ML19340F135
| ML19340F135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1980 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101190559 | |
| Download: ML19340F135 (95) | |
Text
_
NCC:5.AR REGUI.ATCR'? COMBC3SION I'O
~
I'f l b
~
h/s'lr p,
a; u.
v4.
4:-
~. ',,r 4
J
~
=a Ma**
MEETING CF THE ADVISORY CCCNCIL ON THE DECCNTAMINATICN OF "MI UNIT 2 i
i
(
13 December 19, 15 0 pAggg:
1 - 92 AO:
uarrisburc, Pennsv1vania
.dEMT
@Ml.Tli 1
f.
400 71-f d-2 Ave., 5. W. W' * - d
= c=,
C.
C.
- 00
- 4 t
l
- a '. a c h c r a : (200' ~54-0243
{l0ll@ 0S
1 1
MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE DECONTAMINATION OF THI UNIT 2 2
THURSDAY, DECE MB E3 18, 1980 3
Auditorius of the 4
William Penn Museum 3rd and North Street 5
Harrisburg, Pennsylvsnia 6
PRESENT:
JOHN MINNICH 7
ARTHUR ROTH JEAN KOHR S
THOMAS CCCHRAN ANNE TRUNK 9
NUNZIO PALLADINO HENRY WAGNER 10 ARTHUR 50RRIS l
11 NRC REPRESENTATIVES 12 PATRICIA DAVIS, Esq.
13 ACRS REPRESENTATIVEa 14 STEPHEN LAVROSKI, Ph.D l
15 DOE REPRESENTATIVESs to GEORGE CUNNINGHAN 17 HETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANT 18 ROBERT ARNOLD 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDUISoM MEPoRTING CCMPANY,INC.
400 vlRGINGA AVL 3.W. WASMINGICN. 3.C. 20024 (202) S64 23e6
2 1
2 1 2 C I I 2 I E fa f.
2
- 53. HINNICH4 We vill call the meeting to order.
3 I have a few preliminaries that I sust get out of 4
the way before we can proceed.
5 I would ask that the panel se-bers who are here 6
please identif y themselves, so that we can determine that we 7
do have a quorus.
I did have some calls.
Dr. Muller cannot 8
make it.
I beiceve he sent a representative.
Cliff Jones 9
could not make it, nor General Smith, although we have a 10 representative on behalf of General Smith.
The Governor has a cabinet seeting tonight, and 11 12 his cabinet people could not attend our see ting.
Mayor Reid 13 from Middletown is not able to attend.
14 If we can, we vill start from ar far right, and 15 introduce yourselves.
16
- 55. KOHRs Jean Kohr.
17
- 33. COCHRANs Ihosas Cochran.
18 MAIOR BORRISs Arthur Morris, City of Lancaster.
19 MR. ROTH Joel 2oth.
20 3R. KINEICH:
John 31snich, Dauphin County 21 Commissioner.
22
- 33. WILLIANSON:
Fre'd Williamson.
l 1
23 MS. IRUNK4 hnne Trunk fros 51ddletown.
24 HR. PALLADINOs Nunzio Palladino.
25 MR. DUROSKIs Ion Jeroski, Director of the Bureau ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY.1NC.
400 vtRGIMA AVE S.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346
3 1
of Radiation, substituting for Secretary Jonas.
2 3R. WAGNER:
Henry Wagner, Chairman of the 3
Maryland Governor's Consittee on Three Nile Island.
4
- 53. 5INNICH:
We have a quorum present.
5 As we discussed a t our last.seeting, seven sesbers 6
present would constitute a quorum, and a safority of seven 7
in attendance if a vote is taken would constitute a 8
l eg itima te vote as I recall from not only sy sesory, but 9
reviewing the transcript.
10 For the audience, and f o r th e seabers, th e re are 11 some rules that we sus +. abide by in the auditorius this 12 evening.
We sust be cut of the building by to p.m.,
so 'e 13 vill have to be sure to adjourn before that.
There vill be l
14 no smoking in the auditorus or on the stage.
There will be 15 no food either 1.
the auditorium or on stage.
Those are a 16 couple of rules that we will ask that you iceep in sind 17 please.
18 We have a couple of things to clear up.
At the 19 last sea ting one of the issues that was raised fros the 20 floor was the make up of this committee, and the fact that 21 certain counties, fer instance, were not represented on the 22 committee.
23 I relayed those concerns via a letter to John
~
24 Ahearne, and he has responded tha t they are locked on the 25 constitution of this cosaitsee as directed by Cencress.
The l
Au:enson merentwo cowamy. sec.
l 400 YlAGNA Ave. i 4 WASHesGTCh. D.C. 20024 202) SS&2344
u 1
legislation did not provide for a mayor representative to be 2
on the consittee f rom each county, which was one of the 3
questions that was raised, nor did it permit what was in the 4
view of some of the speakers from the audience, a totally 5
citizens consittee.
6 It was directed by the legislation that there should be certain representatives from certain areas of the 7
8 public at large, and that is why there are governmental 9
representatives and others on the consittee.
to I did slso raise the constraint of having to have 11 some sort of response to Mr. Ahearne by January 31st.
He 12 has granted a one-month extension to February 28.
So 13 perhaps that will help us in our deliberations.
14 One of the other things that I was asked to do. at 15 the last meeting, when I was given the permission of the 16 panel to decide when the next meeting vill be.
You have 17 received notice that the next seeting will be December 18 30th.
19 At that particula r meeting, I was asked to contact Nembers of Congress, both Senate and House Representatives, 20 21 the AC35, and the Department of Energy.
I have done that, 22 and we do have some representatives here f rom those areas.
1 1
23 I would appreciate it if you would, for the 24 record, rise and identify yourselves so tha t we can get it 1
25 into the record.
ALDERSCN REPoftTING CoWPANY,INC.
400 VNIG#elA Avt S W WASNeNGTcN, O.C. 20024 (202) 584 2348 l
^ ~ -
~
~..
5 1
If the gentleman from the 4CRS would be please do 2
that.
3
- 33. LAW 30 SKI Stephen Lavroski, sesber of the 4
Advisory Cosaittee on Reactor Safetr, and I was until last 5
! arch an employee of the Argonne National Labora tory.
8
- 13. 5INNICHs You have someone with you.
7
- 53. HARKETs I as Morton Market, and I as a seaber 8
of the AC35 staff.
9 NB. MI3NICH:
We have a young lady here from to Congressaan Udall's staff.
Would you identify yourself, 11 please.
12
- 55. DRATOs Andrea Dravo.
I as with the House 13 Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
14 3H. MINNICH:
Do we have someone from the Senate 15 side?
Both the saforitY and minority had indicated that The reason 18 they would have a representative in attendance.
17 for that, of course, for those of you who f?', low those 18 affairs, there vill be a change in the power structure in 19 Washington, D.
7.
Do wh have anyone fnoa 'taff in-house who could s
20 21 address the probles of the FA sIstes?
22 The purpose of the meeting, as I understood the concensus of the cosaittee, was to discuss the problems of 23 24 disposal of radioactive viste, and that is why certain j
to attend 25 people who have identflied thesselves were asked ALOERSCN REPCAT:ho Oohe#ANY,;NC.
400 wmGINLA AVE., S W, W ASHtNGToN. Q.o.20024 (2@ $54-2344
l 6
1 this mee ting, so that we could discuss this probless with 2
these folks.
3 Dr. Palladino, you have expressed, I believe, a 4
question about trying to get some background on the probles 5
of disposal.
I am not sure if any of these people would be 6
in a position to address that specifically.
7 I think one of the concerns the panel had was the 8
ballot question that passed in Washington, D.
C.,
that 9
appears to be heading toward a shutdown of the disposal of 10 waste in the State of Washington.
What are the 11 alternatives, and where do we go from here at this point?
12
- 55. DRAYO In the last two days of the Congress, 13 the House and the Senate agreed to language that sets out a
Federal policy f or disposal of low level nuclear vaste.
14 new 15 There voce three operating low level vaste burial in Washington State, one in South Carolina, and 16 grounds, one 17 one in Nevt.da.
All three Governors have said tha t they will vaste from other states after varying kinds of 18 not accept 19 end points and deadlines.
l The Congress passed a low Level Nuclear Waste 20 21 Disposal Policy Act, which states that it is the Federal 22 policy that each State should be responsible for assuring 23 that disposal capacity exists for low level vaste generated 24 within that state, except for Def ense or Department of 25 Energy waste.
ALDER $oM REPCRvwG OctaPANY. IfeC.
400 VwlGINIA AVL 3.W. WA$rdPeGToN. 3.C. 20024 (2023 5862348
~
I 7
1 The St&tes can fulfill this responsibility either 2
by establishing a burial ground within the state, or by 3
showing tha t there is a burial ground in some other state, 4
or some place, that will take lev level waste from, let us 5
say, Pennsylvania.
6 In order to encourage the States to fora regional 7
burial grounds, in order to make it easier for then to do 8
this, they have also given the States the authority to form t
9 compacts under which they can establish a regional burial
(
10 ground which only has to serve states which are aesbers of 11 that compact.
12 Ordinarily that kind of compact would violate the t
l 13 Interstate Cosserce laws and be unconstitutional.
Under an 14 Act like this, with the approval of the Congress of such 15 compacts, States can establish a burial ground without being 18 threatened that they will end up having to take care of 17 waste problems in a limited number of places.
You could to have two-state, th ree-state, or f our-state regions.
l 19 None of the compacts can go into effect until 1986 20 at the earliest, so tha t States will have plenty of time to 21 get together in the region, and find some way to establish s 22 licensed lov level waste burial ground.
23 ER. HINNICH4 A couple of questions.
24 Has that-been signed in,to law.?
25
- 55. DRAYC4 It has not been signed by the l
ALDERSoN REPoATIPsG Con 8PANY. ;MC.
400 VIPGINLA Ava S.W. W@li4h t 0.C. 20024 (202) 544-2348
8 l
l 1
President.
I was passed by the Senate and the House on the 2
second to the last day.
3
- 52. MINNICH:
Does that carry with it any funding 4
incentives for the States ?
I am sure th a t this is one of 5
the questions that they will be asking.
~
6
- 35. DBAYO4 Unfortunately, the funding incentives 7
were strucx out of the bill at some point before it made it 8
through.
9 3R. WAGNERa Why does it not become effective 10 before 19867 11
- 55. DRAV04 It was considered the period of time 12 that would 'Je reasonable to assure tha t Sta tes would have 13 time to get licensed disposal f acilities available.
The 14 States of Washington, South Carolina, and Nevada vill not 15 shut their f acilities in 1983 as they would have liked to 16 do.
It is just that the Congress figured that it was not 17 realistic to think that other states would have had time to 18 license new burial ground.
19
- 32. MINNICH:
In th e me an tim e, with the 20 possibility of the shutdown in the State of Washington, 21 between now and 1986 what does a state such as Pennsylvania l
22 do with the waste from T3I?
23
- 35. DRAY 0s (Intil 198 6 the situation will remain 24 unchanged.
Under national law, the States of Washington, 25 South Carolina, and Nevada probably cannot keep the vaste ALDERSoN RaPoRTING CondPANY,iNC, 400 MRGIMA AVE. $1#. WASMNGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346 r
l 9
But as a practical satter, States have ways of keeping 1
out.
2 things out that they do not want, and I quess at some point f
3 it becomes a constitutional clash between States or i
4 something.
5 The law would remain unchanged, and whatever 6
probless you have now you would still have.
7
- 13. 5INNICH:
The question is not meant to l
8 ambar; ass you, or put you in a position tha t you feel t
9 uncoefortable with.
But assuming that Washington does, in l
10 fact, close its borders, I believe we have had problems with l
11 the site in South Carolina, what do we do in the interia?
12 MS. DBAVO First let se say that zy quess is that 13 since the legislation was passed, it is highly unlikely that 14 even Washington and Nevada would close, because what the 15 Governors wanted was some action.
Now there has been some to action, they will probably remain open until 1986.
17 I cannot predict what they are going to do, but I to think that the passage of the legislation will change their I
19 a ttitude considerably.
20 MR. COCHEAN:
I just wanted to point out that the 21 low level waste disposal is not the primary issue here.
The ZL fuel assemblies and the resins which are really not lost t
t 23 level resin, in this case none of the three f acilities would 24 not tske th at,vaste.
We should be directing our attention 25 to the DOE.
ALDERSoN AEPoRT1NG COWP ANY. ;NC.
400 VIRGWIA AVL 5.W. WA8>t4NGICN. 3.C. 200:4 (2t2 554 2348
10 1
MS. DRAVOs Mone of what I have been talking about 2
would apply to the contaminated waste at T5I.
It just 3
addresses the low level waste disposal.
There is nothing in 4
the legislation that would help provide a storage place for
~
5 the high level vaste.
6 MR. HINNICH:
I saw a gentleman from Met-Ed coming 7
in.
Would you identif y yourself f or the re co rd, please?
8 H3. HOEDYa I as Gay Hoedy, Director of I5I 2.
9
- 53. MINNICH:
We alt,o have with us Dr. Cunningham to f rom th e Department of Energy.
11 Dr. Cunninghat, is the Department of Energy in a 12 position to deal with the disposal of this highly 13 radioactiva vaste.
a few 14
- 33. CUNNINGH AE s If I sight take just 15 minutes to go into the problem with a few background points, 16 then I think I can go on to your question.
17 First, I would like~to point out that in whatever 18 I say I as representing the Department of Energy.
There are 19 a lot of Federal agencies invo.<sd, and I as not in a 20 position to speak for the other departments.
21 Since we have aajor responsibility in the vaste 22 management area, I would like to talk for a minute from the 23 standpoint of the Department of Energy.
24 I would also like to say, as many of you know, we 25 have been for some time involved. as a matter of fact right ALoERSoN AfPCATihG COMPANY,!P6C.
400 VIRG# eta AVE $1#, *AsMWeQTCM, D.C. 20024 '202) 554-2346
99 1
f rom the very beginning, with the Th ree Mile Island 2
inc id en t.
We have been providing assistance, both in terms 3
of the normal type of assistance where we provide radiological teams to do surveys and provide help of this 4
5 sort, to very recently, beginning in the last fiscal year, 6
where we were given supplemental funding, to proceed with an f
l I
7 research involvesent support program, which we are doing 8
jointly with G?U, EPA, and cooperating with the NRC on a 9
number of these things.
l 10 I will not go into details of all the many things 11 ve are doing.
We have actually established a field office 12 at Three Nile Island.
We have a representative f rom the 13 field office here tonight.
We also have representatives i
14 from our vaste sanagement program in Washington, and our 15 reactor program in Washington as well.
So I hope that we 16 vill be able to answer most or all of the questions you 17 have.
18 Directly pertinen t to the question that you asked, 19 ve have also sponsored scoping studies.to provide options 20 for removal, packaging, shipment, and disposal of the Three 21 511e Island spent fuel core.
We have looked at methods and to examine the core prior to renoval of 22 equipment necessary 23 the vessel.
We have jointly provided expertise where 24 available.
25 We have done doint programs for GPU i..nich we i
ALDt7t$oM ME.*CE#G COh8PANY. iNC.
402 vtmOIN4A AVE. 3.W WASk46G7CM. 3.C. 20024 (2C23 564-2346
12 1
have developed and demonstrated methods of decontaminating 2
components and tools from Three Nile Island to reduce 3
personnel exposure.
