ML20050C149
| ML20050C149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204080208 | |
| Download: ML20050C149 (57) | |
Text
_
! TAR REuu ATORY COMPCSSION O
S//pg,
!= h Mai:::iar of:
ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 DISCUSSION MEETING t
OATE: January 28. 1982
~ PAGES:
1 - 57 g7 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 4
MTli
.ME%.T
- f. Q 40 0 vi_ yM-a Ave., S.W.
W==H' g-~, D. C.
20024 Ta '.aphc=a : (202) 554-2345 820408020e 82012e PDR ADOCK 05000320 PDR
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM4ISSION This 'is to certify that the attached proceedings before the in the catter of: Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI Unit 2
' Date of Proceeding:
January 28, 1982 e
Docket !! umber:
Place of Proceeding: IIarrisburg, Pennsylvania were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Coccission.,
Diane llammond Official Reporter (Typed)
Official Reporter (Signature) 4 l
1 I
1 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ADVIS0BY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION 3
0F THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 4
DISCUSSION MEETING 5
e 6
Holiday Inn 23 South Second Street 7
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 8
January 28, 1982 9
The meeting of the Advisory Panel for the to Decontamina tion of Three Mile Island Unit 2 convened, 11 pursuant to noti'ce, at 7:10 p.m.
12 PRESENTa 13 JOHN MINNICH, Chairman NEIL WALD 14 JOEL ROTH ELIZABETH MARSHALL 15 THOMAS COCHRAN THOMAS SMITHGALL 1e KATE STOLZ, representing Henry Wao' er GORDON ROBINSON l
17 CRAIG A.
WILLIAMSON WILLIAM TRAVERS 18 19 e
v 20 21 22 l
23 I
24 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
2 1
EE2EEEE1EEE 2
HR. MINNICHs Good evening, ladies and 3 gen tlemen.
~
4 The decision to cancel the last meeting, even 5 though I held off till sort of a late hour, turned out 6 to be a good one.
Travel that night was really terrible 7 and you can be glad you didn't try to make it.
It was a 8 bad night.
9 When we get to the public participation, we to will have, hopefully, a brief time for some public 11 input.
We will not be able to give you some of the time 12 that we usually have tonight because we do have some' 13 things we want to try to get to, so you are going to 14 have to try to be patient with us.
If you are able to 15 g e t to the microphone, please be as brief as you 16 possibly can or I will have to cut you off, and I don't 17 like to do that to anyone, so you can help us by being 18 as brief as possible.
19 First pf all, Bob Arnold, could you update us 20 on Unit 2 and where you are at with decontamination?
s 21 MR. ARNOLDs First of all, I am Bob Arnold 22 with GPU Nuclear Corporation, Licensee f or THI-2 since 23 1 January of this year.
Er. Chairman, since the last meeting of the 24 25 Consittee I think the major physical work has been ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
3 1 associated, clearly, with the processing of the sump 2 vater f rom the reactor building.
Starting with an 3 initial number -- and let me round them off for ease of 4 assimila ting them, I think -- of about 650,000 gallons 5 in the building prior to starting the processing with 6 the submersed demineralizer system, we have removed 7 approximately 450,000 of that 650,000 gallons.
We have 8 processed about 425,000 of the 450,000 ve have removed.
9 The processing is continuing effectively and 10 expeditiously, and we anticipate that we will have 11 removed 150,000 of the 200,000 remaining in the building 12 and have processed it by early March.
Now, as we go 13 f orward we will be providing inf ormation that will 14 affect both the timing and the total number of gallons 15 tha t we have to talk about, because one of the things to that we anticipate being able to proceed with in 17 February is a cross decontamination experiment in the 18 building which will test various washdown techniques for 19 removal of surface contamination from the grade. level of 20 the building, the floor that is at ground level, and l
j 21 f rom t.he floor above that, normally referred to as the 22 302 level and the 347 level.
The pr^ cess of running that experiment will 23 l
s L
24 involve washing dcwn approximately 80,000 gallons of l
25 water.
That water will flow down through the floor ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, N GNMRSUE18.@. KUE4 (Si&554-2345
4 1 drainage systems into the lower level and will add to 2 the inventory of what has to be processed.
So the 3 schedule I gave for early March, perhaps the end of the 4 first full week of March, does also include processing 5 that amount of water, that additional 80,000.
6 What that will leave us with is something on 7 the order of 50,000 gallons that is the last 9 or 10 8 inches of water on the floor of the building, which the 9 device that we have for pumping the water out of the 10 building for processing cannot pump out.
It is what we 11 call loose suction s that is, the inlet to the pump goes 12 above the surf ace of the water and, of course, can't 13 pump it any longer.
We will through the summer of 1982 probably be 14 15 putting into place a smaller system that will get up 16 that last 50,000 gallons or so.
17 We had initially expected that the removal of 18 the water f rom th e reactor building lower level would increase radiation levels in tr.e building because of the 19 20 residual that would be left on the floor and would j
21 actually lead to needing to reflood to some foot or two 22 of depth the water level or the floor of the building to l
23 provide shielding for that residual.
Our experience to date would indicate that 24 tha t will not be the case and so we are not planning on 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
5 1 needing to reflood at this point, or not expecting to 2 need to reflood, so that then provides us with the 3 incentive f or removing the water down to essentially dry 4 floor if we are able to develop a technique for that.
5 We don't see that as a high priority item but it is 6 something that we will be able to proceed with doing, we e
7 expect, during the balance of the year, 8
The operation of the SDS 1 s captured a large 9 fraction of the radioactive material that was released 10 in soluble or solid from f rom the core in the course of 11 the acciuent, so we continue to think it is a very
.12 substantial reduction in the risk of inadvertent 13 releases by achieving this step.
We also have in the course of operationg the 14 15 SDS a t this point developed three containers of what we 16 would say ir highly contaminated resin material.
That 17 is currently in the fuel pool alongside the equipment to that constitutes the SDS, as was in tended, and it is I.
19 anticipated that later this year we will be able to ship s
20 tha t to a DOE facility for use in their RCD program.
We have four additional containers in stream 21 22 in the system, and we have three containers that were 23 used in initial startup of the system which are l
24 relatively lightly loaded.
I anticipate that with the four containers that we have in the system at this time, 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING CoM*ANY,INC.
6 1 it probably represents the maximum number of canisters, 2 as it were, that will be developed in the course of 3 cleaning up the us ter f rom the basement of the reactor 4 building, and we can anticipate, I think, perhaps only 5 generating another two or three canisters over and above 8 that as we process the reactor coolant system water, 7 which is the fi nal volume of wa ter that has to be dealt 8 with.
9 So that we are well on target for generating 10 perhaps 10 or 12 containers of resin material that will 11 require disposal at a DOE facility or transfer to a DOE 12 f acility for their RCD program and eventual disposal.
13 Ihe EPICORE II system, of course, I think as 14 we have described for, has been utilized to clean up th e 15 output f rom the submersed demineralizer system, so we 16 are still opera ting that system as expected and it is 17 still performing as well as anticipated.
Should you 18 vant some specific numbers on either gallons or curies 19 or concentra tions, I think I probably have with me data 20 tha t would be responsive to specific questions you might v
21 have.
22 I think the other thing that I might mention 23 a t this poin t before offering to respond to questions 24 from the Advisory Panel was the January 8th incident 25 that we had which we classified as an unusual event.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
7 1 That is the lowest of four plant emergency categories, 2 and it resulted or it was declared when we received some 3 airborne contamina tion alarms on instrumentation in the 4 plant.
The cause of the airborne activity was the 5
6performanca of some relatively routine plant operatina 7 steps which the people carrying out did not anticipate 8 the potential that existed in the way in which they did 9 it for creating the airborne problem.
10 In a very summary description, th ey were 11 involved uith decontaminating some portable equipment 12 using airblown vacuum system. That is, rather than an 11 electric motor driven vacuum f an, it was an air-driven 14 vacuum f an.
The air pressure used to drive the fan for 15 the vacuum system was service air, as we call it, or 100 16 pound pressure air system in the plant.
17 A common problem in pressuri ed air systems 18 lik e that is the collection of moisture, and moisture t
i 19 did collect in the portable vacuum cleaner that ther 20 were using for their maintenance evolution.
To clear e
i l
21 the lines of the moisture, the air system has what are and use the l
22 called blowdown points which one can open up 23 air pressure of the system itself to purge the moisture 24 out of the lines.
25 They did this by directing a hose from the l-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
8 1 blowdown lines to a floor drain, and they took this step 2 to avoid putting contaminated water or potential water 3 on the floor in the area, which they want to avoid it 4 having to run across the floor.
In the course of that, 5 however, they flowed air through the floor drain system 6 of the building and, of course, it came out of the drain 7 piping and created the airborne protlem that we had.
8 It was picked up by both portable and 9 permanent equipment or instrumentation in the plant, was 10 quickly identified and, I think, dealt with, but until 11 we had the cause clearly identified and the situa tion 12 stopped, we did go into our emergency plan procedures.
The releases offsite were minimal.
