ML19326D809
| ML19326D809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8007030342 | |
| Download: ML19326D809 (43) | |
Text
7 s
i.of l
1
=
1l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RC f
tS 6/10/80 2'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.vl4ISSION Pc ker bfal 3
l 4
- ;;;; ;; ~vut--er ~ r "?.
c " r ?_""
.~.1 ;;
g 5:
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF TMI VENTING 9
l j
6l R
i f
7' Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
8l Rocm 1130 1717 E Street, N.W.
d 2
9 Washington, D.C.
j
,z p
g 10 j Tuesday, June 10, 1980 z
1
=
l j
11l The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.
n
\\
y 12 i BEFORE:
5
\\
j 13 l JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission
- s
,E 14 JOSEPH M. EENDRIE, Commissioner Y
I i
E 15 VICTOR GILINSKY, Ccmmissioner 5
g 16 f RICHARD T.
IGNNEDY, Commissioner M
\\
d 17 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner
\\
u Em 18 STAFF PRESENT:
1
!')
=
r-i l
j 19 l SAMUAL J. c m K, Secretary n
20l LEONARD BICKWIT, General Counsel 21 l MARTIN MALSCH 22 i E.
S CHRISTENBURY 23 L. CHANDLER
}
24 E. HANRAHAN 25 H. DE**CN
)
8007030Sjb (
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t 1
A bfm2 1
STAFF PRESENT, (Continued) :
1 2'
DR. B. SNYDER 3
DR. F. CONGEL
/
4i JOHN COLLINS
=
5 t
j 6!
3 7 i A
l 8
8 1, n
9i 2
e j
10 mj 11 '
=
d 12 z
i
(
5
=
13 !
E l
14,
e t
5 E
15 a
3 16 e
6 17
=
be 18 l 4
19 i f
2o 21 l 22 23 i-4 24 25 t
'l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i i
2 l
bfm3 j
l, PROCEEDINGS i
i i
2l CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Last week the staff submitted its
(.
3j final environmental assessment for our decontamination of Three 4
Mile Island Unit 2 reactor building atmosphere.
We had a meeting-g 5
last week which included summarizing the assessment and also 9
1 3
6\\
the public comments.
b 7l The staff examined many alternatives and concluded that '
l I
l 8
venting was the best choice.
At last week's meeting, the Ccmmis-d i
9i sion did not vote a decision.
There were many public comments, z
h 10 )
almost 800 written comments.
z i
5 1
3 11l After the first large meeting in the Middletown area, m
y 12 we concluded that instead of holding only one additional meeting,
(
5 l
5 13,
we would hold many smaller meetings.
As a result, there have a
14 l been many additional meetings, both here and in Pennsylvania
=
j g
15 with both the NRC staff and Commissioners participating.
=
3[
I6 '
I know there is great concern and strain.
- However, s
ti 17 many groups have reviewed the potential hazard to physical health l w
5 18 )
e l
from venting and have concluded there are essantially no physical,
m i
c i
h=
19 hazards.
The groups include the NRC staff; the Governor's 20 Commission on Three Mile Island, led by I;ieutenant Governor j
21 lj Scranton; the National Council on Radiation Protection and 22 l Measurements.
23,
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the NCRP, it 24 ils a non-profit corporation chartered by Congress and has as one 25
'of its objectives in its charter, to collect, analyze, develop, ALDERSON RE. CRTING COMPANY, INC.
I 3
bfm4 and disseminate in the public interest information and recommenda-1 i
2 tions about protection against radiation.
3 Other groups also reaching the conclusion that there 4,
were no physical hazards associated with the venting include I
g 5
the Bureau of Radiological Health of the Department of Health, "a
8 6
Education, and Welfare; the Environmental Protection Agency; and eJ 7'
the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Kl 8l I,
at least, c. ave concluded therefore that there will d
- n 9
be no physical health ha:ards to venting.
Unfortunately, there 2i h
10 will be some who will still believe there is a great health i!!
i I
11 hazard.
l a
c 12 '
Just yesterday I received a letter, obviously z,-
s 13 I written in anguish from a mother who wrote:
"It has caused me E
l l
14 { great pain to know that my child will be exposed to unnecessary f
13 additional radiation daily during the summer of 1980, and that 5
16 I will bring my brand new baby home to the filth in the air, a
- s(
17,
which I cannot see."
Tr I empathiza with the anguished people, but I believe 5
18 l E
19 we have thoroughly examined the questions and have fairly and l
20 !
truly found that there are no physical health hazards to venting.
21 ;
Remaining is the mental stress issue.
In another 22 proceeding, the Commission is examining the issue of psychoicgi-l 23 cal stress.
Do we have to consider it; and in what ways?
y AlthoughIhavenotreachedconclusionsonthoseissues,j f
l 24 1
25
- he mental anguish of the people in Middletown and neighboring i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 4
bfm5 1
areas has weighed heavily en me since the accident last year.
2 In letters, phone calls, and meetings, this stress has come l
1 3
i through strongly.
As we heard at the last meeting, there are l
4' some medical professionals who believe stress can be eliminated e
5 or greatly eased by making a clear decision and by getting rid l
3 6!
j of the gas in four to six months.
n i
R 7<
i The real physical health hazards at T.'C-2, I bel:ieve, a
3 8i are associated with the highly contaminated water inside the d
d 9
.j reactor in the containment, and possibly with the badly damaged o
I-10 i
fuel.
=
5 11 g
THe safety contamination and clean-up must proceed.
d 12 3
I believe we should now decide on what to do with the krypton.
3 13,i j
1 At the last meeting, we asked the General Counsel to
~
E 14 draft an order for the krypton to be vented, and in such a way i
k i
2 15 l g
j that both the fast and slow purge systems should be used.
The 16 l l
venting should start with the slow system and when the weather I
C d
17 'i is right, shift to the fast.
,l, E
i
=
18 l
=
l The weather conditions to keep the releases below NRC-l I
~!
19 1 j
EPA 3 mHN"( limits for a normal plant.
Also, at the last 20l meeting, I asked the General Counsel to prepare an additional 21 l order that would lift what is, in fact, an additional limitation t
1 22 l to control an cperating plant independent of weather conditions.
23 In the present' cane / monitoring will enable the 24 weather conditions to be used to centrol release rates, se as to 25 control actual deses off site.
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
m o
5 b2m6 I
j Therefore, in crder to get the venting over as soon 2
as pcssible, I believe, it appropriate to allow the waiving of 3
the current tech spec values.
Draft orders are before us.
I 4
hope we can make decisions today on both of those issues.
5 Mr. Bickwit, would you care to summari::e the two a
lI 6>
orders you have prepared for us?
=
n R
7 j
MR. BICKWIT:
The first order would grant permission
~
3 8
for the venting in accordance with the conditions prescribed by d
1 I
]".
9 lI the staff in its reccmmendation.
The situation that you face 10 from a legal matter is that the licensee may vent only if it
=
II receives approval frem the NRC.
8 i
{
12 l The first order would grant that approval, subject to 3
j 13 ;
the conditions imposed by the staff.
It poses three questions l
l I4 l which will have to be decided by the Commission.