4 We have also provided a technical advisory group 5
to CPU to review and consent on the clean up plans and 6
related operations.
7 In terms of talking specifically to what might be i
8 tvened "other vastes," and I would classif y everything as 9
"other vastes" other than the vaste we just recently talked 10 about.
low level waste, I think, has clearly been 11 sdequa tely addressed in the legisla tion, and pa rticula rly in 12 the recent legislation that was just discussed.
The lov 13 level vaste is the responsibility of the States, and the 14 States are expected to work out arrangements and compacts to 15 be able to handle it.
16 However, I would like to be able to add one thing, l
17 and that is, it is the department policy to provide 18 technical assistance, both in terms of locating new burial 19 sites, and providing-technical assistance in terms of 20 evaluating these sites, and technical aid to the States in 21 terms of properly carrying out their responsibilities in 22 that area.
23 Also that legislation has been, in fact, sponsored 24 and supported by the State Planning Council, which includes 25 governors from the States that have just been sentioned, l
ALDaRSoM REPCRT:NG 00MPANY. ;MC.
l 400 VWIGe#A Ava S.W. WASN#NeToN. 3.C. 20024 (2021564 23e4
13 1
South Carolina, Washington, and Nevada.
It would be my 2
expecta tion tha t those States would fully support that 3
legislation.
4 In terms of high level vaste, and other wastes, I 5
don't want to spend a lot of time on definitions.
I think 6
the sain point i vould like to make is that, first o f all, 7
the Depa rtm en t of Energy does have a bread responsibility in 8
the nuclear vaste sanagement area, and that broad 9
responsibility does include establishment of temporary and to permanent f acilities f or storage management.nd ultimate 11 disposal of nuclear vaste.
12 In general, sost of the legislative had evolved 13 about what we call "high level vaste," and auch of that 14 waste is consonly defined as the vaste which results from 15 reprocessing of f uel elements.
However, in recent years we 16 have also generally talked abou t spent fuel elements as 17 being in that category of high level waste.
18 So I think that it is reasonable to expect that 19 the core saterial in Three Nile Island, certainly that 20 satorial vnich is partially or badly damaged, would be 1
21 classified as high level waste.
Iherefore, it would be 22 quite feasible to ex;ect the Department of Energy to aid in 23 the actual preparation, treatment, and storage of that 24 saterial.
25 In fact, I would be willing to go one step ALDERSCN REPCA7'4 00hdANY, iNC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WA4WM?CPe 3.0. 20024 (202) 564 2348
.. - -. ~
14 1
further, and say that the Department of Energy has a great 2
deal of interest in the material f rom a research and 3
development standpoint.
We think there is very valuable 4
d a ta the re, and a great deal to be learned from obtaining 5
and e xamining this material.
6 At the same time, it is quite possible there are 7
some fuel elencats in that core which are undamaged, or 8
relatively undtsaged, and could be handled in the sase way 9
as spent fuel, and only stored in storage pools a t the l
10 reactor site.
But I don't think that there should be such 11 question with regard to the handling of that particular 12 satorial.
(
13 So I think that it is safe to assume that the 14 Department of Energy will assume responsibility f er that 15 type of sacerial associated with the damaged core.
16 On the othet. hand, we also have materials which 17 may arise as a result of treatment processes which occur 18 during the clean up at Three Nile I'sla nd.
One in particular 1
19 that I would like to talk about c'efers to the contaminated 20 vater within the containment bo11 ding itself.
21 First of til, it is my belief that those 22 radioactive contaminants should be reconcentu.ted.
Those 23 radioactive contaminants should be issobilized, and not left 24 in the water inside the containment building basement.
25 I believe it is such safer to concentrate and As.oEmsoN REPCRTING CCWANf..NC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE. 3.W. WAMNGToN. o.C. 21024(202 4-2346 l
15 1
issobilire those radioactive saterials than to leave them in 2
the present situation.
I don't believe that it is 3
reasonable to expect the status que to continue forever.
4 Since the radioactive contaminants can be 5
reconcentrated safely, and in accordance with NEPA by the 8
way, I believe the clean up of the water in the containment 7
building should be allowed to proceed in parallel with 8
on-going hearings and activities which are taking place.
9 Furthermore, as far as the trea tment and disposal 10 of those radioactive contaminants, I say that this can be 11 accomplished in two steps.
l 12 First of all, the concentrated contaminants should 13 be reconcentrated onto zealides inorganic resins, whatever 14 the proper case say be.
I believe that is a safe form of 15 handling, a t least in terms of shipment of the materials 16 f rom the site.
17 I happen to agree with Chairman Ahearne that th e 18 site should not be used as a research and development site, 19 and I don't believe it is necessary to try to establish an l
20 elaborate izacb111 ration procedure f or ti ese particular l
21 wastes at the sites, oecause I believe concentrated and in 22 liners, it should be perfectly safe for shipment.
23 As f ar as shis 'in t the vaste to t2.e appropriate 24 burial site, some of these liners will clearly be identified 25 as low level waste, and I think that those should be handled ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY '.NC.
400 VtRGNA AVE. S.W., WA$MNoToN. 3 C. 20024 (2023 564-2344 l
16 l
1 in the way that we are talking about.
2 Ihen there are some whien are clearly so 3
radioactive that no consercial burial site can be expected 4
to handle those.
I think, again, it is reasonable to expect 5
that that will require some special form of treatment.
6 There say be some intermediate which there sa y be 7
some questions on, and I believe, in terms of whao is to be 5
done with these materials, if there a question with regard 9
to meeting N3C requiations, a question regarding the to operation of the cessercial burial ground, then it should 11 properly be biased in terms of treating that saterial as not 12 a normal lov level saterial.
13 Regardless of what happens here, again I would 14 like to say, first of all, in the experience that we have 15 had, natorials of this type : think are unusual with commercial reactors, and in many respects this sakes it a
16 17 difficult probles for all of us to handle.
On the other hand, they are not unusual for the 18 l
19 Department of Energy st".,Ga?s.
We have handled all of these 20 types of saterials for many years.
I do no t believe there are any health, safety, or technological probleas involved, 21 l
22 and I believe that technically the T3I waste represents no l
23 new radiologic phenomenon.
24 With
. gard to the particular packaging or way this particular satorial happens to be handled, again 25 that A4.DEftSCN RaPoATING 00tePANY. INC.
400 VWIGWetA A4 S.W,. WAS,uMGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (212 584 2344
-n~-
m y
e--,
e 17 1
we are conducting and will continue to conduct supporting 2
technical prograss to assure that we can make a decision to 3
handle these vaste, which can be handled in various ways, 4
the way that we pick will be the one that is the most 5
sporopriate f or that particular type of material.
6 I would make one other point.
As I said, I do not 7
believe there is a health, safety or technological problem.
8 I do believe the Department of Energy is going to proceed in 9
a very e'r <'.ent way to help here, but it is also coing to 10 require tne cooperation of, the citiren groups, and it is 11 going to require their cooperation particularly in the area 12 of transportation.
13 Hany times we have experienced difficulties in 14 being able to actually carry out supporting pecorass simply 15 because of opposition to the transportation of the 16 materials.
There are other places as well where cooperation 17 18 vill be required if the Department of Energy is to provide 19 strong technical support and help here.
20 One last point with regard to the question of 21 accepting and storing vaste.
In the sa me wa y tha t accepting 22 the storage of low level waste fees Three.111e Island via 23 consercial burial grounds in the three states which have 24 them is a sensitive issue to'be worked out among the State 25 officials in both states, the States where the Department of ALDEM$oM REPCRTNG CD48P ANY. INC.
400 vtpOINGA AVE., S.W 4 AteihotoN. O C. 20024 (202) 564 2344
18 1
Energy has locations, I would expect this again to be a 2
sensitive issue involving the cooperation of Congress, 3
S ta tes, and the State of Pennsylvania in order to achieve 4
some of these goals.
5 In terms of being able te carry out the vaste 6
progras, and in terms of being able to accept and store 7
them, there is no question that we can do that on a 8
technical basis, but it is a complex political issue and one 9
tha t will require a great deal of cooperation in order for 10 as to proceed with it.
11 Thank you.
12 3R. WAGNER:
Dr. Cunningham, in the response of 13 the State of Maryland in the draf t environmental ispact 14 statement, one of the deficiencies that was sentioned was 15 the fact that there really was no clear sta tement about the 16 disposal of the radioactive waste that had to be resoved.
17 The document did not address the question directed 18 by Maryland during the scoping process that the DOE accept waste unsuitable for commercial burial sites in the same 19
(
sanaer as the Department of Energy handles vaste satoria],s 20 21 now obtained from defense projects.
The draf t document dismisses this option as being 1
1 22 l
23 contrary to DOE policy.
Governor Hughes of Maryland has 24 recently written to the President asking that an exception he made to this DOE policy for the T!I accident generated 25 aueson asPoWilMG COWANY,INC.
400 wpONA Ave. 3.W. WA$HNGion. 3.C. 20024 (202 544-2346
, _. _ ~. - _, _
19 1
solid waste.
2 I note, from reading the transcript of the last 3
s ee ting, which unfortunately I was not able to attend, that 4
Dr. Cochran said that in his view it was opposition coming 5
from the Armed Services Consittee of Congress that was 6
inhibiting the DOE f rom disposing -of these high level wastes 7
when they become available in the next couple of years by 8 sechanisms that they are using at the present time f or the 9
Department of Defense waste.
10 In view of your statement tha t there are no 11 technological problems associated with the removal of these 12 high level vastes, does the DOE intend to have the solution, i
l 13 or potential solution to this probles incorporated into the l
14 NBC final environmental impact statement?
15 MB. CUNNINGHANs First of all, with regard to what 16 actually shows up in the NBC environmental ispect statement, 17 I cannot assure you of anything there other than to st y that 18 ve will certainly be providing comments on the statement.
With regard to your earlier guastion, why we did 19 consider the handling of THI waste along with the 20 not 21 Def ense vaste, we have a clear-cut, long established 22 legislative history which prohibits os from comincling 23 Defense vaste and commercial vaste.
24 That is not to say that vaste such as was 25 generated at Three Mile Island cannot be accepted on any DOE ALDERSoN REPORT.MG CowaMY,!NC.
400 vtRONA AVE. S.W. WASMNGTON. D.C. 20024 dl02) $64-2348
20 1
site, it can.
It so happens that most of our facilities 2
involving the hsndling of high level waste are facilities 3
which are directly associated with the Defense program, and which would be directly prohibited from accepting this 4
5 waste.
6 However, that is related to one other probles that 7 ve are looking at.
It is sisply, what final form would be 8
preferable to handle these liners, or in f act to use these
~
9 liners and concentrate in another way.
What would be the to sost suitable way to handle the vaste so that it could be 11 handled on a DOE without violating that particular aandate.
12 I don't have a good answer to that, and I don't believe that 13 a clear-cut is available.
14 ER. WAGNER:
If the political decision were made 15 at the present f o r the DOE to handle the high level veste, 16 by what year do you think it would be possible to transport 17 the vaste to the site that was chosen?
18 3R. CUNNINGHANs As far as the year is concerned, 19 since I stated earlier that I believe it is probably safe to 20 transport the linars themselves, I think we could tra nsport 21 the vaste on a schedule which is consistent with the schedule in which the vaste would concentrate in those 22 23 liners.
24 MR. WAGNERs low level waste as well as high level 25 waste?
A4 DEA $oN AEPoRTINo CCh0PANY. INC.
400 vimGlNEA AVE. $/#, WASheeGTON. O.C. 20024(20lD $64 2346
l 1
21 a
1 MR. CUNNINGHANs I want to define any of the 2
cesius and strontius type materials as high level vaste.
3
- 53. WAGNER 4 I as talking about the damaged fuel.
4 5R. CUNNINGHAHs The damaged fuel, I can only give 5
you a rough estimate.
I cannot answer that precisely, 6
because we cannot answer that until we actually take the 7
head off and exszine the condition of the core, and make a t
8 realistic estimate as to how long it will take to take the i
9 material out of there, examine it, obtain the type of data to we want.
11 We have a plan laid out Ihat says in three to five 12 years.
I just simply cannot answer your question without 13 actually looking at the core itself.
1 14 NR. WAGNER 4 If the satorials in the core were 15 ready to be transported, are you stating that the DOE, if 16 given the go ahead, would be able to have a site available 17 in three to five years?
18 MR. CUNNINGHAN As far as the spent fuel itself 19 is concerned, let se speak to that point.
As far as the l
20 spent fuel itself is concerned, if and when the head comes 21 off, it appears that the sub-assemblies have suffered lov 22 damage, they could be picked up and handled in the normal 23 way.
Those sub-assemblies could be placed in cans or 24 containers, and shipped out issediately in their canned 25 form.
If they were slightly damaged, they could actually be ALatRsoN REPopmMG COMPANY. INC.
400 VIAelNIA AVE., S.W. WASMesGToN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 554 2344
22 1
stored on site in the storage rooms.
2 On the other hand, if the core is severely damaged 3
so that it is a very complex and difficult clean up and 4
removal procedure inside the core, then I just cannot answer 5
rour question without having a real engineering e val u a tio n.
6
- 53. WAGNE3:
The reason I ask this question is 7
that it is a major concern of the citi= ens of Maryland, as 8
you might imagine, to be sure that the clean up process or 9
the decontamination process is carried out as expeditiously to as possible, consistent with safety procedures.
11 NR. CUNNINGHA3a Seing a citizen of 3aryland, I 12 agree with that.
13 H3. PALLADINO:
Dr. Cunningham, my question 14 relates to the resins and their stability, if we have the 15 resins on site for a long period of time.
From the report l
16 that was given to me, I gather that there can be 17 considerable change in the pH of the satorial, and corrosion 18 that will lead to leakage of the material f rom the liner.
19 Is our timeframe such that we are protected 20 against this kind of activity?
21
- 53. CUNNINGHANs Dr. Palladino, I know that 22 question has been raised, but at same tise I would point out 23 that we have handle similar materials ourselves.
We have l
24 used double containment where necessary.
As a matter of 25 fact, we are presently storing pure cesium, pure radioactive Awansom mePCRTING Cow ANY. INC.
soO wnoueA Ave. s.w, WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (20 2 584-2348
23 1
cesium itself in double containment under water at the 2
Ilkridge site.
3 I am saying that it is perfectly reasonable to 4
expect proper containment and storage on site if that 5
happened to be s necessary thing to do.
6 3R. PALLADINO:
Are there procedures similar to 7
those that are being used here that are cosparable to those 8
that are being used Elkridge?
9
- 53. CUNNINGHAHs As far as any technical program to that the Department of Energy is concerned with, I think we would insist on the integrity of the technical Ju p po r t, and 11 12 a program of technical depth required to provide the 13 assurance needed.
14
- 33. PALLADINot What length of time do you feel is 15 satisfactory?
16 HR. CUNNINGHAEs I don't understand your 17 question.
18
- 53. HINNICH:
Dr. Palladino is very concerned that 19 if the resin.1 in the liners are kept for a year, there could 20 be possible leakage from corrosion.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAN Part of the ca..orn is the
)
The temperature at 22 temperature at which they are stored.
23 which they are stored is also related to whether they are stored under water, or stored under dry condition.
