ML19246A561

Transcript of 790524 Open Meeting in Washington,Dc Re City of Lancaster,Pa Lawsuit.Pp 1-29

ML19246A561
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/24/1979
From:	Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907030360
Download: ML19246A561 (29)

Text

~

1

C CR4983 CDC PL'OU O EC ^'J.*2l,7 '-'

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory CcI=:ission held on Thursday, 24 May 1979 in the Cormissions's effices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

The meeting was'oper to public attendance and observation.

Thic t anscript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccu acies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informaticnal purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, 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 rieading or other paper may be filed with the Con =ission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Co= mission may authorize.

O 1.

J WS cam-4

. 907033

,o

I

~

2 CR4983 1

UNITED STATES OF AERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.WISSION 3

4 OPEN MEETING S

DISCUSSION OF CITY OF LANCASTER LAWSUIT 6

7 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.

8 Washington, D.

C.

9 Thursday, 24 May 1979 10 The Commission. met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m.

11 BEFORE:

d 12 VICTOR GILINSKY, Con = tis sioner (presiding )

13 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 14 PETER A.

BRADFORD, Commissioner 15 JOHN F. AHFJtRNE, Com issioner 16 ALSO PRESENT:

l l

17 Messrs. Humphreys, Wohlsen, Vcn Maur, Witmarth, Trowbridge, !

I t

18 l and Eilperin.

I 19 I i

20 t

1 21 i

4 22 i

23

_q.

34 24

- )L -

AceJederal Reporters, Inc.

25

'trEZMT S

xw, 1

DAV/pv 2-A :

i 1

.P_ _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2

COP.ISSIONER GILINSKY (presiding).

We're going co 3

hold a meeting this morning to give the City of Lancaster.a i

e i

4 chance for its lawyers to make a statement to the Co:nnission.

l 5

The City has sued the Cc= mission, seeking an injunction against 6

the' construction of the new water contamination facility at 7

Three. Mile Island and against the dumping of any more contami-I B

nated water into the Susequehanna River.

9 I understand that lawyers for Metropolitan-Edison are 10 also here, and,if they choose, they can also make a presenta-Il tion to the Co= mission.

(

)

12 However, before we do that, we're going to have to 13 vote.

14 MR. CHILK:

We have to vote to hold this meeting on 15 short notice, since we did not have time to act on it.

I i

16 Comi!SSIONER GILINSKY:

Let 's vote en it, then.

I, 17 (Chorus of ayes.)

18 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

And after these presentations, I

19 the Cc= mission will hold a closed meeting to consider the mat-l 20 l ter, and we will have to vote to hold that.

We can take that I

21 l vote up.

i 22 MR, EILpERIN:

That will be under Exe=ption 10 to the i

23 Sunshine Act.

q q4 l

(Chorus cf ayes.)

24

.ce-Fecerat Accorters, Inc.

25 i CC.WISSIONER GILINSKY:

Very well, then.

Will the l

I

e..

3 i

l 1

lawyers for Metropolitan Edison also be making a presentation?

i 2

Very good.

3 MR. EUMPEREYS:

I am sorry.

I am frem Lancaster.

~

4 CO M SSIONER GILINSKY:

Very well.

Yes, then can 5

come up when the City of Lancaster has concluded.

You will 6

have 10 minutes.

7 Why don't you proceed.

8 MR. EUMPEREYS:

Commissioners, we appreciate the 9

opportunity to speak to you today.

I am Jay Humphreys, from 10 the Lancaster law firm which is representing the plaintiffs in 11 the s,uit.

Mayor Wohlsen is also here, on my right, and would 12 like to talk to you briefly whe" I am finished.

13 COMSSIONER GILINSKY:

Mr. Mayor, we are pleased to 14 have you here.

15 MR. WOHLSEN:

Thank you very much.

i 16 MR. EUMPEREYS:

About the feelings in I.ancaster on l

17 matter, I will try to be brief.

i 18 COM>'ISSIONER KENNEDY :

Could you introduce your col-i 19 leagues, as well, please?

i 20 l MR. EUMPEREYS:

I would be happy to.

On my farthest 21 left is Art Wilmarth and Reed ven Maur.

Both of these men are 22 from the Washington law firm of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin &

I 23 Kahn, co-counsel with us e4 behalf of the plaintiffs.

i i

24 On the f ar right is Pete Schannauer, who is the 3

.c w.mi nwonm. inc.

j 25 mayor's a " nistrative assistant,in.Lancagi r.

b'.wW

( '! '**

n (

/

i.

~)

I i

yva 1

4 1

As you have mentioned, Mr. Gilinsky, we filed the suit' 2

on Monday asking for an injunction to prohibit the NRC from 3

approving or allowing the discharge of decontamination or' dis-4 charge of any water from any of the buildings connected with 5

reator No. 2 at TMI until the Commission properly prepares an 6

enviornmental impact. assessment under the National Environmental 7

Policy Act of 1969, covering all possible plans for decontami-8 nating the waste water in the buildings and considering when 9

decontamination should be attempted and whether decontaminated 10 waters should be " discharged into the Susecuehanna River.

