ML20042E557

Transcript of 900314 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-84

ML20042E557
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	03/14/1990
From:	NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2
To:
Shared Package
ML20042E556	List: ML20042E555 ML20042E557
References
NACTMI, NUDOCS 9004230601
Download: ML20042E557 (88)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_. -_. i ENCLOSURE 2 i mu C,3aNA. i g OFFICIAL TRANSCRIIYT OF PROCEEDINGS i i t AgCDCy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i IINCI MEETINC: ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION i 0F THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2 Docket No. i s l IOCATION: HARRISBURC, PENNSYLVANIA t MARCH 14, 1990 1-84 t ^ ANN RIIF(& ASSOCIATES, LTD. O 1612 x s x.w.soae 300 Mshington, D.C 20006 9004230601 900 % (202) 293-3950 PDR ADOCK 05000'o2O T PDC i s .nns- --n ,a,, r- --v, .a..v.,n-, -.m-

a 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Before: ARTHUR MORRIS JOHN LUETZELSCHWAB ANNE TRUNK FREDERICK RICE JOCL ROTH KENNETH MILLER GORDON ROBINSON MICH AEL MASNIK THOMAS SMITHGALL l Date March 14, 1990, 7:05.p.m. Place : Holiday Inn Second and Chestnut Streets I Harrisburg, Pennsylvania i HUUS & AklUCAS REPORUNG SERVICE Hemo6.rg 7t? 2M-862J 104 fit N)-M18 PA 3 45231-9127

i 'o 2 1 MR. MORRIS: I would like to call the meeting 2 of the Panel to order, if I could. j i 3 The first order of business-- And I would 4 like to welcome the public and all others in attendance 5 this evening. 6 The first order of business are the ) 7 Chairman's opening remarks. And I really don't have .l 8 any, other than to stay welcome and to go on to the 9 second item. There are a few periods in here where we i 10 will have both public discucsion and discussion by the s 11 Panel. And for tnose of you that have'not yet seen an l 12 agenda, there seems to be a great deal of interest on l 13 ceveral items on the agenda, but seemingly, the'most 14 interesting one is item 7, which is a discussion of the 15 f uture of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel. That will probably 16 take place around 8:30 or so. So I just feel I want to 17 at least let the public know that that comes up tonight I ~ 18 if you didn't already know it. 19 And with that, we'd like.to now go to the J 20 status of the cleanup activities provided by GPU staff. 21 And there's 30 minutes allotted to three items, = 22 defueling completion report, lower head sampling 1 23 program, and schedule and funding. 24 MR. ROCHE: Good evening. My name is Mike 25 Roche. I'm the Director of TMI-2. nuus & sklucAs strostixc stas 1ct Namekq 717 2.16.M23 tora tit MS Mts P4 DM2110127 ~

w 3 1 With me tonight is Sandy Levin, who is the 2 Director of Defueling of TMI-2, and Bob Rogin, who is -3 the Director of Licensing of TMI-2. Sandy will provide 4 some inf ormation on the sampling program. on the lower 5 head, and Bob Rogin will describe the def ueling 6 completion report. 7 The first item I wanted to just mention is 8 the defueling. 9 The slide that's shown on the screen is the 10 original condition of the plant just kind of as a 11 reminder. I always look at that as kind of a reality 12

check, 13 As we stand today, we have removed 300,800 14 pounds of debris in structures from the vessel and the 15 reactor coolant sy s tem.

That constitutec'101 percent of 16 what we thought was there originally. 17 When we last brief ed the panel, we were 18 removing the baf fle plates f rom the core f ormer region. 19 We wanted to report that we successf ully removed all of 20 the baffle plates and defueled behind them.- 21 We finished the bulk defueling in December of 22

1989, 23 In January of 1990, we completed the flushing 24 and the vacuuming of the fine material that we left on 25 the surf aces.

4 TILIUS & MclUCAS REPORTING SLR\\1CE l tramskog itM)s-ut) M nr.enute P4 t see 2ntur 1

4 1 There is in this accomplishment I think a 2 great deal of pride on the part of the people who did 3 this work. These people are people f rom-our community 4 here. At the outset of the accident, many people j I 5 believed that we would never get all of the material out 6 of the vessel. A lot of people believed that there were 7 some aspects of the defueling which were virtually i 8 impossible. You remember us telling you about what we 9 thought was an impenetrable hard layer on the bottom'of i 10 the reactor vessel. I wanted to report to you that the I 11 thousand or so people who have worked on this project 12 over the past f our to five years have made, in my view, 13 a very important contribution and a significant i 14 improvement in the condition of the plant. 15 Relative to the material that's left in the 16 vessel, we have conducted video inspections of all of 17 the surfaces in the vessel. We have done computer t i 18 modeling of some of that video that would depict the 1 19 volume of material, and then we've done calculations on 20 the weight of the material. We believe that there's 21 less than 900 kilograms of f uel lef t out of the original' l 22 94,000 kilograms. In other areas of the plant, as we-a 23 described in prior meetings, there's approximately, we 24 believe, 225 kilograms of material. 25 The next slide shows the graph that we use l t illIUS & %LUCA5 REPORTING SER\\KE mmekrg tstax-em 1 era tit.Nhuts PA t.sen 2nm1 a

o 5 '+ 1 f rom time to time depicting the progress. The dark 2 line, upper dark line is the defueling line. And you 3 can see, we've gotten up to the point where we're in j 4 excess of 300,000 pounds. 5 ruel shipping. We have shipped to date i 2 6 290,600 pounds of debris in structures. We've used 322_ 7 canisters, and we plan to use no more than 342 8 canisters. We do have available to us 360 canisters, so 9 we have a substantial margin. We will make one more i 10 shipment, and that will complete the 300,000 pounds. 11 With that, I would like to put on the next i a 12 slide. And if I could go to the video, I have a three j 13 minute and 30 second video, if you can look at the 14 monitors on either side, that shows some _ of the views. f 15 The overhead will kind of try to orient you to where 16 we're looking. 17 The first view is at the top. It's the bolt 18 ring. If you notice, on the left-hand side, there's 19 like a shadow. That shadow area was completely filled a i 20 with material. We've vacuumed that and removed fuel 21 rods and debris from that bolt ring. 22 That ring goes entirely _around the vessel. 23 The bolts, I think they're approximately 3 or 4 inch i l 24 diameter, to give you an idea of size. 25 The next view is a view of the_ plate HUUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICr Itemske g nt 2%un M nt.NSMss PA t.Mstn tszt

t 6 i I remnants. Down at the bottom of the lower core support { O assembly, you'll remember we cut open an entry to the [ 3 bottom. That large piece of metal is the f orging, 13 i 4 inches thick. There's five of these plates. The plates 5 have the incore instrument lines going up through them. 6 That cup there locally is known as an ashtray. That's i 7 one of the support posts that held the fuel. 8 Now we're looking a little further back, 9 still looking down on the plate remnants. We're 10 scanning from side to side. You see the baffle plates ( 11 at the top of the screen and the side of the screen. I 12 Now we're looking straight down. The 13 greenish area in the center is the bottom of the vessel. 14 You can see some of the incore nozzles sticking up 15 through the bottom of the vessel. 16 Now we're down on the bottom of the vessel. 17 You'll notice there's concentric circles that run, l 18 Those are the cladding that was the stainless steel j j 19 cover of the carbon steel bottom. i 20 Those nozzles that you see are the nozzles we described in the last meeting that were melted away in U 21 22 the southwest region of the bottom of the vessel. You I l 23 can see some of them are only an inch or 2 in height. I i 24 Originally, they were 12 inches in height. You can see 25 a full-size nozzle at the bottom on the left, nuus & ntucAs stronnxc stanct Hems %q nt 2%es23 M nt en-use PA l see 25%en7 1

.o y 1 We're now looking out towards the periphery 2 underneath the plate remnants, and you see the 3 full-length nozzles. I think there's 39 of those i 4 nozzles in the center of the vessel. 5 The last footage that's on the tape is 6 f ootage that shows the removal of a sample f rom the 7 lower head. What you'll see is a box. And you'll see i { 8 two, what appear to be, jaws that are kind of in the 9 center of the screen. In the very foreground of the 1 10 screen, there's the nozzle. You can see a circular 11 nozzle. 12 Now the sample is being removed f rom the 13 vessel. The sample is a-- We have an example of one of 14 the samples right here, and we'll pass it around. The l 15 sample is being withdrawn from the vessel. 16 With that, I'd like to now move to Sandy 17 Levin, who will describe the sampling-program.that we 18 conducted of the bottom of the vessel. 19 MR. L EV IN : Good evening. As Mr. Roche 20 described to you, there was a sampling program that took 21 place at the completion of the defueling program. The-22 sampling program was done at the behest of the NRC and 23 the OECD, an organization from mostly European 24 communities, in an attempt to gain as many samples from l 25 the lower head of the reactor vessel and nozzles as 1 nuus & Autuc<s stronnxa stasict He m sbem 711 2 %-M23 M Tit MSMIS PA t.N6 233-9327

O t 8 i s 1 possible to better understand the accident sequence and 2 the temperature profile that occurred in the lower head 3 and why the lower head of the reactor vessel was able to 4 withstand such a high temperature and the impact of all { 5 of that molten fuel lying on the surf aces of the reactor 6 vescel. 3 i 7 The first slide shows a incore nowsle welded-8 to the reactor vessel wall. You'll notice the very 9 bottom of the slide is the thickness of the reactor 10 vessel. It's about 5 inches thick. The nozzle stands 11 about 12 inches high above that reactor vessel wall and i 12 is covered at the very top by an incore guide tube which l 13 is attached to the bottom of one of those five plates i 14 that were removed earlier. t 15 Next slide, please. 16 The technique for removing the samples 17 utilized a process called MDM. It stands for metal 18 disintegration machine. A metal disintegration machine 19 works much like a spark plug does in a car by providing i 20 a potential dif ference of voltage across two electrodes. j 1 L 21 A spark jumps across those two electrodes. And in a i 22 car, of course, you'll get internal combustion.. l 23 Here the spark went right to the wall'of the 24 reactor vessel and causes a little pit of metal to be 25 r e m ov e d. By designing an electrode that's sufficiently-TillUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SER\\' ICE Wrnkrg 781 2 %.0623 1erk tit.NS-Mie P41000 2%9V!

i 9 I I 1 long and has the right angle to it, we can pit our way i 2 into the wall of the reactor vessel to a depth of about i 3 3 inches and remove a sample that we call a boat sample, j 4 If you could pass that sample up, you'll see 5 a sample that I brought from the plant. This is i 6 obviously not one that came out of the reactor vessel. t 7 This was one that we tried in our defueling test 8 assembly bef ore we took the equipment into the reactor 9 vessel for its use. 10 There are two types of boats that were cut, j ll One is a boat sample with a nozzle on it. You'll notice 12 this one simulates the boat sample with a nozzle, the 13 one that's being passed around. The nozzles were first 14 cut off relatively close to the reactor vessel wall such 15 that they stood at about 2 inches high, and then the i 16 nozzle was plugged bef ore cutting that sampl e. 17 The other samples were drawn at areas between l 18 nozzles. These are just flat samples. They would look ) 19 identical, only no nozzles protruding f rom it. i 20 Next slide, please. i 21 The equipment is deployed into the reactor 22 vessel from about 40 feet away with a very long-handled-23 pole. The bottom of the pole is a articulating arm 24 which would place the MDM cutting head, the metal 25 disintegration machine cutting head, perpendicular to TIL1US & AtcLUCAS RtroRnNG SERUCE WmHg ist.2%.u23 %on ?st-NS-use P41.w233-9327 -}

10-1 the surface that we're trying-to cut. With a 2 articulating arm, you could reach about a 60 degree are 3 out of the 180 degrees that was available to us in the 4 lower head. 5 Next slide, please. 6 The overall ef fectiveness of the program was 7 probably higher than anticipated. This slide shows a 8 view looking down into the reactor vessel. The darkened 9 in areas show where boat samples were obtained. 10 Altogether, there were 14 boat samples obtained in the 11 orientation shown. Additionally, we removed 15 incore-- 12 Excuse me. There were 15 boat samples. We additionally 13 moved 14 incore nozzles that we cut off and also sent 14 off as samples. Some of these nozzles contained 15 residual fuel. 16 You'll notice one nozzle all the way to the 17 east on this slide at the R6 location. That was a 18 nozzle which was cut off in the area where we believe 19 the molten fuel-- most of the molten fuel relocated. to 20 the lower head. 21 Also, there were two samples cut of f f rom 22 guide tubes, the protective coverings that existed over 23 the nozzles, bringing to a total of 31 those nozzles and 24 samples which are to be shipped off to laboratories all 25 over the world. We will be sending them straight to the fillUS & AkluCA: REPORTING SER\\1CE HemsWg tit.2%A23 1' ora ilt,MS-MtS P.41.M2119511 I ]

i 11 1 Department of Energy who will be making distribution 2 from them. -3 I also brought along. a few photographs of the j 4 sample which we at first had seen the hot tear in the i 5 cladding back in July of this past year. That was 6 obviously one of the areas where we had high interest in 7 obtaining a sample. The results coming back f rom 4 8 Argonne National Laboratory from that particular boat i 9 sample show that the hot tear, that tear in the cladding 10 did not penetrate into the carbon steel beneath the 11 cladding, and, in fact, was only about the depth of the 12 cladding, three-sixteenths of an inch deep. 13 I know that that sample is still undergoing 14 some additional review, both metallurgical and chemical, 15 and I know the NRC will be publishing their results 16 shortly. I 17 Thank you. Mr. Roche. 18 MR. ROCHE: Thank you, Sandy. 19 The next item is Bob Rogin to describe the ) 20 defueling completion report summary. ) 21 MR. ROG IN : Good evening. I understand you 22 have all received a copy of the report, so I will not be 23 sharing-a copy of my comments with you tonight. They're 24 all contained in the report in the main body. 25 The history of the report is that early in FILIUS & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE } kmsks 7tt 2nu23 hwa 1st.Nhut, PA sm2hent

t 12 i i defueling, it became readily apparent that some specific. l 2 criteria quite different from that applied to a normal 3 reactor would be required in order to assess when the 4 TMI-2 plant had, in fact, been defueled. l 5 In 1987, we proposed a series of f acility j 6 modes for our technical specifications which;would i 7 establish and define the state of the plant with its 5 0 various processes throughout the cleaning progress and t 9 then to identify the requirements f or the technical 10 specifications based on each of the modes. I 11 In May of 1988, License Amendment number 30 ~ 12 was issued by the NRC which defined three facility modes I 13 for TMI-2. j 14 The first was the. current state of TMI-2, l 15 which was the cleanup activity and defueling. 1 16 The second was called mode 2 and was 17 considered the defueled state of the reactor. 18 And the third, mode 3, would include the I 1 19 defueled state of the reactor and, also, that all core 20 debris that had been collected from the plant systems 21 had been shipped off site. i 22 The purpose of the DCR is to establish the 23 criteria for mode 2. The criteria for transition to 24 mode 2 were defined and it was established that GPU 25 Nuclear would be required to submit a report to the NRC HLIUS & AklUCA5 RLPORTING SERVICr Namhg tit 2Wes23 M Tit 40-Mts PA 19+2M 9127

