ML20128N751
| ML20128N751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1985 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACTMI, NUDOCS 8506030378 | |
| Download: ML20128N751 (176) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:ORG RE. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 O V LOCATION: HARRISBURG, PA. PAGES: 1 - 115 DATE: THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1985 O l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 050603037kOh$$/3fj;,g
'r' R ADoc Washington, D.C. 20001 ppu (202)347-3700 NADOMVIDE COVERACE
2 V 1 2 AGENDA ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAHINATION
,f s 3 OF TMI-2 N-] ,
2Ana 5
- 1. Chairman's Introductory Remarks 3 6
- 2. NRC Status Report and an Update on NRC 7 Pending Investigations and Enforcement Actions - D. Snyder 27 8
- 3. DOE Status Report and Discussion of Shipping 9 Cask Availability During Defueling - W. Bixby 42 10 4. Public Comment 47 11 Break -
12 5. GPUNC Current Cleanup Schedule - Frank Standerfer 50 13
- 6. Phase I Reactor Fuel Removal and
(') 14 Storage - F. Standerfer 70 13 7. Panel Discussion on the Level of the Panel's Inquiry into Health Effects Studies and 16 Data Related to the Radioactive Release During the TMI-2 Accident - Chairman Morris 75 17
- 8. Wrap Up of Worker Skin Contamination and is Other Radiation Issues Related to the THI-2 Cleanup - Chairman Morris 87 19
- 9. Topics for Advisory Panel Discussion with 20 the NRC Commissioners at the June 20, 1985, Meeting.in Washington, DC - Chairman Morris 102 21
- 10. Public Comment - Chairman Horris 105 22 23 24 25
F 3 p.
. 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening ladies and 2 gentlemen. I did hear from Tom Gerusky that he 3 couldn't be here tonight. There will be a meeting of
('-) 4 the panel, at least tentatively, set for June 20 and I
$ think it is tentatively set to start at 10:00 a.m. in 6 Washington with the Commission.
7 Since the last meeting, I received one piece e of correspondence. I am going to ask it to be included 9 in the minutes. That is a May 13 letter from GPU io regarding a request on May -- that involved maximum 11 internal dosage and radiation worker turnover. And 12 rather than read it, I ask it be recorded in today's is minutes. . (( .. ) 14 The last thing I have as part of my 15 ' introductory remarks is to bring up, I guess ask the 16 question on the ad that appeared in some papers, and 17 particularly in the Washington Post. A letter that was is apparently sent to me by a Dr. James C. Fletcher who is i, Chairman of the TMI Safety Board. 20 The ad basically runs a letter that indicates 21 that that letter came to me, or at least is dated April 22 26. Let me say at this point I have no recollection of 23 having ever received that letter. I was on vacation and returned this past Tuesday after being out of town (]) 24 25 for a week and a half. (
4 1 1 T-~ _ TL- 1 My office had been contacted and was asked if . 2 we, wanted to receive a copy of the ad. We received the 3 copy May the 9th that we were told, I as told by my
- 0 4 office, was going to run. We were not asked whether we 5 were agreeable to have it run. We were told it was o going to run.
7 I found out immediately upon coming back and a reading my correspondence, that would have been 9 yesterday, and this thing ran the next day. I am going 10 to research my office again and ask if that letter ever 11 came in. It is bad enough that I don't recall seeing 12 the letter. But 'I think it is in very poor taste, in _ _ _ 13 the very least, that GPU would run an ad with a letter
') 14 that is addressed to me when the same letter went to 15 the NRC.
16 I don't know. I received no explanation of 17 it. At the very least it is poor taste and I resent is the way it took place. 19 I don't know if anyone here from GPU could 20 ~ explain it or not, why you felt such a letter was 21 necessary. If information was necessary to get to the 22 public, why didn't you run the information and not the 23 letter that I didn't receive yet and you didn't talk to me about?
'(]) 24 25 MR. STANDERFER: I am sorry you didn't get I
u .
5 I the letter. I am sure it was sent. We tried to 2 coordinate with your office in the intent to use that 3 in advertisements. And if that discussion with your O- 4 office didn't consummate with you, I am sorry. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I asked the question of my 6 staff, Were we asked whether we were agreeable to a 7 letter being run? And I was specifically told, no, a that we were told that this ad was going to run and 9 would we like a copy of the ad. The answer was, yes, io we would like a copy of the ad, which was read last 11 . night at abo,ut 10:30 by me. The ad was read; the 12 letter was not read or received as far as I know.
., is MR. STANDURFER: Our intention was to be sure that you would get that in plenty of time. And it was
(]) 14 is our intention that, if there was some objection on your 16 Part, that you would have time to register that with 17 us. If we didn't finish that discussion, I am sorry. Is THE CHAIRMAN: Could you explain to me why it i, was necessary to have a letter that was addressed to me 20 as chairman as the basis for an advertisement by GPU? 21 I just feel somewhat used in this. 22 MR. STANDERFER: I am responsible for cleanup 23 and not responsible for the public affairs activities. They are under another vice-president. (]) 24 J5 But I think we feel that endorsement of the (
6 ' 1 . work on the project is.important to indicate that the 2 project is being done well .
~
3 THE CHAII MAN: I have one other question at O 4 this point and that isc it is my understanding that a 5 letter was sen to NRC first, addressed to them, the 6 same letteb.. ,{ , , 3., . t 7 MR. STJ.10DERFER s. I don't believe so. I a believe they have a edpyrof the letter that was sent to 9 your but we ha,ve not sent that letter to anybody else. 10 '1 t rTHE CHAIRMAN: Maybe Mike can speak to that, t . 11 if.you vould. It was my understanding there was a 12 similar letter sent to the NRC that you were asked to
.- ~31 . gop and send tythe panel.
f Becarise of reasons .that n . 14 you. have, fou didnt f eel tdr.b' was ' appropriate. i 3
+ 15 ,
h MR. MASNIK: I have a letter that was
,a \ y ,
ti- a tt.iched . In wother words, the statement was sent to 2
+
j '.S Mr. Denton under Mr. Clark's signature dated May 8. is , And then attached to thatin 9 the concluding
,, i, "if paragraph they state that ~a letter ,was calso sent to 20 Mayor Morris, and a copy of thatsletter is attached for
,(21 your information.
22 Now, whether it t.r a ck the newspaper article 3 23 $ verbatim, I did not check that. O
>< ra= ca^zana" Ithousheyou attaaato -
25 that you had received information, the same kind of
.i g
- n. . . ,
r 9 h 9 p a s , , , , ( g
't 7 c x 1.____. L_
7 .r i information, "you" being the NRC, and asked to provide 2 copies of that to panel members; but you felt that was 3 not something the NRC should be doing and that led to 4 the letter. 5 MR. MASNIK: I received a copy of this letter 6 with a cover letter from a member of GPU Public Affairs 7 with the note on it saying that this may be of interest 2-a to the Panel and would I' distribute it. Something to, 9 that effect. Io And I called the individual and said I am 11 responsible for screening all of the information; and 12 we generally provide them with technical information. _. 33 And this particular document, I felt, didn't fall under the category of the normal distribution to the Panel. (]) i4 15 I said, however,-if you feel this is 16 information that the panel should receive, there would 17 be no reason why you couldn't send it directly to the is chairman of the Panel with a request that it be 19 distributed to the Panel. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: But are you saying the first 21 information you got about distributing that was when? 22 MR. MASNIK: In May, the beginning of May. 23 Now, also at the same time I got the normal distribution through the NRC internal system of the
}l 24 25 letter that was sent to Mr. Denton, which had the copy -1
?l b
8 i t_ 1 or had attached a copy of the letter to you. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I am glad you received 3 your copy of my letter. That's nice. Tom, did you have O_ 4 something? 5 I want-everybody to see I am not talking 6 about a 'little ad. This is a Washington Post ad. I am 7 sure it appeared in other newspapers. I think maybe the 8 Lancaster newspapers, although I haven't seen it. I 9 haven't had a chance to see it in the Lancaster 10 newspaper. They could afford to pay for several weeks 11 of the ad in the Lancaster paper. . 12 MR. SMITHGALL: We spent a meeting in 13 Lancaster listening to your problems with the - cl ~
'O le Ph11ade19hia 1neuirer artic1e about you end the 15 implication of problems you had with that.
16 Yet another month later you run an ad where 17 you imply by the heading of our chair here and of an 18 advisory member to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 that they were in full compliance with the whole 20 cleanup effort. And I think that is the problem, if I 21 can read through this. 22 On the one hand you spent a whole meeting and 23 on the next hand you are running an ad that does the same thing. That is my particular problem. (]) 24 25 I think it would bear getting approva1 of the i L L__- i
9 1 Panel before you run a letter in an advertisement form. 2 MR. STANDERFER: I thought we had; and my 3 understanding and intent was to try and get that
} 4 discussion. To the extent that didn't happen, I 5 apologize.
6- THE CHAIRMAN: You may check on that, but I 7 was very clear in asking whether we were asked for e approval or whether we were told it was going to 9 happen. And we were told it was going to happen and 10 that is my understanding. 11 MR, STANDERFER: I believe George McKelvy 12 from our public staff is here and he is the gentleman _ 13 who had the discussion with your office. If you would (} 14 like to ask him the question directly. I would be happy to. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Because 16 the Copy that my office received was received on May 9. 17 It was sent out May 8 and a copy was sent by George is McKelvy. And if George is present, I would like to 19 hear what was said. 20 MR. MC KELVY: George McKelvy, manager of 21 'Public Affairs at TMI. With respect to the ad, I 22 - called the Mayor 's office on the 6th of May and I . - 23 believe he was out of town at the time. 24 I told the staff member I spoke with there
}
25 was an ad we were composing to run. And after that C 4 e -e,--p
10 i
' I conversation, I indicated it was a proposal. I sent a 2 copy of the ad in draft form to the Mayor's to the 3 attention of that staff person. That is what 4 i V 4 transpired.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: For review and comment prior 6 to running? 7 MR. MC KELVY: That was the understanding. 8 Obviously, it was not explicit enough. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you get any comment from 10 my office? 11 MR. MC KELVY: No, I did not. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I was out of town from the 4th
,_ 13 of May until the 14th of May, and this ran May 16.
] 14
^
You can see the great opportunity I have had I read this ad last night between 15 to comment on it. 16 ten and eleven o' clock at night. And I would expect, 17 if you send a draft of a proposed release for comment, 18 that you would wait until you got the comment, if that 19 was your intent. 20 My office said you told them it was going to 21 run and you asked if they would like a copy of it and 22 we said yes. I will double check. 23 But I am very upset with the way it was 24 handled. And nothing you said here tonight changed my (~)T 25 mind on that. I don't think you were very specific. t k_
11 1 And I think if you were really interested in getting 2 comment, you make sure when you are going to run a 3 letter to somebody and do it to this size in the O 4 Washington Post and you intended to get comment, you 5 certainly make sure you got the comment before 6 proceeding. And you didn't get anything from me. 7 MR. MC KELVY: No, we didn't. 8 MR. COCHRAN: Mr. McKelvy, do you attend the 9 . meetings of your Safety Advisory Board? 10 MR. MC KELVY: No. i: 11 M R '. COCHRAN: Do you? 12 MR' . STANDERFER: Yes, I do. In fact, the i3 Safety Advisory Board attended your meeting in
,b J ). 14 Lancaster last month.
15 MR. COCHRAN: Do -you recall the discussions 16 in the meeting where they drafted the language that 17 went.into the letter? What was their purpose in L is drafting that language? 19 MR. STANDERFER: They attended the meeting in 20 Lancaster. The following day in the wrapup, they chose l-l 21 to provide us-that language. i l 22 I don't know the basis for that other than 23 they felt it was appropriate after hearing the discussions the night before. I can arrange to have (]) 24 25 Dr. Fletcher attend your next meeting, and he could lE L l I
12 L
'__ 1 speak to that.
2 MR. COCHRAN: Was the language requested by 3 the Board or other GPU people? C1 4 MR. STANDERFER: The language was not 5 requested. It was voluntarily offered by the Safety 3 6 Advisory Board after attending your last meeting in 7 Lancaster. Whether it was prompted by your meeting, I 8 don't know. 9 MR. COCHRAN: To the best of your knowledge 10 it was not prompted by any member of GPU? 11 MR. STANDERFER: That is correct. And I 12 would.be glad to arrange to have Dr. Fletcher speak to
. 13 that point.
() 14 MR. COCHRAN: Are the meetings of that board 15 transcribed? 16 MR. STANDERFER: There is a report of each 17 meeting, but no transcript. It is basically a 18 technical review meeting where we make technical 19 presentations to them and they then give us advice. i 20 MR. COCHRAN: But there are minutes of those 21 meetings? 22 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. 23 MR. COCHRAN: Can we get the minutes of those 24 meetings? ([ 25 MR. STANDERFER: I don't see why not. . I L._ i
13 ' f~ w 1 MR. COCHRAN: When was a decision by GPU made 2 to publicize the letter that was -- that Dr. Fletcher 3 wrote to Mayor Morris? 4 MR. MC KELVY: I don't know when that 5 decision was made. 6 MR. COCHRAN: Do you know when you were first 7 aware of that decision? 8 MR. MC KELVY: I was aware there was a 9 proposal to have.such an ad on the 6th of May when I 10 conta cted the Mayor 's of fice. 11 MR. COCHRAN: But you weren't involved in the 12 discussion? 33 MR. MCKELVY: The next thing I knew about the Ci..- () 14 ad was today. 15 MR. COCHRAN: Were you involved in previous 16 ads that addressed the Lancaster articles in the Kelly 17 decision? - 18 MR. STANDERFER: What matter are you talking 19 about? 20 MR. COCHRAN: Another one of those "We 21 thought you should know" ads. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: It was the Philadelphia 23 Inquirer article. 24 MR. COCHRAN: It was quoted from U. S. ()'% 25 District Justice Kelly's decision. u-k
I 14 i ! ~ L_ 1 MR. STANDERFER: In Kansas? i
~
2 MR. COCHRAN: The question was, I believe, of 3 Mr. McKelvy whether he was involved in that ad as well? 4 MR. MC KELVYi I was aware there were a 5 series of you ought to know ads in preparation, but I 6 couldnt distinguish the ad you are ref erring to. ; 7 MR. COCHRAN: Who in GPU would be responsible 8 for reviewing the technical ' content _of that ad?- 9 MR. MC KELVY: The principal responsibility 10 for advertising rests with our Vice-President of 11 Communications. There are a number of individuals
. 12 within the company who review the copy of proposed 13 advertisements.
i gy 14 MR. COCHRAN: In the previous ad that GPU put 15 out on the newspaper articles, it quotes the Kelly 16 decision, which states in-part in the ad, "This Court 17 rejects _the opinion.and testimony of Dr. Morgan and Dr. 18 Gofman because they both evidenced an intellectual 19 dishonest invention of arguments to protect their 20 opinions." ? 21 I was wondering if that statement of Kelly 22 with regard specifically to Dr. Morgan is shared by GPU 23 'and if it is. shared by you? You certainly know Dr. A 24 Morgan. V 25 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, and I read the full q i,_
- ~ , -
15 c 1 text of Judge Kelly's view. And, in fact, I have.not r 2 read that ad you are talking about, but I read the text 4 MR COCHRAN: Do you share the Court's 5 opinion of Dr. Morgan? 6 MR. STANDERFER: I did not attend any of the 7 . court sessions and I am unfamiliar with the testimony. 8 And I am not qualified to comment on what was said in l 9 that court proceeding. . 10 MR. COCHRAN: Well, I have read the opinion, 11 too. And I have also noticed a number of technical 12 errors made by Judge Kelly in his opinion having quoted
. 13 the briefs of the Justice Department and surely you must have picked up some of the errors.
) 14 j 15 MR. STANDERFER: I have seen errors on-both I.
- 16 sides.
17 MR. COCHRAN: I also recognize that it has la been usually two doctors (inaudible) who are on your 19 Advisory Board were also witnesses on behalf of the 20 Government in that case and the Judge has high praise
.21 for them and low esteem for Dr. Morgan.
22 MR. STANDERFER: I can't speak as to whether i 23 they testified or not. I just read the text of the I ( Judge's statement.
} 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I must jump in only on this
\ I
- , - . . . . . , . . , _ . . - , ,_m. , . _ _ . - . . - . _ . , , - . . , _ , , . - . . , - . _ _ - - . , -
16 .F L_ 1 issue. There is an item on the agenda, Item 8, which 2 is a wrap up of the whole discussion on the 3 Philadelphia Inquirer article. ( 4 I am getting some looks from panel members 5 that are suggesting maybe we are missing the agenda by 6 getting into that now. 7 MR. COCHRAN: Can I finish my point? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Let me before you 9 begin, I got a note that says Barbara or Jeffrey'Quinn, 10 who are apparently in attendance here, are told they 11 have a car that is blocking the driveway in the front 12 of the building. r 13 MR. COCHRAN: I think Judge Kelly's remarks
- ( 14 about Dr. Morgan were uncalled for, even if you just is read his opinion.
16 The question I ask GPU is whether, before you 17 repeat such statements as in these public 18 advertisements as inferring that this is an accurate 19 description of Dr. Morgan, whether there is any effort 20 on the part of the Public Affairs' people who are 21 responsible for the writing of these articles 22 presumably to see whether the statements like these are 23 statements that represent GPU's views, or are they -- () 24 MR. STANDERFER: All I can say is, I believe we quoted the Judge accurately. 25 I-k.. I
17 ( 1 MR. COCHRAN: I agree with that. But do you 2 stand behind the opinions, does GPU stand behind the 3 opinions of the Judge with respect to Dr. Morgan?
!,~T
\~#
4 Basically you are running the guy into the ground. Do 5 you stand behind that opinion? 6 MR. STANDERFER: We believe we quoted the 7 Judge accurately. 8 MR. COCHRAN: I heard that. Now, will you 9 answer the question? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I must at this time -- 11 MR. COCHRAN: I would like an answer to the 12 question. f 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask him one more time. 6,-)s ( 14 If he chooses not to answer the question, I think that 15 is it. He has replied twice. 16 MR. STANDERFER: Our Public Affairs office 17 would like to answer the question. is THE CHAIRMAN: I would only like to spend 19 time to answer the question, then I would like to get f 20 back to the rest of the agenda. Neal? 21 MR . W ARD : I would like -- 22 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to get an answer 23 first. MR. WARD: This is not a Parlimentary (]) 24 . ! 25 Procedure that allows you to block all discussion. ,( : l l t
18 i L_ 1 This ad in response to the ad in the Inquirer 2 was fully discussed at a whole long session in 3 Lancaster. If a member of the committee wasn't there
,(' T-/ 4 to discuss it, do we all have to go back to the last 5 meeting?
-6 THE CHAIRMAN: We do when we get down to Item 7 8, because that is a wrapup discussion. But right now 8 we should not be doing this.
9 I would, however, since we have gone through 10 ten minutes, we will at least ask GPU to answer the 11 question. I will give Tom Cochran a chance later on. 12 MR. BEDELL: I was involved in the l j_ 13 preparation of the Inquirer ad. 14 The purpose of running that particular point {) 15 -in the ad was to address the fact that the Inquirer in 16 its series had' virtually dismissed entirely the 17 consensus view on radiation standards and health 18 effects as represented in the Federal regulations-19 governing those fields. 20 The_ point we were making in citing Judge 21 Kelly's opinion was, as we said, that the opinions 22 reported by the Inquirer were on the fringe of opinion, 23 did not' represent the consensus views on-the matter of health effects and worker standards. (][ 24 25 In running that decision we were not second l u-
19 i guessing the Court. I am sure this co'mmittee would not 2 want us to second guess the Court. We'had simply
,_ 3 quoted the findings of a Federal judge who held V 4 . extensive proceedings and reached his own conclusions.
5 They were conclusions in this matter that 6 happened to coincide with our conclusions that the 7 opinions cited in the Inquirer were on the fringe of 8 the matter and were not the consensus opinion on the 9 health ef f ects standards that we f ollow. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: You are really not answering 11 the question. The question is -- 12 MR. DI NUNNO: He answered it by saying he is 13 not competent to answer the question.
- k. THE CHAIRMAN: T. .: in all I want him to say.
(_) 14 15 MR. DI NUNNO: he said it twice. We are 16 badgering the guy. He said it twice if you look in the 17 record, he is not competent to answer the question. He is has not looked at the individual testimony. What more 19 can the man do? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Joe, you have had your say, 21 and I am going to rule you out of order at this point. 22 I am saying, from my standpoint, that the 23 question that was asked has not been answered in the However, it has been (s I'l 24 manner I expect it to be. 25 answered in the way you want it, and that is fine. I L
20 4 < t L_ 1 understand that. You don't feel competent in going 2 beyond that. That-is all you had to say and you have 3 answered it. E' 4 Does anybody have any comment on whhc my 5 opening comments were? 6 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to return to this 7 issue later. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Fine. 9 MR. ROTH: The only statement I would like to l'0 make at this point, and it is really not directed'to 11 Frank or Doug, is the fact that I join the Chairman in 12 his displeasure of it. But even more so because I ey 13 question just how involved Dr. Fletcher really is in (] 14 the whole process. 15 And the reason I say that is at a meeting in 16 Washington D. C where Dr. Fletcher and some other 17 . members of your Advisory Board were there. Dr. 18 Fletcher in a statement to the Commission said, and I i 19 am paraphrasing it, the. fact that one of the things l 20 that pleased them is the fact that.the investigation 21 into the whistle blowers allegations were l 22 unsubstantiated, completely wiping out the entire issue 23 in a false way. And he did make that statement. (} And at a meeting after that I was the one, 24 25 and some other people who pointed out to the Commission
- k. -
21 1 that certainly was an error. And they did agree. 2 So all I am saying at this point is that the 3 chairman of your Safety Advisory Board can go before (~3 s 4 the Commission and make such an absolutely ridiculous 5 statement like that without having somebody point.out 6 the facts to him, I have to question the validity of 7 his involvement at this point in a letter, for $15,000 a yor.520,000 a Washington Post full page ad.
? MR. STANDERFER: Dr. Fletcher made a 10 statement on November 7 with the NRC Commission. I was 11 present. I do not recall what he said on that point.
12 Again, if you would like, I believe I can
- 13 arrange for him to be in attendance at your next
(( ) 14 meeting to answer questions to that. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe that will be appropriate ( 15 16 in regard to that. 17 MR. STANDERFER: And the Safety Advisory l is Board does meet every two months and goes thoroughly l 19 into a?.1 phases of the project. So they are thoroughly l I 20 f amiliar with the activities of the work. ( 21 MR. SMITHGALL: I would just like to get back 22 to the intent of what Art started with here. 23 I want to know your feelings as to the appropriatenecs of running the ad the way you did with (]) 24 ! - 25 the heading of our chair and the implication of our l-t k.
22 - r'- 'k 1 Panel, the Advisory Panel, to the statements that are 2 -in the letter. That is what I am concerned about. 3 MR. BEDELL: There was no implication in the
~
4 fact the= letter was-addressed to-the Chairman of this 5 panel. One of the functions of this Panel is to serve 6 as conduit of information to the public. The public 7 'has been quite concerned. And one of the reasons it is
'S a concerned is the Inquirer series. They are concerned 9 in the way the cleanup is being conducted.
10 The Advisory Panel that we put together to 11 advise us of the safety of the cleanup is made up of 12 some of the most eminent people in this field. They do 13 not lightly put their names to a letter _of that sort. (k(j. 14 If they have reached that conclusion, we think it is
~
15_ -important that people of this area who are concerned 16 about the safety of the cleanup know what they have 17 concluded. is We were very pleased, and apparently the 19 discussion at the last meeting of this Panel'on the 20 series had some motivating influence. 21 MR. SMITHGALL: I understand your reasons for 22 promoting what'is in the text. 23 MR. BEDELL: If Mayor Morris was not the 24 chairman of the Panel, somebody else would be. The 25 letter needs to be addressed to this Panel. k.
23 I L_ 1 MR. SMITHGALL: In an advertisement? 2 MR. BEDELL: The purpose of the advertisement 3 was to allow the people of this region to read the
\~' 4 letter. They don't have that opportunity through any 5 other means.
6 That is also the reason we had to run the ad 7 to respond to the Inquirer. They do not have the 8 opportunity to hear from us in any other means in 9 detail. 10 It is very unfortunate that we have to spend 11 the monies that was necessary to be heard. But we feel 12 we need to be heard. And the people of this region
- 13 have a right to hear from us.