These are a
k i
bI listed toward the bottcm of page 2 of the order.
E i
iE I0 I It states that the Commission must decide whether there !f
- d I
h I7 is " sufficient need for prcmpt decontamination of the containment.l i
x f
3 18 atmosphere to just-fy going ahead prior to ccmpletion of the E
i 19
'g programmatic impact statement."
20!,
It must also " decide whether the decontamination method -
21l' recommended by the staff can be carried out consistent with the l
22 l Commission's statutory mandate to ensure adequate protection of 23 public health and safety;" and three, "whether the evnironmental ;,
24 review has mee the requirements of.the National Environmental 25 peticy ges,.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
~
6 i
bfm7 1 I j
The order goes on to deal with each of those questions 1
i 2'
and ccmes to the conclusion that each of them can be resolved in 3
1 a way which will permit the action which the staff recommends.
\\
4ll The second order is a modification, a temporary modifi -!
g 5
cation of the license which would relieve the licensee frem a
{
certain tech spec requirements.
Because it is an amendment to n
o J the license, an opportunity for a full adjudicatory hearing is I
7 n
5 8!
offered to those who could be adversely affected by the order.
a d
The finding is made, however, that there are no d
9 j
l' o
h 10 significant hazards, considerations involved in the issuance of
=
fII this order.
Therefore, the required hearing, if held, would be d
12 r
held after the fact of the permitted actions.
4 j",
5 CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
And incorporated into the already l
3 14 l i,
scheduled hearing?
Ee*
1 2
15 x
MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
We presently have a i
I
?
14 l proceeding in which there have been requests for hearings with j
k d
f II respect to changing the original tech specs for this license.
=
18 '
That hearing has not been granted at this point.
This order
=
-8 I'
g provides that if that hearing is granted, and if a hearing is 20 I i granted under this order, that the two would be consolidated.
i i
~
21l CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
All right.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you summarize the mcdifi-j 23 '
cations in the second order?
i 24 MR. SICKWIT:
Yes.
The present tech specs, as I under-25 stand it, wculd nor per i t the venting eirher by a f ast purge or ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
-n 7
bfm8 1;
by a slow purge.
The current tech specs stand in the way of 4
2 3 both of those actions.
The fast purge is, as I understand it, j
3 inhibited by the releases that can be taken -- that can be made 4
in a sudden fashion, whereas the slow purge is inhibited by the I
y 5i quarterly release limits.
l Il 6f CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You mean that doing it in a given.
]
R 7]
quarter -- completing it in a given quarter?
3 i
l 8'
MR. BICKWIT:.
That's right.
So that these particular d
- i 9l tech specs do not st?nd in the way of either such action.
I z
og 10 think I ought to ask Bernie Snyder, who has recommended the Z_
E 11 l precise limits that are incorporated in this order to elaborate
<8 d
12 on that -- what those limits are.
Z l
n y
13 j DR. SNYDER:
On page 3 of the second order, the limits
=
i l
14 j appear, which would be substituted for the instantaneous and i
2 15 quarterly average tech spec limits, which are 2..l.2 in the refer-
=
3 g
16 l ence there.
e y'
17 f Basically, they will be Appendix I limits, which are w
\\
a 18 I (a) and (b) there.
Fifteen millirem skin dose, and five millirem l
-=
19 l total body done.
I 20!
CHAIRMAN AEZARNE:
Appendix I limits also meet the i
21)
EPA guidelines?
.l
\\l
\\
22 DR. SNYDER:
Yes.
Item (c) was added because Appendix l l4 itwouldbeadvisablei 23 I does not have a rate limitation.
We felt 1
24 in order to assure meeting, especially, (a), the skin dose; that
- I I
25 there whould be a 20 percent or three millirem per hour limit.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
8 bfm9 1
That is what Item (c) represents.
bi 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
These are basically the yearly 3
limits for operating reactors, aren't they?
4 DR. SNYDER:
Yes, that's correct.
That's true.
=
5 OHAIB EN AHEABNE:
Which is what the tech specs are H
]
6 calculated from, based upon average weather conditions.
R
\\
R 7'
DR. SNYDER:
There is some further conservatism in Ml 81 these limits in that we assume that these dose limitations would dd 9
apply to a single hypothetical individual who stands with exposed i
h 10 skia 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day at each of the sectors.
El 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the relationship of a
y 12 these numbers to the ones we saw last time, which were rather
=l 13,
smaller?
I thought you said you were going to try to hold them
~
\\
l 14 ;
to something like.2 millirem or something on that order.
l MR. DENTCN:
The ratio between skin dose and whole l
15 a
j 16 l body dose is a factor of 50, so when you are dealing only with d
g 17 ;
krypton under the Appendix I limits, the 50 millirem skin dose 5
5 18 would correspond to a maximum of about.3 mr. whole body.
So, I
E 1
i 19 l you use the Appendix I limits.
You are autcmatically limiting -- i k
i 20 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is limiting -- why then 21l did you put (b) in at the higher rate?
I DR. SNYDER:
More for just consistency, really.
22 e
- 23 CHAIR EN AEEARNE:
Out of Appendix I?
{
24 DR. SNYDER:
It could be one tenth of that.
It.would 25 be no problem.
Fifteen millirem will be the limit.
- Actually, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 9
bfm10 I
(c) will come into the play as the operational --
2 CHAIPMAN AHEAF3E:
As the operational?
DR. SNYDER:
I would assume that the licensee for I
3 r
i i
4 administrative control purposes would go even lower -- would
-l l
operate actually at lower than (c) which is 3 millirem per hour.
l 5
s t
+
I a
0l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Skin dose?
E l
f 8
7' 1
DR. SNYDER:
Yes.
l X
i j
8 MR. DENTON:
What controls the duration would be the d
l 91 maximum instantaneous dose rate permitted during an hour..
The
~
1 z%l 10 original proposal was a low number on the order of one tenth of II the mr. per hour skin dose..
Our standard tech specs limit, I is y
12 think the maximum off site dose was
.3 of an mr.
=
4 5
13 l This would run the maximum to 20 percent of (a).
a l
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Further questions on the order or tij 15,
orders?
=
E I0 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I will ask about -- this parti-1 I
4 h.
II,
cular part -- what would be the -- your best estimate for the j
3 18 )
time that the venting would take if you were operating under the f
J E
I9 s
revised tech specs?
a 1
20 l DR. SNYDER:
It is hard to give a precise answer to i
21 f that.
We approached it f cm two points of view.
We took a ve-7 22 theoretical icwer limit based on having infinitely variable 23 '
flow rate frem zero to 50,000 cubic feet per minute, which is
)
24 l physically not possible in the plant, because there are two 25 l
systems of different capacities.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Q s
10 i
i b2m11 1
Just taking that as the bare minimum or the maximum 3
2 flow rate, minimum time, and keeping it at a constant 3 millirem t
3 per hour and assuming that the wind owuld be such as to distributej i
4 it properly and not exceed the sector Limit, it works out about i
i
=
5 two and a half days.
k
]
6l That is the absolute rock bottom minimum.
It depends it i
2 7
on the meteorology, of course.