L =.- R 13' 1 1 .some 60 days prior to transition to' each successive mode ) 2 'providing the basis for that transition.. The defueling: ] 3 completion report, ethich was submitted in February of a 4 this year, provided the bases for declaring the end of 5 defuelingrand transition to facility mode 2, that is, 6 that'the plant has been defueled. 7 MR.:SMITHGALL. Question. 8 MR. ROG IN : Next-- 9 MR. SMITHGALL: Question, if I may. You 10 presented the modes ~to.the NRC and they approved:them, 11 is that how that worked? I mean, you came up with mode .1 12 1, mode 2, mode 3 as a proposal for transition'to'these 13 .difterent stages, and they were approved 11n License 14 Amendment'30? 15 MR. ROG IN : Not exactly;thatisimply. We had 16 proposed an approach. There was considerable 17 discussion. And the NRC certainlys had input andLtoi; 3 18 certain initiatives in defining what the-modes would be 19 and what the reporting requirements would be.. 20 This next slide provides the criteria-for 21 concluding that the plant has been defueled and the 22 transition to mode 2 would be appropriate, that is, that 23 we have completed defueling. 24 And you'll notice that there are basically g 25 three subjective criteria that were-established. - FIL:US & hklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Wvsburg 7174WO623 M 737 MS M18 PA l 800 333-9327

0 14' 1 The first is that we-had defueled the plant 2 to the extent reasonably _ achievable. And that was based -3 on the first of a kind R and D. type activity that-we 4 were undertaking. ] 5 The second one was that criticality 1would be 6 precluded. 7 And the third was that all canisters-8 containing core debris would have been removed f rom the-9 reactor building. 10 The_next slide provides-our bases for .1 11 concluding that we 'lund satisfied these criteria.- 4 12 Our first conclusion was' that based 'on thei 13 amount of fuel remaining and its configuration, our -j 14 analyses demonstrated than an inadvertent criticality q 15 could not occur. 16 Secondly, that we'had defueled the reactor 17 vessel and the RCS to the extent reasonably achievable. 18 Third, that a conservative bounding estimate 5 19 of the amount of residual fuel remaining was 1,125 20 kilograms, which is approximately.1 percent, slightly 21 greater than 1 percent of the original-core. inventory. 22 And finally, that further defueling 23 activities would provide no significant change or 24 increase in the margin of safety and the health and-25 safety of the public at an extraordinary cost in terms TILLUS & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SER\\TCr H umsburg 717 236-0623 York 727 845-6418 PA 186233-9127

.~ _ 15" 1 of occupational exposure anditime, s 2 Next slide, please._ 3 This slide is intended to-give you a little t 4 bit.of a perception-of where'the fuel is in the plant S based on our defueling. And it's basically separated-6 into f our maj or areas or component's.- As Mr. Roche 7 indicated, the significant portion of the~ residual-fuel t t 8 is in the reactor vessel.- And that's not-- That should 9 not be a' surprise. H owever, - the 900 kilograms is net 10 configured such that it is considered-to be a sing 1'e or-i 11 discrete volume or mass. It is separated into variou's 12 areas and regions of the vessel and are not necessarily 13 interactive. 14 Next slide, please. 15 .MR. S MITHG ALL :- Can I ask you the weight of ~ 16 the equipment that you have left in the reactor vessel? -i 17 Is that getting ahead of your presentation?- 1 18 MR.. ROG IN : A little bit, I believe. 19 'MR. SMITHGALL: Okay. I'll wait. i [ 20 MR. ROCHE: You asked the weight of-the 21 equipment? 22 MR. SMITHGALL: Yes 23 Mr. ROCHE: The equipment that we used.to-24 defuel? 25 MR. SMITHGALL: Yes. I understand there was fil!US & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 7I7 2%N2.3 York 737 NS-Mt3 PA 1800-233 9327

a l l l 16' f* 1-some left in the reactort v e s s el'. Am I correct in.that?- 2 MR. LEV IN : There are some-defueling-3 equipment suspended f rom the platf orm :that we work on.- 4 But as far as that being left in the reactor vessel, I t 5 hadn't thought of it that: way. Approximately-

Well,

~6 let's see. We have the carousel and some cans.- I 7-Probably about 10 tons of steel altogether that's 8 hanging f rom the shielded work-platf orm. 9 MR. SMITHGALL: And they' re _ planned on being I 10 left-in the reactor vessel? 11 MR. L EV IN: Yes, sir. 12 MR. ROG IN : Let my go back'to the vessel for-13 just a moment. 14 MR. MORRIS: If you-would, if you do cut.in, 15 if you wouldn't mind mentioning your name again justfoo: 16 that we don't have a problem in conf using who said what. f 17 Thank you. .i 18 MR. ROG IN : As part of the process of 19 preparing the report and demonstrating the suberitical 20 nature of the reactor vessel in the system, we.did a-H 21 number of criticality analyses. One of.these was to. i 22 establish what a critical mass of TMI-2 fuel would be l 23 based on its character'and using ultraconservative 24 assumptions such as optimally moderated with unborated 25 water and so on. We came up with a number of 140 TILLUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Harrisburg 717 236-Oti23 York 717-M5-M16 PA 1-800-233-9327 L-

t 17 l 1 kilegrams. 2 ~I mention that only because' there is more .i -1 3 than 140 kilograms of fuel in the reactor vessel. And 4-so we did a discrete, unique modeling of the reactor 1 l 5 vessel for the purposes of determining criticality. j L i L 6 This was done with the assistance of Oakridge' National-L 1 L 7 Laboratories. 8 It was determined that~ based on the nature of 9 the fuel.and the assumptions, the conservative-10 assumptions that were used in the calculations:and the 11 geometric configuration, that the reactor vessel coul'd ~ 12 tolerate 6,700 kilograms ~of TMI-2 fuel without going 13 critical. Therefore, we concluded that 900 kilograms, 14 which is what we estimate conservar'.vely at this point r 15 to be the characterization of the vessel, was well 16 within safe boundsnin terms of-criticality. 17 Next slide, k 18 Just as a matter of interest, the residual 19 f uel can be characterized into about f our. separate 1 20 categories. You-see them on.this slide.- The. fuel-in 21 character varies from location to location. And i 22 sometimes, as-many.as two or three types of f uel may. be 23 in a single location. The reason the. fuel is'there is. 24 principally because it was either inaccessible-or could 25 not-be removed based on the defueling techniques-that FILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE ? Herrssburg 717 236-0623 York 717 845-6418 PA l M233 9127 ,r 4 4

18 P 1 were beingoused.- l 'Next slide, please. 2 l i 3 And finally,:it's worthwhile to. reflect back l. 4 on a fundamental principal of_the nuclear industry, 5 which is the three barrier approachLthat you've heard 6 many times before. And we think in'a. sense'it-applies 7 in this case as well, 8 While we have done analysesithat clearly? ] 9 demonstrate to our satisfaction that.there i s no-- 6 10 potential for an' inadvertent. criticality in what'we.will 11 call.the normal post-defueling state of the reactor q 12 vessel, we did look at some externally-generated 4 13 -potentially damaging events,1such as,-a seismic event, a l 14 ifire, a flood, to see if it was possible-through'any of-L i 15 these driving forces to accumulate or to-construct some ~ 16 sort of a critical mass or have some:sortoof a critical L 17 event. And, in fact, we discovered that;that was not-l 18 the case. But nonetheless, we also'came to-this type of. 19 a description of the situation withinethe. reactor vessel R' 20 which we call the three barrier concept'. 21 First, there is no possibility of forming a 22 critical configuration of fuel in the system as it 23 exists today, even-in the off-norm or abnormal 24 circumstance. 25 Second, there will be a dearth of unborat'ed FIllUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 2 %-0623 York 717445-MIS ' PA 1400-2D-9327 2 y e -e

mF

l 19-1 I moderator-available even if moderator-would do any good. 2 And our analyses says'that moderator makes no-difference - 3 in this case because we did optimally moderate all of 4 the remaining fuel-for purposes of-analyses. 5 And then finally, we will have the existence 6 of substantial poisons in_the-reactor _ vessel throughout 7 the storage period. We intend to add'to the-vessel, 8 even though it is not required to maintain 9 suberiticality,- an insoluble neutron poison in-the-10 bottom 'of the reactor vessel in-suf ficient quantities -to' 11 ensure absolutely no possibility of criticality. 12 With this inf ormation in -hand then, we d 4 13 conclude that we have met the criteria of mode:2,cthat q 14 is, that we have defueledethe reactor toithetextent-15 reasonably achievable;-thatLwe have precluded 16 criticality.. And by a physical walk ~ down: of' the reactor - I 17 vessel and' the plant, the _ NRC inspectors'will affirm l j 18 that we have noncore debris-bearing canisters ~left in i 19 the building. 20 Thank you very much. 1 21 MR. ROCHE: I have two.other quick items I ) 22 wanted to get before our 30 minutes expires; 1 23 One is that I want to iustigive-you kindLof a 24 quick update on water evaporation. A: ycu know, we have 25 some time ago started the start-up and test activities FillUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICr-Herrssburg 717 2WN2) York 7tt 84% Mis PA 1800-23k9327 H

i 20~ 1 for the evaporator. Dur'ing this period, we have not 2 used accident generated water. We're using test water, 3-We're mixing up solutions of sodium and boron with.'our 4 plant water, not'. accident generated water.: There's no 5 radioactivity in it. 6 In January, we had a f ailure of a maj orl [ i 7 component in the evaporator compressor. That' failure we 8 believe was that a shaft broke, and we think that the 9 shaf t was' defective. - ' We're awaitinrj 'a f ailure analysis l 10. from the manufacturer. It is covered.under the warranty 11 of the compressor.. i 12 If I can just.. rekindle your ememory L on-the 13 diagram here, the parts of the evaporator:that are -14 working well are number 4, which is thefevaporator;- 15 number 7, which 1s;the vaporizer. Those-are'the-two 16 components that are relative to how well we.'re'doing in-17 terms of the material which is going up the. stack. The i 18 radiation monitor:is now installed and'in. calibration. 19 Where we're having trouble is with the solids 20 handling part of the system. And that's. number 10. It 21 looks like a little box there, but it 's really ' two-22 parts. There's a blender dryer, which takes the solid 23 material from the evaporator, dries it, and then after 24 it's dried, it goes into a pelletizer..The pelletizer 25 and the blender dryer are operating erratically. On r FILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE H,smsburg 117 236-0623. York 117 843 6418 PA t 800 233-9327

4-1- 21 l t 1 some of our waters, our tests are intended to mimic the j 1 2 ' kinds of water that we have in the plant. Some of the 3-waters,-the blender dryer can do well with it. Other 4. waters,.the blender dryer has dif ficulty. 5 We are working. with the owner of evaporator. 6 currently to try to resolve the problems.. We will not 7 introduce accident-generated water into the system until 8 we're sure we have the whole system working as it should 9' be. 10 The-next item, quickly-- 11 That's all for the slides, John. 7 12 I just ' wanted to give you: kind of an update 13 'on personnel and budget. We currently have 14 j approximately 190 people-working on the project. In the 15 very near future, that number will.go down to 16 approximately 95 and.will average about that-through the 17 rest of the year. j 18 The budget in-- The last time 'I' repor ted in 19 September, I was predicting that.we would' spend 20 somewhere in the neighborhood.of $50,000,000Lfor '89. 21 We finished at 49.8. There.were $400,000 worth'of sales 22 that we made of etdipment-that we haven't used in the 23 cleanup which made it push that number a-little bit.over 24 50,000,000. 25 In 1990, we h' ave about 16.5 million budget ) FillUS & SklUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE \\ H.urnsburg 787 236-0623 York 717 845-6418 PA l-86233 9127 l