(j 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess in your opinion, in is anybody else's opinion, it is certainly your right to 16 have your wording, to get some comment from this group. 17 And that is your right to run that. 18 I resent the manner in which you indicate 19 that the letter with my heading was important when this 20- Panel as a group had never even received the letter. 21 And I as'an individual certainly question ever 22 receiving it. I didn't even have a chance to be 23 contacted on it. And that bothers me. (} 24 25 And why you felt it was necessary to have my name as the chairman of the citizens group, and the F L__
p 24 i f .
~
1 fact the citizen's group has not had a chance to even 2 discuss the letter. The implication to the public is 3 that this comes from the Citizen's Panel Chair. They-4 received this and it has been fully aired and they are 5 running it. 6 MR. BEDELL: I am not aware of what happened 7 in terms of the mailing of the letter and why yo2 s didn't actually'get the letter. You,were, however, 9 advised and your staff was advised that we were 10 proposing to run an ad on that matter. > 11 Now, it seems.to me the essential fact is the 12 content of that letter. It is not whether the Advisory , _ 13 Panel had discussed it, has an opinion on it, reviewed it, endorses it, rejects it, or anything. 4 (}L 14 15 The fact of the matte'r is the Advisory Panel 16 was set up to receive information that is important to 17 the cleanup and that the public needs to know. We sent 18 the letter to the-Advisory Panel, and we also made-it 19 public in the form of an advertisement. Because that u 20 is .the only way the letter would have been used in 21 detail. 22 Now, if you are in business, and I think that 23 is why you are all here and I honor you for it, to (} 24 provide the public with information on the cleanup of TMI Unit 2, this is information on the cleanup of TMI-2 [ 25 L (_
. . , . - , . _ ,, .- . - . . _ , _ . . . ,, . . _ , , , . . . , _ , _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ , . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ . _ . - . - ~ . - - - , _ _ _
25 rm. . L ._ 1 that was submitted to your committee and would not have
-2 reached the public in any other means if we had not run J
3 the advertisement.. () 4 We feel it is important in light of what the 5 public has been hearing about the cleanup, principally 6 through the Inquirer series, that that kind of 7 statement be made available to them. And I don't think 8 the fact that the letter has a salutation in any way 9 implies endorsement of that letter by the person named i 10 in that salutation. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: It may not. Your very 12 statements here shows the arrogance with which you 13 conduct this kind of attitude. That is what I resent. 7_ ({) 14 It is not.you right to do it, it is the arrogance with is it. 16 I feel I was set up by this. And when you 17 talk about being business people, good' business people l 18 if they were going to do this type of thing and they i 19 wanted input from the person who received the letter, 20 would have taken the time to give that person an 21' opportunity to comment. If that was really what was 22 sought, good business practice would ask for that. .And 23 you did not display that. E l ('T 24 I am not going to say more than on this V 25 .because I am really upset with-it; but you did not i k_ - l' l l
~. -
26 i i display good business practice. It is not necessarily 1 2 what the implications are; it is just the arrogance l 3 that is constantly displayed in this kind of public I () 4 statement. And I really resent it. l I 5 MR. COCHRAN: The implications in your 6 remarks were that the comments in Dr. Fletcher's letter l 7 could only serve a useful purpose if they were relayed ' e a to the public. And that to me implies that the 9 objective by Dr. Fletcher and company in writing the 10 letter was not to inform this panel, but was to make a 11 public statement. l 12 And they decided to do so to use the vehicle l l s 13 of a letter to Mayor Morris as a means of setting up an () ja ad, or some means of getting that information out. 15 Now, I don't know whether that is the case. 16 But that certainly is the implication. 17 MR. STANDERFER: We can have Dr. Fletcher I is discuss his intentions. I think the statement resulted f 19 from attendance of the last meeting of this panel. And l l l 20 it was addressed to this panel. , I l l 21 THE CHAIRMAN: We may want to take him up on 22 that. Any other comments from the panel at this point? i 23 (No response.) ; l THE CHAIRMAN: We would go on to the NRC (]) 24 i 25 status report and an update on NRC pending l I '(
27 I 1 investigations and enforcement actions. Bernie Snyder 2 will address this.
.' 6 3 MR. SNYDER: Very briefly I want to go over 4 'those recent actions and the other things we 'have done, 5 primarily to give you a feel for the fact ' c hat the work 6 -is accelerating. And it is a measure of that by the 7 fact of a number of things in my office.
8 There is a hand out, of which there are 9 copies for the public on one of the chairs behind me, 10 dated the 16th. What I have done there is very.briefly 11 reviewed what we have done in.the last two and a half 12 months from March 1 until May 15.
- . , - -13 And during that period the TMI program f]) 14 office, which is my office, did complete safety ,
15 evaluations and issued -- completed our reviews and 16 issued approvals for five major cleanup activities and [ 17 systems. l l 18 The first one being the plenum assembly lift I l 19. and transfer, which was done successfully yesterday. l 20 And from my perspective in watching it and in talking 21 to my staff who were in the command. center at the 22 time, it went very well. The company handled it well. 23 And it was very well planned. And it went off basically without any hitch at all.
]{} 24 25 The second item we have approved during this i
A - i
28 y 1 - period based on extensive review and many meetings is 2 heavy load handling over the TMI-2 reactor vessel, 3 - which is always a difficult question. On a restrictive f 4 basis,; naturally, there are certain things that have to 5 be handled over it. 6 We have improved the design and installation 7 of the fuel canister storage racks, both in the deep a end of the canal inside the containment building and i 9 also in the fuel storage pool in the fuel handling I , . 10 building.
. 11 We did an extensive review and engaged our D 12 consultant on refurbishment and retesting of the polar 13 crane auxilliary hoist, a 25-ton auxilliary hoist, on the same crane that was load' tested last year.
~{ [{_) 14 is And the final major item that was reviewed l
l- 16 earlier.on in this time period was the internal i
~ 17 indexing fixture processing system, which is a water L is cleanup system.
L 19 Just to give you a feel, I had our office 20- count the total number of detailed procedures that 21 implement things like the.five I j ust lifted. In that l. L-22 time frame of March 1 to May 15, we reviewed and 23 approved 161 detailed procedures. That is handled in j (]j 24 large measure by Dr. William Travers' office, my deputy 25 at the site. h-e - * = - +- ,------,.--->.w,-e-u -- .,we- ,.,-m----,rnww.,---wnv,,w-w,,,,-w------,,,,-,,,-,e ---w----n - ----,r-- r
29 I L_ 1 And we expect that in the coming months that 2 we wi11'probably be reviewing and taking action on 3 about 60 per month, which is a very significant work
'u/ 4 load. But we are gearing up to handle that.
5 I should indicate in the past, at least on 6 initial review, we have rejected somewhere around 10 7 percent and required the company to do something 8 different, with changes. And I think that is probably 9 true with these numbers as well. 10 But we also have major items with future 11 cleanup activities. We are reviewing the defueling 12 water cleanup system. We are taking under review the
- 13 safety evaluation report we received from the company I,
14 on toe equipment hatch. We are reviewing the technical 1 design of the fuel canisters, the containers that will 16 receive the damaged fuel. We have recently received a 17 Status report on the decontamination status of the 18 reactor building. We have that under active review. 19 And under review a recirculation system of the reactor 20 building sump. 21 You have received correspondence on all of 22 these major review items. And I know you receive a lot 23 af paper, but again I wanted to put this in some 24 prospective for you as to what we are doing. (a"] 25 I would be glad to answer questions on this. I i L_
30 (. 1 Dr. Masnik will give you a status report on inspection 2 and enforcement matters. If anyone has any questions? 3 MR. SMITHGALL: I was going over that last 4 packet of information we got and trying to decipher the 5 input of it-all. 6 My question is, Are there any significant 7 changes to the technical specifications of the plan 8 that you have altered? I guess the one that stuck out 9 in my mind is the proposal of GPU to change some of the 10 technical specifications in the recovery operation as 11 deleting the PEIS from any review significance. 12' Should we be concern,ed about these things?
. , . .i3 MR. SNYDER: Could you repeat that?
MR. SMITHGALL: Looking at April 12, GPU
} 14 15 Proposal.
16 MR. SNYDER: Which item is that? I have the 17 list, but not the enclosures. 18 MR. SMITHGALL: Maybe I am taking the import l 19 of all your technical reviews of what you are giving 20 me. Change request 4829, I guess, is the one I see 21 from GPU. That was just one I picked out. Another was 22 changing materials status reports and nuclear material i 23 transfer reports, inventory and record requirements. 1 24 Are you altering those technical 25 specifications of the plan as they go along with r u
31 Il L _J 1 recovery? And are they significant to what we should 2 be doing here on the panel? 3 MR. SNYDER: I don't think any of them are of
\> d great significance. Basically what GPU has proposed 5 and has been doing actually over the last five and a
'6 half years, we are up to 48 and they are numbered 7
7 sequentially. There are a whole series. Very 8 frequently on any plan there are updatings made to the 9 technical plans, which are really the rules by which 10 the plant was run. 11 There have been many that have come to us, 12 obviously, through the normal course of events. Most 13 of them, however, are changes to reflect the difference 8 7.l fl 14 in status of the plant as an operating plant versus the xs is plant as a damaged reactor and in the process of 16 cleanup. 17 In fact, those most recent ones, 46, 47, and 18 48; 47 we have acted on and 46 and 48 are in-house now. ! 19 They take into account there are certain surveillance 20 items, namely, testing of pumps and valves and things, 21 that can't be performed. But regulation requires they 22 be performed. They can't be performed because they are 23 in radiation areas and they don't need to be exercised r3 24 because they are not needed for the safety of the LJ 25 plant. t i k_
i
'32 t
r T- 1 And we review and concur on those issues and 2 - will change their technical specifications accordingly. 3 So that is the nature. There are really, I don't I L 4 think, any big issues in those items, l. 5 MR. SMITHGALL: I guess the wording of the l 6 request from GPU is what caught my eye more than 1 7 .anything else, which they were justifying the deletion s of the PEIS from.(inaudible) as it is defined in your 9 . reculation. 10 MR. SNYDER: The PEIS? 11 MR. SMITHGALL: Maybe I am making a point 12 here that is really insignificant, but that is what-13 caught my eye. As far as the PEIS being a document
) 14 against.which the NRC re. views safety evaluation l 15 reports,' technical evaluation reports, and system 16 . descriptions.
17 MR. SNYDER: Could I see that? 18 MR. SMITHGALL: Sure. 19 (Handing.) 4 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We got this package of 21 information yesterday. 22 MR. SNYDER: I would be honest. This one, F 23 although it is dated April 12, it is still under review (J 24 in my office. And I frankly have not personally I
- 25 reviewed this. I would obviously review it before we i ' ?
G
..,-.-e~-w...#. ..,,,- ,__. .m,---,,..r.--_...-,-..m,._,-wr,.v_w.~.., --.%-,.,.wv.r7,-- ,m.. ,y- _.,,,--,,-,_r.w r- --
33
.t_ _ l' took any action on it.
2 So you have raised a good point. We will 3 take a look into it. Without going through it all here
'1 4 in detail, I am not sure of the significance of this 5 change, but we will certainly look at it.
6 MR. SMITHGALL: I guess I will go down to 7 some'of the things we have discussed which we talked 8 about in Lancaster where you did approve the technical 9 specifications with the boron concentration, for ,
- 10 example, and heavy load travel.
p 11 I guess the upshot of my question is it might 12 be important for us to know what you would consider r_ 13 . major or significant to our Panel, technical 7 specifications that they are proposing to change and
]) ~ 14 15 those you have changed. And it might be of interest to 16 this Panel if we could have input as they are being
'17 proposed.
< 18 I know they come through in this manner. But 19 one of the things I found is we get the packet of i 20 information with the request and the approval in the 21 same packet of information. 4 22 MR. SNYDER: Not on tech spec changes. They. 23 normally take a month or more typically two months. On some of the safety evaluations that we do (]J 24 25 on cleanup activities themselves, like the list that I , k_ i
+-,,-w., , - -
,.w.,, ,_ , m ..- . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . . . , _ . , _ _ , _ . . . . . . . _ . ~ , , ,,,._-_,._--__,-,_e..
v _ . . < v y -
Y' ;. 34
'T >
3 e
,._. A i read co you, at the beginning of my discussion here, 1
2 'those are:somet'imes acted on fairly,quickly,-yes, so as
,[ 3 notJto hold cleanup up.
4 MR. SMITHGALL: That is the upstart of my 5 question. 6 'MR.'SNYDER: I would'say as a general 7- . statement, the tech spec changes will, in many cases, 8 implement approval in principle what we have given in
-9
~'
'enother piece of pape,r. That icatches the big ones.
io Many of the tech spec change items are very small i t' details, truly of a housekeeping nature. 12 MR. .COCHRAN: , Some of these changes, at least _ i3 the. request, the request to be exempt from regulatory
} 14 requirementa-like'NCFR 70.53,'that might be tech spec, but that is an exceptioncft'om regulation as opposed 15
' - ~
16 to -- 17 MR'. SNYDER: That is true. That one is under is review. 19 MR,_ COCHRAN: Don't you require public notice 20 .and so forth on a case like that? ! 21 MR. SNYDER: I don't believe so for 22 exemptions. But I am not authorized to grant 23 exceptions.
- 24 MR. C O C H R A N'
- Who is?
25 MR. SNYDER: Office directors only. Denton f c
,%.,,--.=y ,,v----,,-..-,.v.-w.--, ,,-+.y ,m, ,--,-...--,e-,,,-.-..._m...
35 2 I i 1 and that level are authorized to grant exemptions to 2 the regulations.
,. 3 MR. COCHRAN: I guess this one interested me / ,)
d on being exempt from the requirements to inventory 5 materials. It might be stolen or lost or whatever, 6 plutonium and the like. 7 MR. SNYDER: I think you will agree under our 8 regulations, the regulations require a certain set of 9 safeguards only if the material is less than 100 hour 10 per hour and three feet. And this is a lot less. 11 MR. COCHRAN: So you are suggesting that none 12 of these regulations are required to be met because ic
- 13 is already radiated material? . ,Q (j 14 MR. SNYDER: That is part of the question.
15 But the issue on the proposal that GPU has made for an ? 16 exemption request, which is under active review by the 17 NRC, but their proposal is based on the impossibility 18 of doing a detailed gram accounting of the fuel. If 19 you have read the proposal, that is the origin of it. 20 MR. COCHRAN: Before this proposal is 21 granted, could we spend more time on this issue? 22 MR. SNYDER: Sure. 23 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to do that. ll 24 MR. SMITHGALL: During the plenum lift I am 25 sure there will be concern from persons in the public i L .. - i L
36 (' i tonight, and perhaps they can come answer those, but 2 there was continuous venting during the plenum removal. 3 And.I was wondering if you could share if c\ > 4 there was any release and what the content might have 5- been? t 6 MR. SNYDER: I am not' aware of any releases. 7 The~ monitoring indicating no abnormal releases. There s was continuous monitoring in the stack. And it is my 9 understanding and maybe Bill Travers can look at that. 10 But it is our understanding there was no 11 increase in that. 12 MR. TRAVERS: We did have inspectors
,, _ i3 - monitoring. And as Bernie stated, there was no
((]) ^ i4 increase.
-15 MR. SMITHGALL: Anything unusual within the 16 containment. building?
17 MR. TRAVERS: As the plenum was lifted, there is was an increase radiation-levels, but they were less 19 than conservative estimates. I am talking about the 20 direct radiation readings in the. air. 21 MR. COCHRAN: How about the stack? 22 MR. TRAVERS: About a curie a day krypton. 23 But there were some estimates and increased radiation O-
-w) 24 of the direct kind as opposed to airborne. I believe 25 the people in the building were exposed to 30 mr per 6.
m,
37 5 I 1 hour, which is pretty low. 2 THE_ CHAIRMAN:. Any other questions or 3 comments? 4 MR. ROTH: In part of the document that we 5 received was a violation of the Section 48503 where a 6 Notice of Violation associated with Section 48503 was 7 issued March 6, 1985, identifying three items of 8 noncompliance. . 9 One question I would like to ask is basically 10 you said they have been categorized on a Severity Level 11 3. Now would you refresh my memory, and perhaps other-12 people's, on the increments there?
, . , . 13 MR. SNYDER: Severity Level 1 is the highest, i
(n. _j- 14 . Level 5 is the lowest. , , 15 MR. ROTH: What is the worst? 16 MR. SNYDER: One. 17 MR. ROTH: So three is? 18 MR. SNYDER: In the middle. There is 19 discretion at the three level whether- civil penalty is - 20 imposed. 21 MR. ROTH: Is there a civil penalty on this? 22 MR. TRAVERS: There is no civil penalty. 23 MR. SNYDER: There was no civil penalty. And-() 24 I believe the Notice of Violation probably says that. 25 It came from our regional office in the Philadelphia '
.}
1__
f 38 1 area.: 2 EMR . ROTH: There were a couple of things that ry 3 GPU said in their response to the violation. And I X 'J 4 would-like to get your feeling on how you felt about 5 that. 6 They specified there has been a reduced 7 sensitivity and awareness to special considerations , 8 involving protection for high energy beta radiation. I-9 guess what caught my eye was the use of the term 10 " reduced sensitivity and awareness" and how you felt. 11- Is this a viable answer and satisfactory 12 answer as far as you were concerned?
- r. . . 13 MR. SNYDER: Well, as far as our review of 14 the incident that caused this Notice of' Violation, that 15 is an accurate statement on their part in that the 16 reason that the skin contaminations occurred were 17 because of the lack of appreciation on the part of the is individuals involved. And GPU did take prompt 19 Corrective action in that' case.
20 And for that reason, I think the reasons we 21 did not issue a civil penalty are stated there. But I 22 believe that was certainly one of them. 23 MR. ROTH: I guess to a certain extent I
'( ) 24 don't know whether GPU should be congratulated on their 25 answer or what, but I believe there were some keywords C
39
'r , L_ 1 or catch words or emotional words that sort of hit me.
2 And basically it boils down to the fact that 3 I was quoted (inaudible) even though these individuals O 4 have been briefed on the-hazards of beta radiation, 5 they have had little opportunity to gain practical 6 experience in working in areas of high energy beta 7 radiation sources. 8 After having been told how things are so 9 good, here is an admittance saying it really hasn't 10 been as great as we said it was. That is what I am 11 seeing here. 12 MR. TRAVERS: In=this case there clearly was
,_ 13 a problem. And in evaluating it, we tended to agree -
- ( )
14 that the people involved were the biggest part of that is problem'. In weighing whether or not a civil penalty 16 ought to be imposed we didn't just look at the 17 language. 18 We did a detailed look at the kinds of things 19 the licensee planned to implement so that those i 20 situations would be avoided in the future. And our 21 decision was there was a bigger attempt on their part l 22 to put into effect new controls or better controls that 23 that would preclude. You never can entirely, but to the best of ({} 24 25 their ability, preclude this kind of -- even 1 L_ _
--+--n---,-, -,-----,e - , - - - . . _ , , _ ,
40 1 administrative - -that there wasn't an exposure in 2 excess of NRC limits, but there was an exposure in
' excess of their administrative levels.
3
/l 4 MR. ROTH: The next question I would raise 5 is, is there some way that you, your inspectors can 6 follow-up that what was said on paper is really going 7 to be done down there rather than have it occur again?
8 MR. TRAVERS: Sure. And we do that to the 9 extent we are able to. We have three radiation ja specialists assigned to the office; but we are still n rather a small group of people. It is an audit 12 function, but it is probably a function that is more _. 33 comprehensive than any other site in the country.
) 14 MR. SNYDER: I think the short answer is is absolutely. Having a problem in this area, we are 9
16 following it up. We have a systematic approach and 17 appraisal of the licensee's conduct. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: You say you have three 19 individuals responsible for monitoring? 20 MR. TRAVERS: Three radiation specialist 21 inspectors. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: How does that compare to the 23 last several years? MR. TRAVERS: It is the same number f or th e (]) 24 , .25 last, I would say, three years. L
41
=)
W . 1 THE CHAIRMAN: So you haven't-seen any 2 cutbacks? 3 MR. TRAVERS: Right after the accident there
~
4 were many. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: But recently it is stable? 6 MR. TRAVERS: Yes. 7 MR. MASNIK: Earlier this week I called both 8 our Office of Investigation and' Enforcement people and 9 asked them for an update on two issues. 10 One being the polar crane hand break 11 investigation being conducted by EIO and.the other 12 being the enforcement action relative to the issue of
, 13 harassment. .
14 I was informed by OI that essentially the , is people work of the investigation has been completed 16 with the exception of one or two interviews. They will 17 begin the review of the transcripts and analysis and 18 writing the report. ; i 19 I was told that they would be completed 20 within a couple of months. So their moving wasn't as 21 optimistic as was told to us several months ago, t 22 As far as the enforcement action, I was i-l 23 informed that the staff has completed the document which is the Notice of Violation, and that it has been
.(~)
s. 24 sent for management review. This is upper management. ( 25 E l ! l L_ -
42 6 l
. L_J 1 And from this last review, it was sent to the 2 Commission.
3 The Commission has some period of time to 7- - 4 review this document. And again we hope we are within 5 probably'a month of having a completed enforcement 6 action in this issue. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? 8 (No response.) 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 3 is DOE status report 10 and discussion of shipping cask availability during 11 defueling. , 12 MR. BIXBY: As the panel is aware, in March _ . . , 13 of 1984 the department signed a contract with GPU to 1 14 retire the TMI-2 core for research and disposition. . 15 That contract specifies that DOE was to provide the 16 ampacured (phonetic) and radiation services with 17 shipping. Mr. Harold Berton was involved with the 18 procurement of the cask. And for the next well 20 l l 19 minutes we will use visual aids and answer any l L 20 questions after that. ! 21 MR. BERTON: In March 1984 they signed a 22 contract with GPU for research and development 23 purposes. The first thing I would like to tell the () 24 panel is we at EG&G are eager to receive the core. It j 25 is the key to our research and development program. We
) .
l u-1
43 i feel it is extremely important to understanding the 2 consequences of the TMI-2 accident. 'And you will note 3 we'have done quite a bit of work on the accident, () 4 consequences. 5 To get to the specifications about the 6 shipping casks, in August of 1984 EG&G signed a 7 contract with. Nuclear Packaging Incorporated to provide 1 a two fuel shipping casks for the DOE obligated 9 activities. In January of 1985 we completed a io preliminary design on those casks. By March of 1985 we , 11 shad completed fabrication of a quarter scale mock-up of 12 the cask, which is exactly quarter scale of every.
- g. .
33 feattire within the cask, including seals, lids, and all () 14 other: features which are important to cask performance. is sitting in front of you you see a 1/10 scale
.16 model, which.is made of plastic. It is not quite as 17 . rugged as the quarter scale model because it already is has several chips in it from assembly and disassembly.
r 19 I would like to show you more, but I would 20 like to point out earlier this month we completed at 21 Sandy and National Laboratories a series of tests on l- 22 the performance of the quarter scale test model. The L 23 video will show you some short parts of those series. Don't be alarmed by what you see in the
-(])- 24 i- 25 video. Some of the tests were performed at minus 25 L ' t.
l-l l t--
44
)
r-l' I degrees Fahrenheit. So what is falling'off of the cask 2 is ice and it is not radiation. There wasuno radiation
. 3 material in the cask. These were simulations. There
'O 4 are simulated canisters within the cask'and other .
5 features are analyzed. 6 Af terI you see the -film, if you.have any 7 questions Dr. Bixby and I will answer those. And if 8 you wish, we can disassemble the tenth sale model and 9 Mr. Jeff Quinn, who parks his car in the wrong places to sometimes, can disassemble the cask, and we can show 11 you the. main features of that unit. . 12 So with that, if I can figure out how to_ turn 13 on the video machine. The figures are interesting, but - {--g 14 .you Lhave to listen to the words because the words is .really describe the features of the cask. I know it 16 may be difficult to follow. 17 (Presentation of film.) 18 MR. COCHRAN: Have there ever been any !- 19 incidences where workers have failed to properly
- 20 enclose one of those canisters prior to shipping?
~
L 10 21 MR. BERTON: It is a tough question to answer 22 because I would have to know what all workers have done 23 on casks before. Let me comment on what we plan to do. 24 MR. COCHRAN: That is not what I want.
'.({}
, 25 MR. BERTON: As you noted, there are two lids i- ! w-i
g 45-4 p-1 -on this cask. Each lid has double O ring seats. They 1 2 have the' capability of testing each time you load it. 3 And we will test it by vacating the section between the n 4 two seals and doing helium leak tests on the vacated 5 area. 6 So we will test those seals and ensure 7 integrity -- a MR. COCHRAN: I don't want to you repeat the 9 film. Have you ever done a study of accident 10 incidences involving shipping casks of nuclear reactor 11 fuel? Have you ever researched this issue? 12 MR. BERTON: Yes.
