ML20098F627
| ML20098F627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1984 |
| From: | Duck J MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. |
| To: | Saltzman J NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410030199 | |
| Download: ML20098F627 (5) | |
Text
7-.
Marsh &
MGlennan ktarsh & McLennan, incorporated I
1300 San Jr.cinto Tower N " 38I 2121 San jarinto Street Dallas, Texas 75201 g
Telephone 214 742-1941
^
September 24, 1984 Mr. Jerome Saltzman Assistant Director State & Licensee Relations Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Georgia Power Company E. l. Hatch Nuclear Plant Nuclear Liability Insurance ANI/MAELU Policies NF-215/MF-78 End or sement s' No. 90 and 91/ 74 and '75
Dear Jerry:
Enclosed for your records are two certified copies each of Endorsement Nos. 90 and 91 to ANI Policy NF-215 and Endorsement Nos. 74 and 75 to MAELU Policy MF-78 to the Georgia Power Company E.1. Hatch Nuclear Plant.
Very truly yours,
/ John [ Duck, Jr.
Assistant Vice President M&M Nuclear Consultants i
cc: J. Wyman Lamb D. B. Cochran J. L. Collins 1
H. L. Davis jf/ enclosures i
g410%[o pk 1
s )
PDR J
f NUCLEAll ENEllG Y LIABILITY INSURANCE s
MUTUAL ATOMIC ENERGY LIABILITY UNDEltWRITERS
't.-
Amendment of Advance Premium Endorsement 2
Standard Premium and Reserve Premium Endo rsement 3.
Additional Premium Due 1.
Advance Premium It is agreed that the Amended Advance Premium due the companies for the calendar year 1984 is $105,997 50 2
Standard Premium and Reserve Premium Subject to the provisions of the Industry Credit Rating Plan, it is agreed that the Standard Premium and Reserve Premium for the calendar year designated above are:
r Standard Premium
$105,997.50 Reserve Premium
$ 79,883.10
- 3. : Additional Premium $22.50 Effective Date of To form a part this endorsement January 1, 1984 of Policy No.
MF-70 Issued to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and City of Dalton, Georgia Date of Issue September 18, 1984 Tor the Subscribing Companies MUTUAL ATOM C ENERGY LIABILITY UNDERV'RITERS
'D By t
. N. C-g 4 '
% ([F <1 g
T w-Endorsement No.
75 Counte rsigned by Authorized Representative This 10 to certify that thic is a true copy of the original ME-36 Endorsement having the endorcement num':cr and being nado part of the Nuclear Energy Liability.P ticy (Facility Form) as dos-ignate hereon. No Insurance is - forded hereundor.
.s. W hhn L Qu.ttrocchi, Vice President.f,Id,0;ty Undemr:Ung American NudearInsurers
NUCLEAR ENERGY LIABILITY INSURANCE MUTUAL ATOMIC ENERGY LIABILITY UNDERWRITERS Restoration of Limit of Liability Endorsement It is agreed that:
1.
Payments made ard expenses incurred by the cmpanies under this policy have reduced, in accordance with Condition 3 of the policy, the limits of the cmpanies' liability stated in Item 4 of the Declaraticns and in all Increase of Limit of Liability Endorsements.
2.
'Ihe limit of liability stated in Endorsenent No.
66 which has been reduced is hereby restored to S 36,000,000.00
'Ihis restored limit applies only with respect to obligations assumed or expenses incurred because of bodily injury or pwr:rty damage caused by the nuclear energy hazard after the effective date of this endorsenent.
3.
The limits of liability stated in the policy shall not be cunulative. Each payment made by the cmpanies after the effective date of this endorsement for any loss or expense covered by the a
policy shall reduced by the amount of such payment every limit of liability, regardless of which limit of liability applies with respect to the bodily injury or property damage out of which such loss or expense arises.
Effective Date of this Endorsement July 1, 1984 To form a part af Policy No.
MF-7g Issued to Georgia Power Comoanv. Oalethoroe Power Corporation. Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and City of Dalton, Georgia Date of Issu, September 18, 1984 For the Subscribing Companies MUTUAL ATOMIC ENERGY LIABILITY DERWRITERS By t4 2
I/ O r
w vg -
m 7b Thin is to(7dEtQntgag.this is a true copy of tho original Endorsement No.
Endorsement having the endorcement,ggg,gg,gpap4pde pari, ME-22b of the liuclear Enorgy Liability Pokicy (Facility Form) ac des-3.
1&nated ereon. No Insurance is agorded hereunder, Sthe John L.Qt h
Fr -
' ~h Arner.cm bsurers
Nu: lear Energy LI:bility insurance NUCLEAR ENERGY LIABILITY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION ADVANCE PREMIUM AND STANDARD PREMIUM ENDORSEMENT CALENDAR YEA't 1984 It is agreed that Items la. and 16. of Endorsement No.
87 are amended to read:
la. ADVANCE PREMIUM:
It is agreed that the Advance Premium due the companies for the period designated above
.is:
$ 365,102.50 Ib.
STANDARD PREMIlsi AND RESERVE PREMIUM:
In the absence of a change in the Advance Premium indicated above, it is agreed that, subject to the provisions of the Industry Credit Rating Plan, the Standard Premium is said Advance Premium and the Reserve Premium'is: $ 275,152.90 Additional Premium:
$ 77.50 This is to certify that this is a true copy of tho original Endorsement having the endorac:c.ont nuaber and being mado part or the Ifuelcar Energy Liability Policy (Facility Form) as dos-Ignato hereon. No Insuranco is a orded horoundor.
.s. % g n LiabilityUnd:nvriting A
an Effective Date of this Endorsement January 1. 1984 12:01 A.M. Standard Time To form a part of Policy No 5
issued to G_eorgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Nunicipal Electric Authori ty of Georgia and City or Dalton, Georgia Date of issue Septembe r 18, 1984 For the su scribing co panies By IA
/I' General Manager Endorsement No 91 countersigned by NE-36
p
)-
s Nuclear Energy Liability insurance NUCLEAR ENERGY LIABILITY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION RESTORATION OF LIMIT'0F LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT It is agreed that:
1.
Payments made and expenses incurred by the companies under th'is policy have reduced, in accordance with Condition 3 of the ?
policy, the limits of the companies' liability stated in. Item 4 of the Declarations and'in all Increase of Limit of Liability Endorsements.1 2.
The limit of.liab'ility stated in Endorsement No. 86 which has been reduced;is hereby restored to $ 124,000,000.00 This restored limit applies only with respect to obligations assumed or expenses incurred because of bodily injury or property damage caused by the nuclear energy hazard after the effective date of this endorsement.
3.
The limits of liability stated in the policy shall not be cumulative.
Each payment made by the companies after the effective date of this endorsement for any loss or expense covered by the policy shall, /
reduce by the amount of such payment every' limit of liability,,
regardles, of which limit of liability a'pplies with respect to tne; bodily injury or property damage out of w ich such loss or expense arises.
g This in to certify that this is a true copy of.the original-Endorsement having the endorsercent nuabor and being made part of the Nuclear Energy Liability Policy (Facility Form) as dos-ig::at.ed. hereon. No Insuranco is afforded hereunder.
i
~
T.
John L. Quattrocchi,Vice President Liability Underwriting American NudearInsuren Effectsve Date of inis Encorsement Ju l'y ),,
1984 To form a r.est cf Policy No f?F-215 12:01 A.M. Standard Time issued to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation,~ Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and City of Dalton, Georgla s
Date of issue September 18. 1984 For the su scribing co panies By A
/#
General Manager Endorsement No Countersioned by '
l
)
NE-22b f
COVER 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- m
/
T
(
)
2
'-i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
,7 4 5
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 6
7 c.
l
.t 8
i 9>
10 11 12
('~'r 33 L) t 14 i
15
'16 t
l 17 18 >
t f i 1d 1
LOCATION:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20 l
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 28, 1984 PAGES: 237-281 21 22 8410030280 840928 23 l
l T-1342 PDR 24 (eg RECEIVED BY:
DATE:
TIME:
25 PREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court R:;:.-^Jr.iii e Depositions S.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149-6136
237 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5
~
6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
8 1717 H STREET, N.W.
ROOM 1046 9
WASHINGTON, D.C.
9.28,84 10 The Panel met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 am.
33 12 SRRE MEMBERS PRESENT:
~)
13
()
D.W. MOELLER Chairman JESSE C.
EBERSCLE i
14 CHARLES J. WYLIE A
ON 15 J.
CARSON MARK 16 ACRS STAFF PRESENT:
17 OWEN S. MERRILL OHN C. MCKIN W 18
^
19 20 J.
HEALY D.
ORTH M.
CARTER 22 23 f ~s 24 (v)
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- D:;::he D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.149 6136
239 l
i 1
PROCEEDINGS i
(8:35 a.m.)
t rm 2
i t
QJ 3
CHAIRMAN MOELLER:
The meeting will come to 4
order.
5 This is a continuation of the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcmmittee 6
7 on Reactor Radiological effects.
We began yesterday morning, and recessed last 8
9 evening, and will continue on today, and our primary 10 goals, and agenda for the day, are to, (1), discuss 11 the TMI-2 cleanup and voice alternatives, and, once 12 we have finished that discussion, we will go in to 13 executive session, remaining open to the public, and
(')
we will review and edit sme proposed written comments 14 which are intended to summarize our thinking, and 15 16 conclusions yesterday, on the generic issues that 17 we discussed.
l 18 And once we've finished with that, we will begin the discussion and review of the NRC Reactor 19 20 Safety Research Program.
