ML19323B541

Transcript of 800425 Briefing in Bethesda,Md Re Selective Absorption Process as Alternative in Dealing W/Krypton in Containment.Pp 1-58

ML19323B541
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	04/25/1980
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML19323B542	List: ML19323B541 ML19323B543
References
NUDOCS 8005130525
Download: ML19323B541 (58)

Text

,_

t-8 005130sas a

,f "**%,s i

e

/

Smd UNITED STATES N U CLE AR R EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION I'n the m atte r of:

2RIEFING ON SELECTIVE A3 SORPTION PROCESS AS A ALTERNA!!VE IN DEALING WIT'.i KRYPTON IN TMI-2 CONTAINMENT PIace:

Bethesda, Maryland DatO:

April 25, 1980 Pages:

1 - 58 l

l INTENAMCNAL VmaAnu REPCemtRS. INC.

l 499 SCLTH CAP!TCL STREET. 5. W. SUITE 107 WASHINGTCN, D. C. 23002 g deJ.W

-. - - -. ~. - - - - - -. - - -. - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - -

I

~

• MS3 MG.

_ l q

9 I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)

2 i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

i

__________________________________x 4

i In the Matter of:

i 3

!! BRIEFING ON SELECTIVE ABSORPTION PROCESS AS A ALTERNATIVE IN

[

6 DEALING WITH KRYPTON IN TMI-2 7

CONTAINMENT s

_______x i

i 9

Room 550 Id l

East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway it Bethesda, Maryland Friday, April 25, 1980 l

13 i

The Comission met pursuant to notice, for la presentation of the above-entitled matter at 3:17 p.m.,

3 John F. Ahearne, Chairman of the Comission presiding.

f I4 BEFORE:

7 VICTOR GILINSKY, Comissioner l

PETEF. A. BRADFORD, Comissioner l

18 i

e 1

l 19 l'

I IQ h

21 i

ee U

l i

l

4

• 3 l

in n

v

e. % x me suun. c.we.w trous?. a.. wvs sr

_. -_=

e ssan.~en.

IRC 4/25/80 I

1:17 p.m.

' pd 1

• * ^

_P.R..O _C.E. _E _D_.I. _N.G..S.

I CHAIP. MAN AHEARNE:

I guess we don't go through the I

Sunshine Act voting to.--

A SPEAKER:

We are not required to vote.

J CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

We are not a meeting yet.

We may 4

or may not become a formal meeting at some later time.

7 I, and I guess the, the track is that it --

3 Congressman Ertel first alerted me to this issue, Mr. Gilinsky 9

also -- and that I guess related to, to: both of their initi--

10 ative and interest, we are now at the stage where we do have II with the courtesy of Dr. Cunningham, who has made arrangements II for us to hear from a group of individuals from Oak Ridge and t

1 I:

DOE about the question of whether there is a more rapid and I4 better and faster way of working on the krypton in TMI.

IJ Vic, did.you want to --

I i

I4 CCMMISSIONER GII.INSKY:

I just wanted to say that l

I7 -

it was much at Mr.. Ertel's initiative that the second look 18 was taken.

And I accompanied him down there and -- but it i

19. :

was, I want to underline the, really his initiative.

22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Who is the lead --

l 11 SPEAKER:

I, I am, I'm the lead as far as Oak l

5 Ridge.

O CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay.

Why don't you go and 24 introduce --

'J SPEAKER:

But Herb Feinroth is representing Dr.

rnvc%%

l am smene es.am. sriw=. t e.

mares e

n. 4.

e

,p.-.-._

n

O' 9

3 I

seant %

I Cunningham.

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay, then Herb, why don't you start out and introduce the people and --

A MR. FEINROTH:

I'll just repeat what Dr. Cunningham 3

told Dr. -- Mr. -- this morning.

That was that he wanted to 4

make sure that every opportunity or every, the. full resources 7

l of the Oak Ridge Natio.nal Laboratory were made available to 3

l answer that, i

9 Earl's questions or any questions you have with to regard to the, the system that you're considering as an II alternative -- and so he just wanted to make sure that you I::

know that the resources are fully available.

12 And with that, I wanted to introduce Stan Ahrends, la who was the Department of Energy representative at Oak Ridge, i

IJ who will introduce --

i f4 MR. AHRENDS: -I'm Stan Ahrends, from Oak Ridge, the:I I

the meeting with Congress I 17 Department of Energy.

And I was at I

ta man Ertel and Mr. Gilinsky last Saturday.

With me today is

(

19 Don Trauger, on the right, who is head of the nuclear work atl, i

22 the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and this selective absorp-j ni Il tien process is, is under his management.

j Bob Brooksbanks, over to my left, is here frem Oak.,'

Ridge National Laboratory.

He's a member of the clinical

• J technology division, and scme of you here might know he's 2

been very active up at Three Mile Island, has been handling mw,

% =

I

= _..

0 2

4 seau.%

t the Oak Ridge support to Three Mile Island on a chemical engineering and the environmental aspects of the incident up I there and is also a member of the technical advisory group.

t He will be making the initial part of the presenta-tion this af ternoon, which just as a couple of vuegraphs 4

represents the Oak Ridge position on what to do as far as the 7

decontamination of the, the reactor building --

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Stan, I wonder if I could 9

just add another word to, to what I said, just to make a little clearer what the motivation for coming down to see you to was.

I had had someone take a look at the various cptions

~

I; that were displayed in our environmental report.

l I

Gerry, Pollack, from Michigan State -- and he thought t4 this one, of th'e four, was, was the most interesting one, leaving aside how long the, it would take to, to actually l

ta I

t4 implement.

17 The Congressman got, as you know, interested in-

!s this and got to ta*1 king.

And he started to wonder whether, l

9 if one imposed lesser requirements on the system, whether in

c fact the job could be accomplished sooner; in other words, ifl

1 one were shcoting for a, for a simpler system than has ecme i

out of conversation.

And that was basically the approach we took in u

ccming out and talking with you and Bob and others if one did' 3

not expect quite as total a cleanup er relaxed varicus nW = w.m. m 4 m e andR'W fp W '. E e. asTT W

-, A L RE

O O

seest.*as.

5 1

I I

constraints in terms of the standards imposed en the system, l

I what could the time be driven down to, reasonably?

j i

1 l

And anyway, that's, that'sallthebackgroundfor--l l

4 MR. AHRENDS:

I think that's gecd background i

and to directly respond to those questions and the questiens l

4 that were left with us last Saturday, have Bcb Merry =an, frcmj 7

Oak Ridge Union Carbide -- he is head of the technical divi-j f

sion there, and he originates part of the work with the I

1 9

selective absorption process years ago and ic new manager cf l l

10 l

it again.

I; it l

He will be making the main presentation, which will II be responding to those issues which were left last Saturday, 13 a one-week study; and so he will answer that in detail.

j 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Very gecd.

i And at some point I had, I've asked Bertie Snyder,.

14 who is head of our IMI-2 cleanup to ecme -- and Harc1d Centon; t

17 who is the head of NRR -- and they might have scme questions. l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

So -- Bob, would you start I

19 talking.

3 MR. BRCCKSBANK:

Ckay.

{i

• 1 (Pause.)

=

Well, on the bettem there.

2.e swicch in che frent',

O the frcnt and the bottom.

3 (Pause.)

~

• 3 There ycu are.

,,r<

m%

l y:.

?

saar

.*c, 6

f At the onset, gentlemen, let me say that I'm going I

f to keep extremely brief.

It only consists of two vuegraphs I

1 l

plus coversheet.

But the conclusion that I'm going to draw is A

l that the recommendation from Oak Ridge will be the Benning 3

l option is the best option.

And before I do that, I must tell you where I'm 7

l coming from and why these statements are being made.

1 l

Herb, may I have that first --

7 Let me point out that early on in the accident the, i

]

the reactor itself was changed from that of being a power-10 i

11 producing machine to a greater chemical processing plant.

I:

And I wanted to applaud you at this point.

And the, the unit 1

operations involved in doing the cleanup on that kind of la material is considerably different frem what the commercial I.!

sector is used to seeing.

l l

te over the past 30 years we became involved rather 1

17 early, but over the past 30 years we have been handling unit i

is i

operations of this nature, as you know, in many things and --

i l

so that we were. called.upon early on to assist in Three Mile j 19 i

i 20 Island.

Now I am not trying to dwell on these points, but I 11 will read them for you to show what, where we're coming from l

I:

with regards to involvement.

l i

As Harold Denton knows, we did provide emergency

• J on-site assistance to the contaminated air and water effluent control.

We provided consultant conservation to the Kemeny

-vm=

as e M N. L e. ANTT W

0 8

7 I

meer.we.

l Commission.

And all of those things which relate to the dis-i charge and the health and welfare, protecting the health and j 1

i welfare of the general public.

A We also kept very detailed records and a lot of I

books on everything that happened, and that's a matter of a

record.

And we also provided involvement reports in chronology 7

l form to the Presiden.ial Commission.

~

I 8

Now, there are many other areas that the Laboratory provided assistance to the Kemeny Commission, such as instru-i 10 ment diagnostics; but I'll not go into that.

If We have provided Three Mile Island with the analytical 12 chemistry service where unique capabilities are mandated.

