ML20133E315
| ML20133E315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1985 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACTMI, NUDOCS 8508070641 | |
| Download: ML20133E315 (142) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:n UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORGWAJ_ IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: ADVISORY PANEL ON THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2 O f LOCATION: LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA PAGES: 1 - 137 DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1985 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. O Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 8508070641 850718 (202) 347-3700 F)DR ADOCK 0500 0 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
[E CR23794.0
' FIELD /sg i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION 4 OF THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2 5 6 City Council Chambers 208 North Duke Street 7 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 8 Thursday, July 18, 1985 9 7:00 P.M. 10 11 PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT: 12 ARTHUR MORRIS, Chairperson O _c 13-14 MICHAEL MASNIK THOMAS SMITHGALL 15 THOMAS COCKRAN 16 JOEL ROTH 17 ARTHUR MORRIS 18 NIEL WALD 19 GORDON ROBINSON 20 i JOSEPH DiNUNNO 21 ELIZABETH MARSHALL 22 KENNETH MILLER 23 l 24 25 !b i
. . _ , . . _ . . _ _ . ~ _ _ . _ . . . _ 2 1 2 AGENDA ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION 3 OF TMI-2 4 5
- 1. Chairman's Introductory Remarks and Comments -
6 Chairman Morris 7 8 2. Cleanup Status 9 a. NRC - NRC Staff 10 b. GPUNC - GPUNC Staff 11
- 3. GPUNC Defueling Program - GPUNC Staff 12
,{ } i3 4. Public C : ment - Chairman Morris .
~
t I BREAK 15 16 5. Feview of Health Effects Studies Conducted in the. 17 Vicinity of the TMI-2 Site in Response to the 18 1979 Accident - NRC Staff. 19
- 6. Agenda Planning Session - Scheduling Future 20 Topics for Discussion - Chairman Morris 21 22 7. Public Comment - Chairman Morris 23 s
24 25
-O v
Q J
3
,/'
1 (s)- 1 THE CHAIRMAN: The first item of business 2 is the Chairman's introductory comments. 3 I would like to comment on the meeting that 4 was held in Washington with the Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission on, I think, June 20. There were several 6 items we did talk about. A couple I would like to 7 mention. 8 One dealt with the flow of information from 9 the NRC to the panel. We felt, and I am going to 10 paraphrase now, that certain information was not 11 provided to us in a timely fashion; and we felt the 12 flow of information needed to be improved upon. It is my understanding at this point they (])
~ '
33 u are predraf ting their policy and will be issuing 15 something more in keeping with what the panel would 16 like to see happen; and that is that more information 17 be shared to us. Some maybe confidential in nature is and the public should be aware of that. There may be ig some pieces of information we are requested to keep 20 to ourselves. But we felt we would like to be in a 21 position to at least to have read it and then we 22 would keep those types of information in confidence. 23 Another item we discussed was the 24 compliance schedule. "he NRC felt they didn't really 25 see a need to get into issuing a compliance schedule
.L0
4 s., L (_/ 6 1 at this time. However, they did agree to monitor 2 whether or not GPU stayed on schedule. And they 3 would be willing to entertain a compliance schedule 4 at sometime in the future, if GPU was not able to 5 keep to the present schedule they had given us. 6 The third and last item I wanted to mention 7 was in regards to the health effects discussion. a Many of the public that attended our meetings have 9 asked that the panel at least be in a position to 10 have people come before us who have either been 11 involved in studies or completed studies and present 12 them to the panel, and particularly to the public; - 'r^T 13 and to allow the public to ask questions and better ' q) 14 understand the studies. In that regard, the public 15 would act as a conduit. 16 In the past, the NRC has not felt that that 17 is something we should get into. However, after much la thought and discussion, they are presently taking 19 under advisement the whole issue. It is our 20 understanding that things look pretty good for us to 21 be able to discuss health effects studies at 22 meetings. 23 We told them in the last meeting, if we did 24 not receive their decision by tonight, we would feel 25 free to begin hearing health effect studies this J
I 1 5 \ (10_) i evening. We have not heard from them at this 2 particular time and we do have an item on our agenda 3 regarding this particular subj ect matter. 4 That completes a pretty quick summary of 5 the meeting. I don't know if anyone on the panel has 6 anything they would like add. 7 MR. SMITHGALL: The transcript from the 8 last meeting. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: We always get them within to three weeks of the meeting, so we should have gotten 11 it last week. 12 MR. MASNIK: The transcript was delayed in
,{ } i3 transcription. And the duplicating also caused some
'- It was mailed out this"past Monday. So you i4 delay.
15 will probably receive it either.today or tomorrow. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: That was a different 17 transcriber than the one we normally have? 18 MR. MASNIK: That is correct. 19 MR. ROBINSON: Joe DiNunno and I met with 20 several people at Three Mile Island today to discuss 21 the subject of recriticality and prevention thereof. 22 The people that were involved with Dr. Ray 23 Murray, who was consultant for GPU and the retired 24 chairman of the department; Dick Killman, GPU; Dan P 25 Williams, Bechtel; and Pat Smith, GPU. Frank (s.o.0 J
6 () 1 Standerfer was also there for part of the meeting. 2 The major reason for this meeting was to go 3 over some of the previous considerations for 4 pre enting possible criticality, what GPU and the 5 various consultants had looked into, and why they had 6 decided on the system they had. 7 We looked and viewed on shutdown assurance 8 and the heavy borated core. We reviewed the various 9 reactivity monitoring systems that were considered to over the last several years, and why they were not il considered feasible. We reviewed the present system 12 that will be used as far as monitoring the boron is g 13 concerned. We talked about neutron monitoring for ' ^ 14 worker safety. 15 The net result of these conversations, as 16 far as I am concerned and I believe Joe too, is that 17 our concerns have been satisfied. I believe th a t 18 prudent and reasonable steps have been taken to 19 prevent recriticality. , 20 And in addition, we had a quick tour of the 21 defueling platform and various tools. 22 I must say Mike Masnik was there also from 23 the NRC. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? 25 (No response.) m
)
7 () 1 THE CHAIRMAN: The next item is the cleanup 2 status. And the agenda has changed. 3 Those that have an unchanged agenda you 4 will have NRC first and GPU second. GPU has asked to 5 lead off, followed by NRC, and then Bill Kirk will 6 91ve us a Status report. 7 So if we could at this time have the GPU a staff provide their report? 9 MR. STANDERFER: Mr. Chairman, the first to thing I would like to discuss is the schedule. 11 We presented our new schedule to you in 12 April and indicated there were three parallel paths . 9 i3 that had to be completed to start defueling. One was i4 the preparation of procedures and safety analysis, 15 basic to the paperwork associated with getting to 16 start of defueling. The second was the training and 17 the licensing of the def ueling operators. And the is third was the delivery, installation, and testing of 19 the hardware to complete the def ueling. 20 Tonight I can report that the preparation 21 of the paperwork is on schedule. The training and 2 22 plans to license the operators is on schedule. The 23 part of the defueling equipment which Dave Bucanon 24 will discuss a little later, the defueling platform 25 and the long-handled tools, are slightly ahead of ( m J
8 r7 ' .\ 1 schedule. We have had some schedule delays in some 2 of the supporting components, which I would like to 3 describe to you at this point. 4 (Using projector aids.) 5 The two canister handling bridges ar'e being 6 installed. The trolleys that go on those bridges 7 have been received. But the shields -- 8 MR. SMITHGALL: Excuse me. I don't think 9 everyone can see on this end. 10 MR. STANDERFER: Sorry. II Again, these two transfer, canister 12 transfer handling mechanisms, include a bridge, a
,[ } 13 trolley, and a shield.
14 We are installing the bridges now and the 15 trolleys have been received and are being checked 16 out. These two transfer shields are late. One is to 17 be shipped the end of this month and the next one the la first week in August. Those are the transfer 19 equipment that take the fuel canisters from the 20 reactor vessel to the deep pool, and then f rom this 21 transfer cylinder here to storage and racks here. 22 So these two components and these storage 23 racks are late in delivery; and I will describe that 24 a little bit more. I will be down to the vendor's 25 plant tomorrow. We expect to be able to ship the J
9 I (q
./ 1 first of the four racks tomorrow. You will see this 2 diagram in Dave Bucanon's talk.