It is a little hard to say, but l
T,j 8
my estimate would be that going this way would cut it, perhaps, I
d o
9, by a factor of two between the slow purge and this kind of a
,zf 10 scenario.
z More like 30 days than 60, then?!
f11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
n 1
g 12 DR. SNYDER:
The 60 days really was to allow for winda 5
g 13,
in one given direction and rather stagnant conditions.
I think l
l 14 l maybe we are talking here two weeks -- between two weeks for the l
2 15 !
faster system and perhaps a month or so for the slower system.
j E
I l
g 16 ;
It is quite hard to pin down these numbers because it 1
will be done on a real time meteorological basis, updated data f
i 17 18 1 every hour.
E I
7 19 !
MR. DENTON:
There is one other factor.
As the per-N l
20 mitted instantaneous dose rate goes up, the maximum instantaneous :
I l
21 permitted dose rate -- there is more likelihood that there will l
22 he someone occupying that sector.
i i
l 23 l The numbers we talk about are.1 or.2 mr. whole body. (
24 The occupancy is not likely to be 100 percent over a 50 day 25 period., but it might well be 100 percent over a few hours.
So, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 11 b'~12 1l we have icoked at the proposed maximum instantaneous skin dose
~~
1 2
which was on the order of.1 of an mr. per hour.
3 If you go all the way up to this proposal, you are 4
down to just a few days.
The likelihood of scmeone being present-i l
5 for an hour is high.
=
- j 6i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is the time for the venting, if R
7i allowed -- the time during which it takes place as between the I
l 8l slow and the fast purge in any way influence the timing of the dd 9
rest of the clean-up, or are things like the treatment of the 10 water basically on a schedule that is independent from the z
=
j 11,
choice between slow and fast venting?
\\
DR. SNYDER:
I do not think that a matter of weeks is.
I_
1 2 :
3 13 <'
going to make that much difference, frankly, in the overall g
a j
=g 14.
clean-up which you are talking in terms of years.
I
$[
15 It is a very small percentage of time.
I guess the z
j 16 i only time -- if something -- a problem were to arise, it would w
ti 17 be nice to have that extra time, but it really is truly a small 2
5 18 percentage of the anticipated time of clean-up.
E 19
' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
20 MR. DENTON:
I think if you look in detail at the time 21f required, the beginning of a small release rate -- to check out l
22 ;
the equipment, make sure the monitors are working, the outside j'
l 23 !
system is working, you would gradually increase it until you 1
e 24,
get the capacity of the smaller system.
s 25
"'han there is still scme werk to be done on the large ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 12 bfm13 1
I system before that can be brought into service.
So, it seems to 2
j me that some ccmbination of the two, the small and large might
- 3) reduce the total time, perhaps by a factor of two or three weeks, 4
depending on weather conditions.
t
=
5 CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Dick, do you have questions?
n 3
6 l.
CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
No, I assume there will be E
2 7
scme -- I assume there will be seme editorial work done on it.
i n
i i
(-
8 There are a number of things that need to be -- seme references d
9l i
i j
i need to be added.
i o
j 1
E 10'l I-MR. DENTON:
One other point I would like to make about i
11 '
g the dose rate, just to reiterate.
The licensee will no doubt l
l c
12 impose administrative controls to stay below these limits so as z
=d 13 g
not to exceed them and face citations for that purpose.
The l
E 14 i i
time, then, cannot be calculated frem these numbers readily.
It i
x i
U i
l 2
15 depends on how far below that he achieves.
w=
16
-E CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
i a
3" 17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I am in agreement with both l
!!=
18 orders.
i.*
19 l j
j CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I do have some other questions.
20 I They were not on that particular aspect.
21 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We can get to --
j 22 I COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
he order, in several places, 23 uses the phrase " favorable meteorological conditions."
I have 24 not -- as I understand it, there is no one definition of 25
- favorable meteorolegical conditions."
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
13 bfsl4 1
Are there any weather conditions under which you would 2
not allow the venting to take place at all?
Leave aside the 3
question of whether a particular sector had received its full 4
allocation; just say on the first day when no one has received anything.
+
3 4!
Are there conditions which you would not allow venting R
l b
7 on the first day?
X]
8 DR. SNYDER:
I cannot think of any.
da 9
MR. DENTON:
No a priori conditions.
I think we are --
i h
10 depending on the exact instantaneous limit chosen, there would
=
5 II be some weather conditions that you would expect diffusion to be m
j 12 very poor.
S 5
13 You might not need this dose criteria.
Perhaps Frank a
l 14 l Congel could - -
i j
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could I ask a simple question?
z d
I0 If the plant were in or at the area of a major front anticipated h
II.
to be in the area for some hours with violent thinderstorms, 6
\\
38 j
heavy rains anticipated, would venting likely go ahead in such l!
i I9 '
circumstances?
sad tlg bgn t2 DR. CONGEI.:
I think I can address both questions that 3
i1 21 !
were asked by noting that we have specified cnly maximum off site 22 '
release rates that the utility must stay within.
23 This is intentional to give nhem as much flexibility 1
24 as they could possibly have and still carry out their mission 25 of cleaning up the containment.
Of ccurse, if there were
.l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
^
14
-s l
1; extremely poor dispersion conditions, low wind speeds, or hardly j
bfm15 2
any, I doubt we could -- excuse me, the release rate was so low f
I 3
that it would hardly be worth their effort to do any ptr71ng.
i The point I want to make is the product of the release 4
II 5
rate and the dispersion condition is the thing that will serve 1
3 6
as the limitation.
If we do have very favorable conditions, f
i g
I would expect them to take advantage of that.l 7
as you pointed out, 8I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask the same question dd 9
I asked before.
On the first day when no sector has received any
,Z n
10 dose, are there weather conditions under which you would not E
k 11 allow venting?
E y
12 DR. CONGEL:
We have nor proposed a number that they x
i 3
13 '! had to stay above; only the product of the release rate and g
=
l 14 the dispersion conditions.
Then.you have the flexibility within 5
i 15 that range.,
s 16 CHAIRMAN ARM RNE:
I guess you are saying, Frank, is g
=
l i
17 that if the dispersion coefficient is sufficiently poor, that x
w 18 then the release rate that they would be allowed to operate E
19 under would be low.
20 DR. CONGEL':
So small that it would not be worth their i
21 l
effort to do any purging.
l 22 DR. SNEDER:
I think perhaps there is the lower limit 23 in that there is a flow rate limit down below which the hydr gen
(
24 control system cannot operate.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Is it about 100?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
15 bfm16 1
DR. SNYDER:
It is about 50 or 100 CFM.
So that would j
i 2
put the floor on the lower release rate.
So, if the meteorology 3
is poor enough that they have to operate below that number, I
4 whether it is 50 or 100, I'm not sure they would have to cancel a
5 the purging that day.
3
)
nj 6l So, there is a mechanical --
R d
7 CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
You say for that day?
K l
8 DR. SNYDER:
That period of time.