11 The.second part of our injunction asks that the NRC 12 be prohibited from approving or allowing construction or opera-

. ~..

13 tion of any decontamination facilities at reactor No. 2 untiI I4 the NRC has issued an amendment to the licensee's construction 15 permit and operating license.

16 We have been told by representatives of the Justice 17 Department that there are no -- there appear to be no substan-i 18 tial issues as to the facts stated in our case in the ccm-I 19ld plaint and application and supporting affidavits.

t t

20 i There will be a hearing en our application for pre-21 li-.inary injunction during the week of June 4.

Ther e is a pos '

i 22 sibility that we - ' counsel --

l l

23 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Here in the federal ceu:-t?

I i

24 MR. HUMPEREYS:

Yes, sir.

i Ace. Federal Reoorters. Inc. ;

g 25 I There is a poss!.bility that counsel for plaintiffs and

~'

.-g 7 ',. <

'i y

l 5

l l

1 counsel for the NRC could reach a stipulation to be approved by I 2

the court prior to that time.

J As far as we know, right now, at TMI, construction isi 4

going forward en decontamination f acilities, particularly a 5

system known as "F-Core-2," which would atte=pt to decontaminate l

6 about 250,000 gallons of contaminated water contained in the 7

auxiliary building by a system of ion exchange cartridges.

We 8

understand that the NRC staff is considering approval of dis-9 charging waste water with supposedly low-level radiation, before 10 the disposition of our lawsuit and before the preparation of an 11 environmental impact assessment by the staff.

12 We are asking that you make an ~ administrative order 13 today with essentially two provisiens --

14 (At 10 :52 a.m., Commissioner Bradford entered the 15 room.)

I 16 MR. hTIPEREYS:

-- One, directi:ig the NRC staff to j

i 17 follow the procedures mandated by the National Environmental l

l 1

18,

Policy Act of 1969, and NRC's own regulations -- secticn 51, !

t 19 think -- before allow:.ng or approv:.ng any furtner ccnstructicn I i

I 20 l of decenta=1 nation facilities or any decontamination er any i

i I

I 21 '

discharge of any water centained in any of the structures cen-l 22 nected with reactor No.

2.

l I

i 23 The seccnd pan of the orfer that we request is that i i

24 you order that there be no further contamination or discharge l

ace-Foceret R eporters, Inc.

25 of water until the plaintif fs ' ppyliegt%cn for injunction has

%.-,.a Tr @

- (I ^

94 Q

/.. O o

6 1

been decided or until an acceptable court-approved agreement 2

has been reached between us and your counsel.

3 To bring you up to date, today we will be serving en 4

the Justice Departnent a letter and interrogatories asking 5

whether there has been any discharge from reactor No. 2 since 6

May 20 -- that's the day before we filed -- and whether the Com-7 mission has approved or intends to approve or has any knowledge 8

of any projected discharge of water between today and the 9

court's disposition of our application for injunction.

10 Unless the Commission enters an order preserving the 11 status quo -- in other words, no more construction -- and ensur 12 ing that there will be no discharge, we would have to move on 13 Friday, tomorrow, for a temporary restraining order.

We cannot 14 be sure that the things are going to come to a halt at reactor 15 No. 2 until the court has a chance to decide the cc.se.

NC 16 decontartination or discharge of water, regardless of the assur-17 ances we receive frem the PRC, would be acceptable to the 18 '

plaintaffs or the public in Lancaster prior to the court's 19 disposition of our application for an injunction.

20 [

CC:P.CSSICNZR KENEDY :

Would you day thau again i

l l

21 '

please?

22 MR. HUMPERZYS:

Yes.

No construction of decontamina '

23 l tien equipment or decontamination er discharge would be 1

l 24 '

acceptable to the plaintiffs or the publac in Lancaster prior

.:e Federal Reporters, Inc.

l 25 to the court's disposition of our suit for an injunction er a I

w M+?!M T*;i I

sm

,a9

,) * *.)

7 1

court-approved agreement that the Co=ission will observe the j

i 2

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and NRC l

3 regulations.

I 4

Any discharge would destroy the chances foragreementl i

5 between us, and would destroy the Commission's credibility with 6

the citizens in Lancaster and jeopardize the operating future 7

of Three Mile Island.

Many pecple are determined that Three 8

Mile Island should never operate again if discharges are 9

approved by the Cc=ission without court approval.

10 We understand that Metropolitan Edison representatives 11 are here to present Met Ed's position.

We anticipate that they 12 will argue that NRC should not order a stopping of the con-13 struction of decontamination f acilities.

We do not feel that 14 that is a position which should be adopted by the NRC.

Con-15 struction of those facilities is illegal under the National i

i 16 Environmental policy Act, because no environmental impact assess-i 17 ment has been made and you have not made a decision based on a l l

18,

review of such an assessment.

f t

19 i Constructior must stop while the analysis is being l

20 prepared so that all possible solutions and alternatives can h

l' 21 ] be considered and not have alternatives foreclosed by the f act i

22 that construction has proceeded.

The NRC must determine whether 23 ;

any decontamination is feasible, given the unique circumstances l

24 ct Three Mile Island.