I think that that will undoubtedly lead in 21 to mainly the establishment of an agenda of the major 22 topics that we want to discuss more fully with the 23 NRC staf f, and to select a couple days in which we 24 p) can meet and accomplish that objective. The first
(,
25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions i
D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136 1
7 240 1
item on today 's agenda, then, is the TMI-2 cleanup C) 2 endpoint alternatives. We have with us Ronnie Lo from 3
the TMI Program Office who will make the staff 's pre sen-4 tation on that. topic. Do you want to cane up front 5
to use the overhead, and so forth. You should have a handout for this particular presentation.
o 7
Incidentally, I might mention that the se cleanup 8
endpoint alternatives are becoming a subject of discussion 9
for several plants. We met a few weeks ago on Humboldt 10 Bay in Eureka, California, and they had sort of the 11 same questions to answer, and I noticed that Dresden, 12 I believe it's Unit 1, is to be shut down, and something
-3
/
i 13 done with it. Shipping Port is under way. So they're s-t 14 beginning to happen, and it's becoming obviously a 15 generic issue on what to do.
16 This one, of course, has its unique aspects.
17 PRESENTATION OF MR. RONNIE LO 18 MR. LO: Good morning, Yc,u should have in your 19 handout an attached copy of the Cammission paper which 20 we discussed about TMI cleanup endpoints, endpoint 21 alternatives.
22 The cleanup of TMI can be divided in to two 23 major cleanup phases--bef cre the defueling operation fg 24 and af ter the defueling operation. To support the V
25 reactor disassembly and defueling, the licensee has FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine e Depositions l
D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169-6136
r r
241 1
conducted, and is conducting a dose reduction program,
.c\\
xj 2
and the activities during this program is mainly to 3
a-met, reducing the operator 's dose during their operation d
related to reactor disassembly and defueling.
5 Following the fuel removal, there is a separate 6
phase of cleanup for the remainder of the reactor 7
building and of the equipment. The dose reduction 8
activity takes place mainly in the upper operating 9
elevations of the reactor building. So, we envision 10 that by the time the fuel is removed, especially the 11 bacement elevation of the reactor building, will still 12 be heavily contaminated, and we estimate that eighty t
13 percent of the cleanup dose associated with the cleanup v
k 14 of the reactor building, and the equipment, will be 16 tied up in the basement elevation.
16 MR. FIRST: What is in the basement, e ssen tially ?
17 MR. LO:
18 MR. FIRST:
No; no. I meant what kind of equipment.
19 MR. LO:
Some in the basement, the base 20 of the elevator shaf t, things like that.
21 MR. CARBON: Could you clarify a point for me.
l 22 Af ter you clean it up, what are you going to do with i
23 it?
l (]
24 MR. LO: Af ter, how--
'w,'
25 MR. CARBON. Yes. The building.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court R:;:1*-; e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt.& Annep. 169-6136 l
i l
242 1
MR. LO:
O.K.
I'm going to get to that.
7'~
2 MR. CARBON: 0.K.
.-)
3 MR. LO:
In the Commission paper, we have pointed 4
out that there are three cleanup endpoint alternative s 5
that we should consider, and also, we have mentioned 6
that right off the bat, we have discarded the alternative 7
for entombing the radioactivity on site. We think 8
that being in the middle of the river, and in a highly 9
Populated area, Three Mile Island is not a good candidate 10 for entombment.
11 The three remaining alternatives that we suggest 12 that you consider is, first, to proceed as what the 13 present plan is. That is, to immediately clean up 5
)
~#
14 the remaining of the reactor building and equipment, 15 to levels, typically, of an operating reactor, just 16 prior to decommission.
17 The second alternative is to wait for development 18 of robotic technology to clean up the rest of the 19 building, and we would, f or this alternative, we would 20 see to it that the licensee actively develops the 21 technology at the time of the interim storage. We 22 don't know how long it will take.
23 In the supplement to the programmatic environnental 24 impact statement, we have considered a length of time
(~
(,)/
25 from zero to twenty years during this interim caretaking FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 66 Annep.169 6136
i 243 l
t I
period. The third alternative is long-term storage.
l
~~
2 s
)-
This alternative will be similar to a SAFSTOR, but, 3
however, it's not being ccznmitted just to this decommissioning 4
alternative. What we envision is that maybe, af ter 5
a long-term storage, the question of decommissioning 6
will be taken up again when Unit 1 is ready for 7
decommissioning, and both units will be decommissioned 8
at the same time.
9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: In all of these, you're assuming 10 you first take out the fuel?
11 MR. LO:
Yes.. That is most important, that 12 the first phase consists of taking out the fuel, and 13
_(}
by that time, the major threat to public safety would L./
j4 have been removed, and you have some kind of leisure 15 as to what to do next. So therefore, the se al terna tive s.
16 The obvious advantage of some of the alternatives 17 is in the savings in occupational radiation dose, 18 and I want to demonstrate that to yq.i.
19 MR. CARBON: Would you say a word about- -you 're 20 speaking as though NRC is directing this. What's the 21 breakdown in responsibility? Can the utility say, 22 "We're going to--or, "He're proposing to do so and 23 so, and NRC would approve it", or, is NRC exercising 24
,q the initiative and saying what must be done?
Q,l 25 MR. LO:
The present operation of TMI cleanup FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. 66 Annop.169 6136
i 244 I
is that for every major activity, they would write 2
(]
us, they would give us their proposal, and that we v
3 would have to approve. And as I'll show you later, 4
for the cleanup endpoints, we expect them to give 5
us a proposal, at the same time give us the analysis 6
of the alternatives of their proposal, to state the 7
reasons why they choose to go to this particular alterna-8 tive, and at that time we would be able to analyze 8
the advantages and disadvantages.
10 MR. CARBON: Then what you're doing right now 11 is getting prepared to respond to their proposal.
12 Is that so?
13 MR. LO:
We intend to ask them to submit to
,S I
)
~
14 us the proposal during the time of defueling, when 15 defueling is well under way, which we expect m-the 16 defueling is going to take place in the summer of, 17 beginning of the' summer of 1985. So, some time in 18 1986, perhaps.
19 MR. CARBON: I'm still not clear. Right now, 20 are you getting--are you--what you would say--are 21 in the process of getting prepared to respond to their 22 proposal when it comes in?
23 MR. LO:
They have not given us the proposal 24 yet and--
(D k.)
25 MR. CARBON: I know that.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
245 l
1 I
1 MR. LO:
--we intend to ask them. We intend j
r~3 2
to ask them to give us their proposal.
y,/
3 MR. CARBON: O.K.
4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I guess, though, wha t Dr.
5 Carbon is asking, is a very good question. For example, 6
what is the driving force? Whr e is the motivation 7
for GPU to do anything but entomb? You know, let's 8
say they decided they were going to entomb. Then I 9
guess you could say no--
10 MR. LO:
Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: You've said you've discarded 12 that or rejected it, so--
13 MR. LO:
Right. And we have made it known to 7
i
~#
14 them, that we have discarded that, so, don ' t bother,
15 you know, coming in with that.
16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: But then what is the motivation 17 or the driving force that causes GPU to propose or 18 select any given option?
19 MR. LO:
Well, the cost involved, the main 20 room cost, for example, has also a direct involvement l
21 in financial costs, and so that would be a good incentive, 22 to go one way or the other, and, we also have considered 23 that.
24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: But you're more-you're not
/
\\
C./
25 the initiator. You just, you mainly respond to what l
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
246 l
t 1
they propose.
j r ~ N 2
MR. LO:
But we look ahead in to the schedule,
}
v 3
and therefore, we would want them to submit their 4
plan to us, so that things will go smoothly when they 5
have to be taking place.
6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER:.But do you have, say, monthly, 7
or weekly meetings with them, to offer suggestions, 8
or are you sort of forbidden, or, prefer not to offer 9
suggestions?
10 MR. LO:
One important point that we want to 11 make is that before defueling, there's really not 12 significant difference between the alternative s, that 13 they have to do now. So that right now, day to day,
(
'\\
14 the effort is concentrated on defueling, and there 's 15 no, there 's really no dif ference on how they, how 16 the endpoint would affect the defueling operation.
17 MR. FIRST:
Wayne, let me address one issue.
18 We do do a lot of active thinking about what GPU ought 19 to be doing in the way of cleanup activities. For 20 example, it was at our urging that GPU initiated the 21 dose reduction program back in the fall of 198 2. We 22 recognized that their decontamination activities of 23 washdowns, surface washdowns, et cetera, really wasn't 24 doing much for dose reduction, and we didn't see any
(..y 25 GPU efforts in planning a series of alternative activities.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
247
[
t 1
For example, shielding, removing a 'known contaminated
(^)
2 piece of equipment, things like that. So, generally, a
3 GPU does--you're correct in assuming that GPU does 4
the bulk of cleanup planning, and they do submit their 5
proposals for our approval. But we do a lot of active 6
thinking on our own about what they should be doing, 7
and if they're not doing something that we think they 8
should be doing, we'll either write them a letter, 9
or call a meeting, and ask them why.