We l

13 have provided assistance to the TMI Technical Advisory Group,'

l 14 this group; your information is composed of Ben Russhe, Mark l l

IJ Guise, the former director of, of Savannah River Laboratory, l I

T4 Dick Wa.'. lace, and myself.

l 17 We'veprovidedcontinuousassistanceintheareaofl l

14 high-level water-flow sheet development and verification.

i i

19 Let me point ou;. this point:

that we're still very actively l

22 involved in this, and over the past two months we have spen: !

i I

I It upward of $150,000 to assist Three Mile Island in coming up l

l

\\

O with the characteristics of that flow sheet, in response to C

NRC's demands we're trying to find out what's going to 1

24 happen.

13 We do provide trouble-shcoting service in the event i

c v-e m -

as en,s.s m JTuusr?. s e. amet er

2. J..EmlE

C 8

w8 i

I I

that places like Epicore 2 get in trouble; if the decontamina-tion factor decreases, we do assist them in certain operations I

1 We have been providing input to a recently formed i

i committee that I understand within NRC an understanding 4

that situation at Three Mile Island.

t 4

l In addition to that, we've done a little work with i

7 l

Senator Hart in providing new information and input as a i

8 l

result.of being turned down by the Kemeny Commission.

t I

9 Next slide.

i 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Bob, before you go frca 11 there, how do you tie this to our, the, sort of the question before us?

13 SPEAKER:

Well, I think what he 's pointing out is,

!4 we 've had a loti of background, but he 's very familiar with IJ what went on in the reactor and -- very current and, and --

14 what is that?

I 17 MR. BROOKSBANK:

Now, this won't take but a minute,.

I4 but based on our experience, based on our review of the i

19 existing documents and the various discussions which, with 22 those people who we consider to be experts in the field of II dose assessment and, fully understanding the different i

I:

alternatives, technical alternatives, that are available for i krypton removal, at this time we feel that the best approach 22 to the krypton process would be to prolong, control, venting

• 3 of the containment at=osphere to the environment.

..,-y..,..

~- -

- - - ~ ~ ~

=-

0 9

I s.4:e. s i

l We'd also suggest tha t, as this learning is I

accomplished, that trained independent groups -- and I think i

1 this is going en at the present time -- actually measured L

l that background, off the island, and continued safety at the J

TMI site.

Entry into the containment is necessary for i

4 equipment maintenance and radiation survey.

T l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Could I ask you a couple of 1

questions on that?

i l

9 MR. BROOKSBANK:

Yes, sir.

10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

When you say the experts in the 11 field of doses, that's meant to give me some sense of --

12 MR. BROOKSBANK:

Yes, sir, Commi::sioner.

When it II comes to people.with my background, I have two.hings to go la by:

one are the MPCs and the regulations that you provide, i

i IJ as a limit.

I'd also have to refer to the very specialized i

!4 field.

I have to refer to experts for that information, justl l'

back up.

I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, but are you saying that --

l 19 is your, are your set of conclusions here that they stay j

D within the MPCs, or are --

l 1

Il MR. BROOKSBANK:

Sir, I am not willing to address i

the subject of dose assessment.

What I have done is to defer!

O this question to John Auxier; he's the division director of i

04 our safety and -- physics -- and, and has worked on the dose 1

1 l

2 assessment business for Three Mile Island to get his, his l

!afuuma, tense. 'dgumsfone h. mat as sun,ves m svuum=. s e. as,rr w 3 4. m

s.az..c.

10 j

I l

opinion.

I 1

i I can't address that question.

I I

i i

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

No, no.

i 4

Say again who that was:

John --

l MR. BROOKSBANK:

Auxier, A-u-x-i-e-r.

4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

And he is --

I T

{

MR. BROOKSBANK:

He 's the division director of the

{

I Oak Ridge National Laboratory Safety and Applied Health Physids i

i 7

Division.

I 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay.

1 r

Ii l

Now, when you say a " prolonged" control venting, I

12 then what is the -- by the word " prolonged," what did you have l

13 in mind?

l f4 MR. BROOKSBANK:

Over a period of time, based on IJ the same background that you're giving in your environmental

!4 assessment.

17 l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

But for example, in the environ-I I4 mental assessment we have proposed two alternatives, one which 19 was a short and the other which was a long.

And do I concludh i

i M

by your first that you're saying --

II

,, MR. BROOKSBANK:

I don't rake, I don't make the 1

4 5

O distinction, sir.

I just say that in the event that you're going to build the system and take the time to build a safely-

'l designed cualified system to do this, it's going to take 2

~

longer than the venting that's been p;

.n ed, regard'ess of 1

1

' m rumane.'( m fne agyse,quan, ear.

as sunrves m JTuuz=. t e.

asses er w a. 4. ma

~.

w a

== n.s 1 1 t

i I

I I

i the --

2 l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay.

Now, on the point number 2, i

1 l

you say venting should be accomplished without increase of the i

natural background.

t l

I'm sorry I, I,

I'm having difficulty with it.

But 0'

I could see you're saying one of two things.

Either you could i

say that when you vent, the amount vented should be so low i

f that you couldn't detect an increase over the natural back-3 ground; or two, that you should vent only when you have seen I0 that there is no major fluctuation in the natural background.

II Or maybe there's a third interpretation.

II MR. BROOKSBANK:

I didn't, I didn't make that dis-13 tinction.

That recommendation was made by our folks working k

l in, in, for NRC at the Laboratory.

And that merely means U

i that these individuals who have been trained by DOE or NRC, l

Id who's ever training them; I'm not sure -- do not detect.any, U

any background.

i I4 I

But those instruments are being given to check.

1

.d -

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Bob, could I as'k you:

3 Without necessarily disagreeing with your conclu-U sions here, we're talking about a project whien was originally I

started to deal with precisely the kind of situation we're

~

=w talking about, or pretty close.

MR. BROOKSBANK:

Yes.

l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Are you saying that that e

n

,.mc m

)

men. an.==. same. s, narn

l

_u 4. a-

.. - - ~.

__,,-e

O p-

.i saca:.we.

,i

.i

,I didn't make any sense?

I MR. BRCOKSBANK:

Oh, no.

i (Pause.)

A COMMISSIOliER GILINSKY:

Then how do you connect up 4

l the two?

Did --

4 MR. BROOKSBANK:

My presentation with what Scb is T

saying about --

l f

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I wasn't addressing I

9 myself specifically to precise details of, of, of what we 10 i

would have to do to employ the technique new.

But what I'm i

asking you, are you saying that it really doesn't -- given I

these certain amounts of krypton, it doesn't make any sense 12 to have developed. techniques to deal with them?

I MR. BROOKSBANK:

Oh, no.

No, sir.

l la i

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Or is it just the time l

element in, in employing --

f4 I

IT MR. BROOKSBANK:

I think the time element, Ccm-is missioner, is the thing that concerns me.

There's a need to.

19 f

develop better krypton absorption capabilities for the i

i

C reprocessing sector.

And that's how Dr. Merryman's worked t

I

• 1 that --

l l

CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But not truly after acci-

=

dents?

• 4 SPEA'CR:

Ch; ch, yes.

• 3 DR. MERRYMAN:

It was locked at.

If I might make e.

ci m

m. m -

l

. - - ~....

t

. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ ~ _

e 13 I

I i

comment:

it was looked at early on.

But for our situation, I

i where the fuel would be in equilibrium -- value when the inventory of the radio -- would be certainly greater than eve A.

it, than the levels ever achieved in the TMI-2 core.

3 And in addition, the time tnat has elapsed since thd 6

TMI-2 incident has allowed a lot of the -- well, allowed the 7

xenons, for example, that were present, substantially decay..

I i

I 1

And I think that certainly in the early days when we consider a mobile unit for dealing with reactor postaccidert 10 cleanup situations, the ground rules were fully equilibrated a

11 i

core full inventories and total releases, and fairly quick 12 response time sorts of things, so that the --

1:;

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And you expect to deal with 14 a variety of isotopes --

t2 DR. MERRYMAN:

Well, we have lcoked at the original l t4 work that we did many years ago, sculpting calculations and I

I 17 studies, and conceptual-type studies and designs were based is on a response to the incidental event.

A few days where the i

19 xenons were contributors.

i

c CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

You said the first week is --

I U

DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes, that's right.

That's correct.

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

t

,i

=

DR. MERRYMAli:

And it's far different than the

• 4 situation that exists at this point in time in PMI-2, because

• 3 of the icwburn-up and then the elapsed time.

=. m

- - sr

. i,..==.

J. 4. m

o 14 t

mee r. %

I i

I l

MR. BROOKSBANK:

That's, that's all I have.

Thank I

you.

t i

1 l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Thank you.

l i

L (Pause.)

l -

DR. MERRYMAN:

I have several vuegraphs that I'd I

3 l

4 like to show that respond to the request that Congressman T

l Ertel made of Mr. D -- and Commissioner Gilinsky.

I I

f CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Ah.

Could I take a moment pause?

t f

~I (Laughter.)

i.

10 l

This is a vote to hold on less than one week's i

II i

notice.

i.

12 DR. MERRYMAN:

All.right.

f 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

We are, it is now a formal I4 Commission, you see, because we are now at a quorum of the i

tJ Commission.

l I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Certainly, in terms of I

C weight.

14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Go ahead.

I l

C 19.

f l

DR. MERRYMAN:

To give you just a little background l, M

we had, have been involved in this program for a number of years, particularly in a variety of applications, most l

f O

recently just as indicated here, we've been looking at the O

fuel reprocessing applications.

2 We had icoked at others up, early on.

l 2

During the censideratiens of cleanup activities l

_ _m v.m.m.