The public interest and safety and trust' u..s.eer.i n. con n. inc.

25 are paramount and should override any financial interest in the' 4

l'

,,,q p

_A.

e 1.

tb p.

f =e #

g~,

w

pvi l

8 I

I 1

present that Metropolitan Edison could represent.

I 2

I We would ask you to ensure that no further substances orhandledorplannedforl 3

will be released into the. environment I

f af ter secret.neetings betwee your staff and Metropolitan Edisen.'

4 5

Those meetings have obviously gene on in the past, because con-6 struction is under way at the site.

They have been done without l

7 full disclosure and explanation to the ptblic, and we are askingl B

that the NRC ccmply with the legal recuirrments of NEPA to make 9

those processes public, and pursuant to a proper environmental 10 analysis.

11 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:

Which part of NEPA is it that 12 requires the meeting to be public?

=-

13 MR.' EUMPEREYS:

Not that the meetings be public, but 14 tnat the analysis be distributed and subject to public co..ient I

15 after it's been made.

j 1

16 That's the end of my comments.

i 17 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Could you refer to the Com-18 !

mission's regulations which you've cited?

19 ;

MR. EUMPEREYS:

Yes.

It's 10 CRF Part 31, I

'l 20 !

Mr. Kennedy.

21 At this tpoint, if I may, I would like to ark 22 Mayor Wehlsen to speak to you briefly about the feelings of the 23 ;

pecple in Lancaster at this mcment.

24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Mayor.

Ace Faceral Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. KDHLSEN:

Mr. Gilinsky, gentlemen, I.have,a brief I

w,,..,.

-< jbj%

j e l rvg m

1

e..

9 i

t a

I report ts make, and I will read it quickly so that we can be 8

t 2

within our 10 minutes.

3 I would like to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Com-4 4

mission for this opportunity to speak dbout the possible dis-l 5

charge of ureated radioactive water from the Three Mile Island i, f

(

6 nuclear power plant into the Susequehanna River, and the I

7 intense feelings of concern in the Lancaster community at this 8

possible action.

i 9

Now, at this point in time I wanted to briefly intro I I

I 10 duce myself.

I am a businessman, a re'i-ed businessman, 40 l

11 years in the construction and engineering business.

I am the t

)

12 interim mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

I have had no 13 experience in politice or government, until February 17.

I m3 I

14 not a candidate for public office.

I as doing this fran what 15 I considar to be good civic responsibilities.

i 16 Bafore I proceed further, I would like to say that I 17 realize that there has never been an accident like the one at I

la ;

TMI, and, because of the uniqueness of this accident, govern-19 ment and utility efficials were understandably treading on new 1

I 20 [ ground and facing problems never before faced.

For this reascn, t

21 l I want it to be understood that my criticisms are leviec in a i

l 22 constructive sense, so that if such an accident should ever 23 l happen again, the same mistakes would not be repeated.

24 One thing which is evident throughout this entire

.:..:.emi n,=n n. inc.

I 25 l experience. frem the time of the accident itself to the presen:

D. Wkh r,

9,.3

/.

i

I i

10 1

i 1 i deliberations en how to dispose of the radioactive water at the, i

i 2

power plant has been a total disregard and lack of considera-3 tien for the respontiLility of local gcVernment.

By far,.the i

1 4

most serious probicm f aced by the Lancaster City Government was i 5

and centinues to be a lack of constant anc reliable information 6

upon which to base intelligent decisions.

7 I also want to emphasize.that I am not cpposed to 8

nuclear energy and power under conditions consistent with 9

public safety. My position and the position of the city is I

10 based on a general concern for the welf are of the ccanunity and 11 105,000 people who draw water from the city's municipal water 12 system.

13 The citizens of Lancaster community are tremendously 14 concerned about the likely effects of the disposal of treated 15 radioactive water into the Susquehanna River.

The details of I

16 this concern 2 presented in my affidavit.

I re.ceived numerous 17 letters and phene calls frcm people who are frightened and, in 18,

scme cases, terrified by the prospect of cocking and drinking I

19 l such water.

These letters have ecme from responsible pecple:

l 20 professionals, senior citizer.s, ycung people, and others.

They l

21 '

are worried abcun something they can't see and tasue and which 22 effect might not be felt until years in the future.

23 l Even though I am very aware of their concerns, my 24 decisions are still based en what I feel is proper. Because of os.oer.1 Reportres, Inc.

25 the depth of their feelings, no assurance made by NRC or by f

il

'M@i

c-

11 1

Metropolitan Edison would be consoling to them.

Met Ed and NRCl l

2 do not have the confidence of these people.

l 4

3 Remember, it was only seven to eight weeks ago that f

I 4

the accident at TMI occurred. Being enly 23 miles away from the-5 accident, they are intimately aware of the conflicting and 6

erroneous information disseminated by the NRC and Met Ed.

They 7

are aware that decisiens were being. made about which their 8

local government officials had not been informed or consul'ced.

9 They are aware that their mayor and city council, governor and i

10 congressmen first read about water dispcsal plans in the news-11 paper.

