ML19318B098
| ML19318B098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B099 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-271A, NUDOCS 8006250025 | |
| Download: ML19318B098 (35) | |
Text
_
NRC 6/12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p.m.
- b 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 m
5 0
h 5
6 Rg 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 dd 9
1717 H Street, N. W.
z Washington, D. C.
20555 eg 10 z
June 12, 1980 E
11 j
The above-entitled matter commenced at 2:25 p.m.
ci 12 35 BEFORE:
('
lii JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman 13 E
14 y
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner j
C 15 g
RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 l
JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner g
17 g
PE'.'ER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner M
18 i
=
STAFF PRESENT:
1 19 l
LEONARD BICKWIT, JR.,
General Counsel 20 SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary 21
[
E.
HANRAHAN 22 l
M. MALSCH 23 !
E.
CHRISTENBURY 24
(_.
25 I
8 0062 5 DDab ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2 dep2
_P _R.O C_ _E _E _D I _N _G _S y
CHAIT 'AN AHEARNE :
This afternoon's meeting continues what I hope will ce the final discussion on the order of the purging of the TMI-2 containment.
At the last meeting, the Commission reached the decision to approve the venting and 5
asked the general counsel to prepare a draft order.
There was j
6 R
a draft at the last meeting.
There were a number of revisions E
7 3
to be made to that, modifications, j
8 4
And the general decision -- however it was made -- Len c
9 was given the opinions.
There are a large number of pieces of h
10 zg paper.
g 11 8
Would you care to summarize where we are or where you g
12 y
think we are?
5 13 MR'.
BICKWIT:
A number of changes have been made in the l
14 two orders, and you have before you the latest version; I
2 15 m*
understand that --
g 16 d
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you care to identify that in g
17 s*
some way?
18 MR. BICKWIT:
That would be difficult to do.
19 R
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Far be it from me to recall 20 that something like five and a half years ago some of us suggested that the difficulty could be simply eliminated by a tiny little date in the upper corner.
I hesitate to bring a
! matter of such picayune concern to the attention of counsel, but at least it would obviate the need for saying it would be hard ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 dep3 to discern which paper it was we are talking about in the future.
MR. BICKWIT:
That would not work in this case, i
Commissioner.
I 3
I COMMISGIONER KENNEDY:
You could always number them 4
sequentially by the date if you need to.
COtNISSIONER HENDRIE: Always these radicial administrative i
6 E
procedures.
7 A
(Laughter) l 8
4 This one is distinguishable, is it not, it is the only c
9 one in which if you turn to page 3', you will find a footnote 10 two which starts, "The most restrictive regulation." That is g
11 l
8 the order; that is order one.
g 12 y
MR. BICKWIT:
Order two on page 3 has a similar note.
g 13 e
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So if you have a thing title l
14
" Memorandum and Order" and look at page 3 and get footnote two, m
2 15 u
8 "The most restrictive regulation," and the same for " Order for 16 md Temporary Modification of License," you have the pertinent paper.
(
17 u*
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is the one in the -- the upper 18
~
righhand corner has a 207.
19 R
(Laughter) 20 MR. BICKWIT:
There was never a doubt in mv mind.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Only in counsel's.
MR. BICKWIT:
I am fairly sure you have received nothine since 207.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
MR. BICKWIT:
The most extensive change in these dep4 I
orders relates in the first order to the chance in the discussion 2,
of psychological stress, and while it reaches conclusions that are similar in nature to the order distributed to you two days ago, they are somewhat softer.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
]
6 E
MR. BICKWIT:
'In light of our best effort to reflect 7
K the feelings of the Commission.
[
8 d
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Yes, d
9 I
MR. BICKWIT:
Now, I understand Commissioner Bradford h
10 has some additional changes, which --
E 11
<8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have some questions.
I had g,
12 y
thought they would be reflected in what came around in 207; they 5"
are not.
E 14 a
This is the only point at which I can ask about them.
C 15 w*
MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
My advice is it would be
?
16 3d easier to do it so that we did not have an additional piece of g
17 w*
paper, thr it would be easier to do it in this way.
18
)
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARME:
I guess first I would like to make R
sure that everyone, A, has this copy, and then I guess I am 20 not sure whether Commissioner Bradford is the only 21
- one that has points that they wish to raise.
But, Peter, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
They are both on page 3 of the document entitled " Order for Temporary Modification."
And 25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 dep5 specifically they are both at the bottom of the page.
One is in the footnote where it says, " purging will be within the annual 2
limit," the last line.
{
In reading through all of this, I do not understand it to be an annual limit.
It seems to me what you are really h
saying there is it will be within the design objective.
6 E
MR. BICKWIT:
That is correct.
b 7
E COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And I guess those are the words l
8 4
I would rather use just become " limit" seems to suggest --
C 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Design objective are the right g
10 z=
words.
j 11 8
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Fine.
g 12 3
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
g 13 MR. BICKWIT:
As I understood all of your proposed E
14 w
changes, this office supports those changes.
2 15 w*
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The same changes occur then in f
16 d
the Memorandum and Order because the footnote is identical.
g 17 w*
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
k 18
.)
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: You said you had another on that 19 R
page.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The other is the first sentence 21 under Roman numeral III.