4

-~.s..,..

w naz.wa.

9e i

I I

associated with TMI-2, we did have a revival of interest in I

l the possibility of using this particular technology first of i

4 I

all for, in a_ generic sense, not necessarily in the TMI-2 cleanup, but then most recently as a part of the TMI-2 cleanup t

itself.

I But we've had some discussions with various people, s i I

l wondering about the possibilities of that and have provided 8

i the Department of Energy in January of this year with an j

i estimate they requested of the time and cost to put together a

,f mobile processing unit for the Three Mile Island Two cleanup.

10 So after considering that in the light of other II information, a visit was made from the Congressman and by IU Commissioner Gilinsky, as you're all well aware, to Oak Ridge I4 last Saturday to have some discussiens wi.th us and also to see the test unit, the power-plant unit that has been in

'd i

i l

M operation recently.

l U

As a result of that visit, the Congressman asked i

I8 first that we make some scoping calculations of decontamination I

I

.A factors, processing times, and so forth -- with, system-sizedi i

M at our pilot plant level, which is 15 standard cubic feet per U

minute.

At also at 10 times that, which was reccmmended as al l

very safe extrapolation.

U That is, he was interested in indicating the range,

1 of reductions and times and so forth that fall within these criteria.

l 1

_ vemmac.s Mpuersum. %

l

.,, - ~..

a.-

l

f O

8 s mx.%

16

\\.

I l

The Congressman also asked that we make some ball-2 park estimates of the schedules, the cost, the problems, and f l

so forth, the interfaces -- associated with those two cases:

A l

one, using a 15 scf system, perhaps even our test unit itself f

f or portions of it; and secondly, the 150 scf --

4 But we, we told him that we thought even a rough 7

l look off the top of our head sort of thing would require a i

3 couple of weeks.

9 He was interested in an answer today, and so what'wg 10 agreed to do and tried to do this week, what we've concentrated i

l on this week we've shown in this vuegraph here.

II I:

We have, first of all, made the calculations that 13 he indicated, showing various tradeoffs and options and so IA forth.

And one, decontamination factors, flow rates, processc t

I!

ing time, and so forth, i

!4 We have made an initial evaluation of the appl!.ca-17 bility of our pilot plant equipment for incorporation into 14 some system for TMI-2.

And we have identified primary issues, 19 problems, and so forth in implementing the system, our new 23 system.

11 (Pause.)

t The first point that was raised was the issue of j

T*

tradeoffs among DFs and the processing time and so forth.

M That's illustrated here, where the containment vessel activity

• 2 is plotted versus the processing times of any kind of a in m

m-

.--.6.

-_a.$==

1

C s.ac.s 17 r

6 I

l process.

And the parameter here is flow rate.

Again, the 15 t

s i

is the pilot plant.

We 've been concentrated in the 15 to 150 '

i scf --

i A

(Pause.)

J I think one conclusion we've drawn frem, frem this 4

chart just as a matter of, just as a judgment matter, was T

that --

3 CHAIBMAN AHEARNE:

Now, on -- in this operation, 9

for example, you've got -- if you're using the 15 one, at thel 10 end of the lower righthand side, what is that?

175?

i i

li DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes, 175 days --

12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Days --

I DR. MERRYMAN:

there would still be over 10 per-l l

I4 cent, 15 percent, or something like that.

I I

IJ CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay, now.

This is on the -- is.!

l I

I4 this a pass to the atmosphere?

Or recycling back to the l

17 containment?

l IS DR. MERRYMAN:

We'll, as I, as I can show on this 19 l

next vuegraph, it's for all practical purposes either one.

22 This vuegraph shcws the same information in a l

Il little different way.

Here I plotted reactor volumes process) i versus the containment vessel decontamination factor.

O Here the parameter is for some of the lines, is the.

Il process decentamination factor.

If it's a recycle frem con-

~2 tainment through the process back to the centai. ment.

mn n

e., m.<.

., - mier. s.. =m =

b & 4.1mus

L s

nor m 19 I

i And as ycu can see, for significant process decon-I tamination factors, a hundred or greater, that'ssubstantiallq I

I i

the same relationship that exists with an infinitely efficient' i

I L

process.

Power was just pumping it right out of the vessel l

l 5

and into the atmosohere, so this upper line is the, is also 4

applicable to a once-through case, even with no decontamina-I tion.

This is the depletion line for krypton in the contain-3 l

ment vessel as a function of reactor vol'mes processed, for u

i 9

example, en a bleed-and-feed type of operation.

10 CHAIEMAN AHEARNE:

Can I see the previous chart?

P 11 DR. ME2RYMAN:

Certainly.

II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, just as a, as a working l

1:

number, what, what level of activity do you have to, does it i

la have it to get dcwn to, to get dcwn to MPC?

IJ (Pause.)

l

\\

t I4 Bernie, do you kncw?

i 17 MR. SNYDER:

Yes, we're just figuring -- we were i

I4 just looking at this.

The MPC is 1 times 10 for workers.

~

i l

19 I believe that's correct.

i M

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, but this --

l l

II MR. SNYDER:

And it figures out to 99 --

l r

CHA:Fl4AN ARIARNE:

Well, wait.

We're talking 10 toi the --

MR. SNYDER:

I think it works cut about a thcusand, P hook it up.

l

-w no

,wam.m. %

l

,- - ~...,,,..,

L 19 t

,.ag v.a, i

(

I MR. SNYDER:

Yeah, it's a thousand days with a 15 l

1 i

cfm system.

I t

DR. MERRYMAN:

Another way -- yes, for the 15 it's t

l my understanding that on this chart it's somewhere close to 5

12 5

l 10.

It's something like 8 times 10 on other decontaminaticin.

But to put it in perspec~l -

4 MR. SNYDER:

Yes.

Right.

i 7

tive, it works out to be 1,065 days from --

l 8

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay.' So if you run the hundred I

9 days, the 15 cubic foot, you are -- is this, it starts at the To l.

roughly 57, 50, 60,000?

I r

it i

DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes, sir.

l2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay.

13 So you're down to what?

Around 20,000 at the end ta of a hundred days?

I IJ DR. MERRYMAN:

Something like that.

f4 MR. SNYDER:

We calculated it as just a straight-i r

i 17 forward exponential case.

la i

We calculated it at 15 cfm.

In 64 days you can i

l' 19 reduce the concentration about 50 percent, as far as the full.!

i 23 time, now.

11

[

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

Yes.

No, I -- yes.

This ;

is run time.

Yes.

• 2 (Pause.)

• 2 Okay.

Thank you.

Im,uunne. '#Wunatone h M l

as estte m Jg'me?. L e, sauft w

& 4. m

o i

c.ar c.

20_

I I

Well, et some point will it be possible to get j

1 copies of these.

DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes, I think we 've got a couple of i

L copies --

3 (Pause.)

4 This is a summary of 15, 50, and 150 standard cubic 7

feet per minute and the weeks of processing time required to 3

l achieve the indicated removals.

And again, this is a summarf l

l 9

of what I, what we said earlier.

I0 I

.And I think a point that I'm going to make later, Ii when I talk about the pilot plants:

one point is that in our 12 judgment 15 is too low a flow rate to really be -- you've got 1:

to have the desire to kind of, kind of impact.

14 l

That's a judgment that's based on looking at numberN (J

such as what I've illustrated on these three vuegraphs.

i I

s It CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Although actually, I guess that j i

17 the judgment on whether'or not that's an appropriate thing i

la would really won't be ours to --

I i

19.

i i

DR. MERRYMM:

Certainly, I'm, I guess I have to 20 apologize --

i Il CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

No, no, that 's okay, Dec -- no. !

t O

DR. MERRYMAN:

-- if I cross-number a little bit.

O CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

No, I,

I just felt obli-14 gated to make that point.

DR. MERRYMAN:

Both the Cc=missioner Gilinsky and in n

ainnwa L

as e aw.m., ruer, s. e-em ar l

J. f. m i

~ ^ ~ ~ ^

.-.e o

e

. ~.

maar.%

21 i

1 I

l Congressman Ertel were very gracious; and Saturday, listening I

to us recommend the vent case, on more than one occasion i

And!

I so I think that's a matter of record.

l But perhaps a later L

l vuegraph might really be a little more persuasive about the 1

i e

appropriateness of the size of the thing.

I 6

Okay.

We, we feel like then we have,.we view the i

7 possible combinations that may be of interest; and so the nextk 3

thing that we, that we did was attempt to start answering 9

questions of, about project approach and content and scope 10 and feasibility and problems and that sort of thing.

li 1

And to do that we, we did look at basic system II requirements.

Now previously, as I've mentioned earlier, we 10 had looked at a. mobile unit at the request of DOE.

And that !

la I

unit was 275 scfm unit.

It was fully mobile.

We looked at I

IJ l

an option where it was to be licensable and another option l

1

!4 i

where it might not be.

I 17 The request that was made Saturday was to essential y 18 take another look to see if there are innovative approaches i-19 '

t to less than the full complete job, maybe not fully mobile 1

M l

Well, that's the sort of thing we tried to start addressing l

U l

this week; and this is a very crude schematic of the selectivh

~

absorption process.

i

~

~

t The spark, the most, in its spartan configuration

'A that we envision as being appropriate for this particular I

'J application.

j f

.nv m=

a 6 tas,M N. L e. as,9T 'W

._g

\\

seer.%

22 l

t CHAIPRAN AHEARNE:

Well, are you going to comment on.

scme of the features of it, or --

l DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes, sir.