12 They also know that a meeting was held to brief local 13 officials and that the day after their officials attended that 14 meeting the invitation to the meeting arrived at city hall.

15 Lack of satisf-ory URO regulations to control 16 decontamination and dispos.__

che water are disquieting to t

17 them.

The city is obviousiv opposed to the disposal of the l

1B !

water into the Susquehanna River, but we are equally as con-h i

19 cerned about the decentamination process and the mass of equip '

l 20 v required.

21 Should a mistake be made, the pocsibility exists thatl 22 highly radioactive water could be dirnetly discharged into the 1

l 23 q' river, disastrously.

The process and the system are just as t

24 ' important as the place or location of disposal.

Water in this c.s.e.r.i n.m n m.inc.

25 amount and of this contamination level has never before been l

, y, -

p.  :

h.fz w.M

[I3

.a'

i 12 4

1 treated in a location so near a population center the size of 2

curs and disposed directly into a source of municipal water

[

l supply.

This aspect requires much.. serious consideration.

No 3

I 4

further work should be done, I feel, until there has been a i

I 5

thorough analysis under procedures required by law concerning 6

the processing and disposal alternatives.

7 In short, you can understand that the public will not 8

be consoled or comforted by assurances made by either you or 9

Met Ed, and the City of Lancaster, as you are aware, has filed 10 suit in federal court to bar the proposed discharge of water.

11 To assure a careful examination of the decontamination process d

12 and mechanism, we feel that only the independent board-mandated 13 review of alternative means of disposal and the likely impact 14 of the alternatives will be reassuring to' cur citizens.

15 The environmental impact, which would include public 16 review, is a logical request, and would be reassuring to me and 17 our citizens.

The cc=nunity is behind us 100 percent in this I

i i

18 matter.

The city and I intend to follcw through with this suit 19 because there is no doubt in my mind that what we are coing is j i

i 20,

in the best interests of our conmunity.

i 21 I want to add that this entire matter, from the I

22 '

accident itself to the clean-up of the reacter and disposal of i

i I

23 l contaminated water, has deal a blow to nuclear energy.

I I

24 '

believe that an orderly, well-publicized, and carefully thought-

.u Feecal Reornn. Inc

?S out approach for the handling of the water will dc much to l,

Yh g

o n y>

n

+1

13 1

restore confidence in nuclear energy.

I 2

on the other hand, a shrouded, ill-fated approach 3

could be disastrous.

4 Prudence dictates caution in this situation.

We, 5

the City c' Lancaster, have a duty under state and federal law 6

to maint in a.n adequat and safe drinking water supply to the 7

public vthich uses our rystem.

If we do not take action to T ply wi n the procedures required by law, then 8

torce..

'a 9

we maJ be foc.2d to be in v.o.Lation of our duties.

For that i

10 reas7n, + J.ity is seeking the broadest review of the decontami--

11 natica.ltas and a full airing of alternatives and safety issues,,

t 12 to assure the protection of the environment and the public me ae 13 health.

14 And I do want to thank you very much for givir; me 15 l the opportunity to be with you this morning.

16 COMM1JSIONER GILINSRY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor..

I 17 Thank you.

l i,

18 Do you have any addi cenal questions?

19 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

Just a couple of questions.

d 20ll These are more hypothetical, because I am just trying to under s

t 21 I stand.

I haven't read through these.

22 If there are.' pertinent federal regulations, such as i

23 l EPA standards en levels of radicactivity for water, are you say ;

24 ing -- are _you requesting a reconsideration of those levels?

f

• :e. Federal Recorters. Inc.

25 MR. EUMPEREYS:

We are not making a general attack on I

n nn i

g c, r '~n q, i

y L

u a

I

c.--

14 1l your regulations or EPA's.

We do feel that the general regula-2 tions which apply to operating plants are not applicable in 3

this case, because of the accident and the aftemath and the 4

concern of citizens in the area and the fact that there are 5

900,000 gallons of water, some of which hasn' t been sampled, 6

et cetera, et cetera.

7 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:

I recognire that.

What I am 8

trying to do, if I can, is to see whether there's any separa-9 tion between the process by which you reach, say, the disposal 10 of the water an( the actual quality of the water when it's 11 disposed.

12 So, my question is :

If one works through the process, 13 let us suppose we have a procedure which meets the requirements 14 of Lancaster and your approach.

At the end of that time, you 15 now have water that meets the standards that, say, EPA has set 16 up for what is acceptable to be disposed into the river.

17 Are you saying at that point that you would or would i

end#4 18,

not accept that?

1 19 1

i 20 I

21 t

I 22 23,

i 24 ceJeceral Reporters, Inc.

25 i

1 5

I

) Il l

=

f lwA*

?

<~

h,,

,ar

15 CR 4983 HOFFMAN MR. EUMPHREYS:

We really can't say that now.

The j

2 quality of the water or the low level of its radioactivity would be one of the issues to be addressed in an environmental 3

i 4

impact analysis.

l i

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But are you saying that that 5

6 should extend to reviewing the acceptability of EP.A standards?

MR. EUMPHREYS :

Could you start again?