22 I -l 4 1 l currently. And that includes some monies:for'us to-i i 2 i remove some of-the wooden structures,in the cooling 4 3 towers. 4 4 We still expect the cleanup expenditures to. 5 be~ in the neighborhood of about $973,000,000, 6 We were~33' minutes.by my count. That' stall' ~:a 7 we have. .i 8 MR. MORRIS: Which is' three minutes. over'. ] 9 Do the panel members have.any 10-questions / comments? + 11 MR.. RICE: Yes. Fred Rice. l l 12 The maximum that you had employed there at 13 the peak of the cleanup, how many were._ there? 14 i MR. ROCHE: The peak:of the cleanup preceded 15 me. But I think it was probably about l~,100 or 1,200: 16 people in the-cleanup. l 17 MR. RICE: Thank you. 1 18 MR. MORRIS: Tom. 19 MR. SMITHGALL: In your executive summary, t 20 you mention that the fuel is primarily divided between, 21 the fine /resolidified material. I guess what-I'm-asking 22 is maybe a breakdown of what-percentage is adhered' to 23 components as opposed to what is in granular form or! 24 small particle forms. I don't-know if you've gone'into I 25 that analyses. I guess what.I'm getting at is, what's ] FIllUS & SklUCAS REPORTING SER 'Irl mmsburg 747 236-0623 )ork 787-M3 MDB, P.A 1800 233-9327

l 23-I l 1 on equipment that you~will not be removing?- 2 Mk. ROCHE: I think-Sandy Levin can take a 3 stab at'that. 4 MR. LEV IN - Yes, sir.- With regard to-surface. 5 film depositz-- This is material which is so thinithat 6 we really cannot even see it on our videos; however, we 7-do pick it_up on our measurementsb The re 's :- re ally only 8 about 2 kilograms of-material in-that ~ form. 9 Now, in terms of the loose granular debris, 10 which we pick up mostly by vacuuming, I don't'have-a-11 breakout, but I would say probably:' half of the material- ] 12 that is available to us-in the lower head-- And I'm 13 looking for that number. If y.ou'll excuse me just a i 13 14 second. i 15 MR. SMITHGALL: Well, that-- 1 16 MR. L EV IN : About_2001 kilograms 11s loose, 17 fine granular material which-tends:to resuspend in the i 18 water as we've been vacuuming, and we-just-continue- .j q 19 vacuuming that material. The. remainder is resolidified 1 20 accident material or original core material 11n-the: form 1 21 of rods at locations we can't-got. j 22 There's also a spot outside of the core _ l l l 23 i t s el'f in_the downcomer region that has about-300 pounds - j 24 of material in a crevice that's unreachable f or us, and I] 25 that's all loose debris, loose field debris. About-150-TILLUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE i flar'rssburg 717 236 0623 York 717 845 6418 _ PA 1800 233-9327

a .s 24 1 kilograms there. 1 2 MR. SMITHGALL: The' reason for my question 6 3 and the one that I had previous was, I know.where we're 4' heading. We're heading,into your PDMS system or-your 5 proposal.. And my. concern is what is remaining in the-6 reactor from the standpoint that you presented tonight 7-as far as criticality. issues,-but alsolwhat materials 8 are left there. I'm'sure there's people: that would be 9 -concerned about what the potential for retrofittingithe-10 plant would be. Those are the reasons for my questions. 11 and concerns-there. 12 MR. ROCHE: If I can try to-- I thinkLwhat 13-we're trying-- I'm Mike Roche.. We're'trying tofportray, 14 the equipment that's left in the vessel. 1 Remember, we: l 15 have'the defueling platform, which is-essentially'what I 16 would characterize as. kind of a-lazyfSusan. type of 17 arrangement sitting on top of-the reactor vessel. 1 18 Suspended from that,.we have a canister' system that we 19 hang canisters on. That rotates. 20 MR. SMITHGALL: I've'seen that. L 21 MR. ROCHE: On that equipment, we have 22 calculated a residual amount of material adherent-to 8' o 23 that. And I think the number is something like 3 24 kilograms, in that neighborhood. All the rest of. -the 25 material is f ound-- For example, there's a small TillUS & AfcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 2%-0ti23 - York ?IT MbMIS P.A 18#Ub9327

-) 25 d I resolidified mass' and some fine mater'ial in those 2

crevices, l-L 3

MR. SMITHGALL: -I u nde r stand - the' 'vol ume that 1 j i 4 you' re talking about. as f ar as the material there.- My j 5 previous question was the weight ofLthe; equipment.that 6 you're going to be leaving.: And we're going toihave'to -7 deal with that eventually if.you're goingJ to ' leave it in-8 reactor vessel. If i t 's 10 tons,. some one is-going to 9 have to deal with that. 'It's going to be. sitting there 10-f or a period' of time, and that's the reason'for my-11 question. I 12 MR. ROCHE: The advantage of us having that 13 sit there-is it provides shielding.: It'has. protected 14 the workers'while we've been defueling. It hassvery 15 thick' shielding below it. We will be shielding around 16 it and. will be putting what amounts to a: col'umn on the 17 center of it so that when we do'our~ final! vessel 18 measurement, we'll not have anybody be able s to look into 19 the vessel. They'll be able to_put instruments in'and-20 out. 21' So-that the purpose of leaving it-there is to. i 22 provide-shielding. And the shielding mainly -isian 23 attempt to protect workers. As-I thinkfwe've described 24 in the past, the. baffle plates arenthe plates that .. surround the core. region.- They reek in'the neighborhood 25 FillUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE 'H.ormburg 717436-0613 fork 717 MFMI8: PA 1800 233-9327

I } 26-1 of 3,000 R-per hour on contact, and they are the largest l-source.ofradioactivity--ofradiation, rather.- 2 3 MR. SMITHG ALL : That's why I asked the 4 question, what are we going to_do with it 25 years from 5 now? 6 MR. ROCHE: Well, nature will help us11n 7-that, because-the cobalt <will decay. 8 MR. SMITHGALL

Okay.

9 MR. ROG IN : For your reference,-- Bob 10 Rogin --if you want to write 1down pages 5-68; and _5-69 of l 11 the main report, it has a f airly, comprehensive breakdown 12 of-the locations, and it does have give-the types-by 13 whether it's granular or resolidified, and that should 14 be helpful to you. j 15 MR. SMITHG ALL. Thank you. 16 MR. MORRIS: 'J oel. t i 17 MR. ROTH: Joel Roth. 18 Just to f ollow up on the evaporator, Mike, 1 19 you mentioned, the f ailure analysis, when do you expect 3 20-the report on the analysis to be finished on that?- 21 That's.my first question. And then that would just' 22 blend into, if it has'to be replaced, the time to-l 23 r e pla ce it? And when.do you f eel'.t would be infworking 24 condition? 25 MR. ROCHE: We have replaced it. It was .[ FILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE Harrnsbuq 187 236 0623 14rk 717 MS-MDB P.A 180&233-9327

y 1 [ 27. 1 1 l repaired. It was'sent back to the tactory in, I think, j 2 Indiana. They happened to have f ortuitously another 3 shaft for-that same compressor. They'put the new shaft 4 on the components. The f ailure analysis we have' ~not 5 received yet. 'And I suspect we'll have itiin another-6- couple weeks.< We're pressing hard on the owner so that 7 we can understand why it failed. 8 MR. ROTH: And thenLonce you have that, when 9 do you'feelEthat system would be in workingf order?

MR. ROCHE:

Okay. Aside'from.the compressor, 11-which we now have repaired and is in-working order, we 12 still have these two components, the blender dryer and 13 the pelletizer. And at this point, there's-two problems 14 with the blender dryer. There's a valve,at-theLbottom j 15 of the blender dryer-that when that valve is opened, the - 16 material drops from the blender dryer. That valve is I 17 not working properly. We don't want to put any 18 radioactive-material in there until-the-valve works ~ 19 7 properly. We're waiting for an adequate modification to 20 the blender dryer before we do-it. I suspect we're 21 talking a number of weeks, for at least four weeks, l 22 maybe longer. 23 The second-is, the blender dryerLwe-think is-24 operating at the edge of its chiller capacity. There is 35 a chiller which removes heat-from the blender dryer. TILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Harmburg 787 2%-N23 York ?ti845-641$ P.4 l 8001W9327 l

i i E28: 1 1 .1 1 That chiller that'they-have in it, we think it's right 2

on the' edge of its capacity.

The temperature difference 3 -between the in and the out on the chiller istoo high. ~ 4 We want another chiller or an additional chiller put on 5 to increase the blender dryer capacity-- chiller 6 capacity on-the blender dryer._- That, I'm not sure of 9 7 how long that will take to get that chiller installed. 8 MR. ROTH: Just one further question. The 9 problems that you're facing, would they. be considered, 10 say, vendor-oriented type problems?- 11 MR. ROCHE: The, machine is~ owned by a 12 company, and the problems we.believe are the. vendor _'s to-13 solve. So we're seeing what we think is the system 14 linkups. The flows between the _ parts of the systems are- ~ 15 what's causing these kind of problems. f 16 MR. ROTH: Thank you. 17 MR. ROCHE: So-I think the answer is, yes, 18 Joel. .i 19 MR. MORRIS: Anybody else? 20 If not, let me ask you.one quick questionsfor 21 Tom Smithgall. How many canisters did you end up with? 22 MR.. SMITHG ALL : He gave me that and I' heard 23 it. Don't worry about it. 24 MR. ROCHEg I gave it to him. 25 MR. MORRIS: How many was it? FILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 2%-06D Nork 71743-M18 PA E400-2D-9H7

1 c: i 29 1 1 MR. ROCHE: 322 canisters so far. We should- -l 2 end with 342. 3 MR. MORR IS : You.should end with 342, which j 4 leaves how many? 5 MR. ROCHE: We have.360. i 6 _MR. MORRIS: Okay. Could you ship;them to-7 Tom Smithgall? He can give you his_ address later on. 8 MR. ROCHE: If :we could get Tom's address, 9 we'll-- 10 MR. SMITHG ALL : I'll tell you what. We can 11 ship all of this paper that Mike Masnik has sent me. ~ 12 I'll put it into a canister.- 13 MR. ROCHE:' Put it into a canister.' 14 MR. MORRIS: -:Thank you very much.for your. 15 request on that. L 16 The next. item is11 tem 3, the statusEof the-L 17 NRC activities. 18 MR. MASNIK: Good evening,'Mr. Chairman. I'm l 19 Mike Masnik, and next to me is Lee Thonus. I 20 There are three activities I'd like to 21 discuss with a little bit of detail tonight to keep you l 22 informed of the status. 23 The first is the inattentiveness issue. 24 We've had an enforcement action ongoing since about-25 1987. It was when a former shift supervisor at TMI i FILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 2%0623 York 717-N3-Ml8 PA 1800-233-9327

l. c. L 30 1 was accused-of sleeping. on duty. Additionall'y, it was 1 2 .[ alleged -that various levels of site management failed to 3 correct this' condition when they: initially received 4 indications _that a_ problem existed. _The NRC is pursuing 5 two enforcement actions, one against the. individual that. 6-was inattentive and one against the management.- 7-When we met last, I mentioned that' 01's. 8 investigation was referred to the U.S. Department of 9 Justice. Well, the Department of Justice informed ~the 10 NRC late last October that it was_ declining prosecution 11 at this juncture pending resolution of NRC's enforcement ~ 12 process. i 13 On February 2nd of 1990, the NRC staff 14 conducted an enforcement conference in King of Prussia, 15 Pennsylvania. The licensee-was in attendance'at:that 16 timt;. The results of that conference should.be q 17 available within the next couple of months. 18 MR. SMITHGALL: Are you saying that-there 19 hasn't been a decision made, or the decision ~is made-~and 20 you haven' t printed.it yet? 21 MR. MASNIK: There has not been--- 22 MR. SMITHGALL: I'll ask the obvi~ous 23 question. 24 MR. M AS NIK : The decision has not been-made. 25 It's in-the process of being made. FIllUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 7112%0ei23 York 717 MS-M18 P4 t 800-2%9327

o I 31 1 MR. THONUS - My1name is Lee Thonus.' I'll 2 give you a quick rundown on what happened on the 3 overexposure enforcement. 4 The first thought =I haveton the slide was an 5 overexposure event where an individual's extremity, his 6 hand was overexposed on September 25th, 1989. 7 Inspectors from regional office came out, tookia-look at 8 the circumstances. There-was an enforcement-conference 9' held with the utility on November 22nd. 1 10' And while the NRC was still deliberating the-11 information that had been gathered by the. inspectors 1and 12 additional information provided by the licensee.at the1 i 13 enforcement conference and~trying toJdecide what action 14 to take, there was an additional? event regarding-15 u npl a nned - e xpos ur e. The. unplanned exposure was. where an - 16 individual was exposed'to a= source ofiradioactiv'ity but l 3 17 there was. no overexposure. High-dose rates were J 18 involved, but the amount of time involved' was measured i 19 in seconds. And the NRC reconvened the enf orcement { 20 conference uon December 4th to look at 'thef second event I 21 to see if there were any ' commonalties, was the problem 22 continuing? And ultimately, the staf f decided that they. 23 were two separate, isolated-- they really weren't much 24 in the way of common root causes. 25 On January-11th, 1990, the staff. imposed'a FILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hemsburg 117 236-0623 York 787 843-641s P.413% 33-9327

j' '4 32 l 1 civil penalty in the amount of $50,000, = and on February - 2 8th, the licensee paid it. 3 In addition to that, the staff, with-the, 4 January lith letter, set up the' specifics'of'the 5 violation, what the licensee had to correct.- And-in 6 response, in a'ddition to the $50,000 che ck~,, the-7 licensee-- There's a great deal of documentation. And 8 Mike provided you copies._ -It's about that thick, about' 9 what corrective actions were involved-and what ' the'- 10 underlying-. root causes were.- If anybody- - Mike andJI' 11 l are trying to stay within1our. ten minutes, also.- But if q i l 12 lanyone has any questions, I'll be glad to try and answer l 13 them. I i 14 MR. ROTH: Yes. This is going to' sound 15 silly. But when did you send GPU's answer to us-- not 16 the answer. I was just reading.. They sent a check for 17 $50,000-- 18 MR. THONUS: On. February 8th. 19 MR. ROTH - --and a letter that said cheir i 20 response is being submitted under1 separate cover. 1 21 MR. THONUS: February 9th. 22 MR. ROTH: You'sent that to us on February 23 9th? i 24 MR. THONUS: No. They-sent it to us on' 25 February 9th. FILIUS & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE ' Hamsburg 787 2no623 York 717 M3.MI6 _ PA 1800-233-9327

E ~" .33 1 MR. ROTH: Have we received that yet? .2 l _ MR. M AS NIK : _I'm not sure, Joel. I would j 3 have to check. 4 MR. ROTH: Could you: check? Because in-the 5 interest of fairness, I know GPU would' have_ a problem-- 6 Me speaking on behalf'of fairness for them. But we have ~ 7 seven pages of what,you said they did, and we have 8 nothing on.their response. So just to equalize it.- 9 MR. MASNIK - If.I determine that you don't 10 have it, I'll-be glad-to send it to_you. 11 MR. ROTH: Well, I don't have-it. 12 MR. MORRIS: It's not in tonight's packet. 13 MR. MASNIK: I don't believe it's in 14 tonight's package. 15 MR. MORRIS: So I don't think.we got it. 16 Any-other' questions at'this point? 4 17 MR. MAS NIK : I have one more item.- Mike 18 Masnik. One more item I'd'like to cover'briefly is the - 3 19 accident generated water. . i 20 On February 28th, 1990, the Atomic Safety and 21-Licen. sing Appeals Board affirmed the' Licensing Board's 22 decision on disposal of accident-generated water.- AndlI .3 23 believe I sent that to you in a separate mailing. The. l l 24 time provided by NRC regulations within which the q 25 Commission may act to reviewi the Appeals Board -decision TillUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 787 236 0ei23 York 117 843.Mts PA 1400 233 9327