I am.

Probably more than L

you, more dan you want to hear.

i I

t (Laughter.)

i 1

This is essentially the same vuegraph on here; f

I've!

I l

tried to divide that into its major subsystems:

the feed 1

preparation subsystem, krypton separation subsystem product I

9 treatment subsystem, product storage subsystem, solvent i

to treatment subsystem, vent gas treatment subsystem, and gas II l

maintenance subsystem.

i I

Now, what I'd like to do next is go through each of 4

l these and list some of the issues and some of the major i

I4 hardware items and so forth,

.I again recognizing that this is l

4 12 just a cross-cut after about a week of looking at it again; l

14 and I will point out a couple of places where this differs l

C from the system we looked at earlier --

14 The feed preparation subsystem is the first one in !

19 ~

that group.

This is where the gas enters from the reactor l

M building.

i The primary function is to filter, drive, and 1

.z press through the meter in the feed gas.

Major equipment l

items are banks of heater filters, l

reversing heat exchangers :

O for taking the bulk of the water out, gas compressor, gas

'A cooler, and its associated refrigeration system, molecular sieve beds, fer appropriate finishing of the drying the bar l

= c v

1 -.

=

o 23 rw c.

l I

4 i

storage things which I'll mention in a second.

The process of the operator requirements are to then provide eccl gas at f approximately minus-30 degrees F. and 150 pounds, which is i

A part of the conditioning under which the krypton is abscrbed 3

in the unit.

I 4

One consideration that entered our thinking is that 7

l because of the possibility of treating it under perhaps other 3

radionucleides we think the design consideration would be the l

9 collection and the containment of all the water that is to l

removed; and that's the few hundred gallons that's going to i

Ii be taken from this gas stream.

1 (2

l The molecular sieves also might be contaminated, 1:

l might become contaminated during its operation; and that is I

ta the, that parti'cular hardware design might aisc require tha: l t.!

kind of consideration.

l f4 CHAIRMAN AHE.U.NE:

Given the a= cunt of water we have 17 there already and all of the resins and everything we're

}

i i

It cellecting, and yet there's no --

l I

19 '

(Pause.)

DR. MERRYMAN:

Certainly, a water tank is not a, l

21 not a formidable, yarticularly formidable task.

Eut again,

=

if you don't think of --

f l

C CHAIEMAN AHEARNE:

Sure.

Nc.

Right.

• 2 DR. MERRYMAN:

you need it, why, you 'd shut doc.

the --

co,<

% x l

- ~.,

l

'7 canz.w 24

~

l l

The heart of the process is a krypton separation l

2 column, where the krypton is removed from the gas concentrated!.

i I

There the, our tentative thinking is that an appro-4 l

priate design criteria would include a, a target decontamina-I tion factor for that column of 10 and a concentration factor 4

4 on the order of couple times 10, at least I mentioned before.

7 l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

What are the factors for your 8

pilot project?

\\

l 9

DR. MERRYMAN:

We've achieved, in the pilot plant

• 10 we've achieved another factor of 10 on the decontamination If factor.

The coricentration factor there is about as good as 12 we've seen routinely.

There is a margin; only we didn't I

I I

13 execute our level of decontamination.

l la CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Why -- well, what makes this end

!J up only a factor of a hundred in this crude spartan system?

I4 Why do you lose the factor of 10?

17 DR. MERRYMAN:

Well --

l 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Those are the conservative 11 '

estimates, j

22 DR. MERRYMAN:

The conservative estimate.

And it's' also one of the charts that I showed earlier indicated that 2

if it's a recycle situation, the significance between 10 andi O

infinite decentamination factor is varied insignificant 1y.

1 IA So it's almost a nonissue once you get about 10' 3

for the recycle.

mm nm.

~ m s

-==,= m n==. s m.

_ss

o s.am.s 29 I

I i

I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

I I

t DR. MERRYMAN:

The next subsystem that I'd like to i t

i answer is the vent gas treatment subsystem.

This subsystem I

occurs between the krypton separation problem and either the J

vent or, or the reactor if the recycle is, is employed.

4 Here, particularly in the case of recycle, the I

primary consideration is removal of small amounts of --

3 l

vapor, refrigerant 12, difluoro-di-cloro, which might be 9

recycled.

So one difference between this, this carticular,

to design we've been looking at this week and the one we looked II at earlier in the year is that we have a more elaborate II system than the earlier one.

I:

This one is more the straightforward approach, and I4 you just put it in a condenser to achieve a bulk of the I

tJ removal with this associated refrigeration system.

And then l t

l' td we re supplementing that with molecular sieve beds to remove 17 remaining traces, and the operating design point is to get i

is that to, a part per million or less.

j I

19. '

(Pause.)

i i

• • 2 The solvent treatment system, the function there is i

3 i

a straightforward, is just to pump up the solvent, ecol it, i

meter it, and purify it prior to returning it to the absorbar:

O column.

The solvent icop is a closed lcep.

Here this parti-

'l cular design that we're looking at now is very simple, in that the purification unit is simply the molecular sieve bed.

i w

c %

.-e.

[

c-z-~-

o l

sema:.w M

5 I

We don't anticipate the long enough run times or substantial enough burdens of other contaminants or to really i

T get much beyond that for that particular case.

Other versions i

have fairly, can have very elaborate systems --

t Again, though, one consideration is disposing of I

4 i

those sieves.

There's a possibility of some accumulation --

i I

(Pause.)

J' I

Getting now into what I think is one of the more 9

uncertain areas of this whole business, look at what happend i

10 with the krypton as it comes off of the hollow.

Again, the II l

concentration factor is on the order of 2 times 10 So C

krypton, for example, might be increased from one part per i

million to 2 percent in the stream going off --

I4 The remaining material in that stream is primarily I'

i i

xenon and carbon dioxide.

One issue is that if it's a once- :

M through application, and if the link-up gas into the reactor '

7 is air, atmospheric air, then there will be a fair amount of 14 carbon dioxide that will continue to be introduced into the l

19 i

system.

It should be dealt with.

U Here an approach was, assumed that would basically U

concentrate the krypton further, with one step of cold I

trapping preceded by some molecular sieve trapping to remove l U

the refrigerant-12 vapors.

That is very important from the N

technical standpoint, because of uncertainties associated with the radiolytic decomposition of a s conta hed in.

~~

l2 mwe%

l asinwetesamm a. amurr.s,e. mars er 3

y m

e

O t

27 I

saar.ec.

I e

I storage cylinders for long periods of time.

The uncertainty stems f cm the unkncwn, unstudied, perhaps cerrosion implica-l 4

}

tions:

chlorine and steel.

l So that's, that's the reason for the incorporation t

of a molecular sieve trap to remove those vapors.

A little 4

background to that chart:

this is a rcugh understanding of i

7 l

what the present inventories might'be in that contaminant in 3

I terms of cubic feet of total krypton.

)

9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

If you eliminated that cold trap,,

l would that assist in any way in the system?

Put aside for a 10 i

minute -- let us assume for a mcment that there is no problemd Ii i

12 with radiolytic deccmposition and~~ corrosion.

And you see, yod is l

don't need that la DR. MERRYMAN:

The molecular sieves would -- pro-l t,!

vided you take care of the refrigerant vapor -- the cold trapl r

i te sort of provided to remove most of this.

The imolication in l

l 17 removing most of the xenon and carbon dioxide is to reduce j

14 the storage containers that might --

t 19 l'

(Pause.)

l j

n It's an uncertainty.

As I can point cut later, the 11 criteria for storage of the krypton 85 is one of the main uncertainties in my judgment, because as I've illustrated j

here, it penetrates back into the design of the system itself.

4 So it's not just a question of do I order one cylinder or 10

~.2 cylinders or a hundred cylinders?

It's associated with do we'

<=w e e SassTM. N. &

• marTT "W m-

0 p.az.ee.

28

~

I i

I need this kind of trap or some other kind of trap?

But there !

e I

will be an obvious simplification when you have one less item '

i i

to, to fool with.

But that's not a particularly decisive one.

I think a couple of points that this makes, first of all, if the system is once-through, then there is an argument

~

for.either using something like nitrogen just make a -- to l

l

?

avoid the CO introduction.

Or perhaps if areas require to, 2

3 j

equipment taking out CO pri r to putting it in to the 2

9 reactor.

I IO l

This also is an argument for the continuous recycl-4 II ing case, I suspect.

!2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I guess if you get enough refill i

IU of the project,. Jim, then at some later stage you'd have to la recycle through' the -- in order to get the atmosphere of --

i M

i atmosphere, i

Id DR. MERRYMAN: - I'm sorry; I didn't hear.

t U

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

If you use nitrogen as a makeup, 14 are talking about makeup into the containment?

I9 DR. MERRYMAN:

That's one possibility that --

j

• 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes, but then you, then ycu, f

l U

you've traded one problem of entry to another problem of l

e' entry.

O MR. FEINROTH:

Again, you don't have as mud

'l storage to worry abcut in the design of the system as long as you can perhaps design a simpler substorage system, rnvn%

. un,n. -__sner.. s.

=c

---x4.m

e naz.s 29 I,

1

\\

l I

Later on, you just will take some nitrogen with air I

so you'd have the oxygen.

i 1

i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

l l

MR. FEINROTH:

That's the only way you could.

