ML19209D157
| ML19209D157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/28/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7910190471 | |
| Download: ML19209D157 (60) | |
Text
1* r s
2m, : _, ;
- 9. ", p. -.
- . g
. - m..
- ~
.+
., 3s
+
+
.~
- &g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
p I
I
,c- -
L,
. IN THE M ATTE OF:
a
% {
11 U IWklL
{yF PUBLIC MEETING IU It
, DISCUSSI,O.N:OE.RADICACTIVELI CO.NTAMINATED
..r
.a..
g.
~z -
4-
..,,.,.i..
~*
v...,y,
.. ;, s,
v-(...
'y.
- ff,
., y.g.,
. ;g y-
..yw4 i
}
. ~. _,,
~.%,;, w r u.mr.. e g.-
. g.g g.
u
-s.
4.Q;+f+Psdg:. pix 'pgys.s,;cip :~.,
. - )q}.,;
~
.n j.
..g_n.
e u.
'.*f.
...y.
..u
~-
+
,4d,'s'G....L %.._4gdPp,j-Q.v,L,p y gg. _
-ggi.,,
3.
~ ~:;.A.
er,.,
V.
- f W.,....
3
..Jc
.A
,r 0',*
-r
..;) :*.
~,
r m,
2y..,ici,ig '6 9(q.Q yl Q $p(Gyg g y; N y -i
.;. z y _/
. ;l.3 ;a:; :y; Q.l.
.t..**',
$y;*l#,jQ&iq g.;
'%5%f
%[X?~
Q$y.,,,., g
- 4 _'. g.
- jff.g;;3g',hh Y ' g. q,
4 YW k'-
S.::".Y Qh
[f-5k?
k?bh?$9h$h,f?
kh$ h -'.Y:
~ ~ ~
W:L', Q:d&$Q-[Q$$+$gs.. 9l$$ hg* :a-Q..a%:: :~ J.+ :,y.g;.
~f]Qg ghf
.ma$:i,-a.
4;7;l{
r&
y q.;W%
ry~m
-~
Nyi?$ 5SYd(f.f?hfQcifff**ll.h?59. ?&$hf
_-sQQ3.fh;k.,- ~;. nk;.g f
3-Octo Friday, _28 September 1979-Pages 1-59 Te4eonone:
(202)047 3700 ACE. FEDERALREPORTERS,INC.
OffnulR9erurs
~ ll[4 l34 ui.Nerth Capitol Street
.Weshington, D.C.20001
](6/ 9[) 7 7/
NATTONWIDE COVERAGE-DALLY
9 CR7409 1
- 3. -;Cr, rvec..
s --
This is an unoffic'=' --=nscript of a meeting of the United S tates Nuclear Regulatory Cec =ission held on Fridav, 28 Sectember lo7o in the Cc= missions 's offices at 1717 E 5treet, N. W.,
Washington, D.
C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
I\\
)
The transcript is intended solely for general informational c u r r. e s e s.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.iO3, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed-to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authcrize.
11.74 135
r 2
CR7409 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
PUBLIC MEETING j
4 DISCUSSION OF RADICACTIVELY CONTAMINATED 5
MATER AT TMI & RELATED SUBJECT 6l 7
8 Room 1130 91 1717 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
10 Friday, 28 September 1979 11,i l
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m.
12 BEFORE:
13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner, Presiding
(
14 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 15 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 17 PRESENT:
18 Messrs. Bickwit, Case, Collins, Snyder, Stello, and 19 Vollmer.
20 21 22 23 24 efederse Reporters, Inc.
i
^
25 I
409.01.1 3
JH gsh I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY (presiding).
We're met here 2
to receive a briefing on the subject of radioactively 3
contaminated water in Three Mile I sland and its related 4
subjects.
5 Before we get into that, the commission will have 6
to vote to hold this neeting on le ss than one week's notice.
7 Su pposing. we vo te to do that.
6
( A chorus of aye s. )
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Will you lead the briefing?
10 I'd like to mention a few poin ts tha t I'd like you to cover.
11 I hope you'll go over the amounts and types of radioactively 12 contaminated water, where they're located at Three Mile 13 I sland, the. various problems that we're f acing in continued
(
14 storage of such water, the options for continued future 15 s torage, th'e status of the various clean-up efforts, and the 16 prospects and opportunities f or f uture clean-up ef forts.
17 As ycu know, we've received a le tter on the subject 18 f rom our ' Senate oversight committee.
One of the poin ts that 19 was raised in that letter is that storage is diminishing, the 20 remaining storage capacity, and a figure of 40 days, which 21 I had not earlier heard mentioned, is the amount of time that 22 is lef t before current storage f acilities are used up.
23 I want you to addre ss that.
24 Another point raised is the health physic s program.
25 I would like you to go into that.
l'174 137
409.01.2 4
UH gsh i
So with that, would you please 2
COMMISS IONER AHEARNE: Victor, in the presentation 3
which I imagine will be yours, plus s,ome of your colleagues 4
with NRR, I imagine that you will also then address the 5
current status of the environmental statement that was out o
f or public comment on EPICOR, which, as I recall, had come 7
to the commission f or review and I think is the basis for 8
the 40 days.
9 I think tha t's the e stima te that's presented in 10 t ha t.
11 (At 2:39 p.m., Commissioner Bradf ord leaves the room) 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Al so, there have been a 13 number of discussions with yourself and Commissioner Bradford 14 and myself on this health physics problem, summari zing 15 sort of the ongoing pre ssure that we have been placing upon 16 TMI.
17 MR. ETELLO : Okay.
What I propose to do is to take 18 the issues in the approxima te order that you've given them.
19 I'll take the health physics issues as a separate issue and 20 I'll csver that last.
And I'll ask Dick Vollmer to start 21 by covering the issues.in the approximate sequence.
22 But I suggest maybe it would be useful to start with oe, the current status of so many of the elements, 23 the last n
24 the current s ta tu s of the environmental statement, what our 25 plans are.
1174 138
409.01.3 5
JH gsh i
MR VOLLMER: Okay.
As f ar as the status of EPICOR, 2
the public comment period was over on Septe" ter 19th, and as 3
a result of the public comment period, we received 38 4
comments, 35 of which were not particularly substantive f rom 5
the technical point of view, but rather adcressed concern 6
with potential clean-up disposal of water and radioactive 7
ga sse s.
8 More substan tive comments were received through a 9
letter from the City of Lancaster, through a lengthy comment 10 f rom the Susquehanna Valley Alliance, and from the
.11 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
12 The City of Lancaster anc the Susquehanna Valley 13 Alliance basically were opposed to the use of EPICOR to 14 decontaminate water.
They made a number of technical and 15 legal comme ~nts on that.
16 We are preparing an evaluation of comments on these 17 and are prepared to discu ss them wi th the commission on la October 4th.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had a f ew 19 technical comments which we will addre ss.
20 Their basic bottom line, howeve r, was tha t they 21 f eel it was the correct thing to do to get on with the use of 22 EPICOR to decontaminate the auxiliary building wa ter.
23 The staf f, I think as a result of review of the 24 comments and the intervening ac tivitie s that have taken place 25 would basically have the same concerns that we expressed to 1174 139
109.01.4 6
sH gsh I
the commission before the May 25th statement tha t we feel 2
it's important to immobilize the activity contained in the 3
water at this time.
4 It still represents a source of operator exposure 5
and the current 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Are we talking aoout the 7
water in the containment building or the aux building?
a MR. VOLLMER: We're only talking at this time about 9
the water in the auxiliary building, which is addressed in the 10 EPICOR assessment.
11 I'll go now to the aux building, since that's 12 direc.tly associated with the use of EPICOR, the aux building.
13 MR. CASE: The tanks in the aux building.
14 MR. VQLLMER: Right, okay.
In the auxiliary building 15 there are roughly 300,000 gallons of contaminated water.
16 The activity levels a ssociated with those are as high as 17 about 35 microcuries per milliliter of Cesium 137.
The 18 iodine activity at this point in time is almost negligible 19 in ell parts of the f acility because of the half-life of 20 iodine.
21 Some of the tanks in the auxiliary building have 22 activities as low as about one microcurie per milliliter 23 of ce sium.
24 Now, the auxiliary building has a couple of sourc e s 25 of contaminated leakage into it.
There is some leakage f rom i174 140
409.01.5 7
JH gsn I
the reactor purification and make-up system which, as you 2
know, is part of the primary system tha t goe s out into the auxiliary building f rom the containment building.
There is 3
4 some leakage, pump leakage and valve 11akage, which provides 5
an additional source of contaminated water in the auxiliary 6
building.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: W ha t is the rate of tha t 8
leakage?