1 2._. [- 34 1 expired. And, therefore, the-decision became the final 2 , agency action on the 28th of February, 1989-- I'm sorry. 3 1990. 4 MR. SMITHGALL: Say that again, Mike. Let me 5 see if I could summarize it in my-mind.: Tell me: if I'm 6 right or wrong. The Commission has a certain period of. 7 time in which to respond. They did not. respond. 8 Therefore, the decision stands because they. didn't say-9 anything? 10 MR.-MASNIK: ' That 's ' cor re ct.. And-now, the 11 lonlyrelief from the agency's action would-have.to be 12 outside the agency within the court system. 13 MR..SMITHG ALL : But thefCommission didn't 14 l take any formal action? ] 15 MR. MASNIK: No, they-'did not. 16 MR. SMITHGALL: Is there a' reason why they 17 didn't take a. formal' action on something like that? 18 MR. MASNIK: I can't answer for the . j 19 Commission. I'm sorry. 20 MR. THONUS: Lee Thonus. I'm1not-sure if 21 we've left the correct impression for all the people in 22 the room. Although, I imagine the maj ority of the I ' ) 23 people are knowledgeable with either NRC or state or 24 utility employees. - i 25 But for those that aren't, either of the FILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE flamsburg 717 2%-0623 York 787445-Ml8 P A 14%233-9327 +

m[.. li 35 1 parties has a certain period of time to request a. review 2 of the Appeals Board decision.. And.if neither party-- 3 And.there's a time clock on that which-it exp. ired. .And 4 if neither party decided to appeal the-previous 5 decision, then the Commission, on their own right, has 6 the right to re-review it'even if the two parties 7 i nv olv e d, neither one of them ask f or review. And I 8 would think it would-be-unusualefor the Commission-to .9 review something that neither.of the parties are 10 appealing to the Commission on. But ce r t ainly, the j 11 Commission may' do that from time to time.. 1 12 MR. MORRIS: Anything else-from the panel?- 13 .M.. MASNIK: I'd like to.go on'to-the next' R s 14 topic, which is the staff. review of the:11censee's 15 defueling' completion report. 16 Mr. Rogin gave.you1the background on the mode 17 changes.- And I will not go over-this again in.any. 18 detail. However, the TMI-2 license authorizes the mode j 19 changes reflecting the. safety significance of the 20 facility as the cleanup progresses. The. lice nsee - is 21 currently in mode 1, and to transition to mode 2, the 11 22 licensee must demonstrate that certain facility i 23 conditions are met. 1 24 The next slide, please. I 25 To transition to mode-2, the licensee must TIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE ffarris6 irg 717.U6-063 tork 737 84 buts PA 1800 Ub9M7

16' Il .36 1 demonstrate that the reactor vessel and the reactor. 2. coolant system are defueled to the extent achievable, 3 that criticality is precluded, and that there-are no - i 4 canisters containing core material in the reactor i building. q 6-With respect.to.the first condition, the' 7 staff.will be reviewing the tapes that the. licensee j 8 based its decision and the=DCR on. 'In the last-coup 1'e 9' of days, we've previewed'some of these tapes and have 10 been reviewing the~11censee's procedures as welloas 11 developing some criteria for our own review. 12 With respect to the'second condition, we've r 13 asked ~our contractor at' DOE lHanford to conduct the 14 review of the licensee's criticality.analys'is. You 15 could imagine this is a -pretty. complicated-model. It's-16 actually a series of models. 17 Once the contractor has completed.this 18 review, they 'll pr ovide us with a ' repor t, and we will l 19 have our own in-house criticality experts located down 20 in a Washington : review both the licensee's submittal as 21 well as our contractor's review of that. We want to be 22 absolutely certain that cr-Iticality-i.s precluded in this 23 facility. 24 The final conditionfis certification that. 25 there are no canisters containing core material'in the FIUJS & AlcLUCAS REPORTIVG SER\\7Cr Hamskserg 717 236-0623 York ?!7 843-641$ P.A 180&233-9327 w

i c 37 1 , reactor building. And:as Mr. Rogin stated,_we-Will~ i lprobably h'andle this by sending in'an--inspector or 2 3 inspectors into the reactor building.to determine that,- 4 indeed, there are no canisters containing *uel in.the 5 reactor building. 6 Once all three of-these conditions are-7 satisfied and if they're satisfied, wel plan to issue _a 8 letter to-the licensee on the transition from mode 1 to 9 mode 2. 10 Our current schedule, barringi any' problems, 11-would call f or our review to be completed by the end'-'of. 12 April. 13 Are there any questions? 14 MR. MORRIS: Yes. If you continue to speak, 15 Mike, if you could bring the mike-a littlei bit closer. 16 Any qutations from anybody? 17 MR. SMITHGALL: Yes. Just,.again, I'll as'k 18 you what I asked GPU maybe for future reference." Who's' j 19 the author of mode 1, mode 2, mode 37 Not that I -20 necessarily disagree _with-the premises. But I'm 21 wondering-- I'm talking about-the process here. j 22 MR. MASNIK: The processris-- i 23 MR. SMITHG ALL t. The licensee develops the 24 modes, and you review them, and you approve them as -the 25 licensee authors them? I FillUS & hicLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Wemburg 717 2%0623 York 117 MS-M15. PA I 800 231-9327

.c h 38 1 MR.-MASNIK: It's typically a simple process 2 g to explain but a'.dif ficult process to= implement. 3 As you say, the licensee comes forward::with a 4 license and.then the: request.,.The-staff; conducts a 5' review. And depending -on the type cof -request,, the! 6 complexity and: what is - asked f or, that could be a very ~ 7 , cimple review involving sever al ' months,' or, in this; 8

case, I-believe it was about a year or_ aLyear and a halft 7

9 before it was finally approved. ItMtook quite: a f ew l 10 iterations, quite a bit of' analysis on our part.- And 11 the final document-- and I believe I have a copy with me' l 12 tonight --is about a half an-inch thick. 13 MR. MORR IS : Any other questions?- I I 14 Okay. Thank you, Mike:and! Lee. -j 15 The next item on the agenda is-public 16 comment. And there were two people : that asked f or time- ~ 27 on the agenda. I don't see either one of them, I. don't 18 think. One is Francis Skolnick. Is1 Francis here? q 19 (No ' response) 20 MR. ' MORRIS : The other is Eric Epstein;' I 1 21 don't see Eric here. -22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Eric will be here-and I '1 23 speak at the second'public comment. i 24 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 25 Would anybody f rom the public like at - th'is FILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE H.amsburg787 2%-0623 Tork 717 845-Mit PA 18#233-9127

~. 39- 'l time to come forward? 2 Yes,:ma'am. -If you would-- I do want to 4 3 remind everybody that in. orde r to allow. everybody an 4 opportunity to speak, ~if you.could limit yourocomments 5 to five minutes', it would be appreciated. 6 MS. BAKER: My name -is" Debbie Bake r, 'and I am I 7 here tonight to represent the. Three Mile LIsland: Citizens' 8 Monitoring-Network. The group is in its infancy. 9 I have spent the last;past weekucanvassing 10 the neighborhoods in our areas. .The people know that 12 11 evaporation is imminent. Their. concerns are that it is-12 done right. The many problems plaguing the evaporator ) 13 at this time leaves a lot to be desired.- I have no 14~ doubt-- I mean, I have lot of - doubts 1whether GPU-can, in p 15 fact, accomplish this evaporation process successf ully.' 16 The other concerns are-decommissioning ofLthe 17 facility. We are lef t with parts of Unit 12 remaining 18 highly : radioactive ' f or years. I1 teel this panel should I 19 remain until evaporation and decommissioning are 20 completed. If we have to accept both processes, at-21 least, allow the people an avenue to-express their 1 22 concerns if there are any problems. }1 23 That's it. 24 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 4 25 And I would suggest that' those individuals 1 HLIUS & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE fferris6.q 777 2M-0623 - Yora 727 843-H!8 P.41800 213 9327

i _40 1-that would like to of fer" comment regarding item 7, which 2 is the f uture of the panel, we'll be more than-you' can 3 say it' now if you'd like, but we'd be more than. happy to 4 - make sure that you -have. an. opportunity. to speak during' 5 our-discussions. 6 Yes, sir. 7 MR. MANIK My name is Al'Manik. 8 Some time ago, I mentioned that-75 railroad 9 cars would clean up the mess that there is on the island ' l 10 to get rid of that water. And if this was' f ollowed,= you 11 wouldn't have to worry about that tonight. .However, 12 this evaporator, if it doesn't work, how are they-going' 13 to get the water out of.there? And;there's-a good 14 possibility.it will not work, 15 MR. MORR IS : Are you asking that as a 16 rhetorical or a direct-question?' 17 MR. MANIK: That's-a direct. question. I'm 18 stating it will not work. --[ 19 MR. MORRIS: . ell, it's been studied. It's W 20 been litigated. At this point-- o 21 MR. MANIK It's been-talked about a long 22 time, if.that's.what you want to say, and nothing-has i 23 been done. 1 24 MR. MORRIS: Well, it's only recently that-1 25 the litigation end of it, the hearing end of it was l TILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SER TCE Hamsburg 71) 236-0623 York 7ti 845 M18 P.41600-233 9327

41 t i 1 i c ompl e te d. Now it's in the hands really of the NRC as i 2 overseer and GPU to carry out the evaporation. 3 I mean, other panel members can speak to it i 4 if they wish. But really, at this point, you can make a 5 public comment, because that's what we're here for, but i 6 - I think there's very little that the panel can do in 7 response to the evaporation other than f ollow it and i 8 make comments as time goes on. Certainly, we can do l l 9 that, and we can act as a sounding board as well. But 10 as far as the evaporation continuing, that's the way the-1 11 law is determined at this point. 12 MR. MANIK Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. l l 14 Yes, ma'am. 15 MS. D AV IS : I have a question. Beverly } i 16 Davis. i 17 In the presentation that was just given, it 18 was indicated that the original figure'for arriving at f 19 critical mass, if I understood correctly, was L140 20 kilograms. And since they knew they had a lot more than 21 that, they went back and did new figures. This is - 22 typical. But do I understand that they came up with 23 6,700 kilograms as being acceptable now? And while this 24 is complicated, is there some simple explanation f or the i 25 public, because that seems~1ike a' strange, huge gap? l TILIUS & AscLUCAS REPORTING SER\\1CE u-~.,,,,. n u ,.,u,r. ~,, n,.n u m, t i

i j 42 1 MR. MORRIS: Maybe GPU could speak to that. 2 i Six thousand and something was the number they indicated. 3 for criticality. I can't recall the initial number. 4 You said it was a hundred and some. I don' t recall j that. l 6 MS. DAV IS : 140 kilograms is what I noted. 7 And I really-- I mean, there's such a wide disparity { t 8 there that I don't understand that. j 9 MR. MORRIS: Would you like to stay there in l 10 case you have another f ollow-up question? It might make 11 it easier. 12 MR. ROG IN : Bob Rogin. { i 13 What I actually said was that when we 14 progressed through defueling and began to understand 15 more about the nature of the fuel, we did an additional 16 analysis of the criticality potential of the TMI-2 f uel i l 17 in its general characteristic nature, and we f ound out l 18 that it would take 140 kilograms of fuel in a proper l 19 geometric configuration,-properly moderated and so on, 20 to support a criticality. 21 That number is significant in that we had 22 throughout most of the cleanup used a number of 74 3 23 kilograms. You may recall that number was the one we 24 had arrived at very early in def ueling, because we were l 25 looking at a number to ensure that no matter what I ( l TILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 711 2 % 0623 1erk Tit-MS.Mit F41000 233 9327

l 43 1 l happened during defueling, when we were rearranging the i 2 l internals of the core and removing f uel, we could not 3 ' have a criticality during defueling. 13 4 The 140 kilogram number is a valid number in i 5 our minds 'f or a simple isolated geometry with all the i 6 optimal conditions for criticality.- 7 The vessel is looked at as a single component i 8 within the system. The vessel clearly exceeded 140 j I 9 kilograms. The vessel is also of a geometric 10 configuration and size so that you could have several 11 volumes or discrete quantities of fuel within the vessel 1 12 that don't interact with each other and, therefore, j 13 would not f orm a single volume f or purposes of 14 criticality. i 15 So we wanted to know what was required in l 16 order for the vessel itself, as large as it was and f 17 since it was likely to be the largest component in which 18 residual fuel would reside and, also, the largest single i 19 quantity of fuel in terms of components, we wanted to 20 know what could be tolerated there. So we, with.the 21 help of the Oakridge' National Laboratories, did a very i 22 complex model in which we packed fuel everywhere that we 23 thought it could possibly reside after we cleaned out 24 the central-- the centroid of the vessel.. l 25 And what we found out was that if you flLIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE Hemsburg 717 2M-0623 104 ?!7 84H18 P.41880133 9327.

l O f 44 i I considered optimally moderated fuel and you considered 2 that everything was pellet size or smaller-- or larger, 3 rather-- smaller, excuse me, and you did an analysis, a j 4 very complex analysis for criticality purposes, you 5 f ound out that it would take 6,700 kilograms of fuel 6 packed into the vessel in this model configuration, ) 7 which was the worst case configuration, by the way, in 8 order to support a criticality. 9 .What that told us was then that there was a 10 point that we had to get to below which we were starting 11 to be relatively assured, reasonably assured and, i 12 ce r t a i nly, sooner or later, absolutely assured we would 13 not have a criticality. 6,700 was not intended to be, 14 you could just take a great big clump of fuel 6,700 15 kilograms and that replaces 140. It's two different 16 discussions, two dif f erent analyses. 17 And the reason we had to do the second one, 18 again, is because you had a large quantity of fuel in a 19 single component, and that exceeded 140 kilograms, which 20 is the standard critical number. And so we had to make 21 sure we understood what that meant in that 22 configuration. 23 Thank you. 24 MR. MORRIS: Was that helpf ul? l l 25 MS. DAVIS: Not really, but if that's the TILIUS & AlcLUCAS REroRTING SER\\' ICE H.umsburg ilt.2%ss2) f ork ?ti-MS M1, P41.SW233 9327

45 1 only explanation-- 4 2 MR. RICE: I have one question. In the 1 3 reactor vessel, there's 900 kilograms remaining; 4 correct? 5 MR. ROG IN : Right, approximately by what I 6 would consider a conservative estimate right now. 7 MR. RICE:- And that's spread out among all I 8 the different parts and crannies and film and so forth? 9 MR. ROG IN : Right. 10 MR. RICE: When this decays, assuming you're 11 going to post-monitor def ueling like you'd like to, then -] 12 will it coordinate with the Unit 1 decommissioning of 15 13 years, or will it last longer, the decay of the active 14 fuel? 15 MR. ROG IN : The decay of the fuel that's left. ] 16 in the vessel will take longer than the time that's i 17 necessary in order for us to reach the point where we 18 could simultaneously defuel Unit 1 and Unit 2 together. 19 What does happen is a couple things. 20 One, by virtue of decay, the exposure to_the 21 worker will significantly decrease,. not so much because l 22 of the fuel as it:will because of the. activated-- the 23 cobalt 60 from the activation of the reactor vessel-24 metals during the cleanup process in the accident. I l 25 But it will also provide us a.better field [ -- Til!US & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE i Hamshag 737 236 462) Vert ?!?-843 M18 f% IM233-9J27 I

46 1

dosewise in which to go after the fuel.