1 (Pause.)

s DR. MERRYMAN:

Again, this is just a --

I l

(Pause.)

3

[

The product storage, the class area there, really I

f unknown in my judgment.

I would assume it would be something i

10 like metal containment or the shielding and improving for IT l

rather long-term protection in the storage.

I-If those are pressurized cylinders, which is what I

4 has been looked,at for the most part over the years, then 14 compression wou'ld be required and, of course, the appropriate i

i IJ cylinders and storage gas and what not.

j I

The gas makeup we talked about previously, and so Il I4 U

won't dwell on it.

This is the issue --

.t 14 It might be nitrogen, in which case you would have 19 to do something lighter.

Or it might be the absorber recycle.

20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Wait!

II (Brief discussion.)

l 2

(Laughter.)

(Pause.)

M DR. MERRYMAN:

This last vuegraph in terms of a 2

statement of just what this process might lock like is just w

l e immsve, m sruarr, t e. marra w i

.-.3, O

9

..ag *c.

30 l

I really it's not a very specific one.

It just says that once i

a design is selected, obviously you have to --

j SPEAKER:

The power is out.

L DR. MERRYMAN:

-- the various utilities.

Okay.

With that background, then, we did take a, a 4

look at the second question that was asked last week; namely, 7

just how applicable might the pilot plant itself be for this 3

particular task?

i 7

One of the first things we did was to look at the-p to subsystems and hardware items that I have shown you in the I!

previous charts, and then --

I:

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Let me'back off one step:

i l

13 one suggestion had been:

could you just pick up la your pilot plant and move it up -- and install it?

i IJ

.MR.EEUIIII:

That's what this is going to look at.I t

!4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, bu t --

l l

C DR. MERRYMAN:

This vuegraph --

I IS CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

this'would be the availabilit1I i

i9 of the whole pilot plant, is my question.

It MR. PENNINGTON:

When he says portions of the pilot; Il plant would be needed in the application at TMI, what would O

be missing if they did that, is what this is.

What would be O

missing in TMI --

l 22 DR. MERRYMAN:

You mean, what wouldn't be needed?

'J MR. ?ENNINGTON:

No.

'ihat else would be needed --

w

m. einer m e 4Muf'FM, ff'HE*. L e. W,PW T

._. u -

o 31 seer.we.

I l

DR. MERRYMAN:

Let me try to explain what this, what; I

i this is.

i i

I MR. PENNINGTON:

Okay, I'm missing some too.

A DR. MERRYMAN:

This is what would be required, in I

cur judgment, for this spartan system of TMI-2.

This is what 6

we don't have, no; and the X is what we do have in our pilot I

plant.

1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

In other words, if you cannibal-9 ized your power plant.

IC DR. MERRYMAN:

If you cannibalized your power plantj i

II all you would get is -- and you would get that for the 15 SCF$

I7 case.

I II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

I4 DR. MERRYMAN:

As was indicated with an X, here.

I!

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I'm sorry, Bob.

I really missed,!

l 1

l I4 something.

Let us suppose that you weren't putting in a I

i I~

spartan system.

If you had, if you hooked up your pilot l

I la plant, you need these additional items -- they're not in your,!

i 19 pilot plant, j

U M

DR. MERRYMAN:

These things do not exist.

The II pilot plant is an experimental --

O CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

All right, that was --

l O

DR. MERRYMAN:

It only has approximately half of Il the __

'J CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I see.

Ckay.

Fine.

That's I

,,.m v

u

32 rusz.*c.

I i

l t

what I was going to say.

1 i

DR. MERRYMAN:

And I might point cut also that in j

f I

t 1

I terms of the larger system, larger than 15, the only thing a

that we have is, that would be applicable that you cculd 3

cannibalize, ao to speak, would be some of the instrumentation.

4 Admittedly, some of that is --

7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Now I have to start reading the c

End T-1 3

chart,.because I was more interested --

I

.apa 2:

9 DR. MERRYMAN:

For the most part.

That means that i

to once we get it dry'. we don't need to have a lot of those drying systems, for example, so we don't have the reversing 11 i

12 heat exchangers.

We don't heat filters.

We have no require-13 ment for that.. We don't need the elaborate feed preparation i

14 subsystems.

We' don't have any vent gas treatment, since we i

i

!J just recycle back in.

l The solvent treatment that we have is ccmolete in id 1

i 17 terms of its major components.

On the other hand, the product t'

la treatment, product storage is that we don't have anything of,

l 19 that capability; nor do we have anything that speaks to j

l

D maintaining the makeup into the reactors.

l

1 (Pause.)

Okay.

And so, I guess the concerns, then,weendedl I

)

O up with about relocation of the pilot plant to TMI-2 and l

22 incorporation of the test unit as part of the krypton removal l

l

• 2 system there are su:=narized here.

i.

farguna,emmae.'dgman m e h 'sw.

as immves m f,uusf. L e. amTt 'er L & &. Ems

o

=

se.s 33

.s l

I First, as we said a moment ago, only half of the l

I things that yet. would need for the TMI-2 application are even i

available in our pilot plant.

Some of what is available, particularly the refrigeration systems are old, some of them I

go back to the first pilot plant which -- I assume the --

4 probably started up in 1968 --

I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

But the fact that they're, that i

3

{

they're old is that being you have concern about the continu-l 9

ing working, or --

1 IO f

DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes, absolutely.

I would, if I had II to pinpoint the, the availability problem with our particular I~

hardware, that would be the --

I7 f

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Are you saying that when you run Id your pilot plant, you have problems with it, or --

i d

DR. MERRYMAN:

We have -- in the past, that's been !

I l

I4 a frequent -- if I had t.he list of things that we 've had the j I'

most frequent trouble with, that was far and away the main I8 item.

19 That is important in the experimental environment, i i

M I would definitely, I'd recc= mend the old units that we have l l

U for any kind of -- what kind of - when you run your pilot l

i' plant, do you -- for what period of time do you run it con-

~

O tinuously?

Ws, E5P.?EhE most part, start it up or run it for the most part five days a week.

The start-ups and shut-dcwns n

sim l

l O

r r ar.s 1a l

l for each weekend.

I l

1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Twenty-four hours a day, 25 days.

1 l

DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day.

L CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay.

J Now, on typical weeks then, what is the percentage i

of the time that's up?

l I

j DR. MERRYMAN:

I can't answer that.

3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Just, just rough.

I f

DR. MERRYMAN:

Large, larga availability.

l 10 CHAIRMAN AHEAPNE:

Well, then, the refrigeration if system is getting old, if you're taking it down that much.

!7 j

DR. MERRYMAN:

If they're lifted out and moved and I3 all that.

I4 There's a weak spot that we, when we tried to just t

e IJ j

say --

I l

I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

Yes.

I7 DR. MERRYMAN:

Yet a lot of this comes down to just, e

14 engineering judgment.

l I?

l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Sure.

Sure.

i M

DR. MERRYMAN:

And we, looked at it and took our bes

• l shot at it, why, that's sort of how that should happen.

O CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Now, the third bullet means --

O DR. MERRYMAN:

The third bullet says that other

• 2 items that might be available, such as the column itself, at

'J least as to the extent that we know --

=v m %

as 13,Re Gaspre. JHueF. E e agrTT 1W i

J.4..uum

0 l

m.ag % '35 i

(

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I see.

Yes.

l DR. MERRYMAN:

-- what the critical path is, don't

{

appear to be the pacing item.

L l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Right.

So you could get --

e DR. MERRYMAN:

So we don't, we don 't see any schedul'e 4

l advantage.

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

4 l

DR. MERRYMAN:

From some of the initial vuegraphs 9

5 I've showed, we've, again our judgment 15 rate is lower than 10 what we would argue or consider to be a practical minimum.

II j

We think maybe 50 would be about as low as we would consider go as a minimum.

13 And certainly, I don't think that anyone could I#

assert cost statements.

t (J

i l

(Brief discussion.)

l T4 i'

DF

...ctAN : - And the system is not designed for I

relocation.

I might elaborate on that.

There are a number 14 of sample parts and thermocouple wells and things like that.

19 l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

That is a question I had.

I, I,;

1 in reading through your, your proposal, itwasclearthatyouj I

3 had at some stage in mind building a system that could go

-~

from place to place.

DR. MERRYMAN:

Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I wasn't sure to what extent in 3

putting ycur pilot plant ::gether you would use that philosophy.

mw,-m. % -.

es e samm*W. N.Le Elr*T '#

w l

s 36 l

s.ar e.

I I

DR. MERRYMAN:

To no extent.

To no extent.

i (Pause.)

i, 1

Well, our bottem line conversion, then, is that we a

have, we just don't see that the pilot plant itself is useful 3

in this particular situation.

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

What, I just don't read that 7

l fast.

4 Ch, that's the same -- okay.

9 DR. MIRRYMAN:

Yes.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

10 CH. AIRMAN AHEARNE:

I thought you had put on a new 11 slide.

1:

(Brief discussion.)

1:

DR. MERRYMAN:

Well, so then we began to look at, 14 okay, prepped with them, I guess if we back up, we began to IJ icok at the third question that was raised:

what are some of!

p to the issues, concerns, and so forth, associated -&h. with I

i 17 doing a new system or perhaps a new one that, of a largar l

la size, or maybe even for 15 cubic foot per mirute size; and so, 6

19 these are seme of the issues that we've been able to turn up '

S just in thinking about it. fer the last few days.