9 MR. VOLLMER: The rate of the leakage in the auxiliary 10 building..
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : Oh, I see.
It's in the 12 auxiliary building.
But it's to the auxiliary building tanks.
13 MR. VOLLMER: In the auxiliary building tanks.
It's 14 on the order of a 1,200 gallons per day.
15 Most of tha t come s f rom -- no t f rom the primary 16 system, but f rom, for example, leakage from the pum ps t ha t 17 are usec to supply containmerit cooling water.
18 And so this is generally non-radioactive water, 19 but it's co llec ted in sumps.
It does pick up contamination 20 through the floor drains and then it is immediately put in 21 tanks.
22 But the collection of that water represents a major 23 source of activity.
And, of course, in order to keep the 24 reactor building maintained at a negative pre ssure, which it 25 has been since the accident, it's important to keep the i174 141
109.01.6 8
JH gsh I
reactor building as cool as possible.
2 And so, one of the criteria that w3've im po sed 3
that whenever the reactor building ge ts close to being a 4
pre ssure equal to atmospheric, they have to keep pushing it 5
down to maintain its sub-a tmo spheric.
o So by coing that, they're going to add leakage into 7
the auxiliary building by virtue of those pump seals, wnich is 6
the normal occurrence.
Y COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the capacity of the 10 tanks in the auxiliary building?
11 MR. VOLLMER: The capacity of the tanks in the 12 auxiliary building is roughly 300,000 gallons.
In addition, 13 the tank f arm which was installed af ter the accident in the 14 spent fuel pool of the fuel handling building contains s
15 110,000 gaflons and is also about f ull.
16 Basically, as I've said --
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : About full, meaning --
18 MR. VOLLMER: Well, we have a capacity f or about 19 30 or so more days.
It's difficult to address it exactly 20 because the leakage rate varies.
But we project the average 21 leakage that has occurred in the last seven days, you have 22 about 30 or so, 35 perhaps, days more available tankage in 23 the auxiliary building, plus the tank farm.
24 At t ha t poin t in time, the Unit 2 tankage would be 25 essentially f ull and addi tional tankage in the !1 nit 2 would i174 142
409.01.7 9
JH gsh I
not be available.
2 At that point in time, if the processing of the 3
wa ter by EP ICOR system hac not proceeoed, then the only --
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY What's the process?
I 5
understand th a t.
What's the process rate in EPICOR 2?
o MR. VOLLMER: The process rate in EPICOR 2 would be 7
in exce ss of 10,0C0 gallons a day.
It's nominally 20 GPM.
8 But when we correct for things which we're expecting, 9
10,000 or more gallons per day.
10 (At 2: 47 p.m.,
Commission Bradford enters the room) 11 MR. CASE: There is available tankage in Unit 1.
12 MR. VOLLMER: I will get to that.
There is a 13 substantial additional tankage available in Unit I which we 14 have tried, as you know, from the Unit I order that wef ve l$
prepared, the commi ssion prepared, we've been trying to keep 16 Unit I and Unit 2 separate.
But indeed, that is the same 17 type of package available in Unit I that you have in Unit 2.
IS Basically, 250,0C0 or so, gallons will be available.
19 Tho se tanks are generally free.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: They're in terconnected, or 21 can they be?
22 MR. VOLLMER: There are connections by which that 23 water could be pumped over to Unit I,
yes.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: out of the existing tanks or 25 inde pendently of them?
1174 143
409.01.8 10 2H gsh i
MR. VOLLMER: Out of the existing tanks.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: These are basically the same 3
points that were made in the a sse ssmen t.
4 MR. VOLLMER: Yes, sir, they are.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In the EPICOR assessment.
6 MR. STELLO: Dick, you can also pump directly f rom 7
the sumps, directly over to Unit 1.
You don't have to take 8
them through the tanks, do you?
9 MR. VOLLMER : I believe there are connections where 10 you.could take it from the sumps, yes.
But for staging and 11 things of tha t na ture, we generally would like to put s taging 12 tanks so that you know what we're dealing wi th before you 13 s tar t pumping it over.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So, in a sense, there is 10 15 times.as mech capacity in the Unit 1 complex as there is 16 left at this point in the Unit 2 complex.
17 MR. VO LLMER : That's correct.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Also, the point that I wa s 19 trying to make which Dick has clarified is that the se were 20 the points that were made in the EPICOR assessment when it 21 went out.
22 As you recall, one of the reasons that they 23 originally came into the proposal as to why i t was necessary 24 to addre ss tha t i ssue 25 MR. VOLLMER: I think the points that were made in
'1174 144
- 09.01.9 JH gsh I
the asse ssment on the general conditions of things have really 2
not changed.
The leakage ra te s are not higher.
Activities 3
are generally not higher or lower.
And the same incentive 4
for processing the water now existed then and still exists, 5
and it's even getting more urgent in the sense that if it 6
does have to be pumped in to Uni t 1, we have c.eated, then, 7
additional sources of exposure and additional contamination 8
throughou t the facility.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Sut the urgency is of that 10 kind, is it not?
It's no t a question of off-site releases.
Il MR. VOLLMER: Tha t's right.
The urgency would be 12 one primarily of operator exposure and contamination of the 13 facility.
14 Well, definitely, the public health and saf e ty 15 as an issue I don't think has changed.
The only public health 16 and saf ety issue that existed at the time tha t we wro te the 17 EPICOR asse ssment was tha t there was a certain amount of 18 off-gassing of the liquid, radioac tive liquid waste. And 19 the of f ga ssing, particuarly xenon and iodines, diminished 20 significantly because of the decay time that take s place.
21 For example, in the whole TMI-2 f acility there is 22 probably no more than a curie or so of iodine and comparable 23 amounts of xenon.
24 So the puclic's problem f rom the of f-gassing I 25 think has diminished significantly.
~1174 145
409.01.10 12 DH gsh i
Now one i tem -- unle ss you have additional questions.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Just one other question, I 3
think.
4 Were you to start running EPICOR, what is the 5
period of time between when you had the decision to start and 6
when you could actually reach this 10,0C0 gallons per day?
7 MR. VOLLMER: I think once it's lined up, it could 8
be accomplished in a matter of a few days.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: How long does that l in e u p --
10 you say once it's lined up.
11 MR. VOLLMER: I think in a matter of a f ew days, 12 the proce ssing could start.
We have undergone an extensive 13 evaluation of the qualifications of the operators for use of 14 t hat system. We've done an extensive review of procedures, as 15 well as a general review of the f acility itself.
16 Those have been very carefully addressed because of 17 th'e significance of the processing and the public concerns of 18 t ha t.
19 MR. CASE: There is more training to be done or 20 naeded in some of the operators.
21 MR. VOLLMER: That's true.
We weren't as of last 22 week totally satisfied with the training of all the 23 operations people there, and I can report more comprehensively 24 on tha t aspe:t on October 4th.
25 I might add one thing.
As f ar as the status of 1174 146
409.01.11 13 LH gsh i
EPICOR, the use
- the facility itself because of the 2
segregatien of certain liquid wastes in the tanks ena the 3
auxiliary building, one could start proce ssing a lower 4
contamination of waste first.
But it was felt necessary to 5
get some capacity in the system.
6 And there's some concern about processing the 7
higher level waste. I dont' chink tha t there is, indeed, e
a technical reason to delay processing of the higher level V
waste, but there is the segregation of the contaminated leveis 10 in the auxiliary building.
11 So one does have a choice of testing the system 12 out with liquid wastes of lesser contamination.
13 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE: If, again, the decision were 14 to be made to use EPICOR, given tha t there has not been an 15 address yet of what would be done with the water af ter the 16 EPICOR system was run, what would be done with the water?
17 MR. VO LLMER : The only thing that could be done with 18 the water would be sending it, Unit 1.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So the decontaminated water 20 would be going to Unit i versus, in this case, the. contaminated 21 wa te r.
22 MR. VOLLMER: In any event, the water will be stored 23 because we have not done an assessment of the disposal of 24 the water, the decontaminated water.
25 The licensee has indicated that he was going to send 1174 147
409.01.12 14 JH gsh I
us his evaluation and assessment of the options and the 2
recommenced course.
3 We have no t ye t receiveo that.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But in either event, as far as 5
you can see, we'll really end up being Unit I tanks tha t 6
will be receiving the water.
And the issue is which kind of 7
water ain't going to be discardeo?
5 MR. VOLLMER: Some of the decontaminated water could 9
be stored in the EP ICOR building itself.
There are tanks 10 that could probably be used to store the decontaminated water.
But ei ther way --
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Have you considered 13 evaporation of that water?