There will be dn 9,
forecasts made.
i l
cg 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What is the weather cell that you 3
l l
11 plan on looking at?
m
(
12 DR. SNYDER:
I believe there is going to be hourly 5
g 13 i forecas:ing by the DOE-IRAC system, plus Met Ed has 3eir own
=
i
~
l 14 l forecasing consultants.
2 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The point I think. I now 5
g 16 understand is this phrase " favorable meteorological conditions" s
6 174 is pretty well tied to the concept of allocating the dose s
i E
18 around -- among the quadrants.
I E
i 19 l DR. SNYDER:
And the concentration in the building at i
20 that time.
21l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
l l
22 l DR. SNYDER:
The product of those two thir7s.
23 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is not a matter of scme 24,
abstracts of weather conditions.
i 25 MR. DENTON:
That is correct.
ALDERSON REFORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
i 16 i
I bfm17 1
DR. SNYDER:
That's righ 2
i MR. BICK'dIT:
.t. Chairman, one point along these 3
lines.
The order, as we drafted -- the second order says: "Under i 4
the above' conditions, the licensee is required to minimize the i'
=
5 g
total time required to complete the purging."
N 6'
I We have discussed this matter with OELD and we feel E
I 2
7 that should be revised to more closely reflect the first order.
s n
3 8i I
a i What we would propose in lieu of that language is the following e
i o
9I j
l language.
I will read it quickly.
If you want to go back to M
10 j
it we can.
=
5 11 g
"In addition, any purging shall be in accordance with d
12 procedures approved by the director of NRRR as required by the i
z
=r 13 i
order of June X, 1980."
i 14 ;
The significance is that the language as originally k
I 9
15 s
drafted does not incorporate the idea of meteorology as a limiting-l l1 z
1 g-16
~
condition, and simply says that the licensee is to minimize G
17 l
the total time required.
a 5
'l
. I 18 l.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Furthermore, it conceivably couldj m
=
5 l
\\
19 '
)
be read to drive him to set his administrative limints just up i
2a under the tech spec limits where there may be, for reasons of I
21 I i
measurement, Mme delays, control on valving, and so on.
Those i
22 would be good reasons for bim to want a ccmfortable, cushion below 23 l
}'
those limits.
4 24 I think the change is desirable.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The phrase you made would be able to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
17 bfm18 j
be linked to the first order, and therefore to meteorology.
I 2'
MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
It would also make any 3
violation of the instructions -- violation of license conditions i
4 and thereby enforceable.
3 l
CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
Fine, fine.
P eter'i l
3 6!
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This really goes more to the R
\\
R 7'
l assessment than it does to the order, but with regard to the n
8 8,
57,000 curies, is that a measurement we have made, or is that a a
d 9i e
l Met Ed?
l
\\
f:
10 y
j DR. SNYDER:
Lec me comment on that.
We asked recently
=
M 11 l g
j within the last week that a new measurement be made.
We split the i
d 12 E
i sample with Met Ed, the volume of gas.
- i l
13 <
g The licensee made a measurement and came up with E
14 g
! essentially identical results as in the environmental assessment,
=
C 15
$i
! which is approximately 1.0 microcuries per cc.
Our experiemental
=
i
~
16 I results, I'm going to check.with John Collins.
it ad g
17 ;
MR. COLLINS:
Our results came out to be
.8.
The
=
si 18 difference is in the analytical measurement, a different gecmetry u*
19 g
l was used by the licensee than the gecmetry used by the NRC.
70 I l
So, within the difference in the gecmetry,
.8 and the 21 i one is very close.
22 I
CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
We would end up with saying more like:
J 23 h
47,000?
5 DR. SNEER:
Yes.
l 25 MR. DEN"'ON :
This was using equipment in Region I's
- I
'l ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
18 i
4 bfm19 I
i portable van.
i 2I DR. SNYDER:
Continuous samples will be available, 3
though, for further analysis as it comes out.
i 4 )l COMM%SSIONER BRADFORD:
One other question on the t
4 5I assessment.
I think I am coming out in the direction of venting, a
l 3
6' so it is something of a moot point.
You did, with regard to A
1 E
7 ll most of the stored systen, discuss the problems involved in I
I sa 8
long term storage of krypton on the site.
d i
~.
I gather, in the last few days, that, in fact, there 9
J z
h10 is something of a market for krypton-85 and Oak Ridge buys it j
=
@ IIl at something like S5 per curie.
i i
3 l
I Is it really correct to talk about having to store the l
y 12 4
i i
I g
13 l stuff for 100 years on the site?
a l
14 DR. SNYDER:
Well, I am not familiar with the mark"1 i
j j
15 l that may exist in krypton, although it is used as a m.::er in s
16 g
medical research, medical diagnostic work.
e d
17 I guess we had not factored that in.
I was not aware a
f.
18,
that anyone would be interested in buying.
In any case, it l
5 w
t-19 would take a long time before it would be available in that form.
E COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I understand the drawbacks to i
21l the recovery system.
As I say, I am not inclined toward them, i
22 ;
but it did seem to me that perhaps the question of long term 23,
storage had been overstated, given that there does seem to be 24 something of a market for krypton-85.
I wondered if that had 25 been explored at all.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 l
19 i
bfm20 l
j DR. SNYDER:
No, we have not explored that at all.
I 2i MR. DENTON:
No, we haven't.
l 3
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Further questions?
4 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No further questions.
=
5 g
CHAIR.%N AHEARNE:
Thank you.
l 3
6!
{
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We received this order last n
R 7'
l night.
My position is that I would --
n 8
8l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE.
What I would propose to do is that 1'
a i!
d l
d 9 I I think that probably a number of people have some i
we --
f modifications or editorial that aim at trying to have an affirma-10
=
H 11 g
tion on Thursday, with appropriate me,difications.
12 I
I would vote in favor of the two positions.
Victor?
4 hI COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're asking about the E
14
~
question of ve. sting?
!E h
l CHAIBMAN AHEARNE:
Ies.
z 16
.3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I concur in that result.
d I
C 17 i
CHAIR %4 AHEARNE:
And the modification?
i 5
j l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Not to approve the order as
,)
N i
39 l g
it is wirtten now.
2o CHAIR %N AHEARNE:
Dick?
l i
21 I l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
e 22 I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
l 23 '
COMMISSICNER HENDRIE:
I tend to vote for both of these -
24 orders, presuming the editorial changes don't change the t.h st.
i CHAI?.%N AHEARNE:
Peter?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
20 bfm21 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
I am coming out the same way, 1
~
2' and apologizing for my technical impermeability.
Let me just ask 3
for as clear and concise a statement of what the net result of
/
~
4 that is as I can get; that is, under this order with both g
5 provisions approved, when would the venting begin?
8 j
6j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let us make the assumption that the 1
g 7i affirmation on Thursday --
j 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
d l
d 9'
DR. SNYDER:
We promise the people in the area of ten 10 days advance notice.
The slow purge of the hydrogen control z=
i g
11 system is available presently.
3 p
1 2 l, During that ten day period, I would conduct, along 2i I
l 13 )
with other members of the staff and with.he licensee and other i
lii l
l 14 parties, a readiness review that will go in parallel.