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Do you believe that that 8

9 shculd extend to reviewing the acceptability of the existing, 10 let us say, EPA standards?

11 MR. EUMPEREYS:

I'd like that decision to be made d

12 by your staff and the decision to be analyzed -- we have 13 decided to use different standards or we have decided not to, 14 and these are the reasons.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

At the moment you don' t have 16 a position on that?

17 MR. HUMPHREYS:

No.

The importar* *ki ng to us is i

18 the consideration of all alternatives, and by all I mean'all.

19 As I understand it, some of the EPA drinking water 29 ] regulations only talk about gross alpha, gross beta, gross t

21 gamma concentrations.

It seems to me that is not an appropriate 22 standard in this case, particularly because it is clear there i

I i

are varisus isotopes in the water.

We knew that you don't know.

23 I

l 24 exactly what's there, because you haven' t been able to sample A aJaceral Reporters, Inc.

25 t it.

And it's important to know exactly what's there, which i

,o 1

s-n U

nygQ

=-

c.1-

./

ne 2 16 I

ones are organ-specific, which are not, what's the radioactive l

2 level, et cetera.

l 3

COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

So you' re saying that perhaps 4

you would want a modification of the EPA standards.

5 MR. VAN MAUR:

I think the answer to your question 6

is probably yes.

We don't regard this as a normal operation.

7 That's the point I think that should be made.

It may warrant 8

separate standards to analyze whether this water, as a feasible 9

alternative, can be put in the river.

I don't pretend to say to what those standards should be or that we've analy=ed them down 11 to the last detail.

l d

12 But we want to emphasize that it is not a normal 13 operational situation, and the environment we're dealing with 14 is not only trees and water and springs, but it's people.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I can certainly understand 16 that.

I'm just trying, as I say, trying to explore, to get a 17 further understanding.

j i

18 But if EPA's regulations are of what goes into water l

3 a

19 l and not on hcw that is generated, normal-abnormal, just what l

20 !! goes into the water, the sense I get is that you believe that h

l 21 ;l these regulations ought to be reexamined; is that correct?

I I

MR. WITMARTH:

We feel that would be part of a prcper 22 l

3 environ = ental impact assessment.

I t

i 24 l

COMMISSIONER AHEAR'iE:

Part of the proper environ-

nJocersi Reporters, Inc.1; 25 y me * = ' 4 pact assessment would be to reexamine --

l l

,so o

m _

,w9%

I' l

in

~_

,"t

, w'

.:e ' 3 17 1

MR. WITMARTH:

What standards shculd be applied in 2

these unique circumstances.

i 3

MR. EUMPEREYS:

We're not saying that reexamination l

l 1

4 of the regulations should apply across the board.

What we're I

i 5

saying, in our special situation --

6 COMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Secondly, the same sort of 7

exploratory question.

If, in the process of the way the 8

reactor is going, if it's cooldown, et cetera, if there comes 9

a stage at some point where some action must be taken to 10 alleviate some hazard that might be developing, what procedure 11 would you see as being appropriate to try to get that to the 12 response that you address?

13 MR. HUMPHREYS:

I think if an emergency arises, it 14 must be dealt with by the people who are there in the best 15 way they can.

We know we were gravely disappointed with many i

i 16 of the ways such emergencies were handled over the last eight i

17 weeks.

18 We would look at what was done again if there was 19 :

an emergency.

But we are not saying that you must consult us, 20 i who are not nuclear experts, before you handle an emergency.

1 I

CCMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

Thank you.

21 l 22 MR. WITMARTE:

I think it should be emphasized that 23 l the matter is before the court, and we feel it's appropriate l

24 for the court to consider, in this type of emergency situation,

I a::e Eederst Reoorters, Inc.

25 what the NRC would wi.ek to do.

I think the court has that I

L

18 i

.te 4 I

1i capability of giving such consideration.

2 MR. EUMPEREYS:

It would be appropriate for you to i

3 contact our Washington counsel.

He could be before the court 4

in a matter of minutes tc discuss wbnt the problem is.

l l

5 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

Thank you.

6 COMMIS3IONER GILINSKY:

Thank you very much.

7 Would you please identify. yourself.

8 MR. TROW 3 RIDGE:

I'm George F.

Trowbridge of the l

9 Washington law firm of Shaw, Pitman, Pctts and Trowbridge.

I i

10 have been a counsel for nearly 25 years on this nuclear project.

i 11 COMMISSIC'TER GILINSKY:

Let mc say at the outset, try 12 to keep your presentation to 15 minutes.

I said 10 minutes l

l

~

13 earlier.

14 MR. TROWBRIDGE:

It will be short.

i 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Perhaps you can identify your '

16 colleagues.

17 ME. TROWERIDGE:

On my left is Mr. Ron Williams.

He's:

18 a technical consultant who is presently stationed at the IMI 19 site.

On the right is Mr. Tom Saxter from my office, i

20 ii I am not coinc to cive a lcnc statement.

In fact, ll 21 until I sat here and listened I had no idea what I would be P

22 ;

addressing.