I would prefer it to go back to the 22
(
language of the draft before, which in essence, instead of i
saying, "Public health, safety and interest require" the following, said that these actions were not inimical to the 25l public health and safety.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 dcp6 And the reason for that preference is I think "the not inimical, which is certainly legally adequate, is much 2
closer to what the record actually supports.
(
MR. BICKWIT:
I would support that change.
This 4
language was put in when the conclusion regarding psychological stress was at a harder stage than it is now.
And I think --
5 6
E COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
How would the sentence read, 7
E then?
l 8
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The earlier draft reads, "The c
9 Commission has found for the reasons stated above that a h
10 z
5 temporary revision to section 2.1.2 of the Appendix B technical q
11 specifications will not be inimical to public health and safety g
12 3
and involves no significant hazards considertions.
(
5 13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That is fine with me.
E 14 w
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
My only question would be:
in 2
15 w
l 8
addition to going to the different standard, the words, "immediate 16 g
d revision" as opposed to " temporary revision" -- I thought we 6
17 w
were trying to get an immediate revsion.
18 h
MR. BICKWIT:
This will be an immediately effective 19 R
order no matter what.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
MR. BICKWIT:
I do not think it is of crucial significance whether it is immediate or temporary.
Immediate and temporary, I think, would suffice.
\\'~
MR. CHRISTENBURY:
I believe the lancuage we sucgested E
~
~
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
7
)
dcp7 came out of 2.204.
The finding that was necessary in 2.204 --
as I understand, this would change 2.204.
MR. BICKWIT:
It would take away that finding; you
(
would be left only with the finding of inimicality and of i
4 no sionficant hazards consideration.
=
5 You would not be making E
the finding described in 2.204.
3 0
E COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would you read 2.204, please.
E 7
E COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And after you read it, explain j
8 4
the significance of the change.
o 9
N MR. CHRISTENBURY: Letis see -- immediately become
~
10 z
E effective on the expiration of the period during which the p
11 licensee may be -- may demand a hearing or in the event that g.
12 he demands a hearing.
13 5
The last -- when the Commission finds public health, g
14 5
safety or interest so require, the order may be made effective 2
15 u
g" 16 immediately.
d I guess what our suggestion was, since the preface p
17 w*
of the order said it was one of -- one of our bases was 2.204 18 m
in addition to 1.61, then to make it immediately effective, which 19 was the intent.
20 I think our suggestion was that the finding set forth in 2.204, the specific language,that the public health and safety or interest requires be included.
MR. BICKWIT:
That is richt, and we found that 24 acceptable.
But during the course of the day -- yesterday ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8 dcp8 when the Commission, having softened its finding with respect to psychological stress, our preference at this point would be to -- not to make that finding in 2.204.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
On what would you base your finding?
=
5 b
MR. BICKWIT:
The no significant hazards de':ermination.
0 E
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that your judgment?
d 7
A MR. CHRISTENBURY:
Under no significant hazards; that j
8 4
is primarily out of 1.89, deling with the -- it would be --
c 9
after the fact does not have to be prenoticed.
10 j
z
=
I guess our concern was -- and I guess I -- I am not g
11 sure I understand your objection to it.
If we are going to g
12 y
rely on 2.204 and in fact make it immediately effective 13
(
3*
pursuant to 2.204, I think that language should --
g a
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He is saying he is not doing 2
15 w*
that.
d MR. CHRISTENBURY:
The reference in the order does 6
17 w*
include 2.204.
k 18 h
MR. BICKWIT:
We are relying on 2.204.
That does not 19 R
mean that every single sentence in 2.204 is applicable.
MR. CHRISTENBURY :
I understand that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could vou tell me, if it is not 22 that one, which sounded like the appropriate sentence, which one is?
24 MR. BICKWIT:
The sentence in 1.89 (a) of the --
I i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9 dcp9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
2.204 of --
1 MR. BICKWIT:
We are relying for a finding of 2
immediate effectiveness on the statute; we are not relying for 3
a finding of immediate effectiveness on 2.204.
He are relying 4
on other aspects of 2.204 for other aspects of.the order.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Such as?
3 6
i g
MR. BICKWIT:
Such as amending the license; you n
R 7
proceed under 2.204 when you amend the license.
3 8
8 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Of course.
a d
d 9
[-
MR. BICKWIT:
Not all amendments to the license are 2
made effective immediately.
In this case you are making the
=
k II amendment effective immediately.
And you are relying on 1.89 (a) m c
12 z
of the statute to authorize you to do that.
CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
Is it "Public safety or interest" E
14 or "Public safety and interest"?
w 9
15 g
MR. BICKWIT:
I believe it is "or interest."
a d
MR. CHRISTENBURY:
"When the Commission finds the 2
g 17 public safety or interest" in 2.204.
wm 18 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
=
19 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess for myself, I wo'id have n
20 thought public interest requires --
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would also --
22 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, I am not saying that you could not 23 ;
sustain that finding; I am saying you do not need it because 24 you have the no significant hazards determination.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
A 1 MmM nr"MnT1kis** entan A MV t t i r*
10 dcp10 MR. BICKNIT:
And secondly, there is some question 1
about whether you can sustain it in view of your statements with regard to psychological stress.