24 25 I guess I would not want to make a prelisinary l
ALDERSCM Af?CM*.NG OCMPANY. INC.
@ VWIGN#A Avt 3/# WASWQ4M. 0.C. 20024 (2023 564 2344
24 1
judgment as to the final decision on the storage, but I 2
believe that we have sdequate inf ormation, and adequate 3
on-going technical prograss to make the proper decision once 4
ve obtain it.
5 Part of it is related to what concentrations do l
6 you build up the radioactive contaminants in the resins.-
7
- 53. PALLADINGs My concern applies to the period 8
the saterials are kept on site before they are shipped.
9
- 53. CUNNINGHAHs As far as that part 1.5 concerned, to I don 't believe that it is a question of serious concern.
question of concern, as I said 11 If it were to become s 12 earlier, there is nothing wrong with being able to ship 13 these materials on a schedule consistent with the basis 14 under which they are generated.
15
- 53. WAGNER:
In an earlier statement you said that 16 rou would have no problem taking the materials as they are.
17 NRC has issued an order related to the epicore II.
Is it 18 your opinion that there is not a need to solidify these 19 before shipment?
20 NR. CUN N IN GH AH First of all, I think you have to 21 clarify wh a t you mean by solidify.
22 In terns of handling these types of materials, I 23 believe they would meet the criteria of solidified waste.
24 MR. WAGNER:
You mean removing the water?
25
- 33. CUNNI 3GHA!
Yes.
44.cfmscN REPoMTING CoWMY,INC.
400 V.RolNIA Avt 5.W. WASHtNGToN Q.C. 20024 (202) 554 2344 y
25 1
- 33. CCCHRAN:
Dr. Cunninghas, you sentios.4 2
legislative history with regard to the probles of comingling 3
defense and civil waste.
Isn't EDS II and EFFTF civil 4
reactors?
5 3R. CUNNINGHA5s The EDR II and the EFFTF, yes, 6
they are both civil reactors.
As far as the low level l
7 wastes are concerned, they have generally been acceptable, 8
as f ar as the congressional consittees are concerned, that 9
we use the lov level burial grounds for all Departsent of 10 Energy research facilities, whether they are civil related 11 or def ense related.
12
- 32. COCHRANs What about the high level waste,
~
13 aren't you comingling the high level vaste frce the civil 14 research reactors and the defense production reactors?
15 ER. CUNNINGHA5s With regard to the reactors you 16 asked about, the EFFTF is operated but we really don't have 17 any waste yet.
As far EDR II, I believe at the present time 18 ve have all of that stored near the EDR II separately.
19 However, it is quite possible that there say have been some 20 in the past 21 ER. CDCHRANs Let's back up, then.
22 Has DCE reprocessed any spent fuel from civil reactors, research reactors at Oakridge, Idaho, or 'at 23 24 Hanford -- I don't think there are any at Hanford, but 25 Oakridge and Idaho, and hasn't that vaste been comingled l
ALDER 4CN REPQRTING CCh4P ANY. iNC.
400 VIR34NIA AVE SJ#, WASMtNGToN. Q.C. 20024 (202) 564 2348
~_. -_
e 6
26 1
with def ense production reacter waste?
2
- 53. CUNNINGHAHa The EDR II did operate on a fuel 3
cycle af. one time.
I will provide f or the record exactly 4
where that waste went, but it is quite possible --
5 3R. COCHRAN You have something like five to six 6
tons of plutonium earmarked for the breeder reactor 7
program.
That plutonium would be considered civil reactor 8
fuel in your opinion, would it not?
9
- 53. CUNNINGHAN:
It is certainly a part of our to research and development program.
11 ER. COCHRANs Is it civil reactor fuels I wocid 12 like to know t!iat.
13 3R. CUNNINGH AM s I as having trouble with your 14 ters " civil reactor," because we have nothing but researen 15 and development facilities.
16
- 53. CCCHRAN4 Are those research and development 17 facilities civil reactors as opposed to military or def ense 18 production reactors, and I an excluding the Hanford reactor 19 which is a dual purpose, from that definition.
NR. CUNNINGH AH4 The ET7?F and EDR II are clearly 20 21 not part of the Defense progras.
22 HR. COCHRANs Is the plutonius that is earmarked for the breeder reactor program civil reactor fuel,, or is 23 2a it defense plutonium, or is it comingled so that you don't 25 have any more access to it than the weapons production and AL:ERSCN REPCATING COMPANY..NC.
400 WGMA Avt. S/#, WAsNtN0 ton. O.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
27 1
the weapons progran?
2 Are you still fighting whether that plutoniua goes 3
into weapons, or in the breeder program, or is that pretty 4
voll clear?
5 You sust see my point.
I think you have already 6
comingled the vaste from the civil program and the military
(
7 program.
8
- 53. CUNNINGHAH Perhaps my definition of 9
coming 11ng may not be correct.
Perhaps I had better G64rify 10 that for the record.
There has never been prohibition 11 against the comingling of the Department of Energy research 12 f acilities with the defense program facilities.
13 MR. CCCH3ANs Would it be appropriate, then, to 14 comingle THI waste with the vaste associated with your civil 15 activities in the De partm en t of Energy?
There is no 16 national security implication in that, is there?
17 HR. CUNN!NGHAMs Technically, there is no 18 probica.
! just think th at it has been clear fres the 19 action of the congressional committees that that has not 20 been their desire.
Ls a matter of fact, I consider the 21 direction that we have received to be a prohibition of 22 tha t.
23 ER. CCCHRANs We are trying to cooperate with 24 you.
Somebody has got to take it, and DOE is the most 1
25 appropriate agency t o t ak + th e v a st e.
I as trying to l
l ALDDtSCN AEPCRTINo ConsPamy ;NC.
g4 VHtGINtA Avt S.W WASk+NGioN. 3.C. 20024 (202 564 2346
28 1
findout whether or not there is some way to accommodate this 2
by comin gling it with your RCD waste.
3
- 53. CUNNIN GH AM As I sentioned earlier, I think 4
that it is feasible for us to establish a f acility for 5
handling this satorial without in any way interfering with 6
the defensa program.
7 In the past, Sc have established and used sost of 8
our f acilities on the def ense program, whereas we have only 9
a limited number of facilities which could be clearly to identified as part of the civilian program.
11
- 33. COCHSANs On the question of the resins, 12 correct se if I am wrong, but sy understanding is that one 13 of the issues is that perhaps you are not using the right 14 resins.
15 If one is looking in the longer tecs toward 16 solidification of the resins, it is not simply a tatter of 17 the resins, the pH changing and becoming more co rrosive in 18 the containers.
But, in fact, if one is looking toward 19 solidification this sight direct one to one type of resins 20 as opposed to another.
21 Is the Department of Energy examining, since they 22 are responsible for the long-ters vaste disposal, which is 23 the most appropriate ion exchange sodium to use?
24
- 13. CUNNINGHA!s We have been providing technical 25 support on this.
As a matter of f act, a good deal of the ALOERSCN PGPCRTING CoWANY,;NC.
430 MAGINIA AVL SJ#, WASMNGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (2023 554 2346
i I
29 1
work at GPU, under our own recommendations, has been based 2
to a large extent on work which has been done at Oakridge.
3 With regard to the specific question, I will have to check 4
that and provide the appropriate answer.
5 MB. COCHRANs Could you furnish the committee with 6
that?
t l
7 ER. CUNNINGHA5s Yes.
8 3R. CDCHRAN:
On the question of occupational 9
exposure, the NRC said th a t the upper limit on the 10 occupational exposure, in their estimate, was something like 11 12,000 san-ress for the entire operation.
Could we get fros 12 you an analysis of whether you think that is in the ball 13 park, lov or high?
i 14 I as thinking in terms of the slurry steam that 15 was generated, and the f a ct that there were several thousand to aan-ress released.
If that is the case, this 12,000, it 17 seems to se, may be lov.
l 18 NR. CUNNINGHAN I will be glad to provide you 1
19 with data, and comment on that.
20 It is my understanding that GPU in addition 21 provided a self-imposed limit which is lower than that 22 required by NRC.
23 MR. COCHRANs A limit on the casulative exposure, 24 or on the indiv'idual dose?
25 3R. CUN5INGHA3 It is on the individual dose.
l Ai.censoN AsPoRENG COMP ANY..NC.
400 VtAG+NIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTCN. Q.C. ll0024 (202) 534 2345 i
30 l
1
- 33. COC9RAN:
There is one further area that I
)
2 would like to ask you about.
j 3
Iou mentioned tna t all the vaste in the water, the 4
activity in tne water, should be solidified.
I assume th a t 5
rou are not also thinking in terms of the tredium, or are 6
you thinking of that as well?
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
What I as saying is, those wastes 8
which can be concentra ted to high levels, such as cesina, 9
should be.
10
- 33. COCHBAN s With regard to the tredium, since 11 DOE is the major producer and releaser of tridium, would you 12 pro vide us, so that we can get some comparative analysis, 13 with tridius rolesses, for example, at the Savannah River 14 plant' If we could get population doses from those 15 releases, it sigh t be helpf ul in aaking a comparative 16 sssessment.
17 HR. CUNNINGHANs We will be happy to provide the 18 data.
i l
19
- 53. PA1LADINO:
Dr. Cunningham, I wonder if I
{
l 20 could follow up on my. earlier question.
I would like to i
21 elear up th e poin t.
22 It is my impression that you said tha t everything 23 technically is okay, and you are just waiting to ship the 24 stuff off the site.
What is delaying the shipment of the l
25 epicore resins.
i ALotAScN AaPcADNG CoWPANY,INC, 400 VMGIMA AVL S.W. WA&MNGTod. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2344 l
i
l l
l 31 1
- 33. CUNNINGHAHs Iou mean the epicore II resins?
2 MR. PALLADINO:
The epicore II resins.
3 3R. CUNNINGHA!:
The epicore II resins, there are 4
several questions there.
As I said, rart of these clearly 5
can be identified as lov level waste.
We have not 8
identified the specific ones which should be categorired as 7
not suitable for lov level burial grounds.
8 On the other hand, we in the Department of Energy 9
do have plans to ship off two of these, one now and one 10 later, to Battelle and Columbus where we plant to tske a 11 look at the particular ones, and make some judgments and 12 recommendations on which of several alternatives would be 13 sost desirable for handling the rest of them.
14 ER. PALLADINOs
?.y impression is that there are a 15 number of those that are greater than lov level vaste.
to MR. CUNNINGHAM s There are a number, perhaps on 17 the order of 20, that would be clearly acceptable to 18 commercial lov level burial grounds.
Then thers sre some 19 that are obviously not acceptable.
20 MR. PALLADINos 5ay I ask one final question.
21 Does this new Act that talks about low level waste burial 22 sites define lov level vaste?
23
!R. CUNNINGHANs Yes.
There is a definition in 24 there, but again the definition of low, intermediate and 25 high level vaste is very fur 27 I think in terms of low ALoansoN AGPCRT.MG OOW ANY..NC,
.co waamA Ave s.w, wasmNorcN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 584-2345
32 1
lev el vaste, you would ha ve to resort back to what is common 2
factors that are seceptable now in the licensed and 3
requiated burial grounds.
4 M3. PALLADIN0s Thank you.
5 3R. MINNICH4 I would like to address a question 6
to the young lady from Congressaan Udall's committee.
7 We have been involved in just the issue from a 8
solid vaste disposal site here in this coun ty.
In our 9
county there is very great resistance to the establishsent to of a toxic waste disposal site.
Ilow h.egislation has come along that aandates the 11 12 location of lov level vaste burial sites in the state.
I as 13 sure that this is going to raise even further ire of the 14 local population, and the banding of citirens to figh t such 15 sites.
16 It is predicted that just in the instance of solid 17 waste, not even dealing with toxic waste or lov level 18 radiation, the establishmen t of land disposal sites is going 19 to become extremely dif ficult, if not in fact impossible, 20 because of the resistance of the public.
I think that this is going to spill over, as sure as I as sitting here, to the 22 establishment of such kinds of sites in a state particularly 23 lik e Pennsylvania.
24 How does Congress expect the states to deal with 25 that kind of scenario where resistance is extremely high?
ALDERSoN REPoATING CohePANY iNC.
ACC VIAQiNBA Ava. 3/#, WASHMGTCN. 3.C. 2P.4 (2C2) $$4-2348
t 33 l
t F.S. DRATCs In fact, this is exactly the kind of i
2 probles tha t the Act was intended to address.
3 There is legislation that did not pass this 4
Congress to authorire or encourage the Nuclear Heculator7 5
Cosaission and the Environmental P'Stection Agency to begin i
6 workinc together so that suitable kinds of landfill type 7
sites could be selected and used for chemical and 8
radio active vaste, which would not intersingle with what you 9
would want to put in the general kind of geologic area.
l 10 Tour basic question was, how are the states going 11 to site those burir* grounds given the public opposition to 12 such siting.
The answer is, who else is going to be able to 13 do it?
14 I think the problem has been that from state to 15 state across the country, the public has said tha t they will 16 not accept disposal of these wastes within their territory.
17 Now the three states that have accepted the vaste are 18 saying, "Well, fine, we are no t going to ta k e it ei th e r. "
19 It is sisply the case that either someone takes 20 it, or the industries that produce the vaste are goinc to 21 shut down.
22 (Applause.)
23
- 53. MINNICHa Iou just said the a agic word.
24
- 35. DRAY 0s It is not only the nuclear power 25 plants, but it is mise the hospita's and researen censon mercarmo ecwany. :mc.
.co waamaA Ava. s.w., *Asumeron. o c. 2oo:4 (2o2) ss4 asas 1
34 1
laboratories.
It would be difficult for anyone, other than 2
a state, to work as closely with the local population on as 3
effective a sanagement level.
4 I think if the Federal governmen t were actively 5
trying to foist a site on one state or another, I think you
~
6 would have terrible public opposition, at least the state 7
sees its own problems as its own problems.
The intent is 8
tha?, it be viewed on the local level as soeethino people can 9
deal with on that level.
10
- 52. MINNICH:
I wish it were quite that staple, 11 but I don't think it is.
I have a lot of concern about that 12 being able to really effectively happen, because in 13 Pennsylvania pa rtic ula rly it is a very large public issue.
14 I may be wrong, and I hope I as wrong.
15
- 55. DRAYO The optimistic view is that between, 16 say, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and perhaps two, 17 three, or four states, there is a state some place that is 18 willing to take the lov level waste turial ground in return
~
19 for another state taking a chesical burial ground.
There 20 has to be some basis for cooperation.
21
- 33. MINNICH:
Thank you.
22 To the panel, I would express one thi ng.
Toe, you 23 just said, and I agree, that the real problem is in the 24 disposal of the highly esdioactive material.
It seems to se 25 that the first part that has to be dealt with is, in fact, ALDEDSCN REPCRTING CCMP ANY, INC, 400 viAG6MA avl 3.W. WASMNGICN. D.C. 20024 (20 2 554 2348
35 1
the disposal of the lov level saterial.
2 It struck me that in the EIS statemen t, I believe, 3
it deals with only one site, and tha t is the shipment and 4
routing of the material when it is shipped to the State of 5
6 sy question to the panel is, should not the EIS 7
also deal with other possibilities than just that one site 6
disposal, and other routings as a result of the valid 9
questions that have been raised? Isn't that something that to will have to b dealt with even before they can get to the 11 real seat of the problem?
