ML19340B649
| ML19340B649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1980 |
| From: | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340B648 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0683, RTR-NUREG-683 NUDOCS 8011110568 | |
| Download: ML19340B649 (91) | |
Text
..-
- r.,.
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMPCSSION '
In the Mat:a cf:
METROPOLITA!i EDISON COMPANY
)
)
DOCKET MO. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Unit 2) 1 DATE: October 7.
k980 PAGES:
1 e ni 99 AT:
Camo Hill, Pennsylvania
- -(REPORT 1.YG ALDERSON s
400 Virginia Ave., 5.W. Washd.r:=n, C. C.
20024 Talaphene : (202) 554-2345 8011110 -667
i
%wB5ach I
,,10/7/80.
1 j
NRC I
Camo I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
Spring
^
L^
ARC:
I 868 3
x 4
In the Matter of:
i 5
f j
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY i
Docket No. 50-320 0l (Three Mile Island Unit 2)
I R
l i
7i ________________k l
s i
E 8
n Pennsylvania Farmers ' Association, j
9.' l 510 South Thirty-First Street, l
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania,
~
o i
P 10 i j
Tuesday, 7 October 19 80.
E 4
II,
The above-entitled matter came or. for public l
s d
12 3
meeting before the City of Lancasrer, Pennsylvania, pursuant l
9 I
t
(
13 '
g to notice, at 12:30 p.m.
E 14 '
I BEFORE :
=
i 7
15 i
2 JOHN COLLINS, Deputy Program Director, TMI 16 l Program Office, NRC w
y7 l THOMAS M. GERUSKY, Director, Bureau of Radiation j
l Protection, Pennsylvania Department of 1
u l
b 18 Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania I
j9 l BILL KIRK, Director, TMI Field S tation, j
U.S. Environmcatal Protection Agency 20 !
CLIFFORD JCNES, Pennsylvania Department of 1
i 23l Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania i
22 :
ROBERT FURRER, Pennsylvania Department of l
Agriculture 23 24 25 ;
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
J
/
h D
]D
'}
JWB o juu2. $
3 3
I ll o w Ju 9
I EEEEEEEEEE 4
MR. ALLEN:
Good afternoon, and thank you all ver/
3 much for taking some time out of a very busy schedule, I know, Before we start with anything else, why don' t you 4
to come up.
~
This looks like a bunch of Methodists sitting in g
5j all. move up.
9 t
3 6l the back.
R 5,
7 MR. JCNES:
The closer you get, the more radioactivity
}
8 you get.
a 9
(Laughter.)
i E
10 (Pause.)
~z 5
Our reason for being here is to discuss II MR. ALLEN:
3 12 and listen to the Department of Environmental Resources and
~
- ?
- , 13 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to talk about and listen to
{
14 the Three Mile Island event, and the cleanup, and i ts effect y
l on all of us.
9_
15 ll We were asked by Secretary Jones of DER if we were j
16 s
17 interested in this type of gathering, and we replied:
Ve ry j
much so.
And that we would be happy to invite the leadership i
-a 18 i
s I
19 l
up to listen to the program.
g n
i So with that, I will jus; get out of thi way and j
20 i
21 I let them take it.
22 i MR. JONES:
Thank you, C2.ris.
Yes, we. lid ask -- I i
23 l asked Chris and I asked Dick NC :ler if the Pennsyl ania s
)
I Island 24l Farmers and the counties surrounding the Three Mil t
\\
f i
would not want to hear from the duelear Regulatory Commission on 25 i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 JWB I
the Environmental Impact S tatement.
As you know, there 2
(indicating) it is.
I didn't think you'd want to read it; I 3
haven't read it all.
And I felt that, above all people, you 4
should be the ones to have an opportunity to comment on it.
sylvania Department's role in th:.s is o,ne of 5
]
6l really mah that everybody has an opportunity to be heard.
R 7
And I am ocere when I say to you, and to you, Dick j
8 Noofer, that above all -- and I think some of you know me from d
9 before -- we do want the input from the farming community.
3, I
h10 The refore, I was pleased when you accepted the 3
II invitation to the meeting.
N I2 l My role today will be to introduce Mr. John Collins 3
30 5
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the people that are
=
1 l
14 here and to let them explain to you what is in the Impact r
j 15 Statement on cleanup.
This is on the cleanup; that 's only what z
I j
16 it is; and to get your comments.
A N
I7 !
Now' what the Commission has been doing, they have I
E 18 retained a Court Reporter who is sitting at the end of the C
"g 19 tab le.
This is an optional situation.
If you do not desire it, 20 l she can be ordered from the room -~ reluctantly, but she'll go.
21 '
( Laughte r. )
22 MR. JONES:
But the idea is to make sure that your 23 )
comments are given directly to the Commissioners, verbatim.
And 24 if you would have no objection to it, the Nuclear regulatory 25 Commission would like very much if she could stay tor the entire i
i
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
i
~
5 JWB 9
1!
meeting and record your comments.
2 I would like to get a kind of a -- Do you ( the and we'll see 3
Reporter) want to turn your back for a moment, how many of them want you, and how many don' t?
4 5
(Laughter. )
a 5
3 6
MR. JONES :
How many of you would prefer not to --
R I
7 and I'm serious,about this -- not to have a court reporter take
")
8, your comments *, to.be sent to the five Nuclear Regulatory 0
I 0
9' Commissioners.
If you do, please say so.
She isn't going to
- ,o
@g. 10 l record these next few statements.
5 II Now don't record them.
3 N
I2 (Discussion off the record.)
=
I would like to introduce the people to 13 MR. JONES :
,=
14 you, first, so that you know who is here.
From-my staff, the 5:
1
[
15 l Director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection, Mr. Thomas
=
i E
IO l
Gerusky.
foranyofthemthatwouldwantoLrhtone I7
- Tom, s
}
18 number, would you want to give it?
Ac any time, if you ever need Tom, why he is available to talk you - and Dick Noofer, I'
2n 23 g.m sure you wouldn' t want to taka. it, so, Tom, what is it?
21 MR. GERUSKY :
787-2480.
22 MR. JONES:
And Amy Kelsner.
Amy has been arranging l;
all of these meetings and is a trusted assistant to Tom Gerusky,
)
23 24 and who is getting very adept with crowd control.
We ought to f
put her with hazardous waste.
Do you want her down there in 25 t
\\
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- f.
JWB 6
I North Codorus Township with you?
2 MR. WAMB AUGH :
Righ t.
The next meeting coming up?
3 You're invited.
4
( Laughter. )
3 y
j MR. JONES:
You get the one down there w Lth the 3000 i
j 6!
people.
We didn' t handle that too well, either.
R*5 7
( Laugh ter. )
s E
8 M
MR. JONES:
I want to be honest with you.
If you've d
9 got any suggestions on that, we'd like some help.
t z
O 1
h 10 l Bill Kirk is here representing the Envir >nmental
=
5 II !
Protection Agency.
He's been doing the monitoring rut there,
R i
s 12 his agency people have.
And Bill is available to answer any
)
13 j
questions later on.
Ha is your watchdog.
He watches the NRC I4 l
-)
and us, and we watch him and the NRC.
And the NRC watches E
0 15 l Met Ed, so you know where they are.
=
l 16 I i
And then we have here today with you twc people s
17 I from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Suzanne Issaacs, who d
l
=
b is the Executive Assistant to Mr. John Collins.
She's the A
h beautiful person in green sitting over here.
n 20 And then we have also -- and I'm going to Lntroduce 21 l
him at this time with a little presentation, because I won't 22 get another public chance.
23 You know, during all this whole thing with Three 24 Mile Island, it was very nice to have someone present who was i
i 23 concerned about nuclear power, and who was concerned about i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
e 7
~ '
JWB 1
safety, and who called us, and consulted with us, and worked 2
with us in every possible sense of the word.
IIe has met with 3
these crowds -- I wish he was at North Codorus -- but he's met 4
with these crowds of 600 or 700 people.
He 's been licoed, jeered, s
5; applauded occasionally, but he's taken all the heat, and all a
6 the complaints through the krypton gas and all the way through.
7 Fortunately for him, he has been promoted onward to Nl 8l a Deputy Directorship in the Southwestern United States.
You d
d 9
are seeing the last few meetings, and I guess you deserve the.
zo 10 reprieve, John, but I'm sorry to see you leave.
Wherever you j
11 go, please wear this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pen so that 5
1
'f 12 you know that we cared about you.
3 y
13 (Mr. Jones gives Mr. Collins the pen.)
=
i l
14 l MR. COLLINS:
Thank you, very much.,
b l
E 15 '
MR. JONES :
I wanted to choose a public ceremony for N
i j
16 i that because you deserved it, and because there isn ' t any better A
d 17 work group to work with than the f armers, and I mean that 4
18 sincerely, too.
5 i
l I want to turn this group over to you at this time j
19 i
20 l for a presentation.
At some time I have to slip out the door i
to make another presentation, but I will try to do that 21 1
22
' inconspicuous 1y.
I 23 John Collins from the Nuclear Regulator! Commission.
24 i
MR. COLLINS:
Thank you very much.
I al'preciate 25 your.: remarks.
i l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8 JWB I
( Applaus e. )
2 MR. COLLINS:
Just to give you some reassurance, I 3
won' t be leaving tomorrow af ternoon.
I will be here until the 4
Commission finds a replacement for me, which I thin). will 5
probably take the better part of November and into l'ecember.
o 3
3 6
I do want to thank you much for coming oitt and R
7 giving us the opportunity to talk to you, and to explain a s
j 8
little bit about the Environmental Impact Statement.
And then J
d 9
of course we are prepared to answer any questions you have E.
10 concerning cleanup, or any other questions that reLtte to z=
l l
Three Mile Island - or even if they don' t relate to Three II a
p 12 Mile Island, we will certainly try to answer them.
5" 13 5
I have been, over the past several weeks now,
=
1 I4 l
before giving the formal presentation at least discussing a i
g 15 ll Si little bit about the current difficulties facing Met Ed with
=
j 16 regards to their financial condition, so that you will have as N
I7 an awareness of where they are and where the current status of 2
h IO l\\
the Metropolitan Edison's plea for money s tands.
E i
g I9 l Back in July of this year, the end of July, the 20 l; Metropolitan Edison Company applied to the Public Utilities 21l Commission for an emergency rate relief in the amount of I
22 l 535 million.
In addition, they also asked for a general rate 23 increase of $76.5 million.
24 On August the 28th of this year, the PUC had a 25,
hearing and they denied Met Ed's request for the S:5 million ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e JWB 9
i I
increase -- emergency rate increase.
2 The formal hearings on the general rate increase 3
will not take place until April of 1981.
As a result of that 4
action, and as a result of Met Ed's inability to maintain a l
5' y
steady cash flow, they presented to the Nuclear Regitlatory n
6!
Commission and to the Public Utilities Commission a letter of g
7 September the 12th in which they identified the cutback in 3]
8 certain programs taken from an annual spending level. of d*
9
~.
approximately $100 million back to $50 million.
5 h
10 l Then on September the 18th, the Public U-ility
=!
II Commission issued Met Ed an order to cease and desiit spending S
f I2 any revenues that were derived from the rate payers for the 3
13 E
cleanup of TMI-2.
That of course caused considerable concern x
5 I4 I j
on the part of Met Ed, in that it was not clear.in the order 4
l 15 l what jobs or functions could be performed under the revenues y
16 that were received.
They just identified it as one statement 4
A h
17 '
saying that no revenues could be used for cleanup.
5 IO
[
Met Ed applied - asked the Public Utility Commission G
I9 for a clarification of that statement.
They were cenied any S
1 n
l 20 further clarification.
Then as a result of that denial, i
21 i
l Met Ed then appeared in Federal Court here in Harrisburg i.n i
22 the Middle District and sought a temporary and a permanent 23 injunction against the PUC to get that clarification.
24 Judge Herman denied that temporary and Permanent 25 injunction last Friday.
He did, however -- a week-ago-Friday.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
2
}.
JWD 10 I
He did, however, allow the Metropolitan Edison and the PUC to 2
submit legal briefs that had to be filed yesterday, and then 3
did agree to have a hearing on the matter this coming Wednesday.
4 Well, there were a sequence of events that occurred i
e 5;
beginning last Friday, in which Metropolitan Edison entered N
6' into negotiations with the staff of the PUC.
As a result of R
7 those negotiations, on Monday they filed with the ?ederal A]
8 District Court asking for an indefinite stay pendin y the d
2 9
outcome of their negotiations.
z.
l oy 10 The Judge allowed that, if you read, the paper this z
E 11 morning.
It has been -- the hearing has been pos tponed Qa j
12 indefinitely.
5 j
13 l On Friday after the denial by the court, the Nuclear
=
i ng 14 l Regulatory Commission issued a policy statement witn regards a
=j 15 to the action by the PUC.
I just want 'to read to you that
=
y 16 1 position, because I think it is important that you ceople know A
17 '
where the NRC stands on this.
We have been followiag it very N
18 carefully.
Again if you read the paper, it was ide ntifie'd that 3
P" 19 g
l the s taff -- including myself -- met with our Commissioners.
l 20 We have discussed the issue, and we are following t he events i
21 l
and the outcome of the negotiations.
I 22 The Commissioners in their policy stater ent, which s
23 '
was issued September the 29 th, s aid that:
"We take no pcsition i
i 24 l on whether the actions of the PUC create an irreconcilable i
~
t 25 conflict with NRC requirements which have been impesed on Met l
l t
ALDERSON REPOR1:NG COMPANY. INC.
11 JWB 1
Ed, or which may be imposed in the future.
W2 wish to state RC's clearly, however, that in the event of any such conflict, 2
health, safety, and environmental requirements must supercede 3
4 state agency requirements that result in a lesser degree of a
5 protection to the public.
In short, the Commission will not 3
I n
excuse Met Ed from compliance with any order, regulation, or j
6 RJ 7
other requirement imposed by this commission for the purposes of protecting the health, safety, or the environmenc."
}
8 d
d 9
I think it is very clear that, pending die outcome, 5
in any way lessened any protection to die public y
10 we have not j
11 as a result of these actions.
So I diought diat at least night 3
j 12 be of interest to you to let you know what is transoiring.
-cj 13 ;
Met Ed does have financial difficulties.
The Publi: Utility
=
i Commission has had discussions with the Congressional delegation j
14 E
I 2
15 l from the area in Washington to seek federal funds t o support l
j 16 l
the cleanup of TFE-2.
Those negotiations and discussions of s
6 17 course with the Congressional delegation are continuing.
5 18 So with that, unless somebody has a particular 5
{
19 ques tion to ask regarding that, I think I will just jump right j
n i
20 l into my formal presentation.
I 21 l
You may have to move back -- Yes?
22 MR. LEWIS:
Before you do, just joining us af ter 23 !
the introductions were made was Ueputy Secretary or Agriculture, l
Wayne Snyder.
24 25 MR. JONES :
You know, Chris, maybe it would be i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
JWB 12 I
helpful to Mr. Collins if each person would introduce themself 2
and tell which county they are from, and what type of farming 3
they're engaged in.
4 MR. COLLINS:
Why don' t we start with yet;?
5 MR. RANCK:
Don Ranck, Lancas ter County, dairy g
a 3
6 farting.
g 1
7 MR. HESS:
I am Jim Hess from Lancaster county,
j 8
also dairy farming.
O g
d 9l MR. MUSSELLMAN:
Arthur Mussellman, poultry business y
10 and general farm operations, Adams County.
E II MR. CORSNITZ :
Bruce Corsnitz, Dauphin County,
43 Y
I2]
general farm operations.
5 I
y 13 MR. HOWARD WEYBRIGHT:
Howard Weywright, Adams a
'n 5
I4 County, retired general farmer, dairy.
w
_u 15 l MR. MILLER:
Marlin Miller, Cumberland County,
]r
=
i j
16 l dairyman.
^
i N
I7 MR. WILCOX:
John Wilcox, southern York County, s
}
18 dairyman.
