ML20128A065
| ML20128A065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NACTMI, NUDOCS 8507020554 | |
| Download: ML20128A065 (66) | |
Text
d ORIGINAL 3
N UNITED S'2ATES OF AMERICA r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
k n
In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Periodic Meeting With Advisory Panel on Decontamination of TMI-2 (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Thursday, June 20, 1985 Pages:
1 - 55 f
8507020554 850620 1
.tOCFR 1
PT9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters
.('
1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921
/g Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
t l
e 1
1 D I SC L A I M ER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on
- Thursday, s
June 20, 1985 in the Commission's office at 171~7 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
(
12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for gen.ar a l 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or segument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
23 24 25
ci 1
D c*
s c
A 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
~
4 PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY PANEL ON 5
DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Room 1130
~
10 1717 H Street, Northwest 11 Washington, D.C.
12 Thursday, June 20, 1985 13 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11.18 k
14 o' clock, a.m.,
the Honorable Nunzio J.
Palladino, presiding.
15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
16 NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 17 FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 18 JAMES K.
ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission 19 LANDO W.
- ZECH, JR.,
Member of the Commission 20 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
21 THOMAS GERUSKY 22 ROBERT REID 23 JOSEPH DINUNNO 24 JOEL ROTH 25 ARTHUR MORRIS
o 2
a
-1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMhlSSION TABLE 2
(continued):
S THOMAS CDCHRAN 4
NIEL WALD
..31NSON 5
GORDON 6
HERZEL PLAINE 8
SAM CHILK 9
SHELDON TRUBATCH 10 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
11 FRANK CONGEL 12 BENJAMIN HAYES 13 JANE AXELRAD 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t
-y-v.,,
,.__,_.m.
______,_m,
r s
I 3
1 P ROCEED 1 N GS 2
(11*18 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good morning, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
5 This morning, the Commission is holding one of its 6
periodic meetings with our Advisory panel on the TMI-2 7
Cleanup.
On behalf of the Commission, 1 welcome the members 8
of the panel 9
Commissioner Roberts is unable to attend this 10 meeting and has asked to express his regret, but he has said 11 thst he will read the transcript of our d i scuss i oris.
12 The purpose of our meeting to day is to provide an
(
13 opportunity for the panel to report to the Commission on 14 matters related to the cleanup activities at TMI-2 and other 15 matters related to panel activities.
Copies of the complete 16 agenda are available in the rear of the room
'7 Let me ask if other Commissioners have opening 18 remarks at this time.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Thon let me turn 23 the meeting over to the chairman of the panel, Mr Arthur 24 Morris.
25 MR. MORRIS:
It's a pleasure to be with you today,
4 1
and we appreciate this opportunity.
If you would like us to E
go through the agenda here, I would read the item and then 3
teII you how we would like to proceed with it, if we could.
4 Item 1 is panel views on Licensee activities related 5
to lifting reactor pressure vessel plenum.
We feel, as a 6
group, that the lifting seemed to go according to plan and was 7
carried out very well from a technical standpoint.
8 We did receive public comment expressing their 9
concern that there was not adequate noti 71 cation to them and to that the panel would hope that GpU could do a little better 11 job in the future regaroing notification to the public.
12 That would conclude the panel's comment on item 1 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How much notification was 14 given?
15 MR. MORRIS:
There seemed to be varying accounts of 16 just how much notice was given.
One of the main concerns 17 happened during the day or the evening before, when the 18 citizens who came to our meeting indicated that they had 19 called the publicity Department of OpU to ask when the lifting 20 would take place, and that they were not given a specific 21 answer to that, even though GpU apparently had information as 22 to when that might occur.
23 Now GpU did explain at the meeting why they were 24 reluctant to share specifics, because they were going hour by 25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> on certain types of procedures and didn't know if they
o 5
1 were going to definitely proceed.
2 But there were panel members that feel that they 3
could have been more direct and given their best estimate and 4
not have left things up in the air and secretive, and that was 5-a concern that we got from the citizens, and we feel that GPU 6
could address it probably fairly easily in the future and i
7 alleviate some of the concerns that the citizens had.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
9 MR. MORRIS:
If any other panel members would like 10 to offer any further comment to it, but I think that's the 11 gist of what happened at the meeting.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Thank you.
13 We will have the Program Office make sure that GPU 14 knows of your feeling.
I'm sure they know of it already.
15 MR. MORRIS:
They do.
And Mr. Sanderford did 16 explain some of the concerns that he had on giving specifics 17 out at the meeting.
But we still want to share that with you.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
19 MR. MORRIS:
Item 2:
Panel views of technical and 20 safety aspects of Licensee plans for early fuel removal 21 While the panel has had some information given to us 22 by GPU, we feel that that's an issue we would rather put off 23 to comment on until we get more information from GPU regarding 24 it at some future meeting.
25 COMMISSIONER HSSELSTINE:
Doos that mean that you
o 6
1 still have questions, then, about these neutron monitors?
Is 2
that still an open question?
3 MR. MORRIS:
I wouldn't want to say where our 4
ouestions lie.
I just feel that there is additional 5
information we would like to receive before we really give a 6
comment on it.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay, fine.
8 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Has the additional information 9
that you need been transmitted to either the Commission or 10 OpU?
11 MR. MORRIS:
Well, we have a meeting, I think we're 12 going to be setting it for July the 18th, and one of the items 13 on that is again further discussions on the fuel removal, 14 CHAIRMHN PALLADINO:
All right.
Are additional 15 items of information being planned with regard to responding 16 to the question on neutron detectors, additional neutron 17 detectors?
1G MR. MORRIS:
Gordon, did you want to speak to that?
19 MR. ROBINSON:
Only some information has been 20 received.
My concerns are not completely alleviated yet, but I expect to get some additional information, and i 21 we are 22 have some already.
So it is being handind, to the best of 23 their ability, at this point.
24 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Will they be prepared to 25 discuss that at the July 18th meeting?
e s
1 MR. ROBINSON:
I would expect that I will have the 2
additional information that I need, then.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
4 Other questions?
?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
6 MR. MORRIS:
And Gordon was the one that expressed 7
that concern particularly, and I think if he can get the 8
information, then we could attempt to resolve that at the next g
meeting.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
11 MR. MORRIS:
If there is nothing else, we could move 12 to l t er.
3, which is panel views on technical safety and 13 security aspects related to fuel shipping cask.
14 We feel that we received a very impressive 15 presentation which showed the cask to be well testeds in fact, 16 so well tested that i know there were several observations 17 that the biggest risk will be if a cask falls off during 18 shipment, of anything that happened to get in its way, because 19 it seems to be quite a facil6ty that has been built.
20 It is worth mentioning, however, that this will be 21 about a two year operation, and I think the public needs to 22 know that it is going to be going on for quite a period of 23
- time, 24 The panel wishes to be kept up to date on the 25 shipping routes and security aspects, as well as costs that
G 1
would be available and could be made available to us, because 2
there are areas that we would like maybe to comment on in the 3
future as that information becomes available.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Was there or is there concern 5
on the part of the committee with regard to whether or not 6
this cask could fall off the train?
7 MR. MORRIS:
No.
My comments should not imply 8
- that, it was more to add a little levity here.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
They're sturdy casks.
10 CLaughter.3 11 MR. MORRIS:
If that would happen, there could 12 indeed be a problem with anything that would get th the way, 13 but we're not suggesting it will happen, Mr. Chairman.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
Okay.
Any other questions on 15 Item S?
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Any comments by other 18 Commission members?
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
We're not used to much 20 levity in this room.
21 CLaughter.3 22 MR. MORRIS:
We're going to make you change, whether 23 you like it or not.
24 CLaughter.1 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOt Okay.
Do you want to go to
O 1
Item No.
4.
~-
2 MR. MORRIS:
Item No. 4 is panel views on GpU S
Nuclear TMI-2 worker radiation protection program.
And as we I will ask other panel 4
go through here, there will be 5
members maybe to speak to an item on behalf of the panel, and 6
on this one, I would ask that Ken Miller, if he would do that, 7
please.
O CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
8 9
MR. MILLER:
In answer to this question, I think we 10 all agree that our continuing review of the overall radiation 11 protection program indicates that the program is a good one.