I think we have indica ted that 12 ve do not look with very great f avor at making T!I a storage 13 site.
14 MS K0HR4 John, it is ay understand tha t a lot of 15 the low level waste at THI now is being shipped out.
I 16 think some of it -- maybe Mr. Arnold can co rrect se.
But my 17 understanding is that a lot of the low level waste is going 16 out now.
19 Is that right, Bob?
20
- 33. ARNOLD:
Yes.
We have been shipping, as 21 packaged trash and unpackaged trash, radioactive vaste that 22 is typical of an operating plant to Hanford right along.
23 The only thing that we have not been shipping is the resin 24 material from the epicore'!I, the resins generated by the 25 operation of epicore I, which has been treating unit I water ALDERSCN AEPCRTING CoWPANY,INC, 40C %AGMA AVE. S/#, WASMNGToN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346
36 1
or pre-accident water, and the water that cannot be 2
distinguished from tha t has also been shipped off-site.
3
- he only thing that we are in eff ect holding
~
4 pending the resolution of these issues is the liners 5
associated with the high level saterial.
6
- 53. MINNICRs Tha t is Mr. Arnold fros 5et-Ed.
7 MS XOHR I have some questions for Mr.
8 Cunningham.
9
- 53. CUNNINGHAHs Before I answer your questions, to perhaps I could answer Dr. Palladinol's question, and this 11 is also related to Dr. Cochran's question.
12 With regard to selection of the ion exchange 13 material, I think that it is clear that if we were talking 14 about selecting satorials for long storage tanks, we would 15 not select the organic resins.
So I don't mean to imply 16 that the organic resin is a suitable saterial for this.
17 On the other hand, it is not quite clear at this 18 time what is the stability of the organic resin, and it 19 could range from as short as six sonths to perhaps several 20 years.
But we are and will continue to do some work on the 21 stability of those organic resins.
22 55 KORRs This goes right to one of sy qu est, ions,
23 Nr. Cunningham.
24 I have read some statements from people at DCE and 25 NRC that believe that the epico re II resins, which are ALDEASCN AEPCAThG CCMP ANY. 'NC.
400 VIAGIMA Avt 3.w. Wash!NGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
i 37 organic resins, many of thes have already degenerated, and 1
2 the radioactive material has become separated from the 3
resins themselves, so their isnobiliring function is not 4
longer being performed.
5 In any of th e s tudies th a t 00E has done at this 6
point, do you have any information that leads you to believe 7
that degeneration and degradation of the organic resins has 8
taken place?
9 NH. CUNNINGHANs Not in direct answer to tnat, and to that is the reason that we want to take seme of these 11 satorials to one of the laboratories so that we can do scae 12 work on them.
We will try to get answers to some of those 13 questions.
14 I think, insofar as we know, there is no serious 15 degradation and and degeneration of the resins.
But again 16 there is enough concern here that it requires scoe work.
17 55 KOHas So you are saying that some of your i
18 experts have advised you that this is a probles, or it could 19 be a problan?
You are not sure that it is or no t?
l
- 33. CUNNINGH AN s What my experts have advised se 20 21 on this is that they don't know the time period of 22 s ta bility.
They don't know the optimum time for storace.
l 23 Wha t they want to know is what is the stability of this 24 particular material, this particular set of liners, if you 25 will.
l Al.DERSoM REPCRTING COh8P46Y..NC.
400 WRGINIA AVL 3.W. WASHINGioN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 564 2348
38 1
MS XCHRs Mr. Cunningham, over a year sgo the 2
Susquehannah Alliance paid an expert on resin treatment of 3
radioactive water to provide a coesent to the NRC on epicore 4
II on this kind of information.
He reported at tha t time 5
that the potential for disintegration of these organic 6
resins was very high.
7 Did the DOE have anything to do with the selection 8
of resins for the epicore II, or were any of yor people 9
called in st that time who sight have confirmed what our to e xp e rt was saying?
11
- 53. 'ILLUNZO We don't believe that nis concerns 12 are correct, so we are going to saapie that and confirs what 13 it really is.
14
- 33. CUNNINGHANs Let se see if I can answer the 15 question this way.
to To my knowledge, and we 1111 correct if it I as 17 not correct, we did not provide advice on that.
18 With regard to technical opinions, the answer is, have lots of technical opinions, and based on the 19 yes, we 20 best judquent of the people who are working on the progras, 21 I think there is roce for some degree of knowledge in trying 22 to pin down the exact characteristics of this material.
23 Now we happen to believe, or our experts happen to 24 believe th a t it is sore stable than your consultant would 25 say.
But, on the other hand, I believe that his coements an.censcw asPontNo cow 4NY,6NC,
.Co wwNiA Avs s.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2348
39 1
are valid enough that we should do some additional, and tha t 2
is the reason that we have decided to do some additional 3
work.
4 MS KOHRs When you said that the vastes at 75I are 5
not unusual in the experience of DOE, then you are no t 6
including in that -- You ar e not saying tha t DOE has had 7
experience with the kind of waste treatment involved in th e 8
epicore II liners.
9 In other words, you don't have any track record of 10 scientific testing, or experience to tell you vnat is going 11 to happen to these things.
12 HR. CUNNINGHANs No, I don't mean it in that 13 sense.
14 We certainly have a great deal of experience in 15 terms of handling organic resins, and a great deal of to experience in handling cosius,, strontius, and all of these 17 radioactive materials.
18 We have not operated a reactor of the size or 19 design of T!I I or II.
We don' t have any specific liners of 20 that particular si=e and geometry.
As you know, resins are 21 not alvars absolutely consistent in terss of their chemical l
22 forss, or characteristics.
This particular liner, it is 23 very difficult for us to say th a t it is exactly like an 24 organic resin liner tha t we have worked with, al tho ugh in 25 general you would expect it to be the same.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP 4NY,iNC.
400 WGNA AVa. S.W WA$MNGToN. OC 20024 (202) $64 2346
40 1
We are simply saying that when one novos from the 2
laboratory to the engineering experience, thea you should 3
look at engineering size modules, if you will, rather than 4
to continue to base your comments on laboratory 5
experiments.
6 5S KOHR4 You stated that most of the high level 7
f acilities f or storage, which are under the jurisdiction of 8
the DOE, are basically defense facilities.
Are there any 3
places under the control of the DOE that could accept civil to high level vaste?
11 3R. CUNNINGHAHs There are cases where this has 12 heen done by either particular legislation or approval.
For 13 example, we have at the Idaho facilities a storage facility 14 f or spent f uel from a civilian temperature gas reactor for 15 Fort St. Vrain.
16 That is a little bit of a special case, because 17 the Fort St. Vrain reactor was originally part of an Atomic 18 Energy Consission demonstration related prograa.
So it is a 19 little bit fu :y in terss of it being clearly civilian owned 20 and operated.
There was a small amount of government 21 support for that reactor, and there was an agreement with 22 regard to handling its spent fuel as part of the 23 demonstration effort.
24 Nevertheless, that is civilian fuel, and it is l
25 stored or vill be stored on a Department of Energy site.
So ALDERSoM REPomTING COMPANY. INC.
400 vimGiMIA AVE., S.W WAsheNGToN. o.C. 20024 (2021 $84 2348
i 41 1
1 there are a f ew cases of this type where one could find 2
certainly a precedent f or that sort of thing.
3 35 XOHR:
What was the policy mechanism by which 4
it was possible for DOE to respond to these special cases?
5 Those of us here at THI think that we have a 6
special case here.
If we need to get a special piece of 7
legislation through Congress, perhaps that should be the 8
focus of our attention.
9 What is necessary to enable DOE to treat this 10 waste as a special case?
11 ER. CUNNINGHA3s I think th a t is a fait question.
12 It is a question which does clearly require congressional i
13 cooperation, and in some cases congressional sanda te, for us 14 to do this.
15 We have, as I said, at the present time a aired 16 situation in the Congress.
We have funding and we have 17 direction f rom the House Appropriations Conaittee, for 18 example, for us to proceed in an expedient way to h el p wi th 19 the THI problem.
At the saae time, we also have the 20 direction that I referred to earlier which prevents us from 21 using those f acilities that are primarily associated with 22~
th e def e nse progra m.
23 I believe that there is sufficient sympathy, if 24 you will, in the Congress for DOE to participate in and help 25 this probles v'ith a clear-cut set of reccamendations as to ALDERSoN REPCMTING CoWANY..NC.
400 VMONA AVE. S.W. WA8MNGToN. 3.C. 20024 (2@ $84-2344
42 1
exactly what should be done, and that we vill be able to get 2
congressional support for that.
3 As I said, it is going to require some a
congressional cooperation, as well as cooperation as far as 5
the s tates are concerned.
6 55 KOHR:
You referred to the prohibition f roa 7
Congress.
Is this from a particular cosaittee, and is it a 8
prohibition tnat specifies TMI waste?
9
!B. CUNNINGHA!:
It is not a question of T5! waste to per se.
It is generslly a question of vaste f rom any 11 ceanercial, or certainly any NBC regulated or licented 12 facilities.
13 ES KOHR What is the source of thiss is it a 14 particular cosaittee?
15
- 32. CUNNINGHANs Most of the concern over this 16 satter is related to the Arsed Services Committees, although ty it is clearly broader in terms of the congressional support, 18 because there are many other Members of Congress who are not 19 sembers of the Defense cosaittees who believe very strongly 20 that defense prograss should be handled in a separate way.
21 NH. 5IENICH Dr. Cunningham, wha t is the basis 22 for that; is it national security?
a 55 K6H3s What does that sean?
What is their 2a concern about that?
Can you be more specific about that?
25 "R.
CU5NINGHANs Let's say th a t there is an ALeamsca aerontwo ecuramy, ac.
aco waewv4 Ave s.w =asnmaroN. O.C. 20024 (20:n SS4 2348
43 1
overriding concern that in the def ense progras one be free 2
to act in the sost expeditions sanner possible in terms of 3
providing national defense.
4 It is quite clear that we would have a very
~
5 difficult time running a defense progras if we had to go 6
through~the same Xind of procedures tha* T3I is going 7
through to handle their waste.
8 55 K0 hrs You are talking about what?
9 MR. CUNNINGHANs
! as talking about licensing 10 regulations.
11 55 KOHRs Has there been any application f rom GPU 12 regarding the vaste?
13
- 53. CUNNINGHAMs GPU is controlled on every action 14 on their vaste regarding what they do with it, how ther 15 handle it, under licensing and regulation from NRC.
l 16 MS KOHR:
But NRC is telling us that they don't 17 have any place to put it, and it is beyond their control.
18 NP. cut 3IN GH AR s Let se give you a sispie e x.asple l
l 19 of what I as talking about.
l 20 You know, very recently there has been a court 21 case regarding IRC and what actions they can take without it l
22 being regarded a question of an asendsent to the license.
23 Legal people can define this either by a ve ry fine ters or 24 on a very broad ters what is seant by a requirement for an 25 amendment to the license.
l l
l ALDERSCN RGPcATINo CCMPetY..NC.
m vt#GwetA Avt. 3.W., #ASMNGTCN. O C. 20024 (2021 584 2346 l
un 1
You esa well imagine that in the case where the 2
Departaent of Energy needed to ship saterial from one site 3
to another in order to seet a national defense requiresent, 4
if we had to have a public hearing and a licensing amendsent 5
before we could do that, our defense progras would be 6
forever bogged down.
7
!R. COCHEANs I find this argument, I as not 8
saying farfetched, and I realize that it is not coming fros 9
you, it is coming from other people.
10 Given that Fort St. Train, which is licensed by 11 the NRC as you just stated, is storing its vaste at Idaho, 12 which is a defense f acility, it is a bit f a rfetched to say 13 that that is causing problems.
Idaho does not go to the 43C 14 overy time they want to reprocess a submarine reactor fuel 15 elesent just because vaste from Fort St. Train is sitting up to there in a separate booth.
17 Do you think there is a real probles there, or de 18 you think these people are just gun-shy?
19 MR. CUNNINGH AN s In the case of Fort St. Yrsin, I l
20 was pointing that out as a way, although it has to be l
21 considered a special case, it is a case that is working and 22 working well.
Unfortunately, the legislation on that dates 23 back to a number of years ago, and I don't know whether the 24 same climate exists in Congress at the present tine or not.
25 But as far as the actual mechanism is concerned, ALDSASoM MEPomfDso CoaapANY. ;MC.
400 vulGwetA AVE S/#. WASMeeGToN. Q.C. 20024 (2C21 $44 2348
25 1
the storage f acility is separate f rom any defense 2
facilities.
It is not related to those in any way.
'"h e r e 3
is no present interference.
There is no ceason that it 4
cannot be located on the Idaho site.
In fact, it is the 5
extension of an agreement which was set up a number of years 6
ago.
7 3R. IINNICH:
Dr. Cunningham, you indicated tha t 8
there sight be some sympathy in Congress to deal with th e 9
situation of the disposal, but does tha t mean that it takes 10 enacting legislation in Congress.
If that is the case, who 11 is going to do the lob 3 ring in orde: to have that 12 legislation enacted?
13 It took them two years to reenact revenue sharing, 14 how would we get this legislation passed ?
15 N2. CUNNINGHAMs Certainly, it does take a good i
to deal of effort and convincing to achieve something like 17 thi s.
But we did very recently achieve legislation f or the 18 clean up ef forts to be conducted at West Valley from the 19 r ep ro cessin g plant which was loca ted the re.
So I think tha t 20 is an indication of the syspathy of Congress to try to be 21 able to handle some of these problems.
22 On the other hand, I don ' t think th a t we should 23 ask Congress to do those things vnich it is perfectly l
24 rea so nable to expect the civilian nuclear industry to do.
25 By that I mean, for example, the lov level vaste, the ALOERSoM REPORTING COMPANY,'NC.
400 VIRGINEA AVL 3.W. W ASHINGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
46 1
question has come up of how states handle that.
I think on 2
a regional basis we see progress being made there.
3 The State of Virginia, for example, right now is 4
designing, locating and planning to build a low level waste 5
repository.
I don't know what you will do in the State of 6
Pennsylvania, but there are other areas that will require 7
some type of disposal of low level vaste, too.
8 So I would expect that as you begin to work with 9
other states, Pennsylvania vill enter into some type of a 10 compact with cther states in the region, because all states 11 have low level waste from sedical hospitals, some of them 12 h ave vaste f rom other facilities as well.
13 So I think that was the Congress has asked the 14 states to do on low level waste is reasonable.
15 With regard to high level vaste, it is frustrating 16 to those of us who want to see a solution.
It is 17 frustrating to those of you who live in this area.
But it 18 j us t so happens that the type of vaste at Three Mile Irland 19 is the type of waste which was not originally planned for as 20 normal operating waste.
21 Whereas various sechanisms nave been set up for 22 handling the vastes under normal operations, we don't have 23 the sechanisms in place for the vastes which are generated 24 under abnormal conditions.
I thi#< that this is what we are 25 t ry ing to do now, it is to put t ha. t sechanism in place.
i l
ALeamsoN REPORTING OoWPANY,INC.
400 VIRGMA Avt 3.W WASHINGTON. Q.C.20024 (202) 564-2346 i
l l
47 1
Even though it is frustrating, I think tha t we are making 2
progress.