.. 13 MR. COCHRAN: And have there been any
) 14 incidences where workers failed to properly. secure?
15 MR. BIXBY: Type B casks, I believe there 16 never have been any incidences. 17 MR. BERTON: The only fact that I know and is can quote from a report by Sandia National Laboratories i, printed in January 1985 called consideration to the - 20 safety of transporting fuel. And quoting from that 21 report, actually not exactly quoting, they basically 22 say there never has been a radioactive release in a 23 Type B shipment in the United States. () 24 MR. COCHRAN: I realize you don't know the 25 answer to my question and that was not the question. b
46 fL.--l 1 But if you discover such an incident in your 2 research, which I would hope you would go back and look 3 it up, would you get back to us if there has been such
- 4 an incident?
5 MR. BERTON: Yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: It really was a very 7 impressive film and we appreciate you bringing it here 8 today. 9 MR. BERTON: We are looking for volunteers to 10 go with each of the shipments. 11 (Laughter from audience.) 12 MR. COCHRAN: I understand that the fuel will
., la be researched. But what is the intended -- what is I~}) 14 4'. tended in terms of the bulk of the fuel? Will it be 15 processed or stored?
16 MR. BERTON: It will be stored. 17 MR. BIXBY: These canisters will be available 18 to go to a depository. 19 MR. WARD: Do I understand it will take three 20 years to move all of the fuel? 21 MR. BIXBY: It is our current projection with 22 the two casks that we can ship the fuel in 23 months. 23 There is capacity in the spent fuel pool to house the (~) 24 canisters should there be delay. U 25 MR. ROBINSON: Did I miss the radiation level L k_
47 i i 1 at the outside of the cask? 2 MR. BERTON: It is 10 mr, 2 meters. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? O d (No. response.) 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe if there are people 6 during the break who are interested in seeing it 7 disassembled, I am sure there will be time. 8 Now, the last item before the break is 9 public comment. We do have two periods for this, so I 10 ask you to try and be specific on any question or 11 comment. 12 This is an opportunity for those people who 13 sometimes have problems staying to the end for them to ()I 14 express viewpoints now. So if you would like to, 15 please raise your hand. 16 MS. KINNEY: Paula Kinney. I wrote my 17 question on a piece of paper because I want to keep it 18 focused into one thing. I have a question or perhaps a 19 suggestion for GPU concerning the full page ad that was 20 addressing Mr. Chairman. 21 Since there was so much confusion that you 22 didn't receive the letter and, et cetera, et cetera, 23 that since GPU apologized and they are so sorry about 24 all the confusion, that perhaps had they considered (]} 25 running a full page ad of explanation or perhaps an t-k_
48
'(. .
1 apology rather than just, Oops we are sorry, but that 2 is the way it goes? Who do I address this to? How 3 about Mr. Bedell? (h 4 THE CHAIRMAN: If anybody from GPU would like 5 to respond to that? I didn't hear them say they had 6 any interest in doing such a thing. 7 MS. KINNEY: I didn't either, but I am a wondering how sorry they really were. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone from GPU want to 10 respond? 11 (No response.) 12 MS. LEE: Jane Lee. Members of the Board, I
- y. i3 just wanted to make one brief observation. I saw the
). i4 ad in the paper today and my immediate. reaction was, 15 Surely the Advisory Panel did not do this. That was my 16 id. mediate reaction and I want to thank you for 17 solidifying my trust in you.
is I would like to pose a question to this Board 19 and to GPU. Supposing I would decide that I wanted to 20 write an ad in the paper of that size, and that I 11 21 wanted to get my point across, and I wanted to make 22 sure that the public read it. Would it be right for me 23 to use this Advisory Panel? Would it be correct for me (' ) 24 to use the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor 25 Thornburgh to get my point across? l l l i I
)
m . 49
~
r-
'l Unfortunately, we-have been bombarded with 2 these ads in the paper-at the-expense of the rate 3 ; payers for the past six years. I can't help but think, 4 -after 11 years of being involved in this business, how
-5 really helpless the American people are against this a-6 industry. And to ad insult to injury, we have to pay 7 the bill. Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other 9 individuals? 10 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to clarify one
. 11 thing. The ads specify that they are not charged to 12 the rate payer.
. , _ . _ 13 , MS. KINNEY: That doesn't make it so. They.
14 juggle the books. 15 MS. CORRADI: Joyce Corradi. I have some 16 ~ real questions about the casks. One is, in 17, relationship to being transported by rail, I would like 18 to know, is there any intention or plans for it to be 19 tested once it is on the flatbed to be carried by rail? 20 I~would like to know if routes have been planned;,1f 21 there will be special people and equipment that will
!22 follow this?
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else? 24 MS. CORRADI: No. Those are the only two I f} 25 have for now. f k_ N. V ab
50 f i MR. BERTON: I will answer the part about the 2 . testing. First off, as in all of our shipments, what
~
3 will be done is we have had an on-site inspector when
'~'
4 we took possession of material from GPU. And that is a 5 certified transportation specialist by the Department 6 -of Energy. Each of the procedures is checked. The 7 safety of the shipment is checked against a safety 8 analysis report which is written and approved by the 9 Department of Energy. 10 And by the way, NRC on-site also does a 11 courtesy inspection for the Department of Energy before 12 releasing the shipment. And in addition, GPU does 13 their own inspection before even presenting the papers. b(_) 14 You might say on all outside shipments there is are three inspections done by three independent people 16 to make sure shipment is really ready to go. 17 In regards to notification and is transportation, the exact railways have not been 19 chosen. We are now negotiating with the railroads on 20 what path to take; and that will depend on the use of 21 the rail lines and our frequency of use and our needs. 22 They will be documented in the safety 23 analysis report which is reviewed and approved also by () 24 the Department of Energy. 25 MS. CORRADI: Are you saying you haven't set b
51 I 1 up a total time frame for this procedure yet? 2 MR. BERTON: No, because one of the things we 3 are doing is we are looking at whether or not to ship .j, 4 two casks at a time with one train pulling the casks,- 5 or to send a cask with each train. Because it makes a 6 lot of-difference in our total time schedules. 7 MS. CORRADI: Does not the FCC have something a to do with the procedures -- I'm sorry ICF? 9 MR. BIXBY: The Department of Transportation. 10 MS. CORRADI: They have to be approved by 11 them also? So can you give me an idea of the time 12 frame before each of these procedures?
, . '13 MR..BIXBY: We plan to do the same thing we
-() 14 did as far as notifying the Middletown Police 15 Department and notifying the State to inform them when 16 each shipment was going to go. We plan to do the same 17 notifications on each of the shipments. 18 Because for the shipment we made (inaudible). 19 MS. CORRADI: There will be no special 20 -personnel that will travel with it? 21 MR. BIXBY: We do not plan to have any 22 special provisions for people escorting these 23 particular shipments. 24 MS. CORRADI: You don't feel it would be
- (])
25 suspect to sabotage? .p k-
52 F.
'- -1 MR. COCHRAN: The 30' foot drop. The cask is
'2 traveling at 30 miles an hour?
3 MR. BIXBY: On an unyielding surface. If you (^x
- 4 compare that, it is about the equivalent of a truck 5 traveling 120 miles an hour and hitting a bridge 6 abutment one meter thick. In fact, if you -- back when 7 the -design for these were set up, they took an obsolete a cask and dropped it from a plane onto the earth. That 9 Cask sunk into the ground by 52 inches. And that io showed less damage than taking that same cask and 11 dropping it onto this unyielding surface.
12 MR. COCHRAN: To answer Miss Corradi's 33 question, would you be doing testing on a flatbed? The
) 14 only test I am aware of is the bridges test of shipping is casks where they had -- where they ran a locomotive 16 into the wall or whatever.
17 MR. BIXBY: I am not sure what the tests are is that Joyce may be referring to. t ( 19 MS. CORRADI: I wasn't referring to any. I l 20 was asking what had been done. 21 MR. BIXBY: I think Mr. Berton responded on 22 the tests that would be done to ensure the containment 23 integrity of those casks prior to departure. () I think the tests we are doing here right now 24 l 25 are designed to show, under the most severe
~ * -
2 ( 1 2 AGENDA ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION 3 OF TMI-2 s Page
-5
- 1. Chairman's Introductory Remarks 3 6
- 2. NRC Status Report and an Update on NRC
- 7 Pending Investigations and Enforcement Actions - B. Snyder 27 8 *
- 3. DOE Status Report and Discussion of Shipping 9
Cask Availability During Defueling - W. Bixby 42 10 4. Public Comment 47 11 Break 12 5. GPUNC Current Cleanup Schedule - Frank Standerfer 50 13
- 6. Phase I Reactor Fuel Removal and
-(_ 14 Storage - F. Standerfer 70 "'
15 7. Panel Discussion on the Level of the Panel's " Inquiry into Health Effects Studies and 16 Data Related to the Radioactive Release During the TMI-2 Accident - Chairman Morris 75 17
- 8. Wrap Up of Worker Skin Contamination and 18 Other Radiation Issues Related to the THI-2 Cleanup - Chairman Morris 87 19
- 9. Topics for Advisory Panel Discussion with 20 the NRC Commissioners at the June 20, 1985, Meeting in Washington, DC - Chairman Morris 102 21
- 10. Public Comment - Chairman Morris 105 22 23 24 25
_, , _ _ . _ _ , ,m_ . --.. - ,,, . . - _ . ,
3 _ 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening ladies and 2 gentlemen. I did hear from Tom Gerusky that he 3 couldn't be here tonight. There will be a meeting of 4 the panel, at least tentatively, set for June 20 and I 5 think it is tentatively set to start at 10:00 a.m. in 6 Washington with the commission. 7 Since the last meeting, I received one piece e of correspondence. I am going to ask it to be included 9 in the minutes. That is a May 13 letter from GPU to regarding a request on May -- that involved maximum 11 internal dosage and radiation worker turnover. And 12 rather than read it, I ask it be recorded in today's
,- 13 minutes. -
( ( 14 The last thing I have as part of my 15 ' introductory remarks is to bring up, I guess ask the 16 question on the ad that appeared in some papers, and 17 particularly in the Washington Post. A letter that was is apparently sent to me by a Dr. James C. Pletcher who is 19 Chairman of the TMI Safety Board. 20 The ad basically runs a letter that indicates 21 that that letter came to me, or at least is dated April 22 26. Let me say at this point I have no recollection of 23 having ever received that letter. I was on vacation 24 and returned this past Tuesday after being out of town 25 for a week and a half.
4 __.] 1 My office had been contacted and was asked if 2 we wanted to receive a copy of the ad. We received the 3 copy May the 9th that we were told, I am told by my 4 office, was going to run. We were not asked whether we 5 were agreeable to have it run. We were told it was 6 going to run. 7 I found out immediately upon coming back and 8 reading my correspondence, that would have been 9 yesterday, and this thing ran the next day. I am. going 10 to research my office again and ask if that letter ever 11 came in. It is bad enough that I don't recall seeing
. 12 the letter. But 'I think it is in very poor taste, in
__, 13 the very-least, that GPU would run an ad with a letter ( i ( , 14 that is addressed to me when the same letter went to 15 the NRC. 16 I don't know. I received no explanation of 17 it. At the very least it is poor taste and I resent 18 the way it took place. 19 I don't know if anyone here from GPU could 20 explain it or not, why you felt such a letter was 21 necessary. If information was necessary to get to the 22 public, why didn't you run the information and not the 23 letter that I didn't receive yet and you didn't talk to 24 me about? 25 MR. STANDERFER: I am sorry you didn't get i u - ( - -
5 e 1 the letter. I am sure it was sent. We tried to 2 coordinate with your office in'the intent to use that 3 in advertisements. And if that discussion with your 4 office didn't consummate with you, I am sorry. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I asked the question of my 6 staff, Were we asked whether we were agreeable to a 7 letter-being run? And I was specifically told, no, e a that we were told that this ad was going to run and 9 would we like a Copy of the ad. The answer was, yes, 10 we would like a copy of the ad, which was read last s 11 might at abo,ut 10:30 by me. The ad was read; the 12 letter was not read or received as far as I know.
. 13 MR. STAN, DERF ER : Our intention was to be sure
( 14 that you would get that in plenty of time. And it was is our intention that, if there was some objection on your 16 Part, that you would have time to register that with 17 us. If we didn't finish that discussion, I am sorry. is THE CHAIRMAN: Could you explain to me why it 19 was necessary to have a letter that was addressed to me 20 as chairman as the basis for an advertisement by GPU? 21 I just feel somewhat used in this. 22 MR. STANDERFER: I am responsible for cleanup 23 and not responsible for the public affairs activities. 24 They are under another vice-president. 25 But I think we feel that endorsement of the
6 i l
. ! I work on the project is important to indicate that the 2 project is being done well.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I have one other question at 4 this point and that is, it is my understanding that a 5 letter was sent to NRC first, addressed to them, the 6 same letter. 7 MR. STANDERFER: I don't believe so. I 8 believe they have a copy of the letter that was sent to 9 you; but we have not sent that letter to anybody else. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe Mike can speak to that, 11 if you would. It was my understanding there was a 12 similar letter sent to the NRC that you were asked to
- _ 13 copy and send to the panel. Because of reasons that
[ 14 you have, you didn't feel that was appropriate. 15 MR. MASNIK: I have a letter that was 16 attached. In other words, the statement was sent to 17 Mr. Denton under Mr. Clark's signature dated May 8. 18 And then attached to that in the concluding 19 paragraph they state that a letter was also sent to 20 Mayor Morris, and a copy of that letter is attached for 21 your information. 22 Now, whether it tracks the newspaper article 23 verbatim, I did not check that. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I thought you mentioned to me 25 that you had received information, the same kind of I L, -
7 1 information, "you" being the NRC, and asked to provide 2 copies of that.to panel members; but you felt that'was 3 not something the NRC should be doing and that led to
- 4 the letter.
5 MR. MASNIK: I received a copy of this letter 6 with a cover letter from a member of GPU Public Affairs
. 7 with the note on it saying that this may be of interest 2
8 to the Panel and would I distribute it. Something to 9 that effect. 10 And I called the individual and said I am 11 responsible for screening all of the information; and 12 we generally provide them with technical information. s; 13 And this particular document, I felt, didn't fall under
].w , 14 the category of the normal distribution to the Panel.
is I said, however, if you feel this is 16 information that the panel should receive, there would 17 be no reason why you couldn't send it directly to the is chairman of the Panel with a request that it be 19 distributed to the Panel. 20 THE. CHAIRMAN: But are you saying the first 21 information you got about distributing that was when? 22 MR. MASNIK: In May, the beginning of May. 23 Now, also at the same time I got the normal 24 distribution through the NRC internal system of the 25 letter that was sent to Mr. Denton, which had the copy [
8 I L_] 1 or had attached a copy of the letter to you. l 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I am glad you received 3 your copy of my letter. That's nice. Tom, did you have ; 4 something? 5 I want everybody to see I am not talking 6 about a 'little ad. This is a Washington Post ad. I am 7 sure it appeared in other newspapers. I think maybe the 8 Lancaster newspapers,.although I haven't seen it. I 9 haven't had a chance to see it in the Lancaster 10 newspaper. They could afford to pay for several weeks 11 of the ad in the Lancaster paper. . 12 MR. SMITHGALL: We spent a meeting in
., 13 Lancaster listening to your problems with the -
I I ,' 14 Philadelphia Inquirer article about you and the , 15 implication of problems you had with that. 16 Yet another month later you run an ad where i 17 you imply by the heading of our chair here and of an is advisory member to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 that they were in full compliance with the whole 20 cleanup effort. And I think that is the problem, if I 21 can read through this. 22 On the one hand you spent a whole meeting and 23 on the next hand you are running an ad that does the 24 same thing. That is my particular problem. 25 I think it would bear getting approval of the I
9
/
i Panel before you run a letter in an advertisement form. 2 MR. STANDERFER: I thought we had; and my 3 understanding and intent was to try and get that 4 discussion. To the extent that didn't happen, I 5 apologize. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: You may check on that, but I 7 was very clear in asking whether we were asked for a approval or whether we were told it was going to 9 happen. And we were told it was going to happen and io that is my understanding. 11 MR. STANDERFER: I believe George McKelvy 12 from our public staff is here and he is the gentleman
,_ i3 who had the discussion with your office. If you would
( i4 like to ask him the question directly. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I would be happy to.- Because 16 the copy that my office received was received on May 9. 17 It was sent out May 8 and a copy was sent by George is McKelvy. And if George is present, I would like to l 19 hear what was said. 20 MR. MC KELVY: George McKelvy, manager of 21 Public Affairs at TMI. With respect to the ad, I 22 called the Mayor's office on the 6th of May and I r 23 believe he was out of town at the time. 24 I told the staff member I spoke with there i 25 was an ad we were composing to run. And after that 4
, - - - - - -n - . _ - . . _
10 t s
' 1- conversation, I indicated it was a proposal. I sent a p 2 copy of the ad in draf t- form to the Mayor's to the 3 attentionHof that staff person. That is what l
4 transpired. 5 THE-CHAIRMAN: For review and comment prior 6 to running? l i' 7 MR. MC KELVY: That was the understanding. 8 Obviously, it was not explicit enough. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you get any comment from 10 my office? 11 MR. MC KELVY: No, I did not. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I was out of town from the 4th
- . , 13 of May until the 14th of May, and this ran May 16.
((. l 1 14 You can see the great opportunity I have had 15 to comment on it. I read this ad last night between 16 ten and eleven o' Clock at night. And I would expect, 17 if you send a draft of a proposed release for comment, 18 that you would wait until you got the comment, if that 19 was your intent. 20 My office said you told them it was going to 21 run and you asked if they would like a copy of.it and 22 we said yes. I will double check. 23 But I am very upset with the way it was 24 handled. And nothing you said here tonight. changed my 25 mind on that. I don't think you were very specific. I
-: 11 1
And I think if you were really interested in getting 2 comment, you make sure when you are going to run a 3 letter to somebody and do it to this size in the 4 Washington Post and you intended to.get comment, you 5 certainly make sure you got the comment before 6 proceeding. And you didn't get anything from me. c 7 MR. MC KELVY: No, we didn't. 8 MR. COCHRAN: Mr'. McKelvy, do you attend the 9 meetings of your Safety Advisory Board? s 10 MR. MC KELVY: No. 11 MR. COCHRAN: Do you? 12 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, I do. In fact, the I e 13 Safety Advisory Board attended your meeting in ( 14 Lancaster last month. 15 MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall the discussions 16 in the meeting where they draft'ed the language that 17 went into the letter? What was their purpose in is drafting that language? 19 MR. STANDERFER: They attended the meeting in 20 Lancaster. The following day'in the wrapup, they chose , 21 to provide us that language. 22 I don't know the basis for that other than 23 they felt it was appropriate after hearing the 24 discussions the night before. I can arrange to have 25 Dr. Fletcher attend your next meeting, and he could s
12 L i __ 1 speak to that. ' 2 MR. COCHRAN: Was the language requested by 3 the Board or other GPU people? 4 MR. STANDERFER: The language was not 5 requested. It was voluntarily offered by the Safety 3 6 Advisory Board after attending your last meeting in 7 Lancaster. Whether it was prompted by your meeting, I 8 don't know. 9 MR. COCHRAN: To the best of your knowledge 10 it was not prompted by any member of GPU? 11 MR. STANDERFER: That is correct. And I 12 would be glad to arrange to have Dr. Fletcher speak to 7 13 that point.
.q -(, 14 MR. COCHRAN: Are the meetings of that board 15 transcribed?
16 MR. STANDERFER: There is a report of each 17 meeting, but no transcript. It is basically a 18 technical review meeting where we make technical 19 presentations to them and they then give us advice. 20 MR. COCHRAN: But there are minutes of those 21 meetings? 22 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. 23 MR. COCHRAN: Can we get the minutes of those 24 meetings? 25 HR. STANDERFER: I don't see why not. I L =
13 1 MR. COCHRAN: When was a decision by GPU made 2 to publicize the letter that was -- that Dr. Fletcher 3 wrote to Mayor Morris? 4 MR. MC KELVY: I don't know when that 5 decision was made. 6 MR.'COCHRAN: Do you know when you were first 7 aware of that decision? , a MR. MC KELVY: I was aware there was a
., 9 propoEal to have such an ad on the 6th of May when I to contacted the Mayor's office.
11 MR. COCHRAN: But you weren't involved in the 12 discussion?
; - 13 MR. MCKELVY: The next thing I knew about the v
( 14 ad was today.
- 15 MR. COCHRAN: Were you involved in previous 16 ads that addressed the Lancaster articles in the-Kelly 17 decision? -
is MR. STANDERFER: What matter are you talking 19 about? 20 MR..COCHRAN: Another one of those "We
. 21 thought you should know" ads.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: It was the Philadelphia 23 Inquirer article. 24 MR. COCHRAN: - It was quoted from U. S. 25 District Justice Kelly's decision. 1
- 1 E
s'
14 i j
. L _J l MR. STANDERFER: In Kansas?
2 MR. COCHRAN: The question was, I believe,-of 3 Mr. McKelvy whether he was involved in that ad as well? 4 MR. MC KELVY: I was aware there were a 5 series of ~you ought to know ads in preparation, but I 6 couldn't distinguish the ad you are referring to. 7 MR.'COCHRAN: Who in GPU would be responsible ' a for reviewing the technical content of that ad? 9 MR. MC KELVY: The principal responsibility 10 for advertising rests with our Vice-President of 11 Communications. There are a number of individuals 12 within the company who review the copy of proposed y.., 13 advertisements. (1 14 MR. COCHRAN: In the previous ad that GPU put 15 out on the newspaper articles, it quotes the Kelly 16 decision, which states in part in the ad, "This Court 17 rejects the opinion and testimony of Dr. Morgan and Dr. 18 Gofman because they both evidenced an intellectual 19 dishonest invention of arguments to protect their. 20 opinions." 21 I was. wondering if that statement of Kelly 22 with regard specifically to Dr. Morgan is shared by GPU 23 and if it is shared by you? You certainly know Dr. 24 Morgan. 25 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, and I read the full 1 I
- , - , . -. - ,_. . . , - . ,,n.
IS I text of Judge Kelly's view. And, in fact, I have not 2 ' read that ad you are talking about, but I read the text 3 of the Court. 4 MR. COCHRAN: Do you share the Court's 5 opinion of Dr. Morgan? 6 MR. STANDERFER: I did not attend any of the 7 court sessions and I am unfamiliar with the testimony. 8 And I am.not qualified to comment on what was said in 9 that court proceeding.
.10 MR. COCHRAN: Well, I have read the opinion, 11 too. And I have also noticed a number of technical 12 errors made by Judge Kelly in his opanion having quoted the briefs of the Jus,tice Department and surely you-(., 13 l u must have picked up some of the errors.
15 MR. STANDERFER: I have seen errors on both 16 sides. 17 MR. COCHRAN: I also recognize that it has is been usually two doctors (inaudible) who are on your 19 Acvisory Board were also witnesses on behalf of the 20 Government in that case and the Judge has high praise 21 for them and low esteem for Dr. Morgan. 22 MR. STANDERFER:- I can't speak as to whether 23 they testified or not. I just read the text of the 24 Judge's statement. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I must jump in only on this , L
16 l _.] 1 issue. There is an item on the agenda, Item 8, which 2 is a wrap up of the whole discussion on the - 3 Philadelphia Inquirer article. 4 I am getting some looks from panel members 5 that are suggesting maybe we are missing the agenda by 6 getting into that now. 7 MR. COCHRAN: Can I finish my point? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Let me before you 9 begin, I got a note that says Barbara or Jeffrey Quinn, 10 who are apparently in attendance here, are told they 11 have a car that is blocking the driveway in the front 12 of the building.
-- 13 MR. COCHRAN: I think Judge Kelly's remarks
( l 14 about Dr. Morgan were uncalled for, even if you just is read his opinion.
'6 The question I ask GPU is whether, before you 17 repeat such statements as in these public 18 advertisements as inferring that this is an accurate 19 description of Dr. Morgan, whether there is any effort 20 on the part of the Public Affairs' people who are 21 responsible for the writing of these articles 22 presumably to see whether the statements like these are 23 statements that represent GPU's views, or are they --
24 MR. STANDERFER: All I can say is, I believe 25 we quoted the Judge accurately. I L =
17
- 1 MR. COCHRAN
- I agree with that. But do you 2 stand behind the opinions, does GPU stand behind the 3 opinions of the Judge with respect to Dr. Morgan?