19 MR. SELLERS:
Ralph Sellers, Lebanon County, retired e.
gn 20 dairy f armer.
2I MR. DICE:
Jim Dice, Lebanon County, hoc farmer and 22 l general farmer.
23 ;
MR. MYERS :
Mervin Myers, Adams County, dairy l
24 farming.
25 MR. DEHOFF:
Jack Dehoff, York County, ciairy f armer.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
)
13 JWB 1
MR. BESHORE:
Wayne Beshore, York County, also a
~
2l dairy farmer.
3 MR. WAMB AUGH :
Lou Wambaugh, York County, grain and 4
hogs.
e 5'
MR. NOOFER:
I am Dick Noofer with PFA staff.
Roger Hoke from Cumberland Coitnty, dairy
]
6l MR. HOKE:
R
\\
7 farmer.
M Wilson Smeltz, PFA Informat2.on S taff.
8 8I MR. SMELTZ :
es d
9 MR. OELLIG:
Ron Oellig from Dauphin County, dairy.
~
z' O
y 10 l MR. BERKHEIMER:
Bob Berkheimer from Cumoerland 3
11 County, dairy.
y is j
12 MR. STROCK:
Clyde Strock from Cumberland County, 4
y 13 i swine and turkey.
s m
(
14 MR. NEY:
Harold Ney, Lancaster County, general.
j 2
15 MR. HORACE WAYBRIGHT:
Horace Waybright, Adams County, j
16
- dairy, s
p 17 l MR. ALLEN:
My name is Chris Allen, and I'm with the I
w
- n 18 i
PFA Staf f.
I.
19 MR. COLLINS:
We've had quite a cross-se ction from M
l 20 across many counties around here.
21 (S lide. )
lj In August of this year, August 14 th, th e > Nuclear 22 i
23 l
Regulatory Conmission published the Programmatic Environmental l
Impact Statement in draft form.
We have copies av.tilable, if 24 25 you have not seen the document.
We have them in oitr Middletown i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
}
a 14 JWB I
of fice located at 100 Brown Street, Middletown.
You are j
certainly welcome to pick them up there, or give myself or 2
it in the 3
Suzanne a telephone call and we would be happy to put 4
mail for you.
5 We do have copies here, and you may want to pass y
3 6;
diem out -- we do have copies of the press release that was R
I i
released with it, and we also have copies of a document that 7
A is, " Questions and Answers Pertaining to' the I
8 8l just came out which a
d i
which we
~.
Impact Statement," which tries to take the document, 9-e z
and try j
10 '!
recognize is a very complex and technical document, F
5 i
- 4. II l to answer some of the more frequently asked questions that we 3
d 12 have received to date on the impact statement, E
5 I
I3 !
I think you will find the "4 and A" format helpful.
j s.
=
i af ter the presentation, or when you I4 l
I might also add uhat,
=
if you have additional questions, please feel free to 0
15 I
b l
- leave, l
g 16 j call me at my Middletown of fice.
I can be reached on 782-4014.
^
\\
17 (Distributing documents.)
'd l
If we're not in the of fice, let me give you a number IO e
i diat we have on a recorder, and you can record your name and 19
)
It is 20 your telephone number and I will get back with you.
l!
If you are out of the area, please feel free to 21 782-3997.
i 22 call us collect, s
23 As I mentioned, on August the 14th we publishe.1 the j
in accerdance with 24 Programmatic Environmental Impact S tatement i
federal regulations.
We noticed it in the Federal Register on f
25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
B 15 JWB i
August the 22nd.
We began a comment period of 45 days af ter it 2
was noticed and out for public review.
We became inundated 3
with many requests from the public in this area to extend the 4,
comment period because of the complexity of the document.
I 5!
People here wanted more time to review it.
e A
N 3
6 We extended that deadline another 45 days.
The
^n E
7 comment period now ends on November the 20th.
During this n'l 8
period of time, as Cliff has indicated, we have been out meeting 6
d 9
' with various groups in the area.
We have conducted over 20-some I
I og 10 l meetings already, some public and some with groups about the E
j 11 same size as we are talking to today.
We will continue that 3
j 12 effort through the comment period to make sure that the public 5
13,
has an opportunity, first of all, to hear in some detail what s_
m I
h 14 '
the cocument does contain, and then to listen to your comments.
2 15 That was the purpose, of course, of having the court reporter
,z
\\
g 16 here, to ' transcribe your comments so that we may present them A
d 17 to our Commissioners and factor them into Che Final Environmental
$u 18 Impact Statement.
3 P
i 19 l Next slide, please, a
20 l (S lide. )
21 The purpose of course of the document itself was to 22 i
assis t the NRC in carrying out its responsibilities under the u.
i 23 Atomic Energy Act to protect the health and safety of the as the 24 !
people, both the workers and the general public, s
25 decontamination progresses.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
16 JWB 1
I It was also our purpose to engage the public in the 2
Commission's decision-making process in keeping with the 3
National Environmental Policy Act.
4 It was also our purpose to focus in on the j
environmental issues and alternatives before commitments to 5
l j
4; the specific cleanup choices are made.
a I
b 7
With regard to the second purpose, shortly af ter the 8
EPICORE-II was designed and constructed and in place, the df Y
staff issued an Environmental Assessment on that particular 5
i g
10 l system.
And again as you know, we have issued an environmental z
i E
I II assessment talking about decontamination of the reactor bui.1. ding
$a j
12 which led to the purging of the reactor building to the i
13l atmosphere.
s i
14 In both cases, the Council on Environmental Quality 2
i 9_
15 criticized the NRC from the standpoint that they felt that we j
16 should not segment the operations of the cleanup functions that A
h I7 would be required; but, rather, to provide in one total document 18 the environmental impacts associated with the total cleanup of I
19 g
i the plant and the defueling of the reactor.
l
=
20 l
As a result of those discussions with CEQ, that 21 I
served the basis for the policy statement for the Commissien 22 ordering the staf f to prepare this impact statement.
i l
23 Next slide.
24 f (S lide. )
25 The programmatic statement contains a statement of i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
)
17 JWB the overall evaluation and disposition of the radioactive It waste resulting from the March 28th accident at TMI-2.
~
provides a description of the proposed cleanup activities and 3
the schedule for their completion.
4 I
I think you can recognize, with the current series o
51 of events involving Met Ed, that those schedules may be iroacted 3
6 o
n'
~
7 and certainly the final statement will have to reflect any
'n slippage that may occur as a result of the current activities, 3
8 b
i It also provides a description of the alternative methods for 6
9i i
j
~
j accomplishing the principal activities and environmental impact o
10
~=
w 11 of those which are considered feasible.
<3 Now certainly the public will have an opportunity d
12 1
z 2
13 g
to voice their opinion on whether or not they consider the U
14 methodologies discussed in there are feasible..There will 3
w g
probably be other methodologies that the public can think of.
9 15 i
j l
The staff, in their considered opinion, looked at those which 16 i
I C
17 i we consider to be technically feasible, and we are certainly y
I E
18 open to your comment concerning other methodologies that may
=9 n
j9 l be available.
3 20 i think it may be important to note what the s tatement I
21 It does not in any way discuss the March 28 th does not include.
22 '
accident, nor does it discuss the environmental impacts as a 1
result of the accident.
These have been covered quite well in 23 '
many documents by many investigations daat have occurred since 24 i
25 the accident -- the Kemeny Report, the Rogovin Report, and the t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
l
s 18 JWB l
I NRC's own Of fice of Inspection inquiry, and the Ad Hoc Report 2
on Releases from the Plant During the Accident.
The informa-3 tion has been well documented, so we don' t discuss in any way 4
the accident itself or the impacts.
5 It does not discuss the ultimate disposition of g
e?
]
6l TMI-2, whether to restore it or to decommission it.
That is a R
i I think it is 7<
subject that will be discussed at a later date.
c" n'
important to note that, whether one wants to decommission the j
8 d
9
' plant and dismantle it and remove it, or whether you want to z,
10 refurbish it and put it back on line for commercial power, it 3
h II must be cleaned up to the same level.
3 g
12 It does not set forth specific recommendations as
~c 5
to what methodologies should finally be used in cleaning up the 13 s.
n t
5 I4 ll plant.
n E
r 15 j It does set forth the alternatives.
Now what will
^
l
=
E I6 l occur is that af ter the final environmental impact statement i
h 37 has been issued, then the licensee, Metropolitan Edison, will
=
propose to the Nuclear Reguls tory Commission an alternative for
}
18 c
I9 i cleaning up a particular part of the plant and a method for g
i n
20 cleaning up the water.
l 2I !
At that time, the NRC staff will look at that I,
I 22 I alternative.
If it falls within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement that we've produced, then there will be no 23 l
need for the staff to do any additional effort or to issue any 24 25 additional supplements.
If, however, the method that is finally I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i lg JWB I
selected for that particular cleanup operation falls outside 2
the scope of this document, then we would be required to issue 3
a supplement on that particular method.
So there may be 4;
supplements issued at a later date.
5 (S lide. )
a 3a 3
6 This was the original schedule for the f -nal environ-R R
7 mental impact statement, and it takes into account r_he extended
,f8 45-day comment period.
You will now see that that ands on 4
The z,
- l November the 20 th of 19 80.
I might point out an error.
O O
10 last two dates should be "1981" and not "19 80."
s 1
3 11 We hope to present to our Comissioners tie final 3
12 environmental impact statement for their review on February
'j S
13 l t:.e 28th, and daen hope to publish daat, depending on the 5
s.
m l
14 Commission action, by March the 23rd.
j.
I 13 (S lide. )
- z g
16 What I would like to do now is go through the major s
U-I7 conclusions that are contained in the document, and if you I
d
{
18 have questions as I go through it, please don' t hesitate to
?
g interrupt me, or you can wait until I'm finished and we can go 19 i
20 !
back and talk about them.
But it doesn' t bother me to be 1
)
21 interrupted.
22 The first major conclusion that the staf f arrived at 23 was looking at what would be the total dose daat would be 24 l received by the maximum individual off-site as a result of the 25 whole cleanup operations beginning in April of 1979 and i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
s 20 JWB 1
concluding through the final defueling of the reactor and 2'
cleaning up of the primary system.
3l The staff estimates that the maximum dose to the -
individual off-site would be on the order of that 1.6 millirems.
4 e
5 The risk of cancer from this dose is about 2. 2 in 10 million, N
the United compared to 1 in 5 million from normal occurrence in 6
R i
7!
States.
The risk of genetic effects from the cleanup to 6
of fspring, we estimate, would be about 4.2 in 10 million, as 3
d z.
9I compared to 1 in 17 million from normal occurrence of hereditary i
o 10 dis ease.
z
=
We looked at what the total dose would be to the
]
Ill-5 an1 we have g
12 population within a 50-mile radius of the plant, 5
l-estimated dhat that dose would be on the range of aoout 6-person-a 13 5
m aj 14 !
rem; compared to 255,000-personrem to the same population from i
2 15 l natural causes.
1
~-
\\
16 So you can see, both with respect to the maximum g
a i
17 l
dose to the individual, 1.6 -- and remember that the total 1
u r
w 18 dose received, the maximum dose off-site as a result of the
=
g accident, if you happen to be standing at the north gate 19 20 during the period of the first two weeks into the accident, the 1
21 maximum dose is approximately 86 millirems.
Compare both of l
22 l them to the natural background which is received annually in
~
I 23 this area which is approximately 116 millirems.
So we are talking about a very small fraction of the whole cleanup opera-24
~
l 25 tion that has to be done prior to restoring or decc mmissioning 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING CC?MP ANY. INC.
l
J 21 JW3 I
a plant.
2 (S lide. )
3 The second major conclusion:
We of course looked at what the dose would be when the waste is transported from 4
j here to Richland, Washington.
There will be a large number of 5
n 3
6:
waste shipments, and we will discuss that, but we wanted to
,n b
7 of course consider what the dose would be if an individual spent three minutes at an average distance of three feet from 8
d
~.
a truckload of rad waste.
We calculated that this would be in 9
!l 10 l the range of about 1.3 millirems.
And again, the risk of
~
4 IIl cancer would be about 1.7 in 10 million.
The genetic effect
=
a j
12 would be approximately 3.1 in 10 million.
5 l
5 I3 l We looked at the number of people residing along i
m i
5 I4 the 2300-mile route, which is the distance from here to Richland, m
U g
15 l Washington.
We have estimated that that population would be z
j 16 on the order of about 700,000 people.
We have calculated that s
l N
I7 dose based on the three-minute stay time and it would be in the s
i range of 26 to 66 person-rem for all of the TMI waste in the 18 "g
19 fuel shipments.
20 I must point out that we used a very conservative assumption for the fuel shipments, because at the present time 21 no decision has been made as to w7ere the fuel will finally be e
i disposed of.
Oncenthe fuel is removed from the reactor, it 23 1
24 will be of course placed in s; teel cans and sealed and placed l
in the TMI spent-fuel pool awaiting an ultimate disposition of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t 22.
JWB But taking it conservative and saying that if the 1
diat waste.
2 waste were transported, it would not go any further daan the 2300 miles to Richland, Washington, and it would probably go a 3,
4l distance much shorter daan that.
I e
5 (S lide. )
h
}
6!
Of course one of the major concerns that we have is E
what is going to be the expected dose that will be received by 8,
7 3
the people who must work in the plant over the period of 8
d c
9 cleanup.
We have estimated that that dose would be in the z'
y 10 l
range of about 2700 to about 12,000 person-rem through the O
z i
Now the wide rsage there is because of
=
i j
11 l
whole cleanup program.
3 i
j 12 j the lack of more definitive information aa to the levels of 5
13 I
radioactivity that one would be encountering inside the reactor E
14 i building.
Y I
This document was prepared and published prior to 2
15 j Y
g 16 l the first two containment entries.
Now that we have additional A
d 17 i information as a result of those two entries, and another I
18 third one planned, those values will certainly be revised
=e
{
19l downward.
20,
Within that s ame vein, the occupational dose to an i
21!
individual worker at the plant cannot, in accordance with Met Ed has imposed 22 NRC regulations, exceed 3 ram in a quarter.
23 a more restrictive limit on their workers in which they hold the t
24l limit to i rem in a quarter.
So it would be more conservative and this of course is 25 by a f actor of the 3 NRC requirements,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
J 23 JWB reflectad in the person-rem dose for the operations that have 1
2 occurred to date.
3 (S lide. )
The fourth conclusion:
Ne looked at of course the 4
e 5
processing of the contaminated liquid that exists in the Mn s
6 auxiliary building and the fuel-handling building, which for R
j?
7 all practical purposes over 500,000 gallons has already been 3
]
8 cleaned up, and that water is now being stored in the auxiliary e
i d
9 building and is being used as flush water to clean out the h
3 10 l tanks and the sumps in the building.
But we do believe that z
1
=
l j
11
{
the water can be cleaned up to acceptable levels by various 3
g 12 alternative treatment systens that are considered in the E
y 13 !
Environmental Impact Statement.
mj 14 Also, it is possible that af ter suitable dilution --
h:
9 15,
because there is no treatment system that will remove the w
=
1 g
16 tritium from the water -- but af ter suitable dilutien, the
^
\\
d 17 !
processed water could be released into the Susquehanna River.
5 18 l without any adverse enviranmental impacts.
5
}
19 I would quickly add to that, though, that no decision M
20 has been made by the NRC, nor have we received any proposal by 21 Metropolitan Edison, as to how to dispose of the water.
The 22 !
Environmental Impact Statement does look at various alternative 1
l 23,
ways of disposing of it, and we will talk about tha t later.
f But at this time, no decision has been made.
24l
~
25,
As you know, we entered into an agreement with the l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
JWB 24 -
1 City of Lancaster and Metr. folitan Edison back this past summer, a result of the lawsuit that was brought against the NRC not 2
as 3
to dispose of that water.