(
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, psychological stress 4
notwithstanding, I had thought that for some days we heard what I believe was incontroverted evidence that continued delay a6 E
risked consequences which could not be defined, but which could b
7 3
be significant.
And it was in this view -- from that view that
[
8 4
I concluded it was in the public interest to proceed.
m 9
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are talking about the h
10 reactor itself?
g 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is what I.hought was g
12 discussed for some days.
We heard much evidence on it and 13 5*
totally aside from how strongly one views the psychological E
14
=
stress question, that,it seemed to me,was the public interest.
2-15 W
MR. BICKNIT:
The public health, safety or interest is 16 g
d language that is picked up from the Administrative Procedures 6
17 w*
Act.
18
)
19 There are many cases in the Administrative Procedures R
Act which assigned in that language a meaning connoting urgency, 20 rather extreme urgency.
In this case the record has not shown that sort of 22 urgency.
It is, therefore, our view that unless it is the l Commission's view that because of the psychological stress problem
\\
there really is sufficient urgency, that this finding ought not i
25 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11 dcpil to be in the order.
I j
/^
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You are saying thci, A, you would 2
i recommend going back to the previous language?
(
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- And, B,
you believe the previous
=
5 h
language is adequate to maintain the effective immediately?
I
]
6
)
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
7 3
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I will go along with that myself.
]
8 Q
MR. BICKWIT:
The Commission has found for the o
9 1
h 10 reasons stated above that a temporary -- and we might add --
z 5
immediate res ion to section 2.1.2 of the Appendix B technical q
11 8
specifications would not be inimical to the public health and
.g 12 y
safet-and involves no significant hazards considerations.
(
5 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am willina to accept that.
E 14 u
J Victor?
2 15 w*
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am not sure I understand the j
16 d
difference.
ll 17 W*
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You will accept this?
Ni 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
19 R
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Dick?
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
(
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
t l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you have other points?
24 '
('
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have some crammatical i
25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 dcp12 things, but I have done.rather better than I normally do.
( '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can I raise one question on that page?
7 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes, you can raise anything you like, 4
Mr. Chairman.
=
5 h
(Laughter) l 6
E CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
"Indeed, the new limits" --
b 7
i A
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that in the rules?
l 8
4 (Laughter) m 9
Z CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am not sure.
There are revisions Z
E I have not looked carefully at.
=
11 8
. ' 12 "Indeed, the new limits could, under the meteorological g
y conditions expected during purging, result in off-site purging t.
5 13 doses that are less than the doses that would result from E
14 u
purging at the present release limits."
THat is in the middle 2
15 w*
of page 3.
16 g
d I would grant that certain very good meteorological
(
17 w*
conditions, it is entirely possible that the doses close in, b
18 E
cffsite, will be less than the result of purging at the present 19 9"
release limits.
But I am not sure what the necessity of sentence is, so I really do not see why we have to have it.
And I am not sure why 1
it would have to absolutely be true in all cases.
MR. BICKWIT:
You certainly have a better understanding
- than this office does about whether it would be true in all cases.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 dcpl3 If you are not sure that it would be, I would certainly take it
(
out.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Anybody else?
('
Okay.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I do not have any objection if you want to take it out.
5 6
E CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
b 7
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I am neutral; I think'it is l
8 4
factually true, but if you do not need it to support the order, c
9 why --
h 10 zg COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am not suggesting it is not g
11 factually true.
I am not sure it adds anything.
g 12 y
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you want to take it out?
j
(
g 13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If it will expedite the E
14 m1 proceedings and not do violence to the authority of the order.
2 15 m8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
Vic, did you have any other 16 g
d points you want to raise on the order?
g 17 we COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I stil l find the commente 18 E
on psychological stress a little too confident for my taste.
What 19 R
I am inclined to do is to concur in the result, rather than in 20 the --
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You would have, then, a separate --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I do not have a separate comment at this point; but I would concur in the approval of
(~
the order.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4
14 dCpl4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
All right.
Dick, any
(
additions?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No.
3
('
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
~
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No.
=
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
6 E
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
With regard ts
... order, I d
7 N
should note as long as there will be a page or two corrected
[
8 d
anyway,that l'n a conversation with Joe before the meeting, he c
9 h
10 has persuaded me to soften a part of my separate statement.
And z
5 for anyone who has the earlier copies that have been distributed, p
11 8
they should pick up the new copy.
g 12 S
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What I would like to do, then, is 13 t
5*
g to have a vote on these two orders, understanding there may w
be grammatical changes.
But as far as elsewise, I would propose 2
15 w"
we approve these orders as amended at the meeting here.
16 j
d (Chorus of ayes) g 17 u*
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would like to concur in the k
18
--g result of order one and approve order two.
19 R
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you need anything else as far 20 as that, Len?-
MR. BICKWIT:
No.
CHAIRMAN 1HEARNE:
The other item I would like to get a brief understand of is the status of where we are on the policy
~
statement which had been scheduled for affirmation.
I do not i
l l
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 d:p15 believe it.is ready for affirmation.
I Peter, I understand you will have yours ready tomorrow?
5
(
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, I will, before going away tomorrow circulate it.