10 MR. CARTER:
I still don't understand, though, 11 who really sets the schedule. I think that's the question, 12 and, it's not clear to me yet, who actually does this.
13
.o It looks like you folks prompt them to do certain
(
)
14 things but I presume you don't prompt them, if you 15 don't want to prompt them.
16 MR. FIRST:
Let's put it this way: Generally, 17 we prompt them to conduct cleanup activities as expeditious-18 ly as possible, and we conduct our own review and 19 responsibilities to ensure that we 're never in the 20 critical path.
21 But the schedules, and the financial cost estintating, 22 et cetera, are really proposed by GPU.
23 MR. CARTER:
Well, I think a lot of people 24 would disagree with you, _ hat we've been expeditious l
('M
('
25 about doing anything with TMI, including the decommissioning.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting. Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
248 1
MR. FIRST:
That's true,. and a big part of 2
that has been funding controlled.. The funding is just 3'
now falling in place, and we're very much encouraged 4
about having just about all of the funding needed 5
to complete cleanup, but that didn' t occur until just i
6 recently.
7 MR. CARTER: Well, let me ask another question 8
a different way. Is there actually, now, an overall 9
schedule for the decommissioning, or, is it still to sort of a piecemeal operation?
11 MR. FIRST: No, actually, GPU has not made that 12 decision yet, and we don' t really see the urgency 13 to make a decision to either decommission, or, even
(
)
14 plan for refurbishing the plant for future power genera-15 tion. They need not make that decision until, until 16 they're either well;in to defueling, or have completed 17 defueling.
18 MR. CARBON: Since there 's no need for that 19 decision in the early time, as I just understood you 20 to say, what is your specific purpose in doing this 21 study up here?
22 MR. LO:
Well, we have not done a study. We 23 are just proposing the ideas of what kind of alternative s.
24 MR. CARBON: What is your reason for doing that
(._,/
25 at this time?
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161 1901 e Belt. & Annep, 169-6136 i
l 249 l
t MR. LO:
You mean the reason for--
I MR. CARLON: Why are you doing it? I'm not ccxnplain-
'N 2
i
/
' ~'
3 ing that '
4're doing it. I'm trying to find out why 4
you're doing it.
5 MR. LO:
This got initiated because of the 6
supplemental, the Programmatic Environmental Impact 7
S tatement, which re-evaluates the occupational dose, 8
and in one of the comments on the draf t supplement, 9
the Advisory Panel for the cleanup of. Three Mile Island, to suggested to the Commission, that we should look at it the endpoints of cleanup alternatives, and that's 12 how we got in to our previous re sponse in writing 13 the Commission paper.
8
\\
l
\\
14 MR. WELLER: Dr. Carbon, I can tell you what 15 the initiator's thinking is behind this.
16 MR. CARBON: Again, who is the initiator?
17 MR. WELLER: The initial request really came 18 from the Advisory Panel, the TMI-2 Advisory Panel.
19 It was a suggestion from the State of Pennsylvania, 20 recognizing, from looking at the estimates of occupational 21 exposure to complete this cleanup, and, you 'll see,
22 when Lonnie gets to these numbers, that the bulk of 23 them fall between thirteen thousand and forty-six 24 thousand man-rem. Now that's a pretty hcf ty man-rem
,i 'ms
(,)
25
- figure, and they recognize that perhaps there are FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
250 l
t I
1 some alternatives that we should be considering, that j
~')
2 fall short of complete cleanup, and with the interest J
3 in saving occupational exposure..That's really the 4
driving force, because, as Ronnie has pointed out, 5
the most significant environmental impact of TMI-2 6
recovery.is occupational exposure.
And it's quite 7
clear, in steam generator replacements, or other things, 8
that you people have perhaps reviewed.
9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: On that line, Dr. Carbon, 10 if I can help--I'm probably repeating--but the Commission 11 set up with the State of Pennsylvania, and so f or th,
12 this Advisory Panel which consists of citizens, as 13 well as technically qualified people, not that the r
14 citizens aren't. Some of them probably are technically 15 qualified too.
16 And that committee has met with the Commission, 17 with the Commissioners themselves, and interchanged 18 thoughts and ideas, and they did request this, and 19 then that's the same committee that wrote a letter 20 to the Commission requesting that the ACRS help them, 21 and advise them on certain issues.
22 So, I couldn' t have answered the question till 23 I heard their comments, so, this, then, is directly 24 in response to this committee 's--meaning this Advisory
^'s
<k) 25 Committee's request.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
251 1
MR. LO:
I think if I go to the next. viewgraph, 2
the motivation will be very clear..The total estimate 3
for occupational dose, thirteen to forty-six thousand 4
man-rem, person-rem, about one-half of it is due to 5
the cleanup of the reactor building and equipment, 6
and out of that, about eighty percent is going to 7
be the cleanup of the basement elevation, where, really, 8
the workers who are doing the defueling will not be 9
that severely affected by the radiation in the basement to elevation.
11 And so at a time when the fuel has been removed, 12 the major threat to public safety has been removed, 13 n
yet you still have about one-half of the man-rems
(
)
14 tied up in cleaning up the rest of the building.
15 MR. CARTER : Excuse me. Could I ask you a question 16 there. Would you give us an idea of how many actual 17 people are involved in each of these phases of the 18 activity.
19 MR. LO:
We have estimated that as a number 20 to use, ten thousand workers will be involved in the 21 cleanup for about nine years.
22 MR. MARK: It would help me if you could repeat 23 something you already said. There is a fairly clear 24 schedule, and this is regarded as the first item to 25 go thrr ur th, whether it comes on schedule, or not, FREE STATE REPORTING IPeC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
252 i
1 and that is getting the fuel out.
. N 2
MR. LO:
Yes.
('./
3 MR. MARK: That's what must happen next, and 4
that's presently estimated to only be complete about 5
three years from now?
6 MR. LO: It will start f rom the summer of 1985, 7
af ter the plenum has been removed.
8 MR. MARK: Well, they complete the f uel in 1987--
9 MR. LO:
Yes.
10 MR. MARK: --by their own e stimate s, by their 11 own present estimates, and it's only af ter that, that 12 some of the other steps--
13 MR. LO:
Right.
,q is'~',I 14 MR. MARK: --could be pictured in any case.
15 MR. LO:
Righ t.
16 MR. MARK: Now, is it af ter that, that eighty 17 percent of a man-rem would be received?
18 MR. LO:
No. After that, eighty percent of--
19 fif ty percent, about fif ty percent of the man-rem 20 is involved in the cleanup of the reactor building 21 and equipment. Of that fif ty percent, eighty percent 22 will be involved, as we estimated it, in the cleanup 23 of the basement elevation, which they are not doing 24 now.
p
'L-)
25 MR. MARK: So, between now and '87, when they're FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6136
253 l
l mainly cccupied with the f uel--
f 1
s 2
MR. LO: Right.
I
~-
3 MR. MARK: --what's the man-rem f or that phase 4
of things?
3 MR. LO:
The man-rem will be up to here. The dose reduction program will occur simultaneously to 7
support the defueling coeration. So, up to about hero 8
will be the total man-rem, which is like, on the high 9
end, will be, f orty-six of that--twenty-two thousand.
10 About one-half.
11 MR. MARK: So that is not really af fected by 12 the long-range plan for the endstate?
13 MR. LO:
No. Yes, that's true, and that's a n
(
)
\\d 14 very important point to note.
15 MR. CARTER: Let me ask you one other thing, 16 since there'll be, if I understand it correctly, these 17 sorts of man-rem totals. These would be spread over 18 almost a decade, or a nine year period, and they would 19 involve ten thousand people. Is that essentially what 20 you've said?
21 MR. LO:
Yes.
22 MR. CARTER: 0.K.
Let me ask a simple question, 23 I guess. How does the NRC view these numbers? Are 24 these considered to be large numbers, or, reasonable b)
~2 25 numbers, or, just what? You know, during that same FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
I i
i 254 l
period of time, just due to natural background radiation, 2
r' X if I make a calculation correctly, we 're going to I
(
3 receive about 200 million man-rems just as background.
MR. LO: Yes. Yes. We think that--we look at 5
the health effects of this thirteen thousand to forty-6 six thousand man-rem, and we estimated, say, around 7
two to six additional cases of fatal cancer. For a 8
background rate of, say, like one-fif th of ten thousand 9
doses, which is like two thousand.. Two to six out 10 of two thousand, background, is a very insignificant number, in the sense that it is quickly lost in the 12 statistics.
13 MR. CARTER : It will be lost in the statistics.
,s
(
)
I4 MR. LO:
It will be, if at all, if it happens 15 at all.
16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Now, as I recall, Mel, you 17 had asked earlier about how many people would be involved.
'8 Don't hold me to this number, but I think in one of 19 the memos we recently received, GPU.said there were 20 seven hundred people working there now. One other 21 thing. You were talking about a dose reduction program.
22 I noticed, in reading, at least for me, the latest 23 report on TMI-2 cleanup, they had some sort of a machine 24 in there that was scraping the top quarter of an inch--
A) 25 MR. LO: Yes, the, especially the operation--operating FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
255 1
elevation areas, and they have been very successful
~3 2
in doing that.
i
)
3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: 0.K.
So they're grinding 4
the top quarter of an inch off of what? concrete floors, 5
and so forth?
6 MR. LO:
Concrete floors, yes. Painted concrete 7
floors.