14 MR. VOLLMER: Of the decontaminated?
15 bOMMISSIONERAHEARNE: U h hu h.
lo MR. VO LLMER : No, we have not considered the options 17 of disposal that we discus sed with the commi ssion bef ore 18 because we were waiting f or the environmental assessment of 19 the licensee.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That will be one of the 21 alternatives that will be looked a t?
22 MR. VOLLMER: Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: When do we expect to receive 24 i t?
25 MR. VOLLMER: I understood we were to receive it t hi s 1174 148
109.01.13 15 JH gsh I
week.
Whether it's eminent or not, I can't answer right now.
2 But I believe it is.
3 One thing I might mention is that one of the major 4
points mace in the comments received f rom the City of 5
Lancaster and tne Susquehanna Valley Alliance were legal 6
questions.
I don't know if OGC would like to address those 7
or not.
Bu t basically, they felt tnat this particular a
assessment was no t in compliance wi th NEPA because it was 9
not a comprehensive assessment of all of the decontamination 10 and recovery operations.
11 That's something that the staf f would not be 12 prepared to addre ss Oc tober 4th.
13 I trust the legal staff will.
14 15 16 17 ie, v
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1174 149
CR'7407 HOFFMAN 16 j
t-2 mte 1 i
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The technical staff will not l
2' be addressing this?
3.
MR. VOLLMER:
The technical staff will not be l
l l
4 addressing this.
t i
5i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you continue your j
l 6
inventory of the various types of contaminated water?
l 7
MR. VOLLMER:
Yes.
Basically, could I go on to the g
reactor building?-
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
10 MR. VOLLMER:
The reactor building water has an 11 approximately 600,000-gallon inventory.
That water resides 12 in the boctom of the reactor building and its activity is of
(
13 the order of 175 microcuries per milliliter of cesium 137, 14 which is the dcminant isotope as far as activity is concerned, 15 although there are a number of other isotopes, cesium and 16 tritium, et cetera.
But the dominant isotope is that of 17 cesium.
18 The leakage into the reactor building is at a rate
~
\\
19 of about 500 gallons per day, that leakage rate coming i
i i
20 primarily from reactor coolant pump seals and things of that 21 nature.
The pumps themselves are not on, but there's still l
22 a slight leakage to the seals.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What was that leakage number l
24 again?
l Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
About 500 gallons pqrj gag.15 0 25 MR. VOLLMER:
i l
17 mtg 2 1
Now, in order to raise the water level a foot in l
2l the reactor building, it would take rougnly 100,000 gallons, 3
and so we're talking about a fairly imperceptible increase in l
l 4
level in the containment building itself.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How high is the water in 6
the containment building?
7 MR. VOLLMER:
How hot?
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
High.
9 MR. VOLLMER:
Oh, It's about seven and a half feet 10 or so.
11 Now, that water is, again, just sitting there.
12 There's no current valve operators or electrical equipment or 13 anything that is in ' danger of being shorted out by that 14 water.
As you know, we did make some valve manipulations some 15 months ago to protect against the non-availability of key 16 valves in the event the water level did get too high.
But at 17 this point, the stability of the situation in the reactor 18 building appears to be the same for quite a long-term period.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the risk of that 20 water leaving?
Is there any pathway for it to get out of the 21 containment?
l 22 MR. VOLLMER:
The con +.ainn.cnt, of course, is sealed.
l 23 There are isolation valves in the containment, and the valves l
\\
24 on the side can prevent that water from going out into the l
Ace-Federne Reporters, Inc.
25 auxiliary building around, and the system's leak integrity 1174 151 i
I mte 3 I
18 1
has been checked.
So there should be no leakage path of water i
2 outside the reactor building.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
The next category, Isuppose,l 3 !
4 is the primary coolant system.
l 5,
MR. VOLU1ER:
The last category, yes, is the l
6 primary coolant system.
That's about 80,000 gallons, and its I
7 activity is on the order of 100 microcuries per milliliter of i
8 cesicm and several h2ndred microcuries per milliliter of 9
strontium isotopes.
j 10 The difference particularly in that water and other 11 water, because of the high strontium activity, provides a i
12 higher potential exposure problem, and has created some beta 13 exposure problems in trying to fix leaks in valves.
I4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's the one, also, that is 15 leaking into the containment?
16 MR. VOLLMER:
That is the type of water that's 17 leaking into the containment through the seals, yes.
18 The primary system, the purification and makeup 19
- system, the leakage there pretty much can't be corrected.
20 It'c fairly low.
But it has a very high activity area.
I 1
21 don't think at this time it would be prudent for the operators 22 to try to correct any of those leakage paths that exist.
I 23 They did correct leakage paths of the valves going in and trying to check pumps and things like that.
24 Am-FMms Rwo,un lx.
25 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why is there much difference 1174 152
i i
mte 4 9
1 in this type of activity between water in the containment and l
2 the primary system?
I 3i MR. VOLLMER:
Primarily, because of the times that 4
the activity had gotten into the bottom of the reactor l
5 building.
Reactor building water, a great deal of that is l
6 undoubtedly water that came from the primary system, but also l
7 probably water that came from the fan-cooled system, which I
8 was basically noncontaminated water, but appeared to be a 9
significant leakage path at one time.
10 '
At the time the level of water in the reactor 11 building was increasing, those secondary leakage paths were 12 pretty well shut
- down, so that the only source of leakage 13 that appears to exist in the reactor building now is that of 14 the primary coolant.
15 So, initially the activity in the reactor building 16 b tsement water was that which was coming from the reactor 17 coolant system fresh from the accident.
And as time went on, 18 the activity level in the primary coolant system diminished 19 because of decay, because it was being diluted by makeup.
I I
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What about the strontium?
~
21 MR. VOLLMER:
The strontium appears to have l
22 increased in time in the reactor building water, undoubtedly 23 because of the leachability of strontium with rescect to other i
I 24 isotopes over the course of the long contact of primary Am-Fewal Reorun, lm.
l 25 coolant system water circulating over the exposed fuel.
I l
1174 153 I
mte 5 l
20 l'
l I
don't have at this point in time a good time history.
2 COSD1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
What's puzzling me is that 3l i
cooling loop than there is in the conte.inment building.
i l
5 MR. VOLLMER:
Okay.
What I was trying to say is, 6
it appears that isotopes, for example, cesium, iodine, which 7
are more highly volatile, came out in the early phases of the i
8 accident and were put into the containment building water early,
9! on.
Less volatile isotopes like strontium apparently have j
l 10 leached out of the fuel rods over the long period of time 11 I that they've been exposed to the primary coolant.
l 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The letter that we got quoted
(
13 Harold as talking about the possibility of having to sneak a 14 path to develop conta2.zment.
Would you care to comment on 15 what sneak path that might be?
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Before you do, could you read 17 us what Harold said?
18 COFDiISSIONER GILINSKY:
He isn't here because he's 19 in North Carolina, right?
l 20 '
MR. CASE:
I'm afraid it might take me a few minutes. l i
21 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'11 just kind of skim through 22 it.
i 23 CCMMISSIONER GILINSK'?:
Well, while = ecole are i
I 24 skimming through documents, I wonder if you could go cack to l
Ace-Federal Reparters, Inc.
25 the question of the additional capacity that exists for
'1174 154
a i
mte 6 21 !
~
i l
I storing some of this water.
The place where capacity may l
2 run short is in the auxiliary building rather than the con-l i
3j tainment.
l l
4 MR. VOLIMER:
Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
It's the question of dealing 6 l with water that's in the tanks in the auxiliary building?
t 7'
MR. VOLLMER:
That's correct.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It raises the matter of 9
additional capacity.
Now, we spoke cf the tanks in Unit 1.
10 Are there any other tanks that are available, mobile tanks II or tanks that could be brought on site?
Are there any plans 12 for anything of the sort?
13 MR. VOLLMER:
There are a number of tanks on site, 14
- However, don't think we're in a position to say how long 15 it would take to put those into a configuration that we would 16 feel comfortable putting contaminated water into them.
I 17 think before we would do something like that, the tankage 18 itself would have to be assured of integrity, we would have to 19 put them or build something whereby, if they did leak, that l
20 contaminated water was prevented from going into the ground.
I 21 Thirdly., we would have to put in a piping which would get l
22 water into the tanks which we would feel fairly certain would 23 do the job without leakage.
I 24 So I wouldn't want to speculate how lony that would A Fema nnemn. inc l
25 take.
74 155
22 ste 7 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So principally, it's the 2
tanks in Unit 1 that are the excess capacity at this point in i
3' time?