12 Occasionally, there are isolated deviations from the
[
13 program that require prompt corrective action; however, it 14 appears that such corrective action is appropriately taken 15 when warranted, 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That was pretty concise.
17 MR. MORRIS We are trying to be concise in those 18 areas that we can be.
We have discussed the statements that 19 are being made here, and the initial statement will represent 20 the consensus of the panel, if panel members feel that they 21 have their own specific statement, maybe that would be 22 contrary to that or would add further to it, they should 23 certainly feel free to offer their comments.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You guys are really 25 blindsiding us, First, levity, and now concision.
That's
O 10 1
tough for us to deal with.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Go ahead, Tom.
8 MR. COCHRAN:
My only caveat is, I've had a 4
longstanding view that the radiation protection standards are 5
set too high for commercial industry.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
- Tom, I'm not sure they can hear 7
you in the back of the room.
You ought to speak into 8
MR. COCHRAN:
I've had a longstanding view that the i
9 radiation protection standards for occupational workers are 10 set too high, and, in fact, I have petitioned the Commission I believe it was 1976 -- to reduce the exposure standards, 11 12 and I am still waiting for action on that petition, f
13 But other than that, I think that GpU has, from what 14 we were presented, has an adequate program to meet the 15 existing standards, 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Tom, did you say there is a l
i 17 petition that you sent in 1976 to which you haven't gotten a 19 response?
i 19 MR. COCHRAN:
Well, you haven't acted on it, CO CHAIRMAN PALL 40lNO:
That's interesting.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It may be all wrapped up 1
22 in the part 20 revisions.
23 CHAIRMnN PALLAOlNO:
It may be.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Well, we're looking at 25 part 20 finally.
It's taken a long time, but l
O 11 1
MR. COCHRAN:
It was a different Commission.
1 2
mean, the old Commission has all retired.
It's an entirely a 3
new Commission.
Commissioners come and go petitions stay.
4
[ Laughter.3 5
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Nevertheless, we inherit our 6
history, and we should be sensitive to needs for action on our 7
parts.
O COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You're sure it wasn't the 9
A t ce l e Energy Conn i ss i on?
10 MR. COCHRAN:
I don't remember which organization.
11 Claughter.3 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Any more comments on 13 Itom 4 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
15 MR. MORRIS:
Item 5 is panel views on flow of 16 information to Advisory panel.
17 At the last meeting, Joel Roth presented the panel's 18 viewpoint, and I would ask him to do it again at this meeting, 19 if he would.
20 Joe 1?
21 MR. ROTH Thank you.
22 First of all, I would like to thank the Cemmission 23 for the list of printed material, and then l'Il start 24 disagreeing with it.
25 CLaughter.3
12 1
I would just like to read some of it, and then make 2
my comments from that.
3 "The NRC legally can provide the Advisory panel with 4
non-public information and still withhold that information 5
from public disclosure.
However, there are policy 6
considerations which weigh against providing the Advisory 7
panel with non-public information."
8 That's just the setting.
Now, I will jump to page 9
9.
Again it says, " Legally the panel can be given dccuments 10 which have not been publicly disclosed.
However, the panel 11 historically has operated in the open, making it a practice 12 not to withhold any information from the public, providing 13 the panel only with public information allows members of the 14 public to question actions on the part of the Licensee or the 15 regulatory agencias to the same extent of panel members.
16
" partly as a result of this openness, the panel has 17 enjoyed the trust of the public."
18 Now here's where I have problems:
"It could be a 19 disadvantage to the panel's activities to begin having them 20 consider non-public information, in that such action could 21 lead to some loss of public credibility for the panel, This 22 consideration weighs against providing the panel with j
23 non-public information."
24 Now basically I'm speaking for myself on this, As l
l 25 the Chairman said, we have discussed this as a panel, and I'm
13 1
sure any other panel member will feel free to make a 2
statement.
3 1 just believe that's a very cavalier attitude, and 4
I believe "information" is the key word that we should be 5
getting, and let the panel worry about the public trust, the 6
public credibility.
7 in other words, I think that's our problem, not 8
necessarily for the Commission to worry about whether or not D
we are maintaining our credibility.
And again, I don't think 13 that the panel can make or render decisions or give you our 11 opinions without information.
And I just believe again that 12 If that could be deleted from the policy and go on a
(
13 case-by-case operation, I would feel comfortable with that 14 But I just really have uncomfortable feelings about the 15 Commissioners worrying about our credibility because of our 10 openness.
It's almost like we're being penalized because 17 we're being open, so therefore you cannot give us information.
18 CHAIRMAN PALL'ADINO:
But would you be in a position 19 to receive information that is not made public?
I mean, I would much 20 MR. ROTH:
I have no problem 21 rather, as a panel member, have to say to the public, "This is 22 information at this time that we cannot give, but we need it, 23 and at which time we will make it public," rather than saying, 24 "I
don't know."
And ! think that's the position that we are 25 put in.
14 1
1 just don't think that we should be penalized for 2
being open.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I think you make a good 4
point 5
Are there other Commissioner comments?
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I agree.
When I read the l
and indeed approved the conclusion on the paper 7
paper 8
didn't agree with a lot of the statements in there about why 9
you shouldn't get this information or some of these other 10 arguments.
11 The bottom line for me was, I thought the paper had 12 said, "Look, we'll look at this information on a case-by-case f
13
- basis, if it relates to your activities, we will look at it 14 on a case-by-case basis, and we will give it to you if wo 15 think it's necessary to your activities, subject to whatever 16 restrictions have to be placed on it 17 So that's sort of the way I read the bottom linu.
18 And if that's an acceptable, at least, conclusion to you 19 MR. ROTH:
Thu conclusion, I think, was acceptable 20 to all of us, it was that 21 COMMISSIONER AS?ELSTINE:
I think some of the 22 reasoning is flawed.
23 MR, ROTH:
Yes.
I'm glad you said that.
24 MR. MORRISt And we would not want any Staff person 25 to go back and use some of the reasoning in determining in thu
15 1
future just what information we would get, particularly 2
regarding the reasoning en that part that Joel went through.
S CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Was there any other part, Joel, 4
that 5
MR. ROTH:
No.
I mean, I certainly understand that 6
enforcement actions or investigations and things of that 7
nature are not important to us.
But I think if there is a 8
matter of judgment made, I hope it would be made in our favor 9
of receiving information, rather than not receiving 10 information.
11 1 think the panel, you know, are adults and can be 1
12 trusted with that type of matvelal.
(
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I have voted to give you 14 this paper, but I have not voted on the substance of the 15 paper, so I would have an opportunity maybe to incorporata l
16 your suggestion in my vote.
17 And other Commissioners may want to speak to the 18 same thing.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt To give you this paper, or 20 to concur in the recommendation of the papor?
21 CHHIRMAN PALLADINOi When i voted -- when i voted, 1 22 agreed to have this paper sent to the panel, but I had not i
23 voted yet on the substance of the paper, pending this l
24 discussion, which I think has been very valuable.
25 COMMIS3IONER BERNTHAL:
Well, it sounds like theru
10 1
are two questions.
I thought your comment earlier was on the 2
substance of the paper.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes, that's right.
4 Now, I say i voted to send the paper down to the 5
committee.
I have not yet voted on the substance of the 6
paper.
7 COMill SS I ONER BERNTHAL:
I see.
I misunderstood.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Now after hearing these 9
comments, I would be prepared to vote on the substance of the 10 paper, and I could take advantage of this comment and make it 11 a part of my vote.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEt Yes.
I think that gives 13 us a good opportunity, if you vote on that, Joe, then I think 14 the rest of us can reach agreement fairly quickly.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECHr it seems t o me that it's a very 16 reasonable request.
It depends on, as you pointed out, as 17 fong as it relates to your activities, and I think that's what 18 you're asking, it seems to me that that's a judgment we'd have 19 to make, of course, but in all those cases that it does relate 20 to your activities, it seems t o me it would be appropriate to 21 place that trust and confidence in you.
That's how I foul 22 about it.
23 COMiilSSIONEH BERNTHALt i agree.
I think the 24 concluelon of the General Counsel's paper has the right tono.
25 MR. ROTH:
And I agree, it is your businese to worry A
17 1
about public credibility.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let Commissioner Bernthal 3
finish.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Seeking to get a blanket 5
policy that covers every case ahead of time, I think, is 6
something that's typical maybe of bureaucracies, but i don't 7
think we ought to try and do.