They were 13 14 well below, even at their peak, over an hour -- if one 15 assumed that they were released for an hour, whereas it the peak would 18 war probably only a ver few minutes 17 have been less than the tech spec limit for the 18 quarterly average release rate, to just try to get some 19 perspective on it.
20 So it was not a zero release but it was a 21 minimal one, not one that we will probably be able to detect offsite with our environmental monitoring progra m 22 23 and not one which we were able to measure any offsite 24 increases above background radiation levels when we sent 25 the survey teams out.
i l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
M MIIi1I!% AR S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202).564 2345
9 1
We have reviewed the sequence of events and I this 2 think we have taken adequate steps to prevent 3 particular sequence from happening agains however, I 4 think it is probably appropriate to say that with the 5 plant in the condition that it is and until it is 8 decontaminated, we have a vulnerability to these type of 7 upset conditions.
Hopefully they will continue when 8 they do occur to be as of nominal concern as this one 9 was, but I don't think that we are going to be able to 10 proceed without them occurring on occasion.
MR. MINNICHa Bob, do you have an y other 11 12 radioactive material stored besides the containers you 13 have mentioned?
I mean has most of it been effectively 14 removed from the island now?
15 MR. ARNOLDs Mr. Chairman, we have the 49 16 EPICORE II --
BR. MINNICH:
They are still there?
17 MR. ARNOLD:
-- liners that are scheduled for 18 19 shipment this 7 ear, which the DOE has agreed to accept 20 f or their RCD program.
We also currently have 10 liners l
l from the operation of EPICORE II processing SDS l
21 22 ef fluent, which have not been shipped.
They are 23 suitable for low level commercial site burial and they 24 also will be shipped.
We are in the course of trying to i
25 negotiate another contract for that that might have a i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
10 1 little better cost associated with it.
2 Just for a little per sp ect iv e, we have 3 generated 36 or there are 36 resin beds associated with 4 the EPICORE II operation since we have been processing 5 SDS vater.
Three of them a re in the system, ten of them 6 are on the site and thirteen have already been shipped 7 and disposed of in 1981.
I We would also have a partial shipment of low 8
9 level radiotctive waste or maybe between one and two 10 shipments of the trash type that go to commercial si tes, 11 but in terms of unusual waste on the site or different 12 than what we would typically have at Three Mile Island, 13 I think it is really restricted to the 40 EPICORE II 14 pref 11ters, as we have generally termed them, and the 15 SDS liners.
18 MR. MINNICHs The three containers that you 17 mentioned that are to be shipped out for RED, do you 18 have any idea when they will go?
19 MR. ARNOLD:
All of the SDS liners will 20 eventually go as part of the DOE RCD program, and we are 21 hopeful that we will be able to ship them in 1982 but it 22 m ay carry over into the first few months of
'83.
MR. MINNICH:
Is that because of the funding 23 24 of DOE or --
MR. ARNOLDs Principally it will relate to 25 l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
11 1 funding on our,part of the costs associated with 2 shipping them.
3 MR. MINNICH:
Meaning your costs.
4 MR. ARNOLDs Right.
Getting them ready for 5 shipments.
Making shipping arrangements is our 6 responsibility.
7 Questions?
e MR. MINNICHs Dr. Wald.
9 MR. WALDs Along that line, do you anticipate 10 any problems in the event that there is a bureaucratic 11 reorganization that alters the areas of responsibility 12 of what is currently DOE, or is this something which 13 will be binding on whatever successor group takes over 14 the responsiblity?
Do you have any information on that?
15 MR. ARNOLDs Well, I think that I, frankly, 18 can only of fer my own opinions on it because the 17 agreement clearly does not provide for successor 18 organization responsibility.
But my understanding is sg the reorganizations being looked at by the Department of Energy would retain as 'a federal responsibility the type 20 l
l 21 of activities which are necessary for us to have a 22 receiver for this material, so that the DOE's PCD 23 program would still be carried f orward by successor 24 organizations.
25 Whether the way in which they were configured I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
12 1 will cause problems, I guess I have to admit to 2 suspicion of some vulnerability there, but I think it 3 has been very significant the support for getting on j
4 with the shipping of this vaste that we have seen from 5 the federai level, and I guess I as optimistic -- I as 6 optimistic that successor organizations would have that 7 same dedication to dealing with the problem 8 constructively.
9 MR. WALDa 50 yoiu don't feel that it 10 potentially increases the problem because of any delay 11 in getting this under way; or do you?
12 MR. ABNOLD:
I guess I can't say that there is 13 no potential for that, but I don't think it is a large 14 o ne.
15 MR. MINNICH4 Tom.
16 MR. COCHRAN Roughly what is yout right of 17 expenditure on cleanup?
l MR. MINNICH:
Well, total activity on the site 18 19 right now is at about $5 million per month.
Of that,
~
20 about half would be required if we were doing no 21 cleanup, and about half of it we consider as making a l
22 con tribution to net progress on cleanup.
MR. COCHRAN:
And is the right of cleanup at 23 24 this instant being limited by funding or is it really 25 controlled by the rate at which the SDS is operating?
l l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, MM
13 1
MR. MINNICH:
No, I think pretty clearly the 2 total progress on the overall program is funding 3 limited. I don't know that there would be a lot of 4 additional physical work we would be doing in the plant 5 immediately with additional funds, but there would be 6 some, and there is engineering and some procurement and 7 some manuf seturing and construction of facilities that 8 will be necessary before we can move forward with 9 progress on the site.
10 MR. COCHRAN.
What would be a reasonable rate 11 of expenditure if you were not limited by funding but 12 were just moving smartly along?
13 MR. ARNOLDs Well, my recollection is that the 14 cost estimate that we put together in the first half of 15 1981 and which we made available in July of 1981 was 16 based on an expenditure in 1982 of about $130 million or 17 $135 million.
MR. C.0CHRAN:
What is the rational for using 18 19 fresh water for the wsshdown ra ther than recycling the 20 water you have already cleaned once?
21 MR. ARNOLDs Perhaps I wasn't clear or I but we are 22 misled you on 80,000 has to be reprocessed, 23 not using fresh water, we are recycling water that had 24 been previously cleaned, so it doesn't add to the total 25 onsite inventory Dut it adds to what will be in the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, G NA AR O.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
14 1 basement, so to speak, that has to be processed.
2 MR. COCHRANs And one final question, which 3 doesn 't need to be answered at this meeting but perhaps 4 at the next meeting.
I would like to see, if it is 5 available, some strontium and cesium inventory data in e the processed water so I can see some measure of success.
7 NR. ARNOLDs I can give you some of that 8 information now orally, if you want, or --
9 MR. COCHRANs Whatever you wish.
10 MR. MINNICHs Tom, don't you get that -- is it l
11 the weekly report, Blake?
Isn't there a weekly report 12 comes out with those levels?
13 MR. BARRETTs I am Lake Barrett, NBC.
Yes, we 14 put out a weekly report.
We did list those -- we listed 15 concentrations, microcuries per cc.
It has been some 16 time since we have put a total out.
We will update that 17 again, but I think Bob has the numbers, Tom, right now.
18 MR. ARNOLDs One thing I might caution on the 19 nus bers, Tom, is that the onsite analysis capability 20 tha t we have on strontium has a lower limit of
-5 21 detectability of about 1 x 10 A number of the 22 analyses are below the minimum level detectable, so I 23 think that the final numbers that we will have when we 24 look at tha tank may be somewhat lower than this in 25 strontium.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, AJIUfED
15 1
But the stronti'2m 90 number is.099 curies for 2 the processed water storage tank, which is essentially 3 f ull. It has got 494,000 gallons in a 500,000 gallon 4 tank.
The next most significant, I think, in terms of 5 quantity is ce$ium 137, and it is about.017 curies.
8 MR. COCHRAN Do you have a tritium number?
7 MR. ARNOLDs Tritius is calculated to be 1163, 8 so, say, something under 1200.
9 MR. COCHRANs That's all.
10 MR. MINNICHs Any other questions?
11 (No response.)
12 Bob, do I recall that you were going to 13 a ttem pt to clean the crane area with pressure hoses?
14 Has that been done?
15 MR. ARNOLD That is part of the gross 16 decontamination experiment.
We MR. MINNICH:
But you have not done it yet.
17 MR. ARNOLD We have not done a y washdown up 18 19 there yet.
20 MR. MINNICHs Okay, fine.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the panel?
21 (No response.)
22 23 Okay, Bob, fine, thank you.
24 Today from the EPA, and please, Dave, for the 25 young lady will you identify your full name and title, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, N NjTZ18.@. Ed ($@) 554 2345
16 1 and sorry, you're going to have to stoop.
2 MR. JAMES:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 My name is Dave James.
I am the Director of 4 the Surveillance and Emergency Prepared Division in 5 EPA's Of fice of Radiation Programs.
6 As you know, the Agency has been responsible 7 for a monitoring and surveillance program for some a time.
That program as of the 1st of October was 9 transferred from the Office of Research and Development to to the Office of Radiation Programs, and I guess there 11 has been some concern about how the program would go on.