II I might say that..in, in my judgment these types of O

issues require resciution or some kind of guidance or at j

l O

least scme kind of roadmapping through them before any t'

M credible or responsible estimate can be prorided en cost and

• l

'J

[

schedule for a situation such as this.

t l

l l

i

'souma.fuensa. Venenvous h as l

l

o w.%

37 I

1 I

l Firstandforemostisthecriteriaforthekrypton8f I

storage.

I don't know pressure constraints, the curie con-I straints, the -- basic design assumptions are, are not available, as far as I'm aware.

Thesecond--it'saveryimportantpoint--concerhs 4

the basic objectives and criteria which govern the project j

I scope, schedule, and so forth --

3 SPEAKER:

Is Section 8 of the ASME Code adequate?

)

t 9

Or does it have to --

IO What is the target DF for the containment building?

4 II Is it the 8 times 10 7 Or what?

What are the regulatory II requirements?

Does this have to be all of the hardware cate-4 gories and se forth?

14 Just the kinds of things that, that are important i

i in projecting a credible real-world type of, type of schedule}

U I4 Almost equally important are assumptions and so forth regard ;

I7 ing responsibilities for the tech spec and for the design,

• I8 for the approval cycle procurement, instruction, andoperatiop

[

I?

and the interfaces of known potential participants involved: '

l M

DOE, NRC, architect engineers,, t e utilities, and so forth.

h U

Procurement is always of considerable concern because it tends to be the thing that you don't have under O

your entire control.

l Now, what this is, is a very cursory thing based

~J en just a few days' evaluation, a very cursery leck at what

.un

,.u m -

l

4. 4. M as e m fransur. s e. amer *w

- ~..

y

e rear e.

38 i

our current experience is, through our regular procurement actions.

And buying some of the hardware that is included in the major equipment items.

A CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

So that's -- let's take the J

heater filters.

You have 10 to 12 months.

i DR. MERRYMAN:

That is our current experience, and 7

l combine them for normal --

I l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

But how much of that is the t

I 9

contractual process?

i 10 DR. MER."YMAN:

There's, there are several weeks of II that.

I can't say precisely, but --

!7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Would you give me a rough esti-17 mate on these off-the-shelf items that you'd be getting?

I4 Are they especially constructed?

i i

i IJ DR. MERRYMAN:

No, these are commercially traded l

i l

14 heater filters perhaps -- I don 't know to what extent, you l

17 know, that there are shades of differences.

But generally, 14 they're commercially produced items.

We use them, several i

l 19 ' [

varieties of them in our operations.

j l

t

• t CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

So in theory you could get them li

• 1 a ccuple of weeks.

O DR. MERRYMAN:

I think in practice thar was achieved O

down in Three Mile Island, in --

• 4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Ncw, that then also holds true

• 3 for any of :.hese 1cng-lead hardware items.

• s it that a lot ww,-

asedTt. M N.&*

E8FT'T 'W 1 & jus

39 s.az %

i e

of it is contractual?

I DR. MERRYMAN:

The point, I think, that I was --

I 1

the only point that I was trying to make is that, okay --

A CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

These are problems that have to be looked at, yes.

4 DR. MERRYMAN:

You begin to get an idea of where f

7 l

you need to start working and being --

l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Right.

3 9

DR. MERRYMAN:

Certainly, the heater filter thing' to would be one that you would want to get out and work, because 9

11 its maximum pressure would be another one.

II Well,. let me f.inish this one quickly.

I understand 13 that there may be some uncertainty as to the exact composi-14 tion of the reactor building atmosphere.

And to the extent t!

that there might be sleepers in there, why, that would be weli f4 to know that.

I 17 We're also building issues.

In the short time i

!8 available, why, there is no way for me to really address that,I.

1 i

i 19 But -- so the final, I guess the final report that -

i

S I have is that what we, what we then did was, was try to Il thinx next about the approach that might be taken to go about O

providing the spartan system on a type of project schedule, f

3 project approach that was not, not necessarily orthodox but a, Il the elements of a crash program.

l

• 3 I have not had time, our organization has not had

'avennaemmen. *,gumspus h Imat e 15b,U45 ShfR4m fMEEF. & 8.

EffFT T A&m

o

~

s.ag.%

4n t

4-I time to flesh this out and say, "This means that the theoreti--

I i

cal minimum is next to once."

I But were we to make that kind of an estimate, it l

l would involve these kinds of assumptions.

First, the first f

i thing we would recommend would be to go out and find what is 4

available, borrow the standard items and their availability, I

and actually wait on phrasing the design flow rate until we a

3 canvas the availability of hardware and seeing just what the 7

availability is.

IO And then, on that basis, choose between scmething II like 30 and 150 --

II So the first thing would be to just go out and try I3 to see what some of the procurement problems would be.

The 14 second thing would be -- and perhaps, let me mention, in this firstphasesomeoptionsmightbeplacedtokeepitemsavail-f U

i I

I4 able.

j l

I 7

l Then the second phase would be to actually compare i 14 the checklist and then select the design flow rate and initi ;

i I?

ate design and form the procurement --

l 3

The second thought i,s that it would be appropriate,:

I i

at it would be necessarf under a crash program to negotiate all ;I l

l I

O procurements and contract, rather than to go through the i

precess.

Go out with money in hand --

And then the minimum, and I think there are, there are a lot of the time uncertai-.ty is related to the applicable

.cv l

e sneaun.Jesurr.s e. aswar

l C

naz c.

41 e

I codes and standards.

But certainly I think the minimum that i

I any company like curs would, would recccmend is, is one that i

t i

we feel comfortable with for a, the safety of our own systams and people; and that is, of the accepted industrial standards for housing these materials.

In other words, ceded pressure 4

vessels as appropriate, not necessarily nuclea: stamp; but i

I certainly, we wouldn't compromise belew, anything below i

3 accepted industrial standards --

I f

Now, the big uncertainty there again is this krypien I

i 10

,i storage, which I, I'm sure you have a far better feel than I II i

do about what might be required there with ccdes and se forth.

u II We, the thought to avoid is the idealistic, perhaps, I3 ccmment about no regulatory process delays, But the point is I4 that in a, for a crash program to be successful, determined i

and consensus effort would have to be centinually applied in !

4 I

I I4 that direction.

f I7 And then, as I've indicated earlier, some simplifi-la cations do result from forsaking the idea of making the system I

i 19 mobile and perhaps applicable to other situations.

So I gues',

s M

in conclusion, the information we reviewed Saturday for Dr.

l

• 1 Gilinsky and Ccngressman Ertel, which we had previously pre-j ame vided to the Department of Energy,:.is that fer -he r.cbile

~

unit, ccmplete =cbile unit, 275 SCIM capaci y -- these are

~

the kinds of ecst and schedule estimates that we came up with:

earlier this year -- 0 a uni: that is nce Ocmpletely ncbile

%==.

..,-.--r.3.,

m.

_ua

o e

42 I

raar.%

f a

I l

and of a capacity and range of a hundred CFM, plus or minus 50, we don't have an answer yet on what that might be.

r i

But the minimum time here for the crash program, nou A

l licensable but we estimated this.

J CHAIPMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

Now, in that, let's take 4

the 1 to 2 years, what does that assume in your crash program?

i 7

Does that still assume a significant portion of, let's say, 8 l

3 to 10 months?

I 9

DR. HERRYMAN:

No, it's a negotiated procurements; i

to the scheduled reductions -- and I don't -- I'm not at all t

claiming that there might be it.

But the scheduled reductionii 1I II to the extent that they would occur would result from the l

smaller unit -,and I don't think that's a first-order type 12 t4 of -- would conie from a reduced complexity.

We den't have tJ the same type of vent gas treatment system, but some items j

i would be, would be left out.

l f4 1

17 It would not be a completely mobile unii;.

And in is addition, rather than just negotiating the procurements there if '

might be some opportunities which --

I 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

Yes.

21 DR. MERRYMAN:

It's hypothetical, now, to trade j

I I:

money for time or something -- but this is as far as we were able to.

i A

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

How long do you think it -- and

• 2 I don't know which is the right person to ask -- now long do wri v

l m

0 43 n.au..wa.

I you think it would take to do that estimate?

For the non-i I

mobile hundred plus-or-minus 50 crash program.

l MR. FEINROTH:

Nonlicensable?

L CHAIBMAtt A EARNE:

Nonlicensable.

MR. MINROTH:

What does that mean?

6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

We11, it's ycur turn.

i 7

(Laughter.)

1 CHAIRMAN AHEAPNE:

He defined de set of parameters and then he made an estimate on them.

7 to DR. MERRYMAN:

To do an estimate comparable to the one we did earlier this year would, even on a rough cut basis, t:

would take at least a couple of weeks --

1:

CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let's see:

I thought you 14 did the other one on two days, or something like that.

tJ CR. MERTIMAN:

We, we -- in reviewing the, the l

l l

!4 record of that, of that. time -- we did it a, took a little l

1 17 bit longer than that.

We made a lot of the design drawings la and thet sort of thing.

The basic design assumptions and the.

I l

19 proper days, and then the cost estimators took a little time.,i 3

COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:

Could I ask about those t

21 costs?

I notice in our report it says fcur to ten million l

=

dollars, and it says " Staff estimate."

2. assume that means NRC Staff.

I just wondered hcw ycur 10 cr 15 get translated

[

04 into our fcur to ten.

• 3 Ee you have any idea hcw that, hcw that went?