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It is acceptable, then, with you a6 i
R that we would then go to affirmation on Monday.
R 7
3 3
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Anytime next week is j
8 4
fine.
o 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is that acceptable to the others?
h 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Acceptable to me.
j 11
[
COMM*SSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
h g
12 h
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
We will. plan on doing 13 g
that.
E 14 w
(Thereupon, at 2:44 p.m. the meeting in the above-2 15 w"
entitled matter was adjourned.)
L 16 g
w ti 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 25 i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
Affirmation Session 80-28 Date of Proceeding:
June 12, 1980 Docket Number:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
David S.
Parker Official Reporter (Typed)
O
\\
/
/
\\
Official Reporter (Signature)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(. -
Commissioners:
John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T. Kennedy Joseph M.
Hendrie Peter A. Bradford
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et 21 3
Docket No. 50-320
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Commission has before it a staff recommendation that the licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company, et al., be authorized to J
commence a controlled purging of the TMI '. reactor building atmosphere in order to remove the remaining radioac lve Krypton-85.1#
To meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the staf,f has submitted in support of this recommendation a " Final Envi.onmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile N....
1 1/
Most of the radionuclides originally released into the
(-
containment atmosphere have decayed to insignificant levels.
The dominant remaining radionuclide is the gas, Krypton-85 (Kr-85), which has a 10.7-year half-life.
The Environmental Assessment states that approximately 57,000 curies of Kr-85 are mixed _in the containment atmosphere, as determined by I
L soRiodic samalina.of Kr-85. concentra tions..
j
\\
i Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere," NUREG-0662, May
('
1980.
The draf t version of this assessment and two subsequent addenda were issued for public comment, and by the close of the comment period on May 16, 1980 approximately 800 responses had been received.
These are summarized in Section 9 of the final assessment and major comments are included in Volume II of NUREG-0662.
The Commission received further information regarding the proposed purging at oral briefings by the staff on June 5, 1980 and June 10, 1980.
In a Statement of Policy dated November 21, 1979 the Commission announced its intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact k
statement on decontamination and disposition of radioactive waste resulting from the March 28, 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
The policy etatement noted that if the hest interest of public health and safety required prompt cecontamination action prior to completion of the programmatic statement, such" action would no.t be precluded.
The Commission stated among other things, 2
however, that no action to purge the containment of radioactive gases would be taken without a prior environmental review and opportunity for public comment.
Before we can approve the staff's recommendation for controlled purging of the TMI-2
(.
containment, we must thus decide whether there is sufficient need for prompt decontamination of the containment atmosphere to justify going ahead prior to completion of the programmatic impact statement.
We must also decide whether the decontamination method recommended by the staff can be carried out consistent with
. l i
the Commission's statutory mandate to ensure adequate protew lon
('
of public health and safety and whether the environmental review has met the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The immediate goal of the proposal to purge the reactor build-ing atmosphere is to remove radioactive particulates and gases re-leased into the containment by the accident.
There are several methods discussed in the Environmental Assessment by which the radioactive krypton can be removed.
The method recommended by the staff involves controlled release to the outside atmosphere of the gases in the containment through the existing plant ventila-I tion system, the hydrogen control subsystem, and the reactor building purge system.
The release rates would be controlled so as to take place only during acceptable meteorological condi-tions, which would be continuously monitored, such that the dose limits established by 10 CFR Part 20, the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendir I, and the provisions of 40 CFR Part 190.10, to the extent they may be applicable, will not be exceeded by the controlled purging.1/
In addition to monitoring of releases by the NRC, radiological monitoring during the pro-posed controlled purging would be conducted by the U.S.
Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the U.S.
Department of Energy and Metropolitan Edison Company.
The Environmental Assessment contains ample evidence to show that risk to physical haalth frou the proposed purge or from any of the alternative decontamination methods considered E!
The most restrictive regulation is 10 CFR Part 50, Appen-dix I.
Appendix I sets forth gaseous release annual off-site dose design objectives of 5 millirems to the total body
(
and 15 millirems to the skin.
The purging will be limited so that the maximally exposed individual could not receive a dose from purging that exceeds this objective.
Gaseous releases from TMI-2 unrelated to purging are expected to be insignificant, so that the annual dose from gaseous effluents should not exceed the annual Appendix I design objective by any significant amount, if at all.
Purging will likely result in doses that will exceed the reporting levels of IV.A of Appendix I, but this is of no concern in view of the assurance that the purging will be within the annual limit.
4-by the staf f would be negligible.
See Table 1.1, NUREG-0662.
The assessment also addresses the effects on the psychological well-being of persons living in the vicinity of TMI.
The staff concluded that psychological stress resulting from the proposed venting of Kr-85 will be less than f rom any of the alternatives, including the alternative of taking no action.
Testimony at the June 5,1980 oral briefing by expert consultants on the question j
of psychological stress supporteo this conclusion and indicated that purging the containment should have the net effect of reducing the stress which otherwise would occur if positive steps are not taken promptly to proceed with decontamination and reduce uncertainty about the present and future condition of TMI-2.
Removing Kr-85 from the containment atmosphere would yield a rumber of important and immediate benefits.