The agreement say s, in short, that 4'
we will not dispose of any accident-generated water from TMI-2 5l until after the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been o
X" 6l is s ued.
So based on our current schedule, thac would not -- the
~n d
7 Impact Statement will not be issued until approximately j
8 !
March of '81.
And if Metropolitan Edison were to propose a d
9 method of disposition, we would take action on it some, time later.
5j:
10 (S lide. )
3_
j 11 We looked at what the worst accident could be at 3
the plant at the current time with the reactor in the condition y
12 i
~c y
13 that it's in, and we considered this in the Impact Statement.
m h
14 We felt that the worst accident that could occur down there 4:
2 15 right now would be if the reactor building, which contains E
j 16 approximately 650,000 gallons of highly active water, if that
^
\\
d 17 wacer were to begin to leak from the containment building and r
5 l
5 18 l found its way into the groundwater, and found its way into the P
h 19 Sasquehanna River.
e i
20!
We have estimated that if a person exposed to that l
21 wat 2r drank approximately 2 liters of water a day for a year, he
\\
22 ;
would receive a dose of about 31 millirens.
Or if he ate t
~,
23 21 kilogrems of fish per year, he would be-accumulating a dose 24 i of about 27 millirems.
We calculated that it would take, if
~.
25,
the building did begin to leak, it would take about 1.6 years I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
25 JWB 1
to reach the water.
Of course, during that period of time 2
mitigating actions could be taken in certainly a period of 3
much less than a year-and-a-half.
4!
Again, if you compare these -- even these accidental o
5 doses to the natural background or 116 millirems, they are 3nj 6
still a small fraction of that.
We consider that to be the 7.
}
7 worst accident that could occur at the plant.
~
j 8
'(S lide. )
d 9
And of course one of the major issues in this area io
$. 10 has been the psychological stress question.
The staff, together E
j 11 '
with its consultants, undertook a study and looked at the 3
y 12 psychological stress question.
We've concluded that the
~
13 high levels of stress should be relieved as a result of the l
14 venting of the krypton-85 in the reactor building.
t i
E 15 i We do conclude, though, that there remains and s
j 16 I
will remain low levels of stress which will continue throughout s
1 p
17 the cleanup operations.
But in the opinion of our consultants,
a m
1 5
18 we see no long-term effects on the great majority of the 5
19 community.
We do see that the long-term nature of the cleanup I
20 i
process pcasents chronic stress for some people, and completing I
j the cleanup as expeditiously as safety considerations allow is 21 I
certainly desirable.
I not only think it is desirable, I think 22 i
23 it is necessary.
The longer the plant sits there, it is 24!
subjected to potential mechanical and haman errors and we do 25 have a potential for -releases until the plant is cleaned up and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 26 -
JWB 1
the fuel is removed.
So those potentials exist.
I 2
(S lide. )
We looked at of course what the impacts would be --
3 i,
4I both social impacts, and the economic impacts.
We looked at m
i I
g 5
such things as reduced property value, competition between 9
f, 6
work force, the tourist industry for temporary housing and R
ji 7
traffic conditions that may occur.
We looked at the economic s
j 8
impacts such as increased electricity rates.
We looked at l
e reduced tourism and the possibility of resistance to consumption c
9 i
g 10 of agricultural and fishery products that the public may believe o
z_j 11 were contaminated with radioactive materials.
Those are a
d 12 discussed in the Impact Statement.
z 13 Although we discussed a little bit earlier the j
14 number of the rad waste shipments daat may occur, we are a
~
2 15 l estimating..that it would probably -- the number of shipments a
would be on the range of about 660 to about 1700 rad waste j
16 y'
17 l shipments over the entire cleanup program.
We don' t see this "x
18 as a serious traffic congestion problem because they will be E
}
19 occurring over a long period of time.
Again, the wide range n
20 here is due to the fact that the final process method for 21j various operations has not been selected.
Once that has, of 22 l course that will set the tone for how much waste will be I
generated; but certainly on the high side of 1700, that is 23 i
24 being conservative ar.d, based on our best estimates, those 25!
numbers may be revised somewhat as a result of more information i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
1 JWB 27 1
that was realized as a result of the containment entries that 2
have been made.
3 Yes?
4 MR. BESHORE:
The material which you're going to be g
5 disposing of, is that a solid matter?
Or what is it?
You've 6
talked about water, which I can understand; but what is this ?
o 9y 7
MR. COLLINS:
Okay, daere are two major types of 3
8 wastes that will be disposed of.
One is what we call a I
d
=
9 "combus tible" and a "noncombus tible" waste.
Such things as the z
h 10 l clothing that has been worn by the workers, paper towels that 5
E 11 have been used in the cleanup operation, that type of material.
<m d
12 That is normally placed in 55-gallon drums, compressed, and z
5 13 placed in wooden boxes.
E i
14 !
You also have such things as small pieces of d
i u
E 15 l equipment that would be removed, and boxeu, and hauled off the U
l 16 j site.
3 A
d 17 Now the other type of waste is the waste that will a
=
i 5
18 l result from the cleanup of the water.
That is a resin material.
5 19 i It's an inorganic material, an organic resin that removes --
k l
20 l it's very similar to your water sof t ner.
It is an ion-exchange 21 media that would remove the radioactivity.
Those are contained 22 in large steel ~ liners.
That resin a._terial is being stored at 23 the site right now because we ha a required Met Ed to solidify l
l 24 l
that in concrete.
That would be shipped off-site as a concrete 25 block, a concrete mass.
l t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
28 JWB I
Those are the two major types of was te that will 2
be generated.
The other type of course would be the fuel 3
itself, and as I indicated to you, there is no final res ting 4
place for that at the present time.
5i Most of the waste, the combustible or noncomoustible g
6 type was te, is what we refer to as the "very low-specific R
7 activity was te. "
It's got very low contamination.
In fact, a
%l 8
lot of times in cleaning up various areas we have to consider dd 9
it as potentially radioactive because it did ccme frem that E,
10 area, but in many cases it is going to have a very low radio-3 II activity content, but it cannot be disposed of in a sanitary 3
g 12 landfill.
3
)
a 5
13 !
( Slide. )
I y
14 With regards to the subject we were just talking 1
about -- the radioactive fuel, and there is some high-ac'tivity
]r 15 j i
j 16 l w'aste -- the high-activity waste will result from cleaning up, vs j
(
37 i
for example, the water that remains in the reactor building.
?n 18 If the method selected and approved is' the method that Met Ed
=
19 has now proposed to us -- which is a resin-type system -- the g
n 20 first stage, as the water passes through that first stage, 21 l
those resins are going to be very highly active.
The staff h
22 does not believe that that type of material can go to a shallow-23 :
land burial ground in Richland, and some other location will 24 have to be selected.
25 We have been meeting with the Department of Energy i
i
\\
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
J 29 JWB 1
and looking at alternative ways that that material can be 2
disposed of.
But at the present time it will be stored.
Ne 3
discussed this in the Impact Statement, and we see no environ-4 mental effects resulting from that storage.
5 I
( S lide. )
y f
3 6l Yes?
R l
7 MR. ALLEN:
Since that waste may be stored on there o
sj 8
for some time, what sort of storage facility does Met Ed have?
O 9
MR. COLLINS:
At the present time, they have two
~
z O
h.10 l facilities.
One is what we refer to es a " temporary storage E
II '
facility" that was constructed to contain the liners from the 4n
[d I2 EPICORE-II system, which was the system used to clean up the 3
13 5
water in the auxiliary building.
And then as that sys tem was s-a m
I4 completed, engineering and construction proceeded on a long-e i
j 15 term s torage f acility -- a concrete, engineered storage
=
j 16 l facility -- which is a very daick concrete structure with a
=
i h
I7 f shield block of about 3-1/2 feet thick on the top of it.
The s
18 3
whole thing is drained to a sump.
The sump is monitored to A
i I
I9 '
3 assure against any leakage that may occur, that w a ' re monitoring n
i 20 l th at leakage.
i l
21 The f acility itself is designed to take an Agnes-i 22,'
type flood, if we had anotner Agnes-type flood, so I think the 23 l system facility can be used for an extended pericd of time 24 without any environmental impact at all until a final decision 25,
is made as to where to place this high-activity waste.
I see l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPA NY, INC.
t JWB 30' no problem with using that engineered s torage on the site.
Of course we looked at the total cleanup operation, 2
3 and the staff believes that the technologies exist to clean up 4
that plant safely.
It may have to be modified, but there is an
~.
I e
5 enormous amount of experience, both here in the United States Ae d
6 and in Europe, that would provide the basis for many methods e
R.
7 to clean up the plant.
3 3,
As you know, the Atomic Energy Commission -- the l
e i
=
9' former Atomic Energy Commission and now the Department of i
h 10 Energy facilities have experience in decontamination operations z
11 involving high-activity waste.
Certainly that experience will d
12 be factored into c: leaning up the plant here; and the Europeans,
c too, have years of experience in cleaning up highly contaminated y
13 i
=
E 14 l facilities.
h 2
15 So we see no problem in adapting those methodologies s
16 to the cleanupeprogram.
3^
l 17 (S lide. )
i 5
18 The staff estimates that it is going to take 5
}
19 i approximately five to seven years -- and that is beginning in n
20 about April of '79 when we put the plant in the safe shutdown 21 !
condition -- to clean up the plant.
What impact the current i
22 series of events will have on the schedule is something that
~.
23 '
we will have to evaluate and consider in the Final Environmental 24 !
Impact Statament.
~.
25 (S lide. )
i i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 31 JWB 1
The cleanup, of course as I mentioned earlier, 2i will certainly alleviate several potentially hazardous condi-3 tions at TMI-2.
For example, there is a possibility of 4
accidental releases of radionuclides to the environment in the s.
5 event of human and/or mechanical failures during the cleanup.
=
6 l
6' The staff has concluded, however, diat en balance 7
the benefits of full decontamination, core removal. and
%l 8
disposal of the radioactive wastes from the March 28 th accident
'J i
0 9l at TMI-2 greatly outweigh the environmental costs of the cleanur z.
^w g
10 activities.
_5 j
ll
( S lide. )
m Y
12 We looked at various alternative methods or ways of
=3 13 cleaning up the plant.
I think the first two are really the E
n A
5 14 most viable alternatives.
One is :
Full cleanup _, salvage, and 5
t 15 decontaminate the useable equipment daat is in the plant.
Or, d
j 16 you could have full cleanup, and then remove the equipment with i
s i
d 17
{
minial or no decontamination, and remove it off-site to a shallow
{
18 burial ground.
C I'
k 19 The last three -- partial cleanup with defueling; R
20 partial cleanup, fix core in place -~ are not really viable i
l options, but we had to discuss alternative ways of cleaning up 21 22 the plant.
Item five to me is not a viable alternative at all:
23 -
No action.
That is not in my opinion a 'rery viable alternative.
24 )
The plant must be cleaned up.
You cannot close the door and 25 lock it and threw the key away.
It has to be cleaned up, no 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
di
+p 'h a
.a, v o 4$2+d)'
%d.7 l
'W& *(g??
2 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 if a EM m m p"u
$m L in llF12.0$5==
.t_,_
l I.8 i===
1.25 1.4 1.6 l
l 6"
=
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART l
hh
. /4 m& %+,
<># m
+
sr.e;o ;
- w,,%
x s w..,
/////
p.ft r
c 0
vfl ep 4(D
0 l
4
$$~Q +*?
9 '4 0
Q lll
,l?<q, R&xNN\\///
%k$g
////
g N
NNNN
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) h
.I i
f 1.0 lf a E3 M E 21 i
E m [=
l l,l hN I--
JA 1.25 j'jlI.4 1.6 i
J 6"
j MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART 4
m#*r 4
<>Q, sA a fx m m, i
m.,
.,v,.,a.,,.
s Q&
O sp
4 32
- JWB 1
matter what happens.
2 (S lide. )
~
3 There were a number of water treatment systems that 4
can be used to clean up the water.
The first system up there g
5 is the one I talked a little bit about.
It is the inorganic 2
6
=eolite resin system, which Met Ed has proposed, which is R
7 referred to as the " submerged demineralized system."
sj 8
Another system of course is the very common use in e
9 many of the operating plants today -- evaporation.
You concen-z,
)
l c
10 trate the material and you clean up the condensate from the E
h 11 evaporator through a resin system.
4 3
g 12 We looked also of course at solidifying all of the 3
\\
13 >
water in Portland cement.
We looked at solidification in asphalt, 5
=
n 5
14 which is commonly used in the European communities.
Or, U
1 j
15 another alternative would be to filter it and then store it on
=
i j
16 i the site for some extended period.
A
!5 17 i We considered all the alternative ways that would Eu 18 3
achieve the objective.
The method that will finally be approved
?
19 l
a i
after the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been issued, 5
1 20 l that determination will be made af ter the Impact Statement has 21 l been issued.
I I
22 (S lide. )
i 23 Of course one of the most sensitive questions has 24 been: ~ What about the release of the water into the Susquehanna 25 River?
As I indicated earlier, no decision has been made as to l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
?,
33 JWB.
-f I
how to dispose of the water, but these are alternatives which 3
3 2
are certainly viable and would be considered at some future 3]
time.
It is possible to retain the liquid in tanks at the site p
1 4I for some period of time.
Normally what we're talking about as I
5, "a long period of time," normally we will consider, in the I
e 4
3 4
N l
3 6,
licensing of a nuclear power plant, that the life of the plant E
7!
is on the order of about 40 years.
So we' re talking about g.
j 8
storing the water on-site for about 40 years.
d i
9l Of course we did look at the impact of releasing it I
I I
10 !
into the Susquehanna River.
We believe there would be no I
3 II l environmental impacts from that release once the water has been m
j j
12 diluted.
5f 13 We looked at constructing ponds on the Island and s.
s x
5 14 :
using solar evaporation.
The water would be evaporated into
[.
y I
[
15 l the atmosphere.
We looked of course at forced evaporation as j 16 ll
=
another alternative way, and daat would be release to the
'A l
17 l
atmosphere.
j:
G 18 Another method that is available would be deep-well P
i t
j9 l
injection.
" Deep wells," we're talking about wells that would 4
23 j
20 i
be dug 1000 feet or greater into the earth 's crust.
21 We looked also at some method for solidifying it 22 with some chemical agent and then shipping it to a burial ground.
~
23 We looked at taking the water off-site and processing it at 24 some other location.
Of course if you take it off-site and
~
25 you dispose of it, for example, in the Atlantic Ocean, I'm sure l
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i.
34 JWB I.
the people in New Jersey might have something to say about it, You could also solidify it in one concrete slab and store 2
too.
3 it on-site, 4
So those are all of the alternatives.
One of them s.
5 of course will be proposed by M6t Ed, and the Commission will g
n
]'
6; make that final decision.
R 7
. (Slide. )
8 MR. ALLEN:
Since the Impact Statement goes through
'4 l
z, 9!
and rates alternatives, do you go through in the listing and 0
i o
I 10 discuss the pros and cons of them in more detail than you have Z_
II here?
3 N
I2 l MR. COLLINS :
No, you don't really list the pros i
j 13 )
and cons.
The environmental impact, or how you arrive at that
=
i 5
14 is actually going through that type of thought process and n
b!
15 looking at the alternatives.
We have not listed a " pro / con" j
16 for each one of them.
n d
17 MR. M.T.mi:
So an individual going through would 5
18 have to use some imagination --
?
I9 MR. COLLINS:
He would have to use some imagination, i-25 l
20 l but I think there is enough information in the Impact Statement 21 that would be surficient for you to make a decision on whether 22 or not one particular alternative is better than another one.
23l MR. ALLEN:
So in other words, we can' t really 24 weigh the alternatives without reading the statement?
25 MR. COLLINS-Yes, that's true; yes.
But I think i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
JWB' 35 1
diat if you review -- You wouldn' t have to read the whole 2
statement.
If you just read that particular section dealing 3
with the water, there is enough information in there that I 4
think you could draw a conclusion.