I think we should review 8
these.
General Counsel can review them, just like we do other 9
documents on a case-by-case basis and reach some sensible 10 judgment.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
To clarify what factors 12 would go in there, so that we eliminate this concern.
f 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But we have things like that 14 all the time, and one of the points that the General Counsel 15 does make is, we often restrict documents even within the 16 agency, and we have to review documents for that purpose.
17 CHAIRM9N PALLADINO:
Okay.
Any more comment on thia le item?
19 CNo response.3 20 MR. MORRIS On item 6, we would like, if we could, 21 to break that into a 6(a) and a 6(b), with the 6(a) being 22 scope of inquiry and criterlon proposed by the Advisory panel 29 in examining the epidemiological studies associated with 24 radiation released during the TMI-2 accident.
And then (b) 25 would be the Staff overview.
That, of course, would be
10 1
something that the Staff would lead.
2 As to 6(a), the panel did send to the Commission a 3
position on this, and I would ask at this time, if I could, 4
for Joe DINunno to go through that with you, and see whether 5
the Commission has any questions on it at all at this point.
6 Joe?
7 MR. DINUNNO:
Well, as we had agreed at the March 8
7th meeting, we did develop a proposed scope of additional 9
authority, if you will, to have the panel act as a forum for 10 the presentation of results of studies on health effects 11 related to the release of radionuclides during the accident.
12 But in so doing, we also established for ourselves f
and certainly offer to you for consideration -- that we 18 namely, that these would be 14 would follow certain criteria 15 information meetings wherein we would be presenting or 16 offering a forum for presentation of results of work done by 17 others, that we would neither referee or attempt to 1G Independently review t h'e s e.
We didn't think this was a role 19 of the Advisory Committee, and certainly if one were going to 20 do this, both the expertise required and the time required 21 certainly exceeded those of the membership that we have on the 22 committee right at the moment and the time that we could 23 allocate to such.
24 So we would not attempt to act either as a referee 25 or an independent technical reviewer, nor would we get into
19 1
issues regarding the adequacy of standards.
This, again, was 2
not a purview, we felt, of the committee.
3 And the other concern that had been expressed by 4
some of the members of the panel was that we might allow 5
something of this sort to cause us to deviate from the TMI-2 6
cleanup related activities.
And we have set forth, again, 7
another criteria that would indicate that the panel's priority 3
would still be to the cleanup program, and that the health 9
effects issue would not dominate the agenda or the topics to 10 be addressed.
11 So in effect, we were delimiting what we would 12 attempt to do under these epidemiological study results or l'
13 with these results, and still feel as a panel that the 14 interest in this subject of the populace in the area is such 15 that such a forum could serve a very useful public service, 16 and to our knowledge, this opportunity is not being extended 17 in other mechanisms, and therefore it might offer a unique 18 opportunity for presenting and interpreting sometimes rather 19 complex radiation effects studies.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINot How would you see this taking 21 place?
(Jould you periodically have somebody that has been a 22 part of a study ccme and make a presentation to the panel and 23 the public, as a result of their presence?
24 MR. OlNUNNO:
That certainly is something that has 25 been done in the past, and we would propose to continue that
20 1
sort of thing.
For example, there are studies being conducted d
2 both under the public Health Fund and by the State of 3
And as those studies get to a point where it 4
looks like some results of interest to the public may have 5
developed, we would ask people who have participated in those l
6 to come and tell us what they have found, where they're going i
7 from here, what conclusions that they may have derived from 8
these, and to hopefully put this in terms that the public 9
could more readily understand.
10 These papers or these results are very commonly 11 reported in the technical literature.
Fce example, the 12 pennsylvania academic community has these available to them.
13 But they aren't frequently put into terms that the public can T
14 understand, and I think that to take a person who has made 15 such a study and to offer an opportunity to, in effect.
16 explain as simply as possible just what these studies really a
17 mean in a way that people could more effectively relate to 18 them, I think would be a very useful public service, 19 CHMIRMMN PALLAOlNO:
Would you be Interpreting or 20 would the committee be interpreting the information that's i
21 being presentud, or how would you do the interpretation part?
22 MM, NOHRiss tJell, go ahead, Joe, if you want to 23 offer a comment.
Then maybe Tom, i
24 MM. OlNUNNO:
1 think to the extent that in the 25 process one might make some commentary on the study, by those l
21 1
on the panel who are knowledgeable in these areas, I think 2
this would be helpful and would be comforting to the members 8
of the public who would be listening to this.
4 But in terms of trying to independently evaluate 5
whether-these are proper results, I don't think that we could 6
get involved in anything of that sort.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Tom?
9 MR. GERUSKY:
I was going to say the same thing.
10 But in addition, the Department of Health's TMl-2 Advisory 11 Committee on the Research, on the epidemiological research, 12 meets periodically.
Those meetings are not public meetings,
(
l8 but the results of those meetings ought to be available, and 14 they discuss their progress, the work that they've been doing 15 on the studies and any new information that has come out, and 16 I think it would be appropriate at our meetings to have 17 someone summarize what happened at those meetings.
18 COMMIS$10NER ZECH:
Those are State of pennsylvania 19 meetings?
20 MR. OERUSKYr Yes.
Very few members of the public 21 or even the scientific community in the area knew what's 22 really going on in the Health Department study, and I have 29 been asking for them to make those meetings public meetings t
24 for a long time, but they felt that ongoing studies -- they 25 had some problem making them public, and I understand that.
22 1
Some preliminary information may not prove to be accurate.
2 But I think a summary of those things that they do S
believe are solid conclusions and some showing of where 4
they're going next year or what's going to be done and that 5
information, our meeting is about the only place that they can 6
have a forum on this.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Would they be willing to come 8
and make such presentations?
g MR. OERUSKY:
Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
That's very i m p o r t a n t.-
11 MR. MORRISs it's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, 12 that'our vote on this particular item was unanimous.
(
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, you made very strong 14 arguments last time on the need for this activity, and I'm 15 pleased to see your guidelines, and we're going to have to act to on them.
I don't propose that we act on them today, but act 17 on them within the next few days by notation vote.
10 MR. MORRISt Well, just to point out, I think we had 19 nine members present, and we got a unan e rnous vot e.
And you 20 only have five members, and you've never had such a vote.
21 CLaughter.3 22 CHAIRMnN pnLLADINoi Ch, we've had a couple.
23 MR. MORRISi Oh, when they adjourn, I'm sorry.
24 CLaughter.1 25 Niel?
=_
D 23 1
MR. WALD:
One other group that is also sponsoring it might be appropriate to have them also come to 2
studies 3
our meetings -- that's the public Health Settlement Fund from 4
the class action.
We have a member of the group here, but 5
he's too modest to say anything about it himself.
But I would 6
suggest that that would be a chance for the community to know
~
7 what's happening with the funds in that group also.
8 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
How would you assure that this 9
doesn't become the overriding activity of the committee 10 because of the public interest?
l 11 MR. NORRIS:
Simply, Mr. Chairman, that would be 12 something i feel that the panel would have to continue to be
[
18 aware of, and I think we have the type of makeup of the panel 14 that there are certain members whc would just not allow that 15 to happen, and I would hope, as a panel, we could reach 16 consensus when,that came into question.
And I know that you 17 read and you have Staff read our minutes, and if you felt that 18 it was becoming a burden for the panel that was too great to l
19 carry, that you would bring it up at one of our sessions.
l l
20 1 think there are a lot of checks and balances here, l
21 and we did not start out as a panel with the feelings last 22 year that this was the type of thing we should be doing, but 23 the more we discussed it, the rnere we felt that the kind of 24 statement that was drawn up was one that we should support am 25 a group, and that it's very necessary.
I
r-20 1
I know the individuals in the area, and i believe 2
that Joel Roth has a letter from one of them that maybe would 3
have been sent to you in support of what the panel is asking 4
for here, because there are a lot of groups that want to see 5
and feel a need for this type of thing.
6 MR. COCHRAN:
Criterion 3 addresses that issue.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes, I see it.
8 Well, now, if we approve these guidelines, we would 9
have to change the charter, and I am going to ask OGC to look 10 at or prepare for us the change in charter that would be 11 appropriate to this activity, assuming that the Commission 12 will vote favorably on it.