3 MAYOR 50RRISa Dr. Cunningham, if I say.
It is 4
frustrating, and I don't know how such progress we are 5
saking, but I understand ! think a little bit about the low 6
level waste probles that the lady free Congressman Udall's 7
office outlined.
! vould agree that the states have to 8
somehow bite the bullet and make some decision.
It is 9
tough, but we have to sove ahead with that.
to On the high level vaste, I as getting lost, 11 really, with what you are saying.
Could you walk us through 12 a scenario that you would see happenia.q?
What do you expect 13 the DOE to do in regard to the high level vaste?
14 I hear you saying tha t you cannot comingle, when 15 Jean Kohr put the question, and that most of the sites 16 involve defense vaste.
When Jean Kohr asked you if there t
17 are any sites that do not involve defense vaste at this 18 time, you said tha t there was one site that handled some 19 o th er waste, but it was kind of conf using because it did 20 involve the Federal government in any event.
21 What do you see as a scenario, in regard to this 22 particular probles, as to your involvement, so that we can 23 at some point see DOE taking care of the probles, even it it 24 takes congressional action.
Could you walk us through th a t 25 scenario?
ALDERSCM 84EPCRT'.NG CoWPANY, ;NC, 400 viRG6M4A Avt. 3 W. WA5pinGTCN,3 C, ll0024 (1023 564-2348
48 1
NR. CUNNINGHAN First of all, ist ze walk you 2
through, let us say, the damaged core.
The damaged core, as 3
I said, is of interest to us for two reasons.
One, it is of 4
interest to us because we ultimately have the responsibility 5
for permanent storage of high level waste.
It is also of 6
interest to us because we believe there is valuable data in 7
the form of research and development which should be 8
preserved and utilized as f ar as the future of nuclear power 9
is concerned.
10 So what we would propose to do is, after the head 11 is removed from the esactor, the core is examined to 12 determine what kind of condition it is, what kind of 13 handling is required.
.en I would expect, if it is a 14 simply mechanical process of picking up a daeaqed 15 sub-sssembly, putting it in to a can, sealing that can, 16 putting that into a transportation cask, we would ship it to 17 Idaho where we have hot cells.
18 We would put it in the hot cells, examine it for 19 all useful data in terms of research and development, and 20 then we would either treat it in a different form, or we 21 would repackage it, and we would at that time store it 22 ourselves, probably in a dry storage f a cili ty.
23 That I think is perfectly reasonable, and I think 24 that it is reasonable to be done within our existing 25 facilities because of our interest in it from a research and 4t.canson neroarino cowany.inc.
400 VimGeeIA AVE, S.W WASHesGToN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 584-2346
49 1
development standpoint.
It is a little different story if 2
one talks about ve ry large numbers of liners.
3 MAYOR 50RRIS:
On that scenario, where you say 4
that it can be handled at one of your sites, would you 5
require some congressional action in order to handle it 6
under those circumstances or not?
l 7
- 53. CUNNINGHA5:
The only congressional action 8
that would be required, insof ar as that particular material 9
is concerned, is that we can justify interest in it from the 10 research and development standpoint.
11 MAYOR MORRIS:
That is just one assembly that you 12 would look at, and do research and development on, and then 13 store?
14
- 33. CUNNINGHA5a It is more than one assembly, but 15 I cannot answer precisely how many until we see the core.
16 5AYOR MORRIS:
Under that particular case, you 17 would not need in your aind special action by Congress.
You 18 could do that by yourself.
19
- 53. CUNNINGHAM:
So long as it is within the acope 20 and the funding available to us, we would not need 21 additional congressional action.
j 22 Under the present progras, we certainly have the 23 scope, but we might not have the f unding depending on the 24 magnitude of the job.
But so long as we have funding, the 25 answer is res.
l ALDEA$oM AEPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VWIG6N!A AVE., S.W WASHthGToN, Q.C. 20024 (202) 584 2346
50 1
3R. !INNICH:
Before you get to the liners, let se 2
ask this question.
3 Dr. Cunningham, you have raised a question in my 4
min d.
The head comes off the core, and the assembly is 5
removed, will people be prepared?
I as sure that this is 6
something that you cannot leave sitting around.
7 You now have gotten access to the assembly, and 8
something has got to be done with it, and it has got to be 9
done quickly.
Is the capability there to do that, or will 10 we be draqqing our feet as we have so many other things in 11 trying to get the decontamination taken care of?
12
- 52. CUNNINGHANs We expect to work very closely 13 with GPU in the process of both planning f o r th e work, with 14 removing the head and exacining the core, as well as the 15 actual work in terms of removing components or sections of 18 the core.
So we would expect to have a very detailed and 17 well-planned progras before we actually begin the process of 18 going down and taking off the head.
19
- 52. MINNICHz Then you would be anticipating, of 20 course, th e worst kind of possibility once it is uncovered?
21
- 52. CUNNINGHANs Certainly, although one can 22 probably postulate a situation where we tak e off the head 23 and look at it, and decide that the best thing to do is to 24 ' gu t on the head, close it back up, and think about vnat we 25 should do next.
ALDERSoM RENTING OoWPANY. lNC.
aco wnoma Avs. s.w. wAssweatoN. o c. 20024 2o2) ss4 2s4s
51 1
MATOR MORRISs Just to pursue that question.
2 Is the cesson tha t you can take care of it 3
yourselves because of the research and development aspect of 4
the process ?
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
6 MAYOR 30RRISa Is that what you are saying?
7 3R. CUNNINGHAN:
Yes.
8 3A!OR 50RRISs It is because of the RCD work?
9 3R. CUNNINGH AM:
Yes.
10 MAYOR 50RRIS:
If the work is not done as far as 11 research and development, then at this particular time you 12 could not handle it.
You would have to go through the 13 second series of explanation that you have gone th rough ?
14 MR. CUNNINGHAH Yes, because again it becomes 15 more difficult to give you a definitive answer.
I think it 16 is clear that under the Energy Reorganiration Act, the
(
17 Debartment of Energy has clear-cut responsibility for 18 accepting and per1:anently disposing of high level vaste.
19 Unfortunately, you then have to get into the 20 question of what do you mean by tha t.
If you mean, does the 21 Department of Energy have to have a licensed and operating 22 depository before we can do that, th en the answer is no.
If 23 we can interpret that to store things on an interia basis, 24 then the answer is yes.
l 1
25
- 53. COCHRAN For the last two years DCE has been i
AU:ERSoM REPORTING CCMPSY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVL 3.W. WASHINoToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346 l
52 1
lobbying furiously to get the Congress to give then 2
permission to provide away from reactor storage capacity for 3
emergencies.
Why aren't you lobbying furiously now that you 4
have an emergency to get away from reactor storage for this 5
waste.
6 MR. CUNNINGHANs We lobbied very furiously, and I 7
would be very happy to have some help on this.
8 MAIOR NORRIS:
Dr. Cunningham, could you proceed 9
with the other part of the scenario.
Would you explain to again the more complicated var in which you have to proceed, 11 if you cannot adopt the first scenario that you outlined.
12 MR. CUNNINGHAEa In explaining that, let se 13 explain that for research and development purposes, we have 14 a great deal of flexibility and authority to simply accept 15 title to most any type of material, and take it to our 16 laboratories, and proceed with the research and development 17 program.
18 When it comes to the question of other types of 19 wastes, let's say where there clearly is not a cos.2ercial 20 capability of handling that vaste, I think it is possible to 21 define a general responsibility under the Department's l
22 authority to say that we should be sble to accept and store 23 tha t material.
However, it is something whiCh requires 24 soney.
It requires a facility, and therefore requires 25 congressional support for us to be able to do that.
ALCaRSoM RaPCRTING CoWPANY..NC, 400 VimGihtA Ava. S.W WASHINGTCN 3.C. 20024 (202 554-2344
53 1
So regardless of whether an actual act of 2
legislation is required -- I suspect that it would be, but 3
even if it v'ere not, then we do have to be able to convince 4
Congress that this is something reasonable and desirable for 5
the Department of Energy to do.
It is not a technical 6
problem insofar as I am concerned in accepting and storing 7
this material.
8 ER. MINNICHs Andrea, did you have something th at 9
you wanted to say?
10 HS. DRAYOs I think that it is very important that 11 the panel understand that the question of the Department of 12 Energy carrying out some of the things that Mr. Cunningham 13 is generously off ering th e Department to do, something of it 14 amounts to a political bombshell on the hill.
15 The reason the Department of Energy's interia 16 spent fuel storage program has never been enacted is that it 17 is an extremely difficult political problem, and they simp 1T 18 have not been able to get the authority they wanted from the 19 relevant congressional committees.
20 The Congress 's position today is that the 21 Department of Energy is not responsible for interis handling l
22 of high level vaste.
They are responsible for providing f
23 persanent high level vaste disposal facilities.
But that 24 tne utilities, not the State or the local governments, or 25 the generators of high level vastes are responsible for the ALOEP5cN WPoRTING COMPANY. !NC.
400 VIRG6MLA AVE. S.W. WASMNGToN. Q.C. 20024 (20D $54 2346
. _ _ _ ~. -
Su 1
interia handling of it.
2 I am not saying that that is the position of some 3
homogenous Congress out there, but to date this has been the 4
successful position of the Congress.
5 Some of this conversation has reminded se of the 6
situation the utilities got into when the Department issued 7
its 1977 off er to take all of.the spent fuel off of their 8
hands.
Then, it turned out tha t they were not able to 9
construct the facilities they had hoped they could to construct.
11 I guess, since I have been introduced as 12 Congressman Udall's representative, I should say that Mr.
13 Udall happens to believe that there should be some interia 14 storage capability available on the part of the Federal 15 government.
But I as just saying tha t it is a hot issue, 16 and it is not an easy thing to get that kind of an 17 a u thoriza tion.
18 Even the West Valley, New York, Services Center 19 legislation was hotly discussed for several years, and a lot 20 of people were not happy with that.
This was a situation 21 where the Federal government was a sajor participant in I
22 putting the whole f acility to ge th er.
I think that it is not 23 going to be easy.
24
- 53. MINNICH:
Joe.
j 25 MR. ROTH:
Just a couple of non-technical l
r l
ALDetsoN RaPCRTING CCMP ANY. iNC, 400 VmONA Ava 3/#. WASMNGToN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 554 2348 4
55 1
questions.
2 The first is, how would you classif y your 3
relationship with NRC7 The reason I ask this question is, 4
on the ESDS system, the instrumental part that advises GPU S
on ESDS.
6
- 33. CUMNINGH AHs What is the question.
l 7
3R. ROTH.
I as asking for your relationship with 8
NRC.
Maybe I will go through the whole thi ng, and you can 9
answer piece by piece.
to NRC, and I see Bernie Snyder in the back there.
11 The NRC says constantly that they have not given permission 12 for the utility to put the ISDS system to work.
Ther 13 constantly make a major statement about that.
Yet, DOE 14 says, "We have helped to design the system."
15 I have a couple of reports here, and we can talk 16 about them.
We are talking about a lot of technicalities.
17 I just think that there are a. lot of politics and a lot of 18 relationships that are going on here that I as not fully l
19 aware of, and perhaps will never be fully aware of.
But !
20 would like to ask that direct question of you.
21 Are you protecting turf, when we talk about 22 certain issues, do you think that NRC is protecting its 23 turf, and do you think that because of that we are now in a 24 situation where nobody will take the low level waste, and 25 the utility has a in billion suit on ce rtain thinos.
ALOERSoM AEPCATING COMP ANY. iNC.
400 VIRGNA AVE. 3.W. WASMNGToN. D.C. 20024 (2Ca 554-2345
i
)
)
56 l
1 I would just like to know.
How do you classify 2
your relationship with NRC?
3 3R. CUMMINGH AN :
First of all, our overall 4
relationship is very good.
You have a situation in which we 5
consider ourselves a technical organiration.
We have no 6
responsibility f or regulation nor licensing, and we very 7
often provide direct technical advice to NRC.
We say that 8
this is based on the work that we have done in our 9
labo rato rie s.
10
.At the same time, we zake it very clear that we 11 recognire that it is not our responsibility to make 12 judgments with regard to health and safety.
That is NRC's 13 responsibility, and we are not going to quibble vita then 14 over that particular responsibility.
15 On the other hand, at the same time, I as sure 16 that NRC would be happier if we would do acre in some cases, 17 and less in other cases.
But overall, while ve in the 18 Depa rtm ent of Energy believe that perhaps there is a certain we still do not 19 degree of over-regulation involved, 20 interf ere in the requiatory process because we are a 21 technical organization.
22 NR. ROTH:
My last question would be on just the 23 future of ::0E.
24 I read in the paper tonight that the nov 25 appointee, Mr. Edwards, if he is confirmed by the Sonste, l
i A4.DERSCM mEpomTING ConeP ANY, WC, aco waewe,as. s.w. *AsamofoM. o c. :co24 m2) ss4-2ss j
57 1
said that he would be pleased to sit in his cabinet office 2
and see its demise, and that would be his pleasure.
3 Here we are talking about all the work that DCE is 4
doing, and if we have a President who is saying, " DOE will 5
no exist," I just wonder who is going to take this 6
responsibility in the future.
7 MR. CUNNINGHAH The best answer I cat give you 8
there is that auch of the early responsibility of the 9
Department dates back to the original Atomic Energy Act of to 1954.
That Act has been retained with some modifications in 11 the large number of reorganizations'.
12 I don 't know what is going to h a p pe n to th e 13 Department of Energy, but I do know that Governor Edwards 14 has been involved with nuclear energy in the past.
He is 15 probably more f amiliar with nuclear energy than many of the 16 other energy issues involved.
I certainly would not expect 17 any kind of a reorganication to drop the responsibilities 18 which have been legislated by the Congress for us to do.
19
- 52. MINXICH:
We vill take a quick break, and 20 reconvene at 9:00 o ' clock.
Then, Bob, we vill like to 21 direct some questions to you, and also to Dr. Lavroski from 22 ACRS.
23 (Hecess.)
24 ER. MINNICH:
Ladies, and gentlemen, if we could 25 reconvene the panel please, i
ALDERScN REPoRTINo COMPANY.NC.
400 WH31NIA AVE 3.W WASHINGTON Q.C. 20024 (2C2) 564-2345
58 We have with us Bob Arnold, as I sentioned 1
2 earlier.
3 Bob, we thank you for coming.
I would succest 4
that you take the sike, sit down, and make yourself 5
confortable, it aight be a while.
6 I will remind the panel that as we get along here, still would like to address questions to the ACRS.
So I 7
we 8
vill be calling you to a halt somewhere along the line 9
here.
to The first question, please.
11 MS K0 hrs Can you give us an update on the 12 condition of these epicore II liners that have been stcred 13 on the island for almost a year.
What do you knows is th e re 14 any leakage; is there a pH problems what is your experience 15 telling you?
16 ER. ARNOLD s First of all, the liners which were 17 generated have been stored for over a year because we 18 started in October 1979.