I'm not going to talk about the law of the case,

Io 23 C other than to say that I do not agree that there 's a violation h

1 24 [ of.NEPA involved or of the other regulations cited in the aaJaceral Reporters, trw. d 25 i cc= plaint.

i;

[l bW 3Mr.-W<r y,

9.

ii

.te 5 l

19 i

l ig These are matters which can be properly addressed il 2 ! and will be addressed before the court.

I should inform the i

Il i

3 Co= mission now that we intend to intervene in the proceedings.

4 I think there's no question that the court will permit our 5

intervention.

And I would add to that, I think we would become 6

cn indispensable party to any agreement.

7 I' d like to speak for a moment about the procedure 8

here.

There is a procedure, 2.206 of the Commission's 9

Regulations, under which petitions may be filed with the 10 Comission for Commission action, to deny a license, to revoke t

11 a license, to impose an order or whatever you like.

But it is 12 a procedure that requires a <ritten petition, usually directed 13 to the Director of NRR, although the Commission has on occasion 14 entertained such petitions directly itself.

15 They also provide for an opportunity for response.

16 And I do not regard sitting in the audience and li'stening as 17 an ample opportunity to review the request for an administra-18 [ tive orde-ll 19 p I would also point out that even the presentation i

1 p

20f.I did near cid not contain wnat is an incispensable element l

8 21i of such a petition to the Commission, namely, tne snowing of h

r 1

22 " arreparable harm to the city of I,ancaster from any of the l

23 l dischctrges presently contemplated.

l 24 h The statement was made, en the basis, apparently, i

,ceJeeral Aeoorten, Inc. i i

25 ! on the conversation with the Department of.Tus tice, there was F

1:

i n.

q-

)i

%~ka; m,wt

-4 8

20 te 6 l

l no argument over the facts as represented in this.

I don't I

1 I

2 think there 's a lot we would disagree with there.

But there's l

3 one fact I think just is not correct.

The statement is made 4

in the petition 'that you could leave the contaminated water in 5

the reactor building indefinitely.

6 As the Commission has been told in previous meetings,

7 the water level in the reactor building is very radioactive, 8

is continuing to rise through leakages in the piping within 9

containment, and the desire to process the water presently in 10 the tanks in the auxiliary building is not just a desira with 11 getting on with cleaning up the facility.

Certainly it is 12 that.

13 It is also a desire to. provide empty tank space 14 when that becomes necessary to remove some of the water from 15 the reactor containment building.

One of the means of removing l I

16 that water is going to be through the heat decay system, decay s

i 17 heat system.

That is one of the methods, for instance, of I

18 l removing it.

I 19 i The sump pump may not work.

It's bee. covared w:_ h wnter do 4

20 h fer cuite scme time.

An alternative means is to remove the l

21 !

warer via the decay heat system.

That means opening a motor-22 operated valve, and it's not forever before that valve itself 23 ) would be covered with water.

It is not a simple matter, we a

24 'l don' t have to do anything zor a long time.

Aar. Federal RecorTers, Inc.

25 I'd like to say just a little bit more about what i

i I ~l

') "

.)

,l 7@."

Nv

21

.te 7 i

I has been going on.

There have been -- I should say there have 2'

been discharges of low-level and treatment level discharges of 3

very low-level treated water to the river.

Most of that has i

4 come from TMI-1, but some of it from TMI-2.

Water that has l

i 5

been treated and released has been classified low-level, and l

l I

6 by low-level I understand that means not ricre than one l

7 microcurie of iodine per liter.

That's the level of water that 8

has thus far been treated and discharged.

9 Excuse me.

Microcurie per milliliter.

10 The next _..tch of water to be treated and discharged 11 is presently contained in the tanks in the auxiliary building, 12 and it's making room in those tanks that is important.

This 13 would be treated by the so-called Exi-Core 2 system now under 14 construction at the site.

l t

15 The plans for treatment of the :more radioactive 16 material in the containment and in the primary coolant system i

1 17 have not been formulated.

As a matter of fact, there are 18 i meetings going on today leading to a chcice of me 2.ods --

l 19 evaporators or demineralizers or perhaps some otber method.

I r

20 ll I think this is all I'm going to say at this point.

P 7 or Mr. Ron Williams would be hampy to answer any 21 Eithe 22 questions.

23 ;

COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Do you disagree with the i

i 24 l point that there ought to be an involvement of the people in Ace-f aceral Recorters. Inc.

l 25 i the area in order to address how these problems are resolved?

i i

l y

q*

n " '.

./'

g 7,aw j

e e

.ce 8 22 !

1 MR. TROW 3 RIDGE:

Not this kind of involvement.

Let i

2 me say this:

The Commission staff and Mr. Decamp have met.

I 3

Much of the information contained in here came out of this 4

meeting.

They met in Hershey with a grer' many local officials,l I

5 in an effort to explain precisely what proposals had gone on, 6

what was going on, what was planned, to assure them that 7

nething would be released that -- well, nothing would be done 8

without the Co= mission's approval, no discharges would be 9

released that violated the Commission's technical limitations, 10 and to explain that essentially, once the water is decontara-t, 11 nated -- and there are known process 9s for doing this -- essen-I d

12 tially, you're going to have drinking water be discharged, and 13 that there is no reason why the public can' t be informed before 14 additional releases are made of this, I'll call it, middle-15 contaminated water now in the auxiliary building tanks.