(
13 But I would appreciate getting notation votes from 14 Commissioners on this, so that at least I'll know what the 15 vote is.
Sometimes it's difficult to reconstruct the vote, 16 unless it's done in writing.
17 COM;11SSIONER BERNTHAL:
I just have one procedural 18 suggestion to offer here.
As you know, I supported your and my memory isn't 19 suggestion last time, and as i recall 20 always the best on these things -- but I think that the 21 ganeral idea was for you to provide a conduit for public 22 concerns and a place where people can come, and you can in 23 some way assist people in having whatever their concerns might 24 be addressed, l
25 The one thing, as a procedural matter, that you may l
25 1
want to be cautious about, as any group like you or like us 2
has to be cautious about this sort of thing, is, if you bring and t her e are experts and there are experts, 3
in an expert to address the public or to inform the public 4
as you know 5
of what his view, his expert view, is, it's not entirely clear 6
t o me that you would want to do that within the context of a 7
formal meeting.
You may all be there, if ycu understcod what 8
l'm saying, I think.
You may sponsor it and carry out your 9
conduit function in that way.
10 Whether you would want to, in effect, put your 11 Impelmatur on any particular individual's view, I would be 12 rather cautious about that.
That would be the only procedural
(
13 thing that I think you might consider, and the Commission may 14 want to look at, as well, 15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
My thought on it is, you're 16 coming to us with a request for assistance in providing the 17 public with information, which is appropriate.
10 i must say, though, it does concern me a bit that 19 this Advisory panel, which is charged with the important 20 responsibilities you are for advising us on the process of the 21 TMI-2 decontamination program, not be eldetracked and not be 22 overtaken, which I think you sense yourselves is a 23 possibility, pnd if we did broaden your charter, you would 24 have to be sensitive to that completely.
25 1 do think, too, that the pennsylvania Department of
20 1
Health certainly should be involved, ano perhaps you have 2
tried to involve them, if, indeed, their proceedings are not 3
public, it seems to me that some effort should be made to at 4
least make them public, or at least make part of them public, 5
or whatever seems appropriate in that regard.
6 So all I'm saying, I think, is that I would hope 7
that your group could use the good offices of the penn sy l van i.s 8
Department of Health as really the responsible organization 9
that you would be working with, and that you, as an Advisory 10 panel, would truly act as a conduit and not get involved in l
l l
1 11 the substance and judgments of the Department of Health of l
l 12 pennsylvania, which I really do believe does have the I
19 expertise to look out for the citizens of pennsylvania.
14 So my concern is that you involve yourselves with 15 these official groups that do have expertise, but that you 16 don't try to, or by some other means get yourself involved.
17 setting yourself up as a group that perhaps you should no do, 18 for not only the reasons of expertise, but also the reason 10 that you've got other important issues to address.
20 And so that's my only concern, I think we need to 21 help you with your unanimous request for assistance from the 22 public.
And I think we have a responsibility to do that.
21 On the other hand, I do hope that we can come up 24 with a way to do that that will protect your primary 25 responsibilities and also involve othere who perhaps de have a
27 1
body of expertise that should be involved.
2 Those are my concerns and my thoughts.
3 MR. MORRIS:
I think we're asking for your support 4
and approval, too, in accordance with the criteria that we've 5
outlined, and I think you'll find them very much in keeping 6
with the comments that you have just made.
And I feel that if 7
you approve of our proceeding in that fashion, and in the 8
future we do not, then that's a subject that you can very well 9
bring up and do something different with.
10 We have the same concerns you have, because as a 11 panel, we have a responsibility to be looking at all of the 12 other things that are going on at TMI-2.
We meet monthly.
13 Many times our meetings go four hours or more, from seven to 14 eleven, and we only have a certain amount of time, too, and we 15 want to carry out our responsibilities properly, and we can't l
16
' allow this to dominate, simply from that standpoint.
l 17 So there are, as I said earlier, a lot of safeguards 18 to this.
And I appreciate yeur concerns, and they are 19 concerns that we have expressed, too.
But even with them, we 20 feel we must be a conduit.
It's a very necessary role that we 21 play.
22 NCOMMISS10NER ZECH:
But has the Department of Health 25
i n pennhy!vania been approached?
Have you asked them to --
24 MN'.
MORRIS:
We have had them at a meeting in the 25 past, and as Tom Gerusky just suggested, we could do that
28 1
again in the future, and we will There may be other people 2
that we should have there, however, besides them.
Certainly, 3
the Department of Health can play an important role here.
But 4
we just need the ability to carry out this function.
5 If you would be sitting in those meetings and hear 6
what the public is crying out for, I think you might have more 7
of a sense of what it is we're about.
8 And again, I need to remind you that this was not a C
feeling of the panel last year.
It has come about because of 10 the public -- and I'm saying there were some members maybe 11 that felt this way, but not a unanimous feeling but because 12 of the public concern, it has become a unanimous feeling that
(
t (
13 we proceed this way.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me just comment, to be 15 very candid about my earlier concern that i expressed.
You T
16 can't afford to have your impartiality questioned, and 17 therefore, it seems t o me, you want to be very careful that 18 you issue whatever disclaimers are necessary and perhaps, 19 therefore, carry out whatever forum function associates with 20 this conduit function, outside the scope of official 21 octivities of your group.
And I'm sure you all realize that 22 1 am certainly going to trust your judgment on that 23 matter.
But that's the concern I have.
You don't want to be 24 identified with one school of thought or another.
But that 25 does not mean that you cannot carry out what I think is a very
29
~
1 valuable and useful function in making sure that people hear 2
the kinds of things that they need to hear.
But you don't S
want to get into arguments over whether you balanced it right 4
or are partial or impartial.
And therefore, it seems t o me,
5 you want to be cautious to keep that sort of thing outside of 6
your official activities.
7 MR. COCHRAN:
I really don't see how it's any 8
different than how we presently operate.
In most of our 9
meetings, we listen to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 10 GpU, and it doesn't seem to rub off on us.
11 CLaughter.]
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's probably good.
(
IS MR. COCHRAN:
So, you know, I think it's a 14 legitimate concern, but I really don't think that --
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, it may not be it's going to have any impact.
16 MR. COCHRAN:
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It may not be a problem, but 18 i can see that there are some very opinionated people when it 19 comes to issues of the very type that you are proposing to 20 include here, which seems to be the principal issue right now.
i 21 MR. MORRIS:
But the NRC has done a very fine job of 22 providing us with a balanced panel 23
[ Laughter.]
24 And this group feels very free to offer an opposing 25 viewpoint, and it is very closely balanced in that regard.
SG again, I understand your concerns 1
And because of that 2
but it kind of takes care of itself with the kind of panel 3
that we have.
And if there becomes a vacancy in the future, i 4
would continue to suggest that you try to maintain that type 5
of balance, because it's worked well for us.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think the only comment I 7
was going to make is that i know from the past meetings that 8
there is a range of view on this subject among the panel 9
itself, and I think that your letter was a very constructive 10 approach to this.
And the fact that you all reached agreement 11 on it among yourselves, it was a unanimous recommendation, and 12 I thought that gave careful consideration to the kinds of f
(
18 concerns that you have had in the past.
I thought it was 14 cortmendab i e.
15 And I note also that the Staff, while they disagree 16 about whether there is a need for the panel to do these 17 things, also recommended that we approve your proposal without 18 any modifications.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, let me make one other 20 point.
Out of this may come comments that you want to send 21 back to us or give us feedback on when you meet with us, and 1 22 don't want to lose that opportunity, because there may be 28 items of information that you think we ought to know, and I'd l
24 like to get it.
25 Now we owe you a response on this.
I would like to
31 1
get the Commissioners to indicate to me by memo to SECY
'2 whether or not they approve these guidelines.
And meanwhile, 3
l'm going to ask OGC to look at how the charter might be 4
revised to reflect this activity, assuming that the Commission 5
majority votes for it.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELST l!4E :
Yes.
I think that's a 7
pretty straightforward matter.
as I told the 8
MR. ROTH:
Yes.
I just have 9
Chairman, I received this yesterday, and that's why copies it's a letter from an organization 10 were not able to be made 11 that I think you're familiar with, Three Mile Island Alert.