Radiation from Kr-85 at the concentration levels found inside the containment significantly limits worker access and pre'cludes extensive operations needed to gather information, inspect and maintain equipment, and proceed toward the eventual removal of the highly radioactive damaged nuclear f uel f rom the reactor core.,
Decontaminating the atmosphere would relieve workers performing necessary maintenance and cleanup activities from hazards of working in awkward protective clothing and risk from penetrating gamma radiation associated with the
. decay of Kr-85.5Y Moreover, there is no serious question that removal of the Kr-85 f rom the containment atmosphere is a necessary step toward core defueling.
Until the fuel is remceed, TMI-2 will continue to present a potential risk to public health and safety.
Thus, decontaminating the containment atmosphere has an immediate and independent utility which justifies proceeding at this time d/ provided that the proposed method is acceptable on health and environnental grounds.
Because of the importance to the public of having a clear understanding that purging the TMI-2 containment presents a minimal risk to physical health, we review here the basis f or concluding that the physical health impacts of venting Kr-85 under proper controls will be negligible.
This conclusion was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and the Union of Concerned l
J/
Only.4% of the Krypton-85 decays in a way that emits gamma t
rays.
At the concentrations in the reactor building, this l
would be significant to workers.
After mixing with the atmosphere, it does not threaten the public health and safety.
1/
The President's Council on Environmental Quality was consulted l
on the staf f's proposal to vent Kr-85.
In a letter dated May 19, 1980, and relying on the staff's technical analysis, the Council
-advised "that as a matter of procedure, staff's proposal does not violate 40 CFR Section 1506.1 (1979) (limitations on actions during NEPA process) of the Council's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act."
l p Scientists.
Governor Thornburg of Pennsylvania has indicated in a letter to Chairman Ahearne, dated May 16, 1980, that he adopts the consensus that the dose rates associated with controlled purging are insignificant.
Krypton-85 has no significant food pathway involvement and 99.6 percent of its radioactive decays emits only low energy ber.a particles which primarily affect the skin, one of the tissues least susceptible to radiogenic concerns.
The Environmental Assessme,nt estimates that to the maximally exposed individual the risk of skin cancer "would be equivalent to spending 30 minutes in-the sun.
The average individual in the population would have an added risk of skin cancer equal to about a half-second of exposure to the sun's rays."
NUREG-0662, p. 7-7. Tba total lifetime-individual cancer risk t the maximally exposed individual would be about one in sixteen million, compared to a normal lifetime expectancy of one chance in five from all types of cancer.
NUREG-0662, p. 7-2.
Of course, most persons would receive a dose much smaller than the estimated maximum.
The Environmental Assessment estimates that the collective offsite dose to the population within 50 miles of TMI-2 will be 0.76 and 63 person-rem for total-body and skin doses, respectively.3[
NUREG-0662, Table 1.1.
Based on these figures and on a cancer mortality risk estimate of 135 deaths per 5/
At the oral briefing the staf f reported that estimated total-bo dy dos es to th e U.S. and world populations were about 15 person-rem and 60 person-rem respectively.
f
~7-(~
million person-rem,5[ the Environmental Assessment finds that
"[t]he cancer mortality risk among the general population within 50 miles resulting from the purge option would be about 0.0001."
In other words, the chance that the proposed purge would cause a cancer death among the general public living within 50 miles of TMI is about one in ten thousand.
Although the impacts described above apply specifically to a slow purge as originally recommended by the staff, the Environmental Assessment notes that they also cpply approximately to a' fast purge alternative conducted under meteorological conditions favorable for atmospheric dispersion.
The staff's current recommendation calls for use of a fast purge rate if weather conditions permit.
The Commission agrees with the technical staff that the physical health impact of this recommended action may be termed insignificant.2/
Alternative methods which could reduce offsite radiation exposure still further were considered in the Environmental Assessment, including several suggestions offered by commenters on the draft assessment.
These included variations of the purging method whereby the Kr-85 would be injected into the k
6/
This risk estimate is taken from the 1972 Report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," National Academy of Sciences, November I
1972.
(.
7/
At the oral briefing the staff noted in answer to a question
~
by the Commission about possible health hazards to animals that humans are generally more sensitive to radiation than other living things and that the proposed purging would 1
i l
l g-l atmosphere at a higher level, either by various means of elevating
(
the release point higher than the existing 160-foot stack or by heating the gases prior to discharge to increase its buoyancy.
l The staff al'so considered methods whereby the krypton could be captured and stored indefinitely or until the radioactivity decayed to insignificant levels (about 100 years).
These methods include (1) selective absorption of krypton by a scaled-up version of a system now in operation at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (2) absorption of large quantities of charcoal, (3) gas compression and storage in pressurized containers, and (4) extracting the Kr-85 by liquefying it through cryogenic processing.
The alternatives considered appear to have varying degrees of practicality, but the staff found that none of them could be implemented in the near future or, for that matter in a time period much short of a year at the best.2I The controlled purging method of decontamination recommended by the staff can be implemented immediately.
Since the physical healttt risks of the, purging method are extremely small to begin with and since decontaminating the TMI-2 containment atmosphere should not be unnecessarily delayed, for reasons we have already discussed, the Commission agrees with the N
8/
In particular, the staff investigated a suggestion that the selective absorption process could be placed into operation in six months by using equipment said to be available from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other sources.