I would 2
15 say that at least two weeks from the decision date -- ma.ximum, y
j 16 I'm sorry.
as i
17 A maximum of two weeks from the decision date we would 5
5 18 be prepared to start.
Y.
19,
CHAIR 3GN AHEARNE:
Which would be something like the k
l i
20l end of June.
I 21 l DR. SUYDER:
It would be before the end of the month.
I 22 CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The earliest cata -- this is the 23 10th, two days is the 12th.
The earliest date would be the 22nd 24 and you would not expect it to be any longer to the start of 25 venting than the 26th.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, [NC.
l j
21 i:
bfm22 f
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Bernie, let me put the question il 2
the way it is got, to be put to you many times in the next few
,l 3
days, anyway.
I concur in the assessment that as nearly as I tl 4
can tell there is no health physical effect involved in the 5
venting, but there are still going to bc people who want to make 0
plans around the venting schedules whether they involve leaving f
a d
7!
the area, taking' precautions, or whatever.
X l
3 I
l 8
What are you going to say to them when they ask you l
d d
9' how long is it going to go on?
What is the soonest it is going
~
- io 5
10 to be over?
What is the latese it will be over?
Supposing I
?
t' 1I want to be indoors at all times, what should I do?
B Y
I2 DR. SNYDER:
Assuming that I cannot convince them that 5
5 13 j it is not a health hazard, which I probably will not be able to l
l 14 l do.
E g
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There are going to be some z
d 10 cases where --
d 1
i I-I7 I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Like the letter I got.
i
}
5 i
5 I81
=
DR.SNYDER:
Yes.
No doubt there will be.
Just looking ; 4 I
19 at the calendar, I would say that the venting should start by 20l the and of the last week in June, which is the 27th or the 28th i
21 i or thereabouts.
We are told by the licensee, I believe it is I
22 i cortact, that about the lith of July, the large system would be 23 available.
1 24 ;
I would hope that it would be all over in the month of 25 June.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
s 22 I
bfm23 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
July.
j 2
DR. SNYDER:
Excuse me, July.
3 COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:
Pres.'mably, you will announce i
4 these dates?
g 5
DR. SNYDER:
Yes, they will bc.
l 8
i 3
6j' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There will be periodic results?
E i
l DR.SMYDER:
First of all, we will give them ten days
{
b 7!
l 8!
notice, both the public and scme of the states.
The state of I
d 9< Maryland, for example, in a letter to us asked us whether we will :
a i
.z l
o j
g 10 do that, of course.
I 3
h II We will also --
3 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the state of Pennsylvania.
3 5
13 :
DR. SNYDER:
That goes without'saying.
The results, i
l 14 the dialy results will be available to the public.
There is
~!
1 l
,2 15 planned, at least in the first week, the daily press briefing j
=
i j
16 f in which all parties would take part.
e 17 The EPA results will be made available on a daily
+
a=
f w
18,
- basis, their off site monitoring results which we are looking s-19 '
to.
We will do everything possible to keep people informed on g
20 l a real-time basis.
21 !
MR.DENTON:
We try to, each day, estimate how much I
22 l activity has been released, what the estimated off site. doses 23l were, and what the next day's plant activities were.
i 24 l COMM3SSIONER GILINSKY:
Where will thesa be available?
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You would certainly post them at ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23 b2m24 1I the Middletown office?
I.
2 DR. SNYDER:
There would also be every morning at 3
10:00, I believe, it is planned to have a press briefing so the l
1 4
media would be informed there.
Word would presumably get out that g
5, way.
A j
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
n 7!
MR. DENTON:
We and EPA, we discussed -- we could use 3
l 8l their office, our office, or find scme office -- I think that d
d 9
Mr. Fouchard is looking into some kind of combined approach io I
y 10 each day.
i!!
I 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Coordinated with Governor j
y 12 Thronburg's office?
3
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would urge anyone who has modifi-5 l
14 i cations to try to get them both to Mr. Bickwit and the others U
l 2
15 of us this afternoon, if possible, so we can look at them az j
16 Wednesday, w
t; 17 ;
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I still -
a 1
I Ni la,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I may have scme additional
=
5 19 <
- comments, b
\\
20 <
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
21l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On the whole decision making l
22 l process,Qtich I must say troubles me.
l 23 COMMISSIONER SRADFORD:
I still owe you a' vote.
It
~
24 is, in a sense, just a formality since I am concurring in the 25 result you all have reached.
I would also just say, though, that 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
24 i
I.
bfm25
- ]
about the stress question.
If I were convinced that stress were
~ 2 l in some way a quantifiable, measurable, reduceable commodity I'
3 that would in fact be reduced by one of the UCS proposed i.
4 al':ernatives or scme other way of going at this, I would be 5l l
eg perfectly prepared to do that.
+
3 6
Specificaliy, I want to say that I do not think that
- 4 n
i I,
8 7
the UCS proposals in that direction ought to be labelled n
E a
1 irresponsible.
d i
d 9
)
I think there were sincere efforts to --
i i
f og 10 6
CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
The order did not do that.
2 I'
i 11 g
CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
THe order did not, of course.
12,
It has been done.
That's why I make the ccmment.
In the end i
cz i
l 13 g
for me what is convincing is that it seems to me that different
,l
.1 i
1 E
14 I g
- people are stressed by different things.
While there are certain-i,
z bI ly those to whom the propsect of a krypton release is an over-z il 7
16 i i
riding stres, there are others for whcme the overriding source d
17 ;
of concern comes from what is still in the containment.
E m
18 '
i I just find myself unable to determine that the krypton-'
=
19 l g
related stresses are in any way (A) something that is greater than the stresses caused by the overall prolonging of the clean-21l l
up; and (3), something that would be greatly improved by a 2 2 l' differing choice among these alternatives.
23 So, I come down in favor of the venting proposal as 24 you have already voted on it.
CHAIRMAN AEIAENE:
Okay.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4-I o
25 i
bfm26 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would add that I fell in this
)
t 2
direction principally by the conclusions on the physical effects l;
i i.
3 on the surrounding population and the absence of overwhelming j.
1 '
4 indications concerning other psychological and other questions
~
5 that have been brought up.
f.
i
]
6l It is very difficult for this agency to deal with such 4 '
- 2 7) questions.
I suppose in the end, the fact that we do not have I
X l
l 8l strong representations frcm the collective representatives of j;
i d
d 9I the area, the state; and to the contrary, leaves me feeling we Y
l g
10 1 aught to base our decision principally on the questions of z
i 11 physical risk here.-
4 I
l ci 12 '
I said I was uncomfortable with aspects of the order, z_
13 I particularly the ones that deal with psychological stress.
I
- sa l
14 l am troubled about the reliance that staff has placed on opinions, Y
2 15 l of psychologists, however qualified -- however qualified they I
i I
16 are themselves to review studies conducted by others.
I I,
e i
17 '
It turns out those studies depended on telephone l
us 5
18 surveys.
I don't know that you can make very much of that.
I 19 would not place very much relian a on those views.
l ll 3
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then, I think to make clear to the 20 ;.
f
[
21 !
people assembled, the Commission will be voting formally on an l
22 !
order, but the decision has been to approve the venting.