12 And it is addressed to Chairman Palladino, and I will just 13 read a couple of paragraphs and then put it into the record, 14 because I think it's useful in this discussion.
15 "The people in the Three Mile Island area urge you 16 and your fellow members of-the NRC to specifically agree to
" serve as a conduit" -- I mean, the our panel 17 let the" 18 word is actually used there 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's a good word.
"for information and health problems 20 MR. ROTH:
21 which could be arising from the TMI-2 accident and the ensuing 22 decontamination."
23 And I will just skip to the third paragraph, which 1 24 think is very interesting:
25 "How the decontamination is to be carried out
32 1
technically is important, but citizens do not sit through 2
hours of explanation by GPU because they have an interest in 8
all the engineering details.
They hope to learn how these 4
plans will affect their health and safety."
5 And that's the bottom line again, so -- I mean, I 6
have a copy, and I will put it in the record.
But as you 7
know, I think again all they are asking is for us to serve as O
a conduit.
.9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay, thank you.
10 MR. MORRIS:
Mr. Chairman, the only question is, do 11 you have a feeling as to when the panel may get an answer on 12 this as to whether it's approved or not, because we do need --
(
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
As soon as the Commissioners 14 vote.
Generally, it takes at least a week to get this kind of 15 activity done.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I'd be prepared to do it 17 by the end of this week.
18 CHAIRMAN PALL'ADINO:
Let me urge the Commissioners 19 to vote just as soon as they can.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I was ready at the last 21 meeting.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
28 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I'm ready now, actually.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And also, then, we need to 25 change the charter, and we will have to look at that, and that
SS l'
will take a few days.
But that's why I want OGC to get 2
started looking at the charter, so that we don't have further 3
delay in implementing this.
4 MR. MORRIS:
We have a July 18th meeting coming up, 5
and if we would not hear from you by that time, I would at 6
that meeting maybe start talking to the panel about how they 7
wanted to proceed in handling this, in any event, with the 8
hope that you are going to be agreeing or giving your 9
affirmative approval.
10 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Let me do something i 11 characteristically try to avoid -- make the best effort i I'm going to try to get l'd put a few caveats in it 12 know
[
13 it to you well before July 18th, 14 MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
Thank you.
15 The next item really is 6(b), which is the Staff 16 overview of existing studies.
17 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Yes.
I think at the last 18 meeting we said we were going to ask the Staff to make this 19 overview, and the Staff has made it and issued it in SECY 20 85-185, and I think a copy was sent to the c onc i t t e e.
21 We do have Staff here that would be prepared to 1
22 highlight that report, if you'd like.
And of course we ' c8 be 23 interested in any comments you might have on it.
[ohave a high ight.
24 Would the committeo like
?
25 MR. MORRIS:
I think so, if we could.
34 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right Frank Congel, i 2
think, is prepared to do it.
3 MR. CONGEL:
I have a few slides that I'd like to 4
show to just bring out some of the, I think, pertinent points 5
that are in the paper.
Due to the time factor, I have cut it 6
back a little bit.
I do have copies of the slides availabie.
7 CSlide.]
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could you give me a set?
I 9
can't read that, even with my glasses.
10 CDocuments tendered to the Chairman and 11 Commissioners.3 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
13 MR. CONGEL:
The slides may not be in the same order 14 that you have in the handouts, because I have changed the 15 order just a little bit in the interest of saving some time.
16 On the first slide, I have summarized the principle 17 dose assessment studies that were done at the time or close to 18 the time of the accident itself.
These have pretty well stood 19 the test of time in terms of the assessment of both the 20 individual doses and the population doses that resulted from 21 the releases from Three Mile Island.
22 The first group that's listed is the Ad Hoc 23 Interagency Dose Assessment Group, which was made up of 24 members from a number of federal agencies including, of 25 course, the NRC, epa, HEW, and the Center for Disease Control
35 1
The other studies that are listed below it, the 2
pickard, Lowe, and Garrick study was sponsored by GpU and, of 3
course, was done in the summer of
'79.
4 The NRC commissioned its own study that was 5
performed by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Now 6
this group did not do a study of the accident consequences 7
itself, but more or less reviewed the works of other groups, 8
as well as the mechanism of the accident.
9 The Kemeny Report -- that is the one that was 10 commissioned by President Carter at the time -- did an 11 extensive review of the accident and its consequences.
12 The NRC had its own special inquiry group, the l '8 Rogovin Group.
14 And Governor Thornburgh also commissioned a group to 15 also look at the accident from the state perspective.
16 i just wanted to point out here that all of these that is, that 17 groups came out with about the same results 18 the population dose was on the order of somewhere between two 19 and five thousand person-rems, and the maximum individual dose 20 was on the order of 100 millirem.
21 Could I have the second slide, please 22 CSlide.3 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
They were also based upon 24 essentially the same data, right?
25 MR. CONGEL:
There were several databases that were
33 1
available at the time, both from estimating the source term 2
from offsite dosimeters, and some were estimated source term 3
from In-plant monitors as well But they were approached from 4
several different directions by independent groups.
5 MR. DINUNNO:
I might add, this is one of the 6
sources of public concern, because while these were 7
independently done, they were done with different assumptions, 8
different bases, and the question is, are these all correct?
correct'?
How correct are they?
What are the 9
Which are 10 uncertaintles?
11 And without some interpretation of these they are but without some interpretation, you 12 fine technical studies 13 leave the public confused.
They don't understand.
Which of 14 these are they to believe?
All of them?
An official 15 government report?
Some summary?
16 And this is part of the problem that you have.
Not 17 the lack of studies.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are you suggesting that they 19 are contradictory?
20 MR. DiNUNNO:
Well, there have been overview studies 21 which indicate a considerable discrepancy in the assumptions 22 that are used.
Some have worked the problem backwards 4 some 23 have worked it forward.
That is, the source term out from 24 outside observations back to the source term, so they are not although the results are fairly close together 25
37 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I was going to say, 2
methodology may differ, but the question is, are the results 8
contradictory?
4 MR. DiNUNNO:
The results fall within a range where 5
there seems to be some consensus on the part of the technical 6
community.
But the confidence in these results is not as 7
great as if the methodology -- there was agreement by the 8
technical community on a methodology.
9 So that's part of the problem that you have, as 10 perceived by the public, who are trying to understand and 11 accept these.
12 MR. COCHRAN:
Well, this is not the sum total of the 13 studies on this issue.
14 MR. DINUNNO:
That's right.
15 MR. COCHRAN:
The TMl Health Fund has an ongoing 16 study heading by Jan Beyea at the National Audubon Society.
are you going 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think he's 18 to cover that?
19 MR. CONGEL:
I was going to mention that in 20 subsequent slides.
21 And also in response to Mr. DiNunno's comment, the 22 TMI public Health Fund back in November sponsored a meeting.
23 which the Jan Beyea study served as a reference for, and it 24 did look extensively at the literature values of the very the approaches, the 25 things that you were just mentioning
SS 1
database.
2 The point I wanted to make here is that, if you 3
notice, the latest one was completed in 1980.
This was the 4
original batch of studies that were performed in order to get 5
a definition of really what happened.
6 Now since then, there has, of course, been more 7-information as the plant has been cleaned up.
There have been 8
different approaches made.
But I wanted to put this up, 9
because I wanted to emphasize the fact that there was a great 10 deal of study that was done at the time of the accident by 11 well-recognized groups.
12 Could I have the next slide, please?
13 CSilde.3 14 MR. COCHRAN:
Why do you put these up and entitle it 15
" principal Studies," and you put the Beyea thing on the other 16 thing and call it a " critique?"
17 MR. CONGEL:
Well, the principal studies that I was 18 referring to are the ones that were done early on in the 19 accident.
On the basis of the data that 1*ve seen to this 20 extent, the results of those studies have not been shown to bo 21 invalid, including the Jan Beyea report The report that he 22 prepared was used as a basis for the November '84 meeting.
23 After extensive discussion, there has been some reassessment 24 by Dr. Beyes, and he said that his reassessment indicates that 25 some of the outfying higher dose values that had been
36 1
postulated as a result of his earlier review are no longer 2
valid.
So we're back down in the range of the numbers that 3
were published in these original reports.
4 I also don't believe that the Beyea review is 5
complete.