8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And we had earlier sugge ste d, 9
and they responded quite adequately--we had suggested 10 to them, since Cesium was an eighty percent contributor 11 to the dose, could they not get some real good Cesium 12 chemists in there, and figure out a way to remove 13 this, and I guess they did and they couldn' t, and
_( )
K' 14 mechanical--
15 MR. LO:
Yes. I think that they wrote a letter, 16 that you have a copy of.
17 CIIAIRMAN MOELLER: Right. But what I'm saying :
18 you checked with them; and mechanically, removing 19 the top quarter of an inch was the best way to --
20 MR. LO:
Right; right.
21 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question?
22 MR. LO:
Certainly.
23 MR. EBERSOLE: Could you sort of clarify, for 24 me, what is the value of the accomplishment? That n
i
\\
\\_/
25 stuff is now nailed down in this quarter inch, isn ' t FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
256 l
l 1
it? It's immobilized, more or less?
I
' ^'x 2
MR. LO: Yes.
./
3 MR. EBERSOLE: So you're going to mobilize it 4
by grounding it off, and then you're going to carry 5
it off some place?
6 MR. LO: No. At the same time the grindoff material 7
will be picked up by a vacuum--
8 MR. EBERSOLE: Well, I understand you will do 9
tha t, but you're picking it up, and moving it, in 10 any case, to some place, I guess.
11 MR. LO: Right.
12 MR. EBERSOLE: And when you get done, what are 13 you going to have, that's worth anything?
3 i
,\\.
14 MR. LO:
Well, it's most important to reduce 15 the radiation level in the operating levels of that--
16 MR. EBERSOLE: Are you going to re-use the building?
17 MR. LO: No. That's not the purpose for it.
18 MR. EBERSOLE: So, what 's going to--
19 MR. LO:. The purpose is to reduce the operation, 20 occupational dose--
21 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes. I'm just trying to get to 22 the practical value of the final accomplishment, which 23 it sounds to me like a clean building that will never 24 be used for anything.
( -)
25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, but it's clean while FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
257 l
t i
1 they're in there doing the defueling and many other--
l
^"'
2 MR. EBERSOLE: Oh, I thought that had been done l
3 in front of this.
4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: No.
5 MR. EBERSOLE: Oh, I see. It's the order of 6
events.
7 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The quarter of an inch removal 8
is going on--
9 MR. EBERSOLE: It's just to get the rem--
10 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: It's going on right now.
11 MR. EBERSOLE:
O.K.
12 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Now what fraction of, what 13 sort of dose reductions are we, are they securing, n
I i
14 or obtaining by the quarter inch removal?
~
15 MR. LO:
Previously, the dose level sat around, 16 say, fif ty--seventy-five--fif ty to seventy-five man-17 rem per hour, and right now, af ter doing that, tha t 18 they have reduced it to thirty-five man-rem per hour.
19 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: So it's about a fif ty percent--
20 MR. LO: It's significant, yes.
21 MR. WYLIE: May I ask, in f ollow-up to that, 22 if they didn't do that, would the third line out there 23 be seventy-f a.ve percent greater than it is, by this 24 grinding floor, removing Cesium, and so on? Or are
,ryj 25 they significantly--
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
258 1
MR. LO:
You'll notice that we have-yes. We l
~'
2 have a very large range, like two thousand six hundred
-x-3
. to fif teen thousand. It's a very large range f or the 4
reactor deassembly and the defueling. Part of the 5
range is because of recognizing potential dif ficulties 6
in defueling. Part of it is because of recognizing 7
the success or non-success of the dose reduction program.
8 MR. WYLIE: But is it possible to say that to 9
a first gross approximation, is the dose reduction 10 program likely to reduce the dose by a factor of about 11 two, or some such thing?
12 MR. LO:
Yes, I would say so, because the dose 13
<S is directly proportional, almost, to the stay time,
(
l x/
14 the total stay time of the workers.
15 MR. WYLIE: So, line three, then, without the 16 dose reduction might be five thousand to thirty thousand?
17 MR. WELLER: No, I think what he's saying is 18 that it still falls within that very wide range. What 19 we really don' t know is when the law of diminishing 20 returns is going to set in for dose reduction activities.
21 In other words, when it's going to cost you as much, 22 in your effort,.to effect a significant dose reduction 23 itself. And that's the reason for the wide range up 24 there.
t
)
-j 25 MR. MARK: The fif teen assumes no success with FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4136
259 I
1 dose reduction?
l l
'S 2
MR. LO:
Exactly; exactly. Compounded by difficul-l
)
(_.'
3 ties in the defueling. operation.
4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Is there anyone who could 5
help me with what's the half. value there for Cesium 6
gammas?. I mean, would a quarter of an inch of lead 7
spread over this do anything?
8 MR. LO:
It's a 0.6 Mev.
9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Right. I know that but I 10 wished I could remember--I just, I'm sure they ' ve 11 compared the removal to laying lead, you know, rubber 12 shee ts, or, you know, they have this portable lead 13 shielding that I've seen they ' ve strung around various 1
)
14 areas.
15 MR. LO: Yes. And shielding has been done to 16 quite an extent already.
17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: So they've already tried 18 that to the degree it can be used. O.K.
19 MR. LO: Right.
20 MR. HEALEY: Dave, I would warn against using 21 anything like leaded rubber sheeting in there because 22 you could make the situation considerably worse by 23 the scatter f rom the surf ace--
24 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And the reduced energy, and r~~3
()
25 so for th. Yes.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901
- Belt. & Annep. 149 6136
J 260 1
MR. CARBON: One other question, just for information.
7 2
What's the magnitude of dose being received during 3
the dose reduction program?
4 MR. LO: It has been quite small, in that the 5
benefit frcxn it has far outweighed the efforts in 6
the dose expenditure. I don' t have the exact number 7
with me, but it i s well worthwhile.
8 MR. WELLER: You do show your estimate up there, 9
though, Ronnie, of two thousand to five thousand for 10 the total program.
11 MR. LO: Right. That's to give you an idea.
12 MR. WELLER: I might point out, that the total 13 dose incurred to date, I think has been much lower
)
~"
14 than everyone would have thought. It's only about 15 2000 man-rem, and I'm not sure that GPU is ever going 16 to get up to these high values that we predicted.
17 But there 's still a lot of unknowns yet in the cleanup, 18 so, we don' t want to pre judge that too much.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
May I ask. The bottom line that 20 governs the efficiency and thorceughness of this is 21 always the pocketbook. Who's bearing the cost of this 22 and--
23 MR. LO:
GPU--
24 MR. EBERSOLE: --must have the primary incentive
(,j' 25 to get it done?
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
261 1
MR. LO:
Well, GPU is bearing the primary but
'^'s 2
DOE, and others are contributing to the effort.
3 MR. EBER' SOLE:
In what sort of ratios?
\\
4 MR. LO:
I don' t have any idea on that.
5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: We have a memo on that, and 6
I happen to remember some of the numbers, to give 7
you some rough estimates. GPU, over the next three 8
of four years, was contributing 70 million, EPRI a 9
little bit less than one million, DOE about ten or 10 fifteen million, and a couple other groups in the 11 ballpark of a million.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
Thank you.
13 MR. MARK: The Japanese are putting in three.
L
)
14 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: The Japanese are putting 15 ir three, right.
16 MR. WELLER: And the State of Pennsylvania and 17 State of New Jersey are adding an amount. as well.
18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: But certainly, GPU would 19 be seventy percent, and all the others might be thirty.
20 MR. CARBON: Well, not to prolong it, bu t ha sn ' t 21 there been something in the newspapers in the last 22 couple days about somebody kicking in four hundred 23 million, or some such thing? Other utilities?
24 MR. FIRST: I think the other utilities was O
()
25 the news item that they were getting pooled together.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine e Deposit 6 ens D.C. Aree 141-1701 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6134
262 l
1 MR. WELLER:
Yes, that figure is--
l 2
MR. CARBON: Four hundred million or--
l
("3,
,/
\\
3 MR. WELLER:
No, it's a hundred and fif ty million, and that's the new commitment that I was referring 4
5 to earlier. The EEI will now, has now pledged twenty-6 five million per year for the next six years, and 7
that's the element that was missing from the Thornburg 8
plan.
9 MR. CARBON: Does this come out of stockholders' 10 earnings, or rate structures?
11 MR. WELLER:
No, I don't think it's going to 12 come out of--well, I guess, I can' t really speak f or 13 each individual utility that has pledged to make a
(
)
contribution because I'm not sure that's been decided
'~'
14 15 yet. But let me say this: There had been a number 16 of utilities, and I'm not sure how many, who have pledged a total of about $42 million, and, the utilities 17 in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have pledged to make 18 up the shortfall that would arise f rom not having 19 20
$25 million per year. And those monics would come 21 out of monies normally contributed to EPRI.
22 CllAIRMAN MOELLER: One other item on that, Max, 23 that you may recall. It's been about six months ago, 24 that some judge, or whoever makes such rulings, ruled (D
25 that utilities contributing to the cleanup of TMI C/
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
m 263 j
I would be given tax advantages on this money they contri-2 buted, and GPU.was delighted. and Pennsylvt.aia, because f
^
v 3
they thought that would stimulate contributions, and 4
it took a little while,. but apparently, it has.