4 Basically you are running the guy into the ground. Do 5 you stand behind that opinion? j i 6 MR. STANDERFER: We believe we quoted the 7 Judge accurately. q g MR. COCHRAN: I heard that. Now, will you 9 answer the question? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I must at this time -- 11 MR. COCHRAN: I would like an answer to the 12 question. - g '13 THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask.him one more time. I, 14 If he chooses not to answer the question, I think that is is it. He has replied twice. e 16 MR. STANDERFER: Our Public Affairs office 17 would like to answer the question. is THE CHAIRMAN: ' I would only like to spend 19 time to answer the question, then I would like to get 20 back to the rest of the agenda. Neal? 21 MR. WARD: I would like -- 22 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to get an answer 23 first. 24 . MR. WARD: This is not a Parlimentary 25 procedure that allows you to block all discussion. (
, - . . . . .~ ., -
r 18 i L_ 1 This ad in response to the ad in the Inquirer t 2 was fully discussed at a whole long session in 3 Lancaster. If a member of the committee wasn't there 4 to discuss it, do we all have to go back to the last 5 meeting? 6 THE CHAIRMAN: We do when we get down to Item 7 8, because that is a wrapup discussion. But right now a we should not be doing this, 9 I would, however, since we have gone through 10 ten minutes, we will at least ask GPU to answer the 11 question. I will g.ive Tom Cochran a chance later on. 12 MR. BEDELL: I was involved in the
., 13 preparation of the Inquirer ad.
(_ 14 The purpose of running that particular point is in the ad was to address the fact that the Inquirer in 16 its series had virtually dismissed entirely the 17 consensus view on radiation Standards and health 18 effects as represented in the Federal regulations 19 governing those fields. 20 The point vnt were making in citing Judge 21 Kelly's opinion was, as we said, that the opinions l 22 reported by the Inquirer were on the fringe of opinion, 23 did not represent the consensus views on the matter of 1 24 health effects and worker standards. 25 In running that decision we were not second i L -
19 i guessing the Court. I am sure this committee would not 2 want us to second guess the Court. We'had simply 3 quoted the findings of a Federal judge who held 4 extenaive proceeding: and reached his own conclusions. 5 They were conclusions in this matter that 6 happened to coincide with our conclusions that the 7 opinions cited in the Inquirer were on the fringe of 8 the matter and were not the consensus opinion on the
, 9 health effects standards that we f ollow.
10 THE CHAIRMAM: You are really not answering 11 the question. The question is -- 12 MR. DI NUNNO: He answered it by saying he is f_ 13 not competent to answer the question. (_, 14 THE CHAIRMAN: That is all I want him to say. 15 MR. DI NUNNO: He said it twice. We are 16 badgerino the guy. He said it twice if you look in the 17 record, he is not competent to answer the question. He is has not looked at the individual testimony. What more 19 can the man do? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Joe, you have had your say, l 21 and I am going to rule you out of order at this point. 22 I am saying, from my standpoint, that the
. 23 question that was asked has not been answered in the 24 manner I expect it to be. However, it has been 25 answered in the way you want it, and that is fine. I l
l N l l M
20 i L __ 1 understand that. You don't feel competent in going 2 beyond that. That is all you had to say and you have 3 answered it. 4 Does anybody have any comment on what my 5 opening comments were? 6 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to return to this 7 issue later. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: , Fine. 9 MR. ROTH: The only statement I would like to 10 make at this point, and it is really not directed to 11 Frank or Doug, is the fact that I join the Chairman in 12 his displeasure.of it. But even-more so because I __ 13 question-just how involved Dr. Fletcher really is in
~
14 the whole process.
~ .
15 And the reason I say that is at a meeting in 16 Washington D. C. where Dr. Fletcher and some other 17 members of your Advisory Board were there. Dr. ' - 1B Fletcher in a statement to the Commission.said, and I
- 19 am paraphrasing it, the fact that one of the things 20 that pleased them is the fact that the investigation 21 into the whistle blowers allegations were 22 unsubstantiated, completely wiping out.the entire issue 23 in a false way. And'he Cid make that statement.
24 And at a meeting after that I was the one, 25 and some other people who pointed out to the Commission l l b a L I l l
21 1 -that certainly was an error. And they did agree.
. 2 So all I am saying at this point is that the 3 chairman of your Safety Advisory Board can go before
-4 the Commission and make such an absolutely ridiculous 5 statement like that without having.somebody point out 6 the facts to him, I have to' question the validity of 7 his involvement at this point in a letter, for $15,000 8 or $20,000 a Washington Post full page ad.
9 MR. STANDERFER: Dr. Fletcher made a 10 statement on November 7 with the NRC Commission. I was 11 present. I do not recall what he said on that point. 12 Again, if you would like, I believe I can
,. i3 arrange for him to be in attendance at your next ,
(f. 14 meeting to answer questions to that. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe that will be appropriate 16 in regard to that. 17 MR. STANDERFER: And the Safety Advisory is Board does meet every two months and goes thoroughly I 19 into all phasec of the project. So they are thoroughly ; l 20 familiar with the activities of the work, i i 21 MR. SMITHGALL: I would just like to get back 22 to the intent of what Art started with here. l 23 I want to know your feelings as to the i i l 24 appropriateness of running the ad the way you did with l 25 the heading of our chair and the implication of our i L l l l
22 1 Panel, the Advisory Panel, to the statements that are 2 in the letter. That is what I am concerned about. 3 MR. BEDELL: There was no implication in the 4 fact the letter was addressed to the Chairman of this 5 panel. One of the functions of this Panel is to serve 6 as conduit of information to the public. The public 7 has been quite concerned. And one of the reasons it is 5 a concerned is the Inquirer series. They are concerned 9 in the way the cleanup is being conducted. 10 The Advisory Panel that we put together to
-11 advise us of the safety of the cleanup is made up of 12 some of the most eminent people in this field. They do 13 not lightly put their names to a letter of that sort.
( 14 If they have reached that conclusion, we think it is is important that people of this area who are concerned 16 about the safety of the cleanup know what they have 17 concluded. 18 We were very pleased, and apparently the 19 discussion at the last meeting of this Panel on the 20 series had some motivating influence. l 21 MR. SMITHGALL: I understand your reasons for 22 promoting what'is in the text. 23 MR. BEDELL: If Mayor Morris was not the 24 chairman of the Panel, somebody else would be. The 25 letter needs to be addressed to this Panel, f i
23 i L- 1 MR. SMITHGALL: In an advertisement? 2 MR. BEDELL: The purpose of the advertisement 3 was to allow the people of this region to read the d letter. They don't have that opportunity through any 5 other means. 6 That is also the reason we had to run the ad 7 to respond to the Inquirer. They do not have the 8 opportunity to hear from us in any other means in 9 detail. 10
, It is very unfortunate that we have to spend 11 the monies that was necessary to be heard. But we feel 12 we need to be heard. And the people of this region
, 13 have a right to hear from us.
( ! (j 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess in your opinion, in is anybody else's opinion, it is certainly your right to 16 have your wording, to get some comment from this group. 17 And that is your right to run that. 18 I resent the manner in which you indicate 19 that the letter with my heading was important when this 20 Panel as a group had never even received the letter. 21 And I as an individual certainly question ever 22 receiving it. I didn't even have a chance to be 23 contacted on it. And that bothers me. 24 And why you felt it was necessary to have my 25 name as the chairman of the citizens group, and the l-k-
24 : l c- l 1 fact the citizen's group has not had a chance to even 2 discuss the letter. The implication to the public is 3 that this comes from the Citizen's Panel Chair. They 4 received this and it has been fully aired and they are 5 running it. 6 MR. BEDELL: I am not aware of what happened 7 in terms of the mailing of the letter and why you a didn't actually get the letter. You,were, however, 9 advised and your staff was advised that we were 10 proposing to run an ad on that matter. 11 Now, it seems to me the essential fact is the 12 content of that letter. It is not whether the Advisory 13 Panel had discussed it, has an opinion on it, reviewed it, endorses it, rejects it, or anything. ( 14 15 The fact of the matte'r is the Advisory Panel 16 was set up to receive information that is important to 17 the cleanup and that the public needs to know. We sent is the letter to the Advisory Panel, and we also made it 19 public in the form of an advertisement. Because that 20 is the only way the letter would have been used in 21 detail. 22 Now, if you are in business, and I think that 23 is why you are all here and I honor you for it, to 24 provide the public with information on the cleanup of 25 TMI Unit 2, this is information on the cleanup of TMI-2 A
l 25 l i j J 1 that was submitted to your committee and would not have 2 reached the public in any other means if we had not run 3 the advertisement. 4 We feel it is important in light of what the 5
.public has-been hearing about the cleanup, principally 6
through the Inquirer series, that that kind of 7 statement be made available to them. And I. don't think 8 the fact that the letter has a salutation in any way 9 implies endorsement of that letter by the person named 10 in that salutation. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: It may not. Your very 12 statements here shows the arrogance with which you
-- 13 conduct this kind of attitude. That is what I resent.
(, 14 It is not you right to do it, it is the arrogance with 15 it. * . 16 I feel I was set up by this. And when you 17 talk about being business people, good business people 18
'if they were going to do this type of thing and they 19 wanted input from the person who received the letter,
- o would have taken the time to give that person an 21 opportunity to comment. If that was really what was 22 sought, good business practice would ask for that. And 23 you did not display that.
24 I am not going to say more than on this 25 because I am really upset with it; but you did not m a
26 I display ~ good business practice. It is not necessarily 2 what the implications are; it is just the arrogance 3 that is constantly displayed in this kind of public 4 statement. And I really resent it. 5 MR. COCHRAN: The implications in your 6 remarks were that the comments in Dr. Fletcher's letter 7 could only serve a useful purpose if they were rel$yed s to the_public. And that to me implies that the 9 objective by Dr. Fletcher and company in writing the io letter was not to inform this panel, but was to make a 11 public statement. 12 And they decided to do so to use the vehicle 13 of a letter to Mayor Morris as a means of setting up an s ,, 14 ad, or some means of'getting that information out. . 15 Now, I don't know whether that is the case. 16 But that certainly is the implication. 'I
- 17 MR. STANDERFER
- We can have Dr. Fletcher is discuss his intentions. I think the statement resulted 19 from attendance of the last meeting of this panel. And 20 it was addressed to this panel.
2i THE CHAIRMAN: We may want to take him up on 22 that. Any other comments from the panel at this point? 23 (No response.) 24 THE CHAIRMAN: We would go on to the NRC
-25 status report and an update on NRC pending s.
27 i
' 1 investigations and enforcement actions. Bernie Snyder 2 will address this.
6 3 MR. SNYDER: Very briefly I want to go over 4 those recent actions and the other things we have done, 5 primarily to give you a feel for the fact that the work 6 is 8CCelerating. And it is a measure of that by the 7 fact of a number of things in my office. 8 There is a hand out, of which there are 9 copies for the public on one of the chairs behind me, 10 dated the 16th. What I have done there is very briefly 11 reviewed what we have done in the last two and a half 12 months from March 1 until May 15. yq 13 And during that period the TMI program ( 14 office, which is my office, did complete safety 15 evaluations and issued -- completed our reviews and 16 issued approvals for five major cleanup activities and 17 systems. 18 The first one being the plenum assembly lift 19 and transfer, which was done successfully yesterday. 20 And from my perspective in watching it and in talking 21 to my staff who were in the command center at the 22 time, it went very well. The company handled it well. 23 And it was very well planned. And it went off 24 basically without any hitch at all. 25 The second item we have approved during this i u .
28 1 period based on extensive review and many meetings is > 2 heavy load handling over the TMI-2 reactor vessel, 3 which is always a difficult question. On a restrictive 4 basis, naturally, there are certain things that have to 5 be handled over it. 6 We have improved the design and installation 7 of the fuel canister storage racks, both in the deep 8 end of the canal inside the containment building and 9 also in the fuel storage pool in the fuel handling to building.
. . 11 We did an extensive review and engaged our 4
' ~ 12 consultant on refurbishment and retesting of the polar i3 crane auxilliary hoist, a 25-ton'auxilliary hoist, on
} .
14 the same crane that was load ' tested last year. 15 And the final major item that was reviewed
- 16 earlier on in this time period was the internal 17 indexing' fixture processing system, which is a water is cleanup system.
19 Just to give you a feel, I had our office 20 count the total number of detailed procedures that 21 implement things-like the five I just lifted. In that 22 time; frame of March 1 to May 15, we reviewed and 23 approved 161 detailed procedures. That is handled in 24 large measure by Dr. William Travers' office, my deputy i 25 at the site. 1
- .-%-- y r..,.. .-,,.,.,: , ,.<-..,. . ,_. ..,_._ ,, , ._..m, .._...m_..,, . , _ , . . , , . _ - , , . _ . _ . . _ . - . . _ . . - , _ , _ . - , , _
29 l i I. L- 1 And we expect that in the coming months that 2 we will probably be reviewing and taking action on 3 about 60 per month, which is a very significant work l d load. But we are gearing up to handle that. , 5 I should indicate in the past, at least on
-6 initial review, we have rejected somewhere around 10 7 percent and required the company to do something -
8 different, with changes. And I think that is probably 9 true with these numbers as well. 10 But we also have major items with future 11 cleanup activities. We are reviewing the defueling 12 water cleanup system. We are taking under review the 7 __ 13 safety evaluation report we received from the company
}{l 14 on the equipment hatch. We are reviewing the technical 15 design of the fuel canisters, the containers that will 16 receive the damaged fuel. We have recently received a 17 status report on the decontamination status of the 18 reactor building. We have that under active review.
19 And under review a recirculation system of the reactor 20 building sump. 21 You have received correspondence on all of 22 these major review items. And I know you receive a lot 23 of paper, but again I wanted to put this in some 24 prospective for you as to what we are doing. 25 I would be glad to answer questions on this. I
- l. .
,-s,r-, - .. ,v-m -- -,--n.,---, , , - e, n -- ,, ,,--n... -,n--mv.,w---.- e- -~ r - - ...,--.,--*-e-- - - -
30 1 Dr. Masnik will give you a status report on inspection 2 and enforcement matters. If anyone has any questions? 3 MR. SMITHGALL: I was going over that last 4 packet of information we got and trying to decipher the 5 input of it all. 6 My question is, Are there any significant ? 7 changes to the technical specifications of the plan 8 that you have altered? I guess the one that stuck out 9 in my mind is the proposal of GPU to change some of the io technical specifications in the recovery operation as 11 deleting the PEIS from any review significance. , 12 Should we be concern.ed about these things? 13 MR. SNYDER: Could you repeat that? 14 MR. SMITHGALL: Looking at April 12, GPU 15 proposal. 16 MR. SNYDER: Which item is that? I have the 17 list, but not the enclosures. is MR. SMITHGALL: Maybe I am taking the import i9 of all your technical rettsws of what you are giving 20 me. Change request 4829, I guess, is the one I see 21 from GPU. That was just one I picked out. Another was 22 changing materials status reports and nuclear material 23 transfer reports, inventory and record requirements. 24 Are you altering those technical = 25 . specifications of the plan as they go along with F T
- - - - - , , - .,-,-e . ,-.3 ,, ,- -,._-r,- .-..r.... ,, ,..,y. _ . . , , _ , e. - ,.. - - - ,+
31 I l t_ _J 1 recovery? And are they significant to what we should 2 .be doing here on the panel? 3 MR. SNYDER: I don't think any of them are of
^
d great significance. Basically what GPU has proposed 5 and has'been doing actually over the last five and a
~6 half years, we are up to 48 and they-are numbered 7
7 sequentially. There are a whole series. Very 8 frequently on any plan there are updatings made to the 9 technical plans, which are really the rules by which
-10 the plant was run.
1 11 There have been many that have come to us, 12 obviously, through the normal course of events. Most __, 13 of-them, however, are changes to reflect the difference 2' . I' 4 i 14 in status of the plant as an operating plant versus the
%s is plant as a damaged reactor and in the process of 16 cleanup.
17 In fact, those most recent ones, 46, 47, and 18 48; 47 we have acted on and 46 and 48 are in-house now. 19 They take into account there are certain surveillance i 20~ items, namely, testing of pumps and valves and things, 21 that can't be performed. But regulation requires they 22 be' performed. They can't be performed because they are 23 in radiation areas and they don't need to be exercised 24 because they are not needed for the safety of the 25 plant. I L.. _ i
32 1 And we review and concur on those issues and 2 will change their technical specifications accordingly. 3 So that is the nature. There are really, I don't 4 th in k , any big issues in those items. 5 MR. SMITHGALL: I guess the wording of the 6 request from GPU is what caught my eye more than 7 anything else, which they were justifying the deletion 8 of the PEIS from (inaudible) as it is defined in your 9 regulation. 10 MR. SNYDER: The PEIS? 11 MR. SMITHGALL: Maybe I . a:m making a point 12 here that is really insignificant, but that is what
, i3 caught my eye. As far as the PEIS being a document - (gp 14 against which the NRC reviews safety evaluation -
is reports, technical evaluation reports, and system 16 descriptions.
-17 MR. SNYDER: Could I see that?
is MR. SMITHGALL: Sure. 19 (Handing.) 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We got this package of 21 information yesterday. 22 MR. SNYDER: I would be honest. This one, 23 although it is dated April 12, it is still under review 24 in-my office. And I frankly have not personally 25 reviewed this. I would obviously review it before we s i
,- < -- - ----_ , . . . , , , , . - . . - - _ _ _ - _ _ - - . - _ - - .m , , - - . . -, - , . - - - -
33 F L_ 1 took any action on it. 2 So you have raised a good point. We will 3 take a look into it. Without going through it all here d in detail,.I am not sure of the significance of this-5 change, but we will certainly look at it. 6 MR. SMITHGALL: I guess I will go down to 7 some of the things we have discussed which we talked 8 about in Lancaster where you did approve the technical 9 specifications with the boron concentration, for 10 example, and heavy. load travel. 11 I guess the upshot of my question is it might 12 be important for us to know what you would consider
~
13 major or significant to our Panel, technical J,/ 14 specifications that they are proposing to change and 15 those you have changed. . And it might be of interest to 16 this Panel if we could have input as they are being 17 proposed. 18 I know they come through in this manner. But 19 one of the things I found is we get the packet of 20 information with the request and the approval in the 21 same[ packet of information.
. 22 MR. SNYDER: Not on tech spec changes. They 23 normally take a month or more typically two months.
24 On some of the safety evaluations that we do 25 on cleanup activities themselves, like the list that I I L .. .
34 r i read to.you at the beginning of my discussion here, 2 those are sometimes acted on fairly quickly, yes, so as 3 not to hold cleanup up. 4 MR. SMITHGALL: That is the upstart of my 5 question. 6 MR. SNYDER: I would say as a general 7 Statement, the tech spec changes will, in many cases, a implement approval in principle what we have given in 9 another-piece of paper. That catches the big ones. io Many of the tech spec change items are very small 11 details, truly of a housekeeping nature. 12 MR. COCHRAN: Some of these changes, at least
; i3 the request, the request to be exempt from regulatory requirements like NCFR 70.53,'that might be tech spec,
{ 14 15 but that is an exception from regulation as opposed 16 to -- 17 MR. SNYDER: That is true. That one is under is review. 19 MR. COCHRAN: Don't you require public notice 20 and so forth on a case like that? 21 MR. SNYDER: I don't believe so for 22 exemptions. But I am not authorized to grant 23 exceptions. 24 MR. COCHRAN: Who is? 25 MR. SNYDER: Office directors only. Denton i l
35 i ' I ~and ther-level are authorized to grant exemptions to 2 the regulations. 3 MR. COCHRAN: I guess this one interested me i d on being exempt from the requirements to inventory 5 materials. It might be stolen or lost or whatever, 6 plutonium and the like. 7 MR. SNYDER: I think you will agree under our 8 regulations, the regulations require a certain set of 9 safeguards only if the material is less than 100 hour 10 per hour and three feet. And this is a lot less. 11 MR. COCHRAN: So you are suggesting that none 12 of these regulations are required to be met because it _, 1'3' is already radiated material? (,j i 14 MR. SNYDER: That is part'of the question. 15 But the issue on the proposal that GPU has made for an
.16 . exemption request, which is under active review by the 17 NRC, but their proposal is based on the impossibility 18 of doing a detailed gram accounting of the fuel. If 19 you have read the proposal,.that is the origin of it.
20 MR. COCHRAN: Before.this proposal is 21 granted, could we spend more time on this issue? 22 MR. SNYDER: Sure. 23 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to do that. 8 24 MR. SMITHGALL: During the plenu lift I am 25 sure there will be concern from persons in the public i L, .
36 I tonight, and perhaps they can come answer those, but 2 there was continuous venting during the plenum removal. 3 And I was wondering if you could share if 4 there was any release and what the content might have 5 been? 6 MR. SNYDER: I am not aware of any releases. 7 The monitoring indicating no abnormal releases. There e was continuous monitoring in the stack. And it is my 9 understanding and maybe Bill Travers can look at that. 10 But it is our understanding there was no 11 increase in that. 12 MR. TRAVERS: We did have inspectors 13 monitoring. And as Bernie stated, there was no ( i4 increase. 15 MR. SMITHGALL: Anything unusual within the 16 Containment building? 17 MR. TRAVERS: As the plenum was lifted, there is was an increase radiation levels, but they were less 19 than conservative estimates. I am talking about the 20 direct radiation readings in the air. 21 MR. COCHRAN: How about the stack? 22 MR. TRAVERS: About a curie a day krypton. l 23 But there were some estimates and increased radiation 24 of the direct kind as opposed to airborne. I believe l 25 the people in the building were exposed to 30 mr per L
3 */ l l t
'_ _]- I hour, which is pretty low.
2 THE CHAIRMAN:. Any other questions or 3 comments? 4 MR. ROTH: In part of the document that we 5 received was a violation of'the Section 48503 where a
.6 Notice of Violation associated with Section 48503 was 7 issued March 6, 1985, identifying three items of 8 noncompliance. .
9 One question I would like to ask is. basically
.10 you said they have been categorized on a Severity Level 11 3. Now would you refresh my memory, and perhaps-other 12 people's, on the increments there?
MR. SNYDER: Severity Level 1 is the highest,
. , 13
( 14 Level 5 is the lowest. , 4 15 MR. ROTH: What is the worst? 16 MR. SNYDER: One. MR. ROTH: 17 So three is? 18 MR. SNYDER: In the middle. There is , _ 19 discretion at the three level whether civil -penalty is 20 imposed. 21 MR. ROTH: Is there a civil penalty.on this? 22 MR. TRAVERS : There is no civil penalty. 23 MR. SNYDER: There was no civil penalty. And i 24 I believe the Notice of Violation probably says that.
- 25 It came from our regional office in the Philadelphia i
L - i
38 1 area. 2 MR. ROTH: There were a couple of things that ,
'3 GPU said in their' response to the violation.. And I 4 would like.to get your feeling on how you felt about 5- that.
6 They specified there has been a reduced a 7 sensitivity'and awareness to'special Considerations e involving protection for high energy beta radiation. I 9 guess what caught my eye was the use of the term 10 " reduced sensitivity and awareness" and-how you felt. [ 11 Is this a viable answer and satisfactory 12 answer as far as you were concerned? , 13 MR. SNYDER: Well, as far as our review of. e 14 the incident that caused this Notice of Violation, that ~ 15 is an accurate statement on their part in that the 16 reason that the skin contaminations occurred were
. 17 because of the lack of appreciation on the part of the i is individuals' involved. And GPU did take prompt
- 19 corrective action in that c a s e ,.
20 And for that reason, I think the reasons we 21 did not issue a civil penalty are stated there. But I
. 22 believe that was certainly one of them.
