at
17 Chernobyl. The consequence would be serious and lasting. He mentioned that when the uranium fuel
18 in the reactor undergoes fission it produces fission products, or waste material. Seizuim 137 is a
19 particularly hazardous byproduct. In the spent fuel the Seizium is locked into ceramic pellets inside
20 the tubes. It is locked in place for as long as the rods maintain their integrity. If the fuel overheats
21 then the Seizium would evaporate, rise up and escape from the building and travel downwind. This is
22 a low probability event.
23
24 Chapel Hill Town Council member Joe Capowski asked what circumstances could cause us to be
25 refused "standing" in this situation.
26
27 Ms. Curran stated that"standing" would probably be granted in this case as Orange county is the �
28 government entity that is responsible for the health and welfare of citizens living within a relatively
29 close distance of the plant. _
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, that the Board of
32 County Commissioners direct the consultants, Dr. Gordon Thompson and Diane Curran, to: a)
33 complete the legal and technical documents required to file a request to intervene in the Nuclear
34 Regulatory Commission's perrnitting process for the CP&L proposal to expand its storage capacity for
35 spent nuclear fuel rods at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power plant; and b)file those documents with
36 the NRC prior to the filing deadline and end of the public comments period on February 12, 1999.
37 Intervention is the formal process whereby Orange County asks the NRC to hold a public hearing on
38 the proposal.
39
40 Commissioner Jacobs stated that he believed that Mr. Scalara was a conscientious employee who
41 believed everything that he stated in these proceedings. However, ultimately CP&L is a for-profit
42 organization that may not always make the same decisions as a nonprofit organization might make
43 regarding safety. This process requires that elected officials and citizens speak now or forever hold
44 their peace. It is prudent for elected officials to be sure that the NRC adequately addresses the
45 issues that citizens have raised. He stated that it is important to observe now how the NRC
46 addresses these concerns.
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 Commissioner Gordon thanked the elected officials, citizens, Dr. Thompson, Ms. Curran and
50 representatives of CP&L.
51 �52 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs that the Board of
53 County Commissioners direct the consultants, Dr. Gordon Thompson and Diane Curran, to: a)
54 complete the legal and technical document required to file a challenge or objection to the NRC staff's
i -----. _ _...__ _.__ _. .
� , t'"i \
. C: �I:.�
9
1 proposed finding of"No Significant Hazard" refative to the CP&L proposal to expand its storage
2 capacity for spent nuciear fuel rods at the Shearon Harris nuciear power plant; and b) flle those
3 documents with the NRC prior to the filing deadline and end of the pubiic comment period on
� ' February 12, 1999.
J
6 Commissioner Carey expressed concerns about the NRC staff s preliminary ruling of"No Significant
7 Hazard", however, he stated that he is going to vote against this motion because he feels it is
8 premature.
9 �
10 V�TE: AYES: Chair Gordon, Commissioners Brown, Haikiotis and Jacobs
11 NO: Commissioner Carey
12 ,
13 ADJOURN: A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
14 adjoum this meeting.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 The next regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be held on February 15, 1999 at
18 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
19
2p Alice M. Gordon, Chair
21
22 Beverly A. Biythe, Clerk
23
24
25
26
�7
�
{