I g
5:
MR. BESHORE:
Is there any economic data involved in 0
3 6l this ?
R 7
MR. COLLINS:
There is no cost da ta in this document,
%]
8 in the draf t.
The reason it is not in there right now is that d=
9 a lot of the cost information was not available at the time we z
O g
10 produced it.
The Final Statement will have the cost data in z
=
1
~
j 11 there.
But recognize diat cost is not a paramount consideration.
m j
12 in our decision-making process.
Cost, to us, is not paramount.
5 13 Cost, to Metropolitan Edison, is a different story.
But the
=
1 y
14 NRC doesn't weigh the cost in looking at the environmental impact l
}
15 j and the protection of the health and safety of the people, firs t.
m j
16 MR. ALEFM:
I hate to keep interrupting --
A I
17 MR. COLLINS:
That's okay.
Ez 18 MR. ALLEN:
-- but for the benefit of the transcript, E
I
{
19 would you identify yourselves before you ask questions-- My n
20 apologies for not doing this earlier -- so dnat she will know 21 who is speaking and can record it that way.
12 !
(Slide.)
i i
23 '
MR. COLLINS:
I did want to show this slide, because 24 l there was some concern in the Impact Statement itself.
This I
s 25 ;
slide represents the transportation route from Harrisburg.
The i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e.
36 -
JWB 1
l' first one was in error, and I wanted to be sure that you were 2
aware of that f act.
This is the routing.
When rad waste leaves 3
the Island, it leaves on Route 441.
We take that up to 230, up 4
to Interstate 283; we join Interstate 83 and travel up to g
Interstate 81, and pick up Interstate 80 and go out to the 5
a j
6 Ohio border.
The one in the Impact Statement shows it crossing
~n E
7 the river in Harrisburg and going up Lebanon 15.
That is not
%l 8!
a viable route at all.
We have never used that route, and we d
d 9
don't intend to use that route.
This is the routing that has
(
y 10 been used, ar.d I see no reason in the future that that would E
II change.
3
(
12 I think that is all I have on the slides.
I am 5
13 ready now to try and answer any questions you ha've about the
.a 5
=
h I4 Impact Statement, or any other questions you have relating to g
15 the cleanup.
x g
16 Yes?
s N
I7 MR. GERUSKY:
One other comment.
Mr. Jones has lef t,
$m
- n 18 but one of the things we wanted to do is to make sure that A
g l
members of the Department of Agriculture were here to answer any 19 a
i 20 i
questions that you had concerning TMI and agricultural problems,
l I
21 and use the opportunity to cross-examine the people from the 22 I
Department of Agriculture the same way you can cross-examine us 23 at DER.
24 !
MR. COLLINS:
Yes, sir?
w l
25 MR. MUSSELLMAN:
Arthur Mussellman from Adams County.
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l u
JWB'
'37 l
1 What is the reasoning for NRC to keep TMI No. 1 shut 2
down?
3 The second question is :
During the height of the 4
goings-on down at TMI after the accident, was there any attempt i
5j made by the government agencies -- either military c r civilian --
e 3n j
6 to use weather modification technology to contain it ?
R 7i MR. COLLINS:
Use what kind of technology?
A j
8 MR. MUSSELLMAN:
Weather modification.
a 2
9i MR. COLLINS:
To contain the accident?
io 10 i MR. MUSSELLMAN:
To contain the results of the z
c l
11 accident.
For instance, the possible radioactivity from 5
g 12 i spreading.
5
_o 13 !
MR. COLLINS:
To my knowledge, that was never a
=
w I
l 3
14 '
consideration; no.
f 15 '
Your first question with regards to why is the NRC
=
f 16 l holdi. g up the startup of TMI-1, shortly af ter the accident
-s i
g 17 occurred the Commission did issue an order to Met Ed shutting i
{
18 down TMI-1.
TMI-l at the time of the accident had just gone
=
{
19 l through a major refueling and was just about ready to go back on n
20 l line.
21 l
Because we recognized right after the accident when i
22 l we arrived here on site -- and I came up here on March 30 th --
~
23 that there were certain facilities in TMI-l that m'ay have to be 24 called upon to assist in recovering the plant, TMI-2, the 25 Commission ordered it shut down.
i i
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.
\\
....j 38 -
JWB 1
Then, because of the accident itself and the j
2 investigation - the many investigations that have been
~~
3 conducted -- certain modifications were imposed on all operating 4
nuclear power plants, both on a short-term basis and a long-g term basis.
And because of the sensitivity of TMI-l to restart, 5
6 and because those modifications had to be corpleted prior 'to R
7 its restart, the Commission handled this plant as if it were 1
%l 8
what we call a "near-term operating license."
It's a plant that i
c.S i
C 9 I has applied for an operating license and we subject it to a z,
o g
10 hearing process.
Z_
E Il The Commission did order that this plant undergo a m
Y I2 l restart hearing prior to coming back on the line for power.
- 3 13 I That decision was made by all of the Commissioners, and we 5
m a
usj j
are proceeding in the hearing process.
The hearing will begin I4
.j 15 now on October the 15th, at which time we will begin to hear x
i j
16 I testimony from all parties.
s
(
II I would expect that that hearing is going to take 5
3 18 approximately six months.
After that, of course the Licensing i:
19 :
Board that is made up of three people, will review the evidence Ra i
20l and make recommendations for our Commissioners, and the 21 l Commission itself will make the decision as to <hether or not i
22 TMI-1 will be res tarted.
And that will occur sometime in the 23 '
latter part of next year.
24 Does that answer your question?
MR. MUSSELLMAN:
Yes.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
e-39 JWB 1
MR. COLLINS :
I thin,k that even if the decision is 2
made, by the time Met Ed would go thrm. Jh its preoperational 3
testing and come back up to commercial power, that that could 4
add an additional two to four months even to that schedule.
t e
5 MR. WAMBAUGH :
One question I have.
I wonder why En 6
they have postponed the hearing on TMI-1 for a number of times?
~n 7
"~. sat was supposed to have been held, what, six months ago, 2j 8
anywayf wasn' e it, or started?
d:!
9l MR. COLLINS:
It originally was supposed to have
?
E 10 i s tarted in March.
I think that was the first date that we had i
i
=
j 11 '
actually projected.
l g.
12 There were a series of events that have occurred, 5
13 and I'll ti./ to explain - that is, rathe r, legal complications.
m j
14 When you natice a plant for a hearing, the interested parties
$j 15 in that hearing art permitted to submit to the Hearing Board y
16 those contentions ta.at they would like to discuss in the hearing.
i d
17 There were many, many contentions that were received.
- s=
5 18 Then what the Hearing Board does is:
The Hearing a
+-
f Board takes all of these contentions and they conduct what we 19 g
n 20l call a "prehearing conference."
You allow then each one of 21 i thes9 contentions to be discussed.
I, 22 l Now at the same time t$.at these contentions are 23{
being discussed, all of the part:.es, or the people who want to 24 l be a party to the hearing, submit what we call "interroga-1 25 <
tories."
They are statements that they would like to have l
4 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
r.
. ~.
JWB 40 addressed as part of their contentions.
y The staff must respond to each one of those interro-2 3
-gatories and give that information to the Hearing Board, and 4
back to the people who asked the questions.
There were many, 5
many questions that came in.
It has just taken the staff that
=
5l 6
long to answer all of those interrogatories.
7 Plus, there is information that must be developed 8
so that the staff can put together its safety evaluation, which d
d 9
must be completed before the hearing can begin.
And that has i
h 10 taken longer than what the staff originally projected.
So it E
g 31 was a series of events that has caused this delay in starting a
ti 12 up.
And certainly it was not a deliberate delay; it was just a 3
13 delay caused by the enormous amount of paperwork that has been y
E.x 14 generated leading up to the beginning of the hearing.
5 2
15 MR. WAMBAUGH:
Going back even before the accident I
g 16 at TMI, your daily records had one reporter that had quite a d
i d
17 series of writeups citing the faults of nuclear power, the s
18 i dangers.
That went on for a couple of weeks.
Could this 5
19 accident have been planned?
k l
i MR. COLLINS:
Could this accident have been planned?
20 21 That was investigated, as to whether or not sabotage was 22 actually involved.
Based on the NRC's Office of Inspection w
23 !
inquiry, we found no evidence to support sabotage; none, 24 whatsoever.
The matter was also reviewed by the Kemeny Commission 25j I
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i i
l.
\\
.l 41
~
~
JWB 1
and they found no evidence of sabotage.
MR. WAMBAUGH:
Due to the fact that we had had so 2
many editorials on nuclear energy, I had never really had the 3
4 opportunity to ask anybody.
I thought this was the proper time.
o 5
MR. COLLIUS:
And I am certainly willing to try and n'*
3 5l answer it:
No, there has been no evidence that has come forth U
i a
n l
to show that sabotage was involved in any way.
J 7
n' 8
8l Yes?
n d=
9 MR. HOWARD WAYBRIGHT:
Was it an accident?
Or was z'
10 it something else?
11 MR. COLLINS:
Was it an accident?
j 3
5 12 MR. HCWARD WAYBRIGHT:
Yes.
What was the " accident"?
Z
=
Well, the accident was really a whole 13 MR. COLLINS:
s 5i
\\
14 i
series of events.
The accident started because we lost the ti flow - the plant lost the flow to the condensate system,
=
2 15 w
i
=
l j
16 That triggered a whole series of events.
Once you lose ficw, A
j 17 because of the loss of flow it trips the turbine; the trip of
=
18 the turbine itself scrams the reactor; as a result of the
=
i there is a device in the main primary system,
}"
19 l reactor scram, 5
20 l referred to as a " pilot operated valve," which relieves the I
21 :
pressure from the reactor.
That did open.
Water was injected l
22 into the reactor.
I I
As the pressure was reduced, that valve should have 23 24,
closed.
It did not close.
Water continued to pour out of the j
25,
reactor, and finally it ruptured the tank that it was being ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I JWB 42 1
' transferred to.
And that, again, a whole series of events :
2 The core was partially uncovered for a short period of time, 3
which degraded the fuel, damaged the fuel.
And it.was the 4
major source, of course, of the radioactivity that was released.
g 5
The activity that did come out of the reactor, most
-0 I
j 6l of that was contained in the reactor building.
The activity R
7 that was released to the atmosphere primarily came from leaks 3
j 8
that occurred in what we refer to as the " letdown system,"
d which was in the auxiliary building, which vents directly to the
- i 9!
z l
0 10 atmosphere.
z:
I j
11 There was certainly operator error involved.
There 3
y 12 was mechanical failure involved.
There was no one -- we can' t 5
i 1
y 13 l say that there was one, single thing that caused' the incident.
=
i 14 ;'
There was a lack of identification on the part of the people in m
5 I
{
15 l the control room to recognize some of the symptoms ; and maybe y
16 )
more action could have been taken.
si d
17 So ~I think it was just a whole series of events.
5
{
18 l I think that I have heard somebody characterize it by saying:
c 19;!
All of the ingredients came together at one time, and there was
+-
g n
20 l an accident; it probably could have occurred at some other plant, l
21 too.
22 '
We went through approximately 500 reactor years of 23 operation without a serious accident in the United S tates, and 24l it did occur.
I hope + hat we have learned a lot from the i
25 accident, and I hope that certainly from what we have learned and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.s 43 JWB by the upgrading of our new safety requirements that we will 1
2 make these plants safer than they were before.
I think on the positive side, though, that not 3
enough has been said, that many of the systems build into that 4
reactor did function exactly the way they were intended to e
5 Mn]
6 function.
When you recognize that you did have a serious R
7 accident, you did uncover the core, and the containment building X
j 8
did indeed contain the radioactivity and that's what it was cie 9
designed to do.
o h,
10 Does that answer ycrr question?
z j
l1 MR. HOWARD WAYBRIGHT:
Yes, but what I'm thinking is :
=
3 p
12 Before the accident, did the people know what to do in case 13 there was an accident?
Were they prepared for an accident?
3 g
g
=
14 f MR. COLLINS:
Well, certainly the operators are I
2 15 i
trained to handle emergency conditions in the reactor itself.
there are warning signals -- different types of signals g
16 I mean, A
d 17 for different types of accidents.
a c
I This particular type of accident was one tnat had w
13 T-j 19 not been previously analyzed by the staff.
It was cle.ssified, l
20) though, as a " loss-of-coolant accident," but the particular h
21 !
events that led.tp to the loss of the coolant had not been 22 l previously antlyzed.
23l The operators are trained, and perhaps one of the
'4 !
deficiencies that has come out in many of the recommendations l
25 '
for improvement was the upgrading of the operator training 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
J.
)
JWB 44 -
l 1
program on a more. frequent basis.
I think that also one of 2
the strong recommendations that came out, and that is certainly I
3 being imposed, is that there be a qualified engineer in the I
4 control room at all times -- someone who is qur.lified to 5
recognize various symptoms that may occur, outside of those l
=
A n
l l
6 that have been previously discussed.
^n
)
3, 7
We don't like to use the phrase, but sometimes it s
j j
8 takes an accident to identify things that were not clear before.
i d
i
- i 9
I think a lot has been learned from this accident, and a lot 1
z e
i g
10 is yet to be known about the integrity of the systems inside z
4
=
t i
j 11 the containment.
We have a lot more knowledge to gain once j
B 1
(
12 12t entry is made and the equipment is inspected.
3 y
13 Yes?
m l
14 f MR. ALLEN:
Chris Allen.
5 15 l Two questions, really.
At the beginning of the slide
]
j
=
j j
16 show, you showed some conclusions that you reached about how e
17 possible doses from the cleanup would affect peop'.e, and they g
s.
18 ;j compared favorably with background doses.
Have you ever made i
5 3
c i
s 19 l
- he same kind of judgments on livestock in the area?
2 l
n 20 And I guess this may be a question for DI:R:
Can 21
{
f armers along that transportation route look forward to more 22 frequent testing of milk for radiation and subsequent publicity 23 of that?
24 !
MR. COLLINS:
Well, let me say this with regards to 25 the second question, firs t.
The major source of contamination l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~
.~-----,,y-
.s 45 JWB 1
to the milk is of course the potential for radiciodine to be 2
taken up by the cow and then of course delivered to the milk.
3 The source of iodine is.gone.
There is no source of iodine w
4 remaining in the plant.
The iodine has all decayed away and 5
has been ever since the latter part of May of
'79.
e 4
An
-]
6 So that I don't see any increase -- We have not g
7 requested of Met Ed to increase their requirements for milk M]
8 sampling, none whatsoever.
dd 9
And I don't believe you have increased yours at all?
i i
oy 10l MR. GERUSKY:
No.
We don't believe there's a need i
j 11 to.
is y
l'.
Along the route, the potential for an accident 3
13 involving large quantities of strontium-90 and cesium -- the l,
g m
l 14 other two isotopes that do get in+.o milk, and the only two majer E
2 15 '
isotopes that are.now in the plant, is very, very small, and 5
\\
g 16 you wouldn' t have to monitor in the vicinity until after an d
17 '
accident - after a significant release of the isotopes.
The E
5 18 chances of that occurring are very, very slim because of the
- s-19 packaging and the training of the drivers and the knowledge in R
20,
general about the material that's being shipped, the inspections l
21 1 that are takire place prior to it leaving the plant, and the 22 people on call to handle the accident if it ever occurs.
s.
23 ;
There are many more shipments of much more dangeroun 24 material crossing the state all the time, and we don't even 25 know about them on a routine basis.
Every shipment from Three l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
46
- JWB 1
Mile Island ve know about.
The state police are notified.
2 2
The Hazardous Substances Transportation Board is notified.
All 3
the counties along the route are notified; and all the states
- here along the route all the way to Washington are notified.
4 i
5i is just no reason for it, except it's "TMI-2 waste, and TMI-2 e
M l
a i
j 6 I waste is bad was te. "
^
R 7
MR. ALLEN:
So dairymen don't have to look forward n
j 8
to the publishing of milk samples?
d
=
9 MR. GERUSKY:
Certainly not.
i i
o 10 MR. BERKHEIMER:
Bob Berkheimer, Cumberland County.