All of them are stored in what we 19 call the interia storage facility that was constructed on 20 the island f or that purpose, l
21 Taking the question with regard to, is there a pH 22 problem, and what do we know about it.
At the time th a t we selected the organic resins used in epicore II, we were 23 a ware of various experience and literature information on 24 l
25 the stability of organic resins.
l ALDER $oM REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVL S.W. WA&MNGTCN, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
59 1
Although the Department of Energy were not 2
involved in the epicore II, we did have systems from the 3
people in the course of finaliration of the design and 4
operational characteristics of that systen from people who 5
had experience at the Savannah River project.
6 7e are confident after all the questions that have 7
been raised as to the stability, and in particular the pH 8
stability inside the liners, that the liner integrity will 9
he good for several years.
to We have undertaken a number of ef forts, both GPU 11 alone, so to speak, or along with our contractor, the 12 Epicore Cospany, sad in conjunction with the NHC and DOE 13 contractors, to study the specific situation that we have 14 with the epicore II resins as they are loaded.
15 This goes to Dr. Cunningham's comment that when 16 rou get to the engineering side of the application, we are 17 going to have to look at the engineering experience in the 18 laboratory.
19 One of the things that we are doing, in addition 20 to examination of at least one, probably two of the liners, 21 by DOE contractors, is getting a sample of the small amount 22 of water that remains in the liner af ter the davatoring 23 process has gone as far as it can, that is on the order of 24 one gallon of remaining water,to see what the pH is of th a t 25 residual water.
ALDERSON REPORTING ConfP ANY. !NC.
400 N1mONA AVL S.W., WASNtNGToN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346
60 1
We are also engaged in discussions between our 2
contractors who supplied the resins, and who has the 3
technology on the application of the resins, who has done a 4
substantial amount of work himself, with th e NRC and DOE 5
contractors who have been working on this.
6 So the issue is being studied very energetically.
7 We cannot quarantee that there is not a short-teri problem, 8
but we think that that likelihood is very, very small.
9 In terms of the present condition of the line rs,
10 the storage facility that we have on the island was designed 11 to accommodate the leakage of the liners in the event it 12 should occur.
We have gotten indications of contamination 13 in the sumps associated with those liners.
We have had l
14 confirmed analyses on tridium.
We had one analysis that we 15 were not subsequently able to confirm on the cesius.
Of 16 course, that raises the question of whether or not there is i
17 leakage.
j 18 We are continuing to try to identify the source of j
19 that satorial, and there are a number of mechanisms l
20 available that do not have the concern with the 21 appropriateness of the liner, which wo uld b e the most 22 difficult problem to deal with.
23 NH. COCHRANs M r. Arnold, I have several 24 questions, we are going to break in 50 minutes, and I hope 25 that we can run through them a little more rapidly than the ALDERSoN REPORT'NG CCWP44Y,'NC.
400 vtRepelA AVL 3,W WASHINoToN, D.C. 20024 42C2) 564 2346 3
p
.e-,
-wre wr-w-em-
-++cw w.
erp.+-P,
61 1
last one based on the epicore lines.
You said that you had 2
information that led to believe that they would last for two 3
years, or at least two years.
4 MB. ARNOLD
! said that we were confident that 5
their integrity would be retained f or several years.
I did 6
not give a number.
7
- 33. COCHRAN4 Did you f ully intend to send those l
8 to a commercial burial ground for disposal?
9
- 53. ARNOLDs Yes. At the time tha t we initially to designed and built the epicore II process, the expectation 11 was that those liners would be able to be shipped.
12 5B. COC3HANs Were you aware at the time that ther 13 would have higher than normal activity, higher than normal 14 f or commercial burial?
15 Were you aware that the-concentrations would be 16 higher, and that there would be this debate over whether 17 they would be high level waste, low level waste, or 18 something in-between that has not been defind?
19 Was it your inf ormation that it was in some way in 20 that gray area?
21 3R. ABNOLD:
It was our information and our 22 understanding that this was material that was in the upper 23 range of experience at low level burial sites, but not that 24 it was outside the range of low level burial sites in term s 25 of the - total number of radiation curies of radioactive ALCERSCN REPORTING COMPANY..NC.
400 VIRGINtA AVE $1# WAShlNoTCN 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346 w w
- w
62 1
materials being deposited there.
2 HR. COCHRANs You fully expected no problems or 3
criticisms that it should go to cossercial burial grounds.
4 Is th a t correct?
5 MR. ARNOLD There is very little that we have 6
undertaken at Three Mile Island that we anticipate no 7
criticiss of, but we did not anticipate that we would be 8
halted or stopped f rom being able to proceed with disposal 9
of these liners.
10 MR. COCHRAN On the occupational exposure issue, 11 are you setting up a registry that will allow the scientific 12 consunity to follow these workers through the rest of their 13 lif e so tha t they can be factored into risk assessments 14 associated with radiation exposure?
15 5H. ARNOLDs We are saintaining the medical 16 information and exposure information on these workers that 17 is required by the regulations for us to maintain.
18 3R. COCHRANs I understand that, of course, you 1
1 19 are following the regulations.
The regulations do no t 20 require you to set up a long-ters registry for doing an i
21 epidemiological study of these workers.
22 I know that certain agencies of the government 23 have requested tha t, and I as asking you whether you are i
24 taking the initiative on your own, or combined with requests 25 from other agencies, or are you, in fact, not doing that l
At. carson ApoRTING cow ANY. INC.
4o0 VMGINIA AVL 3.W. WASHING (CN. 3 C. 20024 (20:D 564 2346 l
63 1
because of the costs that sight be involved
- 2
- 53. ARMOLD:
We have not agroed in the course of 3
the conversations we have had with the Federal government on this issue to undertake the responsibility for saintaining 4
5 sedical records on people who are no longer in our em ploy.
6 MR. COCHRAN:
Don't you think tha t such a registry 7
would be a valuable public service?
Regardless of who does 6
it, do you think that it would be a valuable public 9
service?
10 ER. ARNOLDs Dr. Cochran, I don't want to appear 11 to be evading the question.
I am not expert enough to know 12 whether this sire group --
13
- 53. COCHRAN:
Iou are going to have at least 1,200 14 san-reas of exposure.
Iou will see sose 10 or more 15 cancers.
If you could at least use this register to 16 possibly confirm, or possibly not confirm those kinds of 17 data --
l 18 MR. MINNICHa Excuse se f or interrupting, but it 19 is my understanding that you digressed f rom the purpose of 20 today 's mee ting.
21 ER. CCCHRAN:
Mr. Arnold, what does it cost to 22 turn one sillion gallons of water into concrete, assuming 23 you have already cleaned it up, if you store that concrete 24 on the island?
25 MR. ARN01Ds We have not calculated that cost ALDER 8oM REPORTING COMPANY.NC.
I 400 V1PGINIA AVE, S.W WA8HINGTCN. O.C. 20024(202) 554 2346 I
{
%7 l
S ie 1
yet.
We have not spent the resources on those issues.
2
- 52. CCCHRAN Aren't you required to do some sort 3
of environmental analysis in support of the EIS?
4 3R. A350LDs The EIS was prepared without the 5
ben efit of an environmental report.
We provided a lot of 6
technical data.
7 MS. COCHRANs Isn't one of the alternatives to 8
solidify the water into concrete.
The EIS states that one 9
of the alternatives was not to run it through the 10 processing, through the resins, but to turn it into concrete 11 directly, and tha t was objected to for reasons of cost and 12 transroctation.
13 3R. MINNICH:
Tos, excuse se for interrupting 14 here, but it was sy impression that the reason for seeting 15 on December 30th is to spend that long evening dealing with l
18 the water question.
Tonigh t we are trying to hold to the 17 subject of disposal of the vaste, both high level and lov 18 level.
19
- 53. COCHBANs You have olisinated the rest of my 20 questions.
21
- 33. 5I3NICHs I have not eliminated them, if you l
22 will hold thes until the 30th, because I have asked Bob to 23 join us on that evening.
24
- 12. COCHRAN:
Would you get se the calculation f or 25 tha 30th of the cost for one sillion gallons of water turned At.cansoM RpoRENG CoM#ANY,iNC.
400 vim 4MA Avt $1#, wASNINGToN. O C. 20024 (2011 554-2346
65 1
into concrete.
2
- 53. ARNCLD I don't that we will be able to do 3
thst.
I think that when one looks at the question in terms 4
of determining concrete, the presumption is that the water 5
that is being tied up in the cenerste has to be fully 6
accounted for.
l 7
I don't think saking concrete under the conditions 8
where one has to assure control of all the water is the same 9
type of process that one is involved in when making concrete 10 for building roads or structures.
11
- 53. COCHRANs I will wait until the 30th.
12 MAYOR 5023IS:
Bob, we spent a little bit of time 13 with Dr. Canningham asking hia questions relative to DOE's 14 involvement, particularly with regard to the high level 15 waste.
16 During the interaission, I spoke with an 17 individual from Congressman Udall's office, and it seems 18 that the probles is, in fact, very complex, but I did not 19 realire that.
Apparently some of the problem with Congress 20 involves not only funding, but the responsibility of the l
21 u tilit y company has versus the responsibility that the DOE 22 should have, and there may be problems in both of those l
23 areas.
l l
24 What would you see as happening with the high 25 level vaste?
Do you agree with what Dr. Cunninghas has l
t AL0stsCN AEPCR71NG COheP44Y,;NC.
400 %1RGNA AVL 3.#. WA$retNGTCN, O C. 20C24 (202) S6&2346
66 1
indicated here that they, in f a ct, would be or could be the 2
people that would ultimately be responsible f or any 3
congressional action to take care of the high level waste; 4
or do you think that that is not a practical way to proceed 5
because congressional action say not be forthcoming, and 6
some other direction should be sought?
7 MR. ARN01Da Ma yo r Ho rris, first of all, I did not 8
have any disagreement or quarrel with what Dr. Cunninghas 9
was saying.
However, I would like to add a personal note on to the issue.
11 It seems to se that when we get to the point of 12 actually being able to deal with the fuel, we will be in i
13 such the same situation, or we will be in analogous 14 situation as we were with the rest of the iAterial.
That 15 is, if one can put the fuel into a configuration that, in l
l 16 effect, makes it equivalent in terms of risk to inadvertent 17 releases of radioactive material to the public as normal 18 spent fuel, for example, spent fuel can be stored in the 19 operation of Unit I.
20 I think that the pressure will be very grea t for 21 the utility to accept responsibility for putting it into 22 that kind of configuration, as we will be able to store very i
20 successf ully f rom an environmental standpoint the spent fuel l
l 24 from THI Unit II.
25 The problem is going to come up that those l
ALOWISCN RaPoRT!NG COMPANY,!NC.
l 400 \\1RGIMA Ava. S.W. WA8MNGToN. Q.C. 20024 (202) 564-2348
l 67 1
elements that are damaged, cannot te considered to be put in 2
a condition at the site where it would be equivalent to the l
3 security of the normally used fuel.
That is where we vill l
4 get into the zador eff ort in attesoting to find the 5
sechanisms, working with DOE, for DOE to sake special l
l 6
arrangements for the acceptance of that saterial.
7 It say well be that in the course of doing that, 8
whatever sakes sense for that portion of it, will sake sense 9
for the total core.
to MAYOR 50R3ISs But you are not going to be getting 11 into what you see as the fissi solution.
You expect 12 congressional action vill give DCE the right to handle it, 13 or do you expect that you will have to work with them as a 14 contractors or aren't you in a position to even quess which l
15 var you say be going?
16
- 53. AR301Da My expectation is that there vill be 17 congressional authoeiration required for some of the DCE 18 activity that will be necessary.
I would expect that there be some course of action sidway between us keeping the 19 say 20 saterial completely and being responsible for keeping it, 21 and DOE taking it all.
22 It is more likely that something vill be 23 approached from a sore practical standpoint of what the 24 actual conditions of the fuel are, and what protection is 25 able to be provided by norsal or standard techniques.
1 i
Atcanson marcanno coway. inc.
M30 VIRGMA AVL S.W. WASHtNGion. 0.C. 20034 (2C23 554 2346
l 68 1
5ATOR 50RRIS:
When do you expect that you vill be 2
in a position to actively seek action by Congress; when do 3
rou expect to go to that?
When do you expect what really is 4
in the reactor?
What timetable are we looking at for that 5
particular action?
6
- 53. ARNOLDa We are working with DOE, and working 7
on the project ourselves to identify the work that can and 8
should be done before there is access to the fuel.
I hope 9
that we would be able to describe in the first three or four-
~
to aonths, or the first half of 1981, to DOE what we think 11 would be a reasonable approach to it, and it vill be 12 sometime late in 1981, maybe in 1982, before there could be 13 a package law that would come out of that that would be 14 appropriate to try to gain legislation.
15
- 53. COCHRAN:
If DOE did not take the vaste, th e 16 high level vaste, do you have adequate storage capacity on 17 site, and also do you have adequate storage capacity at the 18 I5I II reactor, to store of all of these materials, 19 including the core, re-can, and still restart and operate 20 that reactor?
21 MR. ARN01D:
Still restart and operate the 22 reactor?
23
- 53. COCHRAN:
Restart the reactor and still 24 operate it f or a year or two?
25
- 53. AR501D I don't think we could claim tha t at ALOEASCN REPCATING CoWMY. !NC.
400 VIPOINIA Ava 3.W. WASHINGTCN, G.C. 20024 (20 2 564 2346
69 1
this time we would be able to store all of the current core 2
at the site, and not have it potentially impact on the 3
eventual operation of the Unit II, but we frankly have not 4
looked at it.
5 We have not really looked at the issue of what 6
would we have af ter the Unit II is cleaned up.
Our priority 7
has been with the clean up.
8 ER. COCHRANs You have not looked at what you 9
would do in the event that you could not ship the high level to waste and the resins off-site in terms of restarting IMI 11 II?
12
- 33. ARNolDs That is correct.
13
- 23. HINNICH:
Bob, one thing.
Knowing that 14 legislatures do not always move as expeditiously as one 15 sometimes would like to see thes move, don't you fore a
16 problem with looking down the road and trying to anticipate 17 what you will discover once you take the cover off of the 18 core, and trying to gear up legislation that will provide i
19 the authority for DOE to deal with the core once it is 20 uncovered?
21 Wouldn't there be some problea develop just in the 22 f act that Congress normally does not proceed at a rapid 23 pace?
24
- 33. ARNOlDr I am ntt sure that I really 25 understand the question.
I don 't think tha t there are any ALDE.RSoM REPCRT:NG CCMPANY,iNC, 400 VtRGINIA AVG. S.W #ASHtNGTCN. 3.C. 2002c(202) 554-2344
70 1
doubts in ny sind that there are going to be probless 2
gaining congressional approval.
There is going to be a lot 3
of discussions involved.
There is a lot of ground to cover 4
before we have the cloan-up of THI II completed to 5
everybody 's satisf action.
6 I as not sure that I have responded fully to your 7
question.
8
- 53. IINNICH:
Earlier when Dr. Cunningham was 9
speaking, he also alluded to legislation that say be needed to to authorize DOE to deal with the disposal and storage of 11 the core.
You indicated that six months into 1981 you may 12 be able to be in a position to begin to put something 13 together to present to DOE which, I as making assumption, 14 would then be translated into legislation to grant them the 15 authority.
16 I just wonder if there might not be pror'wss with 17 getting that legislation.
18 ER. A3NOLDs I quess there vill be, but I think 19 that there vill be scre problems in attempting to get 20 legislation if there has not been a suf ficient amount of 21 work done to show the basis for this legislation.