3 The schedule we presented in April 4 indicated the installation of the service crane, 5 which was completed; then the installation of the 6 canister handling bridges and shields, the component 7 we have some late delivery on; followed by a installation of the rotating platform, some other 9 platforms are installed parallel to that, the tool io racks. 11 On this line, the fuel storage racks were 12 expected to be delivered in May. We would install 13 . them in the end of July, and be able to flood that
)
i4 outside pool in this time frame, leading to the start 15 - of defueling in September. 16 With the components f or this line and the 17 components for this line being late, the installation is of this rotating platf orm has been started a week 19 early. 20 Now we will have to install the canister 21 handling bridges in both the f uel handling building 22 and the reactor building. And parallel to this, 23 since we have limited crane capacity, we have to work 24 on one and then on the other one to test those. 25 The first rack should be shipped tomorrow (A v s.
l 10 .( ) I from the vendor -- and again, I will be down to their 2 plant tomorrow -- followed by the second rack, the 3 third rack, and the f ourth rack. 4 With the indexing of those racks and the 5 flooding of that pool, currently we are projecting 6 the start of defueling three weeks later from the mid 7 September date that we have held since April. I-am 8 not changing the schedule. We will continue to 9 report our progress against this original date. So 10 at the present time, we are about three weeks behind 11 that date with the def ueling starting in October, 12 Would you like copies of that diagram? - 13 (Passing _out copies.) LO 14 The other area I understood you wanted a 15 report on was funding. The proj ect this year is 16 funded at $120 million. We are proceeding along that 17 f unding path this year with no serious problems. The 18 last piece of funding that came into the project last 19 summer wa: the funding from the private utilities, 20 the EEI funding. And $25 million was the commitment 21 for this year, and-so far as of July 16 we received 22 $20,913,710. So we roughly have received $20 million 23 out of the $25 million. We expect the remaining $5 24 million in the second half of the year. 25 I am prepared to answer any questions. s
I 11 I MR. SMITHGALL: Who are your vendors for 2 these storage racks and fuel handlers? 3 MR. STANDERFER: These are all in one 4 vendor's plant, the Nuclear Energy Services Company. 5 Their plant in North Carolina, Greensboro, is the 6 plant we are having the difficulty getting the 7 fabrication completed. 8 I mentioned the trolleys are part of the 9 assemblies were delivered from their Connecticut to plant on schedule. 11 MR. SMITHGALL: The reason for the delay? 12 MR. STANDERFER: They have had fabrication But primarily they have had problems in ,{ } 13 problems. 14 the quality assurance program to record information is as they built these racks. The racks hopefully will 13 be delivered tomorrow. 17 For the last month our quality assurance is people have been in the plant retrievingiand going 19 over the paperwork to satisfy ourselves that the 20 proper quality steps were taken, because their system 21 had broken down and was unable to deliver that 22 information. 23 Some of it, for example, has to do with we 24 required intermediate measurements being made while 25 they are fabricating the component. So if some ( A
12 P) i~\ I measurements were incorrect, we didn't want them to 2 fabricate the component such that it would be wrong 3 when it was finished. 4 What we have today is a finished component I 5 that meets the finished dimensions, but we can't find 6 the intermediate measurements that we asked them to , 7 make. Since they were made to preclude a final a product that was out of spec, it is kind of of moot 9 that we can't find the intermediate measurements, for ^ 10 exampic. We have a number of those kinds of things. 11 We also hope to reach agreements with them 12 with regard to the improvement of their internal !,{ } 13 system, so on f uture components we won't have to LJ 14 spend so much time in there ourselves verifying that 23 15 the product is the quality we asked for. l 16 MR. SMITHGALL: You feel they have been 11 given enough lead time on these from the outset? 18 MR. STANDERFER: In retrospect, we have 19 enough components in there that th e capacity of this , 20 plant is taxed. We have over taxed their capacity. 21 So we have got to work with them to try and get these 22 components through the plant on our schedule. l 23 MR. ROTH: What basically was the projected 24 lead time on this? 25 MR. STANDERFER: For which? O
!G i
13 \(f~ (,) 1 MR. ROTH: When you did the initial 2 ordering for those components. 3 MR. STANDERFER: This contractor won these 4 components in competitive bidding. They also are 5 manuf acturing the canisters that f uel will be put in. 6 They received the fuel canister order, 7 roughly last November. The fuel canister -- transfer a shields were subsequent to that, around the first of 9 the year. I believe the f uel racks were ordered to earlier last fall. 1: If you would like those dates, I can get 12 those dates. , 13 MR. ROTH: I would appreciate just to see
~-
14 that. 15 MR. STANDERFER: In fact, the manager of 16 recovery programs is here.Do you have any of those 7 dates with you? 18 MR. SMITHGALL: It says in your press 19 release that you recognize the QA problems and 20 inspection in April. 21 MR. STANDERFER: The contractor was to 22 design this equipment and then build it. As he 23 start -- so the first job was to design it, and we 24 had to approve his designs. 25 As fabrication began this spring, our (O w/ s a
r 14 L 1 quality assurance audits began to find problems with 2 his record keeping, problems with retrieval of 3 information that was to be stored as the components d were fabricated. 5 MR. ROTH: You say they were the low bidder 6 on a bidding procedure? 7 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. First of all, we had a to determine they were qualified to bid; then we 9 evaluated the bids. And generally, if a contractor . 10 passes the prerequisites, the low bidder will got the 11 contract. 12 MR. ROTH: Had you done business with them s 13 befor0? I s MR. STANDERFER: Yes, we have. 15 MR. ROTH: Have you had problems similar to 16 this? 17 MR. STANDERFER: No. In fact, GPU on some 18 other work has worked with this contractor. 19 The problems are almost all centered in 20 their Greensboro shop, which is a new shop that they l 21 procured in the last year or two. And it may not be j 22 a general problem with the corporation but with the 23 work in that particular shop. 24 MR. ROTH: You also said in the press 25 release -- you didn't say, but it was said, that you T*
15 I i are attempting to secure a second vendor for the 2 canisters. 3 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. 4 MR. ROTH: Do you have a second vendor at 5 this time? 6 MR. STANDERFER: We should have a contract 7 with a second vendor next week. 8 In retrospect, last fall on the canister 9 order, I Should have split that order and placed half 10 the caniators, cince it was a volume order, with one 11 contractor and the other half with another 12 contractor. s 13 The contractor we are dealing.with is the
, (~N
\-
,\ 14 second high bidder. If this contractor hadn't gotten is that contract last fall, the other company would 16 have. 17 We transferred some training Canisters from I 18 NES to this Joseph Oat Company in Philadelphia. They i9 fabricated those satisfactory last month; and we are l 20 currently in negotiation with them to make a portion l 21 of our canisters. 22 MR. ROTH: When you have that com pa r.y , will 23 you send us that information, who they are and their 24 address? 25 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. In fact, we will em (U-
16 V. I probably put a press release out to that effect. We 2 normally do when we place orders for equipment. 3 MR. ROTH: The reason I ask is because, in 4 the press release itself, the names of the vendors 5 have never been mentioned, at least in this one. 6 MR. STANDERFER: The second company, 7 incidently, built some as a subcontractor or a subvendor to Westinghouse, built maj or weldment parts 9 of the rotating platform that we received this spring to and did a very good job. 11 So we again have bought other things from 12 them. And they have delivered, recently delivered, ._ n 13 components on this job, so we feel they can do this {'(J' 14 job. 15 MR. ROTH: Who are they? 16 MR. STANDERFER: The Joseph Oat Company in 17 Philadelphia. 18 MR. SMITHGALL: Just for clarification on 19 my part, maybe I missed it. 20 Could you rundown what you have installed 21 now in the containment building as far as the 22 equipment that you will be needing for the cleanup? 23 MR. STANDERFER: We have installed the 24 racks inside of containment that hold both filter 25 canisters for the def ueling water cleanup system and
)
17 (' (-)
'O interim storage of fuel canisters on the way out of 1
2 the building. 3 Incidently, those racks were delivered this 4 spring from the NES Company, the company that we are 5 having some troubles with. 6 We are now installing the rotating platform 7 on the support structure from Westinghouse that was a installed last month. 9 MR. SMITHGALL: You have that inside 10 containment now? It MR. STANDERFER: The support structure was 12 brought in and assembled last month. The rotating
, i3 platform, which was cet up on the turbine dock and
( is checked out -- and you will see pictures of that 15 today, was torn down and is being staged into 16 containment right now. In fact, I think two of your 17 members saw some of those components going through is the containment doors this afternoon. 19 We have installed a second crane in 20 containment, a service crane. That was completed in 21 June; and the def ueling water cleanup system is being 22 installed; and a number of support type systems. 23 There is a longer list. 24 MR. SMITHGALL: That is good. That 25 clarifies it for me. (
)
18 (I i THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? 2 (No response.) 3 MR. STANDERFER: On the schedule, I have 4 attempted to set tight schedules, which if something 5 happens, you can miss them by a couple of weeks or 6 that kind of thing. 7 I have chosen not to put lots of a contingency in the schedules, because when you do 9 that, you end up not meeting those schedules. And I 4 10 think we can set tight schedules and get this j ob 11 done sooner having schedules which are difficult to 12 meet. _( l
- 13 7:IE CII AIRMAM : Mext would be the MRC staf f.