Consequently, I don't regard it as a completed 6
study.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Tom, you were objecting to the 8
use of the word " principal?"
9 MR. COCHRAN:
Well, it is an ongoing study.
I 10 object to calling one a study, as if this has some legitimacy, 11 and the other a critique, as if you are flailing away at the that's my objection, that 12 real studies, you know, which is
[
13 it should be listed on the same graph, and it's ongoing, and 14 the interim report was just that, an interim report, and it 15 will take him another two years to finish it.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We note your comment, and maybe 17 it can be cleared up further as we go along.
I t
l 18 MR. CONGEL:
The second slide shows some of the 19 epidemiological studies that have already been carried out and i
20 completed.
I have divided them into two groups:
those 21 studies which are done, including the sponsor of the study, as 22 well as the group that was performing the study, and when i 23 get to the next slide, it will be those studies that are 24 presently ongoing and have future time commitments associated 25 with them.
40 1
I was prepared to spend a few minutes discussing 2
each one of these studies, but in the interest of time, I can 3
refbr you to the SECY paper where there is a breakdown of the 4
results, the timespan, the sponsors and the primary purpose of 5
each one of these studies.
6 As you note, most of them have been done by the 7
State of pennsylvania.
in this list, there is one with the 8
Department of Health, Education and Welfare that sponsored the 9
study by the Western psychiatric Research Institute, and that 10 was the mental health study, the third one on the list.
11 The first study, I would like to,2oint out, the 12 Radiation Dose Assessment Group study, came up with findings I
1 'S that were consistent with the first list of references that i that is, that the maximum individual dose is on the 14 cited 15 order of 100 millirem or less.
16 Could I have the third slide, please?
17 CSlide.]
18 Yes, Niel?
19 MR. WALD:
I noticed you left out the census itself, 20 which was really the key to all the rest.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Which one?
22 MR. CONGEL:
No.
I think that's the one that I'm 23 talking about right now.
I mentioned that I was talking in 24 terms of two groups, those studies that have been regarded as 25 complete and those that are regarded as ongoing.
And the TMI
41 1
Census Group, yes, that was one of the first studies, but it 2
has a five-year span, it's supposed to be redone every five 3
years.
That's why I put it in this group, Niel 4
it is now planning on having a duration of twenty 5
' years or more, and it's a rather extensive study, and it has not only the pennsylvania 6
really three sponsoring agencies 7
Department of public Health, but also the Center for Disease 8
Control and the U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
9 The intention of this is to develop a population 10 profile, or the TMi Registry, and from this, provide a basic 11 framework for studying the morbidity and mortality that 12 results in that region.
But it is important to note that it
(
13 is being redone every five years, 14 The pregnancy outcome 15 MR. WALD:
I guess what I was getting at was that 16 those dose assessments of each individual within five miles 17 was made possible because the census provided the information 18 where they were day and night for the ten days from the 19 beginning of the accident.
That is essentially complete.
20 That's the underpinning for any other epidemiological study.
21 I guess I mention it to commend the Commonwealth of 22 pennsylvania for having the foresight to go ahead within a 23 month and get the census work done, because that is crucial to 24 all the rest.
25 MR. CONGEL:
That's correct.
And I think the
42 I
recognition of the validity of that census is one that 2
encourages extension in five-year intervals, so we have an 8
updated database from which to study.
4 The pregnancy outcome study was another important 5
study that's being performed, also with a five-year interval.
6 The obvious thing for this is to determine, if possible, what 7
impacts, if any, the TMI accident had on pregnancy outcomes in 8
the TM1 vicinity.
9 There are details provided, once again, in the paper 10 on what the study was actually doing and how they are going 11 about the work.
12 Most of these studies have been referenced in one or i
13 more papers that the Staff has sent up to the Commission or i
14 has provided in other forums as a basis for attempting to 15 establish what health effects were occurring in the area.
16 Once again, one of the things that I'd like to point 17 out by showing all these studies is the extent of the 18 activities that are ongoing.
19 Next slide, please.
20 CSlide.3 i
I won't read the title --
21 On this last slide 22 Claughter.3 23 But I did regard them as principal The Aamodts' 24 work has been, of course, extensively referenced, especially 25 over the past six months to a year, it has raised some
43 1
questions that I believe have partially served as a basis for 2
the study that the TMI public Health Fund is presently 3
sponsoring -- that is, the so-called Columbia Study that is in 4
the next list that I have at the bottom of the slide.
5 There are two ways in which the Aamodts' work itself i
6 can be responded to, and that is by looking at the studies 1
epidemiological studies, that 7
that are ongoing, the studies that have already been completed, and also it should 8
is 9
serve as a basis for the type of information that will be 10 researched by what I have called here in this slide the i
11 Columbia Study.
It's called the Columbia Study, because there 12 are two professors at Columbia University, who will be
(
13 carrying out another epidemiological study around the Three 14 Mlle Island area.
15 But the charter of this group is a little different 16 than the earlier studies that I cited.
The charter of this 17 group is to look for so-called clustering phenomena and to see 18 if there is statistical significance associated with the 19 observed clustering of cancer cases and whether they can be 20 attributed to any radiation exposure around the plant.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are these medical doctors or 22 statisticians or physicists or psychologists or 23 MR. CONGEL:
I believe they are epidemiologists.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
In the Medical Department?
25 MR. WALD:
It's in the School of public Health at
44 1
Columbia.
2 MR. CONGEL:
But I don't know if he's an 3
epidemiologist or if he's a physician.
4 MR. WALD:
The leader is an MD.
5 MR. CONGEL:
And MD.
6 The conclusion that the Staff has recommended in the 7
paper, based on this, is that there is no other study that we 8
would recommend be sponsored by the Commission.
This 9
information should serve as a sufficient base for, hopefully, 10 ultimately establishing the impact of the accident.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The committee may really want 12 to get into more depth in a subsequent mereting of the panel I
13 than we have this morning.
But questions or comments?
14 MR. COCHRAN:
We will have to wait until the charter 15 is approved.
16 Claughter.3 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What's that.
18 MR. COCHRAN I said, we'll have to wait until the 19 charter is approved.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
- Well, I'm hoping to get 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I'm going to have te look at 22 this charter one of these days, it sounds like a Magna 1
23 Charta.
24 CLaughter.3 25 MR. COCHRANr The Health Fund just received court
45 1
approval of a second study by Susser and Hatch, who are the 2
Columbia Group, to revisit the epidemiological studies' 3
-association with pregnancy outcomes.
It is, in effect, a 4
check on some of the pennsylvania work that is cited.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other comments or 6
questions?
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I'd be interested if any 8
of you have views on at least the portion of the Staff's 9
conclusion that was just given that is, that given these 10 ongoing efforts and particularly the ongoing ones by the TMI 11 Public Health Fund, whether any of you all think there is a 12 need for further studies beyond that point, at least given 13 what we know now.
and there 14 MR. M O Rit l S :
Let me just, if I could 15 might be other panel members who may want to make a comment 16 but that would be precisely not the kind of thing we would 17 expect to get into.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
19 MR. MORRIS:
We felt we are a conduit We are nt 1
20 going to be sitting and trying to determine what further 21 studies need to be done, because we feel that to be able to do 22 that, we would have to spend so much time that we would have 23 already violated some of the parameters for our being able to 24 discuss it in the first place.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO; But the Staff may be able to
40 1
provide important background.
2 MR. MORRIS:
Absolutely.
And this may be very a
helpful to the public, for the Staff to be able to outline 4
just what they did today in more detail But as to their 5
conclusions that no further studies are needed, that's what i 6
offered my comments on, that i feel that is something we would 7
not be offering comment on.
8 MR. OlNUNNO:
Mr. Chairman, I also would suggest 9
that in receiving the NRC Staff comments and summations of 10 this kind, the NRC, the protector of public health, any 11 comments that one could make that is, the NRC could make 12 with respect to, are these studies credible studies; are they 4
13 as a peer review group of their own, are they acceptable s are 14 they critiques that are still to be examined anything that 15 they could do in their own assessment that would provide some 16 insight to the public as to how they look on these results, i 17 think would be extremely useful and very valuable.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
19 MR. DINUNNO:
I certainly -- we would not want to 20 exercise that judgment as panel members, But NRC, who has 21 looked at this from a public health and safety standpoint, may 22 have some observations that they could offer that I think 23 could be extremely useful.