23 MR. ROTH: I guess to a certain extent I 24 don't know whether GPU should be congratulated on their . 25 answer or what, but I believe there were some keywords
~
39
~
_ _ - 1 or catch words or emotional words that sort of hit me. 2 And basically it boils down to the fact that 3 I was quoted (inaudible) even though these individuals 4 have been-briefed on the hazards of beta radiation, 5 they have had little opportunity to gain practical 6 experience in working in areas of high energy beta 7 radiation sources. 8 After having been told how things are so 9 good, here is an admittance saying it really hasn't to been as great as we said it was. That is what I am . 11 seeing here. 12 MR. TRAVERS: In this case there clearly was _._, 13 a problem. And in evaluating it, we tended to agree - lh*I 14 that the people involved were the biggest part of that 15 problem'. In weighing whether or not a civil penalty 16 ought to be imposed we didn't just look at the 17 language. i 18 We did a~ detailed look at ths1 kinds of things 19 the licensee planned to implement so that those 20 situations would be avoided in the future. And our
\'
^
21 decision was there was a bigger attempt-on their part 22 to put into effect new controls or betteE' controls that s23 that would preclude. 24 You never can entirely, but to the best'of 25 their ability, preclude-this kind of -- even I L. - , o e
40 i administrative -- that there wasn't an exposure in 2 excess of NRC limits, but there was an exposure in 3 -excess of their administrative levels. 4 MR. ROTH: The next question I would raise 5 is, is there some way that you, your inspectors can 6 follow-up that what was said on paper is really going 7 to be done down there rather than have it occur again? 8 MR. TRAVERS: Sure. And we do that to the 9 extent we are able to. We have three radiation io specialists assigned to the office; but we are still
.ti rather a small group of people. It is an audit 12 function, but it-is probably a function that is more
,. 33 comprehensive than any other site in the country.
[(,. u MR. SNYDER: I think the short answer is is absolutely. Having a problem in-this area, we are 9 16 following it up. We have 8-systematic approach and 17 appraisal of'the licensee's conduct. is THE-CHAIRMAN: You say you have three , 19 individuals responsible for monitoring? I 20 MR. TRAVERS: Three radiation specialist 2i inspectors. l 22 THE CHAIRMAN: How does that compare to the 23 last several years? 24 MR. TRAVERS: It is the same number for th e . 25 last, I would say, three years. i k..
41 l i i 1 THE CHAIRMAN: So you haven't seen any 2 cutbacks? 3 MR. TRAVERS: Right after the accident there 4 were many. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: But recently it is stable? 6 MR. TRAVERS: Yes. 7 MR. MASNIK: Earlier this week I called both 8 our Office of Investigation and Enforcement people and i asked them for an update on two issues. 10 One being the polar crane hand break 11 investigation being, conducted by EIO and the other 12 being the enforcement action relative to the issue of _ 13 harassment. . 14 I was informed by OI that essentially the 15 people work of the investigation has been completed 16 with the exception of one or two interviews. They will 1 17 begin the review of the transcripts and analysis and 18 writing the report. 19 I was told that they would be completed l 20 within a couple of months. So their moving wasn't as ! 21 optimistic as was told to us several months ago. 22 As far as the enforcement action, I was ! 23 informed that the str'i Tas completed the document 24 which is the Noti J r. :. -f .olation, and that it has been
- 25 sent for management review. This is upper management.
l L. _ l' l l
=- ;
42 l l l a I . I L _J 1 And from this last review, it was sent to the 2 Commission. 3 The Commission has some period of time to d review this' document. And again we hope we are within 5 probably a month of having a completed enforcement action in this issue. 6 s - 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? 8 (No response.) 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 3 is DOE status report 10 and discussion of shipping cask availability during 11 defueling. 12 MR. BIXBY: As the panel is aware, in March _- 13 of 1984 the department signed a contract with GPU to
?- I km/ 14 retire the TMI-2 core for research and disposition.
15 That contract specifies that DOE was to provide the 16 ampacured (phonetic) and radiation services with j 17 shipping. Mr. Harold Berton was involved with the
.18 procurement of the cask. And for the next well 20 19 minutes we will use visual aids and answer any 4
20 questions after that. 21 MR. BERTON: In March 1984 they signed a 22 contract with GPU for research and development 23 purposes. The first thing I would like to tell the 24 panel is we at EG&G are eager to receive the core. It 25 is the key to our research and development program. We 1 v_
43 i~ feel it is extremely important to. understanding the 2 consequences of the TMI-2 accident. And you will note 3 we have done quite a-bit of work on the accident. 4 consequences. 5 To get to the specifications about the 6 shipping casks, in August of 1984 EG&G. signed.a 7 contract with Nuclear Packaging Incorporated to provide a two fuel shipping casks for the DOE obligated , 9' activities. In January of 1985 we completed a io preliminary design on those casks. By March of 1985 we. 11 had completed fabrication of a quarter scale mock-up of
.12 the cask, which is exactly quarter scale of every. ,. i3 feature within the cask, including seals, lids, and all
([ 14 other features which are important to cask performance. 15 Sitting in front of you you see a 1/10 scale 16 model, which is made of plastic. It is not quite as 17 rugged as the_ quarter scale model because it already is has several chips in it from assembly and disassembly. 19 I would like to show you more, but I would 20 like to point out earlier this month we completed at 21 Sandy and National Laboratories a series of tests on 22 the performance of the quarter scale test model. The 23 video will show you some.short parts of those series. 24 Don't be alarmed by what you see in the 25 video. Some of the tests were performed at minus 25-
's e
--sv- - - - _--e- vm____m
44 J f I degrees Fahrenheit. So what is falling off of the cask i 2 is ice and it is not radiation. There was no radiation 3 material in the cask. These were simulations. There 4 are simulated canisters within-the cask and other-5 features are analyzed. 6 .After'you see the film, if you have any 7 . questions Dr. Bixby and I will answer those. And If 8 you wish, we can disassemble the tenth sale-model and 9 Mr. Jeff Quinn, who parks his car in the wrong places 10 sometimes,'can disassemble the cask, and we can show 11 you the main features of that unit. . 12 So with that, if I can figure out how to turn
._ _ 13 <ni the video machine. The figures are interesting, but -
-(.1
- 14 you have to listen to the words because the words ,
15 really describe the features of the cask. I know it 16 may be difficult to follow. 17 (Presentation of film.)
-18 MR. COCHRAN: Have there ever been any.
19 incidences where workers have failed to properly 20 . enclose one of those canisters. prior to shipping? 10 21 - MR. BERTON: It is a tough question to answer 22 because I would have to know what all workers have done 23 on casks before. Let me comment on what we plan to do. l 24 MR. COCHRAN: That is not what I want. 25 MR. BERTON: As you noted, there are two lids I , L-I i
45 f i on this cask. Each lid has double O ring seats. They 2 have the capability of testing each time you load it. 3 And we will test it by vacating the section between the 4 two seals and doing helium leak tests on the vacated 5 area. 6 So we will test those seals and ensure 7 integrity -- 8 MR. COCHRAN: I don't want to you repeat the
, 9 film. Have you ever done a study of accident io .incidences involviLg shipping casks of nuclear reactor 11 fuel? Have you ever researched this issue?
12 MR. BERTON: Yes. 13 MR. COCHRAN: And have there been any
,, a incidences where works:3 f ailed to properly.. secure?
.15 MR. BIXBY: Type B casks, I believe there
-16 never have been any incidences.
17 MR. BERTON: The only fact that I know'and is can quote from a report by Sandia National Laboratories 19 printed in January 1985 called consideration to'the 20 safety of transporting fuel. And quoting from that 21 report, actually not exactly quoting, they basically 22 say there never has been a radioactive release in a 23 Type B shipment in the United States. 24 MR. COCHRAN: I realize you don't know the 25 answer to my question and that was not the question. I / (
- - - .. --- -- __-l
i .: 46 j l
~
-L- :
EL_-l. 1 But if'you discover such an incident in your ' 2 research, which I would hope you would go back and look 3 it up, would you get back to us if there has been such 4 an incident? 5 MR. BERTON: Yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: It really was a very 7 impressive film and we appreciate you bringing it here 8 today. 9 MR. BERTON: We are looking for volunteers to 10 go with each of the shipments. 11 (Laughter from audience.) 12 MR. COCHRAN: I understand that the fuel will _ , . 13 be researched. But what is the intended -- what is
'b 'I 14 intended in terms of the bulk of the fuel? Will it be Aw .
15 processed or stored? 16 MR. BERTON: It will be stored. 17 MR..BIXBY: These canisters will be available is to go to a depository. I 19 MR. WARD: Do I understand it will take three v 20 years to move all of the fuel? 21 MR. BIXBY: It is our current projection with 22 the two casks that we can ship the fuel in 23 months. 23 There is capacity in the spent fuel pool to house the 24 canisters should there be delay. 25 MR. ROBINSON: Did I miss the radiation level I-
'i -
_ . .- - ~ . ,,_. . - - . - _ _ . _ _ . _ , _ - - - _ _
47 I r 1 at the outside of the cask? 2 MR. BERTON: It is 10 mr, 2 meters. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? 4 (No response.) 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe if there are people 6 during the break who are interested in seeing it 7 disassembled, I am sure there will be time. 8 Now, the last item before the break is 9 public comment. We do have two periods for this, so I 10 ask you to try and be specific on any question or s 11 comment. 7 12 This is an opportunity for those people who
. _ _ , 13 sometimes have problems staying to the end for them to
(-
$, 14 fexpress viewpoints now. So if you would like to, 15 please raise your hand.
- . '16 MS. KINNEY
- Paula Kinney. I wrote my 17 question on a piece of paper because I want to keep it 18 focused into one thing. I have a question or perhaps a 19 suggestion for GPU concerning the full page ad that was 20 addressing Mr. Chairman.
21 Since there was so much confusion that you 22 didn't receive the letter and, et cetera, et cetera, 23 that since GPU apologized and they are so sorry about 24 all the confusion, that perhaps had they considered 25 running a full page ad of explanation or perhaps an S A-l i-
48 1 i i apology rather than just, Oops we are sorry, but that 2 is the way it goes? Who do I address this to? How 3 about Mr. Bedell? 4 THE CHAIRMAN: If anybody from GPU would like 5 to respond to that? I didn't hear them say they had 6 any interest in doing such a thing. 7 MS. KINNEY: I didn't either, but I am a wondering how sorry they really were. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone from GPU want to 10 respond? 11 (No response.) 12 MS. LEE: Jane Lee. Members of the Board, I i3 just wanted to make one brief observatior. I saw the kj 14 ad in the paper today and my immediate reaction was, 15 Surely the Advisory Panel did not do this. That was my 16 i. mediate reaction and I want to thank you for n solidifying my trust in you. is I would like to pose a question to this Board 19 and to GPU. Supposing I would decide that I wanted to 20 write an ad in the paper of that size, and that I
~11 21 wanted to get my point across, and I wanted to make 22 sure that the public read it. Would it be right for me 23 to use this Advisory Panel? Would it be correct for me 24 to use the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor 25 Thornburgh to get my point across?
i
----4, - , . - , - , - -
n - . _ . p- e. - , , -- g
49 J
' -1 Unf ortunately, we have been bombarded with 2 these ads in the paper at the expense of the rate 3 payers for the past six years. I can't help but-think, 4 after 11 years of being involved in this business, how 5 really helpless the American people are against this 6 industry.- And to ad insult to injury, we have to pay 7 the bill. Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other 9 individuals? 10 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to clarify one 11 thing. The ads specify that they are not charged to 12 the rate payer. 13 MS. KINNEY: That doesn't make it so. They
.U
(.. 14 juggle the books. (l 15 MS. CORRADI: Joyce Corradi. I have some 16 real questions about the casks. One is, in 17 relationship to being transported by rail, I would like 18 to know, is there any intention or plans for it to be 19 tested once it is on the flatbed to be carried by rail? 20 -I would like to know if routes have been planned; if 21- ' there will be special people and equipment that will 22 ' follow this? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else? 24 MS, CORRADI: No. Those are the only two I 25 have for now.
.i. -k-
50 i y
-1 MR. BERTON: I will answer the part about the 2 testing. First off, as in all of our shipments, what 3 'will be done is we have had an on-site inspector when 4 we took possession of material from GPU. And that is a-5 certified transportation specialist by the Department e of Energy. .Each of the procedures is checked. The-7 safety of-the shipment is checked against a safety a analysis report which is written and approved by the 9 ' Department of Energy.
. 10 And by the way, NRC on-site also does a 11 courtesy inspection for the Department of Energy before 12 releasing the shipment. And in addition, GPU does i i their own inspection before even presenting the papers, i3 u- 14 You might say on all outside shipments there - is are three inspections done by three independent people a to make sure shipment is really ready to go. 17 In regards to notification and is transportation, the exact railways have not been 19 chosen. We are now nerjotiating with the railroads on
- 20 what path to take; and that will depend on the use of 21 the rail lines and our frequency of use and our needs.
22 They will be documented in the safety 23 analysis report which is reviewed and approved also by 24 the Department of Energy. MS. CORRADI: 25 Are you saying you haven't set s
51 6- ,
~ ' 1 up a total time frame for this procedure yet?
l 2 MR. BERTON: No, because one of the things we 3 are doing is we are_looking at whether or not to ship 4 two casks at a time with one train pulling the casks, 5 or to send a cask with each train. Because it makes a 6 lot of difference in our total time schedules. 7 MS. CORRADI: Does not the FCC have something 8 to do with the procedures -- I'm sorry ICF? 9 MR. BIXBY: The Department of Transportation. 10 MS. CORRADI: They have to be approved by 11 them also? So can you give me an idea of the time 12 frame before each of these procedures?
~, . 13 MR. BIXBY: We plan to do the same thing we b' %,y 14 did as far as notifying the Middletown Police.
15 Department and notifying the State to inform them when 16 each shipment was going to go. We plan to do the s$me 17 notifications on each of the shipments. 18 Because for the shipment we made (inaudible). 19 MS. CORRADI: There will be no special 20 personnel that will travel with it? 21 MR. BIXBY: We do not plan to have any 22 special provisions for people escorting these 23 particular shipments. 24 MS. CORRADI: You don't feel it would be 25 suspect to sabotage? I n._
52 1 MR. COCHRAN. The 30 foot drop. The cask is
'2 traveling at 30 miles an hour?
3 MR. BIXBY: On an unyielding surface. If you 4 compare that, it-is about the equivalent of a truck 3 traveling 120 miles an hour and hitting a bridge 6 abutment one meter thick. In fact, if you -- back when 7 the design for these were set up, they took an obsolete a cask and dropped it from a plane onto the earth. That 9 cask sunk into the ground by 52 inches. And that io showed less damage than taking that same cask and 11 dropping it onto this unyielding surface. , 12 MR. COCHRAN: To answer Miss Corradi's 7 i3 question, would you be doing testing on a flatbed? The < khg 14 only test I am aware of is the bridges test of shipping 15 casks where they had -- where they ran a locomotive 16 into the wall or whatever. 17 MR. BIXBY: I am not sure what the tests are la that Joyce may be referring to. 19 MS. CORRADI: I wasn't referring to any. I 20 was asking what had been done. 21 MR. BIXBY: I think Mr. Berton responded on 22 the tests that would be done to ensure the containment 23 integrity of those casks prior to departure. 24 I think the tests we are doing here right now 25 are designed to show, under the most severe (
53 r
.1__ 1 circumstances, that these casks will be able to 2 withstand pretty severe accidents. .. 3 MS. CORRADI: He still hasn't really answered 'k- 4 my question. Will there be done anything from the rail 5 once it passes on the rail? Any kind of testing with 6 regard to impact?
7 'MR.'BIXBY: To take a rail car and actually a run that into some kind of abutment? The answer to 9 that. question is no. 10 But back in 1978 in order to begin the 11 development or to verify the analysis techniques, a 12 cask, not this identical cask, was placed on a railroad 13 car or placed on a flatbed. A train going about 80 7_ j) 14 miles an hour ran into the cask and basically 15 demolished the train and left the cask intact. 16 And we plan to use th e same analytical 17 -techniques. In fact, the same analytical techniques 18 were used to design the full scale model and the full 19 scale Cask. 20 MS. CORRADI: My question is, if in fact that 21 is really true, why waste the time and energy to 22 develop a cask and go through these procedures if that 23 one has done so well? 24 MR. BIXBY: Because this one is designed to ('/')
~
25 verify some particular features that are particular to i f~~ u..
54 4
.r'
' TMI-2, particularly the feature that this has double
.E. 1 2 seals that will prevent any leakkge from the cask-a cabinet-and the other had a single containment.. That s- -4 is because the fuel was considered to be, the spent 5 fuel ~, was considered to be a second level of l ' 6 containment.
7 Here we really have three levels of ! a -containment; the canister, one level.and a second level 9 which is the outer seal for the cask body. i 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to allow Joe to n make his statement now and,one other person to come up
.12 and ask a question on the record. Then we are going to
- i3 take a break. And if people have other questions, we have another public comment segment later.
) 14 i~
15 MR. DI NUNNO: I wanted to ask a question 16 about the design.. I am under the impression that the 17 type of-tests you are doing on this cask are really [ is' prescribed for Type B casks for this kind of material 19 .by the Department of Transportation and these tests 20 have been standardized based on consideration of 21 accidents on trucks and accidents on railroads. 22 So Joyce, if my assumption is correct, in 23 effect there-is a test both from truck travel and train 24 travel and they are required before they get Department {} 25 of Transportation approval to show and demonstrate (
55
.p
' L _. I these tests have been successfully passed.
2 So I think what you are seeing here are 3 . standard requirements for this kind of shipment, plus 4 probably excess due to 'the special interest of this.
-4
- - 5 MR. BERTON
- I want to make sure you 6 understood the tests are not required. The 7 requirements are for the cask to withstand a 30' foot 8 drop on an unyielding surface. The tests were 9 voluntary on our part to verify the analytical 10 requirement.
11 MR. DI NUNNO: They have no regulation. 12 MR. BERTON: They have design requirements, 13 but.they did do not.have testing requirements. B(_f . 14 MR.. 'I NUNNO: J So you are confirming the is analytical model? u. 16 MR. BERTON: Yes. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is very 18 impressive because, if it gets loose, whatever is in 19 its way is in trouble. I 20 MR. CHARLES: I heard -- I wanted to note th e 21 total number of trips estimated and also the volume and l 22 the amount of radioactivity in each cask? l- 23 MR. BERTON: I have to go back and relate to I () 24 our shipping scenario. When you ask how many 25 shipments, if you ship two casks per train, it is half l
. . . . - ._ . _ _ . , , _ _ . . - . , - , , . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ , - _ _ _ . - . . . . _ . , - _ = _ . - - - - _ _ , . _ . . . _ . -
56 ( ,. 1 the amount than if you ship one. 2 MR. CHARLES: The total volume of what is in
-- 3 the core?
4 MR. BERTON: Some say 200 and some say 300 5 and some 250. I don't think it is really important, 6 MR. CHARLES: It will be kept track and 7 logged, how much radioactive material. 8 MR. BERTON: There was some discussion 9 earlier about GPU's method of fuel use accountability. 10 And I think that should be a separate subject. I 11 wouldn't want to address that in detail. But yes, 12 there-will be an accounting. f._ 33 THE CHAIRMAN: I do believe that has been to -() 14 asked before. And we may want to have someone respond is to it. . 16 MR. CHARLES: I wanted to know the volume of 17 material and the radiation and how many trips, is THE CHAIRMAN: I think they have replied as 19 best they can. And maybe somebody else wants to speak 20 to how the radiation, radioactive material, is 21 monitored as to quantity and type prior to being 22 shipped out? 23 MR. BERTON: The design requirement for the cask is that it hold, each canister is limited to a (]) 24 25 certain weight, and that happens to be 2,940 pounds.
57 I t_ 1 That is a maximum quantity of fuel to be loaded in each 2 container. And that is more than one fuel element per 3 container. p 1_- 4 So the number of 238 -- there there will be 5 more in some canisters and less in others. We will 6 estimate the amount of material by weight, by 7 physically weighing each can. But we wouldn't do a 8 detailed measurement of each isotope. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: We understand that. We are 13 10 asking the NRC or GPU who will do the measurement and 11 estimation, as the man is asking, the amount of 12 material and the type of material?
. 13 MR. SNYDER: It is GPU's responsibility.
^] MR. B ERT'ON : GPU is required to provide that
] 14 is information to the Department of Transportation prior 16 to our taking possession of material.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: So the question, will it be 18 measured and accounted for, the answer is, yes, by GPU? 19 MR. BERTON: Yes. 20 MR. WARD: I am confused by the neat 21 arrangement. These are orderly casks and the 22 description with relation to our information at the 23 last meeting concerning the state of the core, I am not rm I 24 sure how the larger pieces will fit into this. 25 MR. BERTON: There are three kinds of I L _
58 tL --l I canisters that GPU designed. And we covered those in 2 the safety analysis reports. We also reviewed and 3 approved of the design because they are going to store em k_) d them f or 30 years. 5 One type holds rubble material, and it is 6 Called a knockout Canister. And that is what they 7 initially vacuum off the debris bed. One holds find, 8 which is a filter material. And that also comes from 9 the vacuuming and water cleanup process. And the third 10 type of canister has a square arrangement inside a 11 round tube. And what you have to do is cut the 12 material off to fit inside that canister which is in 13 large chunks. I#'~_ 14 The inside of that square cross section is a m
')
15 half inch larger than the original fuel size, so any we 16 find that look like original fuel we will slip inside 17 those canisters. 18 MR. WARD: Is this going to be shipped dry or 19 wet? 20 MR. BERTON: Dry. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 22 (Brief recess at 9:00 p.m.) 23 THE CHAIRMAN: The first item on the agenda r~s 24 for this part of the program is GPU current cleanup O 25 schedule. t L -
59 1 MR. STANDERFER: I provided to the NRC on the 2 30th of April a letter which outlined- the schedule for 3 the remainder of the year pertaining to the start of s 4 defueling. I believe you were provided a copy of that 5 letter this evening. And I think you got one earlier 6 in the mail. 7 What that schedule says is there are two a basic critical paths to start the defueling. We 9 estimate start of defueling in the middle of September. 10 And the critical paths to defueling involve the 11 installation of several pieces of defueling equipment 12 which are outlined on the first eight or nine lines.
. 13 And the second critical path on the lith, which is the preparation of and qualifications of
-(\ ]) 14 15 operators, all coming together at the start of 16 defueling. And our best estimate is the middle of 17 September. 18 The removal of plenum for the middle of May 19 was accomplished yesterday. I have a three minute 20 video of that summarizing the three hours of that 21 operation, if you would like to see it. I can give you 22 an idea of what the plenum looks like. 23 (Presentation of film.)
/'T 24 MR. STANDERFER: I know you haven't gotten a V
25 chance to study the schedule. And I have Dave Bucannan k
60 F L_ 1 here of my staff to cover Item 6, which is to describe 2 some of the equipment and the actual manipulations 3 which will be involved in the defueling of the reactor. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody have any questions at 5 this point on Item 57 6 MR. ROTH: I am not sure that this is 7 directed just towards you. I am sure there is a 8 certain amount of involvement by your public 9 information department. But I am going to ask you. 10 On the plenum. Let's say, for the sake of 11 discussion that I concur the lifting of the plenum, 12 after the research, was a straight forward piece of 13 engineering work. The Public Relation Information F(]} 14 Department sends out a press release saying that it is could occur at any time. 16 MR. STANDERFER: Wednesday, is any time. 17 MR. ROTH: Now, I was advised on Monday night 18 by a member of your staff that the plenum was going to 19 be lifted on Wednesday. That was the way it looked 20 within certain parameters. 21 MR. STANDERFER: That is what we had on our 22 press release on Monday. Not definitely. 23 MR. ROTH: Not definitely, but could be. 24 The reason I asked this individual the ( 25 information is because one of the ways I gauge public t-
61 l p~ 1 sentiment is the number of' phone calls I get asking me 2 questions. And that is, people were really interested 3 in knowing when the plenum was going to- be lif ted,
- d. 4 .And when I relayed that information back to 5 these_ people on Tuesday afternoon, Tuesday morning, 6 some of these people called public information. And as 7 one of them said, your department was very cordially 8 . deceptive, and would not answer the question directly, 9 and kept referring back to the press release.
to And that just really confounds me. And it 11 just seems, if somebody is asking a very direct 12 question of that nature, that they do deserve a direct 33 answer on that point rather than,'we are sticking by u our press release. And we only believe, after it is 15 done, another press release will go out. 16 And coincidentally, tonight you referred back 17 to that ad saying one of the reasons that ad was put in 14 is the paper was it was a way to get information to the 19 public. So you spent X number of thousands of dollars I 20 to inform the public of what you the company thinks is l 21 important. And yet you wouldn't answer a phone call 22 honestly. 23 And I would like to know (a) who makes those i
- j. C 24 decisions?
( 25 MR. STANDERFER: W e '.1, the answers to the i l l.
62 I ' 1 public were accurate. The press release on Monday was 2 accurate. We were planning to put a press release out 3 on Friday, but until Monday morning we weren't sure we
'- 4 could lift it this week.