22 3R. HIENICH:
Concerns vers raised by Dr.
23 Cunningham that when you do uncover the core, are we going 24 to be able to deal with it at that time, or do we hava 25 another delay and another problem?
At.sanscN REPoRTWeG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINA AVE. 3.W. WASWeGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
71 1
MB. ARNOLDs J9nn, I as glad that you brought that 2
up because I did want to get back to it.
3 I don't see that there is going to be any more situation when we have the reactor head off in teras 4
urgent 5
of getting on with the clean-up than there is before we take 6
the head off.
7 I don't think the removal of the head puts the 8
plant in a condition where there is less ma rgin f or saf ety 9
than there is before it is removed.
So I would hope that to the staging necessary from tae funding, technical and 11 organirational standpoint are complete by the time that we 12 have access to the core.
Not doing that in my mind does not 13 raise any additional questions of saf3ty.
- 52. HINNICHs You think the containment building 14 Once the 15 is sufficient.
But aren't we then flirting with 16
- tead is off, the psychological stress again on the people of 17 the area if the cover is off, and people are aware that it 18 is of f, and now the core is exposed and it is sitting there, 19 and it is radioactive.
And, in fact, we are not in a t
20 position to remove it, and dispose of it.
21 HB. ABNOLDs I have two reactions to that 22 question.
23 One, I would expect that when we have gotten to 24 that point in the clean-up, just the progress that we have 25 made and the fact that we have sotten to that point, and ALCER$oN REPORTING COMP ANY. !NC.
400 VIRGIN 4A AVL S.W., WASH (NGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (2C2) 584 2345
72 1
presumably have done so, I seriously sa ticipa te, wi th ou t any 2
serious incidence o f of f-site releases, or anything, that 3
the people will tend to start to get encouraged tha t the end 4
is in sight.
5 Should there be any value to it from an operating 6
procedure to remove the fuel, we could put the head back in 7
place, I as sure, and reclose the system.
8 MR. 30*Hs Mr. Arnold, you seem to be making an 9
assumption tonight that you GPU Nuclear is indeed goino to to be sufficiently financially solvent to do this clean-up.
I 11 personally doubt that.
12 I don 't know how we can si t here and talk about 13 these things that you are going to be doing, when constantly 14 we hear about financial problems, and tha t impinges on 15 safety.
NRC has gone on record saying tha t the costs will 16 not be a f actor in the nothods, yet we keep hearing about 1y your lack of funds.
18 I as sure you did not bring your financial 19 statements here to show us your financial stability or 20 instability, but how do we know that what we are talking 21 about indeed is going to occur.
- his is number one.
l 22 Number two, isn't it not to your advantage to 23 allow DOE, since NRC said that they do not have the staff to l
24 do the clean up, to cose in and do that.
Is there any serit l
l 25 to that suggestion?
ALDER $CN REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGMA Ava S.W WASHueGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
6 73 1
MR. ARNOLD:
We would love to have the DOE people 2
come up and do work for us.
3 As I understand your question, Mr. Roth, I think 4
there is a need to look at how the clean up is going to be 5
funded, and the role the Federal government shculd play, not 6
only to help put in place the sechanisms for the clean-up, 7
but also the role that their technical resources should play 8
in assisting with the planning and the oversight of the 9
clean-up effort.
10 We are not in any var reluctant to work as closely 11 with DOE as they are in a position to work with us toward 12 those objectives.
I don't think that there is any guestion 13 that the company has been saying quite clearly, and it is 14 still the case, that under the present situation, given the 15 present position of the Public Utility Commission of the 16 Sta te of Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey, that 17 ve do not have the resources to accomplish the clean-up.
18 Resources will have to be provided from somewhere other than 19 the current availability of resources for the clean-up to be 20 accomplished.
21 However, not having yet identified where the zoney 22 is going to come from should not stop us from looking at 23 what the specifics are that are required to accomplish the 24 clean-up, nor should it cause us to hesitate to look at 25 wha tever legislation say be necessary to allow the technical Au:sR$oN REPCRDNG CCheP ANY. :NC.
400 VIRGINlA AVE. 3.W. WASHINGTON. 3.C. 20024 (202) $44-2346
74 1
effort to be accomplished.
2 MR. 30TH:
There is one final question on the 3
financial aspect.
4 Who really should bear the burden of the 5
cle an -u p ?
6 If we are going to go ahead with it and, if I 7
understand you correctly, right now you don't have the soner 8
to do it, it should not stop you f rom looking at what you 9
are going to do, who ultimately should pay for it, in your 10 opinion?
11 3R. ARNOLD In zy opinion, the people who should 12 pay f or the clean up of the accident are those who benefit 13 from the use of nuclear energy.
I think tha t this acciden t 14 was part of the saturing of the industry.
We have learned a 15 great deal from it.
What is most disheartening is that we 16 have f ailed to lesen all that could be learned from it.
17 As Dr. Cunningham has sentioned, the research and 18 development work that can be done on f uel exasination and 19 inspection, this is a part of what is needed to gather as 20 auch knowledge from this experience as we possibly can.
21 I think in teras of stepping back and looking at 22 it in general way, those that have benefitted from the use 23 of nuclear energy are those tr.a t should pay for it.
The 24 sechanisms that are to be put in place, and the l'
-I 25 processes say not be able to do it quite that preci.
f.
ALDERSCN REPORT 1No CCMPetY,INC, 400 VlpotNIA AVE., S.W. WASHWooTCN, O C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
l 75 1
3R. COCHRANs If that is what you believe, why are 2
rou suing the NRC to ask then to pay for it?
3 3R. HINNICH:
Hold it.
I appreciate the 4
questions, but I ss not sure that they are in keeping with 5
the purpose of this seeting.
We are running out of time.
I 6
as sure that there are other questions.
7 MR. COCHRAN:
It is an interesting question.
8 ER. MINNICHa It is an interesting question, but 9
the fact remains that the place sust be cleaned up 10 regardless of who pays for it.
We know that there is a this time.
congressional consittee working on that issue at l
11 i
12 I dare say that there is no one who can say specifically, ll until all is said and done, who exactly will have to pay for 13 14 it.
I just don't see that it is germane to the purposes of 15 the consittee.
l 16 HR. CCCHRANs
- hat was not the question.
He made i
17 a statement, and I thought that he was speaking for GPU or 18 5et-Ed, as to who his organization thought should pay for 19 it.
I as trying to square that with what they are doing in 20 reality with what he is saying to this consittee.
He is l
21 doing one thing, and saying a no th e r.
22 I think that it is incumbent upon us to find out 23 whether we think he is telling us the truth, or whether he 24 is lying.
25 3R. EINNICH:
It may he incussent upon us to find ALOERSoM REPCRTING OOMPANY,iNC, 400 WAGINIA AVE. 3.W., WASMNGToN. O O. 20024 (202) 564 2344 m...
i 76 1
that out, but I still don't think that it is gersane to 2
tonight's meeting.
3 NR. COCHRANs When would you like to ask that 4
question?
5 5R. IINNICH:
Along the way somewhere, but not 6
tonight.
7 ER. COCHRANs When would you like to ask that 8 question?
9 ER. 3INNICHs Tonight I would like to stay with to the vaste probles, and I would like to discuss this letter.
11 You have a letter in front of you there, I don't know if you 12 have all had a chance to read it.
13 ER. COCHRANs I would like to sake a sotion to the 14 Board that we direct Mr. Arnold to answer the question.
15 HE. NINNICH:
Is there a second to the socion?
16 35 XOHR s Second.
17 HR. PA1LADIN0s Is that to be asked at this 18 zeeting?
19
- 33. COCHRANs Tes, right now.
20 ER. HIINICH:
In this case, I will poli each 21 seeber individually.
22 HR. WAGNER Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear.
I did 23 not hose what the question was.
24 3R. IINNICHs Hopeat the notion.
25 5R. COCHRANs The notien is to ask Mr. Arnold the ALOERSCM REPORTING ConeP ANY. 6MC.
400 VIRGIMA AVE S.W., WASWNGToN. Q.C. 20024 (202) 584 2346
i l
77 1
question, how does he reconcile his statement that those who 2
have used nuclest power should foot the bill for the clean with his organization's decision to sue the NRC to force 3
up 4
NBC, therefore, the Federal government, to pay for the 5
clean-up.
6 NAYCH HORRISs I have a probles with the question 7
because it seems to se that if you are going to make the 8
people who benefit fro.s nuclear power pay for the clean up, 9
it seems to se that 3r. Arnold means the taxpayer.
If the 10 company suas the NBC f or payment of the clean up, it is 11 again going to be the taxpayer who is going to foot the 12 bill.
It is one and the same.
13 3R. C0CFRAN4 It is not.
14 HR. HINNICH:
Let's not debate the question.
15
- 53. PALLADIN0s Is he asking f or the answer to 16 that question tonight?
17 ER. MIN 3ICHs He is asking for the answer 18 tonight.
19 Jean?
20 ES KOHR:
I think tha t the question is quite 21 ' relevant to the issue of vaste disposal and clean-up at 22 THI.
I think that it should be answered tonight.
I vote 23 yes.
24
- 58. C0CHRANs Yes.
25 5ATOR 3CRRISs No.
ALaER$oM REPoRTfMG CoMPWIY,lNC, 400 vtReestA Avt. S.W., wASNesGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 554 2344
g 78 1
- 53. 30THs Tes.
2 ER. PALLADIN0s No.
3
- 55. TRUMKs No.
4
- 53. WAGNER:
Nc.
5 5R. MINNICH:
I will vote no.
6 The notion f ails.
7 I as going to move back to Dr. Cunningham.
8 Dr. Cunningham, we have in our possession a letter 9
from Consissioner Ahearne to Secretary Duncan in which it to seems to say that the emphasis of DOE at !!I as of October 11 20th has been limited to a great extent to research and development work on lisited quantities, esther than the 12 13 absolute disposal of the vaste saterial.
14 It indicates that THI is being looked at or seems to be considered as a disposal site for the vaste saterial.
15 to that?
16 I just wonder, are you in a position to react 17 MR. CUNNINGH AM s Tes.
I will be happy to react to 18 it in general terms.
19 We are in the process of preparing an answer to 20 these questions because there are a number of deep felt, 21 complex issues.
In general, I would say, first of all, that 22 ve agree with thes that the TEI should not he used as a 23 research and development site.
We would agree that all methods should be applied in terms of handling the 24 prudent i
25 core saterials.
ALDElitSCN AGPoRTING Cot 4PANY,:NC.
400 VN40sMIA Avt 3.w, WASHeNGfoN. 3.C. 20024 (202) sad-23d4
79 1
I think that I have f airly well stated our 2
position on sost of the issues earlier tonight in the sense 3
of saying that the question is to the stability of many of the satorial, and whether they can and should be stored on 4
5 an interis basis, or f airly long-ters basis on the island.
6 I think that this is dependent on the particular satorial 7
itself.
8 But in principle, we believe there are many things are acceptable for interin storage there until we work 9
that l
10 out a reasonable final solution.
On the other hand, there 11 are some things that I think it is quite clear that DOE 12 could and should accept the responsibility f or f airly l
13 quickly.
14 IS. TRUNKS I live fairly close to THI and a lot 15 of my neighbors are wondering what is causing this long 16 delay.
Every time we hear about it, another year is sdded When we went to 17 to the total number of years of clean up.
18 the Commission, we were told that eventually things will l
19 start going, and we should clean it up as fast as we can.
20 What is the cause, or who is causing all these 21 delays?
We are worried.
22
- 33. ABNOLD:
Mrs. Trunk, I think for the causes extension of the projected schedule are really two-fold, 23 either one of thee by themselves can lead to basically the 24 to be same degree of schedule extension, and they have 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
400 VWIGINIA AVE., S.w., WAsNeNGToN. O C. 20034 (2tXD 554-2348 l
80 o
I resolved.
2 The availab111t7 of funding to pursue the 3
clean-up, it was obvious to us as we case toward the end of 4
the susser that we were not going to be able to proceed at 5
the level of effort tha t we had underway since the accident, 6
and up until that time, with the resources available to th e 7
company.
8 The judosent was made in light of how long a 9
period it would tske accaptable sechanisms or other funding 10 methods.
We had basically $300 million of property 11 insurance available for payment of clean-up efforts, and we 12 had to be sure that that carried us through until there was 13 sdditicial revenue to pay f or the clean-up work.
14 The second part is the interaction with the 15 Muclear Regulatory Consission on getting controls to do 18 things.
I think the decision not to permit any further 17 significant activities in November of 1979 until the 18 problematic environmental impact statement was issued 19 introduced a factor of licensing and regulation that we had 20 not taken into account in the initial establishment of a 21 projected schedule to clean up as we were doing in the 22 latter of 1979.
23 I think, and I will qualif y this as a personal 24 opinion, until we cet into the position where the completion 25 of the clean-up is seen by all the organ 12s tions that ha ve a ALoansoN AEPCRTING CoWANY,INC, 400 VIROMA Avt S.W WASHtNGToN, D.C. 20024 (2023 564 2346
o e
81 1
part to play in accomplishing it as a high priority ites, 2
and we start searching for ways in which we can all work 3
together to proceed with acceptable processes, acceptable 4
vars of conducting clean-up activities, we are going to 5
continue to the sort of case which we have been experiencing 6
for the last year.
l 7
MS. TRUNKS The whole world is 1 coking at us, why I
8 don't we tie the priority down.
They provide help in 9
disasters.
They help in earthquakes.
Why can't they help to INI.
The people of Middletown are beginning to feel that-we it are a dumping ground.
I get calls asking ze, "Are you 12 panicked?
Are you scared?
If you are scared, we are 13 leaving."
So I would just like to know why does it take 14 that long?
15
- 53. HINNICH:
Anne, wouldn't that be a very 16 appropriata question to ask of the NRC7 I will jot it 17 down.
18 There has got to be a mechaniss to speed up the 19 process.. Wouldn't that be something that we would 20 appropriately address to the NRC7 21 ER. ARNOL3s I was going to answer the question by 22 suggesting the same thing.
23 NH. PALLADIN0s I would like to ask a couple of 24 questions with regard to the epicore II liner.
It is'ay 25 understanding that even though DOE says that it is very low ALDERSoM RSPcRTING COMPANY,;NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVL 3.W. WASMNGioN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
82 1
level waste that will be transported, it is not true.
NRC 2
is asking that it be solidified for it to be transported in 3
some way.
4 Is there a acce ptable process, is there something 5
that can be done in a raasonable period of time before we 6
have problems with these liners?
7 The fact that the solidification takes place, how 8
vill that impact the potential health and safety of the 9
public and the work who work on the site?
10 MR. ARNOLDs First of all, we consider devatored 11 resins as solid satorial, which ! think is what Dr.
12 Cunninghas also said.
Under the requiations this is 13 considered solid waste saterial.
14 The NRC requires, as far as a approval, or epicore 15 II that we tie the devatored resin saterial in some type of 16 binder such as concrete, and turn it into a solid material 17 which is a free standing mass, or material capable of free 18 standing with no free standing water.
19 We got into the questions about solidification 20 procedures, and processes analogous to the kinds of 21 questions we got into with regard to the stability over the l
22 long ters of resins.