k i la , M . TRAVERS: I am Bill Travers, of the is Nuclear Regul*atory Commission's Three Mile Island 16 Program Offico located on the Three Mile Icland site. 17 I thought I would give you a brief summary of some of 18 the issues before my of fice and bef ore the agency. 19 Since there is some interest and questions 20 on slipping of the schedule and the effect of the 21 vendor schedule, let me start by saying the l 22 Nuclear Regulatory Commission has conducted some 23 independent inspection of GPU's verdor, Nuclear 24 Energy Services. The inspection report that details 25 some of the findings of the vendor programs branch in (*
19 7- 'i )
' > 1 the Office of Inspection and Enforcement is due out 2 sometime next week. I intend to provide tha t to the 3 panel as soon as that comes out.
4 I have been briefed in some of their 5 findings, but they are still undergoing management 6 review on it. I would prefer to speak to it in 7 detail at another meeting, and give you a chance to a read the inspection report before we talk about it 9 much further. io Perhaps the most significant action we have it taken approval-wise since May has been our approval 12 of a license change request that accommodates some of
'^1 i3 the thingc that GPU Nuclear vanted to change in their
('. 14 technical specifications to accommodate defueling. 13 Essentially that covered issues like i3 increasing the boron concentration of the reactor 17 coolant system to essentially eliminate or preclude is the possiblity of a criticality event, and adding 19 level and monitoring requirements for the fuel pool 20 and for the fuel transfer canal. 21 The NRC has also completed a review of a 22 preliminary request by GPU to remove the personnel 23 hatch. We haven't yet decided to do that, but we 24 have completed our technical review and are prepared 25 to act should they need to remove that piece of m
20
- e. I equipment to stage any larger pieces of defueling l
2 equipment inside th e reactor building. 3 We have received approximately 150 or so 4 procedures since May. We have approved 92 of them 5 and we have had a rejection rate of about 10 percent. 6 It tracks pretty much with what Bernie Snyder told 7 you last time on the rate. 8 Most of the changes that are made on these 9 things are relatively minor. We co. ament on some of to them and they are resubmitted f or approval 11 subsequently. 12 Some of the current items that are under () 13 review by my of fice include a technical evaluation 14 report f or. the def ueling water cleanup system, which 15 will be used during defueling for -- I think you have 16 been bricfed a little bit about it, to keep doWn 17 radiation doses to workers and improve clarity in the 18 water. 19 We also have under review several tech spec 20 change requests. We are also reviewing a technical 21 evaluation report on the fuel canisters themselves. 22 The defueling safety evaluation report is currently 23 under review. We had several, 20 some odd procedures 24 that relate directly to defueling currently under 25 review.
21 (O (/ i I thought I would give you a status on come 2 of the issuec the panel has been interested on in the 3 past; specifically the enforcement action that you 4 have been briefed on by Jane Axelrad is currently 5 still before the Commission. They have as yet taken 6 no action that I know. The individual Commissioners 7 are apparently voting on this.
--s The OI inspection on the hand release 9 mechanism for the polar crane has been completed and to a report is being generated. We expect to see that 11 report forwarded from the regional office, who is 12 preparing that report, to Ben Haze's office sometime e in August.
34 That is pretty much the summary of the 15 kinds of things before us now. I would be glad to 16 answer questions. 17 MR. ROTH: On the enforcement action, if I la remember correctly,-didn't the Commissioners say last i9 month that they had received it at that point; and 20 they are going to deal with it expeditiously at that 2i point? 22 MR. TRAVERS: I don't remember them saying 23 expeditiously, but I do remember them saying they 24 had received it. 25 MR. ROTH: I think I remember them saying 7-(.V
-w ,_ ---._p - - , , . - - - _a _ _
22 k 1 they would deal with it expeditiously, and it is four 2 weeks again. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of the 4 transcript? 5 MR. MASNIK: Yes, I do. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: If you find that at any time 7 during the meeting, I would be happy to have you read 8 it to us, because I sort of recall something fairly 9 specific from them in that they would move 10 expeditiously. More than expeditiously. 11 Certainly by th'is meeting we had hoped that 12 we would have known what that action was. _r~ s 13 MR. TRAVERS: The staff has acted.
I would like to get your 14 MR. SMITHGALL:
is comment on Mr. Standerfer's comments on the paperwork 16 being pretty well cleared up with the NRC. Do you 17 agree with that assessment? 18 MR. TRAVERS: Let me make sure -- are you 19 talking about the vendor? 20 MR. SMITHGALL: Mr. Standerfer's comments 21 narrowing down the three parts of this cleanup: 22 Paperwork with the NRC, training issues, and delivery 23 of the equipment. How do you feel about their 24 processing through NRC? 25 MR. TRAVERS: I think we are very much on
23 1 1 1
..-s
() I track in having received much of the paper that-is 2 required to facilitate our necessary approvals to get a defueling underway. And I think we are very much on 4 schedule in that regard. 5 Th'ere is a lot of paper, but most of it we 6 have received. That is really a continuing thing 7 that we feel we can meet the schedules they have a established for themselves. 9 MR. COCHRAN: Could you refresh my memory lo as to whether Level 4 violation is a more severe or 11 less severe? 12 HR. TRAVERS: Less. Level 1 is the most
.,s ssp 13 severe.
ja MR. COCHRAN: I am reading from, this is
.15 actually a cover letter of June 18 regarding NRC 5
16 inspection. And it took place April 11 tc May 17. 17 They cite a safeguards violation Level 4. is Then in this big, blank space they say "Not i9 releaseable to the public." 20 What can you tell me about this 21 inconsequential violation that he can't tell the 22 public about? 23 MR. TRAVERS: All I can tell you is, in an 24 inspection, NRC noted something that was out of 25 accord with plant procedures relating to NRC
<O _
24
) I requirements. The citation was written.
2 It does involve material that is not 3 releaseable to the public. It has been handled in 4 that manner. The information stamped safeguards 5 material was issued to the licensee. Their response 6 was handled in the same manner, and the details of it 7 really aren't something we can discuss in public. 8 MR. COCHRAN: Was it correct? 9 MR. TRAVERS: Yes. 10 MR. COCHRAN: Then why can't you talk about 11 it? 12 MR. TRAVERS: Because it is information ,r 3 13 related to safeguards. ' C/ l" 14 MR. COCHRAN: I know all the democratic 15 gobbledygook that goes with it. 16 MR. TRAVERS: Well, in saying it is correct, 17 we are talking about it. I can't give you the la specifics because the specifics relate to procedures 19 that are put in place to protect the plant. And by 20 talking about the details of those procedures, it is 21 felt that you put those safeguards at risk. 22 MR. COCHRAN: This might be one of those 23 areas where we might want to look at the underlying 24 data. 25 MR. TRAVERS: There is a lot of that kind of
-s l
25 1 information that is classified, that is not publicly 2 releaseable. 3 MR. COCHRAN: I understand. 4 MR. TRAVERS: And there are good reasons for 5 it. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess Tom is asking, is 7 that something that under the new information flow a that may be available to the panel or not? 9 MR. TRAVERS: I don't know. All we can do 10 is ask. It is something I would have to ask the it Commission about. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want him to ask the
~g 33 Commission or not?