5 MR. LO: In one of the alternatives looked at, 6
not the endpoint alternatives, but the cleanup alterna-tives, looked at in the Prcgrammatic Environmental 7
Impact Statement, the supplement to it, is the completion 8
9 of the cleanup by applying robotic technology. And to this is the kind of dose estimate. The bottom line 11 is that, well, the high end of the dose is reduced 12 from forty-six to twenty-eight thousand, and, the lower end is from thirteen to seven thousand, abobt 13 73
'/
x 14 one-half reduction. And you can see that it comes 15 from the cleanup of the reactor building now being 16 only a very small fraction of the other alternative.
17 And in it they have estimated the interim care period to be zero to twenty years, and assuming a
,'g 18 t
19 certain person-rem f or care every year.
20 The third alternative. We have not explicitly--
21 CIIAIRMAN MOELLER: IIas the NRC staff looked 22 at robotics in detail, to do,an independent assessment 23 of how quickly GPU could move forward to use this 24 technique?
(_\\
25 MR. LO :, No, but we have thought of the usage FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- De positlens l
D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169-6134
h 264 l
'. )
\\
1 of robots in the, in relation with how soon defueling l
2, can be done,.and we have determined that defueling at Ihe present time is the best cost robot.
3 4
' JIR. WELLER:
Let,me make a couple of commentF y
'S about that. GPU ha s a program, right now, in conce r.t 6
with the Carnegie-Mellon University, and probably, 7
Eome time this year, they're going to send a robot 8
down to thy basement level, the very highly contaminated 9
basement, which, in which some areas, there are greater 10 than a thousand r/hr fields. But these robots, they'll 11 probably havd radiation monitors, TV cameras, but
)
12 nothing more sophisticated than that yet.
(
They simply don't exist, f rom the standpoint 13 14 of being able to send robots down that can af fect 15 scabbling, for, example,, or other cleanup activities.
16 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: And you're saying, from the 17 standpoint of the defueling operation, robots are 18 out for the moment? I mean, they will--
19 MR. LO:
The fastest way to defuel is by the 20 preser.
plan. The third alternative, which involve s a long-term storage, without even dev' eloping robots 21 22 to clean up, we have not done a explicit man-rem 23 estimate for that, but you can kind of have a good 24 idea on the man-rem saving by looking at the dose t
\\d 25 estimate f or if we were to clean it up immediately.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Bolt. da Annep. 269-6136
265 I
1 Tp.
2--
Because most of the contamination, the radiation from j
2 it is from Cesium 137, with a half-life of thirty a
l years, a storage period will proportionately decreace 3
4 the man-rem. So, for example, if you put it in to 5
storage for thirty years, you will expect a saving, 6
man-rem saving of about twenty-five percent, becau se 7
one-half of it is involving cleaning up of the building.
8 What we--we want--I've pointed this out previously, 9
that it is not essential that a decision be made at t:
to this time, prior to defueling, that operations, including 11 defueling, will not af fect the decision on the endpcsint 12 alternatives.
13 7
And we expect GPU to submit the endpoint proposals
)
'~'
14 when defueling is well under way, and in the proposal, 15 we expect them to look at several, look at the alterna-s 16 tives, and also, give us an assessment for occupational 17 dose, any offsite impact, the existing rules and regula-18 tions at that time, and if any 19 re sidual activity levels, decommissiong rules and 20 regulations, and also, the cost benefit end of it, 21
' the costs in terms of occupational dose, and of the 22 benefit, and maybe, say, of f site impact. And the benefit, 23 in terms of savings in occupational dose.
24 This is what I have prepared.
,/ -
(,)
25 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Could you comment on the FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
266 1
of f site irupacts of the various approaches, what will 2
they be.
3 MR. LO:
We do not, of course, have, find to 4
a detailed study, but I only can give you my intuitive 5
feeling. I think that the off site impact is going to 6
be minimal.
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
All of this defueling is, of 8
course, done under water, isn't it?
9 MR. LO:
Yes.
10 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is there any more than just flooding, 11 in the normal way, of the vessel, and refueling well, 12 or, is tha t all that's flooded, like it would alway s
~
13 be?
(
)
~'
14 MR. LO:
Dr. Weller will answer you about the 15 defueling plan.
16 MR. WELLER:
It's par tially the same. What they 17 will do is partially flood the refueling canal, but 18 what they have presently conceived right now, is somewhat 19 of a dry defueling, or, at least dry transfer to the 20 deep end of fuel cannisters, to the deep end of the 21 refueling canal, f or then transfer to the A-fuel pool 22 in the fuel handling building.
23 So it would be partially flooded. It would be 24 at least still, I think, fifteen, twenty feet of water
(,'
25 over the fuel, so that's plenty of shielding. But they FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-f 901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
267
{
t don't want to develop a concept in which workers would j
2 have to work at distances of forty, forty-five feet 3
above the fuel, trying to manually manipulate these 4
tools. It's just very difficult at those distances.
5 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, what I was wondering about 6
was, we keep talking about cleaning up the basement, 7
and I was wondering why do people have to be in the 8
basement anyway.
9 MR. WELLER:
People don' t have to be in the 10 basement. As a matter of fact, you could forget about 11 the basement through defueling, and that's largely 12 what GPU will do, other than such developmental programs 13 such as sending a robot down there for some initial l
i 14 running around, just to visually observe the conditions 15 down there.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
Oh. I got an impression you were 17 cleaning up, taking the concrete of f in order to--
18 MR. WELLER: No, not in the basement. They're 19 scabbling now on the 34 7 f oot operation which is the 20 operating floor, the floor on which the bulk of the 21 activities will take place through defueling. They're 22 probably going to scabble as well in the 305 foot elevation 23 which is the elevation the workers enter the building.
24 And right now, conditions in the basement are t-(,j 25 such, that they have about eight and a half inches FREE STATE REPORTING IMC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. 66 Annep.169-6136
l 268 of water down therr. And I might point out that the 2
water, simply by having water in the basement has a s,_s beneficial effect, because over the past year, abou t 4
a thousand curies of Cesium have leached in to that 5
water.
6 So, in effect, GPU is getting some free curie 7
catching simply from having water present in the building, 8
and what they can do over the next several years, while 9
they 're conducting these defueling activities, is simply, 10 periodically process that water, put fresh water back in.
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is the water over the core, as 13 n
well as that being continuously reprocessed and polished
(/
14 up, and is it always cleaned?
15 MR. WELLER:
It's all being batch processed.
16 I wouldn't say continuous. But all of the equipment 17 is in place to process either continuously, or in batch 16 fashion, as needed. The water right now ir< the RCS, l
I think is on the order of about a tenth of a micro-curie 20 per mil in Cesium, so that activity is down pre tty 21 low. The activity in the basement water, for example, 22 is about, over, eight to nine micro-mil. So it 's considerably 23 hotter.
24 MR. MARK: It seems to me that this experience i
25 L>
you report of water in the basement absorbing Cesium?--
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6136
269 1
MR. WELLER:
Yes, sir.
j 2
MR. MARK: --would be very useful data for a s
3 discussion of whether entombment is a good thing or 4
not, and other such proposals, because here you've 5
got, at last, a nice measurement and leeching rate.
6 MR. WELLER:
Yes, sir. I'm not sure they have 7
an active program to, you know, to gather all that 8
data. We've suggested--
9 MR. MARK: But it is data.
10 MR. WELLER:
Yes. There's some data, bui there 11 really isn't a, you know, a well-organized scientific 12 program in place to measure leeching rates, and things 13 like that. We do have some gross numbers, and we 've
)
s
14 looked at those numbers, you know, f or the past year 's 15 worth of data.
16 MR. MARK: That might have real value.
17 MR. WELLER:
Yes, sir.
18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: One of the questions that 19 I recall they had, or, one of the initial questions, 20 was wehther the--I guess it's the plenum was warped, 21 or wouldn't come out easily. When will they know that?
22 MR. WELLER:
We have just recently approved 23 plenum inspection activities, and those activities 24 will include not only cleaning of surfaces of the plenum, f
i
_,/
25 but the measurement of all the potential interferences FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. 46 Annep.169-613 6
270 l
1 in the plenum, all those close points of contact in 2
the Keyway, and the local boss gaps, et cetera, to l
3 determine if indeed the plenum has been ovalized, or 4
was ovalized during the accident, and iai perhaps even 5
wedged in place.
6 Those activities wi.ll begin around the 1st of 7
October and will take place over the next several months.
8 Also included in that program will be efforts to push 9
the actual power shaping rods in to the core, so that 10 they're not dangling there when they ultimately do 11 remove the plenum, and they'll also, as a part of that 12 program, remove the upper end fittings that are now 13 either stuck, or perhaps even welded to the underside 7,
f
)
14 of the plenum. So that indeed, you don' t have these 15 stalactites hanging off the underside of the plenum, 16 when you ultimately remove the plenum, and put it in 17 the deep end of the canal, on its storage stand.
18 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Now we talked a little bit 19 about the schedule and you had indicated. that it was 20 prett.y much dictated by finances, and is the defueling 21 operation dictated by finances? I mean you were--we 've 22 heard the number of eighty-five to, I guess began to 23 remove the fuel, and be finished by eighty-seven. Why 24 does it take so long? I mean wha t is--I realize fuel
,n\\
?