11 Are plants such as TMI safe, or vulnerable to 3
(
12 aircraf t bombing or missiles?
5 i
j 13 i
MR. COLLINS:
Well, any plant that is constructed s
within a flight pattern for aircraft is subjected. to an analys s n
i 14 E
g 15 i
to make sure that it can take a crash of an airplane.
I mean, z
many plants are not in close proximity to airports, but p) ants j
16 s
17 that may be similar to TMI-2 would be constructed in the same i
M 18 !
manner as TMI-l aad TMI-2.
Both of those structures, and the Ij 19 ;
auxiliary building, can take a 727 crash.
The building was n
20 analyzed and constructed to do just that.
2I MR. BERKHEIMER:
But if we were at war and an enemy 22 would attempt to -
23 '
MR. COLLINS:
It can still take a missilo, too.
- 24f, Por examnie, we have a plant at Turkey Point which :s on 25 Biscayne Bay.
Sitting directly behind the plant is a Nike misale l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,!NC.
.s 47 f
1 base.
That plant was constructed such that it could take an 2
abortion, should one of the Nike :nissiles abort on takeoff.
~
3 So each one has -- You look at what is in the w
4 surrounding area during the siting of the reactor.
If the g
5 utility still wants to process its application, then we would N
6I require construction to take care of those types of esents.
j R
MR. GERUSKY:
That containment building is one of e
7j t
5 8l the best bomb shelters available in the country.
If one knew
]
g
)
q 9!
that we were being attacked and could get inside it and not be z=
10 I exposed to radiation inside, it would be one of the safest
_5 4
II j places in the country to be.
Er i
N I2 i MR. COLLINS:
The containment structure itself sits 5
13 '
en a 12-foot-thick concrete pad.
The building is 3-1/2 feet E
s
=
I4 taick of concrete, and it is lined with an inch of steel on the y_
15 iiside.
So it is a pretty good fortress.
It is desi;ned to a[
16 i
t ske an internal pressure of 60 pounds per sque re inch, which s
h 17 is a pretty healthy pressure.
=
E 18 The highest pressure we did see as a result of the P
i g
accident, shortly af ter the accident, a number of hours after 19 n
20 l tite accident was either a hyhgen explosion inside the 21 i,uilding, or there was a hydrogen burn - it doesn' t really j
i
, ttter.-- but we did see a pressure increase up to about 23 22 i
s 23 i )unda per square inch.
That was the highest we saw..Ever l!
24 ince that burn occurred, the builcing has been maintained as i
25,
,,agative pressure with respect to t he atmosphere.
So th at if ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l,.
48-JWB 1
there is any leakage, it is leakage into the building and not 2
out of the building.
It is a good fortress, though.
3 MR. KIRK:
You would have to be almost inside the 4
fireball of a weapon to get that sort of overpressur e develop.
g 5
I did some calculations on it one time.
If you were right at E]
6 the edge of the fireball, you'd get up to 50 or 60 pounds of 7l R
2 overpressure.
j 8
MR. COLLINS :
Yes?
O
- i 9
MR. MUSSELLMAN:
Arthur Mussellman, agair., from bg 10 Adams County.
z i
=
j 11 Is the NRC taking any further steps to see that a
j 12 these plants are not located near populated areas in the ft;.are?
El 13 MR. COLLINS:
There has been a revision to the siting i
14 l policies of the NRC which would prohibit construction in large, 5
l 2
15 I populated areas.
So we have revised those siting policies.
E l
g 16 '
I must be quick to add to that, though, that plants s
i;[
17 can be designed safely and still located in populated areas.
i G
18 It isn't necessary to put all plants out in the " boonies."
I E
{
19 consider, and I firmly believe, that plants can be operated --
n 20 constructed and operated safely and scill be constructed in 21 populo ed areas.
But we have revised our si ting policies taking l
22 !
that into consideration for very large populated centers such l
I 23 as the middle of New York City, or Philadelphia, or other 24 l cities of that type population.
s D
Ye?
l i
1 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
B 49 I
MR. HOWARD WAYBRIGHT:
Is there any trutli to it tnat 2
England has 33 of these plants in operation, and there's about 3
72 in' Europe?
I've never heard anything about it.
Have they 4
ever had any trouble or any accidents?
+
5 MR. COLLINS :
Oh, yes, they've had accid ints.
]
6 First of all, to answer your question:
ngland --
7 l' E
I'm not sure they have 33.
I thought the number waa more like X
]
8 23, and those are gas-cooled reactors ; they ' re not !.ight-water d
y 9
reactors.
z i
o
'l France has about 12 to 18 reactors ; Germany has g
10 z
E lj about the same number; and the smaller countries are developing Il 48 1
_ {
12 l nuclear power in Europe.
And they have their problems.
^
-e 5
'3 Outside of the windscale accident that cccurred in i
=
l 14 the late ' 50s, to my knowledge there has been no serious -- or zj 15 no accident of the type of TMI in any of the commercial reactors a
si I6 in Eurcpe.
The Yugoslavians -. or the Czechoslavak ians were r2 i
h I7 f alleged to have had a serious commercial nuclear pc-<er accident, Y.
18 l and so were tne Russians.
But in neither case can we find c
1 F.
I9 '
g enough information to support that.
Information has come to us, 20l but the Russians are not very quick to tell you about their h
21l deficiencies.
l 22 In fact, I was there and I could not pr' any of t.h3 t 23 information out of them.
They just weren' t willing to talk about it.
l D
MR. HOWARD WAYBRIGHT:
Well, how can -- they use ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
50 JWB nuclear-powered submarines in ships, how do they get along with I
2 them?
How are they managing?
3 MR.-COLLINS:
Well, I think you' re talking about two You're talking about a Navy program and, 4
different programs.
first of all, the nuclear-steam-supply system is a much smaller 5
e 3
system than you' re talking about en a commercial basis.
a j
6 Secondly, the program that Admiral Rickover conducts R
R 7
K is a lot different than the program conducted in the commercial j
8 d
9 industry.
He has a much higher level ot quality assurance z'
required in the submarines than is required by the Nuclear Cy 10 3
Now that does not
)
11 Regulatory Commission for commercial plants.
3 y
12,
mean that his is any better than ours ; it just means that he 5
l 13 demands a much higher level of quality assurance.
3 14 I think the other thing that is important, too,5.s l
2 15 l that:
Should a fuel rod degrade in any way, that reactor is --
a
=
that submarine is immediately brought in and the fuel is j
16 s
i 17 replaced.
So they never operate a reactor with any degradation 5
18 of fuel at all, and that is not the case in commercial power 5
}
19 plants,
n 20 MR." ALLEN:
In,your' disciission. in answering?
21 Mr. Waybright:'s ' question about the European experiences, and 22 l earlier on when we were talking about cleanup alternatives you
)
s,-
23 mentioned trained technicians and experienced people.
24 f If accic.ents on the scale of TMI haven' t happened, i
s 25 where does the training come from?
Is it simulatic n training l
I
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
D**D
- O 3
S.\\
JWB"
_cw o
I that these people have had?
Or. --
2 MR. COLLIMS:
L think what we were trying to point out is that there may be a difficulty in getting trz ined 3
4 technicians. - That may be a problem.
But the traine d technicians e
5 come from all walks of life.
They come from other commercial U
power plants; they come from the Navy program; they come from j
6l R
i J.
7' the DOE facilities, which does have this experience So there Xj 8
is not really -- Well, I would say there isn' t a las:k right d
=
9 not, but there is certainly not an overabundance of trained i
h 10 personnel, and this is recognized in the Impact Sta:ement.
_z MR. ALLEN:
There is a degree of adlibbi.ng, then, l
11 3
d 12 in the cleanup?
z 3
13 MR. COLLINS:
No, I wouldn' t say "adlibb i.ng. "
I lii l
14 think it's a matter of qualifying and training the technicians i
E i
2 15 i by qualified people such as myself.
Or there are paople at 1
s I
f 16 the plants that have years of experience in this, and it is a d
i j
g' 17 matter that we are going to have to train these ope rators and i
!il 18 the cleanup people to perform these cleanup operations.
\\
s 19 For example, the people who are doing tre major R
20 decontamination work have years of experience in de contaminati sg 21 all types of facilities all across the country.
T1osa are the 22 f people who are going to have to train the nontraintd people at 23 the present time to proceed with the cleanup operat ion.
't is i
24 l just a matter of traAning and finding the qualified techniciana.
~
25 But those people exist.
-l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 l 52.
-JWB-I MR. CORSNITZ :
Bruce Corsnitz, Dauphin County.
2 What does the re-entry procedure have to do with 3
the PUC that you were just talking about?
4 MR. COLLINS :
What does the what?
5 MR. CORSNITZ:
The re-entry that they've been talking g
n j
6 about that's been postponed into the containment building.
r
~n b
7 MR. COLLINS:
Well, the reason it was pos tconed --
j 8 f and Bob Arnold and I had quite a discussion about that -- At 4
i c
9 the time the entry was supposed to take place, the PUC came down o
5 10-with the order telling Met Ed to cease and desist using E
II revenues from the ratepayers for the cleanup operations.
=
m j
12 l Met Ed's management could not decipher what that
-m 13 statement meant, and what operations could be performed under s.
5 1.
z So rather than take a chance of being in violation E
I4 :
d2at order.
j
]c 15 of the order, the PUC order,.they pos tponed the entry until i
r.
n j
16 they got a better definition of what that statement meant.
A N
17 !
It is like saying:
I've got two colors of dollar
~
18 bills, one blue and one green.
Now which one of these dollars
~
.t I9 can I use to make the manned entry.
They were not able to make 20!
that distinction, and they have asked for a clarification.
21 Of course since that time, it has gone back and 22 forth and back and forth.
They do have, at the present time, s.
23 an entry schedule for October tha 15th.
That is the schedule 24 that Mr. Arnold has given me on it.
25 MR. CORSNITZ :
Do they, know how much ' fuel is lef t i
I i
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
.JWB.
53 1
in there yet?
5 2
MR. COLLINS:
All of the fuel is there.
It hasn't.
3 gone anywhere.
The problem is, we don't know what shape it is t
4 in.
We do know, from our best estimate based on the analysis e
5, of the water, and knowing the temperatures that the core M
i N
3 6
experienced, and the fact that it was uncovered for a short e
M 8
7:
period of time - part of the core was uncovered for a short 1,
M g
8i period of time, we're estimating that at least 50 percent of i
e
=i 9j the core has been damaged.. But to what extent it has been io 10 damaged, we really don't know and we will not know that until
)
E 5
11 we take the reactor head off and examine the fuel.
<m i
12 i A large portion of it could be sitting in the bottom z=
i 3
13 !
of the reactor vessel; or it could be -- certainly we know that 5
E 14 it exceeded the temperatures at which the =irconium cladding if 15 '
oxydized, and it may be in an oxydized state.
I think it is s
16 a combination of all of them.
3 A
g 17 I think when vou examine it, you will find some of s
5 18 !
the fuel sitting in the bottom.
It may have, because of the 5
i 19 i high temperatures, actually agglomerated part of the fuel.
But X
i 20 :
as I say, that's all speculation.
Until that head is taken 21) off and we're able to get cameras in there, we really won' t 22 i know what it's like.
w 23 '
I do think that taking the fuel out is going to be 24; one of the most difficult jobs facing the licensee and the NRC, 25 because we have never handled a core damaged to this extent.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
o
.\\
54 JWB I
The technology for. removing damaged fuel certainly exists,
2 because there have been reactors that-have had seriously damaged 3
fuel, but nothing on the order of 50 percent.
But it should be 4
a very ' interesting program of getting it out.
5 MR. BESHORE:
Wayne Beshore, again.
3 6
You infer that there is no possibility of contamina-7 tion on the part of milk, and I guess you're saying other foods C
l 8
also.
Has all sampling been discontinued?
d f
9 MR. COLLINS :
Oh, no.
Absolutely not.
Metropolitan zoy 10 Edison has what we call a Technical Specification.
It is an II order given to them at the time of their operating license 3
12 which requires them to have in place an environmental monitoring j
^
"I Included in that environmental monitoring program is i
s 5 - 13 {
program.
=
l 14 l sampling of the agricultural products, the milk, the water, the E
i
[
15 l soil, and that progr'am is in place and will remain in place.
=
a[
I6 I MR. GERUSKY:
The Department's program is still --
w h
I7 Actually, it's increased.
But we ' re doing milk, als o, as an -
s 18 on farms close-in.
3 i
A t=
19 MR. BESHORE:
On a daily _ basis?
20 !
MR. GERUSKY:
No, it's on a monthly basis right now.
2I MR. BESHORE:
How many f arms are being sampled? ~
22 MR. GERUSKY:
I think it's two, only; it's back to s.
23 '
what we were before the accident for milk.
If there is, anything i
that is released to the environment, if we see anything in the 24 I
25 air samples, then we go back and increase the milk-samplirg i
AL.OERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.s
~
JWB 55 j
program.
But we haven't seen any particular activity in the 2
air samples.
The only thing we saw during the venting was 3
krypton; and during the accident, all we saw were some iodine w
4 samples and xenon, the noble gases in iodines, nothing else, 5
MR. COLLINS:
I'm not sure of the exact number of e
d 6
samples that Met Ed has taken.
We can get that information for e
E 7,
you.
But for them to modify in any way their environmental 1
~
i 3
8 monitoring program would require them to come back to the n
d d
9 commission and request a change, and they have not done that.
2.i.
E 10 i And if they do it, I am going to be very reluctant to change
- l..i I
j 11l their environmental monitoring program at all through the whole 3
6 12 cleanup operation.
z 5
i 13 MR. WAMB AUGH :
What is the range on this?
=
i E
14 MR. COLLINS :
The range of environmental monitoring?
i i'!
15 I MR. WAMBAUGH :
Yes.
N l
i MR. COLLINS:
Met Ed's environmental monitoring is 16 3
l
- ri out to about 15 miles.
We' re out to -- We have our cwn g
17 z
$i 18 )
monitoring program. The NRC has monitoring stations set up, E
19 and I think we're out to about 15 miles, too, aren' t we?
We R
i 20 j have some 58 TLD stations around the reactor.
21!
MR. HOKE:
Roger Hoke.
The nuclear waste seems to i
l 22 '
be perhaps more of a problem than actually a malfunctir n.
~^
23 There really hasn' t been anything established yet for where to i
24 :
go with these nuclear wastes, and we must have how many nuclear i
f 1 25 plants across the nation?
To me, this seems like more of a i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
56 -
JWB I
MR. COLLINS :
Well, we have 74 licensed plants, if 2
you include Unit 1 and Unit 2.
So there are 72 that are
~
3 operating.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 have been ordered to be shut down.
4 I cannot argue with you that the nuclear waste problem isn't a o
5 very serious problem, and certainly it deserves the attention U
6 of Congress and those of us in the nuclear industry to come
?
p 7
up with adequate solutions to this problem.
j 8i However, I am going to quickly add, at the same time, d
f 9
that we should not limit our discussion just to the discussion 3
10 of nuclear waste, but we should add in all other types of i
II hazardous waste.
3 y
12 One thing we can say, certainly, on the positive 5
13 side for nuclear waste, that radioactive materials do decay s
n 14 with some half-life.
But when you're talking about other i
i j
15 l types of chemical pollutants, they don ' t decay.
Arsenic is
-4 arsenic, and c.rsenic is going to be arsenic for a long time to 16 A
i 17 come; whereas radioactive materials will decay to a stable i:
5 18 material.
19 Now I am not saying that to put off your question g
n 20 because the waste disposal problem is a very serious problem j
21 and I don' t think, in my opinion, that we have moved quickly 22 l enough in the direction to solve those problems.
think the s
8 23 Federal Government, the Departms.nt of Energy, other federal 24 l agencies involved in this must come to grips with :his problem 25 i if nuclear power is to remain a viable option.