4 MR. VOLLMER:
The excess capacity would be primarily, 5:
yes, the tanks in Unit 1.
i l
I 6;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But they are the type of I
7 tanks --
8 MR. VOLLMER:
They are the same type of tanks that 9
we're currently storing the water in.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So as far as the concerns 11 that you just expressed about checking it for the need for 12 additional, you don't have those concerns, do you?
13 MR. VOLLMER:
We don' t have those concerns for the 14 integrity of the Unit 1 tanks.
They're in the Unit 1 15 auxiliary building, so they have the same safeguards built 16 into them that the Unit 2 tankage has.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you also tell us 18 something about the status of cleanup efforts for the water in i I
l 19 the containment and the primary coolant system. The system j
l 20 you referred to, the EPICOR system, would clean un water l
i 21 that is now in the auxiliary building tanks.
What about the j!
22 other water?
,i 23 MR. VOLLMER:
The licensee has had a couple of
?
24 architect-engineers or decontamination experts review the Aa-FWwal Rmorurs, lm.
l 25 best ways of decontaminating the primary system water and i 1 7 4 1 5(i j
mte 8 -
23 the reactor building water.
As I understand it, they looked I
i 2
at both demineralization and evaporation possittlities.
And l
i 3l we have not yet received from them any formal clan or program 4l for decontamination of that water.
j i
5 I
do believe that, from what we know now of the I
l 6l water in the reactor building itself, that it would appear 7
that a system, the type of EPICOR, or even EPICOR II, would 8
be capable of processing that water.
Whether that's what the 9
licensee opts to do or not, we do not yet know.
He has not-10 l asked for our review of his programs yet.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is correct that, until we 12 have gone through a process, that he can't take any action?
I3 MR. VOLLMER:
That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At any rate, that's now in 15 the planning stage.
16 MR. VOLDIER:
That's in the licensee planning stage, I7 yes, sir.
We have not been asked to review his plans for 18 that.
He has not submitted his plans for that to the Commission yet.
I 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
After he submits it, what do i
21 we have to do?
22 MR. VOLLMER:
After he submits those plans, we would i
23 do a safety and environmental assessment, I think. It's 24 i
s-imilar to what we did for the processing of the auxiliarv Au Federal Reoorters, Inc.
l 25 building water.
Again, I don' c know whether his pla19 ST 157 j I
i t
I mte 9 24 I
processing that water include disposal alternatives, either.
I i
2; COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But to reiterate the point I I
i 3
just made, until we have reached a final position he can' t 4'
do anything with that, is that correct?
l l
1 5
MR. VOLLMER:
That's correct.
6, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Mr. Case, would you care to 7
respond to Mr. Kennedy's question?
8 MR. CASE:
The questioner is Mr. Grome, who asked 9
this question:
Would you feel there is any urgency to that I
10 need, that is, the need to reprocess the water in the contain-11 ment building?
Would you feel uncomfortable if, in one year, 12 two years, three years passed, and the plant, with a very high 13 inventory of curies and the potential for release persisted 14 with no cleanup activity?
15 Mr. Denton:
No, I would not feel very comfortable 16 with letting it go like that.
I think as long as there is 17 radioactive material disbursed in the containment, there might 18 be sneak paths that develop in the containment that result in l
l 19 release to the environment, which should be foreclosed.
So l
20 I don't see the need to rush into it.
Neither would I be l
I 21 satisfied with an inordinate procrastination.
It's an awful 22 lot of activity in that 700,000 gallons of water, and we are 23 depending on containment to confine it.
l t
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
For my help, could you go Aa-FWwW Reporurs, inc.
j 25 back and read the last part of that again, something a ut 58'.
l
mtn 10 2d I
while I would not see the need to rush into it.
j t
2 MR. CASE:
So I don' t see the need to rush into it.
i 3
Neither would I be sarisfied with inordinate procrastination.
i 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Thank you.
i 5
MR. VOLLMER:
Okay.
Now, to respond to your i
6 question, sir.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The question, it was, it 8
started out two or three years; is that correct?
9 MR. CASE:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One year, two years, three 11 years.
Okay.
12 MR. VOLLMER:
I don't see any sneak paths.
We have I
13 looked for that particular potential and we have further 14 requested the licensee to give us a program for sampling the 15 ground water around the containment building.
And we have not 16 received yet the licensee's program for this.
The reactor 17 building is several feet thick, of course, and we don't feel 18 the water is leaking out.
l l
19 We feel the sampling of ground water is appropriate.
l I
20 We've also looked into the question of whether or not, if j
i l
21 there were leakage, is there likely to be a significant source 22 of contamination of the river,.and the hydrologists, who also i
23 did the review or the plant ror spills of rad waste tanks as i
24 i part or our original safety assessment, tell us that it would i
Aa-FMwW Roomn,1w I 25 take an extended period of time, months, before any 1174 159 l
mte 11*
26 i
I contaminated witer could get out into potable water sources.
i 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you don't at the mcment I
3i see anything?
4i MR. VOLLMER:
We do not see any reason to be I
i i
5 concerned. Ihat sampling, putting in well points for sampling 6
of that water, we think is just an extra step to take.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To clarify, Dick, Harold had 8
been asked, would he be comfortable at one, two, or three years 9i and he said, no, certainly not.
You wouldn't be ccmfortable i
10 if one, two or three years went on, would you?
Il COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't think that's what 12 Harold said.
I 13 Let me come back and have Harold's answer again be 14 put into the record.
I don't think we ought to put words in 15 Harold's mouth.
And if we're going to change what Harold 16 said, we'll let Harold do that.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
Let me ask the 18 question, though:
Would you be comfortable if one, two or 19 three years went by and nothing had been done?
20 MR. VOLLMER:
Well, no, I wouldn't.
But not because l
I I
21 I think there's a potential for contamination of the river 22 or something is there.
I don' t believe the integrity of the
{
23 system is adequate.
But again, we have large amounts of 24 relatively mobile activity, and I think that all due steps Aasems awomn. sm.
l t
25 should be taken.
1174 160 l
i
mte 12 -
27 1
Let's see.
I guess we've sort of covered the options l
2 for continued storage.
I think really the cotion is either i
i 3
process through EPICOR and store the decontaminated water or 4
start using Unit 1 tankage.
I guess the third option clearly I
5 would be to install new tanks.
But again, I would want a i
I 6,
careful review of that type of process before.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are my mathematics correct 8
that if you used Unit 1 tanks, that at the current rate I
9 those tanks would then be filled in about a year?
10 MR. VOLLMER:
That's about correct.
Il COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So the sense I'm getting is 12 that, at least as far as what you've told as, it's not dis-13 similar to what you told us before and what was in the assess-14 ment on EPICOR.
There is no real new information.
15 MR. VOLLMER:
I don't believe that there's any new 16 information, except we're a little closer to running out of 17 room.
That's all.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Running out of room without i
l 19 using TMI-l tanks.
l 20 MR. SNYDER:
Dick, isn't there some recycling of 21 the water to feed back?
22 MR. VOLLMER:
John Collins mentions the disposal 23 of water.
I l
24 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Use the microphone, please, Am-FMwat Rmorurs, inc l
25 Mr. Collins.
i174 161 i
mt'e 13*
28 l
l 1
MR. COLLINS:
I apologize for'being late.
But the i
2 problems that you have in using water are two things.
At the i
i 3
present time, of course, we're trying to empty the storage i
l 4 l tanks from Unit 1, to further examine it.
So that water has 1
Sl to go someplace.
Some of that water would go into the leak 6
tanks in Unit 1.
7 The additional problem is that if we start trans-8 ferring water from Unit 2 to Unit 1, it's going to be very i
I 91 hard to prove to the public that you have not contaminated l
10 that system, and then you're discharging water from Unit 2, e-2 11 which the order says we're not permitted to do.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l
20 21 i
22 l
23 I
I 24 Aa-Fewal Roorun, lm.
25 1174 162
29 409 03 01 pv DAV i
Recognize you're going to ge t the piping systems 2
con tamina ted, and then you're going to have a problem trying 3
to prove you didn't discharge water f rom Unit 2.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mean if at such time we 5
were discharging water f rom Unit 17 6
MR. COLLINS :
You're discharging from Unit I right 7
now.
6 MR. VOLLMER:
John's saying allowing continuous 9
processing of Unit I wa ter through EPICOR.
Of course, there 10 are several sources of leakage in Unit 1.
11 MR. COLLINS:
If you remember, Commissioner, that 12 was part of the problem tha t we had wi th the AC,000 gallons, 13 was the discharge.
That was contaminated f rom a tank that
/
14 contained Unit 2 wa ter.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I didn't entirely 16 follow that.