)
v 25 may be scattered throughout the primary system.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportins e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136 L-
271 1
MR. WELLER:
Yes, sir. You recognize that it.
2 is a sequential process, that first of c ? 1.,
you have l
l I
to remove the head, which was just done this sunmer.
I 3
4 Next, you have to pull the plenum, and plenum jacking 5
is scheduled now for December of this year, plenum 6
removal being scheduled for May, and actual initiation 7
of defueling operations, that the first phase of 8
defueling, let me call it, is now scheduled for July 9
of
'85, and is anticipated to last at least through 10 1986.
11 The first phase of defuel.ing is vacuuming, and 12 there are still a lot of items in the critical path.
13 No.
1, a full cleanup system. No.
2, the ref urbishment q
i t) 14 of the A-fuel pool, because as you may remember, there 15 was a tank farm placed in there f or the storage of 16 accident-generated water, and there 's still tanks in 17 that pool.
18 They also have to modify the transfer equipment 19 from the deep end of the fuel, the fuel pool, over 20 to the fuel handling pool.
21 Tney also have to complete the development of the canisters which will be utilized to collect the 22 23 fuel, from the vacuuming process, and also, from any 24
" pick and place" operations, if you want to call it 7,
25 tha t. Just picking up pieces of, larger pieces of (w,)
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
272 l
l 1
fuel elements, upper end fittings, control rod material, i
2 et cetera. So, there arc a lot of items in the critical l
3 path. Casts have to be built for fuel sh.pment to Idaho.
4 There are lots of elements in the critical path right 5
now. A July date is really kind of a fast-track date 6
for defueling.
I 7
MR. EBERSOLE:
How do you know that when you 8
lif t of f the top superstructure there, that you ' re 9
not pulling out some absorber s which might be important 10 to the criticality problem?
11 MR. WELLER:
Criticality, right now, is strictly 12 controlled by--
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's all by liquid, isn't it?
,. s
)
14 MR. WELLER: Solution. Yeah. Everybody assumes 15 in their criticality analysis--
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
That you might pull rods out.
17 MR. WELLER:
--that the control rods are, are 18 gone.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
Right.
O.K.
20 MR. WELLER:
Obviously, they're some place, 21 that control rod material is some place. It could be 22 well-plated out or mixed in the fuel line.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
But it's pure liquid poison.
24 Right.
f\\
(j 25 MR. WELLER: I agree, but for--our criticality FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
273 1
calculations and purposes, everybody assumes that there's 2
no value to it.
- -)
3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Righ t.
O.K. And from our standpoint,-
4 or from your standpoint, what's the next step in terms 5
of the alternatives f or cleanup?
6 MR. WELLER:
You mean consideration of alternatives 7
following defueling?
8 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Yes. In other words, you've 9
given us a status report, but what's next?
10 MR. WELLER:
Yes. As Ronnie has pointed out 11 in his SECY paper, he does commit to our office developing 12 plans, and he does describe those plans in the SECY 13 g3 paper. What we plan to do in the way of evaluating r
4
"/
\\
14 various alternatives following defueling.
15 One of the important points in his presentation 16 is, that regardless of which alternative you might 17 consider following defueling, that the path to get 18 there through defueling is virtually the same. So that, 19 you know, decisions made now regarding post-defueling 20 activities will not affect the path, or the occupational 21 exposure to complete defueling.
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, that's kind of a backward 23 view in to what might have happened, which, I guess 24 you could go as far as the classical loss of cooling
/
25 s,,
accident. You could not then fill the liquid, portion FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6136
274 l
of the vessel, except at the top of the pipe level, 2
unless you had flooded the whole building. Would you j
.J 3
have thought that had this derived from a classical loca, you would be in much greater dif ficulty to clean 5
up the mess?
6 MR. WELLER:
I don' t know because ther e-- the 7
activity was certainly well scattered throughout the 8
reactor building.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
No, I'm talking about going to down and getting all the junk out. See, I don't see that you could have water now as a cover, unless you 12 fill the building.
13 MR. WELLER:
You mean down to the basement?
,_ )
~,
)
MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes. Right on up--
15 MR. WELLER: Well, you can, as a matter of fact, 16 one of the things that we've suggested to GPU that they look at seriously, is re-flooding the building
'7 with clean water.
I MR. EBERSOLE:
To cover the core?
20 MR. WELLER:
Not to cover the core. I don't 21 think that's necessary, because, what has happened is, that with the previous eight to nine feet of accident-22 generated water in the basement, at gross curie levels 23 24 of about 180 micro-mil--
MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes, but how do you, how do 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt. & Annop. 169-6136
275 l
9 l
you get the fuel out? How would you get the fuel out?
j 2
MR. WELLER:.There's very little fuel in the
/
v basement.
MR. EBERSOLE:
No, I mean how would you get 5
it out of the vessel if you had a hole in the primary 6
loop. You couldn' t fill it with water without filling 7
the building.
8 MR. WELLER: That's true. It would depend on 9
how big the hole is, and whether you could make up to sufficiently for it. GPU has, you know, has done a Il lot of thinking about unassailable leakage. For example, 12 if one or more of the instrument tubes happen to fail, 13 that pene trate the bottom of the ve ssel--
,m i
)
I4 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes. I'm thinking about a locum.
15 MR. WELLER:
Another loca? I think the probability 16 of another loca is very--
I7 MR. EBERSOLE:
No; no. I mean, if that had 18 been the original event, and you could not now have-
'9 a liquid cover for that continuous pumping.
20 MR. WELLER:
For us to flood--you have to flood 21 the air locks and everything else, to flood up to 22 the--
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
That was my hypothesis, that 24 that probably ought to be a design feature.
)
25 v'
MR. WELLER: I see. In other words, design it so FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1991 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
276 l
i 1
that it's--
i 2
R MR. EBERSOLE:
As a matter of fact, the Brown's e
3 Ferry plant is rigged f or that. You can flood it clear up, drywell and all. But that's a small drywell instead 5
of a big building.
6 MR. WELLER:
But that's boiler, too, right?
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes, right.
8 MR. WELLER:
Yes.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
But it makes possible, even if 10 the primary loop is disintact, you can just flood the 11 whole kaboodle.
12 MR. WELLER:
Yes, sir. I was concerned at that 13
,~
time about reactor building integrity. I mean, if you
\\ "/
14 had a leak in the line, or the containment liner, there 's 15 virt.ually nothing you can do about it, it got out into 16 the river itself.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Right. That would be--flooding 18 the building is anocher problem.
l9 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Max, a historical question 20 here. In consideration of the man-rem levels, did people 21 think of, consider maybe using older people for a lot 22 of this work? I'm serious. I'm thinking of the fact 23 that I'm age 62, I could do work like this, rnd there'd 24 be no genetic effects. Cancer I think is a long-term 7-(,j process in building up, and I would think that the 25 i
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annop. 169-6136
F 277 I
I i
1 health effects on older people would be much less severe, j
2 seriously. Is there any merit to this?
L,J 3
MR. WELLER:
Let me say one thing about work in the reactor building. It's pretty strenuous. I'll 5
tell you. You know, we were up there during--
6 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: I think I could do strenuous 7
work.
8 MR. WELLER:
--and stay times in the building 9
are probably more determined by fatigue, than dose to rate, than anythlug else. Having to get all suited 11 up, and carrying around relatively bulky clothing and 12 equipment, et cetera.
13 Even these young studs that go in the building
,3
(
)
s 14 are relatively f atigued when they come out. So I'm 15 not sure that, you know, sending older people in the 16 building is a solution to that. problem.
17 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, I would discount that 18 to a considerable extent for lots of people, say, age 19 fif ty and over. But apparently this has not--
20 MR. dELLER: I don't think that's been a major 21 consideration. You 've probably had people of all, varying ages, doing work in the building, some jobs being much 22 23 less bothersome than others, much less strenuous.
24 MR. MARK: But your Freudian slip in using the
,m
\\
U/
25 word studs does call attention to the genetic effect.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1902 e Belt it Annep.169-6136
i 278 1,
l 1
CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Okay. Any other questions l
2 or comments?
s
)
~/
3 (No response.)
4 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Well, let me thank Mr. Weller 5
and Mr. Lo for coming down and briefing us on this, 6
and bringing us up to date.
7 MR. MARK: Could I ask: the stuff that's creating 8
thc. exposure level in the basement is, you think, 9
primarily Cesium.
10 MR. WELLER: Yes, sir.
11 MR. MARK: It's essentially all lodged in the 12 concrete walls. Through what depth? Is that known?
13 MR. WELLER:
That's unknown. GPU does have plans
/
I 14 for taking core borings in the basement, such as they 15 have done already on the 347-foot, 305-foot.
16 MR. MARK: There's a little feeling for it from 17 the depth that exists on the level they 're now chipping 18 away at.
19 MR. WELLER:
Yes, and what they've found is 20 that the bulk of activity is in the paint, or it was 21 very close to the paint, on the 305 and 347-foot elevations.
22 That's not necessarily the case where you had the water 23 in virtual continuous contact f or several years. It's 24 really unknown right now, and GPU may well devise th ose p
(_)
25 robots that they're going to send down later this year FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169 6136
1 l
279 t
I to do those core borings.
j 2
MR. MARK: Now if they found that it war in a 3
rather thin skin, which is possible--if they heated 4
that water down there, would the leech rate not go 5
up, essentially, exponentially?