But the fuel i 2 !hasafairlylonghalflife,asyouknow. And 15 or 20 i i 3 or 30 years, while it will make some dif ference, it ( 4 doesn't make the same amount of difference as does the j 5 halflife of cobalt, which is the significant contributor ) 6 to the problem of man exposure today in the vessel. 7 MR. RICE: I have another question. Once it { 4 8 dies, is it dead? Can you put something on it to make-I 9 it alive again? I'm not a scientist. i 10 MR. ROG IN : No, I don't really think so. -I 11 don't think you or I will be around long enough to_ test I i 12 'that theory. But it decays. And as it decays-, it 13 decays. And then after so many halflives,.it no longer 14 has any radioactive decay potential. l l 15 MR. RICE: Thank you. 16 MR. R OG IN : But that's a long time. 17 MR. MORRIS : You may not be the one to.ask 18 this question. And.it's unrelated related somewhat to 19 what you've been saying here. But is it June of this 20 year when the funding plan is required to be submitted l 21 or July of this year that ~ the funding plan is required l 22 to be submitted f or decommissioning of all nuclear power 23 plants? 24 MR. ROG IN : Yes. I think Mr..Roche can 25 address that.. ElllUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 787 2% 0s23 1erk ilt-MS-M18 P.41600 233,327

t' l 47 l 1 MR. ROCHE: The NRC has a requirement that 2 j f unding plans be cubmitted in July. And as we've 3 described to the panel in the past, we intend to do 4 that, make that submission in July. 5 MR. MOP 21S: Good. Thank you. 6 Any other questions from the public or 7 comment from the public? 8 MS. DAVENPORT: Deborah Davenport from 9 Concerned Mothers. 10 MR. MORRIS: Deborah, please, if you could 11 bring the mike. Thanks. If you could just pull the 12 mike maybe a little closer. 13 MS. DAVENPORT: First of all, I wanted to 14 know what contamination remains below the reactor 15 vessel, because I ask this every time that there's a-16 meeting, and what are they going to go about it? Have 17 they determined there's nothing there at all?. 18 In addition, in the reactor basement sump in 19 the walls and in the walls of the' reactor building 20 generally and things that have leached into the walls, 21 can they be released over time, or if there was some 22 episode there, could there be a problem? I'd like to 23 know how much contamination has been lef t in the wall, 24 maybe to what depth and inches might be there, what it 25 consists of? FILIUS & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SER\\' ICE Harmburg ?lt.236 0623 York ?lt.MS-Mlo PA l-800 233 9327

48 1 MR. MORRIS: Mike, could you speak to both of 1 l those questions, one, as to radioactivity or 2 j 3 contamination below the reactor, and the other one on j l 4 chances of: radioactivity, I guess, going through the 5 walls into the surrounding area? 6 MR. ROCHEs The first question in terms of 7 the material below the reactor vessel, ve have never 8 looked below the reactor vessel. We did attempt to make 9 an estimate of that, and we have that information in the 10 defueling completion report. 11 The reason that we're sure that the value is 12 low is because all the evidence to date indicates that 13 , the reactor vessel held, that the evidence of the hot i 14 tear, for example, on the cladding and the evidence that-3 15 we described earlier from Argonne Labs that says that i 16 there is no crack below that hot' tear continues to 17 support the idea that the vessel didn't leak, which 18 would be how that material would get below' the vessel. 19 As for the basement, we have had a robot.in J-20 the basement. The robot did do a acabbling cleanup kind 21 of action there where the robot was able to' access.- We 22 have in the defueling completion report an estimate of-23 the amount of fuel that is in the basement,.so that's 1 24 kind of the one part. 25 I think the other question was material IlllUS & AtclUCAS REPoRHNG SERYlCE Hamswg ist 2%M3 tork ist m ws.PA 1400 233 9327 l

i 49 ~ i 1 leaching from the concrete. 2 j Areas that we were able to either use our 3 high-pressure wash or scabbling, we believe that those 4 areas of concrete has been removed. The thickness of 5 the concrete has been removed that had that material in 6 it. 7 For areas that we were not able to access-- 8 You'll remember, in September of last year, we described 9 the work on the block wall. On the back side of the 10 block wall, we were not able to get a robot there. So 11 clearly, there are areas in the basement that have, for 12 example, the block wall, material, cesium in the 13 material. 14 In terms of leaching out, we did do an 15 experiment. Oakridge National Lab did an experiment on 16 the leachability of this material. Their predictions 17 from their work would tell you that there's not a great 18 amount of leachability, that is, not a-lot of material 19 is going to leach out unless there's something there, 20 unless there's water there, for example, that would act i 21 as kind of a force to pull it out. As you know, we will 22 drain the-water all the way down the basement. So our i 23 intent is to try to remove the water to prevent the 24 water acting as a force for leaching. 25 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. TillUS & AfcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Namsbum ilt.2% N23 tork ilt-MS Mt, PA 15*0 233 9327

l 50 1 MS. DAVENPORT: Thanks. I 2 MR. MORRIS: Any other questions / comments? 3 If not, we would go to the next item, which 4 is a break. And hopef ully maybe.the cooling system will 5 be working by the time we come back. 6 (Recess) 7 MR. MORRIS: Excuse me. We'd like to begin 8 the second part of the program of the agenda. We are 9 now at item 7 on the agenda, and that is future of the 10 TMI-2 Advisory Panel. 11 { As introductory comments on that, let me say 12 that I have asked Mike Masnik to put this item on the 13 agenda for a couple of reasons. 14 One is that this panel was constituted back, 15 Joel Roth tells me, come this Octobe r, ten years ago. 16 And we were constituted at that time, I believe, for a 17 cleanup activity that was projected to last something 18 like four years, plus or minus years. And, obviously, 19 we've long exceeded that, and I think good reason, 20 because the cleanup was not completed and our charge 21 remained. 22 However, with the f uel, 99 percent of the 23 fuel having been removed, it appeared to me that it was 24 time for us to discuss this issue and try to at least 25 give some of the members that have been on the panel l TillUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE Mmshrg ?!!.236-Os23 )ork 787.MS MI, PA t.800-233.U27

0 l 51 1 that long a period of time some sense of when we believe 2 our job will. be through or done. 3 There are still two issues that I remain j 4 personally interested in. There may be other ones, but 5 I think two main ones. 6 One is the issue regarding the evaporation H 7 and at least the start-up of the evaporation. 8 And the other one is any future action 1 9 regarding PDMS; my concern on that being mostly to do j l 10 with the funding that would be provided by GPU for 11 ultimate cleanup, knowing, as we've been told in past 12 meetings, that that cleanup might not take place f or 20, 13 40, 90 years or whatever. I mean, I do recall at one of 14 the meetings that 90 years with extensions is possible 15 for final decommissioning. So I personally maintain 1 16 concern for the fact as to whether money would be 17 available when that time came. 18 So, in my mind, they are two concerns I. 19 continue to have. 20 Having said that, I still feel the panel 21 needs at some point to deal with this issue and' felt 22 this evening it would be good f or us to talk about, 23 receive comments from the_public and receive comments 24 from the panel members on what they feel. ? 25 It's not my suggestion tonight that we try to IILIUS & AtcltlCAS REPORTING SERVICE Harmbaq 787 2 % -0623 York 717 MS MDS P.418W233 9327 __~

52 1 take action that we should disband as of this evening. i 2 I think some people may have thought that that was the 3 idea. That's certainly not the idea behir..:. this agenda 4 item. It's simply to get some discussion and sense of S the panel for the future of our existence, j i 6 With that, I would open it up. And maybe 7 what we should start out with here is reverse the order i 8 of this, unless the panel disagrees, and give the public i i 9 ten minutes or so initially if there's people.that have 10 comment they want to offer for consideration, and'then j 11 we would go into some discussion between ourselves en i 12 the issue. l 13 Does anybody have a problem with that? i 14 If not, is there anybody here f rom the public 15 'that wants to speak to this specific issue? ) 16 It's Eric Epstein. And if you would like to ] 17 come forward, Eric. 18 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes. I also have time reserved 19 for PDMS. Are we going to get to that? i 20 MR. MORRIS: Yes, we will get to that. l i 21 MR. EPSTEIN: I would j ust like to say-- 22 MR. MORRIS: Let me say that if-- There were ) 23 two people who asked f or time on the agenda. One was 24 Eric, and the other one was Francis. We will provide 1 25 opportunity f or the two of you in the public comment nuus &.uaucAs atroansa stanct Hamsbum 1812%-0s23 York fl1.MS. MIS PA 18002119327

53 l l 1 ! period on issues other than the one that's before us 2 ' r igh t now. And if you'd like to speak to this issue, 3 please do so. 1 4 MR. EPSTEIN: Just for a minute. My name is 5 Eric Epstein. I'm from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 6 For the record, my new address is 2308 i 7 Brandywine Drive. I'm still getting stuff to a rural i 8 delivery in Liverpool, and.it just takes a while. Eric 9 Epstein, 230 8 Brandywine Drive, Harrisburg, l 10 Pennsylvania, all-around good citizen here to testify. 11 MR. MASNIK: Your zip, plea se ? 16 12 MR. EPSTEIN: 17110. I have a toll-f ree L 13 number, also. 14 MR. M AS NIK : Which is? 1S MR. EPSTEIN: Only if you're calling f rom 16 Wisconsin f or a Ginsu knife set. 17 All I would say is.this: I understand the l 18 exasperation and the f rustration of meeting f or almost J 19 up to ten years, I guess, Joel. I just think it's 'I q t-20 important that you all in some form.or the-other stay l i 21 around until the issue of funding at least for. PDMS is-1 I j j 22 re s ol ved. Evaporation seems to be at least moving-23 towards a final resolution. But I think the PDMS issue 24-is rather unclear, especially the issue of funding. And 25 I know the re's a lot of people who have a lot of EILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE H.imiteurg 717 2M-462J 1 era ?17 86 6418 P.4 f.800 23>.f M7 ~

4 l 54 i 1

concerns about it.

2 So, I mean, that's all I really wanted to 3 'say. You don't have to meet as f requently as you dos 4 maybe less frequently. But at-least until the package 5 comes out, which I don't think is mandated by the.NRC 6 until sometime late this year, as far as for a 7 decommissioning rule. 8 MR. MORRIS: July. 9 MR. EPSTEIN: So that's all I would plead 10 for, stay together in some form until we have some idea 11 h ow they're going to fund PDMS and at leastL examine 12 their funding mechanism for decommission. 13 In addition to that, if you all do disband, I 14 think we should invite the Consumer Advocate and the 15 Public Utility Commission to attend one of these 16 meetings to see how they feel about the funding 17 me chanisms f or decommissioning of PDMS. j 18 So that's all I would to say. And I hope to i 19 see you all a little later on in the meeting, also.. t 20 MR. MORRIS: We'll look. forward to it, Eric. 21 Just so we don't forget the comment, that at 22 some point, if we continue, which I'm assuming we will 23 on that very issue, that it may be good to have some i 24 invited guests to speak to that issue. I 25 Anybody else from the public that would like TILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Namsbon 737 236 0623 ' 1'ork 717.S45 6418 PA 18%233-9M7 ....., ~..