((V i4 MR. COCHRAN: Yes. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you do that? 16 MR. TR AV ERS : Okay. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mike, did you find the is section there? 19 MR. MASNIK: The term expeditiously was 20 not used. However, Commissioner Asselstein stated, 21 "Why don't we aim for next week?" Chairman Paladino 22 stated, "I can set targets. I can't make guarantees. 23 But I think this is one th at deserves prompt 24 Commission action; and I would urge all of us to get 25 to it and try to get it done within the next seven (O_
26 g(,,) L _ 1 days." 2 MR. ROTH: That is expeditiously. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Not very pleasing on'that. 4 MR. TRAVERS: I understand. 5 MR. COCHRAN: Perhaps this should come 6 after the next agenda . item, but I would like to ask 7 the NRC, in the def ueling operation when the workers 8 are using these tools which go down through a port in 9 the shielding area that they are standing on, how do 10 they see over into that port? Do they just look 11 over? 12 MR. TRAVERS: Video cameras are planned to _ f-~ 13 be used in conjunction with long-handled tools i n. k 14 filling fuel canisters. 15 MR. COCHRAN: But would the worker or 16 workers typically be looking down through the hole as 17 they poke around for material? 18 MR. TRAVERS: I don't think so. It is a 19 good question. Maybe Dave Bucanon can answer it from 20' GPU. 21 MR. COCHRAN: I'll like then to ask the 22 staff or request the staff, since they perhaps 23 haven't th ought about this much, to think about how 24 they are going to insure that the film badge reads 25 what the head exposure is as opposdd to the trunk f.a-
l 27 ,.c) (_ i exposure of the worker. 2 MR. TRAVERS: Good question. I assume, but 3 we will let GPU address it. Those are the kinds of 4 question we ask in our review of their safety 5 evaluation report and their health physics radiation 6 protection program implementation, and that is 7 ongoing right now. 8 MR. ROTH: Any questions? If not I guess 9 William Kirk with the beard. 10 MR. KIRK: I went to the beach and threw my it raz or away when I went across the bridge on the 12 island and I have not bought another one. {) 33 Several things have come up since I last talked to the panel. I believe the last time around i4
~
15 we talked a little about finding iodine in the 16 outfall water from TMI, and having difficulties 17 accounting for whether it was there when it got to la TMI. This problem has been resolved. 19 We now have a monitor on the water intake 20 to the island that is doing the same continuous 21 sampling that we are doing at the outfall at the same 22 time schedule. We are operating on a protocol that 23 we collect the samples on a daily basis, we analyze 24 the outfall sample. If there is anything in the 25 outfall sample, we can then analyze the intake sample (
28 1 to see whether it was there when it hit the island. 2 If we don't find anything in the outfall sample, we 3 are going to composite the thing and do our analysis 4 on a weekly basis, weekly composite. 5 This sample replaces the sample that we 6 were taking at City Island, which was unfortunately 7 upstream of several sources of iodine into the 8 Susquehanna. 9 Second, something that is far from the 10 currency of the topics this evening. A couple weeks 11 ago I finally received from the Emsel Laboratory in 12 Las Vegas their formal report on the EPA operations rg 13 during the crypton venting. I have copies of th is c ( (_'/ 14 with me and they have been furnished to the pane 1. 15 It is available from NTIS under a number of 16 EPA 600/4-85-042. I have tried to get this report 17 out and it has taken a long time. I can't take la responsibility for it. 19 One thing that happened at our last TLD 20 changeout that disturbs me a great deal is we found 21 five of our TLD stations completely missing when we 6 22 went to change them out in the first part of July. 23 It is difficult to understand because they 24 are of utterly no value to anybody. They have no 25 sale value. If you don't have the system they were l
i i 29 i f() i designed to be read on and the calibration factors, 4 2 you can't even get useful information out of it. ' ~ 3 So four on the west side of the river and 4 one in Middletown were gone. We replaced them. They . 5 are clearly that identified as to who they belong to, i 6 requesting people, please don't move them unless you 7 call us. If they want them moved, we will come and 8 move them. 9 I don't know which disturbs me more, the io 31,500 or the five data points.
- ii MR. WALD
- What time period?
12 MR. KIRK: They covered the second quarter { 33 of this year from April through the end of June.
- ' u And last, we have received and have 15 operating a dedicated IBM PC computer to retrieve and .
16 store the data from the Century units. This replaces i7 a problem unit in the central processor that, on a is random basis, the software problem that the vendor i 39 couldn't locate would turn off several stations or 20 turn off on a couple of occasions the entire system. 21 It has been replaced by a new computer. The thing is 22 working well. 23 I should point out we never lost any actual 24 data. The stations at each site have a recorder that 25 records the data simultaneously with us getting it-by
30 Vf % L t) I telephone transmission at the office. We have only 2 had one data loss in the three years thi s has been 3 operating. 4 The individual units work very well. There 5 are a lot of problems with the transmission. Now 6 that th at is out of the way, thunderstorms and 7 occasional problems with the telephone company -- 8 when you are dealing with five phone companies, you 9 can find some problems that you couldn't believe 10 existed. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions of Bill? 12 MR. COCHRAN: Do you plan to make any i3 changes in your monitoring approach or system when b ' 14 the Unit 1 starts, should it restart? 15 MR. KIRK: We have added one or two things. 16 We have added the upriver monitor. We have 17 added an additional tritium monitoring station at Red 18 Hill area. 19 First, I should point out, our prime and 20 only function is connected with Unit 2. We obviously 21 if they start operating Unit 1, we may start seeing 22 fresh fission products. If there is any leakage out 23 of Unit 1, we could see iodine or xenon. We are 24 monitoring for xenon coincidentally with the krypton 25 monitoring. P. Y
31 d />^)N i There really isn't much we can add to what 2 we are doing already without going in plant, which 3 EPA is not going to do. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else? 5 (No response.) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask the panel if I can 7 have permission to send a letter to the NRC regarding a this latest enforcement action and voice our 9 displeasure at their slowness of processing it, io particularly in regard to the fact they indicated ii they would complete or do their be'st to completc it 12 within seven days? Docs anybody have a problem with p i3 'that?
- t) .
u (No response.) 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Then I will do that. 16 The next item is by GPU on the defueling i7 program. 18 MR. STANDERFER: Before I introduce Mr. i9 Mr. Bucanon, who will give our presentation, I want 20 to mention, to answer you, Mr. Roth, on the 21 procurements w.ith the NES Company. 22 The fuel storage racks were ordered. The 23 order was placed on August 7, 1984. The transfer 24 shield and canister orders, two separate orders, were 25 placed on the 4th of December, 1984.
/w
32 Lk/ 1 Dave Bucanon will give our presentation 2 now on the defueling; and also Jim Hildebrand from 3 our Radiation Control Unit will answer questions with 4 regard to how we monitor the workers who will perform 5 this work. 6 MR. BUCANON: My name is Dave Bucanon. I 7 am an engineer at TMI-2, and I work within the 8 Recovery Programs Department. 9 I will try and run through and provide a 10 description of the'defueling equipment. I have a 11 number of pictures. I will try and walk through with 12 you what the equipment looks like that we have
,{]) 13 presently available.
'I 14 My approach to describe things tends to be 15 rather a nut and bolts description because I am a 16 nuts and bolts sort of a man, I suppose. But if you 17 have any questions, feel free to stop me. .
18 Before we can really talk too much about 19 what the defueling equipment looks like, you have to 20 spend a little time developing an appreciation of th e 21 problem. You start with the reactor vessel. 22 You start with the reactor vessel and the 23 condition we have, and I am sure you have been 24 through quite a bit of this. But we start with what 25 we observe to be a void space in the core region, 9
33
) I which is some 5 feet high.