5 On Monday we were confident it could be 6 lifted this week, no earlier than Wednesday morning if 7 everything went well. I didn't know when it would be 8 lifted on Tuesday night. On Tuesday night we began 9 filling the pool that it was put into. We had to let to that sit overnight to make sure there were no leaks on 11 the pool. 12 On Wednesday morning at 8:45 when the lifting 13 rig was satisfactorily seated, I gave approval to b) ( 14 proceed to do the early lifting check out. At eleven
' 15 o' clock on Wednesday morning I approved lifting of the 16 plenum.
17 Until I did that at eleven o' clock Wednesday 18 morning, I didn't know it would be lifted on Wednesday. 19 So the press release said, If everything goes 20 satisfactorily, the earliest we can accomplish that is 21 Wednesday. And I believe the answer, as well you may 22 interpret them to be evasive, were the accurate 23 portrayal of what we understood to be the case. (~) 24 MR. ROTH: It seems to me there is a little N _./ 25 bit of paradox there. It would seem to me that huge w-
63
'..r-desire of your Public Information Department'to inform i-2 the public and people who have a particular interest in
. . 3 this particular engineering task who make the effort
\#' 4 and call, there seems to have been a better way of 5 handling it as far'as I am concerned.
6 Those people who cared should have been given 7 more information than was in the press release, more a straight ~ forward. And it just really confounds me to 9 hear this rigmarole of informing the public. 10 MR. STANDERFER: We had no better information 11 unti1~I approved on' Wednesday morning to approve the 12 lift. It could have been Thursday or Friday depending i3 on whether all the equipment checked out. [(],) 14 Since the first of the month we have been , 15 operating on two shifts a day. There were some things q 16 on Saturday and Sunday over the weekend. There'were 17 equipment changes that had to be made in the fuel is transfer equipment that an engineer flew to Wisconsin 19 to get. We didn't know whether those pieces of 20 equipment would work when they were installed into the 21 vessel. 22 So the official schedule date was Friday of 23 this week. We accomplished the lift two days ahead of Q 24 schedule. MR. ROTH: I don't want you to be put in the 25 (
64 1 position of defending your Public Information 2 Department, because I do feel that there are people 3 down there that wanted the information to be at least O (-) 4 available to the best of their ability to know it. 5 And it just seems in this area there 6 definitely was, and this is their opinion and it is my 7 opinion too, that the Public Information office at this 8 point is really orchestrating quite a bit of aggressive 9 behavior on their part. That there is arrogance on 10 their part. And it seems almost that the one thing
, 11 they are proving competent in is their arrogance.
12 I think they are talking out of both sides of __ 13 their mouth and perhaps Doug or someone from his [I' d 14 department can answer that, because 'I don't wish to put 15 you, as the technical, in the position. I would like 16 to know where that policy comes from. 17 MR. STANDERFER: In this particular instance 18 that we are talking about, the Public Information 19 office had to rely on information from me. Each day 20 they came to me and said what can we say when we get 21 questions? 22 They were accurately reflecting my best 23 understanding of where we were and what the schedule (') v 24 was. The MRC didn't know until I gave the approvals on 25 Wednesday morning that it would be lifted Wednesday. I L . i i k
65 g 3, ^ 1 ' THE CHAIRMAN: Let me say I think you 2 answered the question that was asked. Obviously Joel 3 has a different reaction to it.
.o 4 I1think you kind of sent that back and forth.
5 Joel made his' point, and I think you have answered it, 6 at least to y'our satisfaction. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Joel, do you have anything
-8 else besides that?
9 MR. ROTH: I would like to hear, since that to was just the policy on that, why that department could n ' not take that step and even say that to the people who. 12 made the effort to call? That that was the key. The
- i3 people who made the effort to call, that when we do ,
)' .E know,.we!can either return that call to you or 15 whatever.
16
'The.information that I got back from the 17 People was that was not done. It was just, we are je sticking to the press release and that is its rather 19 than taking that extra step and saying we will call you 20 back or something. That call back phone call costs 23 21 cents. And I can't equate that public information bit 22 with something like this ad.
23 MR. BEDELL: The gentleman from the TMI Information Alert was talked to by Gordon Thomas, my [) 24 l 25 colleague, on Tuesday. Gordon repeated what we have L (, l-
*-+--+w-w. w w y-%,g-e&,y-se 4yme e- .gme.,9m ew* N g, q y 9 sy s ee y g.m ex-.w em w e g e m,_ gg-9.y yg eem ,y ge- g ,-e.e g g me ww y--ywry_ ve
66 F L__ 1 been saying in the press release that we were planning,
'2 we were shooting towards or working towards lifting the '15 3 plenum on Wednesday. But we weren't certain we could 4 lift it up on Wednesday.
5 We weren't rushing the operation. We were 6 completing the preparation; and if they were all 7 completed and Frank Standerfer approved,.the plenum a would be lifted. He thanked us and said he appreciated 9 the information very much. Gordon suggested they call 10 us back and he indicated he would. 11 That is the only call we received. And I 12 think you have to recognize something else here. This 13 work is a process. It is not best done in units to be (_j 14 stopped and started. One shift turns over the is information it has gained to the shift that replaces 16 it. 17 Before the plenum was lifted, we were working 18 around the clock to complete the preparation so this 19 lift could continue. And the best way to do it and 20 safest way to do it was in that fashion and not to 21 interrupt the work when it was ready to go, 22 particularly since you can see this was a straight 23 forward engineering operation. We gave the people the best information we (]) 24 25 could. We did the job safely.
- w. .
J:" 67 C ., MR. ROTH: My point simply is this. It just 1 2 seemed to me that the jhdgment on it could have been to 3 take that one step further and get back to whether it () 4 was- the one person or two persons involved. Because if 5 it.indeed was a straight forward engineering operation, 6 than why not just come out with that information? And 7 that is my simple point. [ g s MR. SMITHGALL: This is your schedule for 9 1985.- How do you see this '85 schedule affecting the to overall. cleanup, and particularly the schedule that you 11 h' ave outlined for us in February? 12 MR. STANDERFER: We expect to be able to 13 remove the fuel from the primary system in the one and ([. ) l u a. half to two years planned. We expect to complete the q rest of the. cleanup in the time frame that;has been 16 discussed in the past with the finishing of the cleanup 17 in the middle of 1988, is There is nothing so far that indicates we 19 cannot accomplish the cleanup on that schedule. 20 MR. SMITHGALL: In one of youtspress releases 21 - you referred to, it was said that the de' fueling could 22 be carried out as planned barring any unforeseen c 23 equipment problems or technical problems. Can you give me an idea of what you-might (]) 24 25 expect, what might delay that cperation as far as s s y _ _
68 1
-i 1 equipment is concerned?
, 2 MR. STANDERFER: For example, the lifting of 3 the plenum was a highly visual thing. The most b- 4 important thing was the fuel transfer system was 5 successfully tested on Monday.
6 We have been working with that system for 7 almost five weeks, with a number of equipment problems. 8 We had to~ return gears.to some of the manufacturers. 9 We had to modify some of the plant structures that 10 interfered with parts of the system. 11 That system, if it had worked exactly as it 12 was delivered, would have been checked out and . . 13 satisfactory about three weeks ago. So that is an . ,q j . 14 example of the kind of problem we can run into. 15 I don't believe any of those problems involve
, 16 long delays; it is weeks. And we can generally stay on 17 schedule by working second shifts.
18 So I don't anticipate anything that will be a 19 major delay. But I can't promise that, because this is 20 all first of a kind equipment. 21 MR. SMITHGALL: How would you characterize 22 the remaining defueling operation as far as scheduling 23 is concerned? Would you consider having room for those
-V(') 24 delays or is it a tight schedule?
25 MR. STANDERFER: The schedule initially was
69 I L _. 1 established on the assumption that there was 10 to 20 2 percent of the fuel in the primary system, outside of i 3 the reactor vessel. If that were true, the removal of
-C d that material was going to be a fairly difficulty job.
5 As we are getting more and more inspection in 6 the~ reactor vessel, more and more material is in the 7 reactor vessel and not in the loops. So.at a first 8 indication, it will be, at least, as easy or easier to 9 accomplish the removal. 10 But depending on how tightly it adhered to 11 the surface, it might be more difficult. Right now I . 12 believe the original schedule is satisfactory. _, 13 MR. SMITHGALL: Any additional' costs that you 14 see from the slippage in your schedule at this 15 point? 16 MR. STANDERFER: No. While the start of -
'17 defueling is two to three months later than the target 18 established a year and a half ago, I see no. slippage in 19 .the completion' dates. And I don't any reason why the
- 20 established budget'last summer is not satisfactory.
-21 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from the 22 -panel?
23 (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Let me 'in going on to the next {} 24 25 portion ask the panel a question and you, Frank, the J e e y.y --.<--w - mm--- -y-y--,. g *-,.c-yyur,w, ww-+m.-- r-,n,,-.- - - w- vr-w---- - -y--w---.--wy- m-y .-g,- w y-
70 I
.. , l 1 question as well, j l
2 Due to the time of the night, and the other 3 items we have coming up, and the fact that the fuel
- ('>) 4 removal will not begin now until September -- The 5
reason we wanted it scheduled for this meeting is 6 because we were expecting it to be earlier. 7 I don't know all the things you prepared for s tonight, and if you would much prefer to continue with 9 that this evening? . 10 MR. STANDERFER: We could change it to it another meeting, another night. I think Dave Bucannan 12 can give you a shorter summary than 20 minutes. i3 THE CHAIRMAN.: Why don't we see if he can ((.. )) 14 give us a quick summary, or if any panel member 15 disagrees. 16 MR. SMITHGALL: I would like to ask one other 16 17 question. When you had the plenum out before you is slipped down the temporary cover, did you have any 19 opportunity to do any study of the reactor at that 20 Point in time? 21 MR. STANDERFER: In this evolution there were 22 no individuals in that area. One of the things we will 23 be doing is some more examinations of the top part of 24 the vessel and the bottom of the vessel similar to what {} 25 I showed you. And that will be done in the July time 1
71 i i 1 frame. 2 MR. BUCANNAN: I will use my one viewgraph 3 .and run through what it will consist of. This is a 0- 4 simple sketch of how the containment building appears. 5 Let me first off, I will take a couple of 6 minutes and describe what the basic plant features are 7 for defueling. And I will use a comparison to talk e about what we are going to be doing. 9 - This is the reactor vessel. And directly 10 connected to the reactor vessel is called a fueling 11 canal. So in normal fueling you can continue the water 12 up so you-fill this entire pool. 13 Then the fuel transfer system, which is a 7-_ H) ( 14 tube that goes from the containment, building into the is fuel handling building, the pool. And that can also be 16 filled. So on normal fueling, we use a special fuel 17 handling bridge or crane. And we keep it under water is and-transfer it over and load it into the fuel transfer 19 mechanism and then into the storage fuel and replace 20 the storage assembly into the rack. During all that 21 -work, the fuel simpl,y remains under water. 22 However, a:t TMI because of our unique 23 conditions we are g'oing to change that method. Probably where we have to start, the ability to remove (]) 24 25 the fuel is going to need unigte tooling. We will need l- , L_
72
~.
, i long handled tools. So you do want to try and keep 2 th'em as-'short as possible, but they are going to be 3 long~ handled tools. ,
-O 4 So then we start into investigating, although 5 I want to keep the core covered with water inside the 6 reactor vessel, I want thtt height of water to be as 7 ishort as possible for worker efficiency. We arrived at g a water height that is'shown in the sketch. So it is 9 just slightly above the reactor vessel, but lower than 10 the standard pool height.
, ii So we come up with an arrangement then where 4
12 we will take fuel, while working under water take i3 pieces of fuel and core material and load them into
) i4 ' canisters and come down and we will be doing that when 15
-the worker is working on a platform.
. 16 We will then bring this fuel canister grid 17 over the work platform and shield the platform. But i
is there are plugs to gain assess to it. We can use the
. i9 fuel canister grid and lower-the graft device 20 (ph onetic) , engage the canister, and lift it up to the 21 fuel handling bridge.
22 At that time it will be dry and no longer-23 under water. But the bridge has accurate shielding for s (]) 24 _ protection. And it trolleys over so it is in line with 25 the deep end of the pool. And as you can tell from the ( 1 4
---,4 .c.,,. . . . , , . . , , , . , ,,e ,..,~,.-,y_.,,m,.,_ , , , . . . , , , , _ , . , , , . . . . . . , . , , ,.,,,,_,,,,,_,,,,.y.,--,- .-.,-.,-__,,.,m,y,
73 i i i picture, it goes down close to the surface of the water 2 and we can lower the canister into the fuel transfer
.,S-3 system mechanism. That is done vertical and then a L.) 4 . holder rotated in a horizontal position, then out into 5 the fuel storage pool. Then the canister is uprighted 6 and picked up with another canister bridge and moved 7 into a position over a storage rack and lowered into 8 the storage rack. And it reremains there until ready 9 for shipment.
10 We are making' use of the basic plant 11 features. But we are doing it partially wet and 12 partially dry, which is a variance to the standard. _, 13 Once into the fuel racks, I think it was FH (,) 14 mentioned earlier we have provisions to store 250. But is then as the shipping arrangements are made, we can go 16 from a storage rack into a transfer Cask loading area. 17 Again, we will be picking up the canister into a 18 shielded cask, and move this crane in and over so we 19 can position the transfer cask into the shipping cask 20 for transfer off site. 21 That is a five minute presentation on how it 22 will be done. 23 MR. STANDERFER: As we install this equipment ()
' 24 throughout the summer, we will be able to show you l 25 short videos of what it looks like and how it operates.
I L-I
-+e ,--,wwe--v-we w-ee. ,m ,yi. * *+g e.r d- - - - , -m.-my
74 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Obviously, we need a good 2 amount of time to spend on this issue. But the fact-is 3 I recognize that, and I think it would be fair to give 4 it more time at the next meeting. 5 I appreciate your quick presentation. 6- MR. BUCANNAN: I believe it is a good picture 7 and it is to scale. a THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any quick question 9 anybody wants to ask on this. presentation?
)
10 MR. SMITHGALL: This transfer through the ; 11 reactor vessel is not a normal situation? 12 MR. ST.ANDERFER: Through the containment 13 vessel?-
) 14 MR.'SMITHGALL: Yes.
15 MR. STANDER'FER: That is the normal way to 16 transfer through those tubes. 'The system originally 17 Li7 installed in this plant was a geared system. The BMW is -plants have been switched over-to'a cable driven 19 system; and we have installed the-cable driven system. I 20 So we have the Babcock and Wilcox system. We had to 21 make some modification; and that is the system that was 22 successfully tested on Monday. , 23 And we wanted to get that tested before we fill any of those pools of water, because otherwise the
) 24 25 work would have been done under water.
P
--e- ---,.rr_.----,,..-,-,,w- .-,,,-,..-_.-,-<.,,-w .m. -
75 j l
)
1 MR. BEDELL: I am in the Media office. And 2 in addition to the one call we'got on Tuesday that I 3 referred to, there was another call to our office the h' 4 previous week before we had been able issue a press 5 release. But on the Tuesday in question, our Community 6 Affairs Office also received two calls from two women 7 in the community. 8 The first lady, when we asked, was unwilling 9 to give us her phone number. The second lady gave it 10 to us and on Wednesday we called her. The phone was n answered by a young lady who said she was a house 12 sitter. So we were unable to contact her. g i3 MS. SKOLNICK: That was me. Whe,n I called for information about the lifting of the plenum, I
\(}) i4 15 wasn't asking for myself. I was representing a 16 membership of an organization called Susquehanna Valley 17 Alliance.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: The next item we have is Item 19 7, which is a Panel discussion on the level of the t 20 Panel's inquiry into health effects studies and data f 21 related to the radioactive release during the TMI-2 22 cleanup. 23 It is a discussion between the Panel and the () ~ 24 Commission as to what it is ue are getting to involving health effects data. And Tom Smithgall agreed at the 25 ( L
76 l 1 l l i !
' 1 last panel meeting he would take a look at this and ;
2 draft something up. So I will ask him to lead the 3 discussion on it. [_sh
4 MR. SMITHGALL: I would like to state, first 5 of all, that Joe DiNunno took the onus off me and 6 prepared a real nice synopsis of this, which I think 7 Mike will present.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you read it out loud? 9 MR. SMITHGALL: This is under copyright of 10 Joe DiHunno. 11 MR. COCHRAN: It looks like one or two pieces 12 of single sheet text. It may be more useful to review 13 it at another time. (_. I feel we owe something to the (j 14 .THE CHAIRMAN: is Commissioner. Very quickly and see if we can't have it 16 read into the record very quickly. 17 MR. SMITHGALL: I am going to go with the 18 proposed scope addition. It is proposed that_the scope 19 of activities of the Panel be enlarged to provide a 20 public forum for the presentation of results of studies ( 21 on health effects related to the release of 22 radionuclides during the TMI-2 accident. 23 Criteria to be followed: (1) _ The 24 Panel, meetings are intended to provide a means for ({} 25 facilitating the communication of plans and results of m e
? -+ -
-e-= v-- r - - - - - - = -
- e. +--tr ,- r -y, w T--e e-- *--*- - + ~ - - - - - -
77 r i studies / reviews deriving from Federal, State, ad TMI 2 Public Health Fund efforts regarding the TMI-2 3 ' accident. To the extent that Government funded generic 4 studies such as those sponsored by the National
. 5 Institute of Health on effects of low-level radiation 6 may be helpful'to the public in reviewing the TMI 7 experience, such presentations would not be excluded.
8 (2) The Panel will not serve either as a 9 referee or as an independent technical reviewer of such 10 studies. ii. (3)-The Panel will refrain from involvement 12 in generic health effects issues such as standards for: radiation health and safety protection.
~
.. i3
_h(,j . 14 (4) Panel priority will continue to be the 15 TMI-2 cleanup program. The health effects issue will 16 not dominate the agenda-of topics to be addressed. 17 Those are basically the proposed scope. 18 Probably our recommendation to be followed --
-19 MR. WARD: It seems like a reasonalbe 20 delineation of what we can do and what we can't. And 21 it does'go beyond what we originally set out to do.
22 But since there is no other game in town that is doing 23 chis, it seems reasonable that we should. The only question I have is whether the (]) 24 25 Public Health Fund is doing this or not. I spoke with k c
78 r 1 one of the Burger attorneys who indicated they had some 2 kind of meetings with the public also. But if it is 3 not redundant, then it makes sense. O 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you be willing to make-a 5 motion to accept this? 6 MR. DI NUNNO: I make 'a motion that we accept 7 this as a basis for proceeding, Mr. Chairman.
. 8 MR. WARD: I second.
9 MR. SMITHGALL: On No. 4 this is only a wordy 10 thing. It is a matter that health effects issues 11 should be on the agenda or appear they would not 12 dominate the agenda.
. 13 MR. COCHRAN: Does that mean one meeting or 'b '
t(j 14 spread over the activities? 15 MR..SMITHGALL: I just don't like the~ closed 16 door on that one. 17 MR. WARD: I think that reflected a concern is with the members of the Panel and some of the 19 Commissioners that really the purpose of the Panel was 20 to focus on the-cleanup of TMI-2. And this, in a 21 sense, reassures them we are not thrown way off bound. 22 MR. COCHRAN: But 4 does not imply that any-23 one meeting one could not devote time? THE CHAIRMAN: To me 4 implies there is
-{ [ 24 25 leeway to the panel to determine what is dominating and
-u_.
79 -r i 1 what isn't. And I would assume that the majority of 2 the Panel members present will make that determination 3 if we get into a problem. . (.,-) 4 I think it sets the tone of what it is I 2 5 think I have heard in the group, and the Commission as 6 well, that we are basically here on TMI-2 cleanup. But 7 we need some outlet for health outlooks or whatever the
- 8. wording is.
9 MR. COCHRAN: Three is a little vague to me. 10 One could read it that one could not discuss it under 11 any circumstances. And I am referring to generic 12 health effects issues and so forth.
,, .13 Or one could read it to mean that we shall
() 14 leave this forum sort of as a (inaudible) society as to
' 15 what (inaudible) will be. I think it would be fair 16 game to discuss the fact that there are differences of 17 expert opinion on the issue.
18 MR. WARD: My interpretation would be that 19 this is in the sense an indication that we do not 20 consider ours qualified to deal with generic health 21 issues; not that we will never mention there are some 22 issues. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: As a panel we do not. As individuals, I assume there could be something on that.
} 24 25 But I go back to the fact, if it is becoming dominating i
k_
80 F or if the generic health effects issues are something 1 2 the panel as a group should take issue on, than
..,, 3 somebody is going to have to raise it.
4 My feeling is this is simply a guide. And if 5 somebody sees someone getting into generic health 6 effects and it is too detailed, they are going to 7 remind us. And we will have to decide as a Panel where a to go. 9 MR. COCHRAN: What you say and what is said io here are two different things. What is said here is n there is a criterion; and that is, you will refrain 12 from involving yourself in generic health issues. 13 Which implies you will not talk about what the cancer
,) 14 risk coefficient is.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to hear the Panel 16 members on this. I think No. 3 says the Panel will 17 refrain from involving in genetics. I think as a Panel 18 that would be true. 19 I would as chairman give a little latitude to 20 individuals to a point on that, but not as an u overwhelming discussion to get us off what our main l 22 reason for existence is. 23 MR. ROTH: I hear what you say, but I don't
'(]
24 know how to define it. 25 MR. MASNIK: It says refrain rather than (
h 81 I L _. 1 prohibit. I think it is up to the Panel to decide. t 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I think the words are chosen 3 very well. I don't know if Joe meant it that way, to 4 be'more explicit. 5 The last thing I think you want to get into 6 is the effect of low-level radiation, which has been 7 going on for 20 years. Because I don't think (1) we 8 have the competence. And I don't think i,t will ever 9 get resolved here. 10 There are other forums for that sort of 11 thing, and they are standard forums. We have argued 12 this time and time again. I don't think this is the 7 _ 13 place to do it. {) 14 As one Panel member, I agree with that in 15 general because we had some of that take place. And I 16 don't think we really satisfactorily resolved it in 17 anyway. But having said that, I still feel we need a 18 little latitude to allow the Panel to get into that. 19 When you and Neal and Gordon need to raise 20 it -- listen, we are getting off track here. 21 MR. SMITHGALL: We basically got stopped in 22 our tracks on this anyway with the Commission. They 23 did give us some latitude. So if we are going to talk
~T 24 about it at all, we are going to have to find something (G
25 that is palatable to them. 1
-L_
82 p t 1 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to offer an 2 alternative to the reading for 2 and 3. To just say 3 the Panel will not serve either as a referee or as an 4 independent technical reviewer of such studies or of 5 generic health effect issues such as the standards for 6 radiation health and safety protection, "the Panel will 7 not serve either as a referee or as an independent a technical reviewer of such studies or in generic health 9 effects issues such as standards for radiation and 10 health and safety protection."
-11 THE CHAIRMAN: How is that with you?
12 MR. DI NUNNO: Okay. 33 'THE CHAIRMAN: Neal, would you accept that as an amendment to your motion, to your second?
- (' _) 14
~
15 MR. WARD: Yes. 16 MR. COCHRAN: I think that is the sense of 17 what you intended. l-
-18 MR. WARD: My point is we are not going to i9 try and resolve questions on generic health' here.
'20 MS. LEE: I think it is ironic to plead l
! 21 19 norant on health effects. I ask you how great an 22 expert you are on cleanup. I j 73 I had concerns on the lifting of plenum, for instance, lifting it from the water and transferring (]) 24 25 it -- ( l l
83 L_ .1 THE CHAIRMAN: What I will have to do -- We L 2 are-into.this particular item now. 3 MS. LEE: I going to have to leave and I will 4 make it very brief. 5 -THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I gave you a 4 6 chance to-discuss this particular' agenda item. If it
-7 is not on this, we cannot cover it right now. It 8 covers the health-effects.
9 MS. LEE: You will not get involved in the 10 plenum. I have so many questions on that I couldn't go 11 -into it. 3-4 12 But the main thing I am concerned about on
.;_,. 13 healthL effects is the initial releases- to the public
(] 14 and'the implications of the health, the venting off
~
15 56,000 curies of krypton and the implication of the
-16 ' Continuous venting f or the past siX years.