12 The President's instructions to us are to continue the 13 program through the docontamination of Unit 2, and I see 14 nothing on the horizon that says that is going to change.
15 MR. MINNICH:
May I interject, Dave, for those 16of the panel who will recall at the last meeting Mayor 17 Reid became very concerned about the possibility that we 18 would be losing EPA at Middletown and what that wo uld 19 sean to the citizens, et cetera.
I regret that the Mayor informed me today he could not be here, because I 20 21 am sure he would be delighted to hear this, Dave.
MR. JAMES:
I am sorry as well he is not here.
22 There were two issues, I think, that were raised at the 23 24 last meeting that I would like to address.
There was 25 some concern expressed by the panel on the failure rate ALDERSON REPORTINo COMPANY,INC, MA M4 OR554-2345
17 1 of both some field equipment and some laboratory 2 equipment, and some additional concern on a second item 3 was expressed about the time it takes to do krypton 4 analyses.
We have addressed both of these issues.
We 5
6 will this year replace the pressurized ion chambers, the 7 gassa ray monitors that are in the field, with units
~
8 that are not as susceptible to humidity problems as the 9 units that are presently in place, which were designed 10 for use in a dasert environment.
The other instrument that we have had some 11 12 problems with, at least in terms of service, is the 13 sultichannel analyzer that is in the laboratory.
We are 14 not going to replace that unit.
We are going to put an 15 additional unit in the laboratory, a never unit which we 16 will be using, but we will still have the old unit as 17 backup.
So we get a new unit and at the same time we 18 get some redundancy in terms of analytical capability.
Now, with respect to the analysis of krypton jg 20 and tritium, which we are presently shipping tanks to Las Vegas for analysis, we will during the next year put 21 22 analytical capability into the TMI field station which 23 will allow us to analyze for krypton and tritium onsite, 24 a nd this should solve the delay problems in terms of 25 bringing the data out where it can be used.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
g
- )-
N 1a 1
I think those are'the issues that were raised 2 by the penelists at th's last meeting,, and this is our 3 response.
I would certainly'be happy to answer any 4 questions that the panel"might have.
5 MR.,MINNICHS Dave, if I recall, and I think that by 6 tha t was a very real concern of Mayor yeid's, 7 the time you got the material oc whatever it is you ship 8 to Las Vegas and you get the result back, you know, 9 something could have been occurring and you would not to have picked it up until you get the result back.
I 11 think this will go a long way in resolvino his concern 12 in tha t a rea.
s 13 I wouldst1so say to you thank you very much 14 f or coming up tonight and sharing with us this 15 inf ormation. We do appreciate you and your colleague 16 showing up.
17 Questions?
(No response.)
18 19 Fine.
Thank you.
Lake.
20 MR. BARRETT:
I don't have anything specific 21 22 to say. I can repect a lot of the things that Mr. Arnold 23 talked about.
We were watching the developments with 24 SDS, developments with progress toward shipping the 25 EPICORE, the event of the 8th.
There was a spill of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
19 1 water out of the boiling water storage tank.
I don't 2 know if that was mentioned.
3 Are there any questions of me?
Yes, Tom.
MR. SMITHG ALL Does the DOE memorandum of 4
5 understanding still stand on accepting wastes, your 6 understanding of that?
MR. BARRETTs Yes, it is working quite nicely.
7 8 DOE efforts are proceeding along at laboratories to 9 receive the waste, and work is going between GPU and DOE 10 to get on with it, and we are very pleased with that.
MR.-COCHRAN:
Do you think the fact that OMB 11 12 cut the vaste program R E D, b udg e t to $50 million for 13 FY 83 will have an impact?
MR. BARRETT I don't know specifically within 14 15 DOE *s budget what funds go where. I have not heard of l
16 any problems in the '82 and '83 toward getting that on.
17 You might want to direct that toward DOE, but I haven't 18 hea rd any problem.
MR. MINNICH:
Any other questions?
l 19 Just one other one.
Maybe I am looking for a 20 than an answer, and that is do l
21 perceptiori f rom you more 22 you see that the reduced funding at $5 million a month 23 is not only a finsacial problem for GPU but also a 24 saf ety problem?
Could it potentially be a safety v
25 problem?
Do you see it as a safety problem?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, AR554-2345
20 e
\\
1 HR. BARRETT Not an immediate safety 2 problem.
It has the potential on the long haul to be 3 one in that equipment deteriorates, things rust, the job 4 gets harder as time goes on.
The net forwa rd progress 5 could be a lot greater if the funding was there.
A lot 6 of things that I will push on GPU to do, they are not 7 really capable of doing, as far as doing some advance 8 planning toward getting the core out and things like 9 that that are being slowed up.
10 As f ar as the status right now, I believe it 11 is safe.
It could be better.
12 MR. MINNICHs According to what Mr. Arnold has 13 told us here, if the funding dropped to F2.5 million a 14 month, they would at the position where they would 15 that would be required without cleanup, without any 16 cleanup decontamination ef forts whatsoever.
Is that the 17 cutof f poin t that you get to where it becomes a more 18 difficult safety issue for you?
l 19 MR. BARRETT:
It is a matter of risk.
You 20 know, the faster you get cleaned up and get rid of the 21 radioactivity, the safer it is going to be.
If it goes 22 slower, then there is going to be a higher risk.
I l
23 would say in my opinion you could slow down a little bit 24 and I wo uld n ' t sa y it's an unacceptable risk.
You could 25 probably go all the way down to sort of what we consider ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, MC VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
21 1 the baseload or housekeeping and that sort of thing, 2 which may be half of what they are doing, and you could 3 maybe stay like that for maybe some period of time. I 4 would hate to speculate if it is one year or five years E at that level, but at some time you are going to need to 6 start making net forward progress to ca tch up with what 7 you have lost.
8 MR. MINNICH Go ahea.d.
9 MS. MARSHALL:
Mr. Barrett, if there were no 10 financial problem whatsoever and the cleanup could go 11 forward ideally, under ideal conditions, what would be 12 the time schedule and what would be the monthly 13 expenditure?
14 3R. BARRETT Well, to have the cleanup be 15 technically limited, meaning that as fast as you can 16 build things and engineers can design things and tha t 17 sort of thing, would be probably, I think like Mr.
18 Arnold said, comewhere in the $120 million to $130 19 million per year spending range.
But they are nov 20 spending at about $60 million a year, is my 21 understanding.
If funding was not limited, it will be several 22 23 years to get done, maybe five years, six years, 24 somewhere in thst neighborhood to have it basically down to like a regular reactor would be, at that stage, 25
/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
.,_._ @ VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C.20024 (202) 554 2345
22 1 basically cleaned up.
2 MS. MARSHALL Even under ideal conditions it 3 would be five or six years.
4 HR. BARRETT:
Maybe a little faster under 5 ideal conditions.
If the core comes apart very easily, 6 the head comes off very easily, maybe a little shorter, 7 but not significantly so.
8 MR. SMITHGALLs I don't mean to interrupt Ms.
9 Marshall here, but I think that is really important for 10 everyone to know here, is if it is five to six years 11 under a good solid shot at cleaning the place up, 12 barring terrible unforeseen problems with the core and 13 all that, what is the other number at $5 million a month 14 and less?
15 MR. MI!!HICH:
Terrible.
16 MR. SMITHGALLs I didn't hear that.
What was 17 tha t, Jack?
18 MR. MINNICHs Terrible.
19 MS. MARSHALL:
Twice that long.
MR. SMITHGALLs Are you saying twice that much, 20 21 do we look a t ten years?
Or do we look at any 22 BR. BARRETTs It may even be more than twice that because there is a baseload, you know, 23 24 housekeeping, baby sitting, whatever you want to call 25 that, that you have got to pay the people in the control ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
23 the monitors, you have to do all 1 room, you have to pay 2 the sampling sni that sort of thing, and that is 3 somewhere in the neighborhood of that $2.5 million a 4 month, which gives you virtually no net forward 5 progress.
So if you vent back to that, it is going to 6 be sitting there for a long, long time, you know, many, 7 many years.
8 You can kind of play with the numbers any way 9 you want, but l't will stretch out considerably more than 10 six years if you cut it back.
MR. MINNICH4 Gosh, Lake, are you then saying 11 12 that in reality we are only putting $2.5 million a month 13 and not $5 million because $2.5 million is the figure 14 for just the babysitting?
15 HR. BARRETTs The numbers -- you know, I hate 16 to get too bogged down in these numbers.
Like the 17 $1 billion that's so-called for cleanup, that includes 18 the baseload, the housekee ping, wha tever, f or, like, a 19 six-year period, and that was sort of the cost 20 estimators used that period.
If you start to say, now, 21 it is ten years, the costs may well go over the 22 $1 billion because you still have that baseload you have 23 to do.
HR. MINNICH:
Would it pay -- I d on ' t know, 24 25 Bob,.what do you have, about $90 pillion, $80 million ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
f0A K5Ft3(WiM90 2345
24 1 left in insurance funds?