2 Through various inspections, visuals and 3 probing, we have concluded that there is a bed of 4 loose rubble, small pieces, that is some 2 to 3 feet 5 thick. Then laying on top of that rubble or with 6 that rubble there are a number of pieces of fuel 7 rods, and partial fuel assemblies. 8 So to get ourselves started, we are faced 9 with a large range of material all the way from very to small particles to partial fuel assemblies that are 11 somewhat distorted. So I have a wide range of 12 conditions that we already know exist. 13 Once you get below the rubble bed
~
u conditions are unknown. We don't know what we have., 15 But we have also learned over the last several months 7 16 that we do have some material, what we refer to as 37 rocks, particles from very small to a few inches, is down in the bottom of the head. i9 What I am intending to focus on today is 20 dealing with what we know and what we are going to 21 start c":, what equipment do we have in place to dig 22 out the rubble bed and lift out the pieces laying 23 around in a random manner. 24 As an engineer you kind of look at what are 25 my constraints? My constraints are I have quite a c0 -
34 (/ 1 variety of materials. It is radioactive, so we have 2 to keep shielding for the worker in mind. My 3 obj ective is going to be to get this material 4 packaged in some sort of form that will be 5 satisfactory for shipping and for long term storage. 6 You see in this picture, here is the 7 reactor vessel. I think you are well aware that we a are going to start by putting a platform over the top 9 of the vessel which would be a convenient place for 10 the workmen to start from. 11 One of the things we decided early on is we 12 wanted to build a collection of equipment that would
- 13 not require a great deal of development. We didn't k'
14 want to get into a_ research program. We wanted to is use equipment that was reasonably simple. And we 16 wanted to build upon the experiences that we have all 17 had in the utility industry and f rom the naval 18 program and the lab program. 19 And out of those kinds of backgrounds does 20 come c lot of experience in the long-handled manual 21 tools coming off successful programs using simple 22 equipment. One of the things the industry and 23 experience teaches you is, the simpler the better if 24 you want long-term happiness. 25 So we started out with the platf orm and got
35 ; l f) i into the manufacturing process a few months ago. 2 This is the way the platform started to take shape. 3 It is a stationary platform that will sit 4 on the canal. It is an item installed in the plant 5 for several months. But sitting on top of that is a 6 rotating platform some 12 feet in diameter, roughly 7 equivalent to the diameter of the reactor vessel. g one of the key features is there is a long, 9 horizontal slot called our tool slot. in Most of the activity going down into the 11 reactor vessel will be done through tools that are 12 going to be worked through this tool slot. And there 33 is an additional tool slot that works off at a right 5 - ja angle. Note this is a pretty husky device. In is subsequent pictures you will be seeing the plating is 16 about 6 inches thick for shielding. , u So we take that and now we are -- this is a is shot at the site. We have taken the platform and we i9 have assembled it in a clean area just to verify we 20 have all the pieces. This is the stationary member; 21 and this is the rotating platform with some of the 22 plates in place.
- 23 Bere we can see this open, long slot and i
24 the other slot at right angles. It will rotate 180 25 degrees in either direction. The rotation is co-i _ _ , . , _ , _ _ _ - - . _ . . , _ . - _ , . . . , . _ _ - _ . , . , . _ _-_,-r-._ .1m- . _ . _ - .
F' 36 F'7 N L (_) I provided by a cable drive arrangement and a varying 2 speed that doesn't travel all that fast. 3 One of the features we got into as we 4 started working on the defueling equipment, we 5 reached the conclusion very quickly that we are going 6 to have a lot of cables and things that go down to 7 the reactor vessel; all the way from hydraulic hoses a to TV cameras, lights and what have you. So you have 9 the question of how are we going to handle wires to while we have this rotating device? 11 We came up with a cable management system. 12 It is somewhat like a large bicycle chain. Built into the bicycle chain are all the wires and hoses,
,_ (d
~x 13 y '
14 It, starts at a stationary point and goes up over a is wheel that can move along the shaft. So as the 16 platform is rotated, the wheel walks in permitting 17 the cable to be played out as the platform rotates. 18 The platform also carries a lot of other 19 features that need to be there because of the variety 20 of things we are going to be taking out. In order to 21 take out all of the small particles, we have 22 developed a vacuum system. The vacuum system will be 23 operated from the platf orm and hangs underneath the 24 platform. So it is a contained unit. We will get 25 into it pretty soon.
37 , (r - We also have an arrangement whereby we can _ i 2 take the canisters and put the canisters inside the 3 reactor vessel and suspend them from the platform. 4 The canister is the unit into which we will put our 5 debris for shipping purposes. 6 But one of the important things we decided 7 very early on is we wanted to load.the canisters 8 inside the reactor vessel. We had to come up with 9 the hardware so we can position the canisters inside io the reactor vessel having them suspended f rom this n rotating nlatform. , 12 But you cannot be satisfied with having j ust one canister there; so we have a canister
,{} 33 a positioning system which is actually a fixture that is will hold five canisters at one time.
16 Just another shot at th e same th i n g . A lot 17 of people Come and visit us and like to look at what is we have. This is a shot of one of the tour groups. 19 More pronounced here is the fact -- it 20 comes with the platf orm, two jib cranes that will be 21 used to hold the tools and various pieces of 22 equipment. They are really positioned along the tool 23 slot. They rotate right with the platf orm. 24 One of the other things that is important 25 from a design viewpoint is all of the equipment is (O _ m-
38
) 1 made so it can be installed in the vessel in pieces.
2 It is maneuvered through the airlock openings. 3 So it is a bolted assembly and the pieces 4 range from a few pounds up to a few tons. But at the 5 present time, that platform is in pieces going into 6 the containment building. It will be assembled in a 7 work area and then lifted up with a crane and placed a over the reactor vessel all the one time. 9 One shot I thought I would show you is what 10 the canisters look like. There are actually three 11 types of canisters that take into account that we 12 have a wide variety of material.
,. (~) 13 This is what we referred to as the fuel , , %/
14 canister because the inside of it is a square opening 15 approximately the same size as what a regular fuel 16 assembly is. So if we have intact pieces of fuel 17 assembly, they can be loaded right into the canister. 18 It is 12 1/2 feet high and 14 inches in diameter. It 19 is a pretty good size of equipment. 20 This model comes with a lid at the top that 21 is bolted on by eight bolts. So after it is loaded, 22 the lid can be put on. It has a recess arrangement 23 for handling purposes. In other words, we have a 24 unique device that has fingers that come down and 25 spread out and aid with the handling purposes, n
l 39 Ifhh i It also has a feature so we can dewater it. 2 Since the canister is being loaded under water, it is 3 totally wet. But before we' ship, we would like for 4 it -- th e r e is no need for the water. We would like 5 to get the water out. This is actually a drain tube, 6 so we will simply -- here is another fitting. We 7 will introduce gas into this fitting and blow the 8 water back out. 9 A couple of the other design features of to the canister is this inner square opening made of ti boral plate. Boral plate contains some boron for 12 criticality or neutron control. Then to back up that rm i3 gap between the square plate and round can, we put in (U' i4 a low density concrete j ust to ensure the dimensional is integrity will remain through any hypothetical 16 accident. i7 The other type of canister is a filter la canister that is loaded with mechanical screens, a i9 wire screen arrangement for removing very fine 20 Particles in the water. 21 And then for the material which can be as 22 large as a pellet and as small as coarse dirt, we 23 have a knock-out canister that is essentially an open 24 shell can. It has an arrangement where water 25 entrained particles are introduced into the canister. (O
40
) 1 Then the can really becomes a settling can with the 2 discharge taken out the top. It is a frequently used 3 arrangement for removing particles.
4 Those are what the canisters look like. 5 One of the important things is they are all the same 6 size on the outside, so handling techniques, once 7 they are loaded, are the same. - 8 Moving along to another piece of the system 9 is this vacuum system. Tre way I would like to 10 describe this vacuum system is to make use of a 11 cartoon skecch. One reason why I put a lot of 12 emphasis on this vacuum system is because it is 3 13 probably going to be removing a good bit of tonnage. bJ 14 A lot of the material that we have observed is fine is particles. 16 We start out with a simple arrangement. We 17 will stick a lance with a suction line that will be 18 operated by a long-handled tool. It is merely 19 inserted into the debris. Then using the pump, the 20 material is pulled up the hose through this knockout 21 canister, which is a dropout can that takes any 22 material f r om th e size of a fuel pellet to coarse 23 dirt. It should fall into there. 24 Then on the discharge side of the pump, we 25 go through filter canisters. Then the discharge from u
41 1 b ) i the filter canisters goes right back into the reactor 2 vessel. It is a totally enclosed system. It is
~
3 hanging from the underside of the work platform, all 4 within the reactor vessel. 5 One of the things we have to be watching as 6 an operator is there are weight limitations on the 7 canisters. We don't want to get them loaded over the a limits; so there are built into the physical 9 arrangements a load cel.1 arrangement, so we can
~
io monitor the weight. 11 This is a shot of what the pump looks like 12 from this vacuum system. It is an air operated pump, kind of a standard design, pulsation dampner y'{-} i3
~j i4 (phonetic), exhaust port-for the air drive.