-c v

c %

• I e e es**4n. N. E e.

an'Pt *e f

- 2. f. Juut

h

.N I

DR. MERRYMAN:

Well, one issue in the time thing is 7

I that we understand that there have been scme reculatory guides 1

for reactor clean-up gas-driven systems that have come out a

recently or something.

And I'm certainly not familiar with them, but I'll look at them before I --

4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, fine.

Let's see if I can !

T break it into pieces.

8 I recognize it's a very rough rule of thumb type 7

numbers.

The actual designing of the, of this mobile systeth

!0 is to -- nonmobile, rather -- to the point where you would be.

r 11 all that you could forgive to go out and negotiate the equip-II ment.

II Is that a period of weeks? months? days? what?

14 DR. MERRY EN:

Oh, okay.

We, it's a period of a I

IJ few months.

I think the, the first days of the proje.c --

Id again, I'm speaking to a great extent on the basis of the

!7 projects that we estimated earlier.

But the first phase, the la tradeoffs and options and the finding out what is available

!?

and so forth, would take a few months.

• C And I believe that's the same response we were II provided last week in terms of making up the list.

~

CHAI3 MAN AHEARNE:

I mean, so, so that's one piece.i

~

O Now, once you've decided the things that you did

• A and recognize that some of it can be going on on a sequentialj

'l basis, woat is the rough range of time you think that it takes nv w%

l

- ~.

o e

medg. sc. 45 I

l to buy all of that? or collect everything?

i Again, are you talking days? weeks? months?

I g

1 l

DR. MERRYMAN:

Well, it'd be months.

But I, to me a

that is the bigges: uncertainty, and I'm not prepared to say i

what that might be, because of the uncertainty abouu the 4

assumptions that we would base that estimata on,.

I T

j CHAIPMAN AHEARNE:

Okay, now -- and again, recognize I

that some of this can be done sequentially and some can be 1

i p

done effectively.

10 What do you think is -- you 've got all the equipment i

11 i

on the site, based upon your experience of putting this stuff 1

together or working with it.

13 l

How long does it take to actually get it up and I

(4 running?

I i

1.1 DR. MERRYMAN:

Well, I think the, the assumption

(

!4 that you provided about.the sequential nature of all of this,,

TT the parallelism that exists is a very crucial one here, becaus!e is we would envision that in any project like this one would do t

19 '

a, take a modular approach and get subsystems assembled and i

i 23 tested and so forth just as rapidly as they could be.

1 And f cm the time when the last piece of hardware l

=

i was available to weld up the remaining piping and activate

=

the system and so forth, I think in a real all-hands type of 1

2A effort would -- one might be able to do that in three to four-2 months' time.

Under idealized conditions related to who does l

l l

1 c

v m.m.s

. - - =. s

.m.

- & & mm

1 46 I

o saar %

I the welding and all of that --

I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What assumptions are you I

I i

making about who's going to be doing all this?

When you, when a

you give us these numbers.

3 DR. MERRYMAN:

Okay.

Let me speak to that.

The 6

concern I have in really providing a concrete estimate is thad 7

our experience base is all I have to go on.

l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

bure.

Now I recognize that.

3 I

9 DR. MERRYMAN:

And that is for a situation where we i

to have enormous shock capabilities and DOE shops there, and we 11 i

got all kinds of qualified welders and all of that.

And I t-have no idea, you know, I'm not saying that the situation I

i I:

might be better, or worse if I were down out in the field l

I 1.

someplace.

I'm just ignorant of what those conditions are.

I t

tJ I don't, I den't know whether one --

I i;

f4 CHAIRMM AHEARNE:

In other words, your estimates i

i 17 are based upon your, your own --

1 I

is DR. MERRYMAN:

My estimates are based upon my own i

19 experience base, and I, I do have concerns about the extrapo-i I

n lation in the situations that I don't know anything abcut.

i

1 I,

I think they're, they're useful perhaps in pre-

=

viding one~ point.on the curve.

Bu t I don ' t kn aw whether to

=

scale up or scale down or, or, or what.

4 But I think that's a. honest opinion of what, wha:

3 it might be, given the circumstances -ha prevai'. in our --

i i

.. aan l

I o

sear.s 47 l

I l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You see any technical I

1 problems in the, in the, in the physical scale?

I DR. MERRYMAN:

In science and engineering and uncertainties and -- no, I think the technology's, is well I

established and has been demonstrated fairly vigorously.

4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

For this factor of 10 that I

j you --

l 3

l DR. MERRYMAN:

Oh, yes.

I, I have, I would have no 9

reservations about that, a factor of 10.

f (Pause.)

IO II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

And you've had previous chance II to question him.

Do you have any --

II l

(Laughter.)

i I4 Did y'ou have any questions come to mind?

IJ COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

You used one phrase that l

M struck me.

You talked about sleepers in tihe containment.

I7 What do you have in mind?

14 DR. MERRYMAN:

Well, again, I was just trying to If indicate what one of my uncertainties -- I don't know what's M

in there.

U COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

I understand, but it, it isn't a concept I've run across before.

What, wnat led you i

to think that there might be anything in there that we should' i

U know about?

DR. MERRYMAN:

Nothing particularly led me to.

I t-,v r.

I m-

e c

n az

.,c.

48 It's just that if there is scmething in there, I would like ta I

I know what it is.

And I think Bob --

i 1

MR. BROOKSBANK:

May I address that?

DR. MERRYMAN:

There's a better person --

MR. BRCOKSBANK:

In the, in looking at this system l

l 4

for this time removal, there are other isotopes which may I

j appear.

We have not had the benefit of looking at all of the, 3

the analyses which have been generated cn the containment 7

atmosphere.

10 Now, let me tell you about a sleeper in, in the l

II water treatment system.

II In the high-level wa*.er treatment systems, once youl 13 l

get rid of the seasoning, the thing that becomes predominant 14 is mainly the antimony 125.

That's a sleeper that needs to IJ be handled in that process I

f4 On the plugged surfaces that we have removed frem I'

Three Mile Island, we are finding on one plug, the lower plug, 1

l 14 the teluriums - what's going to happen to these?

l The teluribs probably became airborne during the l

19 M

accident.

They probably may not ecme off again.

We knew Il that there's an abundance of iodine 29, probably --

l t

1 CCfCIISSIONER BRADFORD:

Would it locate -- where O

will it locate in this system?

He doesn't underline.

That, IA that's a sleeper.

'J I-(Pause.)

.n

%=. %

l e nerv== megn. srumer. s e.

art w I

~...

O e

c.as:

c.

.s 4 I

So I asxed the question just because what was behind!

it was a concern as to whether any of these secrets ought alsci i

to be concerned, as concerned in, in the case of the vending i

options.

Have you got anything that we didn't over there?

I MR. BROOKSBANK:

I am gsing to Three Mile Island 3

tomorrow for a review on the, the high-level x;ter potions.

I l

And at that time I will be picking up the data, relative to 3

all of the gas samples that have been taken that they'll let 9

me have.

10 But I, we have not -- Oak Ridge has not --

i II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

There's no doubt they'll let you II have it, is there?

t 1:

MR. BROOKSBANK:

They will let me have it.

I'm a la member of the Technical Advisory Group.

Yes, they will let d

me have it.

I f

to COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I -- oh, I'm sorry.

I, I,

I I7 I just wondered whether there was anybody here from NRC who I

18 could speak to the storage question.

Perhaps Harold could.

i l

I?.

t And the other point is the worker exposures.

That could be M

reasonably expected.

Operation of the system.

The, there's!

~

i

.l i

an estimate in the environmental report.

And we raised this !

a I

earlier, and I wondered whether any NRC people, who I think

~

l O

l came up with those numbers.

Or were those your numbers?

DR. MERRYMAN:

No, they were the NRC nu=bers, as l

far as I know.

And I have no basis to challenge --

.cv l

m M Shfp4. N. E s.

.sTT "W I

L 4 4. m

0 50 1

rw..c.

I I

l I

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I'd be curious to know what,

2 lies behind them.

l i

MR. VOLLMER:

Well, that means the occupational f

i A

exposure for the selected deserve --

l How do we review classification systems?

System --

l 4

the estimates of the amount of time that the workers would 7

l have to get involved in the process for maintenance and things l

I 3

of that nature and for surveillance and stored item, once that 1

9 l

was acccmplished.

to And they are estimates accordingly.

Actually, the two electrical absorption systems would not come out and be a it 12 size and occupational exposure --

tg For exampic, the --

ta These' estimates are simply made by people who are tJ familiar with the lab concepts --

t i

l l

!4 Such operations can be accomplished with minimization I

17 of operator exposure.

That's exactly the thing.

l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Harold, do you have anything?

l t9 ^

i MR. DENTON:

Well, IwanttocongratulateBobonan{

l

2 excellent presentation on one week's preparation at that --

1 i

I l

1 He's really pulled together a lot of real useful i

i

=

information.

t

=

I guess I can only add that, based on personal I

I

2 experience, that even a crash pregram, it's quite obvious, 1

.3 takes so much longer to really implement it and we guess, l

r

-w l

l

..o

- smer. s. e.

... = =

t 51 l

saar.ee.

l l

based on the best expert knowledge we can get.

I l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Do you have any questions you I

want to ask?

A MR. DENTON:

No.

l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Bernie?

4 MR. SNYDER:

No, no questions.

7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Herb?