This 1
f 23 decision has been to approve the release and the tech spec 24 l issue.
25 (Thereupon, at 10:44 a.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.94ISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the in the matter of:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF TMI VENTING Date of Proceeding:
June 10, 1980 Docket flu =ber:
? lace of ?receeding:
Washincton, D.
C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcrip thereof for the file of the Cec =ission.
4 David S. Parker Official Reporter (Typed) s e
b%
~
Official Reporter (Signature)
O e
o 9
l i
e u
.y..s..; L..,. -: E ;,..-
.: m.
a
.
- TE3 STiits s.. s A.*
- A
.a.
.. - ' um.
W. p nee %',e,.:
.. p :: ;.. ;..
7...*<.-=
M. ;
..w.*.
~.
- v. -
- .. & s.. -
..-t
.a -.-
.. y.
.:.:..;.-. a#
- - :s.
k 7..
-.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!sstCN.
... i.*
.. ~,. n..
e.. : =....
usmucion. o. c. 2ms
.8 I,
a u
.:; s....
~ ~ ;- t.:,,gn, / i..:......
.. s..
June 9, 1980 w,,.. 4
~ -
... ~. :.
-- = =..:.:; - -
~-....,:. :....
..:...,.=-.:..;-......
.,:. w.
..._,.-;,-~..
.a
.3.......-.- 1,.:.:. ::. :.. ;-. :.i;- -..- g...,
.,<.a :..n
~
~.
......s..'. ~ ; ' '..' ;.
-c.:7. :~,.r.MFMORANDtM. F.OR:
Chairnan Ahearne :^..Y.:. "... J..
~~
.:%--.:*.= c ~ u.; c..... Connaiss4oner git 4nsky,<=...
. -. - ~
~ ::
, ' v... -..'
-2
.4 : 'w.. - ' e. b'. +:
... ;.---.:.,.0..~....
.,a
~
-...: i.-
Copsnissioner Kennedy.J".J....~- F....- -. - -
. p.
f.
r- *i.
...,s..-
.u... m...m. n.:..,. -:
c.
. ;. c -..-
,y Consni.e.sioner Hendrie.:....a
=--- ~ w
- . ---- r
.. ~. -. -.
-..~.w
~.,. :...
~sa.m.....
...- - <... ?.
C. on.s.a. i. ssio..ne..r...B. radfo rd.;<,..._. -... <.. o.
..,s.
a.:7.-
e-c
- w x.:.n: s
.2,.
-n.,~.....
.. =., = - -. -
7' - ' h.. ':.
.u.
v.-
n.
..r.. : -
-.e.;.~.....-.-..
.. i;.;.j;.~....;- r.
r.
.. ;;.s -
. r.:.:. s ' :. g: y : v.y. ; y. v.c...
- s
,, ;;,_.:. r RCN :.....; n a..
1.aonard 31ckwit,'.Jr g.:4.y:t W r.,,. -.. _,
-.,=;
,, :.. n.
..i...
. v.
, s -s.
-c
-c
.....:.<r~.,L::.. i
.g,,
. L.,.+,u.
r
.: c..%; m... General Counsel....s...,.
...-.:-.==.-,_w-w......-
-q
- r. :. :. w -:- --.... - -+.
- - r-:.
SUBJECT:
- ".{ _
'DRAF.T ORDER. TO PERMIT. PURGING OF,THE TMI-2 CONTAINMENT
...~
.. w....~..~. a:.. m ;
~.. s.,.. -..
.,..y
- - We have prepared a draft memorandum and order approving the staff's recom-mendation to decontaminate the TMI-2 containment by purging to the atnosphere.
. e have also. prepared a possible c.mpanion document which would..
W mod-!fy the TMI-Z Technical Specifications to assare that neither a " slow purge" '
nor a " fast purge." would be in violation of license conditions controlling-
. operations at. TM.I-2. - Attachment 2.
..e i
,...,.. c.s..,
. - :.....,=...+..;. u -..
u Attachments:.- *
- . ?
1.
manuranoum and urcer.- '-
2.
urart urcer for Temporary Modification or License-s.
cc: OPE SECY Contacti t... L. 3iaggie, u=24.
b M-3224-7 Martin G. Malsch, OGC 634.1465 h
~
u
~'.' :...
.,T
~
' ".~
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM!!ISSION CGtMISSIONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chair. nan Victor Gilinsky Richard T. Kennedy Joseph it. Hendrie Peter A. Bradford
.~~ :
~
-^
In the Matter of M.C".',..,,. -
f METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY, et al.
Docket No. 50-320..,.
c.
~$ ~ ~
(Three Mile Iiland Nuclear 'Statio
/".... ) - ~
.I Unit 2)
)
i
)
HEMORANDUM MD ORDER The Ccmmission has before it a reccmmendation by the technical staff that the licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company, el al., be authorized to
'canmence promptly a conidrolled purging of the THI-2 reactor building atmos-phere.
To meet the requirements of the NationaT Environmencal Policy Act the staff has submitted in support of this reccmmendation a " Final Environ-mental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Itile I'sland Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere," NUREG-0662, fiay 1980.1/ The draft version of this assessment and two subsequent addenda were issued for public comment, The assessment was prepared under the direction of Dr. Bernard J. Snyder with the assistance of:
Xarl Abraham Algis J. Ignatonis Lawrence G. Bell Paul H. Leech Ronald R. Bellamy Joseph Levine Donald S. Brinkman Ronnie to Robert T. Carlson Oliver D. T. Lynch, Jr.
T. Jerrell Carter, Jr.
Scott Newberry '
John T. Collins Walter E. 011u Marilee Duncan Wal ter J. Fasciak 1
Anthony it. Fasano William D. Travers Reginald L. Gotchy LoGell E. Tripp Charles S. Hinson Richard Weller
, ~.T
7*g and by the close of the coment period on May 16, 1980 approximately 800 responses had been received.
These are sumari:ed in the final assess =ent.
The Commission received further infonnation regarding the proposed purging.
~
at an oral briefing by the staff on June 5,1980..
~~
.e In a Statement of Policy dated November 21, 1979 the Commission announced
^
i.'-
its intent to preinre a programmatic. environmental impact stateme'nt on decon
. /
~
l
. ;- ^.
~~
tamination and disposition of. radioactive waste resulting from the March 28.-:
1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
The policy statement noted that if the best interest of public health and safety required prompt decontamina-
~
tion action prior to completion of the prograrratic statement, such action would not be precluded. The Comission stated, however, that no action *a
~
decontaminate high-level waste water in the containment building or 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 progrannatic impact statement. We must also decide whether the decontamination method recommended by the staff can be carried out consistent with the Commission's statutory mandate to ensure adequate protection of public ' health and safety and whether the environ-mental review has met the requireme)its of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The immediate goal of the proposal to purge the reactor building at=osphere is to remove radioactive particulates and gases released into
~
3 the containment by the accident. Most of the radionuclides originally released into the contaiim:ent atmosphere have decayed to insignificant level s.
The dominant remaining radionuclide is the gas, krypton-85 ('Kr--
1 85), dich has a 10.7-year half-life.