15 All of those components are manuf actured 16 out of stainless steel, well built equipment, I 17 believe. is This control console comes in the operating i9 station of the vacuum system. This control console 20 is located right on the work platform. It has a 21 number of digital readouts for important features; 22 the ability to monitor the weight of the canisters, 23 the pressure drops across the filter canister, the 24 necessary buttons to make the platf orm rotate. 25 So again, this is an example of one control ! (I ) i L
42 1 console having a couple of different features, which 2 is one of th e things you get when you try to design 3 your entire system as an integrated system, which is 4 what we have done. 5 Right alongside of that is another 6 operating panel, which is our hydraulic operating 7 panel. Quite a few of our long-handled tools are 8 hydraulically operated f or their force. I have a 9 couple simple diagrams of a few of our simple tools. 10 I think you will recognize this as being 11 nothing more than vice grips on the end of a 12 long-handled tool. When I talk handle, I am talking 13 about roughly 20 feet; al th ou gh , the handloc are b-(~'s 14 built such that we can add extensions or take out 9 15 extensions if we wish. The vice grip would be 16 actuated by a hydraulic system. 17 What we have attempted to do on the 18 long-handled tocis is tried to develop a tool box 19 approach. We don't know exactly what tools we will 20 need to do the defueling. We feel certain we would 2 .i need a wide variety. So it is somewhat like buying a 22 mechanic's tool kit. You want to buy a variety of 23 wrenches for whatever activity or whatever you have 24 to fix. 25 So we approached our tools in the, same way.
43 (b-s 1 We have tried to develop a tool box, so we have a 2 number of things in the vice grip variety. Another 3 one, a little heavier duty, is cutters. There are a 4 number of cutters. This particular one is mounted so 5 that the cutter is at right angles with respect to 6 the axis of the tool. Then we take the cutters, 7 which are basically high strength commercial cutters, a again using hydraulic forces to actuate them. We can 9 use this to cut fuel pins, as a good example. io one of the things we get into is, hydraulic ti forces for this type of tool is much greater than 12 what the force of a vice grip or hydraulic system is. i3 It has a manifold arrangement. So we have a variety t(]) u of operating pressures.available to us.. 15 We also have long-handled tools that are 16 manually operated, a pistol grip arrangement. We do 17 have long-handled tools that are strong enough to is pick up entire fuel assemblies, i9 MR. SMITHGALL: Do you have anybody that 20 knows how to operate these vice grips, tool box if 21 you will? l 22 MR. BUCANON: They will. 23 MR. SMITHGALL: I look at those vice grips 24 and I think of the vice grips I have in my tool box.
- 25 If I were to place them on a 20-foot handle, I don't h
I (( _.
44 { 1 think I could fix my car. 2 MR. BUCANON: With a little practice you 3 can. Most of these tools have been received. We are 4 just getting into the check-out program. The 5 training program using these tools has just begun. 6 Other people have done it successfully. 7 There is a training program to operate vice grips at a the end of a 20-foot pole. Not everyone can do it, 9 because not everyone has patience. 10 One of th e things you learn -- anybody who it works around a remote facility has learned not 12 everybody can do it; it has to be somebody who is O A) 13 patient and doesn't get frustrated very easily. Not '" la everyone we try to train will be successful. 15 MR. STANDERFER: Mention the mock-up 16 assembly. 17 MR. BUCANON: We do have a facility. We do 18 have a water tank. We have an arrangement that 19 pretty well simulates the distances. Everybody gets a 20 thorough checkout first. 21 MR. SMITHGALL: Is this people on 22 employment now, or are you bringing people in that 23 have worked in remote facilities? 24 MR. BUCANON: We are planning to use our 25 operating staff. Experience says, you can take n i y
45 (~ i inexperienced long-handled tool operators, and within 2 a few weeks, a man with a reasonable degree of a mechanical skills, will pick up on it. 4 MR. SMITHGALL: Any danger inside the 5 reactor vessel of failure or learning on the job, 6 dropping pieces? 7 MR. BUCANON: If you drop a piece of th e a material, in one way it isn't any worse than what you 9 start out with. 10 MR. SMITHGALL: Increased exposure by 11 looking down the hole? 12 MR. BUCANON: I can answer that by saying, (),
~
n- as long as you are there in the operating station, a you are going to receiving some exposure. So if you i3 are a poor worker, it will take you longer to get 16 your job done. So in that situation, you will pick up 17 more exposure. is MR. STANDERFER: The operation is done i9 using a video camera that is down in the water close 20 to the business action end of the tool. He is 21 watching a monitor. You really can't see through 20 22 or 25 feet of water very well. 23 Once in awhile they will be looking down, 24 but most of the operation will be done remotely. We 25 have had people handling long-handled tools since the (__,' -
46 L , I head came off when the plenum was jacked last 2 December. 3 We had to manipulate a number of 4 inspections with similar tools and TV cameras. We 5 knocked the end fittings off of the plenum. The 6 inspection of the bottom of the reactor vessel that 7 was done in February was done with essentially "8 long-handled tools going through small openings and 9 having to snake them down 35 feet. 30 this is just - 10 an extension of similar work that we have been doing 11 for almost the last year. 12 MR. SMITHGALL: I didn't want to let you
/
13 off making it sound like it was an easy process. The k'i) i 14 procedures you are describing are a little simpler is than the procedures that I think you are going to be 16 going after. 17 MR. STANDERFER: I would say the inspection is of the bottom of the reactor vessel in February was 19 more complicated and took more dexterity than this 20 defueling that Dave is talking about. 21 MR. BUCANON: The tools are simple; there 22 is just a lot it to do. 23 I mentioned TV cameras. We plan to use TV 24 cameras for viewing the business end of the tools. 25 One of the features this console has is an electrical ro e
47 1[ i plugin for TV cameras. The current plans are to use 2 between three and five YV cameras at any one time 3 in' side the reactor vessel. We can add more if we 4 , need to. We currently have right there a 5 :three-station monitor that the operator will be able l 6 to use. l l 7 I think. there is always a human reaction to 4 a kind of want to look, if you can. But basically the 9 TV cameras are to be our viewing technique. io Some pictures of the long-handled tools and 11 these pictures came out so-so. These are units for 12 ' canister handling tools. This one is for a
,13 particular tool that picks up an empty can. There is t( ) u an inside recess, so it plops down'and meets up with 15 the top of th e canister . These are air actuated, but 16 they extend-the fingers and pick up the can. This is
, i7 one type th at can pick up a loaded canister. The 1a cylinder comes,in and; fits into a recess, the fingers 39 expand and lock in place under a recess.
20 We:got tools which are simple hooks, and 21 tools which are akin tc a potato masher f or tamping 22 down pieces if you want to. 23 Here is one that is kind of a -- like an 24 ice tong arrangement that you can pick up a few 25 pieces at a time. Here is a tool that is designed so (d )
48 L 2 1 that it can mate with an upper end fitting. It has 2 lugs on it th at you can lock onto. So you have tools 3 which will do that. We have a lot of tools. 4 I kind of picked up that -- that tool -- 5 that is 20 or 25 feet long. I don't want to minimize 6 the problem of working at distance. It is a ways 7 down there. So I threw that picture in to give you a an appreciation of the depth the men will work at. 9 We have put together what we call the io defueling test assembly in one of the clean areas of 11 the plant. It consists of a tank essentially the 12 same size as the reactor vessel. We have put across 13 the top of that tank a work platform that l (_ ( )
-l 14 dimensionally is the same as this rotating work 15 platform. This will be our training center, 16 In this particular view, you can see we 17 have the same sort of cranes. We have this open tool 18 slot, and there is material of some sort down inside 19 the slot. This assembly has been together for about 20 a month, and it is in heavy use.
21 Looking down through the tool slot a little 22 closer, this happens to be the canister positioning 23 system, a rotatable device with the capability of 24 holding five canisters. For what it is worth, this 25 picture is made by Joseph Oats, the vendor's name. p.3) (s l I mi m .