I.lon' t think l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
57 JWB 1
it is fair 'for the nuclear industry or the Federal Government 2
to put this off and pass it on to the next generation without 3,
coming up with an acceptable solution to it.
4 Now there are programs underway, and there have s
5 been programs underway for a number of years, and it is a verf 3
6 difficult question.
And of course one has to look et all of R
I the options that a. e open to us for not only finding an
=
e l
8 acceptable geological fornation, but then answering the d"i 9
questions of how long and in what form the material can be
- oy 10 placed, and how long it will remain in that form.
]
II So th are are enormous test programs unde:vay to try 3
Y I2 to answer some of those questions - because you're not talking
-a y
13 i about what is going to happen 50 to 100 years from now; those s
=
\\
m 5
I4 l kinds of questions are in the realm of our technoloiry and in f
t:
=
i g
15 :
the realm of our thinking.
But now you are talking about a
=
I j
16 l formation that is going to house radioactive materi t1 that is s
i I7 going to be there for thousands of years.
Now, tha t is
- s i
?!
l h
18 mind-boggling, but that is the kind of thing that you put people
_c No 19 !
in a think tank and ask them to think about those types of aa 20 things.
l It is hard to appreciate:
How can I extrapolate 21 22 this technical information out to a couple of thousand years 23 !
from now?
I just have to reiterate that there are programs t
24 underway to try to solve this.
In my opinion, I am not 25 convinced that we have moved quickly enough to fine those ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
\\
j 58 -
JWB 1
solutions.
And I.do agree with you that it is a problem.
2 MR. BESHORE:
You mentioned anWashington site.
Is 3
this federally owned property?
4 MR. COLLIUS:
The commercial nuclear licensed burial 5
ground in the Statie of Washington is' on a federal reservation.
g e
j 6
It is on the Hanford site.
A number of years ago, the Federal R
l 7l Government undertook a program on its federal reservations to
)
8 turn over a portion of the land for commercial use.
And I am
- .i 9
not really sure of the year that that occurred; it was in the i
O g
10
' 70s, I believe, sometime -- pardon me, in the late '60s.
E j
11 A portion of the Hanford reservation was set aside 3
f 12 for a commercial burial ground.
Now the other ones - the other
-a y
13 i two commercial burial grounds that exist are at Barnwell, South
=
i g
14 l Carolina -- and that it not on a federal reservation.
It is n
u i
r 15 :
close to one.
The one in Beatty, Nevada, I believe tnat is --
j 16 No.
No, it's not, either.
It is close to one, but it's not.
A 17 Richland/Hanford is the only one that is on a commercial --
-=o 18 MR. DEHOFF:
Aren't some of the foreign countries b
19 l
reusing --
5 j
20 l MR. COLLINS:
Reusing what?
21 MR. DEHOFF:
The was tes.
l MR. COLLINS :
No, not really.
The problem we have 22 23 with reusing waste is that a lot of the waste that is generated, 24 as I referred to earlier, is very, very low-activity waste --
25 [
contaminated clothing, papers, rags, that type of thing, and it j
)
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.s 59 JWB 1
has got very little commercial value to it.
To reclaim the 2
radioactivity in that would be an enormous job, and at a very 3
high cost to recover the small amour.t of radior.ctive material 4
that would be contained in it.
e 5
But certainly when you get to the higher-activity 3
i a
]
6l waste such as the fuel, there have been programs such as fuel 7
reprocessing plants proposed.
But because of the current
%]
8, Administration's viewpoint on the fuel reprocessing plant, there dd 9
is no commercial fuel reprocessing.
O 10 MR. HOWARD ifAYBRIGHT:
Some of the European countries -
a ll l MR. COLLINS :
France has a fuel reprocessing plant 3
1 g.
12 l that is processing fuel and reclaiming the ura.nium and i
5 g
13 !
p lutonium.'
The Germans are proceeding with the dev-lopment of a
W
- l theirs.
The English are proceeding with the development of 5
14 5
j 15 !
theirs.
The Canadians have not because of the position of the
=
j 16 United States which is that we will not -- the current s
17 Administration is that we will not support fuel reprocessing.
5 4
18 So the Canadians have not done very much in that regard.
3 i
6 19 Of course this is all within President Carter's g
o i
l program not to spread the use of nuclear waste for proliferation i l 20 1
of nuclear weapons.
Certainly we had in Barnwell, South 21 I
22 Carolina, a fuel reprocessing plant that was under construction 23 at the time of President Carter's prohibition on the further 24 development of the f acility.
25 Yes?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN'/. INC.
l 60
- aws 1
I MR. MUSSELLMAN:
Arthur Mussellman, again.
2 Has there been, through this experience, any direct 3l results of trying to give out information which comes from one
(
source rather than four or five different sources dtring an 4
1 y
accident such as thiu?
Who is in authority to give directives?
5 a
3 0l MR. COLLINS :
Well, I couldn't agree more with you.
~
n 7'
As a result of the accident, there were many conflicting e"
'nl 8
stories that came out.
On the site at the present t.ime, I am 0
the official spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
h10 with regards to TMI-2.
Information related to TMI-2 comes out
=
i II of my office; it does not come out of Washington.
3 "f
12 That is not to say that Metropolitan Edison cannot 13 make their cwn press releases and discuss the activities that
-}
l w
E 14 are going on.
All the activities that do go on.down at TMI-2
=
l must be approved by my office' and by myself prior to their j
15 z
j 16 implementation.
w 2
What about the future?
With regards to sur own 17
- z plans, in the event that we have another accident -- an.d I hope 18 P
I we don't - we have developed what we call a cadre af people g
0 both in Washington and at our regional offices,nof 4hich we 21 I
have five -- a cadre of people who can respond to the accident.
22 In the case of our regional offices, the director of s.
that regional office would immediately respond to the scene of 23 the accident.
He would be the official spokesman f or the 4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and information that would be i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
JWB 61 1
disseminated to the public would come from him.
2 I would hope -- and it's never been well-defined to 3
me
.I would hope, though, that once, if there war an accident, 4
that I would hope that there would be one official spokesman 5
j both for the utility and for the NRC; and that would go a long n
y 6l way toward solving some of the problems here we saw right af ter i
i S
7 the accident.
%]
8!
think the information can be funneled from the A
d 9l utility to the NBC, and let the NRC disseminate that information
~
zo h
10 to the public -- 99cause it is our responsibility to protec~
E 4
II the health and safety of the public.
And I think if the public I
a j
12 1
is getting that information from one source, I think they have 3
g 13 !
greater confidence in what they're hearing.
But'if they hear
~
=
i 14 a story from us and a story f* on Met Ed, and the two don' t jibe, ie i
[-
15 !
that certainly causes a stresstul condition, which existed at
=
l 16 the time of the accident at TMI.
But that is our own program, 17 and certainly we have learned a lot from that.
Because we
=
{
18 were getting information being disseninated by the NRC up here A
l 19 8
l at TMI, and there was information being disseminated out of the n
'O l,Bethesda office, and there was information conigg out from the 21 Commissioners in Washington.
Not all of the time did it jibe.
i 2 i MR. STROCK:
I have e few comments here which I wrote down shortly af ter the accident.
I want to get these f
on the record.
I am Clyde Strock, Cumberland County.
24 25 During the past few weeks, the nuclear crisis has i
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
s 62 JWB provided world-wide news.
For those of us who 11vo within 2
15 miles of the Three Mile Island Nuclear plant, the implica-3 tions are magnified considerably.
4 First of all, I don't know anything about nuclear v
However, we must be careful that we do not blow this 5
energy.
e 3n 3
6l incident out of proportion.
Even though the potential is R
7 clearly there for severe devastation, I believe it has been
%l 8
reported that not one life has been lost thus far because of do 9
a nuclear energy plant.
Granted, it is a young industry.
io 10 l I am reminded that alcohol has taken more lives than z
I j
11 have f allen in all the wars in the world.
All too often, the i
3 g
12 l same people who are so fearful of nuclear power would not lift j
13 '
a finger to help control this carnage.
The same thing can be M
l 14 said for drugs.
Amen.
E i
2 15 l MR. COLLINS:
I think your comment is appropriate.
Y j
16 I think that there was a lot of report.s that came out that were s(
17 i
blown out of proportion by the news media.
I didn' t get the i
5 18 opportunity, of course, t.o watch all of the news broadcasts 5
19 af ter the accident because we were a little busy.
a i
I did take the opportunity later on to talk to people 20 i
21 and to catch up on the newspapers, and I was amazed at what 22 people were telling me had occurred up here -- and yet, I was s.
23 here.
24 I think, to give you a good example, when I went to 25 i
Moscow I talked to the Russians, and they had the same arguments 1
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
63 JWB 1
and the same comments daat you are now making.
They got 2
information about TMI that was unbelievable.
I couldn' t believe 3
what they were telling us.
And they were hearing it from tha 4
national news media.
i 5
I think the local media in this area did try to do e
3n
]
6 a credible job of reporting it factually.
I think they were l
E 7
handicappsd, in a way.
In talking to one reporter, he really
'nj 8
didn' t know much about nuclear power.
So it was hard for him dd 9
to put it in its proper perspective.
i 1
o i
10 l But I think that since the accident, I think most of i
j 11 the reporters in this area have done a credible job in trying a
j 12 to portray the events as they occurred, and to put tt in its
~.:
y 13 proper perspective.
But you have to recognize, too, on the
=
14 l other hand, that the news media -- all of the media -- have a i
2 15 l
way of sensationalizing stories because they are in the w=
j 16 l
marketing business.
s d
17 It is unfortunate, because I think it just adds to
- =
18 the stress of the public, and I don't think it is f air.
?
l MR. STROCK:
Do you have any idea how distressed
{
19 20
{
the people are from hearing about nuclear energy every day of 21 the week, and constantly?
Why, it's ridiculous.
22 l MR. COLLINS:
There is not much I can do about that.
l MR. STROCK:
It's ridiculous.
23l 24 MR. COLLINS:
I have heard that comment made to me 25 many times over the past year-and 'a-half, but I can' t tell the
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6,4
~
JWB news media what to write.
1 MR. STROCK:
The other comment I have is this :
I 2
3 bet you don't have a dollar in Met Ed.
You don't have a dollar 4
in Met Ed?
s MR. COLLINS:
I don't have a dollar in any utility.
e 5
~n I have to publish in the Federal Register everf year a disclosure N
3 6
e Mj.
7 to that effect.
Mj 8
11R. STROCK:
We live in a capitalis tic country.
d from the -- because we are in a capitalistic ei 9 i Your money comes z
i And the Government comes down hard on an industry such 10 country.
~
3 as Met Ed - I'm going to take up for Met Ed a little bit --
5 11 !
(
a y
12 they come down hard on these industries, and the indus tries --
~
y 13,
obviously this industry is going to go bankrupt.
You guys fool a
=
i j
14 l around with them another couple of years, and how can they go E
l Unless they go to the Government and E
15 !
anything but bankrupt?
=
get a big loan of some description, you're going to bankrupt i
g 16 A
y' 17 the industrf.
We might as well fold up the plant down here.
'n 5
18 MR. COLLIUS :
Well, it's not an attempt on the part
=
19 of the NRC to bankrupt Met Ed.
E t
20 I
MR. STROCK:
Well, you' re doing the very thing you're 21 saying you're not going to do.
1 22 MR. COLLINS:
First of all, Met Ed going bankrupt 23 does not solve the problem.--
24 f MR. STROCK:
Right.
I know that.
25 MR. COLLINS:
-- because if they go bankrupt --
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l JWB 65 I
MR. STROCK :
But it's up to you to do the best thing 2
you can do --
3 MR. COLLINS:
to protect the health and safety 4
of the public.
5 MR. STROCK:
-- to protect that.
D 0
Now let me talk'a little bit.
You've been talking j
g I
7 all afternoon.
2l 8
( Laughter. )
d q
9 MR. STROCK:
I own a farm up there, and I spread
?
h 10 hog manure.
It smells.
Now you guys from the Environmental E
II A
agency, I guess over here, you people go up there and shut me 3
j 12 down this af ternoon.
Now if that's the American way of doing 5
'E I3 !
business, or the way this country was established, then I'm m
=
14 f crazy.
zj 15 Now if one guy out here says he smells hog shit, and z
a[
16 l you guys come in there and shut me down, it's something.
I've s
h I7 i
lived there and worked all my life.
I think that's ridiculous
=
}
18 and I'm a little bit like Met Ed on a very, very small scale.
P I
19 i
MR. COLLINS :
Well, I can' t' take issue with your 2n 20 comment at all, because I've heard that same comment made a 21 number of times.
22 l On the other hand, I think that you would be the
~
23 first to insist that we provide you assurance that the plant 24 can operated safely, too.
So I think there is a happy balance.
MR. STROCK:
Right.
Right.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
66 '
JWB I
MR. CORSNITZ :
During the height of the ancident at 2l I would say approximately the 29th, we were discussing the
- TMI, 3
news media a minute ago, why did they have such priority for 4
telephone lines when you fellows needed them?
y MR. COLLINS:
I wasn't aware that they did have a 5
n Ng 6{
high priority for telephones.
I can't answer the q testion.
I 7
knew that one of the problems we did have, at least when I
- n j
8 arrived here, was getting adequate telephone serrice installed d"
9 as quickly as we could.
zo j
h 10 l Part of the problem, though, was that the telephone 4
Il employees themselves were concerned about coming back out here, 3
i d
E 12 <
coming back to the Island and installing that equipment.
I E
1
- 3,'
a j
was not aware that the news: media had a high priority on the s.
m I4 telephone lines.
5 i
g 15 )
MR. CORSNITZ :
They insisted upon it.
=
l d
I0 l MR. COLLINS :
I'll have to take your word for it.
A l
N II Yes?
l u
3 l
MR. HOWARD WAYBRIGHT:
One thing I think, if tnis 18
~
8 I9 g
l thing is so dangerous and not killing anybody, I'm afraid' to n
20 l
go home today in an automobile because they' re kil:ing 50- or 2I 60,000 and crippling 2-or 300,000 every year in an automobile with gasoline.
They ought to take them off the roads.
MR. COLLINS:
Well, I think the answer to that is 23 24 that that is a risk that we are willing to accept every time 25 we get into our automobile.
Many people feel that the nuclear i
ALDERSON REFORTING COMPANY, INC.
67 JWB 1
power plants, they did not have much to say in it and they're 2
not willing to accept that risk.
3i I guess it's how you personally perceive it, whether 4
or not you're willing to accept it.
e 5
Yes?
3" 3
6 MR. HESS :
I am Jim Hess.
~n 7
I guess I'm a little dumb, but I don't know much j
8, about this waste bit, you know, the radioactivity and so on.
d d
9; But it says here in this book -- and I was just looking thrcugh 2
oy 10 here -- about that farmers -- it should be nonexist ent.
z=
j M
However, accidental radioactive releases, whether or not thes e 3
y 12 releases actua11'; af fect land areas, could result in sustained 5
l I
g 13 '
periods of consumer resistance to dairy products' and produce m
W l
i 14 from the area.
l Is there really a danger to this?
I mean, is that
^
r 15 z
i g
danger existing -- the radiation?
16 A
i MR. COLLINS:
Where is that?
d 17 5
w 18 MR. HESS :
On page 28.
I mean, is there a danger u
C 2
l daat radiation would get in the crops, in the grour d, and cause 19 6
i
. 20 problens in the future?
And is this danger actuall t -- does i t 21 l,
really exist?
And how serious is it?
22 MR. COLLINS :
I think your answer is, it s ays :
s "How could agriculture be affected by cleanup activities?"
23 24 MR. HESS :
Yes.
25 MR. COLLINS:
If the cleanup proceeds as expected, i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
68 JWB 1
the direct effect of decontamination activities on the farmers 2
should be nonexistent.