The Environmental Assessment states that approximately 57,000 curies of Kr-85 are mixed in.the containment',
v.
atmosphere, as determined by periodic sampling of Kr-85 concentrationi. -
..z.
Removing Kr-85 from the containment atmosphere would yield a number' of-important and immediate benefits.
Radiation from Kr-85 at the concentra-tion le{el's found inside the containment significantly limits worker access and precludes extensive operations needed to gather infor=ation, inspect.
i and maintain equipment, and proceed toward the eventual removal of the highly radioactive damaged nuclear fuel frem the reactor core.. Decontaminat-ing the atmosphere would relieve workers perfoming necessary maintenance and cleanup activities from hazards of working in awkward protective 4
clothing and risk from penetrating gamma radiation associated with the decay of Kr-85. Moreover, there is no serious question that removal of the 4
Kr-85 from the containment atmosphere is a necessary step toward core
~
defueling.
Until the fuel is removed, TP.I-2 will continue to present a potential risk to public health and safety.
Thus decontaminating the contain' ment atmosphere has an immediate and independent utility which justifies proceeding at this time,k provided that the proposed method is acceptable on health and environmental grounds.
2_/
The President's Council on Environmental Ouality was consultad on the staff's proposal to vent Kr-85.
In a letter dated F,ay 19, 1980, and relying on the staff's technical analysis, the Council advised "that as a matter of crocedure, staff's proposal does not violate 40 CFR ! 1506.1 (1979) (limitations on actions during f! EPA crocess) of the Council's regulations implementing t.he t ational Environmental Policy Act."
4 There are several methods discussed in the Environmental Assessment by which the radioactive krypton can be removed.
The method proposed by the licensee and recommended by the staff involves controlled release to the outside atmosphere of the gases in the containment through the existing plant; ventilation system and the' hydrogen control subsystem. The release rates would be controiled'so as to take place onky in favorable meteoro-
~
logical conditions, bich would be continucusly monitored, such that the dose limits established by 10 CFR Part 20, the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, aiid the provisions of 40 CFR Part 190.10., to the extent they may be applicable, will not be exceeded.
In addition to monitoring of releases by the NRC, radiological monitoring during the propcsed' contrelied purging would~ be conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ccmmonwealth of Pennsylvania, the U.S.
Department of Energy and Metropolitan Edisen Ccepany.
The Environmental Assessment contains ample evidence to 'show that. risk to physical health from the proposed purge or frem any of the alternative decon-taminaticn methods considered by the staff would be negligible.
See Table 1.1, fiUR EC--0562.
The assessment also addresses the effects en the psychological well-being of persons living in the vicinity of 11;I, a subject of importance in view' of the strong public reaction to the accident and continuing cencern.
in its aftermath.
The staff concluded that psychological stress resulting frem the proposed venting of Kr-85 will be less than frem any of the alter-natives, including the alternative of taking no action. Testimony at the oral briefing by expert censultants en the cuestien of psychciegical siress sup-perted this cenclusion and indicated that purg%g the ca-:P.nmant should have
\\
l
\\
5 the net effect of reducing the stress which otherwise would occur if positive steps are not taken promptly,to proceed with decontamination and reduce uncer-tainty about the present and future condition.of THI-2.
Because of the importance to the public of having a clear understanding.
T,,
that purging the TliI-2 containment presents a minimal risk to physical health, we review here the basis for concluding that the physical health impacts of
~
venting Kr-85 uilder' proper controls will be negligible.
This conclusion was supported by the U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the National Council en Radiation Protec-tion and Measurement, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Governor Thornburgh of Pennsylvania has indicated that he adopts the consensus that the dose rates associated with controlled purging are insignificant.
Krypton-85 has no significant food pathway involvement and in 99.5 percent of its radioactive decays emits only weak beta particles which primarily affect the skin, one of the tissues least susceptible to radiogenic cancers.
The Environmental Assess-cent estimates that to the maximally exposed individual the risk of skin cancer "would be equivalent to spending 30 minutes in the sun.
The average i,ndividual in the population wuld 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.
The total 1-ifetime-individual cancer risk to the maximally exposed indi-vidual would be about one in sixteen million, ccmpared to a normal lifetime expectancy of one chance in five from all types of cancer.
- p. 7-2.
6 Of course, most persons would receive a dose much smaller than the estimatec maximum.
The Environmental Assessment estimates that the collective offsite dose to the population within 50 miles of T!iI-2 will be 0.76 ar.d 63 person-rem for total-body and skin doses, respectively.E NUREG-0662, Table 1.1.
Based on these figures and on a cancer mortality risk estimate of 135 deaths per million person-rem,4/ 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 with'in 50 miles of TMI is abcut one in ten thousand.
Although the impacts tescr.ibed above apply specifically to a slow purge as originally recommended by the staff, the Envircnmental Assessment notes that they also apply 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 wather conditions permit. The Commission agrees with the technical staff that the physical health imoact of this recocmended action may bo, ter=ed insignificant.E v!
At the oral briefing the staff reported that estimated total-body desas to the U.S. and world populations were about 15 person-rem and 60 person-rem respectively.
O This risk estimate is taken frca the 1972 Report of the Connittee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, "The Effects on populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ioni:ing Radiation,"
National Academy of Sciences, Novecber 1972.
1~/
At the oral briefing the staff noted in answer to a cuestion by the Cc:=.ission about possible health ha:ards to animals that humans are I
generally more sensitive to radiation t+ - ner 'ering tnin;s a-t i
tha: tne proposed purging would clearly Mr.e no sini#icant effect i
on animals.
a-
,f*
~...
7 Alternative methods which 'ould reduce offsite radiation exposure c
still further were considered in the F.nvironmental Assessment, including several suggestions offered by commenters on the draft assessment.
These included variations of the purging eethod whereby the re-85 would be 'ii1-jacted into the 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. The staff
' also 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 trational.t.aboratory, (2) adsorption on large quantities,of charcoal, (3) gas compression' and storage in pressurized containers, and (a) extracting the Kr-85 by liquefying it through cryogenic processing.
The alternatives censidered 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 catter in a tire period cuch short of a year at the best.5I The controlled purging method of decontacination recommended by the staff can be imple-ented imrediately.
Since the physical health risks of the purging meched are extremely small to begin with and'since decontaminating the 171I-Z contait: ment atmosphere should not be unnecessarily delayed, for reasons we have already discussed, the Cocmission agrees with the staff that the possibility of reducing very small ohysical health risks still further does 1/
In particular, the staff investigated a suggestion'that the selec-l tive absorption process could be placed into operation in six months by using acuipment said to be available fron the !!ational Aero-nautics and Scace Administration and c her sources.
ine suitability of this ecuipment turned out to be cuestionable, and the precosed scnedule for design and procurement aereared unrealistic.
The staff's minimum time estimate for caking a selective absorption system o;eraticnal was 15 conths.
l
g not justify significant delay and uncertainty associated with implementing an alternative process.
When we add the desirability of minimizing psychological stress to the
/
factors affecting our decision, we find that the argument in favor of con-trolled purging is reinforced.