6 MR. WELLER:
It could. As I mentioned before, 7
just having water present without heating in the basement, 8
you 're getting--they're ge tting significant curie catching, 9
and that comes free.
10 MR. MARK: Well, that sounds like a great way 11 of doing a lot of work.
12 MR. WELLER:
Not having to send anybody down 13 the basement, at all.
,s
/
1 I4 MR. FIRST:
Along the same lines, it would 15 be useful to put some chemicals in that would increase 16 the mobility of the ion, if tha t wa s an ob jec tive.
17 MR. WELLER: You might be able to do that following 18 defueling, but right now, they still have to be concerned 19 about a boring injection in the primary system, or, 20 say, a boring dilution incident, and going in to the 21 re search mode, and having to reinsert that water that 's 22 presently in the basement back into the system.
23 So right now, I'm not so sure that, you know, 24 they're thinking all thut seriously about putting dif ferent V) 25 kinds of chemicals in the basement. Maybe later, following FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportiras e Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
~
280 l
r 1
defueling, when you don ' t have those concerns about t
I r-2 criticality, and boring diluti' i
I k
/
3 CHAIRMAN MOELLER: Any other questions, or comments?
4 (No response) 5 CHAIRMAN MOELLER:Well, let me thank you, once 6
again, and I think with those remarks, this will conclude 7
the formal session of our subcommittee meeting. We'll 8
now recess and take a fif teen minute break, and then 9
go in to Executive Session.
10 For members of the public who may be present, 11 the Executive Session will be open to the public, but 12 it will not be recorded. Thank you.
13 (Whereupon, at 9:40 a.m.,
the open meeting of 7,
f i
14 the Subcommittee on Reactor Radiological Effects was 15 concluded.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 qN) 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. Et Annop.169-6136
i 281 l
CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 1
(
)
2 This is to certify that the attached
)
q) 3 proceedings, i
4 5
IN THE MATTER OF:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 6
7 SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 8
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 28, 1984 9
PLACE:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
10 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 11 transcript for the file of the Commission.
l 12
'/N 13 g
14 15 16 17 REPORTER:
CHIP GREENWOOD hM n
SIGNED:
\\
(
,9 TRANSCRIBER:
NEAL R.
GROSS YIM#
{ *,
0 SIGNED:
o tu, 21 22 23 24 m
f
?
\\u /
,5 l
I FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
court R:;:rm. Deposiciens D C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Amep. 1696136
m.
ne s
s
- g.. -
7.
- D E
i 3:
)..^
i-t F
it 3..
1 L.
i-
. i
! s.
d-.
1 I-COMMISSION IfFORMATION PAPER -SECY-84 277 i
~
(JtLY 10,1990 t
?
i I6
.I i
4
.J
SUBJECT:
TMI-2 CLENUP ENDPOINT ALTEPJ%TIVES t
4 2
e L
f 1.1 l
-i 4
f.
h t
I 4
h l
. + <
i
{
I
+
r
- f. -
.t s
l i
2' UO.
6 l
I c
t t
L I-
Tw0IMJORCLEANUPPHASES yL).
- DOSE REDucrION PROGRAM REACTOR DISASSEMBLY AND DEFUELING HEADREMOVAL PLENm REM 0vu.
DEFUEL LOWERINTERNALSREMOVAL PRIMARY SYSTEM DEC0tfTN11 NATION REACTOR BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT CLEANUP (80% DOSE FROM BASCiENT CLEANUP)
AUXILIARY AND FUEL HANDLING Bu!LDInG CLEANUP O
O
ENDPOINTALTERNATIVESFOLLOWINGFUELREMOVAL O
(1) IMMEDIATE CLEANUP OF REACTOR BUILDING AND EQUIPtENT TO LEVELS OF TYPICAL OPERATING REACTOR PRIOR TO DECOMMISSION (2) INTERIM STORAE AND ROBOTIC CLEANUP ACTIVE MVEL T MENT & ROBOTIC TECHNOLOGY kHILE INTERIM STORAm.
ZEROTO20 YEARS.
(3) LO w TERM STORAGE SIMILAR TO SAFSTOR BUT NOT C0iMITTED TO THAT DEC0iMISS10NING ODTION. MAY DEFER DECISION UNTIL UNIT - 1 IS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED.
O O
l
DoSeESTIMATEFORPRESENTCLEANUPPLAN
,,v
. TASK PERSONSEM DOSE TO DATE 2,0W Dose REDUCTION PROGRm 2,000-5,100 REACTORDISASSEMBLY&DEFUEL 2,600-15,000 PRIMARY SYSTEM DECONTAMINATION 56 -
90 WASTE MANMEMENT AND OTILITY 200 -
700 REACTOR BUILDING & EQUIPMENT CLEANUP 5,TO - 21,000 AUXILIARY &FUELHANDLINGBUILDINGCLEANUP 500 - 1,400 TOTAL 13,000 - 46,000 O-
'l 4
4 O
DOSE ESTIMATE FOR DEFUEL FOLLOWED BY CLEArp WITH R0mTICS TASK PERSON-REM DOSE TO DATE 2,000 DOSE REDUCTION PROGRN1 2,000 - 5,100 REACTOR OISASS84BLY AND DERJEL 2,6W - 15,000 PRIMARY SYSTB1 9 ECON 11 -
l@
AFh3 DEC0tRAMINATION W - 1A00 l'IASTE h lAGEMEilT E llTILITY 200 -
700 INTERIM CARE OF R8 & AFHB 0-620 O
acm1Ic cL,, y g3 Ano 3m 3,sm l
E0uleMENT, NIMARY SYSTBi AND l
AFHB l
TOTAL 7,200 - 28,000 l
l 1
. =.
. =
4
- DEFUEL PRIOR'TO SUBSTANTIAL RB DECONTAMINATION, ENDPOINT
' ALTERNATIVE DECISION NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OCCUPATIONAL DOSE.
- ' GPU TO SUBMIT ENDPOINT PROPOSAL WHEN DEFUELING IS UNDERWAY.
- OCCUPATIONAL DOSE
- 0FFSITE IMPACT
- EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS
-COSTBENEFIT e
O r
4 I
O
\\
fe
./
m'.o t
.i*y
()
i
- g j.
m POLICY ISSUE July 10,1984 (lnf0rTDatIOn)
SECY-84-277 For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
TMI-2 Cleanup Endpoint Alternatives Pu rcose:
To inform the Commission of the possible TMI-2 cleanup endpoint alternatives and the staff's plan of evaluation Discussion:
On April 16, 1984, the Advisory Panel for the Decontami-nation of TMI-2 wrote to the NRC Chairman offering comments on the draft Suoplement to the PEIS.
One of the comments in the le::er (item 5 of Enclosure) suggested that the staff should-furtner examine the alternative of curtailina clean-(_s) uo efforts following fuel removal and gress decanta5ination of the reactor coolan system and reactor builcing.
The Panel suggestec that tnis alternative should be cuantita-tively evaluated with regard to risk tc the public associa ec with leaving some residual radioactivity on-site and the potential health impact on the work-force.
During t.he Advisory Panel's' meeting with the Commissioners on May 20, 1984, the need to further evaluate this alternative was discussed.
An issue cermane to adcressinc this alterna ive is defininc the encpoint of the cleanup process.
The purpose of tnis pacer is to inform the Commission of the staff's clan for evaluation of alternative cefit ition of :ne TMI-2 cleanuo encooint and tne related policy inclications of sucn alternatives.
Backcrounc.
In tne staff's finai pr:gramma-ic Envi-:nme. al :::ac-5 a:emen: ':E:5) issued i-Mar:n i:"51, tr.ere is a :i scussicr.
- D :P.e eXOecteC 0 0 r.0" i O r. O f IM '-1 a # ~.e r !T.e C'. e ir.U * # Or
- n act:
- 5. J. s.ycer. v::e
" e" *. E e
[s 5.M.. D ^.
D..
- u.. i. e.,
.u
.i 49-2S33E w
i d
Y _'_
h2 k k_
e-
P The Commissioners -
.,(
~ the accident and prior to the initiation of any decommission-ing activiti'es.
At the start of deconsnissioning, the two prin'cipal goals of cleanup would have been met.
These two a
goals are: _(1) The reactor has been defueled.
The irrad-iated' fuel elements and debris have been removed and stored in the spent fuel pool.
Shipment of the irradiated fuel' to an Away-from-Reactor storage, reproces' sing plant or some other disposal facility is assumed to have begun.
(2) The large quantities of water-soluble and otherwise readily dispersable radioactivity would have been collected, packaged and ultimately removed from the site.
It is also assumed in the PEIS that the general area radiation exposure rates on the operating floor would be in the 5 - 10 mrem /hr range, and approximately 30 mrem /hr in the basement of the reactor building and that the building surfaces have smearable gontamination levels in the 3,000 - 4,000 dpm/100 on range, exclusive of very localized hot spots.
In other words, the radiological conditions in the reactor building would not be signifi-cantly different from a nonnal operating reactor ready for decommissioning.
At this point, the NRC would consider the licensee's proposal for either refurbishment or for decommissioning.
CJ decontamination of the reactor building prior to defuel-ing.
It postulated that, following the processing of the reactor building sump water, the removal of the sludge and the weshdown and decontamination of the reactor building, defueling would take place under radiological conditions close to those anticipated for a typical operating plant prior to decommissioning. The actual cleanup experience to date, however, indicates that following the processing and removal of the sump water and the washdown of the reactor building, the radiation levels in the reactor building are substantially higher than those predicted in the PEIS.