Are there not tanks in Unit I which are not 17 leaking?
13 MR. COLLINS:
It's no t the fact that it's 19 leaking.
It's the transf er piping system f rom Unit 2 to 20 Unit 1 is going to get contaminated, and it's that same 21 interconnecting piping that's proce ssing water in Unit i for 22 discharge ou t to the Susquehanna.
It's all the same 23 internal piping system.
24 MR. CASE:
We're under a commission mandate not to 25 discharge water f rom Unit 2.
But John is saying if you i174 163
30 409 03 02 pv DAV I
transf er clean water f rom Unit 2 to Unit 1, i t has some 2
speck of activity f rom Uni t 2 in getting into Unit 1.
That 3
might preclude oischarges from Unit 1.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
Becausa aischarges would go 5
through the same piping through which the Unit 2 water was 6
proce ssed.
7 MR. CO LLINS:
Tha t's co rre c t.
8 MR. CASE:
He's not discu ssing a public-saf ety 9
problem.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But th r.
fact is if we need 11 the tank capacity, it's the re.
I s tha t not right ?
12 MR. CASE:
That's correct.
13 MR. COLLINS:
Tha t's correct.
If you assume, 14 though, that Met Ed would not remove the water from the 15 bora ted water storage tank, then you have suf ficien t 16 capacity for a number of months.
But if they empty out the 17 borated water storage tanks f our or five hundred thousand le gallons, you've eaten up a lot of that capacity in Unit !.
19 MR. VOLLMER:
Tha t wa ter would have to be 20 proc e ssed.
If it was disposed of, it would have to be 21 proce ssed.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
At what rate are ve now 23 discharging f rom Unit 1, approximately?
24 MR. COLLINS:
Well, from :ne plant water itseJ.f, 25 not including industrial waste tre a tmen t sy s tems, we're 1174 164
31 409 03 03 pv DAV 1
procably two tankfuls a week, about 10-20,000 gallons a 2
w eek.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If this problem arcse in 4
the contamination of that piping and therefore a question if 5
that could be discharged, we could then be filling those 6
tanks at tne rate of 10 20,000 gallons a week in Unit I?
7-MR. COLLINS:
That's right.
If you were no t 8
permitted to discharge.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY Which would further reduce 10 the amount of storage capacity.
And if we're not talking
.11 about additional year's capaci ty --
12 MR. COLLINS:
That would still be right, 13 absolutely right.
'~
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Jo hn, what is your estimate 15 of the capaci ty?
16 MR. COLLINS:
In Unit 27 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In Unit 1.
18 MR. COLLINS:
In Unit I at the presen t time it's 19 a ppro xima te ly 225,000 gallons, assuming that you use the 20 bleed tanks.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, Jo hn, w ha t is your 22 conclusion as to the availability of Unit I tanks if we 23 reach that point?
Do we have to pu t wa ter in ?
24 MR. COLLINS:
The tanks are certainly available, 25 but I question whether we really want to transfer the Unit 2
)\\74 \\65
32 409 03 04 pv OA'/
I water over there and then have the potential for either 2
leakage f rom the piping systems and transf er of 3
contamination of the tanks from Unit 1.
And then we're 4
faced with the problem of trying to a ssure that we did not 5
violate the commission order or the City of Lancaster's 6
petition.
7 I don't think tha t it should be considered as the 8
viable option.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am having difficulty 10 finding the link.
Are you saying that it would not be a 11 viable option because it woulc' then put you managing that 12 operation in a situacion where your options would be now 13 narrowed, or do you see it as being a health and saf e ty 14 problem?
15 MR. COLLINS:
No, I don't see it as being a health 16 and safety problem.
Absolutely not.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is there a point at which 18 it becomes a health and saf ety problem if, in fact, as has 19 earlier been suggested and as Harold, I think, in his own 20 statement suggested, as time goes on without any treatment, 21-the likelihood of it becoming a health and saf e ty problem 22 eventually begins to increase?
Is that true?
23 MR. CO LLINS :
I certainly wouldn't deny that.
It 24 is.
I think that's a true statemen t, yes.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Therefore, if we foreclose 1174 166
33 409 03 05 pv DAV i
optior.s for dealing with it, you enhance the 1;ks11hcod of 2
it becoming a health and saf e ty problem in some way.
3 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, sir.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But I would like to 5
understand the basic point, which is, to me, if for one o
reason or another EPICOR does no.t operate over the next 7
month or two, for whatever reason -- legal or mechanical or 8
technical -- is that capacity available for additional 9
storage in Unit I?
10 MR. CO LLINS :
Part of that capacity would be 11 available.
Part of it.
^
12 COMMISSIONER GiLINSKY:
And.what is your estimate 13 of that capaci ty?
14 MR. COLLINS:
About 50 percent of thats 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Of what?
16 MR. COLLINS:
Of Unit I capacity would be 17 available to transf er water rom Unit 2.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which is 50 percent of the 19 200-some-odd thousand g&llons?
20 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're saying at least 22 100,000 gallons?
23 MR. COLLINS:
Sure.
24 COMMISSIONew GILINSKY:
Why do you say 50 25 percent"?
1174 16T
34 409 03 06 pv DAV I
MR. CO LLINS:
The licensee can begin to empty his 2
borateo water storage tank.
At the same time he's emptying, 3
he can be processing the water through his evacoration 4
ystem in Uni t 1.
So he does have a treatment system to 5
handle that wat'r so that he can slowly begin to handla that o
water through that system and make available then one of 7
those lead tanks, 85,000 gallons, just to hold the water 8
from Unit 2.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And is it absolutely 10 essential to empty the bora ted wa ter?
11 MR. COLLINS:
He must empty it to do further 12 examination of the piping system on that system.
13 MR. CASE:
It's a nece ssary step.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
But if we decided 15 that we nadded that capacity for storage of auxiliary 16 building water for whatever reason, then that could be 17 delayed; couldn't it?
18 MR. VOLLMER:
Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am not asking you 20 whe ther it's a wi se thing to do or whether we ought to do 21 it.
I am just trying to understand what the capacity is.
22 MR. COLLINS:
It certainly could be delayed.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wo uld, if required as an 24 order, is that it?
25 MR. CO LLINS:
I think it would take a very strong i174 168
35 409 03 07 pv DAV 1
recommendation.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYs No, Just tecnnically, what 3
would it require to ao it?
4 MR. STELLO:
I think it would require it.
5 MR. BICKWIT:
But it is not consistent with the 6
licensee's license.
7 MR. STELLO:
You're prohibiting him from doing 8
something he is not now prohibited from doing.
I think 9
generally that requires an order to somehow modif y his 10 license, to remove that restriction.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
A further clarification:
12 if such a step were taken to prevent him f rom proce ssing the 13 boratec water, that in itself is or is not a health and 1.4 saf e ty problem?
15 SR. CASE:
It i s not.
lo COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We're not deciding here 17 w hic h way to go.
I think the answer to a simple question 18 about how much ca pacity there was in the most extreme 19 circumstance --
20 MR. COLLINS:
I think the other thing you ought to 21 recognize, you ought to start transferring some of the 22 high-activity water from the auxiliary building in Unit 2 to 23 Unit 1.
Now you've created a 5 1'. cation where the radiation 24 levels in U..it I are goinc h) 1:e up, off ering then a 25 potential for increasing xposcrs to the ocerators in Unit El74 169
36 409 03 08 pv DAV I
1.
2 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:
I understand.
3 Okay, thank you.
4 MR. VO LLMER :
Does that wrap it up on the water?
5 MR. SNYDER:
I have a question.
Isn't some of the 6
treated water used as makeup for the primary system that's 7
leaking?
It isn't all a gain situation.
There is some ne t 6
recycling.
9
( At 3:25, Comm! ssioner Bradford leaves room. )
10 MR. VO LLMER :
There could be.
But the pro c e ssing 11 of the water has not ye t been allowed.
12 MR. SNYDER:
I understand that.
13 MR. VOLLMER :
And the disposition of the processed 14 water initially would just be put in tanks and the licensee 15 would decide what he wanted to do with it.
But indeed, some 16 of that could be used as makeup.
That is one option.
17 MR. SNYDER:
I s t ha t the 500 gallons per day that 16 you mentioned earlier?
19 MR. VO LLMER :
On that order, yes.
20 MR. SNYDER:
You said you isolated the nonprimary 21 system leaks into the containment.
22 MR. VOLLMER:
500 gallons per day was the estimate 23 of the leakage into the reactor building, most of which will 24 be from the primary system.
25 MR. SNYDER:
That wa ter comes from someplace.
1174 170
37 t09 03 09 pv DAV 1
MR. VO LLMER :
It's made up.