It is of course difficult to predict with precision the likely psychological effects of the various alternatives,.
.=
including 'the alternative of doing; nothing, particularly so because the Com-mission lacks expertise.in the field of' mental health.
Nevertheless, the weight of evidence presented'to the-Commission by experks in the subject indicates a real possibility that' prolonged delay or inaction may induce ch onic' stress symptoms among persons who have already' experienced sub,
stantial anxiety related to the accident.
Although it,seems likely that there will be an increase of stress during the pericd of controlled re-leases, this stress will be tecporary rather than chronic, and the ultimate
~
effect of purging should be a reduction in overall stress levels.
In any event, so long as the containment ateosphere remains centaminated, there exists a possibility of accidental leakage of Kr-85.
Accidental leakage, I
though unlikely to have any physical health significance, could well i= pose a stress exceeding that associated wi^h controlled releases under carefully selected optimum meteorokogical conditions.
Thus it aopears en balance that tne net impact of contrv11ed purging on the psychological well-being of the publ.ic will be beneficial.
Even the temporary increase of stress may be slight if, as the Commission hcpes, awareness of the broad-based consensus that the proposed krypton venting presents no, cbjective reascn for concern about health effects serves to reduce public fears.
e w
, - y w.
-m-rw mn-y
g The Commission thus finds that decontamination of the Tf1I-2 containment atmosphere should be carried out promptly by the purging method recommended by the staff.
Physical health impacts will be. negligible, and the proposed action will probably result in a net reduction in psychological stress.7/
~
Thus there is adequate assurance that public health and safety will be pro- -
tected as. required by the Atomic ' Energy Act. We can also accept the con-clusion of the Environmental Assessment that the preposed actian will'have no significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly, ne environ-mental fmpact statement need be preparec and a negative, declaration to this effect may issue.
In view of the scope and detail of ~ the Environmental Assessment and the extensive solicitation of$public cccment, we believe in any case that the purposes of NE?A have been fully served and that prepara-tion of a formal EIS, had one been required, could not add significantly to the level of environmental consideration and public disclosure already achieved.
~
T?il-Z is presently being maintained pursuant to restrictions in an l
order issued by the Office.of the Director, Nuclear Peactor P.egulation on j
l February 11,1920 requiri,ng the licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company, to maintain the facility in accordance with the requirements of revised tech-nical specifications set forth as an attachment to that order.
In implementa-tien of the.' Commission's Policy Statecent of November 21,1979, these 1I Tne Commission has not yet determined whether psychoicgical stress is a health concern cognizable unde'r the Atomic Ene'rgy Act arid /or an environmental imoact cogni:able under NEPA.
We are presently considering these issues in connection with the TitI-1 restart 1
proceeding.
In the !'atter of I*etrocalitan Edison Comcany (Tnree I:ile 'sland Nuclear 5tation, Unit ac.1), Cocust i;o. 50-259.
In view of our finding that the proposed venting of Kr-35 will have an overali ::eneficial effect on psychological stress, the present cacision does not hinge on ha the issues are finally esolved.
10 specifications included the restriction that " purging or other treatment of the containment atmosphere is prohibited until approved by the 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 containe:ent, 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 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Ccmmission l
SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, DC, this day of June,1980.
e O
em i O
O
~
g
',
- d ;
I UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
, METROPOLITAN EDISON CQiPANY, e_t, al.
)
Occket No. 50-320 t
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,'
)
~
Unit 2) t ORDER FOR TEMPORARY M00IFIC4 TION OF LIChNSE
~
I.-
Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (thle. licensee) are the he'bers of Facility Operating License No. D?R-73, which had authorized operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 at power 1evels ap o 2772 megawatts
~
ther=al.
By Conmission 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 camnercial 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 I
operation and is in a shutdown condition with fuel in the core.
The facility
i 2.
I is being maintained in a stable, long-tem cooling mode in accordance with the provisions of the Commission order, dated February 11, 1980.
That order did not affect the l'imits on release of gasecus 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 buil' ding during the accident must be removed 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 th'e reactor core. Those tasks must be perfanned whethcr or net the plant ever again produces electricity.
Radiation-from the krypton gas, although thinly disperseif 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 pushed out of the building and fresh air pulled in.
.Section 2.1.2.of the Aopendix B techn'ical specifications contains both instantaneous and quarterly average release limits for releases of Kr-85 to the atmosphere.
Tnese limits were developed with normal facility operations in mind.
The revised ifmits described below have the effect of increasing the allowable gaseous release
- rate during the purging process so that the purging pro' cess can be completed in the shorte it practicable time.
However, under the revised rates the dose to the maximally exposed individual' offsite will still be within the limits of the Commission's regulations that would apply if the esactor were. operating nonnally. Tne health and safety impact on the public from these revised limits will be negligible. Tne nature and effects of the
+.. - -
--w
->e s-
~
o..,..
3 purging process are described more fully in the Commission's Memorandum and Order in this matter, dated June _, ; 980, and NUREG-0662, " Final Environmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building
~
Atmosphere", June 1980.
III.
Thh Commission has found for the reasons stated above that a, temporary revision to section 2.1.2 of the Appendix 3 technical specifications will not be ' inimical to pubite health and safety and 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 2.2b4 and 50.54(h) of the i
Commission's regulations, section 2.1.2 of the Appendix S technical specifi-
~
cations is amended, effective immediately, by adding at the end thereof the following:
For the period of the purge of the TMI-2 reactor building atnosphere, Sections 2.1.2a and 2.1.2c are replaced by the following:
Do not exceed for ghe maximally exposed individual
- in.any one of the 16, (221/2 ) sectors centered on the THI-2 reactor building any of the following:
(a) 15 mren skin dose (b) 5 mrea, total body dose
-(c) 20% of the limits in (a) and (b) shall not he exceeded over any one hour period.
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 butiding 'a 10
' Maximally Exposed Individual (1)
One hypothetical individual within each of 16 sectors at off-site location with maximum anticipated dese.
(2) No allowance for occupancy time - assume individual present
~
cent.inuously.
(3) No hypothetical individual shall receive more than dose design objectives of (a) and (b) above.
...c..
^
4
.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 the event a hearing is held, the issues shall be:
(1) whether the temporary tech-nical specificati'on 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 T2,1980.-
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, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Section, by the above date.
A copy of the request for a hearing should also be sent to the hecutive Legal Director,
. I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 and to Mr. George F.
Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge,18C0 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20026, attorney for the licensee. Any questions regarding the contents of this Order should be directed to the Chief Hearing Counsel, Office of the hecutive Legal Dir,ector, U.S. Nuclear Regulaary Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Operating License DPR-73, as amended, (2) NUREG-0562, " Final Envircnmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building At=csphere",
dated June 1g80, (3) Commission Memorandum and Order, dated June _,1g80.
All of the above docu.ments are available for inspection at the Commission's Public I
~
Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Commission's I
e...,,
5.
Local Public Document Room at the State Library of Pennsylvania, Govermnent Publications Section, Education Building, Cec.monwealth and Walnut Streets,
.Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17125.
~
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Washington, D.C.
on June ___,1980.
9 e
O l
+
-