49 l l j' n i This thing is rotatable. I can also lower these two 2 holders up and down, so I can lower my canisters on 3 into the reactor vessel further as the defueling 4 progresses, f 5 The last shot I was going to have was 6 briefly mentioned. In the rest of the process, 7 although you maybe f amiliar with it, all we have done a in all these pictures and with this platform and the 9 long-handled tools, what we got accomplished is we 10 got the material into the canisters, n The rest of the j ob then is to remove the 12 canisters. We do have the fuel canister bridges,
, ( ,') i3 which is a trolley with a shielded tube that can come .\
14 over and sit down on the work platform and pick the is canister up. It goes into the pool area inside the 16 reactor building. 17 It starts out vertical rotated, horizontal, is and goes through a transfer into the fuel handling i9 building. It is uprighted, picked up by another 20 crane into a rack, goes through the dewatering 21 Process, picked up by on overhead crane and a 22 shielded device, and onto the rail car for eventual 23 shipment off site. It is a lot of hardware. Just 24 getting the material into the canister, to some 25 extent, is just the beginning of the process. 7x./ (;
50
._ , 1 That is the presentation I have. I skipped 2 through a lot of details. We can spend either a half 3 hour discussing this or three days. But I think I 4 gave you a thumbnail sketch.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? 6 MR. COCHRAN: I don't have an appreciation 7 for the spaces or the supports for the fuel a assemblies in the vessel; but do you anticipate being 9 able to j ust pull what remains of an assembly 10 straight out? 11 MR. BUCANON: Yes. We have tools that we 12 believe can go down -- I have to answer it this way. 13 It def ends on the physical integrity of L(]i_) 14 what is left. If it's very brittle, heavily , 15 oxidized, and you grab ahold of it, it may crumble. 16 That is a possibility. 17 But we do have tools that can kind of clamp 18 onto the tubes. If there is enough structural 19 integrity from the tub 6s, then We Can pick that 20 assembly on up. 21 MR. COCHRAN: So there is no spacer 60wn in j 22 the rubble area that (inaudible). 23 MR. BUCANON: No. Fuel assemblies are 24 independent of one another. So if you can lift it 25 vertically at all, you are free to -- A sd
. ; _ .u 51 l
.A l There has to be some spacer i MR. COCHRAN:
. 2 at least at the bottom and top. ,
l 3 MR. BUCANON: They are in close proximity. 4 MR, SMITHGALL: You have done recent work 5 on the underhead with cameras and all? 6 MR. STANDERFER: Under part of the plenum? 7 MR. SMITHGALL: Yes, I think it is. 8 MR. STANDERFER: Or the cottom of the 9 reactor vessel? ja MR. SMITHGALL: Yes, ii MR. STANDERFER: In February we got our 12 first TV looks into the bottom of the reactor vessel. f"') ci3 It was restricted to two creas 180 degrecs apart ( because the plenum was in place. u 15 This week we are back into the bottom of 16 the Vessel. Inspections are being done today. They i7 are going to go on tomorrow. We are going in the is other 180 degree quadrant. So we will basically at i9 the end of this week, we will have seen the entire 20 Periphery of the bottom of the reactor vessel. 21 Samples of that granular material were 22 taken today and brought to the upper part of the 23 reactor vessel for shipment to the Department of 24 Energy. Water samples were taken, and some more 25 inspections will be done tomorrow. L
52
.s L (-) 1 I had hoped te have some video of that, but 2 it was in progress today and I wasn't able to bring 3 any. I will bring it is to the next meeting.
4 MR. SMITHGALL: Anything that you can tell 5 us from what you have seen so far? 6 MR. STANDERFER: No. In this quadrant we 7 don't see any substantially different material than a what we saw last February. We didn't expect to. 9 But now we are able to take samples of the 11 10 material itself, extract it, and ship it to the 11 Department of Energy. 12 MR. BUCANON: We used a long-handled tool
,( } 13 that we made, 35 feet long. One and three is i
14 articulated so that it swings out. Picked up these 15 rock-like specimens with a three finger pincher 16 actuated by an air cylinder. 17 MR. SMITHGALL: Not your vica grips? 18 MR. BUCANON: Right.. This time we used 19 the three finger. 20 MR. WALD: I remember the description of 21 the contents of the vessel had an area that was not 22 able to be visualized. I think it was somewhere in 23 the bottom third, but not all the way down. Have you 24 now visualized everything or are there still some 25 unknowns?
53
) : MR. BUCANON: There is still the unknown 2 zone. Beneath this loose rubble, from there on down 3 to the bottom of the original fuel plane, that area 4 is still unexplored.
5 MR. WALD: Is there anyway to explore it 6 other than by trying to remove water? 7 MR. BUCANON: First we have to remove what 8 is there, I think. I think our current approach is 9 you try to remove some of the above debris and, then, 10 we can visually look at it and visually get some 11 tools on it to start to examine it. 12 MR. STANDERFER: After the loose material 13 is removed this fall, then the Department of Energy u has a drilling machine that we intend to bring in. 15 It can take three and a half inch diameter cores of 16 this material down to the bottom of the core for 17 shipment and analysis back at Idaho, is We will be able to look on the inside of i9 those core holes to see vhat that looks like. We 20 will also know what the drill had to go through. 21 That will help us understand what that unknown area 22 is. We may usk the Department of Energy equipment to 23 drill several holes in that as a defueling aid. 24 Just to answer Tom's question with regard 25 to worker radiation monitoring, Jim Hildebrand can G
54 1 address that point. 2 MR. HILDEBRAND: My name is Jim Hildebrand, 3 GPU Nuclear. With respect to the operators standin. 4 on the platform and operating the tools, the question 5 was: How are we going to ensure that the worker's 6 head is properly monitored with a TLD? 7 A much broader question is: How are we a going to ensure th at the part of the body of the 9 operator that is going to receive the highest dose is 10 properly monitored? And I will mention a couple of 11 things. 12 First of all, prior to any operator ,[} 13 operating the tools, thorough radiclogical surveys LJ 14 will be done. So we will have a good profile of what is the dose rates are over the opening. 16 Secondly, the operator will not be leaning 17 over the opening, per se. There will be a rail up 18 such that he can't really lean over, so that his head ; 19 will not be directly over the opening. 20 Thirdly, good radiation protection i 21 practices dictate, whenever you have a new operation 22 like this and you are not sure what part of the body 23 is going to receive the highest dose, you put j 24 multiple TLD's, multiple dosimeters on the worker; 25 and we will certainly do this.
55 ( 1 During the early stages of defueling, 2 workers working with the tools, those workers will 3 have multiple TLD's on their head, chest, thighs, 4 back, et cetera. We will accumulate data. 5 Once we determine what part of the body is 6 receiving the maximum dose, then we will begin to 7 back off on the number of TLD's. 8 Fourthly, the radcon technician will be on 9 the platform during the early defueling with his io radiation meters. Also I will have a radiological 11 engineer on the platform during the initial stages 12 watching the process.
~s So in that way., we will ensure we are
, i3 i(' properly monitoring the workers. u 15 THE CHAIRMAN Does anyone have any a questions? (No response.) i7 THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone from' the public is have questions on what has been presented so far? I i9 saw a hand. If you would like to come up and speak 20 into this microphone? 21 Again, I would like to restate this. Your 22 questions need'to be pertaining to the presentation 23 you already heard. We will be getting into the 24 health effects studies a little later on. There will 25 be an opportunity for comments and questions on that 6
56 1 then. 2 JOYCE CORRADI: My first question is I want 3 to know the exact dimension of the tool slot. 4 I don't remember being told that. 5 MR. BUCANON: I don't have the exact 6 measurements. It is about a foot wide and about 10 7 feet long. 8 JOYCE CORRADI: Are you saying everything 9 that will be brought up will be equal to those 10 dimensions minus whatever cabling is going down? 11 MR. BUCANON: No. That is a gap in the 12 platform through which you work. The core debris
, (' 13 material comes out in the canisters.