Right.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could I ask one more 3
question on your clean-up plans.
You said that the licensee 4
is considering plans for oealing with the wa ter in the 5
containment.
Are they also looking at that primary coolant 6
water?
7 MR. VOLLMER :
Yes, sir.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Do we expect to see 9
some thing on this sometime soon?
10 MR. VOLLMER:
I believe they were preparing 11 something for us by the end of the mon th.
12 MR. COLLINS:
That's been delayed.
I think it 13 will be some time in Oc tobe r, a.t l e a s t.
[
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would that cover both of 15 those categories of water?
16 MR. VO LLMER :
Yes.
17 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, it would.
Io COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
19 If there are no f urther que'stions on the water, 20 perhaps we ought to hear about the heal th physic s program.
21 MR. STELLO:
Okay.
We have been following the 22 health physics program for some time, even before the 23 accident began.
Let me say the bottom line is we're no t yet 24.
satisfied that the health physics program that they have on 25 site is adequate.
Let me also suggest that the bottom line i174 171
38 409 03 10 pv DAV 1
on this issue is the heal th and saf ety of the operators.
2 Tha t's principally the Lssue we're looking at, the adequacy 3
of the program to deal with the workers ^n the site.
4 There have been a number of over-exposures for 5
whicn there appears to have been one type or ano ther of a 6
breakdown within the health physics program.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, your reason for 8
stating it that way, Vic, is your concentration on your Y
concern is this on site?
10 MR. STELLO:
If you look at the le tters that have 11 gone back and forth between us and the licensee on this 12 matter, you'll see that the primary concern in those letters 13 have dealt with the system of the health physics program 14 itself with regard to dealing with in-plant protection.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And as far as people 16 outside the plant?
17 MR. SIELLO:
With respect to the health and saf ety 18 of the public, we don't see any major weaknesses or problems 19 t ha t suggest an inadequacy in that regard.
That clearly is 20 the primary f ocus of what our people are worried about 21 there; that is, if there's anything that goes on that 22 sugge sts tha t there is an inadequate procedure or something 23 inadequate in the program, we are clearly looking over our 24 shoulder all the time.
That's clearly our primary focus, 25 but that's not what we perceive as the major problem.
1174 172
39 409 03 11 pv DAV I
COMMISS ION ER KENN EDY :
Could you he.' p me by 2
iaentif ying the a pprox'ma te da te of the NRC report referred 3
to in the letter we received f rom the oversight commi ttee by 4
one E. R. Neely and J. R. White?
It says the company is not 5
able to eff ectively administer the radiation program.
When o
was tha t?
7 MR. STELLO:
Tha t le.tter is dated August 1.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
'79.
1979.
10 Let me go on with a very quick summary.
We're
.11 continuing to ask the licensee, and he is commi tted to a 12 number of improvements in his program.
We have a very large 13 health physics program at the site and will continue to have 14 it.
Initially, when we got there, we were dealing clearly 15 with an accident and an emergency situation.
In fact, our 16 health physics program augmen ted his.
We were actually 17 doing some of the surveys and monitoring ourselves with our o n instruments and our own people.
18 w
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's normally expected in 20 such circumstance.
21 MR. SIE LLO :
I am not the least bit surprised that 22 we did that.
It was the proper thing to do.
And in fact, I 23 think we have to be a little bit better prepared to do it 24 even better in the future.
25 So, we have moved, up to now, clearly away from i174 173
40 109 03 12 pv OAV I
tha t emergency si tuation, and they're clearly looking to go 2
to tne long-term program.
3 Another thing that we are looking at is pu tting 4
together a blue-ribbon panel to take a step back and take 5
another look at the health physics program, both from the 6
point of view of what we do and from the point of view of 7
what the licensee is doing, because we are clearly dealing 8
with an issue that we've never had any experience with 9
before in dealing with an accident, an amount of radioactive 10 material in the plant, like we are now.
We've got some li i sotopes that are there now that are diff erent from the 12 isotopes that we have there under normal operation.
13 What we're going to try to do is to get a team of 14 some of our best health physicists, both f rom within the NRC 15 itself, and we're looking very hard to get some people f rom 16 the Laboratories outside of our system also to work with the 17 team.
And we hope to have that pre tty well lined up as to 18 who is going to be on the team, by the end of next week.
19 I think Harold comnitted we'd be doing this, in 20 his testimony up at Harrisburg some weeks ago.
21 I think it's a good idea to take a step back and 22 Lcok at dealing with the situation at Three Mile Island 23 longer term and getting yet another independent t houg h t,
24 another inde pendent look a t this particular issue.
I don't 25 see ano have not had any recommenda tions made to me that i174 174
41 409 03 13 pv DAV i
there is any major health and saf ety problem f rom the poin t 2
of view of the public.
But clearly, our people are very 3
concerned and are not yet satisfied that the on-site health
~
4 physics program has moved to the point where we're f eeling 5
comfortable with it.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why hasn't the program 7
improved to the point where it would satisfy us?
What do 8
you see as the source of the troucle?
9 MR. STELLO:
Well, I will ask someone to get into 10 the outstanding issue s.
They can summarize the issues that 11 the licensee has yet to address and approximate dates by 12 which he's going to do them.
I don't wish to suggest tha t l ~,
what I am trying to say is to avoid the details, but I am 14 trying to ge t to the bottom line.
15 he bo ttom line is the focus of all of this has 16 been on the in-plant.
You will see whe.1 we go through and 17 listen to some of these details that that's the i ssu e.
I 18 woula not like to leave the impre ssion that there is 19 some thing inadequate there in the health and saf ety of the 20 public.
We're commi tted to make sure that that's the case.
21 We're augmenting our heal th physics program up there as 22 nece ssary, and will continue to augment it as nece ssary to 23 make sure t ha t tha t indeed stays just that way.
24 This is especially so when you start to look at 25 t he f uture, and if they start to get to tne point w he re i174 175
42 409 03 14 pv DAV I
we're going into this processing the water and proce ssing a 2
lot of the contaminated water in the building with the 3
EPICOR, if we're starting to make containment entries, as 4
some of these other programs come into place where they need 5
to do t ha t, we're going to make certain that the program 6
that exists -- and if n eed be, it will be a program that 7
consists of us augmenting as
' cessary whatever's there to 8
assure that their overall health physics program remains 9
acequate.
10 I am convinced that ~ over the long haul it will be 11 the case, but it is an unusual situation, clearly, wc're 12 dealing with.
We're bringing a lot of new people, outside 13 their own organization, to talk about this.
14 COMMISSIONER
?NNEDY:
Excuse me.
Is the licensee 15 now in compliance with the requirements of his license, tech lo s pe c s, license conditions, and everything else, in this 17 field?
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARIJE Existing tech specs aren't 19 written for a reactor in the state that it's in.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
First, let's answer that 21 question.
22 MR. STELLO:
They clear ly have had problems with 23 their violations of existing requirements.
You had an 24 o ver-ex po sure.
If you have an over-exposure of an 25 individual, that's a viola tion of our regulations, clearly.
1174 176
43 409 03 15 pv DAV I
You neea to measure that, howe ver, against the backgrounc 2
which you're working with, which is very unu sual.
This 3
clearly isn't a routine activity.
4 So, in terms of the procedures tha t they had in 5
place, we're not satisfied with that.
We want more because 6
more is needed to deal with the situation.
[7 7
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But before the si tua tion f
8 arose, if there were some reason to suggest tha t the 9
situations had weakne sses of substantial nature?
Yes.
Il COMMISS IONER KENNEDY:
To what extent have t ho se 12 been corrected?
In other words, where are we as compared 13 with where we were?
I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1174 177
~
44 409 04 01 kapDAV 1
May I suggest that Jim Sniezek go 2
through and summarize the outstanding issues, what they are 3
and what the schedule is for resolutions and then answer 4
tha t question.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Let me also ask whe ther 6
the concerns about the training of the technicians who 7
operated EPICOR are related to Health Physics ma tters?
8 MR. VOLLMER:
Those were addressed strictly from 9
the operability of the system and knowledge of procedures 10 f or the EPICOR system specifically.
The use of tha t would 11 need the Health Physics expertise, so the problems there 12 would overlap the EPICOR.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But those weren't 14 specifically the kinds of concerns --
15 MR. SNIEZEK There are six basic areas where we 16 saw a concern regarding their in-plant Health Physics 17 program and protection of the plant workers.
I just 18 mentioned the six areas and I talked briefly about each of 19 them.