2 MR. ARNOLDs Yes, tha t's pretty close.
3 MR. MINNICH:
Somewhere in that neighborhood.
4 MR. ARNOLD:
Perhaps I could add a couple 5 other comments, too, that 6
MB. MINNICH:
Go ahead.
Don't run away, Lee.
7 (Laughter.)
8 MR. ARNOLDs The $1 bi311on estimate, 51.34 9 billion tha t we worked up and provided last July that I 10 ref erred to before does cover all expenditures from the 11 time of the accident through the completion of the 12 cleanup if we were able to follow that plan that that 13 estimate was based upon.
The plan made the assumption 14 we could go to the level I indicated of $130 million or 15 5135 million in 1982 and proceed without being funding 16 limited, and that would require $760 million to complete 17 the job from where we would be a t the end of
'81.
So 18 the remaining effort, in a sense, is $760 million based 19 upon being able to proceed not limited by funding as of 20 the beginning of this year.
21 The issue of -- well, let me also say that 22 does include this baseload effort that both Lake and I 23 were referring to.
So what happens if you don't you 24 know, if you go indefini.tely at this level, I don't know 25 either.
.i ALDERSoN REPoRTINo COMPANY,INC, NUiWCIQ/XILfal WTHETE1 D.C. 20024 (202].554 2345
25 1
MB. MINNICH:
Obv ious ly, if the insurance 2 money is expended and there is now no more insurance 3 money, the housekeeping kind of thing must still go on.
4 Where does that money come from?
5 MR. ARNOLDs Well, tha t's the really tough 6 question because currently not quite all but the 7 majority of the funding even this year will come from 8 insurance f unds, and what we actually had as of the 1st 9 of the year is about 585 million, and we expect that on 10 our current procram we would spend F00-45 million of 11 tha t and the balance will have to come from funds that 12 otherwise would be used in other aspects of our electric 13 operations.
In effect, they have to at this point come of whatever earninos are generated on the other 14 out 15 portions of the company's investment in plant.
Is The insurance money really is only providing 17 u s a bridge at this point for about two years, and we 18 plan at this point to proceed at the level th a t we had 19 in 1981, which is at about $60 million a year.
We spent 20 559 million in 1981.
But that is chewino up the 21 insurance money at a fairly alarming rate.
MR. ROTH:
The figures that I have were given 22 23 to me by Gale Holby, and you have $134,873,000.
But in 24 1983 you have $196 million that are needed or programmed 25 for cleanup, and then it goes to $151 million, $167 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
mfd
26 1 million in '85, and $104 million, down to a low $3 2 million in
'87.
3 MR. ARNOLD:
One way to look at that is that is $750 million over five years, an average of about 4 it 5 $150 million a year kind of effort.
6 MR.,0CHRAN:
Let me just run through some 7 simple arithmetic and you tell me if this is the right 8 answer.
MR. MINNICH4 You don't do a simple arithmetic.
9 MR. COCHRAN:
$130 million a year for six 10 11 years cleans up the job.
Now, that's about $11 million 12 a month.
Now, you are sayino 52.5 million is just the team together and doesn' t get any work done, 13 holding honest 14 so I'm saying about $8.5 million gets you some 15 work.
18 MR. ARNOLD Let me --
MR. COCHRAN:
Well, wait.
Let me finish.
17 perhaps just ask you to 18 MR. ARNOLD:
19 cla rif y tha t the first $2.5 million makes us no net 20 progress on cleanup.
MR. COCHRAN:
All right.
That's what I'm 21 22 saying.
MR. ARNOLD:
Thank you.
23 MR. COCHRAN:
Now, right now you are spending 24 25 $5 million, of which $2.5 million is going towards ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, M
27 1 progress on the cleanup.
Well, that is about one-third 2 of what you would hope to spend; 8.5 divided by 2.5 3 gives you 3.4.
Now, if I multiply the six years by 3.4, 4 it says it's going to take you 20 years to clean it up 5 at this rate.
Now, is that 6
MR. ARNOLDs I think it is incorrect to remove 7 the 2.5 from the 5 without removing it from the 11.
8 MR. COCHRANt I did.
I removed it from the 11 9 and I cot 8.5, and I removed it from the 5 and I get 10 2.5 s 2.5 into 8.5 is 3.us 3.4 times 5.8, which is six 11 yea rs, gives you 20 years.
12 MR. SMITHGALLs I think you see the concern 13 here that comes to me is that this is slowly be';oming a 14 saf ety problem for us and not necessarily a financial 15 problem for us to solve.
16 MR. ABNOLD Well, I don't think that's 17 anything different than all oE us have been --
18 MR. SMITHGALL If it is going to take 20 19 yea rs, I'm wondering about the integrity of the whole 20 system to contain it that long.
21 MR. COCHRAN.
Well, the bottom line is you 22 need more money, right?
MB. ABNOLD:
Sure, and you know, what you are 23 24 pointing out is no dif ferent than what we have been 25 saying since the summer of 1980 when we had to cut back i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, lie.
28 1 in the level of effort because it was clear the funding 2 wasn 't going to be available or was not available as 3 anticipated, and that some mechanism for funding the 4 cleanup would have to be put in place, and it was clear 5that we wer'e goin'g to have to conserve our insurance 6 funds to bridge between that period of September 1980 7 and when that f unding mechanism was developed, and we 8 are no different than where we said we were.
And I 9 think, frankly, while the arithmetic works out that way 10 clearly, Dr. Cochran, you don't just have a 20-year 11 stretched out ef f ort, obviously.
Other problems will 12 develop.
13 HR. MINNICH:
Except that under the current 14 existing f unding scheme, we really --
15 HR. ARN01D Vell, no, it is in a sense sort 16 of worse than that because the arithmetic presumed that 17 you could at least have 560 million a year available.
18 MR. MINNICH:
Yes, which you don ' t ha ve.
^
19 HR. ARNOLD:
Currently we would have 20 approximately $20 million that is coming from other 21 things.
We don't see the prospect for being able to 22 increase that with the current financial situation of 23 the company, so when the $40 million piece that 24 represents insurance drawdown evaporates the insurance, 25 we don't have the 560 million a year.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
7,.,y.
'29' 3
i!
1 MR. MINNICH:
Right.
2-Any other questions?
3 MS. MARSHALL:
In September of 1980 when you 4 had to curtail the cleanup, by how much was it curtailed?
5 MR. ARNOLD:
At that time we were spending at 6 a rate of about $100-105 million a year, 1980 dollars.
7 Our initial target for the reduction in effort was to 8 get.to a $50 million dollar a year level of effort, and 9 where we kind of settled out as we sorted things out was
~
10 a t the $60 million a year level of effort.
11 As we reduced the effort, saw what parts 12 weren 't amenable to being reduced and still f ulfill our 13 primary responsibilities, our immediate 14 responsibilities, then we looked at how fast we should 15 use up the insurance funds with what the prospect seemed 16 to be for f unding, and a $60 million a year level seemed 17 to be about the right judgment, and it did address the 18 major risk to inadvertent releases, that of cleanup of 19 the water, and it also enabled us to address getting off 20 the site, with the major help, of course, from the 21 Department of Energy, the concentrated. radioactive 22 material that we were gathering up.
So I think from a programmatic standpoint with 23 24 the funds that wpre available, it represented a 25 reasonable way to proceed, but it cannot go on i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
30 1 indefinitely.
2 MS. MARSHALL:
In other wcrds, you cut it 3 about 40 percent?
4 MR. ARNOLD:
I think if one takes into account 5 inflation and whatnot, then it is more like 50 percent.
6 MR. MINNICH:
Okay?
7 MS. MARSHALL:
Yes.
8 MR. MINNICH:
Go ahead, Tom.
9 MR. SMITHGALL4 What have you done as a 10 corporation to generate cash to contribute to this, 11 outside of insurance f unds, internally?
12 MR. ARNOLD:
I think that has been dealt with 13 f airly extensively by Mr. Cherry in. previous comments 14 f or the panel.
I will be glad to try to, I guess, 15 summarize some of that.
16 MR. SMITHGALL:
That might be helpful.
17 MR. ARNOLD 4 Fundamentally, the company cannot
(
18 genera te ca sh from other than customer revenues or l
19 borrowing.
The customer revenues were adjusted such 20 tha t the critical case between Metropolitan Edison 21 Company where we only had 54 percent of Met Ed's 22 investment recognized in their rates, and effectively 23 all of the earnings on. that investment went to TMI, some 24 to TMI-1, some to TMI-2, to get TMI-1 ready to operate 25 again.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
1 31 1
1 The banks would not loan any money to us for 2 the purpose.of cleanup of. Unit 2.
They saw no assurance 3 on the part of the company that we.could ever repay that 4 kind of debt, and we had no assets within the company to 5 pledge, as it were, for'the loans because the way in 8 which public utilities operate is in effect to keep 7 themselves mortgaged to the maximum of the value of 8 their property ' because that is what actually results in 9 the lowest cost to the customers.
So regulation
- 10. provides the incentive -for that type of financial 11 structure.