16 There is no reason why local officials, state 1

17 officials, and I'm sure NRC will be there anyhow and attend l

18 the sampling of the water, which always occurred after treat-l 19 l ment and before it's actually released to the water.

I would i

1 20,

hope that the local officials will try to explain to pecple h

i, 21 ji who are unnecessarily worried.

d h

22 i Governor Scranton talked yesterday, Lieutenant I

u 23j Governor Scranton, before tne McCcrmick Committee, and he said l that one of the few silver linings in this, that this would 24 i

1 ce f ederst R eporters, Inc.

l 25 f be an opportunity to educate people and that they're going to l

o

_q.

l h-e l!

d e t - b_

.e 9

23 1

listen this time.

I think some of the education has to be 2

two-way.

Some of the education, I think, has to be that when i

3 local, state officials are told by responsible people tha' 1

4 they believe, their own Bureau of Radiological Health results, 5

that these are low, safe levels of radiation, that it should 6

be a part of their responsibilities, once they are self-7 satisfied, to pass that information.and comfort on.

8 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Would you tell me what the 9

status of the Epi-Core 2 construction is?

I 10 MR. WILLIAMS:

That system is pretty much finished 11 right now.

a 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What does " pretty much 13 finished" mean?

14 MR. WILLIAMS:

About 99 percent finished today.

I 15 We're going into a sort of testing on that system, we hope over 16 this weekend.

We 'll run this thing through its pe.ces before 17 we actually process anything through it.

i 18 ;

COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Is there any other construc-19 tion relating to wauer cleanup?

20 ;

MR. WILLIAMS.

Yes.

We have installed a series of 21 f tanks in one of our fuel pools at the s ation, and this is not I

22 I a processing system per se.

It's simply some tanks to provide I

23 L a place to put water, so that we can take it from those tanks l!

i 24 ll and process that water.

But there is no other processing ace Federal Recorters, Inc.

25h facility under construction now.

car,m" r

l

'UT'

^'

o

-rni s

I-

r.te 10 l

24 1

We do have two systems, the Epi-Core 1, which is 1

2 being used to process the low-level wastes from the Unit 1 3

side and some Unit low-level wastes, and we are now con-4 structing Epi-Core 2.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Which is the one that is l

6 99 percent complete?

l 7

MR. WILLIAMS:

Epi-Core 2.is 99 percent completed.

8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What else do you have the 9

money to build?

You've mentioned tanks.

l l

10 MR. WILLIAMS:

We are looking at what system we 11 should utilize for processing the higher activity wastes in a

12 the reactor building.

We have not decided on what that system 13 should be yet.

We ' re looking at a number of alternatives.

14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

So you haven't gotten going 15 on that one at all?

16 MR. WILLIAMS:

No.

We have some design e: forts under I

17 way, but we haven' t ecmmitted to any actual hardware or done l

18 any construction work at all.

The design effort is necesscry 19 l to put a tag en how much it will cost, whether it will work, 1

20 and whether it will fit in the space that's available.

l 21 :

COMMISSIONZR GILINSKY:

Thank you.

I 22 l

Thank you very much.

i 23

.he Commission will now held a closed meeting on this 24, subject.

-co-Federal Reporter 1, Inc. ]

25 lI MR. WITMARTE:

Mr. Chairman, if we could address the o

"t

• ) ~' ';

A~y _ __ -

f m e _- m g '

- - sw e

w

.:e 11 25 1

Commission on this matter of closure.

2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

On the matter of losing the I

i 3

meeting?

Yes.

4 MR. WITMARTH:

We believe under 5 U.S.C.

55 2 (b),

5 general counsel is required to file a written certification of 6

why the meeting should be closed from public view.

I could be 7

mistaken, Mr. Chcirman, but I don't.believe that's been done in 8

• his case.

9 I feel that, in light of the circumstances here, 10,

that the Commission general counsel should provide a written l

II certification of why the meeting is being closed to public 12

view, 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I believe we do provide.

14 certifications after each meeting.

15 MR. WITMARTH:

Normally that would be prepared before 16 the Commission went into closed session, as I understand it, l

17 Mr. Chairman.

Would be prepared.

I'm not necessarily saying 1

18 ;

it has to be distributed to the public.

l9 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Counsel, you already earlier n

.i i

20ji indicated tne grouncs :or closinc the meetine.

Whv don't you 21 just write that down on your pad and sign it, p lease ?

l l

i 22 l MR, EI;prazg:

certainly indicated that the meeting i

i 23 !

is probably closeable c.nder Exemption 10 of the Sunshine Act.

I 24 Perhaps Mr. Ost:ach might speak to whether or not it's ce Federal Reporters, Inc. l l

25 necessary to have a certification signed.

I l

a; j

- 1 i

i

'V

l. l'

_g g %_

fA

~,,

.e'12 26 I

MP.. CSTRACH:

I believe, subject to checking, that 2

the legislative history of the Act indicates that the closure 3

certificates are inspected prior to tha closure of the meeting I

4 in question.