At present, the general area radiation in the upper c'evation floors is in the range of 50 - 150 mren/hr and well over 100 R/ hour in the basement.
Occucational Dose and pEIS Sucolement In December 19E3, the. staff issued a draft Supplement to the PEIS to reevaluate the radiation dose likely to be incurred by the cleanup workers during ta entire cleanuo.
In adcition to the present cleanup pian wnich is to complete building and ecuipment cleanuo
.O
The Commissioners,,
)
- V immediately following defueling, the Supplement evaluates several cleanup alternatives.
One conclusion of the staff is that the occupational doses, under all the cleanup alternatives evaluated, are likely to be higher than those estimated in the original PEIS.
Under the present cleanup plan, it is estimated that about one-half of the occupational dose (about 6,000 to 21,000 person-Rems out of a total of about 13,000 to 46,000 person-Rems) will result from activities related to reactor building and equipment cleanup.
The only cleanup alternative discussed in the Supplement that would result in a substantial saving in occupational dose is to defer the cleanup of the reactor building and equipment until these tasks can be performed robotically.
Another important conclusion of the Supplement is that since the most dose-intensive tasks are reactor building and equipment decontamination (unless these tasks are done using robotic technology), any decision on TMI-2 final cleanup endpoint woulc nut have a significant impact on occupational dose, until after defueling.
For environ-mental impact, i.e., occupational dose considerations, cleanup activities can be divided into two major phases; qV those activities related to defueling and those following fuel removal.
f Cleanuo Endooint Alternatives When the reactor is defueled and the irradiated fuel is removed from the site, the major potential source of risk to public health and safety will have been eliminated.
The radioactivity levels in the TMI-2 reactor. building are excected to 'be higner than those of an undamaged operating reactor undergoing preparation for decommis-j sioning, especially in the reactor building basemen:
wnere the level is exoected to remain above 100 R/heur.
The major radiation source is expected to be Cs-137 with a half-life of about 30 years, unlike the case at an uncamaged coerating reactor orior to cecy:.issi:ning wnere One ma;or sources wou d De corrosion Or:cucts witn tyoically snor:er half-lives of about 5 years.
Decontamination exoerience at TMI-2 (e.g., surf ace washcowns) indicates that the. remaining contamina:icn would net be readily renovable.
On the other nant,
- coes not appear tna: the residual contamina::cr.
will be readily cispersed :: the envirorcer.:.
Severa' 3
(G
(
)
D The Commissioners _
i s
I cleanup endpoint alternatives short of complete cleanup are therefore apparently feasible.
Consideration of alternatives has been restricted to those which would not result in the dispersion of any significant quantities of the remaining radioactivity outside'of l-the reactor building and thereby pose any increased risk to public hea:th and safety, even over a very long tem storage period.
k The staff has identified the following potential. cleanup alternatives,* each of which would provide a definition of cleanup endpoint:
5 (1)
Comolete Cleanup. Following defueling, the licensee would proceed with the present plan to cleanup the reactor buil di ng.. The endpoint of this alternative would be the same as the condition discussed in the original PEIS; radiation levels would be comparable to those of a nonnal operating plant following final shutdown.
The lice,se would then submit a proposal for refurbishment or det.;.i-E missioning.
Available decommissionino alternatives woula f
be the same as = those discussed in the'PEIS (e.g., C.0N
/
or SAFSTOR) and existing policies on dectr.missioning would then be applicable.
(2)
Interim Sterace and Robotic Cisanuo.
Under t:is n
alternative, :ne cefueiec fecni y wouic be piaced in an interin storace condition we.iie the ilicensee actively pursues the cevelopment of ro ctic technology to complete the reactor building and ecuicment cleanup.
The occu-pational radiation exposures of this alternative have been evaluated in the Supplement to the PEIS.
Depend-E ing on the advancement of robotic technology, the
. interim storage period could range frc= rero to 20 6
years.
Even with a conservative estimate of 20 years i
of interim storage, tnere is a cotential savings of
~
about 20,000 man-Re of occucationai cose.
The cleanuo endpoint cf this alternative would be the sane as in alternative (1), comoiete cleanuc by using d
robotic te:hnclogy.
A: :na: r in:, the licensee wouic succi a refurbisnnent or ceco-sissi0 ring :lan anc stancar: decommissionin; pc'ity C : artly, ir E
" : eviously ccmcie:ed generic study of reac ec# ssioning folicwing ac: ice.
- leanup '3U:.EG/CR-2501) indica.es - a re safe:yl anc ccs: factors g
c
- econr.s 1:n ng a =st-at:1cen: rac1:1:y ::.:
ca y s gni 1cantiy '-~-
n:sc :" a non ai clan:.
In :na: s tucy, :ne er ::.:i - Of ac:icent cleanuc e
was definec as reactor cefueling anc reactor c:i.an sys em cleanup.
The
[
Q enent of post-cefueling cleanup coulc influence :ne acplicability of tha i
stucy to the cecommissioning of ~MI-2.
i.
s
i-iii
The.. Commissioners,
(~
j b
(3)
Lono Tem Storage.
This al.ternative woulc' allow the facility to be indefinitely stored in a safe condition following defueling activities.
Su rveil-lance and security for the facility will be required 4
during this period. This alternative is similar to the SAFSTOR decommissioning concept.
However, it is not a cammitment to that deccumissionir.g option, because although the potential for severe consequences is removed when the fuel material is disposed of, the facility would still be maintained with higher levels of residual radioactivity than those found at a nomal operating plant after final shutdown.
This action could be justified on the bases of minimal risks to the public and occupational exposure savings.
With this alternative, tne licensee could make decom-missioning proposals at a later date,* at which time substantial decay of the contamination would have taken place to effect a significant occupational dose saving. Also, this alternative would define the cleanup endpoint at fuel removal and disposal followed by ar1 extended storage period prior to decommissioning.
The unique aspects of TMI-2 may necessitate special license conditions or additional reouirements.for maintenance and surveillance during
]-
the storage period.
For this alternative, decommis-sioning of the facility may have to be conducted as a special case, which is provided for under the proposed rule currently being prepared by the staff.
It should be noted that under the proposed decommission-ing rules being prepared, entombment of a facility would only be allowable if the residual radioactivity had decayed to a level permitting unrestricted use of the property within a period of approximately 100 yea rs.
Therefore, the ENTOMB option is not an acceptable decommissioning alternative for TMI-2, because the long-lived radionuclides resulting from the accident will still be a significant radiation source for much longer than 100 years, the time perioc assumed for the assured contin-uance of necessary institutional controls.
Alternatives for deferment of complete cleanup after cefueling have the potential of significant (up to
- one-half) savings in occupational radiation exoosure.
r.aciation exposure to workers and tne notential assoc,.-
atec health effects is the most significant environmentai "A possible approacn might be for the licensee to decommission both THI Units 1 and 2 at the same time.
e
._,3 a.p m-
--g,-9e
-,9,m.,
-.9
-wi3
--- - * - -g
-twe-d,.-9-y c--
,--e-
Tne' Commissioners,
S-(d impact of the cleanup.
Since the present plan would t
alternatives 2 and 3 above have the potenti w
t requiring less resources immediately following defuel ing than the present plan.
i Therefore, another potential advantage of these alternatives is to enable the licensee to commit a greater portion of the cleanup funds to th defueling phase.
funding improvements should be considered as a e
effective application of cleanup resources to enhance public health and safety.
The Staff's Plan.
The staff plans to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with each of the cleang endpoint alterna-tives except for the present cleanup plan whose environmental impact has already been evaluated.
Prior to the initiation of our evaluation, the staff will require that the licensee provide their a
consider feasible, including discussions of the of the alternatives. environmental impacts and the cost-benefit a In addition, the staff will
.,3 that the licensee be recuirec by specific date j"!
defueling activities anc ultimate disposition of TMI-2 facility.
The plan as the base case. staff will use the present cleenuo The criteria against which the base case and the alternatives will be evaluated in the following:
offsite individual anti (1). potential pathways and dose to maximum cue to the offsite population and
-petential health effects; (2) occupational radiation dose and potential health effects cuences to the public from na;tural occurrence involvin the remaining contamination (e.g., maximum credible earthcuake,1,000 year flood, etc.), and (4 for effecting a more expeditious fuel remova)l effort potential because of imorovements in recuired resource com
'd uch of the methocology for analysis on environmental r..
1mpacts retatec to long tem storage exists i Tne staff plans to ao:iy tne methocology taking into n-nouse.
consiceration the unicue concitions of E'.I-2 sucn as the radionuclice inventory, the location and anysical nature o' the contamination and tne sitt and demogracny.envir:n ental carameters sucn as geology, nyarcio soeci'ic y
The staff's piannec evaluation will n.
L.
The Commissioners O eise fe m the ses4s for the eavironmental revie of the licensee's actual proposal for post-defnlir.g cleanup activities.
The staff will keep the Commission and TMI-2 Advisory Panel infomed of significant progress on this question.
//
, D
['
L ~d.C, -l1;/ L k.
William'J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Letter to Chairman Palladino from Arthur E. Morris dated 4/16/84 O
e e
1
(
O-l 4 -
e