12 MB. MINNICH:
Okay.
Does anybody else have
- 13 any more questions of Bob or Blake?
I'd (No response.)
15 Okay, thank you very much.
16 -
MR. BIXBY:
Mr. Chairman, my name is Willis 17 Bixby. I am the DOE onsite representative.
And'though I
- 18. can ? t answe r Dr.. Wald's question as to where we will be 19 in.0ctober, I thought it beneficial to give you a 20 perspective on ~ wh'a t the Department is doing this year.
21 It is our goal-to ship or to have all of the SDS liners, as Bob said, of f the Island to Richland, 22 23 Washington by the end of this year, and the EPICORE 24 lin ers, all 49, off the, island by the end of~this year 25 also to the Idaho National. Engineering Laboratory.
a d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
32 1
With respect, Tom, to the questions that you 2 had regarding what impact. would this have on the RCD 3 program, as you know, we have an' RCD program to convert we are 4 two of those liners 'into Olass this year, and O
5 exploring the viability of converting'the rest of those 6 into glass for geologic' test devices.
7 With respect to the EPICORE RCD program, we 8 are exploring the use of the high integrity container as 9 part of a demonstration program at the Idaho National 10 Engineering Laboratory.
11 With respect to the '83 funding, we'are 12 pre paring budget inf ormatien right now.
I believe that 13 information is being handled by the Department of
- 14 Commerce.
But we have full funding this year of about 15 $ 3,0 million, and we are proceeding,.as Mr. Meese said in 16 his letter to Governor Thornburgi., on the $75 million 17 plus oug base program of $48 - million.
18 M R'.
MINNICHs The container that you are 19 developing to hold the liners, what is the projection on 20 tha t, the completion?
o 21 MR. BIXBYs The prototype is anticipated to be 22 completed sometime this spring, in the May-June time 23~ frame, and they will be tested.and evaluated at INEL.
24 It is our in ten t -to, with GPU, to ship those to Idaho 25 and conduct that demonstration program at Idaho, ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 4
33 1 actually put the EPICORE liners inside the high 2 integrity liners at the INEL.
3 MR. MINNICH:
Okay, thank you.
4 Any questions?
5 (No response.)
6 Thank you, Willis.
I appreciate that very 7 auch.
8' MR. BIXBY Okay.
9 MR. MINNICH:
Larry Hochendoner.
10
. Larry, for the panel's information, is a 11 f ellow county commissioner 'here is Dauphin County.
12 Larry had a press conference -- last Friday, larry?
MR. HOCHENDONER:
Yes.
13 MR. MINNICH:
In which he addressed throughout 14
.15 a proposal that I have asked him to come here and share 16 with' the panel.tonigh t, and then we have a couple 17 questions, Larry.
MR. HOCllENDONER:
Fine.
18 19 Do you have the copy that I gnve you on 20 Friday, perchence?
21 MR. MINNICHa Over in the office.
22 MR. HO.CHENDONER:
.Okay.
Well, I will be happy 23 through Jack to provide's copy of the statement that I intended to give'to the subcommittee or the committee 24 25-when Senator Specter and Senator Hatf'ield were scheduled 4
LDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, -
34 1 to come into town the previous week.
I have since sent 2 that statement to them and to other officials, both PUC, 3 the Governor's Office and NRC.
.The concern that I attempted to address in the
(
5 statement was not so much the various aspects of the two 6 proposals, at least to the best of my abilit'y that I 7 could discern a t this point, tha t dealt with the cleanup 8 operations, that being'both Congressman Ertel's plan and 9 Governor Thornburgh's plan.
'10 The concern that I had dealt more specifically 11 with the execution or the initial stages of execution of ti2 Governor Thornburgh 's plan with the recen t FUC decision, 13 and the linkage and the condition that appears to exist 14 in Phase 2 of the PUC decision whereby cleanup funds and 15 the access to $25 million of those funds can only be 10 obtained once resta rt' occurs.
~17 My objective was to,,as forcefully and 18 accurately as possible make those two issues separate 19 and to guarantee th a t there was not a condition of.
20 restart to gain ' access.
In order to address some of the 21 economic realities surrounding that, both from the 22 perspectiV6 of the utility and the plan, as I understand 23 it, that the Governor has' proposed, the suggestion that 24 I made, th'e bottom line, was th'at the deferred energy-25 surcharge which was to be discontinued, I believe, in
~
~
n N DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
(
ka-m m
35 1 Phase 3 -- well, it will be discontinued as of this 2 spring in its present form -- be continued past this 3 spring.
4 That would account for somewhere over'$30 5 million, 532 million that the utility would continue 6 those revenues, and use that as a trigger f or an access 7 to the $25 million that, the PUC has provided in Phase 2 8 rather than having the trigger the restart.
9 If that were the case and if the PUC would 10 choose to seriously consider that, there would be not 11 only the continuation of the surcharge, v".i ch I am 12 tremendously empathetic and sympathetic 'for the rate 13 payers, however that surcharge is something that ther 14 are presently accustomed to payinI, and if you look at 15 the possibility of what may exist should a restart occur 16 prema turely, certainly from an, unintentional standpoint 17 but prematurely in terms of the s3 stem and the financial 18 consequences of that to the ratepayers let alone the 19 potential consequences in terms of health and safety if 20 one would have to be closed down for any purpose, then I 21 think the continuation of the deferred energy surcharge 2iis a minimal amount that would hate t '. be paid that 23 would guarantee health, safety and not ensure a 24 situa tion that would mean catastrophic financial 25 con sequences.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
36 1
The surcharge itself,'if continued, would not 2 only provide those monies but'then you would use that as 3 a kick-in to get an additional $25 million, so you are 4 probably talking somewhere in excess of $50 million that 5 would be generated without a restart.
6 That.vas essentially the proposal.
I did 7 offer some obserystions about both Congressman Ertel's 8 plan. and Governor Thornburgh's plan.
The one comment I 9 would like to make about the Governor's plan generally 10 is that in my research, brief as it may be, into the 11 issue, regardless of what figure is used for the amount 12 projected for cleanup, I can't help escape the 13 conclusion that it is an educated guess.
No matter how 14 educated, it is still a projection and a guess, and with 15 the plan as it is now set forth, with the dollar amounts 18 tha t' all pa rticipan ts, the Feds, the state and the 17 utilities are projected to contribute, it could easily 18 escala te.
The concern that I have is that instead of 19 20 setting a fixed dollar amount, we ought to deal with the i
21 percentage of whatever that total cleanup cost might 22 be.
Now, that might at first hand appear to be slightly 23 unrealistic, but in another way, if we are talking about l
l l
24 the kind of variation of time f rames tha t were so far 25 discussed this evening, whether that be six years, ten l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, N
RJ)
37 1 years or twenty years, I think we have to be just as 2 realistic to try to ascertain where is the money coing 3 to come f rom, given a short period or a long period of 4 time.
i 5
So I would like'to see the participants 6 concern themselves more with the percentage role of 7 whatever that amount is as opposed to a set dollar 8 role.
That to me would at least make me feel'a little 9 bit more comfortable about the extent of the commitment 10 and the fact that it will be done.
I have concerns over the -- and I didn't.
11 12 address this in.the statement but it did cc.ne up later 13 b y questions from the press, concerning the removal of 14 the core and the commitment on the part of DOE at this 15 point f or the percentage that they are willing to 16 accept.
Again, tha'.'s a cost factor in the long run,
[
f 17 and I would like to see tha t percentage as a ba se.
18 That is essentially about it.
There are some 1-detai1s which I would be happy to address if you have 19 20 questions.
MR. MINNICH:
Questions, anyone?
Tom?
21 I
MB. SMITHGALLs I might be able to agree w'ith 22 i
23 that, if I understood the PUC regula tions and all, only if I see a commitment -- a ratepayer commitment in that 24 25 respect, as long as there is a company commitment as far ALDERSON REPORDNG COMPANY,INC,
38 1 as diverting any monies towards -- for exampla, 2 repairing the steam tube leaks in Unit 1,
rather than 3 going forward with that, taking what it is going to cost 4 to repair that 5
MR. HOCHENDONER And making sure it cets into 6 cleanup.
7 MR. SMITHGALLs
-- and put it towards the a decontamination of Unit 2.
9 MR. HOCHENDONER Right.
to MR. SMITHGALL:
Do you see the connection I am 11 trying to make?
12 MR. HOCHENDONER:
It is a very relationship to 13 dra w.
MR. SMITHGALLs They have definitely got other 14 15 problems with Unit 1 that are going to take cash 16 expenditures, and if I see them spending their money 17 there, I can't support the ratepayers continuing to pay 18 as well.
MR. HOCHENDONOR:
No, that's a very good point 19 20 and I would agree.
MR. SMITHGhLL:
Something to consider.
21 22 MR. MINNICH:
Any other questions?
(No response.)
23 Thank you, La rry.
I ap'preciate it.
24 MR. HOCHENDONER:
Okay.
Thank you.
25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
39 l
a 1
MR. MINNICHs By the way, some of'the 2 questions that were in our minds, you answered as you 3 vent along there.