The suitability of this equipment turned out to be l
questionable, and the proposed schedule for design and procurement appeared unrealistic.
The staf f's minimum time rati.on.. system operational
- -~
(
staff that the possibility of reducing very small physical health risks still further does not justify significant delay and uncertainty associated with implementing an alternative process.
~
Although the Commission has considered the question of psychological stress, firm conclusions on this subject are not possible.
We believe that the alternative chosen will in fact cinimize stress, but we have no special competence in this field.
It is clear that different aspects of the TMI clean-up are sources of stress to different people.
However, it is difficult
\\
for us to evaluate with precision whether choosing an alternative which would delay TMI cleanup would cause more or less stress than the controlled purging of Kr-85 which a broad consensus of scientific opinion considers safe.
We are confident only that the stress will be lessened 1) by our having chosen a plan which rests on a very wide consensus that physical health is not threatened by the krypton release, 2) by having the krypton release occur over tha shortest time consistent with the public health and safety, and 3) by a clear step toward cleaning up other potential sources of radiation at the damaged reactor.
(
These three principles are part of this decision.
The Commission thus finds that decontamination of the TMI-2 containment atmosphere should be carried out promptly by the-purging method recommended by the staff.
Physical health impacts will be negligible, and a long-term reduction
. in the sources of psychological stress is expected.b!
Thus, there is adequate assurance that public health and safety will be protected as required by the Atomic Energy Act.
We agree with the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment that the proposed action will have no significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly,
, environmental impact statement need be prepared and a negative declaration to this effect may issue.
In view of the scope and detail of the Environment'al Assessment and the extensive solicitation of public comment, we believe in any case that the purposes of NEPA have been served and that preparation of a formal EIS, had one been required, could not add significantly to the level of environmental con-sideration and public disclosure already achieved.
TMI-2 is presently being aaintained pursuant to restrictions in an order issued by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on February 11, 1980 requiring the licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company, to maintain the facility in accordance with the requirements of revised technical specifications set forth as an attachment to that order.
In implementation of the Commission's Policy Statement of November 21, 1979, these specifications f/
The Commission has not yet determined whether psychological stress is a health concern cognizable under the Atomic Energy Act and/or an environmental impact cognizable under NEPA.
We are presently considering these issues in connection with the TMI-1 restart proceeding.
In the Matter of Metropolitan l
Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),
1 Docket No. 50-289.
In view of our finding that the proposed l
venting of Kr-85 is likely to have an overall beneficial effect on psycholoqisal nRRonn, Rho pRomant. decision does not hinge on
. included the restriction that " purging or other treatment of the
(
cor tainment atmosphere is prohibited until approved by the a
NRC...."
In the present order we give.the approval contemplated by that restriction insofar as necessary'for the licensee to conduct a purging of the TMI-2 containment, commencing no sooner than 10 days from the date of this order, in accordance with the proposal recommended by the NRC staff as presented to the Commission in the record for this proceeding.
The licensee shall conduct this purging in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC, pursuant to Secticn 6.8.2 of proposed Appendix A to the Technical Specifications, NUREG-0432, as made binding on the licensee by l
the February 11, 1980 order of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Information regarding the carrying out of this decision will be available at (phone number].
Is is so ORDERED.
For the Commission Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commissien Dated at Washington, D.C.
this day of June, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.
(
In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, e_t al.
Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
ORDER FOR TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF LICENSE I.
Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (the licensee) are the holders of Facility Operating License No. DPR-73, whidi had authorized operation of the Three
(
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 at power levels up to 2772 megawatts thermal.
By Commission order dated July 20, 1979, the licensee's authority to operate the facility, except as provided therein, was suspended.
The facility, which is located in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, is a pressurized water reactor used for the commercial genera-tion of electricity.
II.
On March 28, 1979, an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 resulted in substantial damage to the reactor core and to certain reactor systems and components.
The facility is. not capable of nonnal operation and is in a shutdown condition with fuel in the care.
The facility
(
l s
2
,C is being maintained in a stable, long-tem coo 11ng mode in accordance with the provisions of the Connaission order, dated February 11, 1980.
That order did I
not affect the limits on release of gaseous radioactive effluents set forth in Appendix B, section 2.1.2 of the technical specifications attached as a condi-tion of the license. However, the krypton-85 (Kr-85) released into the reactor building during the accident must be renoved from the building so that workers can begin the tasks necessary to clean the building, maintain instruments and equipment, and eventually remove the damaged fuel from the reactor core.
Those tasks must be perfomed whether or not the plant ever again produces electricity.
I Radiation from the krypton gas, although thinly dispersed through the reactor building atmosphere, nevertheless poses a threat to workers who would have to work in the building for prolonged periods.
The preferred method for removing
(
the Kr-85 is a kind of flushing or purging process by which the gases would be exhausted from the building and fresh air pulled in.
Section 2.1.2 of the Appendix B technical specifications contains both instantaneous and quarterly limits for releases of noble gases, including Kr-85, to the atmosphere. These limits were developed with nomal facility operations in mind and were phrased as limits on releases rather than limits on off-site doses (the effects of the releases) so that compliance with the limits would not necessarily depend on off-site dose measurements.