20 The overall organization and responsibilities and 21 the Health Physics f unctions is one area t the CA program 22 for Health Physics was another area t the control of high 23 radiation areas; the evaluation of airborne activities 24 results, we had some problems in that area; the respiratory 25 protection program; and the bios.ssay program.
1174 178
45 109 04 02 kapDAV 1
Now, on the first one that I am going to talk 2
about, the organizations and responsibilities, the basic 3
problems that we saw up there were with this condition that 4
existed.
Subsequent to the Unit 2 accident, a different 5
situation existed and they had to define the functional 6
areas and who was responsible for what.
That was not done 7
promptly and that consequently caused some probl em s.
The 8
individuals responsible f or the various areas, the lines of 9
responsibility and authority, have no t been defined.
That 10 includes -- there are dual portions, overlapping Unit I and 11 Unit 2 -- who is re sponsible for them?
How coes it all tie 12 toge ther?
13 Now, they have thus far completed the definition 14 of f unctional areas in the re sponsibilities f or the 15 functional areas.
One of the things that is remaining to be 16 done is really tying toge ther a little tighter the overall 17 coordination between Unit I and 2 and the overall 18 responsibility f or the Health Physics program.
W ho is 19 calling the shots on the totti program at Three Mile IslarJ?
20 In conjunction with the question that was asked of 21 Mr. Vollmer about operator training, Health Physics 22 training is a part of this overall effort that's going on.
23 In fact, the typical specifications, revisions to 24 the technical specification, will be ref erencing of a 25 radiation protection plan which includes the training 4
70
.i~/9 t
~
46 409 04 03 kapdAV I
related to radiological protection activities.
And this 2
plan will be reviewed by the NRC before it is implemented by 3
the licensee.
Bu t we do no t have t ha t for review yet.
I 4
don't have a firm date for when that plan will be submi tted 5
for review, but it is scheduled for very near term.
6 MR. COLLINS:
It was supposed to be scomi tted to 7
us this afternoon.
6 MR. SNIEZEK:
Okay.
9 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
Jim, when I had started 10 earlier, I mentioned some thing abou t pre ssing TMI.
What I 11 meant was that my understanding was that I&E had been having 12 a consistent interac tion with the management down there to 13 try anc get these improvements.
You've been working on this 14 for some months; hsven't you?
15 AR. SNIEZEK:
ies, we've had at least five 16 management meetings.
There was an immediate action letter 17 witn the licensee where he committed to these specific 18 issues and improvemen ts that were to be made.
I'm sure IV Mr. Collins can attest to, there's a t least -- what? --
20 weekly meetings with site management on these issues, and as 21 anything is identified, immediately we neet with the people 22 to determine their steps toward corrective actions.
23 MR. STELLO:
Did you mean to say we issue an 24 immediate action le tter?
25 MR. SNIEZEK:
It was the re verse.
They came to us 1174 180
47 109 04 04 kapDAV i
with the specific commitments in these areas that were to be 2
a ddre ssed.
Okay.
Le t's ge t that clear.
We were 4
prepared to issue an immediate action le tter if we didn't 5
get the commitments.
We received the commitments and 6
therefore did not.
That's the que s tie n.
Is that true?
7 MR. SNIEZEK:
That is true.
That is exactly what 8
happened.
v The second basic area in the quality assurance 10 program, we saw that they had no systematic manner of 11 overviewing what was going on, independently of the people 12 doing the work.
One of the things that we saw as necessary 13 was the licensee on a very frequent basis would come in and 14 overview the ef f ectivene ss of the prcgram they were 15 im plemen ting, verify that the problems that were identified 16 were followed up on and resolved.
They had no systema tic 17 program in existence to do that.
18 Subsequent to our discussions and meetings with 19 them they initiated a quality assurance program on Se ptember 20 10th.
We have not s.een the initial audit results yet, but 21 the QA program that the described to be implemented, met our 22 satisfaction, and we'll be looking at those results as they 23 develop, and how e.ffective it is.
24 The control of high radiation area.
We saw 25 problems with the key control, where there was unauthorites' 1174 181
48
'09 04 05 kap 0AV I
a cce ss into high radiation area s, the re wa s no t effective 2
rentrol, and identification of new high radiation areas, 3
which goes into the survey que stion -- how adequate were 4
there surveys ano evaluations of what existed in the 5
facility?
It existed because people were going into areas 6
where they did no t e x pe c t nigh radiation and they were 7
running into high radiation.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There were, in fact, some 9
overexposures at the si te ?
10 MR. SNIEZEK:
There were some overexposures that 11 resulted f rom tha t.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can you tell us some thing 13 about how many overexposures, and when?
14 MR. SNI EZEK :
The number, as I recall, the whole 15 body overex'posures, I believe there were four whole body 16 overexposures, and as I recall they were early on in the 17 accident.
There is, I believe -- John might have it -- six le people on extremity or skin overexposures, and tnere is an 19 evaluation --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did these take place in 21 the first few days?
22 MR. SNIEZEK:
The extremities anc the skin took 23 place several weeks af ter the onset of the accident.
24 MR. STELLO:
No, no, several weeks ago.
It was in 25 August some time.
1174 182
49
'409 04 06 ka pDA'/
1 MR. COLLINS:
The first thr ee 2
MR. SNIEZEK Oh, yes, yes, that's right.
And we 3
have not completed our investigation on that aspect, to get 4
to tne bottom of the exact cause and the degree of 5
o ve r e x po sure.
We nad some preliminary results wnich we ha ve o
to investigate f urther to confirm tha t those are the true 7
values.
6 I believe that was the extent of the overexposures 9
that we have had there.
But we are continuing to take a 10 hard look at i t.
.11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you have a summary 12 listing of those, that you could provide us at some later 13 poin t?
14 MR. SNIEZEK:
Sure.
As of September 10th, t he 15 NRC, we re' viewed the new procedures, the new procedures for 16 control of nigh radiation areas, access to high radiation 17 areas.
We were doing the surveys and we found that they had 16 good procedures in place.
There has been some continuing 19 problem on implementa tion, especially as related to key 20 control.
So as we identify the problems, we're correcting 21 the s po t problems and we're continuing in this area to 22 follow up, to make sure we keep improvements on the 23 tightening up of their key control procedures at the site.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As I recall, in some of the 25 earlier reviews, not only yours but also the consultants' i174 183
50 109 04 07 kapuAV i
reviews f or the company, part of the problem they had 2
icentifiec was poor education of personnel, leacing tc not 3
following the procedures.
As I recall, at a number of 4
sites, the I&E inspectors say there has been lack of 5
following the procedures.
You say here that you have 6
reviewed their procedures.
How about your confidence that 7
they'll follow the procedures?
8 MR. SNIEZEK:
Like I say, we are having 9
implementation problems right now.
This is an issue that we 10 have to keep working on.
We're not satisfied with the 11 implementation ye t.
That is one of our ongoing concerns for 12 the protection of the workers.
13 The fourth major area was evaluation of airoorne 14 activity results.
And here we found that because of the
~
15 unique circumstances af ter the accident, the licensee was 16 receiving beta exposures and beta in the air,that he had not 17 ex pec ted to s ee.
They were not up to speed on anticipating 18 the problems that they would find.
They have implemented a 19 temporary procedure as of September 4 for evaluation of the 20 be ta in the atmosphere, as coming up with beta-gamma 21 ratios.
And the final procedure is to be issued by October 22
- 7. They have implemented the temporary procedure, and again 23 are evaluating implementation.
I t's a good procedure.
We 24 have to evaluate the ef f ec tiveness of the implementation of 25 the proc.edure so that we have enough information to say that i17A
\\84
51 109 04 08 kap 0AV 1
they're doing a good job.
2 The respiratory pro tection program.
Here again, 3
this is tied somewhat into the beta that they were 4
experiencing in the ariborne activi;y, which they didn't 5
a n tic i pa te, and they had to improve their techniques f or 6
analyzing the isotopes and the airborne activity.
There are 7
techniques for caj eulating the stay time, There are S
procedure s f or te sting, taking care of the respirators 9
themselves, and as of 9/24, we have reviewed the procedures 10 and found they have good procedure s in place.
The 11 implementation is scheduled for October 7th, going through 12 their training programs with people now so that they 13 understand them.
They're scheduled to have them implemented 14 by October 7th.
15 igain, we'll ha ve to follow up on the 16 implementation to make sure that it is, in fact, effective.
17 The last area we had major concerns over ware the bioassay 18 programs.
That ties in with the respiratory protectica, 19 and their calculation of airborne activity at the plan t.
20 They are upgrading their bioa ssay program to bring it in 21 line witn Regulatory Guide 8.15 ANSI standards pertaining to 22 bica ssay programs.