That's why they were not asked.
Colonel, I promised you some time last month 4
5 because I couldn't get to you on the agenda we had at 6 Lancaster, and promised you tonight, and you are on.
I
=
7 hope you won't take too awf ully long.
8 COL. PHOUTZ:
I left my prepared speech at 9 home, so therefore it won't take me too long.
10 MR. MINNICH:
Good.
11 (Laughter.)
12 COL. PHOUTZs I'm Col.'J. Phoutz, Jr., and'I 13 am concerned about who is going to pay for the cleanup.
14 It so happens that everything I heard, it's going to be 15 the ratepayers or the taxpayers, and in my book, th a t 's 16 anything but fair.
What we oucht to do is assess the 17 people who ' invested the money in the construction of 18 Unit No. 2, and even if' the y go bankrupt, t h a't should be 1g " tough."
And we should not allow any nuclear l
20
(
21 corporation to pay dividends.
Those dividends should go to the cleanup of Unit No.
2.
And then if af ter all 22 the things are exhausted and there is no money, and the 23 24 people who caused the holocaust or nearly caused the 25 holocaust have became paupers, then we ha ve taken from i
ALDER 7.,oM REPORTING COMPANY,INC,,
t
40 1 them the same things that GPU has taken from us, our 2 livelihood in the garden spot of Lierica.
3 I feel as if we have a road that we.have to go 4 down, not have our legislators say the ratepayers, the 5 PUC say the ratepayers.
That is ridiculous.
The 6 ratepayers had nothing to do with the construction of 7 Unit No. 2 or Unit No. 1 or any of the rest of it.
Sure 8 our government fostered nuclear energy..They subsidized 9 it, which was a crime.
And therefore, after all the 10 people who has invested their f unds in the creation with 11 a greedy attitude to make profits, they should be 12 penalized in relation to the amount of money that ther 13 invested.
14 Now, this is the way to go.
15 MR. MINNICH4 Colonel, excuse me.
I don't 16 normally do this, but I must react to.one thing you said here, and I will play the devil's ad voca te, for whatever 17 18 it's worth.
But I thought part of the American system 19 was a system where people could invest in things with an
- 20. expectation that there would be a return.
That's part 21 o f the American syster, not the Russian system or 22 something like that, and you seem to be painting all investors as greedy.
I can't quite agree with that.
23 24 Sorry.
25 CO,L. PHOUTZ.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
41 1 about that, but th e whole thing in a nutshell, when I 2 get an automobile, I have to go out and insure myself, 3 against any liability that may be caused for any damace 4 it may cause you, and because these corporations did not 5 carry enough of insurance to pay for a holocaust as well 6 as a cleanup, they should-be penalized.
I believe in 7 the American way.
I am a Republican --
8 (Laughter.)
and I believe in the Republican form of 9
10 gov ernment, and I am far from a communist.
11 (Laughter.)
12 MR. MINNICH:
Thank you, Colonel.
13 COL. PHOUTZ4 Yes, I believe in the free 14 enterprise system.
In fact, I --
15 MR. MINNICH Okay.
I thought you were 16 condemning the whole free enterprise 17 COL. PHOUTZa Oh, no, indeed.
18 MR. EINNICH Okay, very good.
19 COL. PHOUTZs Hey, if I started condemning, I 20 would have a lot of things to condemn about certain 21 programs that we are giving away our substance, where we 22 take from the energetic and give it to the improvident.
23 I sm very much sgsast it.
I 24 HR. HINNICH ' Okay.
1 l
25 COL. PHOUTZ Now, you got me off the trac'-
l l
ALDERSON FEPORTING COMPANY. INC,
. @ VIR$1NIA AVE.g S.W.9 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
42 i for a minute.
\\
2 MR. MINNICHs I'm sorry.
I apologize.
3 COL. PHOUTZ:
But I just felt this way.
If we 4 allow our investors to invest in things which are 5 detrimental to you and me, we have other things.
We 6 have the hazard of waste, not only f rom radioactive 7 material.
We ha ve o ther ha zardous waste.
But we are 8 living in a fine society where gases is being created in 9 our homes f rom dif f erent ma terials that makes our life 10 more comf ortable, so I'm not criticizing you, I do 11 believe in it.
12 But we have to come to a solution.somehow.
13 Instead of taking a small segment of the society and 14 compelling them to pay for the cleanup, I feel as if 1t 15 should be done in a very equitable way, and the most 16 equitable way is to make the perpetrators to become l
17 first responsible.
18 So, is there any questions?
MR. MINNICHs Questions?
19 20 (No response.)
21 Thank you, Colonel.
We promised-2 ou time and 22 you got it.
(Applause.)
23 MR. COCHItANs Wha t db y'ou think about that, 24 l
25 Bob?
i l
r ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
43 1
(Pause.)
2 MR. MINNICHs Do you want to?
Okay, go ahead, 3 please.
4 MR. ARNOLDs The Colonel and I ha ve talked 5 bef ore and probably aren't much closer to consensus on e this than previously, but I think th a t the thing tha t 7 clearly we do agree very much with him is that an 8 equitable solution, an equitable way of spending it 9 or rather paying for the cost of cleanup is what is to needed.
11 I think it is also clear that there is a large 12 variety of opinion as to what constitutes equity, and we 13 have been working for the last year and a half to 14 attempt to facilitate agreement am'ong the various 15 parties tha t have an interest and a concern with this to 16 develop an equitable solution.
I think Governor 17 Thornburgh's proposal for an approach represents a very 18 positive and a very practical approach to funding the 19 cleanup.
I~think it also represents one which many can 20 consider as equitable.
In terms of bankrupting the company, I think 21 22 the thing that we continually need to keep in mind there 23 is that that is a course of action that has been studied 24 by a wide variety of different institutions and 25 representatives of institutions and that those that 1
ALDERSoN ftEPORTING COMPANY. INC,
44 1 would really be rasponsible for the outcome of th a t 2 have, I think, in all cases agreed that that doesn't 3 represent an equitable approach at all.
4 MR. i!INNICH:
Bob, I think you would be 5 interested in this.
I had chctted with you before the 6 aseting started.
You were not aware of that one from 7 Florida, and I thought perhaps you migh t like tha t.
8 Thank you, Bob.
9 MR. COCHRAN:
I'm curious.
How much equity is 10 there in the common and preferred stock in~--
11 MR. ARNOLDs In the GPU system?
12 MR. COCHRANa Yu.
13 MR. ARNOLD:
Le3's see, Mr. Cherry had those 14 numbers and I think, Tom, rather than me trying to 15 identif y them -- it is basically about $600 million 1e original investment in equity, as I recall, perhaps 17 $ 150 million
- no, let me withdraw that.
Those are not 18 systemwide numbers.
I would be glad to get them for you have them immediately available.
19 but I don't 20 MR. MINNICH:
Thank you.
21 COL. PHOUTZa Mr. Chairman.
22 MR. MINNICH:
Yes, go ahead, Colonel.
23 COL. PHOUTZ.
When you get on your feet, you 24 sometimes f orget what you're going to say.
25 MR. MINNICH4 I understand.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
45 1
COL. PHOUTZ:
One of the things which I would 2 suggest is we will have a lot of these plants that would 3 have to be decontaminated and disposed of af ter 40 4 years.
We should also set up a taxation policy such as 5 possibly a tax on a11' energy, whether it be oil or 6 gasoline or what it is, so that when an incident like 7 tha would happen again -- I'm with you, Bob, believe 8 me, I am -- that if an incident like this happens again, 9 there will be f unds that we won't have to worry for two 10 or three years that we will have to go out and try to 11 scrounge or borrow or things like that.
12 We should have this in a trust fund such as 13 the Social Security, which is going bankrupt, but 14 anyways, where money should be available because we 15 never know.
It just happened up in New York State.
It 16 could have been as bad as down here.
It wasn't, and 17 thsnk God for that.
So've should in some way or other 18 establish a f und for the cleanup and decommissioning of 19all nuclear power plants, and we should also take part 20 of this noney and go into research and development for 21 clean energy.
Thank you.
22 MR. MINNICHs Thank you, Colonel.
23 I have passed out to the panel members, and 24 25 unf or tunately I don't have sufficient copies to share ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
46 I with the audience.
One of our panel members has 2 submitted to the panel a proposed resolution -- by the 3 way, is anyone here from EEI? -- a proposed resolution 4 whereby the bottom line is that +his advisory panel 5 would be encouraging EEI to make an immedia te, up front 6 commitment of 732 million to Met Ed for the cleanup in 7 1982, which would carry with it a plan from Met Ed 8 basically, as I understand it, for the cleanup that 9 would in a sense be approved by or be spent, given the 10 s t a mp of spproval by this panel, and then tha t is what 11 you would proceed with.
12 The members have a copy, the members of the 13 panel, and I wouli open the resolution for discussion.
14 I might point out that Henry, unfortunately, is in 15 Chicago and could not be wi th us tonight, and one of th e 16 first questions that I would have had to ask Henry --
17 Liza, is that correct?
MR. STOLZ:
Kate Stolz.