Instead, on-site measure-ments of the amounts of materials released would be used for detennining compliance.
These limits could serve to unnecessarily delay the time required
(
to complete the purging process. The revised limits described below would remove this difficulty. They are expressed as limits on off-site doses rather than as i
limits on releases. An extensive environmental monitoring network is set up in t
l l
O e
3 the Three Mile Island area that is capable of producing prompt and frequent off-site dose measurements.
This network, along with on cite measurements of releases and meteorology measurements, will be used to assure compliance with the new
(
limits.
Under the revised limits the dose to the maximally exposed individual off-site will be within the limits of the Commission's regulations that would apply if the reactor were operating nonna11y.U Indeed, the new limits could, under the meteorological conditions expected during purging, result in off-site purging doses that are %ss than the doses that would result from purging at the present release limits. Thus the new limits will not be inimical to public health and safety.
In addition, since the principal effect is merely to switch from release limits to dose limits, with the same concept of limiting health effects to a specified low amount in mind, the change involves no significant hazards consideration.
(
The nature and effects of the purging process are described more fully in the Commission's Memorandum and Order in this matter, dated June __,1980, and NUREG-0662, " Final Environmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere", June 1980.
III.
The Commission has found for the reasons stated abcee that the public health, safety and interest require an immediate revision to section 2.1.2 of the Appendix B technical specifications and that the revision involves no significant hazards consideration.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 161b and 189a of the Atomic '
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR sections 2.204 and 50.54(h) of the O
The most restrictive regulation is 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Appen-(
dix I sets forth gaseous release annual off-site dose design objectives of 5 millirems to tne total body and 15 millirems to che skin.
The purging will be limited so that the maximally exposed individual could not receive a dose from purging that exceeds this objective.
Gaseous releases from TMI-2 unrelated to purging are expectr.J to be insigni-ficant, so that the annual dose from gaseous effluents should not exceed the annual Appendix I design objective by any significant amount, if at all.
Purging will likely result in doses that will exceed the reporting levels of IV.A of Appendix I, but this is of no concern in view of the
.he within the annual limit.
4 C
Conmiission's regulations, section 2.1.2 of the Appendix 8 technical specifi-cations is amended, effective immediately, by adding at the end thereof the t
following:
Only for the period of the purge of the TMI-2 reactor building atmosphere, Section 2.1.2h is deleted and Sections 2.1.2a and 2.1.2c are superseded by the following:
Do not exceed for ghe maximally exposed individual
- in any one of the 16 (221/2 ) sectors centered on the TMI-2 reactor building any of the following:
(a) 15 mram skin dose (b) 5 mren total body dose (c) 20% of the limits in (a) and (b) shall not be exceeded over any one hour period.
In addition, pursuant to Section 6.8.2 of the proposed Appendix A Technical Specifications, NUREG-0432, made binding on the licensees
(
by the Februaiy 11,1980 order of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), any purging shall be conducted in accordance with procedures approved by the Director, NRR.
j Under the above conditions, the licensee is to minimize the total time required to complete pur CFR Part 20 MPC (for workers)ging the reactor building to 10
- Maximally Exposed Individual (1) One hypothetical individual withir. each of 16 sectors at off-site location with maximum anticipated dose.
(2) No allowance for occupancy time - assume individual present continuously.
(3) No hypothetical individual shall receive more than dose design objectives of (a) and (b) above.
k.
t
5 C
IV.
The licensee or any person whose interest may be affected may, within
(
thirty days, file a request for a hearing with respect to this Order in accord-ance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.714.
In the event a hearing is held, the issues shall be:
(1) whether the temporary technical specification modification imposed herewith (described in Part III above) is in the interest of the public health and safety; and (2) whether this Order should be sustained. A request for a hearing will not stay the effectiveness of this Order.
In the event a hearing is held, it shall be consolidated with any hearing held in regard to Commission orders in this docket dated February 11 and May 12, 1980.
A request for a hearing by the licensee or another person must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 0.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Section. A
'(
copy of the request for a hearing should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 and to Mr.
George F. Trowbridge; Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge,1800 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036, attorney for the licensee.
Any questions regarding the contents of this Order should be directed to the Chief Hearing Counsel, Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington.
0.C. 20555.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Operating License l
DPR-73, as amended (2) NUREG-0662, " Final Environmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere",
(
i dated May 1980, (3) Commission Memorandum and Order, dated June __,1980.
All i
of the above documents are available for inspection at the Commission's Public k
6
(
Docenent Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Commission's 1
Local Public Document Room at the State Library of Pennsylvania, Governnent
(
~
Publications Section, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126, and of the York College of Pennsylvania, Coun'try Club Road, York, Pennsylvania.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Samuel J. Chilk Secrettry of the Comission Dated at Washington, D.C.
on Juno __,,1980.
(
6
\\
e
o c'
..c v.
..~
i c..es v.,......
. _... :.r,.
C 0 * *... ;., g 6 SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORD
(
e-
~...
- .m.
.-: ;.;. : -.-..> p:-.
= =.
. :.s..
~-
- e...
.v. >..