There should be no effect to the farmer 3
or the agricultural food product.
4 MR. HESS :
I agree.
But what I'm asking is, it says
+
g 5
"there should be."
Is there a chance thr c it "could be"?
9]
6!
NR. COLLINS:
Well, there is always a possibility.
2 7
I don't think we can ever exclude the accidental releases from
}
8 the plant that may impact on agricultural products.
I cannot d
I d
9!
stand here and give you 100 percent assurance.
Yg 10 I think that, based on the information that is E
g 11 available to us, and based' on what we know about the cleanup,
=
c j
12 we have tc. say :
It should be nonexistent.
In using the E
j 13 !
technology, implementing the procedures right, we do not see a
=
l l
14 problem.
But we cannot exclude the unforeseen things.
So I E
2 15 cannot give you a 100 percent assurance.
,=
1 3[
16 MR. HESS:
Okay, now let's explore the unforeseen.
e 17 What happens?
What is the probability?
What is the cause?
18 What does radiation do to crops, and animals, and so on?
5 19' MR. COLLINS:
Well, it all depends on wh it type of gn 20 radioactive material you're talking about.
i l
21-l MR. HESS :
Well, we're talking about power plants.
l 22 MR. COLLINS:
Let's take, for example, lat's say i
23 that during decontamination of the reactor building, both 24 j' filtration systems fault, they break down, the filters don' t i
25 work and you release strontium and cesiur..
That material can l
i t
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
JWB 69 1l deposit into the fish and into the agricultural products and 2
can be taken up by h-
__a beings.
There is that potential.
But 3
I think it is a very, vury small potential, 4
I mr
. initigating actions can be instituted s.
e 5
immediately in the plant, should we recognize that a filtration 4"
]
6l system degrades.
That's why we have effluent monitors on the R
R 7
s tacks downstream of these filtration systems.
We -solate the n
j 8;
system, and the consequence would k a very, very small.
But d
I c
9 you cannot exclude that from occurring.
io 10!
I cannot foresee any large release of radioactive 3
i j
11l material resulting from the cleanup operations.
m j
12,
MR. HESS :
I guess my question really is :
As I s ay,
4 1
g 13 ;
I don' t know anything about nuclear energy or power, or
=
1 l
14 '
explosions, or anything.
What would be the result?
I mean, if r
3 2
15 this would happen, if it would get in the food supply, what 1
g 16 l would happen?
I mean, would it kill people?
s d
17 MR. COLLINS:
No.
At the levels that we could a=
5 18 release from the plant, I..would see no serious long-term health l
~
i 19 l ef fects from the amount of radiation daat could be released as M
i 20 l a result of a malfunction in one of the systems.
I just -- Tom t
21 may want to voice an opinion on it, but I have a ha rd time 22 l conceiving --
l 23 MR. HESS :
Well, I do, too.
f MR. COLLINS:
That's why we took the worse accident 24 25' we could conceive of.
That is, if ' the water started leaking i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
70*
e JWB I
from the reactor building.
We consider that to be the worst 2
accident.
Even at that, if it leaked into the Susquehanna 3
River, calculating a dose of about 33 millirems.
That is a small dose with no serious long-term health effects.
We have 4
w a
5 pointed out what that ri, '< would be in terms of cancer.
E f4 MR. HESS:- Then I guess another question would be:
8 6l o
R i
g 7'
Why is there such a concern about it, then?
T.
y 8l MR. GERUSKY :
The problem is the perception of the J
l
=
9i public.
Just last night at a public meeting, there was a man i
10 from Maryland there who said that he had stopped eating any E
fish or crabs er anything else from the Susquehanna and the 5
11
<3 d
12 Chesapeake Bay because of Three Mile Island.
And nothing is 3
cd 13 i being released from Unit 2.
No accident-generated water is 5
4 14 1 being released to that river, and he still refuses to eat the d
1
\\
food from the river even though there's nothing that's been 2
15
- a=
j 16 released.
m i
17 So there 's a rea.' significant problem of public 5
18 !
information, public perception of that hazard.
If there was a 5
19 l release - even a small amount of release of s tront ium-90 from
?5 l
20 the plant, it would automatically make big headlint>s.
People 21 from all over the world would say that it's gotten into the 22 food chain and kids are going to get it and die.
23 No matter what we say to tell the truth about this,
i 24 l
.some people just won't believe us.
And that is the concern we 25 have about _ the agricultural problem -- the "percep tion" that l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
JWB 71 there may be a problem when thers is no real problem.
y MR. HESS:
That's what's bothering me.
I mean, g
when China exploded that bomb a number of years back, the 3
people stopped drinking milk.
Well, boy, it hurt me right 4
~-
here (indicating), you know.
I was just starting in farming, e
5 3
N I had a lot of bills to pay.
Could this happen again?
I mean, 8
6 e
I I
jf 7
what can we do to educate people?
I guess this is my question --
8 d
MR. GERUS KY :
One of the reasons we're holding these c
9 I
f 10 public meetings, and we're continuing to hold meetings concerning z
what is going on at the plant, but some people are just not
_y g;
<3 g
32 going to be convinced.
They are the ones that get the headlines.
3=
MR. RANCK:
Don Ranck.
d 13 ;
S l
E 14 {
You mentioned the interrogatories that are being a
D l
15 l r 'ceived in large numbers as being the 'cause for the delay i n s
l the hearing for the startup of Unit 1.
Is this being -- Are 16 3
A g
17 these questions that are coming kind of a -- are they 5
5 18.
individually or organizationally prepared questions that are r
H:
19 !
causing the dela3 ?
I mean, can you give us any indication 4
i 20 l about what kind of - Is that a conspiracy to slow down the l
21 process?
Is there such a thing as dia t?
22 MR. COLLINS:
Well, I cercainly am not in a position 23 to say that there is a conspirac/.
The questions that do come
\\
24 i
in on TMI restart are coming from both concerned citizens,
i 25 l
individuals, and from organizations -- the TMI Alert, Union i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
72 -
JWB 1
of Concerned Scientists, the National Research -- NRDC -
2 Development Center -- What's the other one that S teve Shawley 3
represents ? - The Public Information' Resource Center.
That type 4
of organization have all filed --
e 5
MR. GERUSKY :
There are about ten intervenors, Xn
{
6l individuals or group intervenors in the hearing.
R l
b 7
MR. COLLINS :
There's the Environmental Coalition
- ,.l 8
Against Nuclear Power as an intervenor.
So there are both
- e i
A 9l private citizens and groups that have submitted ques tions to E
10 us there.
- =
i
$ - II l MR. GERUSKY:
And I don' t think there is any question is y
12 that there has been some delay, but there has been delay on E
g 13 l both sides.
So you can't say that the intervenors have caused
=
l l
14 l the delay, because the' NRC doesn' t have its safety evaluation 5j 15 !
all done yet, anyway.
So that there are a lot of things that
=
g 16 i have caused the delay.
A N
I7 i
MR. COLLINS:
I think you have to recognize, too, w
18 that the NRC only has very limited staff, too.
We have not w
9 l~
l' just TMI-l to be concerned with, but we have 72 other reactors I9 g
20 that take up a certain portion of the staff's time, too.
21 MR. RANCK:
I was going to ask, if I may, Mr. Collins,
22 t
is there something you might sugges t to either other government 23 agencies or to us as a group of 2 armers, who may encourage a 24' process of education?
25 As Jim. mentioned'here, I think a large part of the i
i lI I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
1 73' JWa problem is the public perception of the problem is something
)
I 2
different from reality.
3 When I was in school, we studied a little bit about nuclear energy, but so little that I can say it's almost nil.
4 e
5 Are school children learning about it now?
Are they learning h
j 6l what nuclear energy is?
And can we take it from here and say:
7.
i 7
What can we teach about the next step af ter the Environmental j
8 Impact Statement, af ter the hearing, and af ter the possib4e d
9 startup of Unit 1 and the cleanup of Unit 2?
We should look z
1 C
l 10 l to the future and say :
Is nuclear power the answer, or isn't 5
I j
11 '
it?
Is solar energy and other forms of energy -- they seem to a
j 12 be too far away.
13 I Should we be preparing an cducational' effort to g
14 show what would happen if we shut down all the nuclear plants?
2 15 I haven't seen any good statement to that.
Maybe I haven't i
g 16 )
read widely enough, but has anyone prepared.a statement saying s
g 17 what would happen to industry, to homes, if we did s tart, either 4.
5 18 on a gradual basis or very quickly, to shut down all our nuclear 5
E 19 plants?
i I think that would have a good counteref fect to the 20 21 kind of misperception of what the nuclear industry is doing l
\\
22 l today.
Can you make any recommendation to us?
i 23 tiR. COLLINS:
I will certainly try to give you my 24 though ts, anyway.
25 First of all, let me take the las t one first.
That l
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
74 JWB is, that I am not aware of any document put out oy any particular j
in group that discusses the total impact if all of the plants 2
the United States were shut down.
I know that the Atomic 3
4l Industrial Forum, which represents the nuclear industry, has 5l discussed in various documents various phases of this; but I'm e
E i
not sure that I have ever seen a document that in total says n
]
6i R
what would happen if you closed down all the 72 nuclear power A.
7 A
plants what would be the results off-site.
3 8,
n ci 9j With regard to education, I think that the nuclear d
i I!!
industry has long needed an educational program.
It is hampered, 10 3
if I think, in being accepted by the public because the public, 5
11
<3 nothing is occurring, it is very difficult to get the public 4
12 z
5 I
j 13 '
out and get them interested in a subject that do_esn' t provide
=
S 14 :
any stimulation to tnse, at that moment.
w
?,
15 So that if we W ra c cc cui <- 1:2 'd were to be out w
=
7 16 i
doing this type of a program, talking to you people,..say a year a
vi j
y 17
^
before the accident at TMI-2, I'd venture to say that we would Y
18 have a hard time getting one person out.
But because of the
~
\\
19 j
accident, that has stimulated a lot of people to learn more
~
A i
1 20 about nuclear energy.
21 i
I think the schools have upgraded their programs.
l Now I'm not an authority on how well advanced those programs 22 23 are, and they vary from school district to school district.
24 l
I think high schools a're doing a much better effort in that 25 regard, anc certainly the colleges are.
I think our younger i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
i v
75 JWB people today are a lot more f amiliar with nuclear energy and y
other sources of energy than we were when we were in school.
2 Part of the blame for that was of course the nuclear industry 3
4l itself, bacause when we ware back in school we were involved in the development of ' the weapons program and it wasn' t some thing e
5 3
b 6i that was easily discussed because most of the information was a
classified.
7 And then when we got into the commercial industry j
8!
N about the early '60s, most of the people in the nuclear industry 9
z' 10 took the attitude that:
Well, you know, it's a very technical
.I E
g ij subject and I can' t really go out and talk about it because 3
And I they won't appreciate what I'm trying to tell them.
d 12 z
X 1
3 13 I
think that was unfortunate, because the public was smarter 5
i than we gave them credit for.
i E
14 d-i 15 I think today, now, after the accident, again one U
of the lessons learned is that we do have to spend more time 16 a4 g
17 ;
talking to the public.
Our job as technical people is to be i
18 !
able to put our technical world into language that you can 5
19 l understand, so that you can go back and communicate with other 8
o i
20 !
people.
21l I think that the more you invite NRC people and I
22 other people in this indus try to come out and talk to you about 23 -
this subject, then in turn you communicate with somebody else, 24l the more that is done, the 'more I can see people accepting the 25 '
potential risk of nuclear power.
l I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
76 JWB 1
Now as to the answer to:
Is nuclear power a viable 2
option?
I believe that nuclear power must be considered along with all the other options that are available for generation 3
I 4
of power.
One must then decide, based on the risk and the I
5l knowledge of those other alternatives, whether or not the e
A I
a 3
6 society wants to accept that risk.
R l
I can't -- I'm not " pro nuclear" and I'm not " anti-R 7
3 j
8 nuclear," but I do believe that it is one source of producing I
d d
9 electrical power.
Now there are other sources, and perhaps h
- g. 10 i
maybe the Federal Government I sn' c moving quickly enough in O
E j
11 developing those other energy sources, either.
But between now a
j 12 and the turn of the century, when you really look at 'it, and 5
1 j
13 l the embargo on oil, the lack of coal for operation of plants, a
E 14 and the problem with coal-fired plants is that they emit
,w Y
I 15 i pollutants, too,' and a lot of them are radioactive pollutants,
d j
16 f One has to look at all of the alternatives, inspect the problems
^
\\
d 17 l associated with each one of them, and the society has to decide a
2
\\
5 18 [
what they want.
Uj 19 l I cannot tell you that it is dhe best thing ever --
l n
20 MR..RANCK:
I have a bit of a perception with what 21 you have to deal with here, because we have to deal with about 22 four parts per billion of antibiotics in our milk.
Now we're 23 '
hoping that every cow has the ability within her to remove 24 j every particle of every possible trace of antibiotics or
'~
25 penicillin from that milk within three days, or four days af ter j
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 77 g
she is treated.
If one 'doesn't, we could be caught.
So I have j
a bit of an idea of what it might be like to have an accident
~
2 3
like that.
You can't control everything, Now should we be doing something now to educate 4
s.
people about what we will have if we don't have the nuclear e
5 3
i n
d 6:
industry?
e s
E 7
MR. COLLINS:
I think we should.
8 MR. RANCK:
And where should we turn to get daat U
I
=
9 kind of ir. formation?
i b
10 ;
MR. COLLINS:
I would think that a good starting E
i
\\
I 11 I point would be to go to either the universities, such as Penn
<s State University, or contact the Atomic Industrial Forum which d
32 z=
3 13 does represent a large segment of the nuclear industry.
~.
2=
i Another group that certainly could be very helpful E
14 ;
d i
u 15 l would be the Electric Power Research Institute.
Those 16 l
organizations represent another faction. of the nuclear industry.
3 A
I think the Department of Energy is a very good d
17 18 source of providing educational information.
We in the NRC 3
t 19 l
of course, we have to be careful in projecting nuclear pawns t
i
^
l 20 l
because we have been criticized in the past, and that was one i
21 l
of the main reasons for splitting up the Atomic Energy I
l Commission because the society felt daat we could not promote 22 l
I 23 and regulate nuclear power at t!.e s ame time.
24 !
So the Department of Energy was formed, and the i
l ll Nuclear Regulatory Commission was formed, as an independent ll 25 1 1
!l l
- I I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
78 JWB agency to regulate nuclear power.
But certainly we are j
\\
available at any time to discuss at least nuclear power plants 2
and the emissions from those plants and the potential hazards.
3 4l I was here talking to my secretary today, and we were trying to estimate hcw many meetings we have gone to in the 1
e, 5 i N
s 6 i last 18 months.
It's been well over a hundred meetings we i
I have attended to talk to various groups just like yourself.
E 7
And I would like to think that it has aided in the public's 8I perception of what has occurred here at the plant, what they d
d 9
i h
10 can expect, and what the problems are in nuclear powe c.
I think 5
this dialogue must continue.
I 11 1
- 3 MR. GERUSKY:
There is one comment I would like to d
12 i
3 13 make.
I was talking with the Vice President of Commonwealth g
E 14 l Edison, which supplies the Chicago area with electricity.
They d
I attempted to put on television in the Chicago area a series of u!
15 a
l
=
commercials that would, to quote him, " tell the f acts about 16 3
A l
radiation, about nuclear power," and they were refused by the g
17 Y
18 TV stations because they said they would have to give equal time 3
to the opponents, and therefore we couldn't get anything on I
19 h
television at all about their impressions, at least, of nuclear 20 i
i 21 power.
22 l So the problems are much greater than -- You just 23 can't go out and start talking.
Scmebody is going to say:
No, i
- 24 i
you're wrong.
And they want equal time, and so forth.
i The other thing is that the Governor's Commission on 25 i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
JWN 79 1
Three Mile Island recommended that the Department of Education 2'
get deeply involved in the education of our school children in 3
atomic energy, and radiation, and so forth.