18 MR. MINNICH4 Kate.
I'm sorry.
It would be 19 20 the fact that we already are aware of two states that 21 have said, in effect, either they will not help 22 participate in cleanup or they will fight their 23 participation in the cleanup, and what that does to the 24 EEI and their ability to make any commitmen t for money 25 if in fact the states are going to be recalcitrant on ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
47 1 participating; and yet the Colonel made a very good 2 point when you mentioned the incident in New York, in 3 which they state that the lessons that were learned at 4 TMI helped ' prevent that from becoming another TMI or 5 worse.
8 So in s sense the cost that was paid here, 7 shouldn't they then help pay if it paid its way in that 8 respect.
I don ' t know.
Those are the kinds of things 9 tha t we struggle with.
But does the panel have any 10 questions or any discussions on Henry's resolution or 11 even desire a course of action on it tonight?
12 MS. MARSHALLa Well, I wondered if the offer 13 was made on the basis that the other funding sources 14 would be available.
15 MR. MINNICH:
Okay.
Henry's proposal is that 16 the EEI would nake this commitment with no contingency 17 on any other of the proposed funding sources.
This 18 would be a woodwill gesture on their part, and by this 19 being presented in that way, hopefully that would be the 20 key that would unlock the door and bring the others in 21 when they see that there was a voluntary pa rtici pa tion.
22 And I might stress that basically Henry's premise is a it is one that can be 23 good one but I'm not sure that 24 early dealt with in the sense that the EEI can only 25 commit what its member states come up with, as I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
f f4 8 1 understand it.
2 MS. MARSHALLS This clipping that we have from 3 New Mexico and Florida about the possibility of a couple 4 of utilities not participating.
5 MR. MIN 1ICHs Yes.
e MS. MARSHALL:
Are they members of this EEI?
7 MR. MINNICH:
Yes.
8 MS. MARSHALLS And as dissenting members, I r
9 would 10 MR. MINNICHs Yes, they are dissenting 11 sta tes.
Those are the first two, to my knowledge, who 12 have been heard from.
New Mexico, the Attorney General 13 has interjected himself into the rate proposed increase, 14 and Florida -- I have not had a chance to read the 15 article, but Florida, the headline says they absolutely te will not pay.
I don't know that the EEI has the 17 well, they don't.
All of the states have something that 18 is at least equivalent to our PUC, which are independent bodies and cannot be mandated to by the EEI or the 19 20 governor or whatever, as I understand 21 MS. MARSHALLS The Florida clipping does say 22 tha t it might reconsider its decision if it receives a 23 request from one of the government agencies, and those 24 agencies include the NRC and the Federal Energy 25 Regulatory Commission. I don't know whether they are ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,6NC,
49 1 prepared to, whether the NRC might be prepared to 2 request that Florida and the other members of the group 3 pa rticipa te, but that would 4
MR. MINNICH:
That raises an interesting 5 point.
I'm glad you picked it up.
I had not, as I 6said, read the article.
I don't know if the NRC ct n 7 request a public utility to participate.
I don't think a they can mandate.
Of course they could request, I 9 suppose.
10 MR. SNYDER:
I'm Bernie Snyder, NRC, and I 11 won 't speak with any great authority on that question, 12 obviously; but my own judgment is that that is not 13 within our charge to do.
It is conceivable, o.:ly because I'm not familiar at all with what 14 conceivable 15 FERC's responsibilities are, but they do set the rates 16 f or wholesale power -- it's conceivable that they might 17 be in a position to do that.
18 But probably the best governmental body to do 19 tha t is the one that represents the whole country, and 20 that 's the Congress.
21 MR. MINNICH Yes, that's a good point, too, 22 because some of thc senators indicated when we were 23 down, Joel, that they were very, very hesitant to take 24 on the task of legislating in that area.
They didn't 25 want to touch it.
So you're right, Congress could, of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
50 1 course, but the way Congress has been moving on this 2 whole issue, I don't foresee them attempting to do that.
3 MR. SNYDER So far.
4 MR. MINNICH4 Right.
5 VOICES Do you know son'ething, Bernie?
~
6 MR. SNYDER:
No, I don't, but one has to be 7 optimistic on this job.
8 MR. MINNICH:
Okay.
9 Any other discussion on this?
10 MR. SMITHGALLs I have two problems with it.
11 I see " whereases" but I don't see what we are supposed 12 t o d o, number one.
13 MS. hARSHALL:
Be it resolved.
It's line 12.
14 MR. SMITHGALL:
Did I miss it?
I missed it.
ib The other part, since I've got cleared up, back to the 16 Florida Power article written by a staff writer for the 17 St. Petersburg times.
It quotes an EEI spokeswoman, Ann la Maynard, as saying tha t it is kind of a dead issue at 19 this time.
I am having a difficult time supporting any 20 EEI proposal that Henry puts forward when the only thing s
21 I hear f rom them is now that it is dead.
I don't knov 22 if that's the official statement from EEI or if it's a 23 reaction to Florida Power's turndown.
I don 't know.
I 24 have a difficult time acting on this, though, without 25 knowing.
4 ALDERSON REPoRUNG COMPANY,INC, 20024 (202) 554 2345 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C_
51 1
MR. MINNICH:
Tom, I regret that Henry isn't 2 here, and quite frankly, my feeling is that we really 3 can't act on this until Henry is here because I believe 4 he told me, and I wouldn't want to-be held to this, I 5 believe he told me that before he finalized this, tha t t
6 he had spoken to EEI people who were in basic agreement 7 with his proposal.
Now I stress that I don't want to be 8 held to that.
9 MR. ROBINSONs Well, Mr. Chairman, could I 10 make a motion to table?
I
.11 MR. MINNICH4 I wish you would.
12 MR. ROBINSON:
I so move.
13 MR. MINNICH:
Second the motion?
MR. SMITHGALLs I will second that.
14 15 MR. MINNICH Properly moved and seconded.
10 All those in f avor of the motion indica te such by saying 17 " A Y e. "
(There was a chorus of "Aye.")
18 MR. MINNICH:
Opposed?
i 19 (There was no response.)
20 i
MR. MINNICH:
The " Ayes" have it.
Then the l
21 with us to give 22 resolution is tabled until we have Henry 23 us a little more detail.
Time, gentlemen, please?
Tom, time?-
24 l
MR. SMITHGALLs 8:25.
25 ALDERSON REPORDNQ COMPANY,INC.
TfCK O.C. 20024 (202L554 2345
52 1
MR. MINNICH:
8:25.
Does anyone from the 2 audience care to address?
3 Co ahead, A1.
I knew you would have something 4 to say.
By the way, A1, I did have your articles that 5 you sent me reproduced and distributed.
8 MR. MANNICK:
Very good.
Al Mannick, 7 Niddletown.
8 This recent Senate committee that was 9 scheduled to come to-Harrisburg and was snowad out, I 10 tried my darnedest to get a spot to speak for five 11 minutes, and probably you did and other members did.
12 However, there's a lot of people at th e tim e we re burned 13 u p.
This panel is going to lay over anyhow for a night, 14 why couldn' t they hold hearings in the morning or 15 sometime so maybe we all could get a chance for five 16 minutes.
17 MR. MINNICHa That's a good question.
I don't 18 know. But f or those of you who do not know, the panel 19 has again been postponed and will not meet until March 20 8th, I believe is the date.
21 MR. MANNICK:
I'm glad I opened ny. mouth.
MR. MINNICH:
Okay. So it will not be February 22 23 2nd but.rather March -- I believe the date is the 8th of 24 March.
I don't know, A1.
Obviously that is Senator 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, f6).@. FRift3 Eif6) 954 2345
- ~+r-.77;p.?~n ~my
~ '
y
~n
~
- m~
53 1 Hatfield's committee and senators set their own rules, st-2 and certainly -- as a matter of fact, he did not choose 3 to invite snyone f rom this panel to address them either, 4 ehich we.found somewhat strange.
5 Yes, sir, please.
6 MR. K3V ALIC:
My name is John Kavalic and I'm 7 from Middletown, Pennsylvania.
8 This sccident that occurred in New York State 9 here the other day.
When the release of radiation was 10 occurring, I was noting with some, I guess, sense of 11 history on such announcements that the radiation 12 releasesiposed no risk to the public health.
13 I don't know if any of you centlemen wa tched 14 the ABC "Nightline" show Tuesday night with Mr. Koppel 15 when he was interviewing Mr. D en to n.
During the Three 18 Mile Island accident in 1969 and subsequent, there never 17 was a public announcement or admission that somehow the 18 public health was at risk from the accident or anything 19since, the krypton venting, et cetera. It was always no 20 public health risk was involved or would be involved.