While".lI agre'e.iith W e i~sult and much of the' reasoning in
....a.-....:
..,.. sy. - :..
c s
d.
.the foregoi.n.g Order;.cI feel compelled to note that.it is:~not
. =?h*... :
- .;-? -
...:: 3,
- ... i. ~-i 7-i.-:-(~~~g.%.. ':=. M.
.- -l-3..:.
.,t
... candid is. hree resp.ects :': 7 - -
2,..:: i..
....=..y
-../.
3=2.
..:.~i.i = -
. -.=t, wh~1rvw:chbrshgW. l.i5B -E.h:.i=
. %= =.- ' F-2=-
" ' ~ "
{.f./ _-ji {. 9 -f,'..,_ g l. j :. g. 7
_, g-;y
.y;..
-.~. :.c. -
- r.1 :.- -
1.-
It states that th.e Union.of Concerned Scientists " supported"
. +..
...g.-
W.~ : the:-conclusion.that the physical health impacts of venting -
.:. u.
...:=..-
Krypton-85 undeF proper!. controls.wi.11 be negligible..
~
'~
The
&::a:w r,,
- ::- : - - e.. -:". r
.-.:4
- * :.. r t. : - ae r R C Union of Concerned Scientists -did" agree with' that
- proposition,
%;ri5 1.*.
'. *.e r*
- :a v *,
but it is disingenuous te imply that-
!..: :.- c t:
. UCS agrees with the AS 5U.* Venti,ng alterEative choses here...!The UCS report to Governor"
.. i.a. ;.-.:.1
.. :s.
C~;..
. e.
-Thornburgh '.is explicit in'stacing that the NRC's venting
- r.:..;-: : :......
=.
. ' alternative should not be undertaken because other alternatives.
are available within wh'at UCS views as a reasonable period of time and would reduce psychological stress.
Thus, UCS should not be listed in the Commission's statement in a
' fashion'designe'd7to' imply that they are in ' accord with the NRC's action.
s 2.
The. Order states that the staff also considered methods "whereby the krypton could be captured and stored indefinitely or until the radioactivity decayed to insignificant levels (a bo ut 10 0 yea rs). "
In fact, as was brought out at the June 10 meeting on this subject, there would probably be rio need 'to store the krypton for any long period of time.
- =
- -:i;..
..y
. ~_ 2 ;,........
- .-.s.-:
r
~
There is a conisercial market' for Krypton-85, and if"an
(
alternativ.e to. venting were chosen, the recovered krypton
.,a.
could probably=beisold'.and would..not. need to be stored.
The
..;. 5.t: W.. R.E--**
' ;.?.m. ~
- L..
.w,.
~..
. real.. argument.'.ag.ai.nstarecovering the krypton is thati the a. --. :
....r..... :.
-..a.:
. : : :.r.;.c.
.. ~
r,=-
. :... - ::. 5. :.. re cover - me?~ :thods.l.taka.to'o".long and :- -.
" 1.
v-+.seve. ral:.
v -.
-.v.
.......:.:f=-==
- -s.
..-2
.w.,,.
c
. 1......
when weighed 2against~the fact that ' venting.:ill.have... -.
tw
.n o "7
~ :.=: :-- -- --...
./ - -
..+..;
.., g;>_.._,.., - m 3: -. :.=am;.
.:. -..:: :. r.. -......:. :..- -....
...j
_._. w 4_._j.
.,.a-si.gnificant :radiationMelatedgublic health. impacts." The -
e-
- 7. ::-:...
ur. q. m.. - Q.:- p 7-f---9,i.
- ps.p:. :;
..,. ;,.m
-? ? '.W langu' age's'udeitiI6g-tfiaElong-t'erm storage.-is a serious
~
..r...--...- -:..: :=-..v -
......,..y.:.
- .w
.-..:.. c.;.
a.
. problem should'.not have.. appear.ed~in.the staff's environmental
.a assessment and should not appear in this Order.
..,..a.. y.
..4..
. ~..
. m.
. : m. o.....
.g.
- a.
=.... -a-. v. w
.=.:.:...
3.
The. staff assessment of the cryogenic processing method of.
......w..
e. a,..
......... -...m. :=.=.......,....:- ::..
r recover.in.g ~.th.e,.! Krypt'on;B.S'.did. not" deal adequately..bith
.b. - --
p-
.. +. -...
--.r
- y e..-m?-n.:...:w.:.
. :.t.
"=.-
- .. im
.. r.. -
the. availability ~.of.a. completed cryogenic processing-
.i.: '.;.
system at the,' Hope Creek. nuclear facility.
This system
.: ~- -.. :. :... :...-..
.. s.
is already ' completed and is on skids and could be moved easily to'the site.
It could certainly complete its task in less than the.20 m.onr.hs assigned as the minimum for
..r w.
. ;. y.y. : -. n i :
-.. -. a x a' cryogenic processing alternative.
However, I am persuaded that it too would be likely,to take at least a year and is therefore"not.a reasonable alternative to the venting
(.
plan endorsed in this order.
I am astonished to have to make these points in a separate l
opinion, but the Commission ha.s declined to include them in the i
.tody of the Order. %,
i l
.... =....
l
.,.-,.,..m-
_