4 They have been working on a series of programs to g
5 upgrade the education of the school children in the state.
They N
j 6
also directed other state agencies to get involved in educating 1
i "R
7' the public.
And we are trying.
A j
8 MR. COLLINS:
I have found groups like the Parent and d
2 9
Teachers' Association to be very enthusiastic on subjects like z,
Oy 10 th '.s.
I have found the service clubs -- the JCs, the Kwannis,
z i
E Q
11 the Rotary, the Lions -- to be a good source of getting to a
j 12 discuss this subject with the public.
Those are ideas that you
=3 13 5
may want to pursue.
a I
w 5
14 ;
MR. NOOFER:
I would agree that TMI was basically a i
j 15 l news-media event, especially the networks and the national x
y 16 l newspapers, and so on.
But the conflicting stories that came s
i 17 ~
from the NRC, the Governor's of fice, the Metropolitan Edison, g
U 3
18 and then tour or five other different sources who thought they i
c i-19 g
were experts, made it very easy for these networks and the l
20 news media to make it a scare tactic.
21 l My question is:
If Met Ed starts up the plant down I
22 l here tomorrow, and we have an accident on Friday, who is the t
23 spokesman?
24 MR. COLLINS:
At the site right now, I am.
25 MR. NOOFER:
Are you the only spokesman?
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
80 JWB 1
MR. COLLINS:
I am the senior representative of NRC 2
on the site.
3 MR. GERUSKY:
As part of the post-TMI emergency planning programs that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 4
7 and 5
FEMA, the NRC, and all the agencies of state government, n
j 6l the utilities have, the arrangement as conceived is to have R
}
7 a one location where spokesmen for all groups -- the utility,
,5 8l the NRC, and.the state and local agencies -- would at the same o
d 9
time hold press conferences so that there would be one location z'
y 10 and, hopefully, agreement among the parties -- well, you can' t O
j 11 guarantee that -- but agreement among the parties concerning
=
3 g
12 what the risks were, and what the problers were.
That is the 3'
l y
13 l proposed new national emergency planning criteria that die NRC a
14 and FEMA have come out with.
6 l
2 E
IS l There will be set up at each reactor site a location E
i g
16 l off-site where the technical and political leaders -- the s
technical people and the political leaders and the news media --
i 17 i i
18 I can gadber and get this kind of information.
That has to go in 5
}
19 at each power plant in the country.
n 20 So there is an attemp' at this.
Whether it will 8
work or not we won' t know until there is another accident, if j
21 I 22 l there ever is.
i 23 t MR. COLLINS:
Let me +. ell you how it works in 24 reality right now, because there are events that go on down at 25 the plant and you hear about them in the newspaper.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
JWB' 81 1
1 Every time Met Ed comes out with a press release, 2
I know about that press release ahead of time and I am given 3'
an opportunity to review it.
If I feel that it's in conflict 4i with the information that I have, we sit down and discuss it i
g 5
before it goes out, for that very reason.
So daat there are not 9
3
,6 two dif ferent stories coming out.
7 That doesn't mean daat I sit down and agree with Ml 8f everything Met Ed says in press releases, but I have the d
o; 9l opportunity to review it before it goe out.
In the s ame way,
5 10 I do the same thing with Metropolitan Edison.
If the NRC is z=
l II l going to put out a press release, I notify Bob Arnold of what 3
Y I2 that press release is going to say, ahead of time, so that if 5j 13 he gets inquiries he knows how to respond to them.
And that is s.
=
l l
14 l how it works.
E j
15 l MR. NOOFER:
I know that during the TMI situation,
=
\\
j 16 l there were a lot of people from your agency, a lot from Met Ed, s
y 17 and a lot from government, all theorizing in public when they 3
l
}
18 l should have kept their mouth shut.
I believe in freedom of A
i i
"a 19 information, and so on, but sometimes, when you' re dealing with 5
20 theories -- and that's what you were dealing with at that 21 time -- until you prove some of them, I daink it is better to 22 keep your mouth shut.
It's good hindsight on my part, but I 23 felt that way then, that it would have been excellent for 24 j everybody to have kept quiet.
25 i
MR. COLLINS:
I have no co. ament on that.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
82.
JWB 1
MR. MUSSELLMAN:
I would like to make one statement 2
for the record.
It appears to me, according to.
" presenta-3 tion here, that there seems to be a procedure of experiment --
4 not " experiment," er.cirely -- but procedural arrangements here 1
i 51 for cleanup that are not feasible from the standpoint of a
h j
evaluating the cost of it.
In other words, we don't know S'
f 7j exactly how much it is going to cost to clean up the reaccor, M
j 8j and everything else, d
[
d 9i The statement I would like to make is :
I don't think c
h 10 i the consumer is served, if Met Ed should be, the sole persons E
j 11 l to stand that expense.
Since this information is going to be 3
i
(
12 used by the NRC in other possible accidents which would occur, 4
i 13 '
the procedures which you all are enacting will be to the benefit l
14 l of future prcblems, and therefore I think the cost should be s
1 2
15 l.
borne at a federal level, the expense of partially this cleanup.
5 i
16,
MR. COLL" J:
Well, as I indicated, the cost of the j
a p
17 various cleanup alternatives have not been included.
That information will be provided in the Final Statement.
5 18 ;
i e
With regard to who pays the bills for the cleanup
}
19 5
l 20.
itself, I think I indicated to you that those matters have been 21 I discussed with the Congressional delegation from this area, i
1 22 '
and what actions they would take in Congress I am certainly not l
23 privy to that.
As far as the ratepayers in this area, of 24 l course TMI-2 at the time of the accident was never on the rate 25 bas e.
TMI-l was on dhe rate base, and it was taken off of the l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 JWB' 83 1
rate base because of the continuing uncertainty as to when the 1
2 plant would restart.
So then with the recent order by the court 3
to Met Ed not to use the revenues from the ratepayers to pay 4.
for the cleanup of TMI-2, the ratepeyers are of course having 2
r 5,
to pay for the replacement power costs but not for the cleanup 4
n
]
6l of the plant, or not for the cost of the plant itself, because R
I 7
TMI-2 was never on the rate base to begin with.
A I
j 8I They had applied, but it was never put on the rate d
i 9
base.
10 i MR. HOWARD WAYBRIGHT:
How many years were z:
j 11 I
'those reactors used before this accident?
3 l
MR. COLLINS :
TMI-2 went critical in 1978, and it f
12,
=
y 13 had operated for just about a year to the day when the accident 14 f occurred.
It was coincidental, but it was almos,t a year to the E
15 li day, almost to the hour, when the accident occurred.
g
=
y 16 i MR. HOWARD WAYBRIGHT:
So then they couldn't every A
\\
17 10 or 15 years overhaul the plant and check if there was any 4
b 18 malfunction of any part of it?
2 19 MR. COLLINS:
No.
There wasn' t that experience.
5 20 TMI-l of course started in 19 74, and had a very good operating l
21 l
history -- a very good operating history.
j i
22 l
Did scraebody have a question?
23 MR. OELLIG:
Ron OelTig.
I was wondering how many 24 new plants are awaiting your approval in Pennsylvania?
25 MR. COLLINS :
In Pennsylvania?
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
84 -
JWB i
MR. OELLIG:
Yes.
j 2
MR. COLLINS:
The Susquehanna plants, and they're scheduled for refueling in about 1982.
The Limerick Plant 3
down the river here.
Duquesne Pcder and Light has a plant.
I 4
a 5
guess there are about, what, four or five plants that are in 9
6 various stages of licensing.
The one - closest to licensing I 7
think would be the Susquehanna plant, which was originally 8i sch'eduled for '81, but now it's been delayed to '82.
a I
d 9l MR. OELLIG:
Is there any possibility of consolidating i
i h
10 l them.nstead of having them all over?
Maybe there is no benefit z
i 11 )' to that, but co have one, or two, or three to do the job of maybe
<3 d
12 six or seven?
Z_
13 MR. COLLINS :
Nell, various groups have looked at E
i E
14 ragionalized prier plants, but the NRC has never received a E
1 2
15 proposal from anybody to have a regionalization of power plants.
s:
16 l There are plants in various development stages, or sites that 3
'A i
d 17 j contain more than one or two reactors.
At the present time we 5
18 have applications for two such type facilities.
One, if even-
- e 19 :
tually all of them are built, will contain four of them.
The 20 other site would contain five of them.
1 21 '
But I am not aware of any proposal to the NRC to 22 call for a regional area.
23 !
MR. GERUSKY:
The subject of power parks was brought 24 l. up a few years ago in Pennsylvania by the utilities, and it was 25 suggested that they go out to the communities and try, with the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 85 JWB assistance of the Penn State, some kind of a Penn State j
Continuing Education Program.
And they and I were involved in 2
at least two of those meetings with the public in the area where 3
to see an they were considering the poser park, and if you want 4,
l angry mob, go up to Erie County and tell them that you are going 5
e R
to build seven or eight reactors in Erie County.and take up 6;
a l
half of the ccunty for a power park to service the rest of the a
E.
7 It happened in every county you went into, no matter E
8 state.
n what the population was, and it was just dropped as a proposal.
d d
9 z'
h 10 It will probably come back, if nuclaar power comes 5
back, because of the siting criteria.
5 11
<3 MR. COLLINS:
Does anybody else have any other d
12 z
5 s
13 '
questions they would like to raise?
E MR. WAMB AUGH :
Due to the f act that the es teem for E
14 i government agencies isn't too high these days, and here we 2
15 j
U read in the press today that the NRC says Three Mile has to 16 4
a A
do this, and two or three days later, or a week later, PUC says :
d 17 I
E 18 l
No, they have to do this.
Then we get something from some other y
19 agency saying, "they have to do this."
There is continually something in the press from 20 21 week to week.
Is there some way that these agencies could work 22 a little closer together and, if possible, have a few less s
their nerves 23 press releases so the people in the area could get i
24 i
settled to a little lower point?
l As f ar as agriculture is concerned, the first 25 i
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
JWB 86.
1 requirement that we have here
.'.s to get this thing cleaned up 2
and quieted down.
I think we would do our agriculture more 3
- good than anything else, as long as it is done reasonably well.
4 That is the main point I would like to make:
A few less m
5 press releases, and to quietly go ahead and clean the pl-up a
3 J
i 3
6j and get it back in service, or close it down, whatever, would R
7, do agriculture a lot of good.
N]
8!
We have people now that won' t buy products from t'his I
do 9l area because of Three Mile Island.
i 10 MR. COLLINS:
Well, I don't think the NRC has had z=
j 11 an overabundance of press releases.
The only one that I am 3
(
12 aware of the.c we came out with, in several months new, has been 2i g
13 i the policy statement that we issued concerning the actions by a
14 l the PUC.
E 15 l I would agree that there is 'a need for closer s
16 cooperation between the various federal agencies, but recognize
!;i 17 that each of those -- whether it's state agencies, or federal 5
l 5
18 '
agencies -- have a separate role to play.
Our role is to
}
19 t regulate the activities that are conducted at TMI, and to n
20 I assure you, the members of the public, that it is being 21 regulated in 'a responsible manner.
l 22 j I think that we must convoy that information to you.
~
23 Some people think that we don' t tell them enough.
I put out 24l a weekly report every week of all the activities that occur 25 on the Island.
It started out with a very small list of probably i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
87 JWB i
1 80 to 100 people.
That list has now grown to over 500.
Many 2
of those groups take that information and disseminate it to 3
their members.
So that I would expect that that weekly report v
4 of mine is probably distributed to a thousand people in the I
It is on the " Ten Best Sellers" list.
g 5
area.
N
]
6 (Laughte r. )
R l
7' MR. BESHORE:
How large of a legal staff do you 8
8 people have?
d C
9 MR. COLLINS :
We have two legal staffs.
One is a b
y 10 legal staff that represents the five Ccmmissioners themselves --
z 11 four right now because we are one vacant.
That is called the a
p 12 Office of General counsel.
They have a staff of approximately 5,
13 40 pecp le.
g s'n 14 Then there is the legal staff that represents the C
]
15 Nuclear Regalatory Staff-I am a member of the Staf f -- which z
g we refer to as' the Office of Legal Director, and they have a 16 d
h 17 staff of about 80 lawyers.
l'
>o 18
!;R. BESHORE:
They are full-time federal employees?
=
C I9 i
MR. COLLINS:
Full-time federal employees.
Be cause aM i
20 they must represent the staff in each one of the licensing i
l 21 hearings that occur in the licensing of pcwer plants, and I i
22 can assure you they are kept fairly nusy.
1 23!
For example, on TMI-i we have three lawyers working 24l on that particular case.
On TMI-2, there are two lawyers 25 assigned to that.
So there are five lawyers just assigned to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
JWB 88 I
two reactors.
2 MR. BESHORE:
Is it your feeling that the legal 3
people are giving proper priority to the agenda features?
4 MR.. COLLINS:
I think they are.
I think they are g
5l doing the best job they can under the circumstances -- under N
l 6I the conditions under which they must operate, because they must R
R 7i stay within the regulations, too, s
8 8,
Are there any other questions?
n d
=
9 (No response.)
Y 6
10 MR. COLLINS:
Well, if not, I certainly want to E
5 11 thank all of you for coming out.
I felt that it was a very d
11 fruitful dialogue.
E
=
t d
13 !
As Cliff indicated at the top of the meeting, I will E
j 14 ;
be leaving the area sometime between nok and the first of the h!
15 l year.
Being *a native of Pennsylvania -- I' m not far away from z
8 i
g 16 j you people; I was born and raised in Allentown.
I will take 17 :
with me a lot of good experience that I have learned here to 6
?
l 5
18 l carry forward in my new assignment, and I certainly want to F
l e
C 19 i thank the public in this area for all the courtesies they have N
20 ;
extended to me and my staff.
I lock forward to talking to you 21 ;
again at one of these public meetings before I leave the area.
I 22 Thank you very 'much for coming.
23 '
( Applause. )
24 ;
MR. ALLEN:
Before you all go, I would like, on
)
25,
behalf of the PFA, to thank, John, you and your staf f, the t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
89
, JWE 1
Department of Environmental' Resources, the EPA, and Agriculture 2
for coming and taking this much time with us.
You might care to repeat the phone numbers you gave 3
4 out earlier.
e 5
MR. COLLINS :
Is mi.te in here (indicating) ?
?.
8 6 l MR. GERUSKY:
Yes.
o 2
7 MR. COLLINS:
Well, just for the record, it is
- e l
~
5 l
3 8'
782-4014.
e t.i j
d 9!
MR. GERUSKY:
Mine is 787-2480.
1 i
\\
MR. FURRER:
If you would like to add an Agriculture h
10 f z
i
=
i 2
11 i number to that:
787-4854.
The name is Furrer, F-u-r-r-e-r; l
3 d
12 l first name, Robert.
I do the response planning and handle mos t E
f 13,
of the queries that Agriculture gets pertaining to TMI and
=
l 14 i TMI-related items.
j i
thank 2
15 :
MR. ALLEN:
If there are no further ques tions,
5 l
j 16 i you all very much.
I'm sure we'll be looking forward to any f
us g
17 further inquiries you might have.
u H
i:
G 18 (Whereupon, at 2:43 p.m.,
the meeting was 4
i:
?
19 l adjourned. )
5 l
20 l I
21 I i
i 22 23 24,
t i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
-i i
ens n
NUCIIAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the in the matter of:
TMI(UNIT II)
Date of Proceeding:
October 7, 1980 Docket !Iumb e r :
Place Of Proceeding:
Camo Hill, Pa.
were held as herein appears, and tha: this is the criginal transcript therect for the file of the Ccesission.
Jane W.
Beach Official Reporter : Typed) o
}
i 3'
j
=
"x
'$ ll_(
k h' \\
Of ficial Reporter (Signature 1
~
o i
I l
i l
l l
l 4
D**D
- D V
]
- b..N oo o
x
,-