Mr. Denton made an omission during that 21 I don 't > now if an ybody sa w it -- that the 22 interview 23 accident in New York wac nowhere near the accident I
24 potential at Three Mile Island and that the public 25 health was at risk from the accident at Three Mile I
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, IN",,
- 67) VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
54 1 Island, and I just wanted to note that in case someone 2 didn't see the program, and if anyone is interested, you 3 coul d probably obtain a transcript from the ABC News 4 "Nigh tline. "
5 MR. MINNICH.
I didn 't see the prog ram, John, t
e but didn't the Governor in his pronouncement, by taking 7 the action tnat he did with expectant mothers, in fact 8 state there was a public risk.
9 MR. KOVALIC Oh, yes, his action, but I'm to talking about NRC, I'm talking about --
11 MR. MINNICHs Oh, I see.
Okay.
You didn't 12 m ak e tha t clear.
Met Ed, people who are 13 MR. KOVALIC4 14 supposed to be our def enders or concerned with our 15 saf ety.
Those of us individually, yes, we always knew 16 there was public risk.
There is risk in daily 17 opera tion.
As a matter of fact, I heard Mr. Arnold 18 mention the factor here about certain figures about the 19 release of this little accidental thing we had here a 20 couple of weeks ago.
Of course, there was always no 21 risk because the wind usually takes away the risk before 22 acrone can monitor or check the actual amount offsite.
,23 But what I'm trying to establish here is that 24 Mr. Denton did allude to something that I hadn't heard 25 from any public side of NBC, or Met Ed, for that matter, ALDERSON REPORD' #G COMPANY,INC.
TCkf08UMfGGFD fPWTYY3
55 1 and I think it is distressing to see that the plant 2 of ficials a t New York Sta te, they all say the same 3 thing, that it doesn't hurt, no public health risk is 4 involved.
In almost any accident you can think of, 5 almost any relesse that goes on, there is never any 6 public risk.because they all depen.d on the prevailing s
7 winds to dissipate bef ore any monitors are in place.
8 I just wanted to bring that to your attention, 9 and I intend to get a transcript of what Mr. Koppel said 10 -- or what Mr. Denton sa.id.
MR. MINNICH:
Bob, go ahead.
11 12 MR. ARNOLDs I wonder if I could just comment 13 o n that beca use I'm af raid there may be some 14 misunderstandings f rom, at least my understanding of 15 what Mr. Denton was saying, and I did happen to see 16 "Nich tline" that night.
I think we have to distinguish between whether 17 18 the accident as it in f act developed led to exposures to 19 people which we re a t levels tha t we need to be concerned 20 relative to other risks that we encounter f rom daily
(
21 experience.
I think what has been said and what 22 continues to be said, and I didn't think was 23 contradicted by Mr. Denton 's sta temen t, is th a t wi th the the releases 24 exposures to the public that occurred f rom 25 from the TMI-2 accident, there were not levels to s
ALDF"*'N REPoRUNG COMPANY. INC,
56 1 individuals that are believed to be of concern in terms 2 of health risk.
3 What I understood Mr. Denton to be saying is 4 that the damage at TMI-2 was severe enough that we had a 5 auch greater potential, i.e., risk of, let me say, more 6 releases from the plan t tha n did in fact occur, and in g
7 that sense there was a prester risk, there was a risk a associa ted with the TMI-2 accident, that was not 9 associated with the incident at Ginna.
10 MR. KOVALICs Well, Mr. Arnold does exactly it what all people do in terms of nuclear energy, whether 12 it be atomic bombs or atomic tests or any nuclear 13 acciden t.
It's the same lines there never was anythinc 14 released that would harm the public health.
I happen to 15 b e an anti-TMI since 1968.
Even in those days I was 16 aware that you can't control this stuff, they can't 17 eitner.
Matter of fact, that's why maintenance is s un e, is a problem.
You can't fix the stuff.
There's noboay is numan hands can't touch it.
During an accident, 20 everybody runs.
21 Well, there were 12 workers exposed there in 22 New York, and of course, I don't know, how many workers 23 nere on a daily basis get exposed unnecessarily, but the 24 public, I know, is always exposed.
Daily operation 25 exposes us to radiation, rsdiation that we normally ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
57 1 would never receive, and that's another song that goes 2 o n' in this area, that once you get the plan t so-called 3 technically safe,-that it is safe.
It is not safe.
4 MR. MINNICII:
Anyone else?
5 MR. ROTH:
Mr. Chairman, then I make a motion 6 to adjourn.
g 7
hh. M16H1CHs hotion.
SecondY 8
VolCE:
Yes.
9 MR. MlNNICH:
The meeting is ad3ourned, and t 1() w ill ask the panel to please remain.
1 vant to meet 11 with the panel as soon as the room clears.
12 Thank you.
13 (Whereupon, at 8 35 p.m.,
the meeting was pl. concluded.)
15 16 17 18 s
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
ro DISTRIBUTION LIST y
i@cggEU FOR MATERIAL RELATING g
4 TO THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THE
-i 8.l T_
THREE MILE, ISLAND UNIT 2
(-
h %,g g02 h thsY 9
Chairman Palladino 1014-H Mr. Peter Tuite (0
Commissioner Gilinsky 1014-H Waste Management Group, Inc.
Commissioner Bradford 1014-H 595 West Hartsdale Ave.
o Commissioner Ahearne 1014-H White Plains, NY 10607 j
C banissioner Roberts 1014-H
^ u J. Dircks, EDO 6209 MN9 Dr. Thomas M. Gerusky 6
- h. R. Denton, NRR P-428 Bureau of Radiation. Protection B. J. Snyde 5031 - AR Department of Environmental Resources L. Barrett 20)
TMI Site fiail Pouch 5th Floor, Fulton Building O. D. T. Lync, Jr.
5031-AR Third and Locust Street R. A. Well er 5031-AR Harrisburg, PA 17120 W. D. Travers 5031 - AR R. Lo 5031 - AR Dr. James Opelka
'i209-AR Argonne National Laboratory (Mail Pouch)
D. Cleary 5205-AR EISD Building 10 C. Hickey W. Pasciak P-712B Argonne, ILL 60439 F. Congel P-712C F. Remick 1013-H PANE M. Libarkin, ACRS 1014-H P.O. Box 268 R. Major, ACRS 1014-H Middletown, PA 17057 J. Cook, OPA 3709-MNB R. Brownina.JMSS 905-SS Mr. Frank D. Davis t ne
- n l a 50 %
01 6 200 Gettysburg, PA e
PDR 01 6 Mechanicsburg,. a 17055 LPDR 01 5 TERA 016 Ms. Beverly'Hess 1037 McClay Street Harrisburg, PA 17103 Mr. Steven M. Long, Director Power Plant Siting Program dir. Edward Charles Department of Natural Resources 90 Mittany Drive Tawes Building B-3 Mechanicsburg, PA 17035 Annacolis, MD 21401 fir. John H. Murdoch U" 0 a
Mr. Herbert F. Feirroth p
0 Nuclear Reactor Evaluation Branch Division of Nuclear Power, 8-107 Ms. Mary Hartnett U.S. Department of Energy c/o TMI Alert Washington 20545 315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, PA 17057 Mr. Matthew Bills, Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator (RD-680)
Dr. Frank Parker U.S. Environmental Protection Agency School of Engineering 401 M Street, SW Vanderbilt University Washington, DC 20450 Nashville, TN 37203 Mr. John Shea Mr. Richard Chamberlain Council on Environmental Quality Society of Nuclear Medicine 722 Jackson Place, NW 475 Park Ave. South t!ashington, DC 20006 New York, NY 10016
Mr. Bob Leyse 1.t. Gen. (Ret., USA) Dewitt C. Smith, Jr.
EPRI-NSAC
'Jirector, Pennsylvania Emergency l
3412 Hillview Ave.
Management Agency l
Palo Alto', CA 94303 P.O. Box 3321 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Mr. Willis Bixby U.S. Department of Energy The Honorable Elizabeth Marshall P.O. Box 88 Mayor of York j
- Ms. Mary J. Gregory
- 9th Floor. Federal Building
/ Mr. Thomas Smithgall 6th and Arch Streets 2122 Marietta Ave.
-l Philadelphia, PA 19106 Lancaster, PA 17603 l
Ms. Lynn DeLaurentis Neil Wald, M.D.
Donaldson, Luskin and Jenrette 5422 Normlee Place 140 Broadway Pittsburgh, PA 15217 New York, NY 10005 Dr. Gordon Robinson The Honorable Robert Reid Associate Professor of -
Mayor of Middletown Nuclear Engineering 60 W. Emaus Street 231 Sackett Building Middletown, PA 17057 University Park, PA 16802 The Honorable Arthur E. Morris Mayor of Lancaster P.O. Box 1559 120 N. Duke Stre L nee.)ufa. M pg Mr. John Minnich, Chairman Dauphin County Commission P.O. Box 1295 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Dr. Henry Wagner John Hopki'.s School of Hygiene 615 N. Wrife Street Room 2001 Baltimore, MD 21205 Dr. Thomas Cochran Natural Resources Dcfense Council Suite 600 1725 1 Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Mrs. Ann Trunk 143 Race Street Middletown, PA 17057 Mr. Joel Roth ROI Box 411 Ha l i fa x, PA 17032
_ _ _ _.