17 THE CHAIRMAN:' I am. going to insist now. Are 18 you talking about this statement? Are you talking - 19 about this statement before us tonight or health 20 effects ~in general? If you have a question-on health 21 effects, you have to come back when we cover that. 22 MS. LEE: I'would like for the Board to 23 recommend to the NRC, if this Board feels it is not 24 qualified to. deal or is prohibited from dealing with {} 25 it, and it seems everybody is, after all that is the P
't_
84 t e . I bottom-line. 2 But if that prohibits you from dealing with 3 .the-health effects, perhaps the Board could recommend ( 4 to the NRC that somebody " balance" on a forum that 5 could address it. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: That is why we are taking it 7 up, so this Panel can get involved to the degree we a outlined today. That is the whole reason we are taking 9 it up tonight. 10 MS. LEE: It is difficult for the public to 11 come in and understand what the rulen and regulations
.12 of this Board are. And when the public has a chance to J
~
13 ask a question, and in the meantime so many questions i [( )'
- 14 are flitting across your mind about certain issues that is bypassed because of the time, for one thing.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: If anybody comes to these 17 meetings and listening to the health effect studies, is .they would clearly understand what it is we are 19 attempting to define tonight to allow us to permit some 20 Public discussion on health effects. And hopefully the 21 NRC will accept what it is we are about to act on now.
~22 MS. LEE: I didn't understand it.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry you didn't. () 24 MS. LEE: I think somebo6y has to be 25 concerned somewhere. l t I ( i. l. L L
85 i 1 THE CHAIRMAN: That is why we are doing what 2 'we are doing. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? r
' ') 4 All those in favor of the motion as it stands 5 with the amendment say aye.
6 (All panel members respond aye.) 7 , THE CHAIRMAN: Passage unanimously. 8 This is something I am sure we will make sure 9 the Commissioners get prior to the meeting, so we can 10 ask them for an answer. Is that possible? 11 MR. MASNIK: It depends on how quickly you 12 can get it to them, but I would shoot for that. I _, 13 would put i,n it a letter format to the Chairman. [ 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I will put it in letter format is and hope and suggest that they give us an indication at 16 the next meeting. I would think, if you can at the 17 next-meeting, that you might want to tell them we would la proceed with this as an outline until we are inf ormed 19 otherwise. 20 MR. SMITHGALL: What is the panel's wish on L 21 that letter? Do you want to use what we talked about 22 in Joe's outline here or put the entire background in? 23 What I am saying is, I think background is important to 24 the scope and criteria. i (]} 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Unless somebody has a problem 6-L_ L
86 I L- I with the background, I would be more than happy. 2 Probably what I will do is somehow try to copy this and _x 3 send one and make the amendment that we made tonight,
)
4 if that is okay. 5 Anything else? 6 (No response.) 7 MR. COCHRAN: I ask this be condensed. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Who is going to do the 9 consolidation of the background information? I don't 10 feel I should be trying to do that. 11 MR. COCHRAN: I think it could be condensed 12 down. (Inaudible.) 7.. , 13 THE CHAIR!1AN: If you want to give me i ,-a latitude to play around with the background (_) 14 15 information -- 16 MR. COCHRAN: Fine. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: On to No. 8. For those in the is audience who don't know what it is, it is the wrap up 19 of worker skin contamination and other radiation issues 20 related to the THI-2 cleanup. It is the wrap up of the 21 Philadelphia Inquirer article. 22 And at this tine , if GPU could come forward? 23 And I think Frank Standerfer should be here to answer any questions.
'f{} 24 25 I would like to thank GPU for the time they i
L_
87 k i spent last month answering the questions. I thought 2 .they were very helpful in doing that. And we did feel 3 there would be a need for some additional time for the O-.. 4 people to ask questions. 5 At this time I open that up. I realize we do 6 only have 15 minutes assigned to that. 7 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to go back to my 8 lineoof questions which were deferred until this time. 9 Maybe Doug Bedell or George McKelvy could 10 come back because they were here when I was talking 11 about this. issue before. 12 MR. STANDERFER: Did you.have any questions 13 on the skin contamination letter? [(-) .i4 THE CHAIRMAN: No. The purpose of this item, is from-my standpoint, was I would ask for a wrap up 16 discussion on, I think, anything regarding the skin 17 contamination question or the prior article. is And I think what Tom was getting into 19 involves the part that GPU ran in answer to the 20 Inquirer article. 21 NR. COCHRAN: I would like to ask a question 22 about skin contamination. I apologize for not being at 23 the last meeting. I read the transcript and it appears () 24 that you made a good case that skin contaminations were not a serious problem on the island, and at least it 25
88 1 was indicated in the newspaper reports. 2 I did ask the NRC to provide as part of that 3 presentation an identification of how many cases () 5# 4 involve positive smears so I could get a measure of
.5 which ones might be more serious than others. And if 6 that kind of-information is available, I would like to 7 have it provided to the committee at some point.
8 MR. STANDERFER: That is a big one. 9 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to go back to my 10 previous discussion. And just to sort of get back into 4 11 it, I don't want to misrepresent you, so correct me if 12 my interpretation is wrong. 7 13 But your objective in the ad with respect to i the Inquirer article was to set the record straight t
) 14 is because, in your view, you believe the Inquirer in 16 quoting selectively it misrepresented the general 17 Consensus of expert opinion on the subject.
18 And'this would be an attempt to get that 19 record straight? 20 MR. STANDERFUR: Yes. Twenty-two months of 21 detailed tail discussion and volumes and volumes of 22 information, wc felt they selectively used information 23 and did not include the total context. And at the last meeting, one of your own (]) 24 25 panel members was interviewed and commented his i L - L
89 1 comments were treated in the same manner. We believe 2 th'e only way to set the record straight was to publish 3 our rebuttal. And that is what we did.
>'-q' /
4 MR. COCHRAN: I can appreciate your 5 objective. 6 I would like to, in my view, you may have 7 gone beyond your objective as you just stated it. s You stated in the ad that the Inquirer's l 9 experts have little credibility and singled out Dr. L 10 Radford and Dr. Morgan and Dr. Gofman and Dr. Johnson.
- 11 Now, do you believe that-the consensus in-the 12 health physics community, or does GPU believe that Dr.
13 Radford has little credibility in the community? i . 14 MR. STANDERFER: The experts that you 15 mentioned are not in the center of the current health 16 physics community views on the . issues that were 17 discussed in the Inquirer. They are on one fringe of 18 the views. 19 We recommended to the Inquirer other experts 20 which we believe they could have discussed the issues 't 21 with. And if both the opinions of the gentlemen you 22 mentioned and the opinions of others were used, we 23 believe that-a more balanced understanding of the () 24 community would have appeared in the articles. MR. COCHRAN: I agree with that statement. 25 l-
90
?~
1 But that is not what your ad says. 2 Your ad says that Dr. Radford and Dr. Morgan 7, 3 have little credibility. That is the headline. It is
's ) ' 4 " Inquirer experts have little credibility." The 5 implication of these two paragraphs is that these 6 people are not credible people in the scientific 7 community.
8 MR. STANDERFER: They don't represent the 9 majority opinion. 10 MR. COCHRAN: That is a different matter 11 than saying somebody does not represent the majority 12 opinion and saying, for example, he is intellectually p.
-(,)
13 14 dishonest. MR. STANDERFER: I don't believe we used 15 those words. . 16 MR. COCHRAN: You quoted Judge Kelly? 17 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, we did. 18 NR. COCHRAN: Does GPU or you personally l 19 stand behind that assessment of Dr. Morgan, that Dr. 20 Morgan is intellectually dishonest and he changes his i L 21 data, invents his data to protect his opinion? ! 22 MR. STANDERFER: We accurately quoted a U.S. 23 Federal judge who spent months on this issue and who l
~'t 24 published those views.
(O l 25 MR. COCHRAN: I agree with that. You L '_
91
'(
1 certainly accurately reflected his opinion. 2 My question'is, Do you or does GPU share that - 3 ' opinion? Not are you correctly quoting the judge who O,- 4 has spent hours and days and months on the case, but do 5 you from your entire knowledge, including your 6 . discussions with.your own experts, share that opinion 7 of Dr. Morgan? 8 MR. STANDERFER: We are not taking a position 9 one way or the other on the individuals. We do 10 disagree with their technical analysis. And we believe n the Inquirer should have solicited views from others
-12 who disagree with these members of the community. And.
i3 we believe that the Federal Judge's opinion is worthy (.
.() 14 of being published.
15 MR. COCHRAN: Does the Federal Judge's 16 opinion accurately reflect the technical community in 17 evaluating whether Dr. Karl Morgan is intellectually is dishonest-and fabricates his technical analysis to 19 justify his opinion? 20 MR. STANDERFER: You will have to pole the 21 community to get that answer. 22 MR. COCHRAN: My point, Mr. Standerfer, is 23 you are accusing the Inquirer of doing a public (][ 24 disservice by selectively quoting people to 25 misrepresent the facts. And I am telling you, I think (_ ' l _ _- __-- _ _a
92 L_ 1 you have selectively quoted a Federal judge to 2 . misrepresent-the integrity of Dr. Morgan. 3 Now, I am.asking you, do you stand behind the
~\~ f,#\
4 Judge's assessment of it, or are you simply using this 5 Judge as a vehicle to run Dr. Morgan's credibility into 6 the ground? 7 MR. STANDERFER: We accurately quoted the 8 Judge. And as we-said last time, for the total facts 9 in the case, you must take the Inquirer's article and 10 our response and read them together. 11 MR. COC$RAN: Has GPU made an assessment of
.12 that case, the factual evidence in that case?
13 MR. STANDERFER: No, we have not. (j 14 MR. CdCHRAN: Suppose let me turn it around. 15 MR. STANDERFER: To the extent the Judge's 16 . opinion is incorrect, I would assume the gentleman will 17 take legal action. 18 MR. COCHRAN: You recognize there is no legal 19 action to be taken in a case like that. You recognize f 20 he cannot be sued for libel because he is a Federal 5 21 judge and he is protected against libel suit? 22 MR. STANDERFER: I am not a lawyer. 23 MR. COCHRAN: Then you shouldn't make that 24 statement. * ( 25 MR. STANDERFER: They can make statements. '. ] l t_ l l i L.
93 r. 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me interject. Just one 2 minute. 7s 3 I think the point you attempted to make in d 4 that part, you made. You have attempted to get Mr. 5 Standerfer to answer the question. And he is deferring 6 the answer to your specific question by saying they 7 properly quoted what the Judge said and they are not a going to give an opinion of the kind you are looking 9 .for. 10 You have asked it three times earlier and 11 twice now. And the way they are answering it earlier 12 is the way he feels it must be answered here for
~
i3 whatever reason. And I think that is very clear. hm. () 14 MR. COCHRAN: Are you suggesting you want to 15 cut me off? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: No. But I think on that one 17 item your point has been made and you can pursue other 18 things. l 19 MR. COCHRAN: This time Dr. Radford. He was L 20 the chairman of the Somatic Dose Committee on the Peer l 21 3 Committee. Is that correct? 22 MR. STANDERFER: I don't know. 23 MR. COCHRAN: Neal, can you verify that 24 statement? i 25 MR. WARD: I know he chaired the committee k. l t I i
94 F .!__ 1 and found himself at odds with the majority. 2 MR. COCHRAN: He chaired the subcommittee and 3 found himself at odds with the full committee. Does
'- 4 that make him have little credibility in your view?
5 MR. STANDERFER: I am not going to comment on 6 Dr. Radford's qualifications. 7 MR. COCHRAN: It says, although another of a the individuals cited in the Inquirer, Edward E. 9 Radford, is the former chairman of the 23 member Peer 10 Committee, he is the loan dissenter from its 1980 11 report. He, inffact, was not the loan dissenter. Dr. 12 Rossi also had the minority. 13 Isn't that correct? b~, ( )j 14 MR. STANDERFER: No. 15 MR. WARD: That is Rossi filed his own 16 report. I don't remember the techn.'.cality, but I 17 remember there was a difference. 18 MR. COCHRAN: Does this mean that what you 19 have stated, that Dr. Radford had little credibility -- 20 MR. WARD : Well, I -- 21 MR. COCHRAN: You want to stay out of this? 22 Does GPU believe Dr. Radford has little 23 credibility? 24 MR. STANDERFER: I wouldn't answer that (]) 25 question. e-
95 r- _ 1 MR. BEDELL: I was involved with the 2- preparation of this ad. What this ad was attempting to
,- 3 do was to point out that the Inqui.rer quoted four 4 scientists.- All four are not in the majority or 5 consensus view on the matter of health effects.
c, 6 We were much better prepared to discuss it 7 last month, but I think you will see Judge Kelly's 8 decision mentioned that the four scientists quoted by 9 the Inquirer were not in the majority. All we are 10 saying is that the Inquirer did not quote anybody 11 representing a consensus view on this matter, of which 12 there are hundreds, and relatively few on the other . 13 side. We were making that point.. m 14 In terms of their views being accepted by-the 15 majority of radiation scientists, they clearly have not 16 been accepted. All We Were saying is that was the 17 case. 'That was the point. We~were not making a
.18 statement about their competence, about their training
_19 or background or anything. We were simply pointing out 20 they were not part of the consensus view and the 21 Inquirer, as we said at the top of the ad, had run 22 something other than a one-sided story they would have 23 consulted the other side; which is indeed the greater 24 majority side. (~/)
~
25 MR. COCHRAN: I understood the first time you w 3 i
m m mmmm 96 I~-" L_ 1 said that; and I agreed with you with regard to your 2 assessment of the Inquirer. But that is not all you 3 were saying. O 4 You, in fact, were quoting a judge. And you 5 are not prepared to stand behind the quotes you are 6 using. Now, I can do the same thing. I can say I know 7 full well that Mr. Standerfer is an extremely competent 8 engineer and manager and has had a long history of good 9 government service at the Stanford Reservation. 10 But if I put out an ad and quoted some 11 environmental organization that took a shot at Mr. 12 Standerfer to demean his credibility as a technical _ _ , 13 person, I think that would be wrong. It is quite
] 14 different to say that I disagree with a technical is opinion of Mr. Standerfer. And we can sit here and 16 argue about the technical fact. And I can make my case 17 on the technical merits.
18 If you won't stand behind what the person you 19 are quoting Says, and you are not prepared to do that, 20 you shouldn't be quoting him. 21 MR. BEDELL: You are missing the point 22 entirely. It is not for us to stand behind the views 23 of a Federal judge. 24 MR. COCHRAN: It is if you put it in the (]) 25 newspaper. L_ _
97 ( i MR. BEDELL: It is not. It is simply to 2 . point out from a sampling of the ruling that that judge 3 made that the people he was talking about are not in
.O 4 the maj ority and we quoted his ruling. We are not 5 second guessing the Court. He spent months hearing ~
6 that case and trying that case. He made his decision 7 and we quoted it. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't want you getting angry. 9 with me because I want to keep:the meeting going. But
-10 I think your point has been made on your feelings on 11 the article.
12 . MR. COCHRAN: The' point is-understood by 1
- 6-
. -13 everybody in the room except GPU.
- ((:])-
; -u THE CHAIRMAN: I think they understand the is point you are trying to make, but I think I heard them 16 say you have to read both this and the Philadelphia l 17 Inquirer article together-to get a balanced opinion.
p l 18 Which means they did not intend to present or-19 give a balanced opinion. That is their part of it. 20 They were giving the other sideoflthe story, which was 21- not balanced either necessarily. And they are saying L 22 you have to read them both together. l 23 MR. STANDERFER: Exactly. THE' CHAIRMAN: So if Tom takes --
} 24 25 MR. COCHRAN: It is just as imbalanced as on k..
L
98 7 La_ 1 the other side? 2 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. 3 THE. CHAIRMAN: But he admitted that early on. (b 4 And to get a balanced opinion, you need to read the 5 Inquirer. article. They are just as scued one way as 6 the Inquirer the other. I am not saying I agree with 7 that. 8 MR. COCHRAN: Remind me to send you some 9 rules laid down by a British intelligence expert on 10 sort of the Ten Commandments on effective propaganda. 11 -One is to tell the truth. , And you have missed that. 12 MR. STANDERFER: We tell the truth. 13 MR. COCHRAN: To say,the-person has little l. ({-)- 14 credibility it is not true of Dr. Morgan. 15 MR. STANDERFER: We do not claim the Inquirer 16 lied; and we wouldn't agree that we didn't tell-the 17 truth. 18 -THE CHAIRMAN: I must admit in reading the 19 Philadelphia Inquirer article and seeing what your 20 comments were at th e last meeting, I felt they grossly 21 . misrepresented what was taking place in certain areas. 22 But I feel the same is true of what you have 23 done. And I don't think either one is right. And all
'24 I_am_trying to do is explain what I think you are
- (]) 25 saying. And I think one is just as bad as the other. I L-
I- .99 1 And if you think that is necessary, that is the way it 2 is. I think that is unfortunate.' 3 MR. COCHRAN: There is another commandment O 4 you ought to think about. You must be convincing to 5 your enemy.and,not to yourself. And that is the 6 difference between Tokyo Rose -- 7 MR. STANDERFER: We have nobody that we 8 consider enemies. 9 MR. COCHRAN: You understand this is from an io intelligence officer in World War II. 11 MR. STANDERFER: There is nobody that we are 12 terming our enemies or treating as an enemy. 13 MR. COCHRAN: I am not suggesting you are, [() 14 and I apclogize if I was. That is one of the is commandments of effective propaganda in wartime 16 situation. 17 As it applies to you, you should be is convincing the people that you are trying to turn 19 around, as opposed to being convincing to yourselves 20 and the people you are fighting the air with. And I 21 think that is where you are falling down in your ads. 22 MR. SMITHGALL: I think it bears mentioning 23 this is not an isolated response to the Philadelphia Inquirer article. We are bombarded with television (]) 24 25 advertisements and daily newspaper advertisements. And (
100 .r-t_ 1 they are in the same vein. So I r preciate Tom's line 2 of-questioning.
- 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I do too. And I would want to (O~. 4 be counted in the ones that aren't well influenced by 5 some of the media influences you use. I think you do 6 yourself a disservice'from my standpoint in the way you 7 go about doing some of the things you do.
8 At the last meeting I think you answered the 9 questions very directly; and the answers seemed to be 10 very knowledgeable, and I thought were quite 11 _ impressive. And I think you do a disservice in the way 12 you handle some of the other things. .
.r ._ 13 You take that for what it is worth.
)- 14 MR. STANDERFER: And we listen to opinions is and the policy _ with regard to public programming will 16 respond and are responding to such opinion.
17 MR. BEDELL: I would like to point out people 18 involved with the preparation of the ad do not agree 19 that section of the ad was skewed. 20 What it is simply saying, the people quoted 21 by the Inquirer were not in the consensus group of 22 scientists. They are a small minority compared to the 23 consensus group of scientists. That is what Judge 24 Kelly's opinion said. And that is the only-point we (]} 25 were trying to make.
'7 101 c;
f .i THE CHAIRMAN: You may think-that; and, if 2 you do, it~is unfortunate. You may disagree with our 3 opinion and we may. disagree with'your opinion.. Tom 4 .Smithgall: felt he wanted to say something and I did
.5 too.
6 MR. ROTH: 'I think Frank and your technical I 7 : staff and people are being severely misled by your a Public Information or misinformation department on the 9 way they are-doing things. I am getting that. feeling 10 very:much so. 11 I concur with what Tom Cochran said as far-as 12 what is said.to you and your background and there are- ~ 13 competent people who have a desire for the public to 14 know and feel it should be answered straight forward. 15 .I think the advice that department is giving
- 16 you is Certainly Causing more problems and-it is 17 certainly exacerbating just what you want to get rid 18 of. I just thought I would like'to make that statement
!' 19 :to you. Somewhere.along the.line I think you are-20 getting misled. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other comments from 'the
,- 22 Panel on this subject?
23 MR. SMITHGALL: I want to go on to a 24 different subject. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I will suggest after this , 4 h
102 1 question that we move on. 2 MR. SMITHGALL: I asked at the last meeting 3 for a register of the GPU turnover of radiation 4 . workers. Do you have that information? 7 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: That was in the response. 6 There are three items discussed in that letter, and the 7 turnover rate is there. 8 MR. SMITHGALL: Thank you. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: The next item is topics for 10 Advisory Panel discussion with the NRC Commissioners at 11 the June 20, 1985, meeting in Washington, D.C. 12 Mike, if you wouldn't mind helping us through 13 this?
) 14 One will be the request of the NRC to.take 15 action on the letter that I am going to send them on 16 the health ef f ects. So that will be the first item.
17 MR. MASNIK: In the March 29 memorandum to is the staf f of the Commission, there was a series of 19 staff requirements. And that document has been 20 Provided to the Panel. 21 But basically there were three staf f actions. 22 The first dealing with the Panel's involvement in 23 epidemiological studies, which you just touched on. (~N 24 The second was the staff was to provide the Commission A..) 25 with an overview of the epidemiological studies taken (.
- e. . -.
103
- j.
i i to date.; And.the third was guidance essentially to me 2 in providing you with information, to the. Panel. 3 Then additionally two-other issues brought up
# 4 . tonight, the enforcement action.and investigations.
5 That makes a total of five items.. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you calling enforcement 7 action one and investigation another? 8 MR. MASNIK: That is correct.- 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments from 10 the Panel members on the health ef fects issue, the 11 issue on staff'providing us with -- the Commissioners 12 with an overview of the studies done to date, guidance _n_ 13 regarding info to the panel, enforcement action and W L( ); 14 investigation. Any problems with_ those items? 15 (No esponse.) 16 THE-CHAIRMAN: Any additions to that? 17 (No response.) 18 MR.-ROTH: Why wasn't the Commission asking 19 .the staff or counsel to set up some criterion? I 20 remember quoting the Chairman saying we were supposed 21 to receive everything. 22 MR. MASNIK: We were directed to review the 23 current policy on making the information available and 24 to revise the policy to delineate types of documents (]) 25 that could be sent and those that could be made for i A -
104 1 unrestrictive use and these with restrictions for 2 dissemination and those that should not be provided. 3 THE' CHAIRMAN: And it is there that we should [} 4 be looking for some kind of update? 5 MR. MASNIK: Well, the Commission will 6 receive the document prepared by the staff and, again 7 in this case the Office of General Counsel, and should 8 come to some decision and present that to the Panel. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess what I am saying is io hopefully they will be in a position to do it at our 11 meeting? 12- MR. MASNIK: I can't speak to that. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a suggestion that they will be able to do that for us so we can get some of ( , 14 15 these issues resolved. 16 MR. MASNIK: I suspect that they were listed 17 in the letter to the Commission. is THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask if the Commission 19 has received the info from the staff so they can act on 20 it? 21 MR. MASNIK: Yes, they have. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else that anyone 23- feels should be added? 24 (No response.) {} 25 THE CHAIRMAN: If anybody has any additional i
105 I L_ 1 topics they think should be added, I will be happy to 2 do that between now and'when the letter goes out. 3 If there is nothing else, we can go right to - [_,) 4 public comment and I will take the person who has their 5 hand up. 6 MS. SMITH: This panel wasn't slapped in the 7 face today, it was punched in the face with that ad.
-8 What are you going to do about it?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to personally pay 10 for an ad in the Washington Post. And I say that semi 11 facetiously because I don't know what I can do. I 12 obviously don't have the financial resources. r 13 I expressed my upset about the ad earlier and v
\j. 14 I don't know what else beyond that I plan on doing. I 15 am not happy with that. I have spoken my feelings 16 strongly. I will sleep on that for now.
17 MS. SMITH: Do you really think after that 18 incident that this panel has a real purpose? And I ask 19 that out of pure innocence. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think the influence of 21 this Panel or purpose of this Panel is affected in 22 anyway by the ad that was taken out in the newspapers 23 today.
/~)^ 'v 24 I feel that the Panel or several members 25 expressed they were upset by the way the ad was run.
3 u .
106 f' But I don't think that has.to do with our purpose. 1.
-2 MS. SMITH: There is obviously no respect for l, -
~3 this panel from GPU.or Met Ed.
m -
? 4' THE-CHAIRMAN: Concerning that ad there was a s lack."of professionalism in the way that was handled.
6 Again, I1 don't know if that hurts the way we, 7 ,are operating or our' purpose for existing. We'are not
~
s here-to.necessarily agree with GPU on everything they 9 do; and they may not. agree wita (verything we do. 10 On this we have very diverse opinions. And I 11 am upset by the fact there was no real attempt to even 12 Lapologize or show concern for what took place.- That is
+ 13 .'the thing that concerns me the mest. .
c 14 MS. SMITH: Their consistency with lack of 15 respect continues. 16 MS. LEE: At the risk of being repetitious, I 17 would like to reiterate what I repeated before about my 8 18 concerns, and I think the-concerns of the majority of 4 ig the people in this area.