I 4

MR. FEINROTH:

Well, before I left Rudy Cunningham f

this afternoon, I asked him how he felt or how his department i

10 i

would respond to the question of a, a position today, having i

II hopefully done his work, as compared to earlier February, II when we sent a letter to Mr. Dircks.

13 And I. guess af ter reviewing this v%1e thing with la Oak Ridge, our position, our feeling is pretty much the same IJ as it was in that February 5th letter.

i i

I4 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I wonder whether there is I

i 17 anyone who knows if, something about the storage issue.

l 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

The storage issue in --

f I

19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What would we do with the l

22 k.fpton?

And what sort of standards would apply?

And what, !

l 21 have we given any thought to the questien j

1 MR. VOLLMER:

Actually, the assumptions we made

[

1 were that we would put them in pressed gas bottles.

We wculd:

l 3

have to dilute it, but you would have a shielding, parricularly 2

the cooling problem was too concentrated i: a number of

=

===.m. %

-c.

marr. s..

i.

s s.=-a

e 52

..am.g I'

I pressed gas bottles.

And perhaps use soma sort of method to t'

I seal off the, the valving of that, and then monitor it, store '

i 1

it and monitor it.

I think we did not look at any fancy or extraordina$

4 j

measures to store the gas.

They may be required; we just 4

didn't look at it.

i T

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Did you essentially end up 3

l assuming that it would be stored on site?

l 7

?

MR. VOLLMER:

We did assume that it was stored on, IC site; we didn't feel that the shipment off site without a ti r

great deal of additional study was something that we cared to II enter into.

1*

MR. DIRCKS:

I'd like to comment on that.

Since l

I4 taking over fro'm Dick, I've had some conversations with our i

IJ waste management.

l i

I4 I don't think there's anyone here from waste manage-l 17 ment, but --

I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, yes, there is in -- well, i

19 one of us had.

He's looking around.

i l

I'J Bill?

l 11 (Laughter.)

O COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

He's transcended that.

I 1

l O

MR. DIRCES:

Well, if I may, just to reflect on the,

l 22 conversation I've had with Bob Browning on this subject as to!

1

• 3 the feasibility of, of -- or the acceptability of storage in '

de 6 M JMEW'F. E e. earft W u.--

[

O s.ac.%

53 I

the waste facility of gas of this nature, t

i And the, the preliminary thinking is, at least, is i 1

that it will take a lot of study and review before anyone L

could be willing to suggest putting it into one of the avail-able restorage facilities.

I They don't know, they do accept -- I understand 7

they accept extremely low-level gas -- but nothing like this 1

is --

i f

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Have we found out this 10 issue over the past few months in any serious way, the storage If i

issue?

17 MR. DIRCKS:

The storage issue?

Well --

l 13 Where.are you going to store it?

The problem is It that the South' Carolina people will not take materials that i

U will -- take Three Mile Island material, period.

I i

i l

I4 But secondly, you're dealing with the Governor of j

i I7 Nevada.

And he -- I think it would have to be a matter of l

18 negotiating with the governor out there.

I think that's why I

19.

I Dave was talking about leaving around the site.

20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

'I guess what troubles me a II little bit here -- I'm going to preface by saying that I O

don't know what the right way is to handle the krypton and l

O I'm not -- it's not clear to me that this is or isn't the l

2 right way to

<*3 it.

'J Sut -- but we've been saying that, you knew, if

=~%x l

- - ~..

m-

0 uar % 54 t

I only there were a way that would allow us to get the krypton !

l, I

cut in scme reasonable period of time, money is no object.

I Various others have said that when we want to employ that, that method.

New we seem to be saying that even if there were a way to do this, God, what would we do with it?

4 New, if that was the case --

I MR. DIRCKS:

That's part of the problem as far as 3

l myself; it's really true.

3 9

CC:0!!SSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes, but if that were the.--

10 I mean, that sort of makes all these options kind of just so 9

I much crank turning.

II MR. VOLLMER:

But, Vic, I think that was me.

It's II quite clear to everyone that --

l4 I myself raised the problem of --

IJ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I know you did.

No, !

I i

Id ycu did.

I, I -- that's fair enough.

I remember your doing j s

l

'o' that.

But that didn't seem to me to be the, the predominant 18 sentiment at the time.

19 Do you remember it differently?

lt

+1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Somewhat, but --

i

.l (Pause.)

SPEAKER:

That isn't the major reason why we were sta:: ng --

U CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

The point that had been made 3

that 3ill had pointed cut, that we hacs a lot of difficulties.

-%v~%x 1

- n==r. i,.. wn.

as

...~

O 35 1

s.am %

e l

t I

finding any place to put any waste.

But that there did not I

seem to be any large problem with storing on the site.

That I

1 had been the point that had been made at the -- but that was A

not a strong negative factor against going to the cryogenic l

or to the sector absorption.

That's as I, as I rememcered it.

4 MR. DENTON:

I think the main factor was time.

If f

we could have found a way to get to the bottem in a very short 7

l 8

period of time, it doesn't have to say that things are for a l

7 year.

We would really have it soon if we could get unlimited i

!C access to the containment.

11 CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Because you always could do

!T something else.

Yes.

12 MR. DENTON:

You could get it out of the containment

}

I4 in a short period of time, we'd have a little bit of time tc l i

IJ think about long-term storage or where to release it.

j i

l I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

That's more what I --

~

17 (Pause.)

f' I4 I notice that Congressman Ertel has ccme.

I don't I

I I

19 know whether he'd like to make some comments.

We had men-I 20 tiened at the beginning that a lot of this effort was, was l

l 1

due to your initiative at getting the look and perhaps --

l.

O CONGRESSMAM ERTEI.:

I really haven't any comment.

O I was just, I reflected semewhat on the meeting that we had 14 this morning.

AndIdon'tknewifycuhadthesamepresenta-f 22 tion that we had or not, icv c e. i,.

m.

. a r. am

O seer s 56 l

i o

I CHAIREN AHEARNE:

Nell, let me ask two other people,.

I I

I CCMMISSIGNER GILINSE:

I think it --

1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Ch, I was told --

L COMMISSIONER GILINSW:

-- is pretty much the same J

presentation, a little shorter.

4 (Laughter.)

I CONGRESSMAN ERTEL:

I gave these few points that are l

different, but --

3 7

Because I thought some of the things we heard this i

IC l

morning were somewhat, were not realistic.

And I don't know II if you've asked the same questions or not in relation to thos$

projections as time.

la COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think a lot o' the

!4 questiens,. at l' east on the time, did get asked -- or the IJ crucial questions.

And I think the answer is essentially the!

^

I4 same, in terms of what it would take if you had the equipment 7

I7 CONGRESSMAN ERTEL:

Because, ycu know, so many of i

l 14 time frames were drawn out because

'{

unrealistic, I think, l

[

l

!?

delays.

And, you know, we've gone through many of these --

M Like, for instance, I was reflecting on the vue-1 l

I graph that Mr. Merryman brcught -- about, if we were to take the existing system at Oak Ridge and move it up -- well, =aybe O

that doesn't work particularly.

Ecwever, when I lock down l

i

• 2 that cht.rt, he shews the things that weren't there.

I f

Well, true; they aren't there.

'J t

mum

.mvoim.m. m =

em M 4hf894n N. In W.

W "W

_ s s ama

0 e

uma.%

57 i

I But the things that. are there which could be adopted, i

1 say you find the 15 gallon per minute -- there are only two things that had to be added that weren't there, except the a

containment, the ultimate problem we're going to have anyway, I

the containment of krypton gas as concentrated.

We'll have i

that, regardless.

T So that's commen to most anything.

So I just think I

that was not scmewhat misleading on that vuegraph.

f Also the vuegraph that eight to ten months' procure-10 ment for a --

1I CHAIR N AHEARNE:

No, we, we covered that.

CONGRESSMAN ERTEL:

Did you now?

Unrealistic --

II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes.

No, I think John was

!4 asking a lot of your questions --

!J CONGRESSMAN ERTEL:

Good, I'm glad somebody is.

l Id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Without, without prompting. g 17 CONGRESS M ERTEL':

Without any progress in there.

14 SPEAKER:

Well, I'm glad to hear that.

!?

DR. MERRYMAN:

Well, again, not to debate the point i

M particularly; but I think before you even know where to 11 concentrate your efforts, you need to have some awareness of,

I what the circumstances are on a normal, basis; it's just a 1,

useful place to start, and I think that is all I claimed it 24 to be, really.

~3 CCNGRESSMAN ERTEL:

Thank you.

.m mm. m

..,s l

es e 44sf8'E JFEW*.E e. adyrt*W

's

& 4. M n-

0- 3dl

• 58 l

nar *c.

t CHAIRMN AHEARNE:

Well, I wondered whether you had,I if you had any more --

i l

CONGRESSMAN ERTEL:

No.

I'd be glad tc listen to I

what you had to say, and I appreciate being, I appreciate 5

i your having this meeting to look into the system.

3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

As we said in the beginning and 7

a lot of this relook is -- I pointed out that there were some 3

things we hadn't really looked at.

And I thank you guys very much, and you did -- I was, go put a lot of work in very quickly.

I certainly do know a lot

g more about this than I did a week ago, probably a lot more I t-still have to understand.

But thank you very much.

g; And that is the meeting.

l ga (Thereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the meeting was adjourned..)

i 6

f4 17 f

18 t

11 IO i

e ese e

te i

eA

• ?L

.%=%

l als M M N. & 8.

MT

2. 4. m