55 1 ltospeaktothisissue? 2 MR. DAV IS : Frank Davis. i \\ 3 I I would just like to-speak briefly in behalf 4 of the panel continuing its activities, because I think 5 over this past ten years, this f orum has been the only 6 one in which the media and the public of this area l 7 really have gotten a sense of what really Lis going on in ) i 8 the cleanup. And we come and we ask sometimes dumb l 9 questions, and sometimes we ask smart questions. And i 10 with the intercession of this body, I think we've~gotten 11 a lot more information than we ever would have gotten 1 12 about the accident itself in some cases and about the ] 13 ,real problems and the real-activities going on in 14 cleanup. I think we know ten times as much about the i 15 situation because of your existence, and I hope it l 16 continues. Thank you. I 17 MR. MORRIS: Thank you.. 18 I want to mention, too, that while the panel 19 members, many of us have been members for. ten years and 20 come to these meetings, there 's been many citizens, :and 21 many of the people that are here tonight, that have come t 22 to many of those meetings, too, and have played a maj or 23 role throughout this whole process. And I don't want to 24 forget to mention that. l 25 We thank you, Frank. FILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SER\\1CE hrnsburg 717 2 % -0623 tork tii M3-Mle PA 1800 233-9327 ,,.,,3 v y e-- --+n - - - - - - - =

e i 56 j 1 Would anybody else like to speak to the j 2 jissue? i 3 Right here. ) 4 We'll take two other comments af ter this. I 5 think I saw two other hands. And then we'll turn to the 6 panel for some discussion. 7 MS.EDAVENPORT: Debbie Davenport, again, ) 8 Concerned Mothers. 9 I'm concerned, obviously, about this being 10 mothballed too soon. And I feel even-- and this.should ) i 11 be several years down the road --even should the panel 12 be disband, there should be some sort of oversight group i 13 that f ollows this, I would like to say, for another ten 14 years. I know that's a lot. But there should be some l 15 outside experts who review what's going ~on in that i 16 facility when it's shut down. That concerns me very 17 much. And I can't see that the panel should be disband 18 now when nothing is in place to watch the plant, to o l i 19 monitor the plant, to know, all in all, what's in the 20 plant and evaluate it overall. ] 21 MR. MORR IS : Thank you. l 22 MS. PICKERING: Kay Pickering, l 23 P-i-c-k-e-r-i-n g. l 24 I think that the time is not yet here for the l-l 25 panel to disband. There are too many unanswered C TillUS & AtclUCAS REPORTING SER\\'lcr Harruburg 711 2 %- % 23 1 ort il1.MS-Mis ' P4 D.SW233 9327

i 57 i 1 questions that the public has. And I know I feel like 2 ! the teacher coming to you with a report card to say I'm 17 3 the one who gets the calls in the TMI office. And that 4 continues to be true. 1'm there on a daily basis. It's 5 the only of fice in town, whatever-town it is, where 6 there's somebody at the other end of the phone. And I 7 get calls from all over-the United States, in fact, all j 8 over the world with questions about cleanup, Unit 1, 9 Unit 2. 10 But, of course, at this point in time, the 11 questions center around evaporation and the defueting. i 12 What are hey taking out? Where is it going? What is j i 13 , the research showing? What's wrong with the evaporator? 14 I mean, people have geared themselves.up to have that j 15 evaporation start October, then November, then December. t 16 So, each month, people say, well, what really is going i 17 on? And, yes, the company does press conferences and 18 they release information,.and, yes, the newspapers and 19 TV carry that. But' there's not 'that vehicle, that 20 report vehicle that the panel serves. And I think that-21 that's an important vehicle. I think that a lot of the 4 22 things that do come out wouldn't come out if the panel 23 weren't in place. l 24 You know, a watchdog doesn' t always have_ to ? 25 be barking. The watchdog is sitting there and waiting. Ell!US & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SERYlCr mmskmq 't? 2%-%23 tork 717 MS-MI, 1 % I s % 233 9327

0 58 1 And you, as the panel, are there in place. You're there i 2 l f or the company, you' re -there f or the NRC, and you're 3 there for the community, and you're there for the public 4 of ficial s, too. I mean, we're in touch with public 5 officials, both of the city, the county levels. And 6 that networking, that vehicle of the par.el in place and 7 that ;xview process is not just today, tonight. 'That's 8 a process that is in place that-serves a real purpose. 9' And I was one of these people almost ten 10 years ago-- well, over ten years ago who was looking f or 11 what kind of a vehicle could be put in pl ace. And I've 12 appreciated what the panel has done. I know that you' re 13 serving without pay, and it's a lot of time and-effort 14 to go through all those materials that you must get. 15 And you must have files and stacks and boxes with things 16 in. 17 But I would ask, and I ask on behalf of the 18 citizens at large and the people that call our office, 19 that you stay in place at least for another. year and 20 look at this again next year at-this time and see where 21 we are with PDMS, what's going on with evaporation and 22 what's going on with_the funding. 23 Thank you. 24 MS. D AV IS : Beverly Davis. I would second 25 what Kay has said, and I'd go a little bit farther.- TILIUS & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SER\\*lCr Harm 6 erg ?!? 2%-0623 forn ?!?.HbH18 P.4 1 800-233-9M?

59 1 We've talked about evaporation. First of 2 all, I'm not convinced that it will ever come of f, and 3 I'm certainly convinced it shouldn't. 4 In addition, it has been scheduled originally 5 f or two years. That would seem to me.to-indicate that. 6 there's a role for this panel for at least two years. I t 7 think beyond that, we'd have a lot of further questions 8 and further need for monitoring. But, certainly, if 9 you're talking about some kind of time frame, at least 10 two years. l 11 I think we all are very gratef ul to all of 12 the people that are putting in all of this volunteer 13 time and that have given up a lot of commitments in 14 other fields in order to do this. 1 l 15 What this has.provided and what it would 16 continue to provide I think is a liaison between the 17 information that comes from GPU and NRC official' l t 18 information, which is being filtered through enough l 19 different people coming from different angles,, coming l. 20 f r om gove r nment, coming from the scientific community l 21 and so on, that we' re certainly going to get both a E a 22 better balanced idea of what this means and, also,,a t l 23 better networking to provide the same information to a l l 24 lot of different communities that-exist within the whole 25 Harrisburg area. i flLIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hemsburg 117 236 062) Ysth 717.MhMis_ PA 1 500 233-9327

~l I 60 l i 1 I think that another thing that this panel 2

provides is a historical memory.

The-people-- Not all 3 of you have been on this panel all the time. But enough 4 people have been on for a long period of ' time that you 5 have a historical memory that if there are problems j i 6 along the way, you can. determine whether they are 18 ) 7 significant or whether they are something which is not 8 significant. And that's important, I think, to the 9 public, because the public doesn't have that kind of i 10 background generally to make those. kind of judgments. 11 So I think it's important that we keep a panel. I 12 If I call up, I'm one person and I get one i i 13 Ianswer. I interpret that through my experience and.I 14 pass it on to my neighbor. r 15 If you get the answers in your stack of l l 16 material here, you. interpret through a number of I 17 different fields and you. provide it to another a number 18 of dif ferent people, and especially providing the media 4 19 a medium regularly so that the press can' keep' track of 4 20 what's going on. 21 I know that you haven't, you'know-- I know i 22 that it's a burden to me. But I think that, for 23 example, you haven't met for, I believe, five or six [ 24 months here. So even if there's a minimum amount of 25 meetings, I think it will be important to continue., l TILIU4 & SklUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE Hamsberg 717 2%0ei23 York 717.M3.Mtc PA t.800 233 9327

'9 j 61 1 MR. MORRIS: Thank~you. 2 On that last note, I would hope that the 3 ~ panel would not decide to disband or make a i 4 recommendation to disband simply because it's a burden 5 to me, because those people that have served f rom the 6 very beginning can always choose-to step 'down if they 7 f eel at some point that they need to. commit time to 8 other things, and the panti can continue with some new j 9 faces, too. And from time to time, that's happened. 10 I want to remind the people here that Henry 11 Wagner was a person who served on this panel. Jean-12 Kohr, whom we all knew very well, served on this panel, 1 13 Jack Minnick, Tom Cochran, Nunzio Palladino, who.went on -l 14 to chair the NRC, and Joe'DiNunno, who are the six i 15 people I can recall that served and left the panel. ] l 16 And, yes, Bob Reed, the mayor f rom Middletown. 'Any 17 other member we're missing? 18 So there-have been times when people have ) 19 stepped down and the panel has continued. And 20 certainly, personally, I feel at some point in at least 21 some period of time I can measure, I feel it's time for 22 me to step'down. But that should not be a determination 1 23 of when the panel should end or shouldn't.end. I I 24 shouldn't vote because of that reason. 25 Any comments f rom the panel members on TilluS & AscLUCAS REPORTING SERYlCE m mehrg nr.2%oc3 urk nt sn-ws In t.000 233 9127

62 1 ! observations? i 2' [ Please, Fred. 3 MR. RICE: Well, I would like to agree with i 4 l Mr. and Mrs. Davis.and Debbie, Kay and Eric in your 5 comments. I think that we should continue, and even if 6 it is for ten years, in some forum. Even if we go into 7 a mode, just like GPU is going into mode 2 or mode 3, 8 maybe our body could be. reduced to five members j T 9 oversight, but continue, because I do feel that we have 10 been an important factor for the citizens and especially lfor the people around Middletown who.are much more 11 l 12 ! concerned than the people in the upper end of Dauphin 13 ! County. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 16 Any other comments anybody wants to of fer7 17 Why don't we go down the line. If people l 18 want to offer a comment, fine. If not, that's fine, 1 19 too. We'll start out with John. I' 20 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB John Luf telschwab. ? 21 The panel has had, I guess, two major l ? I 22 functions here. First is to advise the NRC, and the 23 other one is to hear the public and GPU and NRC. And 24 what I'm hearing from the comments:and my view is that l t t L 25 the advising part, I think, is over. There's nothing 1 FILIUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SER\\1CE Namabum 7112%0s23 tork 781 MS Mis - PA E4#213 9nt

63 l 1 i left for us to decide all of those things that have been 2 ,done before. And so the important part is to have some 3 sort of a public f orum in. which GPU can report what's 4 happening and that the public can make their comments 5 and questions to GPU, and then some forum of a body 6 appear, then can question GPU and NCR, also. I guess my 7 feeling is I'm not sure we need'to have 11, 12, members. 8 How many do we have? I didn't keep track of them. 9 MR. MORRIS: It's constituted as 12, but we 10 only have 11 members at this point. 11 MR. LU ETZ ELS CHW AB Okay. It could be 12 reduced to, I think, as Fred said, four or five maybe 13 and still serve the same function and then maybe meet 14 l twice a year or so or as the issues come up. 15 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 16 Anne, do you want to add anything? 17 MS. TRUNK: Well, I sort of agree with 18 everybody. I think we should keep going. We still have 19 problems. We still have the evaporation and the 20 funding. And as long as there's some radioactivity 19 21 around, the people in Middletown are worried. They want 22 to know what's happening. 23 I also feel that we should continue with a 24 limited amount of people; maybe meet once a year or 25 twice. But I don't think disbanding-is right at this TILIUS & AtclllCAS REl'oRTING SERVICE Herreseareg 727 2%e623.10,4 ?!7 N1 N#8 P4 I M233-9327 ) ^ ^ ~ - ^ ^ ^

l e 64 1 1 l time. 2 MR. MORRIS: Thanks, Anne.: 3 We've heard from Fred. 4 Joel? 5 MR. ROTH: Yes. My view or perspective, as. 6 one who's been involved since October of 1980, and just 7 to give some historical perspective that _ some - of the 8 people have - he re, too, is the fact that I was one of the 9 people from the area, among many, who was asked to 10 testify before Congressman Udal's committee after the 11 accident of what Congress or what people should do.. And 12 at that time, I happened to be chair of Three Mile Alert 13 representing the group. And our group went down saying 14 the main thing was to have citizen involvement. And 15 that was probably the main reason that we. pushed very 16 hard for what turned to be this panel. 17 And this panel, over the years, under Jack 18 Minnick as Chair, and now under X-Mayor Arthur E. 19 Morris, has made it a point to not only have the public 20 be able to speak but, also, to interact directly with 21 GPU and the NRC. And I think that has been a very, very 22 good point to see happen. I don't think initially that y 23 was the original _ intent maybe of the NRC. I don't know. 24 The funding issue keeps on being raised.; And 25 that's fantastic, because, again, that goes vay back to-FILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE W mshrg?!72Wus23 York ?lt.M%. Mis - P A 1800 2J3 9121 i

i 65 l 1 1980. Again, we went down to Washington on numerous 2 occasions lobbying, meeting again with Congressman Udal, 3 different senators, different congressmen, different 1 4 staff people concerning that issue. Also, we had 5 Congressman, at that time, Ertel. Gekas appeared bef ore 1 6 us. Thornburgh's people appeared bef ore us all on the 7 fund!,ng issue, which, again, was an issue that initially 8 was an issue that some people were very upset that we 9 were dealing with. -l 10 I would just like to disagree a little bit j 11 with what my colleague John Luetzelschwab said. I do i 12 think we still have an advisory capacity. And that~is 13 still on the funding issue. That's still a very 14 wide-open issue. l 15 I think we've spoken our mind' many times and, I [ 16 as a matter of fact, have gotten some feedback from some -{ 17 profossional people saying that we were the ones that 18 really kept it alive for a long time when it was almost i 19 a dead issue down.there. So not to give ourselves a pat l l 20 on the back, but as I told some of my f riends here on j 21 the panel, I was prepared.to filibuster tonight to make 4 l 22 sure that the panel would' keep going if I saw that there ) 23 was a vote against it. 24 This certainly is not an original. comment or ] 25 an original statement. But I think it really has to do l L l TILIUS & hklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE - l ,,.., p r.mu ,,4 m.m.,, c.4...m.,u, t ~ _ _,. _..

f 66 I 1 lwithwhatoccurredheretonightwith,well, the article i .i 2 jinthepaper,which I thought was very good. And I'm j 3 sure most of you have seen the editorial that was also i 4 in the paper. So I guess through all of these things 5 and to see the' interest, the statement with the news of 6 our demise has been greatly exaggerated. 7 I think we are going to be around whether in 8 mcde 1-- And Fred has suggested a mode 2 or mode 3, l 9 whateve'r. But still to be here to provide the forum for. 10 the citizens which was, I think, really one-of your i 11 major reasons for us, and, also, to advise, to meet with ] i 12 the NRC as well. ) 13 So, again, as Art has said, it's not a vote, 14 but I certainly would be one of the people who would 15 fight very strongly f or our continuation in some f orum. R 16 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, Joel. 17 Ken? 18 MR. MILLER: I have no comments. 19 MR. MORRISs Gordon? 20 MR. ROBINSON: I have nothing really to add 21 other. than I agree that a panel, a smaller panel, 22 perhaps, be constituted and meeting infrequently and 23 when some item of interest requires it to meet. But I 24 would like to see the funding through. So I would like 25 to have at least one more meeting with the' full' TILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICr Hamsburg tit.2%0623 York tit MM4ts P.41.sw233-9327