24 Again, another conduit to the public of some i
25 official body that has looked at this body of information and
47 1
has derived some conclusions as a result.
2 CHAIRMAN pALLADINOr All right.
Any other comments?
3 CNo response.J 4
CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Okay.
Well, thank you, Frank.
5 1 guess we have two more items, don't we?
6 MR. MORRIS:
Yes, we do. Mr. Chairman.
7 The first,one is panel views on GpU's revision to 8
1985 TMI-2 cleanup schedule, need for an order.
9 That is in regard to the three-month slippage in the 10 fuel removal schedule.
I believe that the overall schedule 11 for completion still remains sometime in 1980.
I would like 12 to say that I've made statements in the past that we never 13 seem to be closer than five years away from cleanup.
We are 14 now within three years, at least, of the proposed cleanup 15 ending.
And so progress obulously has been made.
16 My concern and that of the panel is that we be aware 17 of delays as they occur, we analyze them, and we make sure 18 that we are not slipping so much that a compliance schedule 19 maybe should have been in place or should be considered.
20 That was the purpose of the comment in the letter to 21 the Commission to just continue to be sensitive to any 22 slippages that might occur.
We do not want to go so fast, so 23 as to ignore any safety considerations.
They should bo 24 utmost.
But we also don't want to have it delayed and carried 25 into the 1990s either.
43 in fact, 1
I am not sure at this point that we are 2
1 feel sure that we are not asking you today to consider a 3
compliance schedule all over again.
We are bringing it to 4
your attention that we continue to be concerned about any 5
slippages, and we will be keeping a close eye o r, it, and we 6
would hope that you would, too.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, we very much appreciate 8
your comments, and it is an item on which we do intend to 9
exercise diligence, because, as you know, all of us on the 10 Commission are very anxious to see that plant cleaned up, so 11 that it no longer is a problem area.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt There is one area that i I
13 think your panel could assist on, and that is soliciting 14 not soliciting -- but gathering any comments or indications 15 you might acquire that this cleanup is at any point becoming 16 resource-limited.
I would certainly like to know if evidence 17 begins to appear and accumulate that the resources -- money, are beginning to become a problem in meeting 18 if you will 10 the schedule.
20 1 trust that isn't the case now, and we've been 21 assured that it isn't.
But that is the one thing that i 22 certainly don't want to see happen, and I don't think anybody 23 at this table wants to see happen.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And incidentally, that is an 25 important point, because slippages result in higher costs.
I
43 1
concur in your point 2
Any other comments?
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How about the question of 4
the timeliness of the schedule change?
Do you have any 5
concerns about when you found about it, or whether we could 6
have learned about this earlier than we did?
7 MR. MORRIS:
personally, no.
I felt that they came 8
forward and gave us the best information they had on it, and i I
9 didn't have any concerns with that.
I don't know if any other 10 panel member did.
11 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Are there any other comments or 12 questions?
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
14 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
All right.
15 MR. MORRIS:
The last one is the status of the NRC 16 investigations and enforcement actions related to TMI-2 17 cleanup to be presented by the Staff, as the time permits.
18 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Yes.
19 MR. MORRIS:
Which hopefully it does.
20 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Well, I think we have time for 21 a brief report.
I think Ben Hayes is here and will give you a 20 status report.
And I guess that's as much as we can give.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Also Jane Axelrad on the 24 enforcement actions.
25 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Oh, yes.
Okay.
50 1
MR. HAYES:
Th'ank Vou, Mr. Chairman.
2 We currently have two open investigative matters 3
concerning TMI-2.
I had reported or presented to the TMl 4
Advisory panel in my meeting with them in February of this 5
year a report en taase two matters.
At that time, I believe 6
Mayor Morrissey indicated that our estimated completion date 7
was May or June of this year.
I have not met that 8
expectation.
9 We hope to have one investigation completed by July 10 15th.
That particular investigation deals with the polar 11 crane handbrake matter.
We are currently evaluating the 12 evidence and writing the report as I speak.
1 i(
l'S The other investigation I briefly touched upon in 14
- February, it deals with our investigation of TMI-2 operr. tors, I
15 licensed personnel.
That investigation is being delayed 16 because of ilIness of one.of the very major participants from 17 the Staff, and we ran into some legal problems with a subpoena 18 which has delayed that.
Our estimated completion date there 19 is August of this year.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Have both those problems 21 been resolved, Ben?
22 MR. HAYES:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The subpoena and the 24 MR. HAYES:
Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE Okay.
1 1
MR. HAYES:
Th'e sub'poena held us up, and 2
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Bill is back on the job.
3 MR. HAYES:
Bill is back on the job, as it were, and 4
we're moving on.
5 We have asked the Staff for some technical 6
Information that we will need to conclude the investigation, o
7 and they told us it will be about thirty days before they can 8
provide that.
So with that technical information, we hope to 9
conclude that.
10 As a sideline, there is one other TMl matter 11 involving the other reactor, which we also hope to conclude by 12 July.
So hopefully within the next sixty to ninety days, the
[
13 Office of Investigations will no longer have a TMl 14 investigation in our inventory.
15 We have not opened any new investigation this year, 16 1 don't believe, and that will conclude it, hopefully.
17 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I hope you're not soliciting 18 business.
19 MR. HAYES:
No, sir.
20 CLaughter.3 21 No, believe me.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there any questions from 23 the committee?
24 MR. MORRIS:
Just a comment, and that is that we it seems like we don't l
25 continue to be concerned about the l
l
52 1
finall=e some of these invest'igations with enforcement 2
actions.
It has been long in coming.
Tha+ is why we continuo 3
to raise the question, and I would hope that Mr. Hayes and but I would 4
l'm sure these represent the best dates he has 5
hope that they will do everything they possibly can to stay 6
with the July and August dates for concluding them, so that 7
come September, as he said today, he will have no further 8
ftems under his purview.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
With regard to enforcement 10 actions, we do have Jane Axelrad here.
11 MR. MORRIS:
I understand.
12 f1R. ROTH:
One question on that to Ben.
If I am
(
~
18 understanding you correctly, Ben, your investigations will be 14 completed at that time, sixty to ninety days.
But the 15 question is, that does not say the enforcement will be over at 16 that time s is that correct?
I 17 MR. HAYES:
I t h i r.k that's a good assumption.
From 18 the ora.1 briefings that I have obtained from my staff during 19 the course of the investigation, certainly the Staff would 20 want to look at the results of our investigation to determine 21 whether any enforcement action would be necessary.
22 That would preclude, as you may or may not know, 23 publicly releasing the report until the Staff has made some 24 determination.
25 MR. ROTH:
I understand that.
l
53 1
MS. AXELRAD:
'W e are looking forward to finishing 2
our inventory of TMI cases as much as Ben is.
And as soon as 3
he gets us the results of the polar crane investigation, we 4
will be moving forward expeditiously to get a recommended 5
action to the Commission.
6 On the other matter that Advisory Committen has 7
expressed interest in, with regard to the parks matter, the 8
Staff nas forwarded its recommended enforcement action to the O
Commission for action, and it is pending a decision there.
l 10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It's in our lap.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Any other questions or 12 comments?
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, thank you, Jane, thank 15 you, Ben.
16 Now that concludes the list of items that we had on i
17 the agenda.
I don't know if you have any general comments or 18 members have general comments they want to make before we 19 adjourn.
20 MR. MORRIS I co not.
I don't know if any other 21 panel member does.
22 MR. ROTH:
I just have one quick question.
Since it 23 is in your lap, the Parks enforcement, could you give a rough 24 timeframe on when a decision would be rendored?
25 The reason I ask, again, is again, it's been so i
54 1
long, and the public is wondering, you know, is anything ever 2
going to happen?
And at this point, at least, we can say, 3
"Well, the Commissioners have it."
Now how long will you have 4
It?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why don't we aim for next 6
week.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
I can set targets, I can't 8
make guarantees.
But I think this is one that deserves prompt 9
commission act8 and I would urge all of us to get to it and 10 try to get it done within the next seven days.
l 11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
12 MR. ROTH:
Thank you, 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other comments?
j 14 CNo response,3 l
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me confirm the most 16 Important action, I believe la for the Commission to approve to vote on whether they approve the 17 the guidelines 18 guidelines, and whether they are willing to proceed along the I
19 lines suggested by the panel with regard to serving as a I
20 conduit for information on health studies.