I think the most definitive work on interpreting 5

the Act indicates that certifications are not only not required 6

prior to the meeting, they' re not a crerequisite for holding 7

the meeting.

8 I understand that, since this meeting was called on 9

extremely short notice, the ministerial task of actually 10 preparing the certificate might not yet have been completed.

II My understanding is that that certificate in this case will be 12 very short, several sentences long, and it w 11 merely be a 13 writing down of what Mr. Eilperin has advised the Co= mission, Id that, in the General Ccunsel's opinicn, this nesting a p ccerly be closed 15 p, N.t to E p h 10 of the Sunshine Act.

16 I dcn't think -that, therefore, e'en if there wre a legs.!.

1 i

17 reg i r rat that the cer*d#4 cates be e;<ecuted before the m3eting, that the i

I8 !

ministerial act of cetting it tygd should delay the Ctzrissicn's c=nsidera-I9,

tien of this, partic"'"ly in view of the fact that I unhed the City k

20 ef 2~.,cter is @g the E 4 esien to am as expeditiously as ;: css *1a h

2I i COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

Perhaps that latter is i

l i

i a,"

! Correct.

l l

I i

22 l MR. VAN MAUR:

The City Of Lancaster is that either i

2

a order be issued forthwith or that answers to the interro-

.w.e.r.i eeon.

i

" li; gatories be available by noon tomorrow.

Otherwise,

.. es ll p_ g-.

,17 n

im o

.te 13 27 1

Mr. Humphreys has indicated we will seek a temporary restrain-2 ing order.

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

You are asking, in fact.

4 MR. VON MAUR:

If you are so inclined.

5 MR. WISiARTH:

In accordance with the law, I did 6

want to address this one point before the Commission.

7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Steve, if we're not absolutely 8

certain on the point of law, what harm is there in taking 9

however many minutes it takes to type up those few sentences?

10 MR. EILPERIN:

None whatsoever.

11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDi:

When did the law say that a 12 certificate wa s only a certificate if it was typed?

If the 13 question arisen, why doesn't counsel just take his pen and 14 write it and sign it?

That's a certificate.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSRi:

This is the basis on which 16 we proceeded up until now, a statement on the part of general I

17 I counsel's office that the meeting is properly closeable under i

i i

18 h a certain exemption.

And the certificates, at I cnderstand I

i 19 l them, have been filed subsequently.

l 20 !

MR. EILPERIN:

Yes.

1 i

21 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I would propose that we

(

22 continue on that basis.

i 23 li CCMMISSIONER KINNEDY:

Not at all.

Whichever ground, i

i r

a e

i if 24 i I suggest, given the urgency of the matter, it's far more l

e.,.i a.oomn. inc.

25 a, important to go forward and discuss the subject than to debate i

l s

~

r i' f~

, 8, lawyer's points.

i p:

c p_ _-

CR 4983 28 l

HOFFMAN t-6 mte 1 1

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

If no one can advise me that 2

they' re certain that the certificate does not have to be filed 3

before the meeting, I would just as soon have the nommal certi-4 ficate filed and then meet.

I understand that's a matter of a l

l 5

few minutes, and it just seems foolish to have a potential l

6 meeting overturned.

\\

7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The meeting will have to be l

8 completed before noon, because at that point I must leave for i

9 an already established appointment.

1 10 MR. EILPERIN:

I think we've already made clear the i

Il basis for the exemption.

I think it's a proper basis for the 12 exemp tion.

I think that the meeting can proceed, subject to g

\\

r' i

13

\\

^

the ministerial task later on of. having the general counsel

\\

14 sign the certificate.

t j

15 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Does the City of Lancaster's l

i j

i 16 lawyer argue that it cannot go forward?

(

17 MR. WITMARTH:

We ' re presenting only the position.

i 18 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Are you arguing that we'can't j

i i

j

'\\

19 i go forward?

,t i

20 MR. WITMARTH:

I'm not making that argument.

i 2! '

CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

It wasn't clear whether you

\\

22 i i were trying to delay us or argue with us.

'.\\

l t

23 M2. WITMARTE:

Simply that we would like, for the 1

24 l record, a statement as to what the basis for the closure was,

.w eceral Reporters. Inc.

25 and make clear that that was,,cn th titten record.

j; 7.,

y g

!!o

29

.~.te 2

1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Do you mind if you get that i

2 l statement after the meeting?

3 MR. WITRARTE:

No.

Under the circumstances, we will 4

not object, although I believe a closer analysis might show 5

that a written certificate is advis able.

6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Thank you very much.

We'll proceed on that basis, and we'll ask all but staff and Justice 8

lawyers to please leave.

9 (Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m.,

The Commission went into 10 closed session.)

11

\\

12

\\

,\\

\\

13

\\

\\

\\

14 15 16 i

17 I

13 i;

d i

21 !

22 i

\\

I t

i 23 il l

a 24 '!

4 aa FMwal Recorwn, lm. !!

25 h

\\\\

c-m 3s.

i

!q

-