67 1 I committee. l 2 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Gordon. 3 Tom. 4 MR. SMITHG ALL : Since I'm on the tail end of j 5 this, I guess most things have been said. But I'll just-j 6 vote to continue. 7 Mike Masnik was nice-enough to compile a 20 8 little history on our panel, which he just has given me, q 9 but I had seen a little earlier. We had met-72 times. j i 10 And if people can remember, we are an independent 11 advisory panel that can directly provide ' input to the 12 commissioners, which is kind of a unique position to be i f in. 13 Part of our charter was-to provide advice and to q I 14 consult with ths. Commission. 15 So I think those are two parts to that that 16 are very important as far as our panel is concerned. 1 17 We also act as a conduit for local concerns 18 and opinions that can then get fed directly to the J ') 19 Commission. And we've gotten the opinion and have seen 20 that the commissioners do, in fact, read our minutes.. 21 They -are aware of what is going on. So it's a unique ] 22 position that we have here and one that I don't want to J l 23 see dissolved because we are getting tired of the issue. 24 The other comment I would have here, that our-25 charter does allow us to include discussion of health-TILIUS & hklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hemsbury 737 24 062J l'ere ?!7 H3 His M l 86233-9327

i 68 1 1 l ef fects. And with that, with the evaporation process to 2 , begin and concerns over PDMS, I still think we have an i 3 advising role to the Commission that we can provide that j 4 we should not forget about. l l 5-And it's an interesting note as well that I 6 though the members serve without pay,-- that has been 1 7 noted --I think, according to Mike, we've never failed j 4 1 8 to have a quorum. So we've had some interests, not only

i 1

9 coming this way f rom the public, but also from the panel + 10 back. I hope we don't forget that portion of it as 11 ,well. 12 In reference to sizing down the panel, I 13 would be a bit concerned about that to go into a mode, j 14 if you will, to use the vernacular of the evening. The 15 panel is quite balanced in its opinion and its 16 disciplines, in its backgrounds and in its point of view 17 about our discussion. And I would hope that if the 1 18 decision was to size down, that there would be a means 19 where that balance could continue, if that's at all-20 possible. But I would hope that we would consider that 21 -balance that we have nov before we would make a decision 22 to size down. I 23 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, Tom. 1 24 Well, I don't think there's any need to try l 25 to take any vote this evening, because I think it's TILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SER\\'!CE y Wmsbeg ?lt 236 Os23 ton hM45 MIC PA 1400 233 9nt '

69 1 clear that on'the whole, the panel f eels that we should 2 continue in some shape'or form, whether it's in a 3 reduced version of a panel or at the present size. ~ 4 Personally, I feel that, as I mentioned-5 earlier on, thatlthe issue on funding I believe we need u 6 to take up. We need to meet again to talk about the 7 submission by GPU to the NRC regarding the funding f or 8 defueling. I think that's - a maj or issue to be reviewed-9 by the panel and possibly one of the last remaining 10 items that we would want to make-some commentoto the-11 commissioners on. 12 It's possible that that matter could be. i 13 resolved by the panel, reviewed and discussed publicly q) 14 and resolved to the point that we would make comment.. I 15 think we could conclude that during th'e course of this 16 year. -) 17 Evaporation is the second item. We don't 18 know exactly when that's going to. start, but I would-19 assume that it will start by sometime' early summer,. June 20 or July. It seems reasonable that-that would happen. i 21 So, by the end of this year, we would have some six' l 22 months of operation underway. At that point, it may 23 make sense, again,, the panel to revisit the for 24 question. I 25 Personally, if those two items are as I said, FillUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Herm6mrg 7!7 236 0623 Yort 737-443-6418 P.4 7 800-2J3-9327 j

m 1" 70 1 if the panel has taken action on the funding as far as-2- recommendation or comment to the comreissioners and if 3 the evaporation is' underway, personally, I f eel that my 4 involvement-with the panel would probably conclude (at 5 that point. I would, feel that;I would need-to go on to 6 some other, things. I've-served ten years as an-7 individual. But as other people; havel said, andDI want 8 to restate,-I don't think that's a reason why the panel l 9 should or shouldn't exist' if people step down. 10 But it would be my intentionc at -that time, if 11 we are proceeding to.the points I've mentioned,-that-I ~ 'l l l 12 'would probably step down and let somebody else serve if-13 there's a need for the panel to continue. 14 But having said all of. thoseL things,. I-would 1 15 suggest that we talk about when.our next meeting would 16 be and leave further discussion on this issue:for later l 17 in the year and maybe at that point get a sense of the I 18 panel again. And if the sense is to' continue, those 19 members that want to continue should.- And a decision b l l 20 can be made as to whether-to downsize-or,not. And I 21 assume, Mike, that would have to go to the commissioners 22 in any event-for their action. 23 MR. MASNIK: Yes, it would. 24 MR. MORRIS: Anybody else would like to add 25 anything? TillUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 2%0623 York 737-3& Mis ' PA 1800-233 9327

i I 71-J i 1 1. If I've stated correctly what your-sense'is,- 2

we did ' indicate that we.would pr' ovide' an opportunity.

l 3 after this for two-individuals. I think there'sonly 4 one present at~this point. Okay'. So that - two people: 5 would want to make. comment. 6 ~ And, Eric, if you.are prepared to'come ~ 7. forward now. 8 As Eric is coming forward,el-do want to~not- 'i 9 neglect to, I think, thank GPU,. because I think. 10 sometimes we can be very critical 'of them. 11 [ I personally would like to-thank them and' 12 commend them for.their very ef fective action in removing J 13 the fuel. Many people, I think, were concerned.. I was 14 one. I think.they-were concerned-about the ability,to y l-15 remove the fuel from the-bottom of the reactor.- They' 16 seemed to have done just an outstanding job on:that part-1~7 of it. And I felt all along that. f rom:n technical d l j, 18 standpoint, GPU has done, I think, a fine.j ob in the 4 19 cleanup. I have voiced concerns about how they have 20 operated as far as their involvement with the public and 21 information to the public from time to time. -But as far. 22 as the technical part of the cleanup, I think they have ~ 23 done quite well to this point, and I did want to 24 publicly say that. 25 Eric. 1 FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 2%-06D - tork 787 8& Mis P.A 1400 D3 9327 ' e

n 10 .s-

72 l

,1-1 MR. E PS TE IN's I might need a'little more than -2 five minutes. But I don't know if you received the-l response to the questions that Is entered at the last-3 4 meeting from.the NRC'concerning-PDMS. Just forfthe- ~ 5 sake,.I guess,.of some kind.of continuity, all I'mldoing 6 .is responding ~toLthe questions which I felt 1the answers 3-; 7' "were not clear-cut enough-for me or raised other-8 questions. j 9 So I would like,. Mike, -I would--like to thank 10 you for responding-to questions. Some of theLanswers 11 did resolve some of the concerns I had. Probablyi as 12 you're not surprised, some of the questions also. raised 13 more concerns, and some.of the answers were just not 14 satisfactory. But-I do appreciate your responding. - 15-So what I'm going'to do is--just respond-16 generically. -There's about five-or six questions L that I 17 want to f ollow up on. So if,I. could read this.into the 1 18 recoed. 19 And'I'm still'Eric Epstein from Harrisburg, 20 Pennsylvania. l 21 MR. MORRIS: Could you give.us your address, j 22 Eric? 23 MR. SMITHGALL: All.right. That's'five i 24 minutes. 25 MR. EPSTEIN: , Starting a fund for me'. ) I TILLUS & AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Harrisburg 717 236-0613 hrk 117..tM488 : PA 1400-23M327 '1

P j 4 _73_ l 1-On-the first question, the~ staff never 2 i provided a definitive answer to my; inquiry regarding the i. 3 length-of time TMI could be placed 'in a storage phase, l; L. 4 I'm just wondering ifathere is a length of timeLoreif it l k 5 could be there indefinitely. 6: Just to paraphrase you, 'the staf f noted', The. l l 7 period of time TMI-2 : could be lef t in a post-defueling 8-monitored storage _is limited either.by the expiration-9 date of the TMI-2 license or a decision-~ to - begin 3 10 decommissioning simultaneously-with the decommissioning 11 of TMI-1, end quote. ) I i 12 I just was curious, what kind of time. frame. g

are we talking about?

What if the'ir license--expires and 13 j t 14 they're not prepared to decommission either unit?- Is it-15. the opinion-- And this is.just curiosity. - Is it'the i l _ 16 opinion of the staff'that this site.could be 17 realistically restored to its-original-status af ter 1 18 decommissioning, which, I think, is the goal of-the 19 decommissioning? q 20 On to question 3, The NRC's! reply to my_ -21 question is quite confusing. For example,-- and I 22 quote --Although a considerable. amount of contamination 23 will -remain in the TMI-2 f ac'ility at the i nit ia tion. -of 24 PDMS, this contamination will not be in the form of-25 low-level waste, but will be in the f orm of contaminated in FILIUS & SklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE .l. - Hamdurg 717 2 % -0623 York 717 M3 M18 LPA 1400-133 9327 i g ., _, _ _ _, ~. ~ y

E 1 1 -w- .74 1 equipment, et cetera. 2 If you could just clarify that for me.- It ~ ) 2 1 3 doesn't have to be now, but a later -date. Is there a 4' dif f e r ence. be tween contaminated: equipment and low-level-l 5 waste? I'wasn't really-quite clear how you were j 6 responding. 7 Also, earlier in the passage, you noted,--and-8 I quote, The : remaining fuel would not -be considered as 9 high-level waste until it is -removed f rom' the cracks, 10 -crevices, piping and. equipment for shipment, end quote. j 11-I was wondering if this kind of semantic juggling makes l 12' the materia 1 any less hazardous. 1 13 Now,.if the material poses a radiological V l L 14 hazard and has to.be isolated, why does.it have to be l 15 removed before it is calledLhigh-level waste? 16 And if it is high-level waste once it is r 17 collected and/or removed, where will.it be stored? 18 If it is stored on site, is not TMI'being 19 used as a temporary waste repository? 'l 20 So if you could clarify that. You might-not n 21 know the answers or you might not give the answers I'd 22 like. But-if you could respond'to those questions, I'd' 23 appreciate it. 24 Question 4. Is it possible Unit 1 could'be 25 put into PDMS 'if GPU is not prepared or able to FILIUS & SklUCAS REPORTING SERVICr j Harrssbum 717 236-0623 York ili MhMis PA 1400-23b9327 j

,x -75 1 decommission Unit 2? 2 -Also, once TMI and Oyster Creek cease to 3 produce nuclear-energy, what -legal' restraints has.the 4 NRC mandated to prevent GPU f rom liquidating GPU Nuclear 5 as a corporate entity? 6 A'n d, again, there'might not be an; answer to-7 that, but it's within the realm of a possibility-f or GPU 8-to do that. 9 Question 5, if-- and I quote 'again. --There is-1 10 no specific time constraint for storage:of radioactive 11 waste on site at a nuclear facility, end gaote, then it 12 is quite possible that low-level waste or high-level, 13 could remain on site at TMI-for an indefinite periodfof 14 time. That's what I read into-your: answer. I'f the 15 Federal government fails to-.constructHaLhigh-level waste } 16 repository by the end of PDMS, which-is quite possible, 17 where does the waste go? Since Federal legislation 18 preempts state authority on this issue, could the 19 utility continually postpone. decommissioning without the 20 state having any legal recourse? And probably you're -I 21 not the one to answer that. Maybe I should have' Tom,- ] 22 who isn't here, I should ask Tom Gerusky.- 1 23 On to question 12. May be there's no answer,- l 24-Michael. I was wondering why it took the NRC so long to 25 mandate financing plans-for decommissioning. I mean, FIL1US Er AlcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 236 062) York 717 845-H18. PA 18%233 9327

,j u l 76 4 -l. this plant was planned.-in: the =' 60 s, and it's 1990, - and I 2 it just seems to me,'I mean, not to make any sense at 3 all. I can't put it any gene raler. l 4 Why - does the utility submit. a f unding : plan to _ 5 the NRC when it is the PUC who determines funding levels 1 1 i 6 - f or segregated decommissioning accounts?: Won' t ther PUC q 7 ultimately decide what the utility cancrecover for-j 8 decommissioning through. rate: increases? I'm-reallyL 9-puzzled.about that, and I was wondering why the PUC= has_. i 10 no role to play up to this point. 11-Question 13. Concerning radiation 12 monitoring. How exactly does the review process-. work? q 13 Who has input? -Will the DER be involved? ' If GPU does L i 14 not need NRC approval to remove monitoring systems, how 4 15 can the public be assured adequate. monitoring -is in j i i 16 place? 1 17 Then on to question.16. When' G PU 's i 18 inspection and monitoring frequency decreases,.-~can we 19 expect similar decreases from-the NRC and DER?' 20 Question 17, is, and.- I quote, negligible ') 21 amounts of radiation attached to a sliding scale? That 22 is, if the-state of the art of monitoring devices 23 change, will the value deemed a negligible amount also l 24 change? 25 Question 20. The answer given by the staf f-- FIUUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 787 236-0623 York 737 845-6418 PA 1500 233-9327

7 71 1 , I think this is in relation-to robotics and technology, i 2 j I believe your answer relies totally on guesstimates and 3 predictions which.are.-hopeful and optimistic. I am not i 4 a believer of-Ronald Reagan, and-I am not th'at ~ 5 optimistic. And you all seemed to have raised that' kind 6 of optimism.: 7 I wonder;if your estimates are. realistic. 8-There appears to be little? or no direct research-in this 9 area by_the NRC, GPU.or any other utility. In my. 10 research, I've yet to come across anybody f unding? this 11 type of research. i 12 And how can the' NRC be sure that advances 11n 13 robotic. technology will be, transferable from-one 3 14 industry to the another? And how do'we know if these 15 advances will be cost ef f ective? 16 Last question, questior. 21. This was I 17. probably the most disturbing response-for me'since the l 18 data you all used, I f elt, 'was so margina1.. I would-i 19 like to meet your economist. 1 20 The cost estimates are given 'in 1986 dollars-21 and f or a reactor ti.at has, and 'I quote,- not under gone. a 22 serious accident, end of quote. The figures project the - j i 23 minimum amount required to reasonably assure-- and_ I'm 24 not sure what that reasonably assure means --a plant I -25 will be decommissioned. This is-obviously a formula, in FillUS & SkLUCAs REPORTING SERVICE H umsberg 737 236 0623. York 717 545 6418 P.A t-800 233 9327 2

c.