This is the whole body counting and the 23 urinalysis aspect of ac tion le vels, whether they should be 24 doing urinalysis, whole body counting, it's sc heduled to be 25 submi tted to us for review by 0ctober 10th.
So t ha t program 1174 185
52 409 04 09
- cpDAV I
i sn' t f ully underway ye t.
2 Those are the key areas, and about where we stand 3
on those key area s where we have major concerns.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wha t dc you attribute the 5
problems to?
Lack of competence of the individuals involved o
in the program, or improper, inadequate direction, or wha t?
7 MR. SNIEZEK:
I would a ttribute it to one of the 8
Lirst things that we mentioned, the overall responsibility 9
and defining of who's responsible f or what, and being caught 10 unawares of potential problems that could exist.
That's 11 w ha t I would a ttribute it to, not the basic technical 12 expertise of the people heading up the program.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But if you track back, 14 t houg h, f rom not only your own -- that is, I&E's -- reviews,
~
15 as well as the NUS review done for the company, that has to lo call into question basic competence.
You say that you don't 17 have --
18 MR. SHIEZEK:
I really do not kno*' what the major 19 contributing factor is.
It's probably a combination of 20 MR. STELLO:
Perhaps commitment.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is the management 22 sufficiently commi tted?
I think I put my finger on that.
But 24 when you look at what's there now, I think you know the 25 significant dimensions of trying to deal with that question i174 186
53 409 04 10 k2puAV today.
If you have had an accident, you have got an awful 2
lot of things to deal with.
You are dealing with a 3
difficult problem for which you don't draw on a great deal 4
of experience.
So we have a dimension that's been added to 5
this program which makes elements of this new much more o
im por tan t and difficult in terms of worker protection than 7
it's been in the pa s t.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But if I go back and look 9
at -- just over the last two months, take July.
In the 10 middle of July when tha t first interchange of letters 11 between I&E and Met Ed occurred -- here's wha t we've come in 12 to do.
The sense I get as I look at that and the beginning 13 of August le tters and the middle of August letters and your 14 latest reports including today, is tha t it's taking much --
15 now, I don't know whether the original dates conni tted to 16 were realistic or not, but it seems to be taking much longer 17 to get to an acceptable stage on those steps than the 16 original agreements were, even the modified agreements.
19 MR. STELLO:
Tha t's the poin t I was trying to deal 20 with.
And try to ask yourself how f a st things ought to move 21 now.
I gue ss I tend to be impatient.
I always want them to 22 move a lot f aster than they do.
But I have to be realistic, 23 and take a step back, and add that dimension tha t the 24 accident in t ha t environm en t, and those demands placed on 25 that same system -- and ask if that could be a significant i174 187
54 409 04 11 kap 0AV l
contributor.
My Judgment is, it is.
I don't know how to 2
separate that out.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They're obviously in a 4
mucn more demanding situation than the typical licensee 5
finds himself in.
o MR. STELLO:
Very much so.
And I think tha t is 7
w ha t adds this difficulty in making this move as f ast as we 8
want it.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But are you saying that you 10 are satisfied with their progress?
No.
I gue ss I like everything faster 12 t han I get it as a general matter, so I am never really 13 happy with what I ge t unie ss it's right away.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're pre ssing them to 15 improve.
16 MR. STELLO:
How much f aster can we reasonably 17 e x pe c t this to move?
I don't know how to answer that 15 question.
I don' t know how to say, Are they moving as f ast lv as they can reasonably move, because we're moving into an 20 area we've never been in before, and I don't know the answer 21 to the question.
I know when I was up at the site I was 22 very impatient with the progre ss tha t was being made, but 23 then when I realistically stepped back and took a look at 24 what has been accomplished in the environment that's t he re,
25 I think it's a remarkable achievement.
And I think maybe in i174 188
55
'09 04 12 kapuAV 1
a f ew months when we co step back and recognize what we've 2
been dealing with --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If that is true.
4 MR. SIE LLO :
If it indeed is true.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Now, if that is true, then "6
I come back to your point about commitment.
I don't see how 7
they have achieved this remarkable achievement without a 6
pretty high level of commitment.
The an swe r -- w he n I u se the word 10 co mmi tm en t, management comm cment was prior to the 11 accident.
The NUS report came out and now I say, no matter 12 w ha t the commitment is there, I have a dimension I've 13 added that deals with the real environment and the real 14 a cc id e n t.
You need to take that into account in trying to 15 ask yourseff, Are we trying to get things moving f aster than lo you reasonably can?
17 I know I always want it f aster but then when I le left there I took a step back and I looked at what has been 19 a ccompli shed.
I think tha t indeed, ~i t's quite remarkable.
20 An awful lot was done in a short time under very, very 21 difficult conditions.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is there now a single 23 person from the company side who's in charge of all of the 24 Health Physic s programs?
25 MR. SNIEZEK:
I must ref er that to John.
I don't
.)174 \\89
56 409 04 13 kapdAV I
think there is at thi s po in t.
2 MR. COLLINS:
The re is no one single indivicual 3
responsible f or the Health Physics program because of the 4
nature of tneir organization. Realizing that Unit 2 is in a 5
recovery mode, Unit 1 is in a restart mode, they have solit o
their organiza tion.
7 Now, wi th regard to station procecures, things S
like dosimetry programs, air analysis programs, bioat
.y 9
programs, there is an individual assigned that 10 responsibility, but Unit i still still has their Health 11 Physics program, Unit 2 has their Hea th Physics program.
12 The re's no one pe rson u p a t the top, in a block, outside of 13 Bob Arnold.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is there a single person 15 who is in charge of Unit 2's Health Physics progr.am?
16 MR. COLLINS:
Yes. There's one raciation 17 protection supervisor f or Unit 2 and one radiation 18 protection supervisor f or Uni t 1.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I t does have adequate 20 management control authority fcr all aspect of at least Unit 21 2's Health Physic s program?
22 MR. COLLINS:
Well, I think that that's been a 23 weakness, and I think it's been a slow progre ssion, over the 24 last couple of months, in trying to get a thorough 25 management co mmi tment to make sure that the Health Physics 1174 190
57 409 04 14 kap 0AV i
program stays on an upward keel.
I think Vic would agree, 2
coo, that immedia tely f ollowing the a ccident, management 3
attention was cirec ted at pu tting tha t reactor in a saf e 4
po si tion.
Now, we're in a mode whe re managemen t has to 5
reco mmi t themselve s and get the expertise that's required, 6
get the necessary equipment in here tha t's required, train 7
the people because you're living in a different environment 6
Gow.
9 I thin k t ha t's w ha t really hurt us with regard to 10 the last six exposures.
They should not have o ccurred.
But g
11 recognize that your nuclide distribution changed on you j
12 dramatically, ihe licensee did not expect to see the high 13 energy betas that we encountered.
Normally, in an operating 14 reactor you don't see tha t type of concentration.
- Normally, 15 if you take care of your beta exposure or your gamma 16 exposure, and you put protective clothing on the people, you 17 take care of the be ta, but tha t's not the case here.
16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
)) k\\
CR -7 40 9 58 HOFFMAN l'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
From the way you answered, 2
though, John, I would conclude that there is still some concern 3
l 3
on whether that Unit 2 health physics supervisor does have i
4 adequate control over the health physics program.
5i MR. COLLINS:
There's some concern on my part that l
I 6l he exercises it.
He may have it on a piece of paper func-7 tionally that responsibility, but if he exercised it and 8
whether his managemenu supports him, supports his role, I 9
don' t think that we have had a long enough time to evaluate.
10 I don't think any of us up there are going to be satisfied 11 with the program until we are assured and they demonstrate 12 -
that we can back off from our intense surveillance on the 13 health physics program, and we haven't done that yet.
14 MR. SNIEZEK:
That's the one area that we haven't 15 addressed, that tying together at the top.
Right now it's 16 tied together at what may be too high a level, and that's the 17 area where we're looking at it very intensely to see if 18 improvement can be made by a closer tie together right at the 19 top.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does that pretty well 21 complete your presentation?
22 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
l l
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You will, of course, be l
l 24 preparing a response to the Senate Committee, and the Aa-FWwat Recrurs, Inc.
l 25 Coma. ssion would like to see a report on the subjects.
1374 192
59 mtd 2
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When can we expect that draft 2
response?
3 MR. CASE:
Monday morning.
i l
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic, you're not the only one i
5 that wants it right away.
We need it, too.
6 MR. STELLO:
Monday's not very far away.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Very well.
Thank you very 8
much.
e-5 9l (Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m.,
the hcaring was adjourned.)
10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l
22
\\\\
23 24 Am4Wwat Reorwn, Inc 25 i
,