' 20 (1) The initial releases that came from the ,
L 21 plant, which has not been resolved as yet, and probably 22 never will be to everybody's satisfaction. The venting
. 23 of the 56,000 curies of krypton following the accident with the promise that there wouldn't be any more. And
( )' 24 25 then GPU subsequently followed with six years of
,g,- y v, - , , _ .-, ,_.z_,,-..mer% , y c,,-----.,,,_,.-,,_,yc.,.-,,,m, y,,,,w%,,,,,,,,,,~w,.,yp.--,_,-w--_m.m.,,py,,,_,,_,m,,cmm-,,-,-w,-.w, , ,
107-r- I' 1 venting into the atmosphere, along with the testing of 2 the steam generator tubes which created more venting,
-3 or at least an increase in radioactivity.
4 Now,-we see where they have lifted the plenum 5 and the advertisement was, Just thought you would like
- to know. - They neglected to let the public know there 7 would be releases into the atmosphere.
8 It seems to me there.is some selectivity 9 going on with GPU as to what they-would like the public 10 to know. 11 My concern now is with the initial cleanup 12- that will now proceed. In speaking to an expert early
, 13 on in the accident, who is Dr. Chauncey Keffer, who .(7) 14 said to me, "This is nothing compared to what you are ,
is going to see when cleanup proceeds. He said, Then you 16 better start to worry." 17 My question in watching what they propose to i- 18 do, with all the human errors, and I use the word y 19 " human error" lightly. In the procedures that they 20 plan to use for removal of this fuel. In lifting it 21 from the water, the question in the back of my mind is I 22 each time they are removing fuel from the water, how 23 much is being radiated additionally into the 24 containment and how much more is going to be vented? (]} 25 And along with the venting, how much in particular such L,. i-4
~,~w -en~e. meg-,-.m--eevn,emaem,rn w-n.--, em-me--w- ev- s-o w --ev-e-e,-wmn--- m - w r-e--m w w > mw o--o w v -rv-m-v---.e>-en,ge-enn--.-e *, p- a,.,emm>--r---,r-w,.or-,,--eem--,
108 C 1 as plutonium and cesium? 2 The bottom line in everything that is going
, 3 on are the health effects. I have been saying it for Is \') 4 111 years. That is the bottom line. This is all 5 cumulative. Every dose is cumulating in your body and 6 is. passed on from one generation to the next. And I 7 would like to know who is keeping the store? Nobody.
8 Nobody is keeping the store. Thank you. 9 MS.. DAVENPORT: Deborah Davenport. This is
.10 also is in reference to getting notification of 11 lifting.
12 I would like to know if it's considered to be ja .a major operation or something that is a risk G. . . () 14 operation, because if local officials are not alerted is to this when it starts and an emergency situation 16 arises and they have not received proper notice, or if 17 there is an evacuation if there are sudden releases. is Will we ever know? Who is notifying whom of these 19 situations? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me tell you from my 21 standpoint as an elected official and maybe as chairman 22 of the Panel. I was called and the message was, Late 23 in the afternoon that the plenum lift was completed at 2:30 or whatever and there were no problems with it. (]) 24 25 But again I received that and I don't know
'k
109 i
+ 1 who else was notified.
2 MS. DAVENPORT: Who is alerted before this 3 starts? Are people on standby in different counties in I,\") I know hopefully nothing 4 case something should occur? 5 will happen. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: They outline -- if you would 7 like to hear what risks are involved, I think somebody 8 could speak to that. But they outlined when they 9 explained the procedure, the relative risks that were 10 involved with the plenum lift. And it is my 11 understanding they were not significant. 12 Many different things could have gone wrong
. 13 without any release or anything like that. I don't
() 14 know if anyone from NRC wants to speak further to it. 15 MR. TRAVERS : The eve'nt is a milestone in the 16 cleanup. But we had responsibility, as we continue to 17 have it, in evaluating the risk associated with these 18 events. And essentially our analysis, a very detailed 19 one, of what was proposed as the risk of the 20 radiological consequence was very low. 21 As a result, it is more like a normal kind of 22 engineering evolution that was completed without 23 incident. (} 24 25 MS. DAVENPORT: MR. COCHRAN: I am not sure I agree. I would agree with that with l
110 'C~ i respect to the risk. It is hard to see how you can 2 generate a high health risk associated with that
, 3 maneuver.
\l 4 I can see how you could be concerned with 5 occupational exposure or severe economic accidents; but 6 'it is hard for me to get a release of activity out of 7 the' plant is -- s MS. DAVENPORT: Secondly, with reference to 9 this, to any operation taking place in the plant, this 10 would be in regard to evacuation. .Apparently on both n sides of the river roads are being repaired and torn 12 up. i3 My two year old son died in a car. accident -- [... {)' 14 this is not my son, I am reading from'an article. -- 15 during TMI accident evacuation. The accident occurred 16 at 8:30.am on the morning of April 5 in the eastbound 17 lane of Route 322 near Kunkle. That fatality and three is other fatalities probably would not have happened. 19 My question is this, can we really be sure a 20 careful notice, if this was not, is there some way that 21 things like this are checked out so a two year old is 22 not killed in a car wreck? 23 Last of all, the lawsuits that have come 24 through are both- beyond the 10 mile range. And should {} 25 people want to evacuate there are no plans. They are l
\.
111
-i - e_. I not adequate. Is there anything that the panel can 2 look into with respect to evacuation?
9 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Quite frankly, I don't feel ( ,
\~/ 4 .that is something that we can get into the kind of 5 detail you are talking about and to kid ourselves into 6 thinking we can do any kind of justice. That is county, 7 responsibility. I think it has to be dealt with at a that level.
9 We as a panel, I don't feel can get into 10 evacuation plans or completeness of them or whether 11 they are satisfactory. I think.that is their primary 12 responsibility. And if they are not sensitive to the g.-., 13 area of TMI, then truly that is a problem. But I. don't pd
-i ) ,
14 think this Panel act on that. 15 I am not saying it is not an important 16 subject. But I don't think that is something this 17 Panel can do justice to to the extent you are talking 18 ab'out. I suggest you approach your county 19 Commissioners and ask them the question. 20 MR. SMITHGALL: I think your effective input 21 is there rather than with our Panel. I think that has 22 been somewhat shown in other counties. That is the 4 23 area that you want to apply the pressure. ('T 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Truly the County of Lancaster V 25 has an evacuation plan that you can go to the county I L - L
112 C i commissioners and ask them questions and get assistance 2 if you want it. In the city we get. involved as it'
, a relates to the city.
\J 4 So your elected officials locally are the
.5 ones you should go to and make them accountable to you.
6 MS. DAVENPORT: You have established there 7 was a transfer of water from Unit 1 to Unit 2 during a the accident. 9 Would it be possible to ask for a timetable 10 revised as it occurred in Unit 2? In other words, can 11 you look into a timetable of events during the TMI 12 accident Unit 2 now that you know there was a transfer 13 of fuel water from Unit 1 to 2? (h].) i4 I think.that points out some things may have is occurred. Can you ask or look into further what 16 happened during t,he accident? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to try and answer is the question as directly as I can. 19 What took place during the accident is not an 20 item under which we are getting into. We are 21 responsible to comment on the actual cleanup. 22 We did debate the health effects part because 23 there are panel members that feel we should because there was nowhere else to go on that. We went to the
-((') 24 25 NRC and hopefully we will be able to get into health 9
_. . , _ . , _ _ . _ _ _ , , . - , . . - - . - , ,m_ . , _ . , - _ - . _ , , - , _ _ , _ , , _ _ .- .- , ~ _ _ .,,,
[ 113 1 1 effects. 2 As to the question you just asked, I don't 3 think that is the Panel's purview. And again, I think
.q J 4 if you have questions on that, you will have to seek 5 other assistance. I don't think the panel can get into 6 that. We need to focus in on what is our 7 responsibility.
8 MS. LEE: If you can't do any more than you 9 have done with GPU, what guarantee do you have in the 10 future.to prevent a repetition of that article in the 11 paper? What can do you to prevent a repetition? 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I answered that 13 question previous. My answer was, I don't know what c l) (] 14 can be done other than what I have said on this one. 15 And if there is a repeat on it, I will have to take 16 consideration at that point. 17 MR. SMITHGALL: I think you can see that the 18 ads will probably fall away as soon as they get their 19 restart decision at the end of the month. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: At this point, it is eleven 21 o' clock, which is one hour longer than we normally 22 meet. 23 MR. MASNIK: It is my understanding that we {) 24 25 will not have a meeting in June here. have the meeting with the Commissioners. We will only I-L..
114 1 THE CHAIR, MAN: That is my understanding. We 2 will meet next in July. And I would like to know from 3 the Panel members here if you have any objection to
~). . -(sJ ~ 4 meeting in Lancaster for the next meeting?
5 (No negative resonse.) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: We would aim f'or a Lancaster 7 meeting in July. 8 ( Adj ourned at 11: 00 p.m.) 9 10 11 , 12 r- 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25
l 115 1 j i 2 CERTIFICATE
'~'
3 4 I hereby certify that the proceedings 5 are contained fully and accurately in the notes 6 taken by me during the hearing of the foregoing 7 cause, and that this copy is a correct g transcript of the same. 9 10 11 12
~_
}W, 1All/
13 Gwen A. Leary, R rter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 F7 i . I
GPU Nuclear Corporation g gf Post Office Box 480 Route 441 South Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 0191 717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386 Writer's Direct Dial Number: (3
't (717) 948-8400
~
)
4000-85-S208 May 13, 1985 The Honorable Arthur E. Morris Mayor of Lancaster P.O. Box 1659 120 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17603
Dear Mayor:
At the last TMI-2 Citizen's Advisory Panel meeting, additional information was requested by the panel to supplement that provided by Mr. Hildebrand.
'" 1. Internal Doses -
Information regarding internal doses to TMI-2 cleanup workers was presented for 1984. Data regarding internal doses from the cleanup for prior years was requested. The following table lists the maximum internal doses to cleanup workers by year. Maximum Individual % of Year Internal Dose (rem) Regulatory Limit
- 1979 0.005 0.1 1980 0.003 0.06 1981 0.003 0.06 1982 0.010 0.2 1983 0.003 0.06 1984 0.007 0.14
*The regulatory limit for internal exposure to the whole body is 5 rem in a year. The principal radionuclide is Cesium-137 ;]
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utllities Corporation
Mayor Morris May 13, 1985 Page Two
- 2. Radiation Worker Turnover Experience (D)
The overall TMI-2 turnover rate for radiation workers for the last several years has been about 30-40%. This turnover is principally influenced by the fluctuating contractor work force. The turnover rate of company personnel is considerably lower.
- 3. Skin Doses-Information on skin doses from skin contaminations for 1984 was presented at the meeting. Data regarding skin doses occurring-during the cleanup from prior years was also requested. The following table lists the skin doses to cleanup workers for the period 1979 (post-accident) through 1984.
Skin Dose No. of % of Range (Rem) Workers Total Less than 0.001 413 70 'g3 0.001 to 0.005 128 21 0.005 to 0.05 46 8 0.050 to 0.'1 3 0.5 - 0.100 to 2.3 3 0.5 T97 Note: The regulatory limit for skin is 7.5 rem per quarter, or 30 rem per year. The dose from skin contamination is typically to a very small portion of the skin. Very truly yours, F. R. Standerfer Director, TMI-2 FRS/ pat O- cc: R. W. Heward, Jr. E. E. Kintner B. J. Snyder W. D. Travers
OPU Nucleer Corporation NUCI88F a Post Office Box 480 Route 441 South Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 0191 717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386 Writer's Direct Dial Number: O V (717) 948-8461 4410-85-L-0108 Document ID 0249A April 3Q, 1985 TMI Program Office Attn: Dr. B. J. Snyder Program Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Dr. Snyder:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (THI-2) Operating License No. DPR-73 w Docket No. 50-320 Defueling Senedule Update - In my letter 4410-85-L-0038, dated February *15, 1985, I indicated that a review of TMI-2 project status would be made in April. We have now conpleted a detailed schedule review of every aspect of the work required to commence defueling. We have arrived at a project schedule which integrates all aspects of preparations to remove fuel, and considers new information developed over the last year. The integrated schedule indicated that we will be able to commence defueling operations in September 1985. l l The critical path to commencing defueling is the time required to install and check out, in series, the several parts of the first of a kind i defueling system in the restrictive circumstances of THI-2. Further, we are finding the licensing of the special defueling operators is an l original, time consuming process. We see no reason to change the remaining target dates for the THI-2 clean up provided in the President UPUN's July 2, 1984 letter to you, and we ! v continue to work towards those targets. We will be making periodic l reassessments of THI-2 program and schedule as we progress and learn more, and we will, of course, keep you fully advised. I GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidlary of the General Public Utilities Corporation
Dr.' B. J. Snyder April 30, 1965 4410-85-L-0108 Let me repeat the assurances in the July 2 letter that "we intend to go forward witn the THI-2 cleanup as rapidly as possible comensurate with required care for the safety of the public and our personnel." Sincerely,
/s/ F. R. Standerfer F. R. Standerfor Vice President / Director, TMI-2 FRS/JCA/eml Attachment r o
cc: Deputy Program Director - TMI Program Office, Dr. W. D. Travers O
3 9 i i SJHCULE CESCT,!PTI N JAN ; FEB i i MAR APR MAY JUN f i n stRvict CRANE ? ' l""*"'"8 0"" ' so" .aae - . se au I > I l l l a r. f fuel TRANSFER SYSTEW 3 ' l '"' ' ' " : """o " *j l eI ! f RLENUW,RgWOVAL 4 g i *at*S
- Ste ***aovat
' (ID*c#l '.)!E06l A
1 PLOOD A ROOL g - T I l (
; t ,
S C ANISTE R , wee .ve 4 HANDLING SR100E g i ottivre / seat,ase 7 , s N U.'I" SucRORT STRUCTURE / p i ottive#' / SQ*'fa#t 'SV**o#? 9'auctyng, '" 6 Ru e's"h'e't funt f 864TPomu to*Teant s0 K RLATFORW j t
. _, , T N 4 SOUTN 7 o e s t em. *ae 4 ott wen
,. t. A T P O R W s
. I B
PUEL REWOVAL TOOLING.
'ACMS 4 EOUIRWENT g i *at 4 otL'vt* r cowatttt t >*?taat DEPUELtNo s ATER I Lq i soetemet , otttyt. , ,,,,att i .
CLEANu* SYSTEW t
- I r . .
CEb"a'N"Nc'cteunt
.- E R A T O R TR AINING.
'UEL REWOVAL II ; vanewswo
- taw ; hoNoEN'. , f
[ I i FUEL RtWOVAL 12 l l Yacav'mta= a t S e v' t$lut $3*VelltL*
*twovak ftCa L a'wuth
% (i,ytt t o e n ,,o EM*vE5SEL PUEL fa RE OVAL - -
i CSA CEFUELING ' '18vt 'tt"
- Law 4' **t t iuswa n, f .3 i e
IS OECON / Dost REQUCTION , *5 '"""""*"o'to' ' 'u "'"o S v** o"' o t e e" ' o r : oa 'o o s t a
. g i l
I rust sNIRP:No systtW ,
- o t e a 't a'=o s t a t to= , +
tu-T i l5:*4p F AciLity 9 ' e ' 5 " * * ' e ' c a " o "
o'* "'ao I l, loAsteWaNAosWsNT ;, ; , ,
co"'"ae, ,,,- eot j t m ets o= 4 co=se.ve I I i l ! i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY ! JUN I
r^ JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LEGEND: ) s s- SCMEDukEO aCTivite
! I i l . 6--@ Cow *LEf te ACterste
. , t i
, 's O ulLESTONE Ottillow POINT r - P wah*0bvfMTine uOnt tonens atoam y e 0 060 0
- Aj *o.
-N m ;
'3. l N,
,8.,, m , '
'" 5 ' a ", ' - '" f......., -
l r ~~ - i ( 'a 6 see-o. N i=s'att p l 1 MILESTONE DATES i l Liut [ 8
, & ot t ems *TiO= M L t 2 Puth tonesean testan 3,36 songTALL g
- y' I 3 etwort 4 Stpet pggeww t,36 e6 eon *** eoo. e,es
( i a
..,g ,n,y e. a- o.. ,,..
i . .n...a. ..c. ,u...ei. .,..
; ; . E..... ..t. ,t., . , . .
- ........a.... O, ....... .,..
( ; . se staat saa., awag assevase,et
% INsfaLL 6 a
~~
s B ,, 664ws es*vtsstL #we6 opgg
% assovak ft$m Pham l
. ea ,
S *w . a. . Ta 57
, i o ., ,tummortA A .?
. smaa' int gett we cowatttt a it9' twf tat o es .g g T i f,0 e g i e
~
h { mal . 0*u/wat seenDvat 4 p s 1 t ' ^g % i s
)l
[3 s
- l tont U tonene C
w amL, 'ufL *twovat ts-vttstL ruft etwovat tweentimens i i I at t a'=o *
- i
. i ;
l 1 I eview treetw t=ointraiwe i I seta cases , ena= sera s,atiow , sta - i l f
'--x I, j i
i
-s I,
f
' *u g,O.
Ohisem . $1* t's t 06w [M of.... . co . .v e , . . e s i,,
; . l .. . . .... .. ... ....
l l ! PROGRAu CONTROLS
, I DEPARTMENT t3.cewat eastt'esettit, =cavat a se=0=wat ent't t = t o w1_q ' s .setas, e ,e et i ,
i ..G' .g *t..'y e..'t. s.'t'l'ee. g7,*eva6s e se t l 6905 PROGRAW MASTER
, SCHEDULE AUG SEP CCT NOV DEC * " '- ~"' "'
, JUL l j ; a t,iC l p W S - 9 5
- 0 2 e'
! i i O l k
, - .~.
g d THREE MILE ISLAND I Pusuc HEALTH FUND PMonostrien..PesessvLvassa 19103 (.16) 876 3000 TELD 938 309 vuLacc mm m.sas. t May 1, 1985
Dear Friend:
1 On April 18, 1985 Judge Rambo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania approved the expenditure of $243,033 for a research project designed to investigate the pattern of adult and childhood cancers in the TMI region. The study will last eighteen months and be conducted by Dr. Mervyn W. Susser of Columbia University. , The research project consists of a frequency and distribution study of childhood and adult cancers to locate any unusual frequency. in time or proximity in space of cancer cases in the TMI region and an appropriate follow-up study if the cluster analysis proves statistically significant. The cluster analysis technique will ( permit the identification of so called " pockets" or " outbreaks" of cancer in any local area of the TMI region, and will permit the testing of hypotheses about the causes of such clusters, if identified. - Dr.-Susser, the principal investigator, is currently the Gertrude H. Sergievsky Professor of Epidemiology and Director of the Sergievsky Center for Epidemiology of Columbia University. He has extensive international experience and has received several international awards recognizing his achievements. t c Copies of the Public Health Fund's petition for funding, i the research recommendation, and Dr. Susser's Curriculum Vitae , will soon be available from the clerk of the court in Harrisburg
- and at all public libraries in the TMI region. A limited number of copies will be available from the Public Health Fund, upon request.
l Sincerely yours, L . J nathan Berger, Ph.D. Executive Secretary
, Public Health Fund r
JB/ deb i I
.,.--r-----gr,....,evn. , - w-- c,- ,-r-. - - ,-- . . , - - - - - w-, --
-i DISTRIBUTION' LIST-FOR MATERIAL-TO THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE
/ DECONTAMINATION OF THE
~THREE MILE' ISLAND UNIT'2 Chairman' Palladino 1149-H Mr. Thomas Magness-Commissioner Roberts 1149-H: Council on Environmental Quality
- Commissioner: Asselstine 1149-H 722 Jackson. Place, NW Comissioner Bernthal .1149-H Washington, DC 20006 !
Commissioner Zech- 1149-H
' W. J.1 Dircks, EDO 6209 MNB_ PANE i
- H.'.R. Denton,' NRR P-428 P.O. Box 268 .e B. J. Snyder 5031-AR . - Middletown, PA 17057
.W. Travers (5 copies) TMI Site Mail Pouch M..Masnik 5031-AR Mr.-Frank D. Davis -l R. A. Weller 5031-AR 200 Gettysburg Pike R. Lo; 5031-AR 'Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 4 E D. Cleary Rm. 234-x .C. Hickey P-314 Ms. Beverly Hess 1037 McClay Street
~F. Congel P-712'
. J. -Ze rbe 1013-H Harrisburg, PA 17103 M. 'Libarkin; ACRS _ 1016-H.
T.sMajor ., '1016-H Mr. Edward Charles .
'J.~. Cook -0PA MNB-3709 90 Nittany Drive J.s Fouchard MNB-3709 Mechanicsburg, PA .17055.
R. Browning, NMSS 623-SS ' T Docket File 50-320 016 Mr. John H. Murdoch 44 Kensington Drive , ^ PDR- 016 , LPDR 016 Camp Hill, PA 17011 DCS 016 i ..
. TMI Alert - c/o Kay Pickering L Dr. Randy Roig, Director 315 Peffer Street Power Plant- Siting Program .
Harrisburg, PA 17102 - Department of Natural Resources .
- Tawes Building B-3 Dr. Frank Parker %
School of Engineering g ' Annapolis, MD 21401 Nashville, TN '37203 - Ms. Ruth Gentle - 1 Virginia Circle Mr. Richard Chamberlain
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Mechanicsburg,-PA :17055' ; 475 Park Ave., South Susquehanna Valley Alliance New York, NY 10016 P.O. Box 1012-Lancaster, PA - 17603 Mr. Dave Janes . Analysis and' Support Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > i- - 401 M Street, NW (ARN-458C) Washington, DC 20640
., N Mr. Kenneth L. Miller, Director-
[ 1 Division of Health Physics and Associate Professor Radiology
- *8 I Milton S. Hershey Medical Center i Pennsylvania State University Hershey, PA 17033
t I Mr. Bob Leyse Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director E EPRI-NSAC Bureau of Radiation Protection i 3412 Hillview Ave. Dept. of Environmental Resources l Palo Alto, CA 94303 P.O. Box 2063 i Harrisburg, PA 17120 r Mr. Willis Bixby I U.S. Department of Energy Elizabeth Marshall i P.O. Box 88 736 Florida Ave. E Middletown, PA 17057 York, PA 17404 Mr. F. R. Standerfer. Director Mr. Thomas Smithgall i Three Mile Island Unit 2 2122 Marietta Ave.
; GPU Nuclear Corporation Lancaster, PA 17603 3 P.O. Box 480 l Middletown, PA 17057 Niel Wald, M.D.
j Professor and Chainnan
'- Mr. J. J. Byrne Department of Radiation Health r Three Mile Island Unit 2 University of Pittsburgh ) .GPU Nuclear Corporation A512 Crabtree Hall P.O. Box 480 Pittsburgh, PA 15261 3
i Middletown, PA 17057 The Honorable Robert Rei.d
- Mayor of Middletown Dr. Gordon Robinson L
60 W. Emaus Street Associate Professor of p Middletown, PA 17057 Nuclear Engineering i 231 Sackett Building k University Park, PA 16802 E Ms. Mary Hartnett g The Honorable Arthur E. Morris Mayor of Lancaster 109 Cambridge Dr. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 P.O. Box 1559 120 N. Duke Street Susan Fitzgerald h Lancaster, PA 17605 Philadelphia Inquirer i R 400 N. Broad Street Mr. John Minnich, Chainnan Philadelphia, PA 19101 [ Dauphin County Commissioners P.O. Box 1295 Dr. William Kirk Harrisburg, PA 17108 Environmental Protection Agency TMI-2 Field Station Dr. Henry Wagner 100 Brown Street John Hopkins School of Hygiene Middletown, PA 17057 615 N. Wolfe Street i Room 2001 Mrs. Ann Trunk Baltimore, MD 21205 143 Race Street Middletown, PA 17057 Dr. Thomas Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council Mr. Joel Roth Suite 300 RO I, Box 411 1350 New York Ave., tM Halifax, PA 17032 Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Glenn Hoenes Mr. Ford Knight Pacific Northwest Laboratory Westinghouse Electric Corp. P.O. Box 999 Waste Technology System Div. Richland, WA 99352 P.O. Box 10864 Pittsburgh, PA 15236
kl l Pro-Women c/o Judy Branett 320 Elm Court 1 Middletown, PA 17057 Joyce Corradi Concerned Mothers and Women on TMI 2 South Nissley Drive Middletown, PA 17057 Mr. Joseph J. DiNunno 44 Carriage Lane Annapolis, MD 21401 Mr. Ad Crable Lancaster New Era 8 W. King Street Lancaster, PA 17603 f 4 .
-, , -}}