78L l-my opinion,: f or greatly underestimating the costr of 2

decommissioning Unit 2'and 1. The NRC prides itself-- 3 and I believe you all do --on-conservatively estimating-4 exposure: rates and radiation levels.- Yet,.when it comes e 5 to decommissioning' f unding, -thel staff plans to set aside-6 a minimal amount of resources based on a generic 7 estimate. Is'it possible to do-a site-specific plan? 8 . hy not plan for maximum levels? Why riot computei your : W 9 figures based on 2020 dollars indexed to theicurrent 10 rate of -inflation? And why not plan, f or the worst case, 11 scenario? And why not hire me? 12 MR. MASNIK: As usual, Eric, you comeEup with' 13 _very good questions. And the staf f will: prepare answers: q 14-and will get back to you on these. And I'll mark-sure 15 that the panel gets a copy.of it as well'. 16 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay.. And'I am reasonably sure 17 that your responses will be sent to Eric-Epstein, 2308 i 18 Brandywine Drive. Thanks. ' I 19 MR. MORRIS : Thank you, Eric,'always very 20 thorough and delivered with-some-wit. Thank you. 21 I think you had indicated you would ~ of fer i 22 some comments on behalf Francis? 23 MS. ROBB: Just a f ew very brief comments.- 24 I'm Doris Robb from Lancaster. 25 I would like, also, to thank the panel on FILLUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Wensburg 787 236 0623 York 737 843 Ml8 PA l 800 233-9327 i

L 79 1 behalf of the Susquehanna Valley 1 Alliance f or their. 2 existence, first~of.all,.and for the: time and the effort ~ 3 that you have put into serving on this panel. I-am-4 gratified to hear.this-evening.that you ar_e-enthusiastic 5 about continuing the panel in some f orm or other. 6 I would like to urge the NRC, strongly urge-7 the NRC.to approve the continuance of the panel, because s 8 this panel cannot exist without your support. 9 That 's all' I want' to say.. Thank you. 10 MR. MORRIS: Thank you very much. 11 Yes. 12 MS. PICKERING: Kay Pickeri~ng. 13 This is not related to.the continuation of 14 the panel; related to other= meetings that the panel i 15 might hold.- j \\ 16 I have received :within-the last couple of i 17 weeks the latest news letter from the Audobon Society. 18 Dr. Jan Beyea has announced in 'that news letter that the4 19 report commissioned by the.TMI health' fund-on-dosimetry. 20 has been completed in' cooperation with-Columbia I 21 University and the studies on cancer clusters 'and birth, 22 neonatal health' effects. That report or reports that 23 have beem done together are undergoing peer review. And 24 it was announced in the. news letters that the press can 4 25 send in for their copy of the report. And I would hope TILIUS & AtcLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Harnsburg 717 2 % -0623 York 717443-6418 P.41800 233-9327

e 802 l' that thatiwould mean that, panel members can. do that. 2 And I'm remiss in not br'inging that' 3 information to you tonight in written form. I should 4-have copied that news letter,. because I would like--to-5 see the. panel be-on :that list and be one of.the:first to: 6 receive the report-when it is circulated. So maybe I. 7 can-just get that to Mike, and he can then get that for~ q 8-the -panel membe rs. I would hope when that is = ava'ilable 9 -that in a. timely fashion, the panel.'will meet to review 10 that-in a public session and however it's appropriate to. 11 review that. 12 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Th a n k-- y ou. 13 The panel obviously--~Go ahead', Mike. 14 MRe MASNIK:- 'I was just going t'o say,.after I 15 the meeting, I'll get your phone number, and I'll call 1 16 you next week and you can'give me that-information. And 4 17 .I'll get a copy for the panel. 18 MR. MORRIS: The panel can consider that 19 request. ll 20 Tom Smithgall mentioned earlier that it was 21 decided, I guess, some time ago that the panel could j 22 discuss health effects. My recollection of-it-was that 23 the panel-was told that we could receive comment from 24 the public so that there's a public forum.to discuss 25 input, but that we would not be involved with taking TillUS & AkLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Hamsburg 717 2 % -0623 York ?!? 843 M18 PA l 800 233 9327

8 11 1 action-regarding health - ef fects. -So the panel-can i 2 l invite people in to discuss the report and= receive 1 3 public comment on it. So it's certainly something-4 within our domain.- Okay. Thank you. i 5 We do need to talk about the next-meetiing. 6 And, Mike, - are you going to be doing a review of1 PDMS at 7 some point? l 8 MR. MASNIK - There 's a PDMS safety 9 evaluation, which -we,. in turn, would plan to issue 1 10 sometime early summer. -Also, we have'the 11 decommissioning f unding plan, which would b'e the end of 12 July. So it would seem to me -that if we' re toihave 13 another meeting, it would be-probably mostaprofitable in y i 14 the' August, late August time' frame. It would--give the' 15 panel enough time to digest thenfunding plan and-a 16 whatever else we - have. 17 MR. MORR IS : Any reaction from the panel on 18 that? Would that suit you, to wait until those two i 19 issues are available for our review?. Do you/want:to. -' ) 20 talk about a date tonight?- 1 21 MR. MASNIK Well, I'm just wondering, the 22 method by which we've-established the last two panel. 23 members and which we voted more or less on -the date, if 24 that was satisf actory. I think it would be kind of 25 difficult for people to schedule something that far in TILIUS & SicLUCAS RrPORTING SERVICr Hamsberg 727 236-0623 York 717 MS-M18 PA l 800-133-9327 l 'l 1

m *- 82. 1 advance. Perhaps-we'll just:do.the-same, use the.same- ~ 2 technique. l 3 MR. MORRIS - Does everybody agree. thati! Mike 4 will end up-- I guess. we do - a poll of _ the members to see 5 whoEcan attend-what date. -If that 's agreeabl'e',; that '_ s ? 6 what.we should do. 7 MR. S MITHG ALL : My concern about the 8 schedule-- 9 That works-fine, and I-can live: with that.. 10 When we get to. discussion on' disbanding the' 11 panel or sizing down the panel, I would hope.that we. 12- 'would be able to have everyone in. attendance. I' don't" 13 -want to get'in a situation'like we hadLin.'one? instance L 14 that I can remember taking a vote on1something where we li-L 15 1 didn't have the entire s panel-involved-at that meeting. 1 16 I don't really want that to happen-again. If we're' l 17 going to '.aake that significant change in - thet make up ; ~of-l 18 the_ panel or decide to all' walk away, I want - everybody l r 19 at the table here. I don't want to do it;with_somebody 20 in abstention. 21-MR. MORRIS: I agree. I would hope'.that we 22 would have close to full attendance for that particular 23 meeting. 24 Any other comment-f rom the panel members? - 25 MS. PICKERING: Logistically, pleace, from FILIUS & AtcluCAS REPORTlYG SERVICr H.smsburg 717 236 0623 York 717.MS-kl$ ' PA l-800 233 9327

Q 4 j 1 the public point of view, notify the.public and give the. y 2-public more advance time. This time, we only had-about 3 ten days. So if at all.possible,-three to four'weeksJin-4 order to get word'out to the'public. 'f 5 ,R. MASNIK - I will-make certain that.we'll M 6 notice ~the meeting on thesdistribution list tha t we' 7 -normally use to notice-meetings, astwellias the 8. ' distribution list for: distributing documents. So, Kay,- 9 you'll be noticed.. 10 MS. PICKERING: Thank you. 11 MR. MORRIS:- How about the location of the 12 meeting, any suggestions from anybody?. Is thic. 13 satisfactory? Hawaii? Lancaster? 14 Actually, the NRC paysJS1,200 f or this-- we 15 pay $1,200 for this space. Lancaster1makes it available' 16 for'like S200. r 17 MR. SMITHGALL: That's what it used to be. I 18 What is it now, Art? Now that there's acDemocratic-19 mayor in Lancaster, is it? 20 MR. MORRIS: Well, you have a connection into 21 that, Tom, so you can help us. And maybe some other 22 people can, too. I think the rates are still'the same. 23 And the request can be made by Mike directly t'o-the city 24 clerk. And it does seem like an awful lot of money to 25 pay for an unairconditioned-room, nonairconditioned TillUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERSTCE ~ Hamskrg 717 236-0623 - York 7ti-845-64t$ PA 1400-233-9327

u L. P a> ) l-84 .a 1 i room.- 2 MR.; RICE: How;about-Brandywine Road? 3 -MR. MORR IS's Where-is that?' .i 4 MR. RICE: Eric's, Brandywine.' [ 5 MR'. ' MORRIS : He 'll' be moved by then oagain.. i_ 6: ' Is there ; any problem with-trying: to _ set up - a, 5 .7 -meet'ing for'La'ncaster? 8 MR. MASNIK:L 'I have no-problem. We haven't' y 9, met there. inLseveral years, I'believe, now.. -j 10 MR.. MORRIS : -Well, we~will try to see if:we 11 can get a good rate and an evening that suits eve rybody.. j 12 And if we can't, we'11 be.back here, j i 13 O k ay.. If there's-no other= comment, we? stand 14 adjourned. Thank-:you for coming. I t 15 (The procee dings : concluded, at 9 : 2 2 p. m'. )'- 11 0 16 17 ~~ i ,f 18 19 20 t 21 22 23 1 24 25 1 FillUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERVICE Harmberg 717 2 % -0623 York 717 845 6418 PA 1800-233 9327

~ - 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2-This-is-to certify that-the att' ached 3 proceedings bef ore the United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission-- 4 in the matter:of: 5 NAME OF PROCEEDING:^ Advisory Panel for.the decontaminationEof TMI-Unit 2 ~ 7 DOCKET NUMBER: PLACE OF PROCEEDING: :Harrisburg, PA 9 ~ were held;as herein appears,'and that thisi I 10 is the original transcript'thereof-for-the file of the-United States Nuclear Regulatory y 11 Commission ~taken.by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 12 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is'a true and accurate, record;of 13 l the foregoing-proceedings. I 14 tJ ATAhd b Y#b _/LlL Y _ 15 Donna M. Dolinsky Gar 8_ner, RPR 16 Filius-& McLucas Reporting Service 17 j 18 NOTARIAL $EAL DONNA M DO!!N$KY, Notny Public Harthburg. Dauphin Coenty. Pa. 19 My comminia boires nn. 24.1991 20 j 21 I 22 a 23- { (The foregoing certification of this transcript 24 does not apply to any reproduction of the same by-any means unless under the. direct control and/or 25 supervision of the certifying reporter.) y FILIUS & AklUCAS REPORTING SERT' ICE llamskarg 717 2%-0623. Yxt T17 643-6418 ?.A 1800-233-9327

o Tunes Male ISLAND ALERT, MC. \\ all Peffor 8t., tierrisbors, Peene.17102 (7til233 7887 March 14, 1990 I would like follow up on the NRC's responses to my questions on PDMS. Some of the NRC's answers adequately addressed the concerns I raised at the last meeting. And I would like to thnnk the staff for their efforts, llowever, some of the staf f 's responses raised soveral new questions which I would like to r follow up on at this time. Question 1: The staff never provided a definitive answer to my inquiry regarding the length of time TMI could be placed in a stornge phnno. The ntnff noted, "The period of time TMI-2 could be left in a post-defueling monitored storage is limited by g either the expirntion dato of the TMI-2 license or a decision to begin decommissioning simultaneously with the decommissioning of TM1-1." (p.1). Whnt kind of time frame are we talking about? What if their liconno expires and they are not prepared to decommission olther unit? Is it the opinion of the staff that thin sito can rentintically be restored to its original status after decommissioning? k Question 3: The NRC's reply to my question is quite confusing. For example, "Although a considerable amount of contamination will remain in the TMI-2 facility at the initiation of PDMS, this contamination will not be in the form of low-level ^ waste, but will be in the form of contaminated equipment, etc." (p.2.) Please explain this answer. Earlier in the passage the staff noted, "The remaining fuel { would not be considered as llLW until is removed from the cracks, crevices, piping and equipment for shipment." (p.2). Does this ) type of semantic juggling make the material any less hazardous? l If this material poses a radiological hazard and has to be isolated, why does it have to be " removed" before it is calleo { I HLW? And if it is llLW once it is collected and/or removed, where will it be stored? If it is stored on site, is not TMI being used as a temporary waste repository? Question 4: Is it possible Unit-1 could be put into PDMS if GPU is not prepared or able to decommission Unit-2? Also, once TMI and Oyster Creek. cease to produce nuclear energy, what legal restraints has the NRC mandated to prevent GPU from liquidating l GPU Nuclear as a corporate entity? Question 5: If, "There is no specific time constraint for storage of radionctive waste onsite at a nuclear facility" (p.2) ) then it is quito possible the LLW or HLW could remain onsite at TM1 for nn indefinito period of time. If the federal government f n l l s to count ruct n ilLW wanto repository by the end of PDMS, where does the waste go? Since f ederpl legislation preempts state authority on this issue, could t utility continually postpone h. decommissioning without the state having any legal recourse? {

== l =

cG 'f -r~ Question 12: Why-did it take the NRC so long to mandate financing planstfor decommissioning? Why does the utility submit a funding-plan tofthe NRC, when it is_the PUC who determines 1 funding levels for segregated decommissioning accounts? Won"t.the j PUC ultimately decide what'tho. utility can recover for-2 decommissioning through rate increases? Question 13: Concerning radiation monitoring: How exactly does the review process work? Who has input? Will the DER be. involved? If GPU does not need NitC approval Lto remove monitoring 1 systems,:how can the-public bo. assured adequate; monitoring is in place? Quest' ion 16:' When t decreason, can wo expec.GPU's inspection ~and1 monitoring' frequency) t-similar decreases-from:the:NRC and_ DER 7-Question 17: In "nogligible amounts" of radiation attached to. a sliding scalo? That is, if the " state of the art" monitoring-devices chango, will the value deemed:a " negligible amount" also chnnge? Quontion 20: Tho-answer given by the staff relies totally on guontimaton nnd predictionn which are hopef ul' and. optimistic. Are-they realistic? Thoro appenra to be little or.no direct research? i n this nron by t he Nit C, GPU or any other utility. How can the. Nlte ho no nure t hnt adynncon in robotic technology will be trnunfernble from industry to nnother?_How do we'know if these l advances.will be cont effectivo? + Question 21: This answer-is especiall'y disturbing 1aince the data used is so marginal. The cost. estimates;are given'.in?1986 dollars:and are for a reactor that has."not undergone a serious-accident." (p.9) The fi l to "roanonnbly nanuro" gures project the. minimum amount required: -a plant will be: decommissioned. This is-2 obviously a f ormula f or greatly under. estimating the cost of:. L decommisaloning Unit-2 and Unit-li-The NRC. prides itself on conservatively ontimating exposure. rates _andl radiation. levels. Yet when it-comon to decomminstoning funding, the staff planc to set anido n minJmnl amount of resources based on generic estimaton. Why not do a alto-npocific plan? Why not plan for mnximum-leveln? Why not computo your figures based on 2020 dollars indexed to the current rate of inflation? Why not plan for the worst caso neonario? i b I l \\ I l l' l 2 r ~}}