23 Ve have had underway, in effect, a research sad 24 development effort to look at the technology of actually 25 solidifying these particular resin satorials.
We believe 1
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY, NC.
400 VIRGwetA AVL 3.W, WAPMINGToN, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2344 1
I 83 1
that the 20 lower level ones that are down in the range of 2
what say go to lov level burial sites can be solidified with 3
sta te-of-the-art approaches, and p ra ctices.
We are open for 4
bids from Contractors to do that.
5 7e are not confident that OCE can demonstrate th a t same process can be used for the more highly loaded 6
that 7
resins until we have more experience.
I think that we are 8 probably a year-and-a-half at least away from being ready to 9 know how to go about solidifying the higher loaded resins.
10 If our investigation shows that that time period is a probles in taras of stability of the resins in the 11 12 containment, we vill have to be looking at other ways or a 13 second canning of those resins to address that problem.
But I think we do have the ability to take additional seasures, 14 15 if it turns out to be necessary.
We still remain optimistic 16 that this will not be necessary, even if we are delayed for 17 a couple of years in being able to do anything with those 18 ces ponents.
19
- 13. PALLADINO:
What is the sere process of taking f
20 the higher resins, mixing them snd saking concrete out of 21 thes.
Is that something you feel can be done without any f urther danger to the health and saf ety of aesbers of the 22 i
23 public?
24 MR. ARNOLDs I think that it probably can be done, 25 but it cannot be done without a f airly sophisticated ALDERSoN REPORT lNG COMPANY,INC,
.M N1RGINIA AVE., S.W. W ASMNGTCN. O.C. 20024 (202) 564-23d4
84 1
processing system.
It is not something tha t we put 2
equipment on the back of a truck and proceed to do it.
We 3
are going to have to build a facility specifically designed 4
for handling those saterials.
They will have to be taken 5
out of the liner, and put in another container for 6
solidification.
7
- 33. PALLADINO:
There is a higher risk.
I presume 8
tha t it introduces higher risk?
9 MR. ASNOLDs Certainly, it increases the risk of to having on-site problems at least.
11
- 33. MINNICHs Are there any questions for Bob 12 until we sove to the next meeting ?
13 I would like to call on Dr. Lavroski.
14 Dr. Lawroski, I believe you wanted to make a 15 statement, and I will ask you to do that.
16
- 53. LAWROSKIs I will try to make my statement brief in view of the hour, although as one of the 'sembers of 17 18 your panel knows, member of the Advisory Consittee on 19 Nuclear Saf egua rds f requently run their day meetings well 1
20 into the evening.
21 Perhaps a few words to the panel about how the 22 committee function will sake it possible for the panel to 23 better address the kind of questions they might wish to pose 24 to the consittee, so that we don't get asked thing that we f
1 1
25 are not prepared for.
ALDERSoN RSPoRTING CoWPANY. INC.
400 v1ROMA AVE S/#. WASMNGioN. O.C. 20024 (202 $44 2348
85 First of sll, we are a part-time consittee of 15 1
2 seabers.
Although we represent a wide spectrum of 3
scientific and engineering disciplines, one tha t is not 4
included, at least it would not fall in that range, is the 5
legal one.
So we are primarily able to assist a panei such 6
as this on technical questions.
7 The matter of institutional issues which has 8 occupied a good bit of tonight 's seating I don't think would 9
be very helpful.
We recognize, however, that it is a good part of the matters involved in this whole question.
to 11 We are s busy group of people because we do have 12 requests put to us by th'e Commission, as well as members of 13 congress.
However, over and above the work tha t we as 14 individuals can do cn the consittee, we do have a staff of 15 engineers who assist the consittee in its work.
16 We were fortunate, largely through the efforts of 17 Congressman Udall, to get authorired up to 15 positions for 18 fellows.
These are now being used by the cossittee to 19 augment what our staff and the members could do.
It is l
20 through the use of the fellows that we can address the
[
21 technical issues that I know are facing the panel.
22
- 53. MINNICH4 Doctor, I have been asked to ask you sddress l
23 if, in fact, you folks would be in a position to 24 these following questions.
If I have not covered thes 25 correctly, please correct se.
A4.DeftSoM PEPCRTING CoedPANY. INC.
400 vtMGINtA AVE. ?.W WA&MINGTCN. 3 C. :(N224 (202) $54-2348 l
l
36 1
Is there a deterioration of the resins that see 2
currently being used in the clean-up.
3
!s that the appropriate method, or would there be 4
better resins that sight be available.
5 Another question that we really do not have an 6
answer to, and with which we vill be dealing at the next 7
seeting, can tridina be removed from the water?
8 E3. LAW 30 SKI s Not by the use'of resins.
There 9
are techniques for removing tridius, and th o se are 10 techniques that I as aware of, but I as not speaking for the 11 f ull cosaittee.
The methods for removing tridium are fairly 12 sophisticated and elaborate, and I don't know that it would 13 be very practical.
But that is something that we could 14 address as a c'essittee.
15 Let se say that our method of functioning is 16 through th e use of subcommittee seetings.
No rs ally, we 17 don't give out technical advice as individuals, but through 18 the avenue of a consittee report.
16 We usually require three week.
However, since we 20 try to conform to the Advisory Consittee Act, we announce 21 our meetings, since they are open to the public, 21 days in 22 advance.
Under emergency situations, we could arrance for a f
23 seeting in a shorter time-scale, if we don't do it too 24 frequently.
l 25 MR. MINNICH:
In other words, ycu are saying that I
l A4.DERSCN REPCRTING COnePANY. INC.
40 VISGlNtA AVt 3,W WASMNGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 504 2346
87 1
we could arrange to meet with your consittee, either in 2
Washington or here in Harrisburg.
3 5R. LAWROSKIs I don't kno w whether we could do it 4
that way.
What we could do, ! will offer this as a 5
possibility, you could select your questions to put to us, 6
with sese spec'ificity because our time is very limited 7
oven with the assistance that we have, it still strains us 8
to get our job done.
9 ER. COCHRAN I would like to give his the 10 questions tonight, because there is going to be a lono 11 period of time for them to get together and cespond.
I 12 think we can give a couple of questions with specificity.
13 3R. LAWROSKIs It depends on the time table you 14 wish us to address.
MR.5INNICH:
Our immediate objective, Doctor, is 15 16 to respond to the NRC on the question of the disposition of 17 the water, so I don't see that we have a real time deadline 18 in terms of responding to questions about the resins, etc.
19 Ios, if you would like to Iot those questions down 20 21 5R. CCCHRANs Ihey will be in the transcript.
22 3R. MINNICHs
-- ! ca n transmit them to the 23 doctor.
Once I get the transcrip t, I will do that.
So we 24 sra not facinq a time deadline.
The only question would be 25 the one that I asked about the renoval of the tridius.
ALoemsoM mapontNo COW ANY,.NC, 400 vtmO4NIA Ave. S.W WASMNofCN, o.C. 20024 (202) 564 2348
88 1
MR. LAWROSKIs 3r. Chairman, I think that it would 2
be sore appropriate if your questions were addressed to the 3
Cossission, and came to us tha t way.
This is for reasons of 4
our being able to do, first, what the Commission asks us to 5
do, and Congress, and so on.
6
- 53. MINNICH:
I understand.
I will do that, and I 7
vill follow up on that.
8 MR. LAWROSKIs We have agreed, in accordance with 9
Chairman Ahea rne's sta temen t to Tou, to hel p.
10 MR. MINNICH:
That is what we were advised, and we 11 appreciate that.
Thank you.
I as sure you will be hearing 12 froz us.
13 NR. LAWHOSKI If you want a response, I will give 14 you an individual response.
15 MR. MINNICH:
To what question?
16 TR. LAWROSKIs Whether there were variation of 17 resins.
l 18 MR. MINNICH:
Please go ahead, if you want to go l
19 ahead and give an individual response.
20 NR. LAWROSKI4 I as sure that there is quite a 21 range of those, the organic and the inorganic resins.
It is 22 question of how much loading is put on them, particularly 1
l 23 the organic ones would survive.
Although I think it sight
[
i l
24 have been inferred from the answer that Dr. Cunninghas ga ve,
25 the fact th a t large quantities of cesius and strontius are i
ALDaRSoN REPoRTWG COMPANY. INC, e.. v._ m..
oroa.o.e.:oo u = s o. m.
1 l
89 1
stored at Hanford are actually being stored in resins, _
2 don't think that those are being stored in resins.
I think 3
tha t those are separate cospounds.
4 They say have been concentrated through the use of 5
resins, but they eventually were extracted from the resins 6
and then rendered into chemical compounds of strostium and 7
I don't know what particular formulas those were 8
being stored under,but indeed there are such out there.
9 H3. MINNICH:
Thank you, Doctor.
10 To the panel sesbers.
11 For the next meeting, Bob Arnold, I am going to 12 ask you if you would consider -- I told you that the subject 13 of our seeting on December 30th is the disposal of the 14 water.
We would like you to come back, and perhaps some of 15 your staff could discuss that.
16 Would you also consider returning at that time, 17 time permitting, prepared to address Tom's question which I 18 felt was not germane, at least for tonight's seating.
19 Perhaps you could address that at the next seeting.
20 MB. ARNOLD:
I will be most anxious.to. answer that 21 question.
If it is suitable with the consittee, we perhaps 22 could give a 35-minute presentation initially, and we will have hand-out satorial available to give to the audience.
23 24
- 53. MINNICHs Is there any objection from the 25 consittee?
u.oansoN REPCRT.NG CondPANY. INC.
400 VIRG4NBA AVL S.W. WASHW4GfoN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 584-2348
90 1
MR. C0CHRAN:
I thought there was a 2
11sunderstanding that I would like to clarif y.
! vould like 3
to know the cost of converting the trested water into 4
concrete blocks after you run it through the exchange, after 5
you have cleaned it up, so that there would not be the sa.se 6
probles with the accountability, and so forth.
7 MR. ARN 01D a The implication of that, Dr. Coch ran,
8 is that if there is spillage, as it were, what gets washed 9
down in tha normal operation of the system, we don ' t ha ve to 10 worry about accountiac for that water.
If we have to 11 collect it and turn it into concrete, because that water 12 needs to be controlled and tied up in some way, then I drtv 13 from that the implication that the total amount of water has 14 to be accounted for.
15 If all you want is a calculation based on assumine 16 that it goes through the no rmal batching plant process, with 17 no more physical controls of the process than would be 18 involved in the no rmal operation, I could give you that.
l 19 But it was my presumption --
20 ER. 3I;"ICH Would you bring tha t at the next I
21 aceting for discussion?
22 NB. ABNO1D a I don 't think that it is a very 23 helpful calculation.
24
- 53. CCCH3ANa I will se'et with you after the 25 seeting and explain.
l l
Atmanson maroRTING CoWmY. INC.
l eo vinoma Ave, s.w., wasmNoroN. o.C. :oon <2o2) sp. ss l
91 1
MR. HINNICH:
Who does the panel want at the next 2
seeting besides Met-Ed?
Do you want someone from the ACRS7 3
Doctor, can we impose upon you again, sir?
4
'R. LAWROSKI s Yes.
5 MS XCHRa I regret that we did no t have time 6
tonight to get more information from the Doctor.
7 MR. SINNICHs I feel badly about having you come 8
all the way here, and we did not get very such.
9 55 XOHRs I think tha t someone from the committee to would be very helpf ul the next time, and we would make a 11 special effort to address our questions to them, af ter we 12 have heard from 3et-Ed.
Maybe other people don ' t feel that i
13 need.
14 5AIOR MORRISs I thought the Doctor indicated that 15 their consents and recommendations are based on the whole 16 coenittee's review of the question.
If that is the case, it 17 seems to me that we should give our questions, and you can 18 provide us with the whole committee response, rather than 19 have you give us ideas that you think that other sesbers of 20 the committee might not agree with.
21 MR. MINNICHs If you bring se your questions, I l
22 will be glad to draft a proper re que st te, the Commission.
l 23 MS KOHRa Then we can review choir response.
24 MR. hIs.4ICHs We will have Dr. Sn yder who will be 4
25 here, and others from the NRC.
i ALDEREoM ASPoATING CoWPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN 4A AVS., $f#, WASH 4h4 ton. 3.C. 20024 (2021 $44 2344
92 1
1 Will two meetings in January suffice for our 2
needs?
If so, I will select some dates again, and go 3
through the process, so we can have adequa te notice.
4 Is there any other business?
5 MAYOR 50RRIsa I move to adjourn.
6 MR. MINNICH:
There is a motion to adjourn.
The t
7 s ee ting is adjourned.)
8 (Whereupon, at 10:15 p.a.,
the seeting was 9
a d j o urne d. )
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDGASoM AGPoAT1NG COMPANY. INC.
400 VWIG;t#A Avt S.w, wASNeNGToN. O.C. 20024 (202) 564 2344
0 ee
- 9 y=
..t.o
- 9 se.e m.p p.e. e.at.t,(
- C.*3..t.I
- =a f
.p
.J t.
A. w.%
~4
.,. 4.....s.f
..2 i
.3 4
.,.4
.r.
&...C g
..s
..... 3 i.':
0.". 4 ". A *. ; e." - f :
Meeting of the Advisory Council on the Decentamination of TMI Unit 2
~a.4
.c
- ..,... c.a...
, u,,
~cCka: k=l: e.- :
3 '. 2 C $ 0f."OCetci".g:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvani.a,
l
.4.
..*. a
.4
.4 a.
42.,
a.
.2 l
.g.
2.
.1...
3
..s
.r
... rs.*,
.c
....~
I 1
I estricia a.
vinson
- e..... e, s 9
D?*
T'
~
w.-L,'*A q n ],..
Od c
N3
[
w.r.r.a.a..s 2
- 2....... e.'.t.4
=
q......
.4..
.ip
l Distributicn fcr Trcnscripto for Advisory P;nal Meetings,..,.
['l
. 12/*:S/80 M: sting - Harrisburg, Pjl. '. '...
'I Chairman Ahearne
- 1014-H Mr. Peter Tuite Commissioner Gilinsky Waste Management Group, Inc.
Commissioner Bradford 503 Crasslands Road Commissioner Hendrie Valhalla, New York 10595 W. Dircks, EDO 6209-M3AB H. Denton, NRR P-428 Dr. Tom Cerusky B. Snyder Bureau of Radiation Protection L. Barrett (20)
Dept. of Environmental Resources OGC 1035-H Box 2063 ELD 9604-NNBB Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 TMIPO Lynch Dr. James Opelka ANL POUCH Leech EISD/Bidg 10 Weller Argonne National Laboratory Travers Argonne, Illinois 60439 Lo Duncan D. Cleary P-522 Panel Members C. Hickey P-234 W. Pasciak P-712 F. Congel P-712 E. Hanrahan 1013-H M. Libarkin, ACRS 1014-H Rich Major, ACRS 1014-H Jeanne Cook, OPA 3709-MNBB R. Browning, NMSS 905-SS Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR TERA
.1 l
u Steven M. Long, Director Power Plant Siting Program j
Department of Natural Resources o
g Tawes Building B-3 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 l
Herbert Feinroth Dept of Energy ET-763 GTN B-107 i
Mr. Matthew Bills Environmental Protection Agency l
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.
20460 Mr. J. Shea l
Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 O_
A W d mer
- P"' 8 e
-