21 And as soon as we know that, I hope also we'll havo 22 from OGC a suggested change in the charter, and we will try to 23 get that done, as i said, well before July 13th.
To me, that 24 means at least by July lith, if we possibly can do it.
25 MR. MORRIS:
I think, if I could, in summary, I
s T
4 55
-g 1
agres with -- the t 6 main points I would Iike to suggest is, V,
2 If that occurs, you just outline that, and that also on the 3
enforc'ement action, if you could deal with that in a timely 4
fashion, because i think they're both very important 3.,
"5' COMMISSIONER.ZECH:
1'd Iike to see, if possible, j
6 OGC's charter change first, you know.
It shouldn't take too 7
long.
8 CHAIRMAN PALL.ADi m:
Wei1, that's why I am asking o
9 them to g'et started.
10 COMM(CSIONER ZECH:
Yes, fine.
As soon as you can.
,o 11 MR. TRUB Al"C H :
We do recall yesterday with HEU/ LEU,
$2 thera are constraints on the office, and we'lI do as best we I
1' S can.
j s.
14 CHd l FMAN ' p ALLAC i ? C :
Fine.
WelI, we wiII foiiow up c
l-15 and make sur' that i t gets attantlon.
c L
l
. 16 Okay, weiI, thank you very much.
We appreciata your s
17 coming before the Commission.
We certainly appreciate the P
13 commenir yr.;u have made.
A3d unless there is something 19 further, we will stand adjourned.
j( -
20 rm. MORR I S :
Tnank you.
\\
u 1
21 CWheruuperi, at 12:30 o' clock, p.m.,
the Commission s.
N 22 meeting was adjourned.3 23 s
=
9 24 25 9
3
~..s 4
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United Statos Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of Commission Meeting (Public Meeting) s 9
Name of Proceeding: periodic Meeting With Advisory Panel on Decontamination of TMI-2 10 11 Docket No.
f 12 Place:
Washington, D. C.
la cate:
Thursday, June 20, 1985 14 1
l 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
(
18 (Signature)
, p, ig_
(Typed Name of Reporter)
And Riley 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
24 25
6/19/85 SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY PANEL ON DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 SCHEDULED:
11:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1985 (OPEN)
DURATION:
APPROX 1-1/2 HRS SUGGESTED
- 1) PANEL VIEWS ON LICENSEE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO LIFT!NG TOPICS:
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL PLENUM
- 2) PANEL VIEWS ON TECHNICAL AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF LICENSEE PLANS FOR EARLY FUEL REMOVAL
- 3) PANEL VIEWS ON TECHNICAL, SAFETY AND SECURITY ASPECTS RELATED TO FUEL SHIPPING CASK
- 4) PANEL VIEWS ON GPUNC TMI-2 WORKER RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM
- 5) PANEL VIEWS ON FLOW OF INFORMATION TO ADVISORY PANEL (SECY-85-153)
- 6) SCOPE OF INQUIRY AND CRITER10N PROPOSED BY ADVISORY PANEL IN EXAMINING EP!DEM!0 LOGICAL STUDIES ASSOCIATED WITH RADIATION RELEASED DURING THE TMI-2 ACCIDENT; STAFF OVERVIEW OF EXISTING STUDIES (SECY-85-185)
- 7) PANEL VIEWS ON GPUNC'S REVISION TO 1985 TMI-2 CLEANUP SCHEDULEl NEED FOR ORDER
- 8) STATUS OF NRC INVEST!GATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS RELATED
~
TO TMI-2 CLEANUP (T0 BE PRESENTED BY THE STAFF AS TIME PERMITS)
DOCUMENTS:
- 6/4/85 LETTERS FROM A. MORRIS TO CHA!RMAN PALLADINO
- 6/6/85 LETTER FROM CHA!RMAN PALLADINO TO A. MORRIS
PRINCIPALCRITIQUES
. AAMDDTS' STUDY
- D00R-TO-D00R SURVEY
- IFPLIES DOSES #4D [ LEASES HIG[R THAN PRINCIPAL ESTIMATES
- DISPOSITION - CONTINUING PA STUDIES
. TMI PUBLIC WALTH Flf1D
- BEYEA [ PORT
- NEER INF0lf% TION
- COLLNBIA STUDY
i i
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES - WG0 LNG TMI CENSUS (SURVEY EVERY 5 YEARS)
PERF0lfED BY PA. EPT OF WALTH; GilERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL & U.S. CENSUS BUREA P[GNNLY OlRCOE STUDY (SURVEY EVERY 5 YEARS) - PA.
I CONGENITAL /EONATAL HYPOTHYRDIDISM STUDY(ANNUALLY) - PA.
4 INFANT MORTALITY STUDY (ANHUALLY) - PA.
i EPIDEMIOLOGIC SURVEILLANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA (NEW STUDY) - PA.
j
EPIEMIOLOGICAL STIEIES - GMETED SIE PADIATION DOSE ASSESSENT SIlD(
PA.,lEIV.OFPITTSBURG EALTH BEllAVIORAL (STESS) STUDY PA.
ENTAL EALTH STIBI IOVESTERN PSYGIATRIC ESEARG INSTITUTE EALTH EC0tDilCS SilD(
PA., OlILTON ES. SERVIES ESIENTIAL PDBILITY STUDY PA.
d 6
o i
4 1
DOSE ANNENT STljDIES - FINDINGS l
l
[ LEASES
{
~
6 6
l
- NOBE GASES (2.4 x 10 - 13 x 10 CI)
- RADI0I0 DIES (14 - 15 CI) i i
E i
4 1
- MAXIITLLY EXPOSED INDIVIDUAL < 100 PEM i
l
-AVG.DOSEWITHIN50 MILES ~1.5IPEM 3
l PRINCIPAL 1NI DOSE ASTRSKNT SRIDIES AND REVIEWS 1
1 AD H0C INTERKELY DOSE ASSESSKNT GR0lP - ItJEG-0558 (1979)
PIO(ARD, LDE & GARRICK - TDR-TMI-116 G979) l l
US NRC 0FFIE OF INSPECTION & EWORCEENT - ItJ[G-0600 G979)
PRSIDENT'S C0ltl. ON TFE ACCIDENT AT TMI (KEENY [ PORT) (1979)
I US NRC SRCIAL INQUIRY GR0lP (ROGOVIN) G980) 1
[ PORT OF TIE (PA) GOVERN 0R'S COPM. ON TMI G980) l l
e CONCLUSION
. BASED ON TE FINDINGS Fim TIE $TUDIES CTPLEIED TO IRTE, TE CRITIQlES, AND T[ ONG0ING STUDIES, TE STAFF SEES l0 EED FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES.
9 d
e
Yhh ObbkkhhkNhkdhhhhk h
12/82 TNNiMITmL 'IO:
Docunent Cantrol Desk, 016 Phillips I
ADVAN3D CDPY 'IO: /
/
'Ihe Public Docunent Roan 7
blAflfl i
DME:
cc: OPS File I
C&R (Natalie) 4 i
Attached are copies of a Ocunission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting
'i doctment(s). 'Ihey are being fonarded for entry on the Daily Accession List i
and p1mt in the Public Docunent Rom. No other distribution is requested j.
or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual j
docunents wherever known.
l Lt-u & O a o-/, &nsw,_. kt-> tea j
Meeting Title ex h
/tr AAt-enun%&
s7 Jn1/ - p--
u o
\\
3 Meeting Date 6 /2.<>/f J' Open X Closed l
DCS Copies
]
(1 of each checked) g Itan
Description:
Copies Advanced original May Duplicate j
'Ib PDR Document be D@*
Copy
- l 3
1.
TRAPECRIPT 1
1 l
i 2 en checked, DCS should send a
]
copy of this transcript to the l
LPDR for h) // t /r./n h + av iL J,, > A' u f
hm - Fi"- its a
i l
2
/
~
l i
k
- 3. [dx e...
. FJ - f l f
/
f i
/
j 1
jl 4.
5 j
(PDR is advanced one copy of each document,
- Verify if in DCS, and g
two of each SECY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
MN@lb$b