(' h] 14 . JOYCE CORRADI: But it has to be put into 15 an area 12 feet by 14 inches. Am I correct? 16 MR. BUCANON: The material has to be placed 17 inside the canisters. The canisters have a fixed 18 dimension of 150 inches long and 14 inches in 19 diameter. 20 MR. STANDERFER: Visually the canisters are 21 down inside the reactor vessel. The operator picks 22 up pieces and' puts them in the canisters, operating 23 through this slot. Then when the canister is full, 24 it is separately picked up with a crane through a 25 circular hole in the platform.
.e f\s L. -
57 a ' ' ' ') i JOYCE CORRADI: But my question is, Are you 2 guaranteeing us all the debris will be that shape? 3 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. We can with cutters 4 reduce the debris to pieces that will fit in these 5 canisters, yes. 6 JOYCE CORRADI: About the canisters, have 7 all of them been approved by the NRC? 8 MR. STANDERFER: The canisters are under 9 fabrication now. We have not shipped any canisters 10 at the present time. 11 When we ship canisters, we will be 12 satisfied that they are satisfactory; and the NRC can
/% , ( ,) , i3 review the specifications and paperwork associated \ with the canisters.
n 15 JOYCE CORRADI: What do you determine as 16 the duration of that time? i7 MR. STANDERFER: I don't understand your is question. 19 JOYCE CORRADI: You are saying the 20 canisters are in fabrication? 21 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. 22 JOYCE CORRADI: And when will they be ready 12 23 to use? 24 MR. STANDERFER: When we start defueling; 25 nos projectively, in October. 7-(1
58 L , 1 JOYCE CORRADI: So you are saying the 2 canisters will be ready and approved by the NRC by 3 October? 4 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. The NRC will have to 5 be satisfied with all this equipment, not just the 6 Canisters, and with our safety reports before they 7 approve start of defueling. 8 JOYCE CORRADI: And you feel confident that 9 you can meet this October deadline without any 10 problems? 11 MR. STA"DERFER: I don't view October as a 12 deadline. Our intent is to start defueling as early
,y
,( ) 13 as possible. We now project early October. ( I la It is possible that we can have some 15 successes and be back in September; but,now we are 16 looking at October. 1/ JOYCE CORRADI: Another question I wanted 18 to know about is the fine debris vacuum system. You 19 talk about these hoses. 20 What are the dimensions of the hoses that 21 wi'11 go down and bring up the debris? 22 MR. BUCANON: It is 2-inch diameter hose. 23 MR. STANDERFER: And the pieces are limited 24 to about a half inch that it is picking up. It is 25 like picking up gravel with a suction device.
! )
g 1
59 : i '( ) 1 JOYCE CORRADI: I run a vacuum cleaner, and 2 I know what happens when I pick up kids' toys. 3 How do you eliminate that problem? 4 MR. STANDERFER: We can flush backwards 5 through the system to flush out any material that is 6 stuck. Anything that is stuck beyond that, we have 7 spare hoses which we can take the damaged hose out a and put a new one in. 9 We have two complete vacuum systems: One 10 in the mockup facility that Dave described for 11 training and one in the reactor itself. We can 12 replace the entire vacuum system ;f there is a FT 13 problem. ( JOYCE CORRADI: Say there is debris stuck 14 15 and you can't flush it back. You say you extract the 16 hose. What do you do with this high radioactive 17 debris then? 18 MR. STANDERFER: The debris and hoses, if 19 we can't clean them, will go into the canisters with 20 the fuel, will be cut up and be part of the waste. 21 JOYCE CORRADI: I know during the initial 22 program of going into the reactor and checking what 23 was actually there after the accident, there were 24 workers that dropped hoses. Am I correct? 25 MR. BUCANON: There was a tiegone tube that (]h
60 I was dropped. 2 JOYCE CORRADI: Are you going to give us 3 any kind of guarantees or safety assurances that we 4 won't have a reactor full of dropped hoses or tubing 5 or cameras? 6 MR. STANDERFER: Most of the equipment we 7 work with has either lanyards tied to it or some a other control to prevent it from being dropped in. 9 But pieces that are in there will be loaded to in the fuel canisters, probably. If a tool is 11 dropped in the vessel, it more than likely will end 12 up in the fuel debris that is in the canisters. 13 JOYCE CORRADI: Another question I wanted
~}
1 j u to ask was about the cameras. You said you have is five? 16 MR. BUCANON: We are currently planning to 17 be able to use five at any one time. We can add more la or not use that many. 19 JOYCE CORRADI: What is the longevity of 20 those cameras in working? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: How many more questions? 22 JOYCE CORRADI: This my last one. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I saw three or four hands 24 here and I want to make sure everyone has time. 25 JOYCE CORRADI: This is my last one.
61 (( ) i I would like to know, you say you have from 2 two to five cameras. How long will the cameras be 3 able to function in this extre.:e radioactive 4 environment? 5 MR. BUCANON: I don't have an exact number. 6 They are of radiation hardened material. I really , 7 don't have an answer for you. g JOYCE CORRADI: There was no testing? 9 MR. BUCANON: Yes, there was testing; but I to am not aware of it. There is data available on those is types of cameras. There was testing on those cameras 12 as to what to expect the longevity to be. I just g don't know the exact results.
~
u MR. STANDERFER: My undcrstanding is the is cameras will last six months to a year. So some of 16 these cameras may be functional during the entire i7 defueling phase. So it is not a short life; and we la can get an exact design life for you. j9 JOYCE CORRADI: I would like that. 20 MR. BUCANON: Keep in mind the cameras are 21 not this size. 22 JOYCE CORRADI: I understand. They are on 23 a tube dropped into the reactor. 24 JANE LEE: What is the saturation point for 25 the rotating platform, the radioactive saturation
62
) i point for the rotating platform?
2 MR. BUCANON: It will last for many years. 3 JANE LEE: I am asking what the radioactive 4 saturation point is. 5 MR. STANDERFER: I don't understand your 6 terminology. 7 JANE LEE: You are working over the core. 8 Is not that metal going to become contaminated? 9 MR. BUCANON: Only on the surface, surface 10 contamination. 11 JANE LEE: What is the saturation point? 12 Is it going to become high enough that the workers 13 who are working on that platform will become 14 contaminated? 15 MR. STANDERFER: The surfaces will be wiped 16 down from time to time, as we wipe down other - 17 surfaces in the containment system. The workers will i la wear protective clothing to minimize the j 19 contamination to skin. 1 20 The entire environment in the containment 21 system today still has surface contamination. That i 22 is why the workers wear the clothing they wear. i l 23 JANE LEE: What can you anticipate knowing l 24 , the environment in there right now? How many rems l 25 will be coming off in what period of time if the i
63 m (I ) s I workers are in there? 2 MR. STANDERFER: It is not rems. The 3 exposure comes from the reactor core itself. This 4 defueling equipmer.- and its surface contamination 5 will not be a maj or source. 6 The major source will continue to be the 7 material they are handling down underneath. 8 JANE LEE: I understand that; but does that 9 not become airborne, and is that not going to become 10 contaminated in your procedures? 11 MR. STANDERFER: It is all handled under 12 water and there really shouldn't be any airborne 33 material from the defueling, which is all handled under 15 to 20 feet of water. i4 . 15 JANE LEE: If you drop a canister in the 16 process of extracting it f r om th e reactor, is thers 17 any cushioning effect provided to limit damage? 18 MR. STANDERFER: The safety analysis with i9 regard to a canister drop assumes that the canister 20 drops and breaks open. We would expect that to dent 21 and not happen. 22 But th e safety analysis analyzes th e 23 situation, what if that did happen, and how would you 24 clean that up. So that potential accident is 25 analyzed. (sO
.- ,, _ _ - - _ _ - - . . - - , _ . _ - - - _ _ , - - - - . . . , _ _ . ---. - --._-__a
64 V(_) L 1 JANE LEE: But I asked, is there any design 2 in the situation right now that, if a canister drops, 3 is there any provision for a cushioning effect that 4 when that canister comes back down, even if it would 5 fit into the slot, to break the drop so you could 6 limit your damage? 7 MR. STANDERFER: The handling equipment a grabs the canister with a positive holder. Then down 9 below we have a safety latch such that, if the first 10 latch lets go, the safety latch will not let it fall. 11 So in that sense, we have double latches to 12 prevent falling. Below that there is no cushion, no.. 13 JANE LEE: No cushioning effect? 7 ) 14 MR. COCHRAN: The water. 15 MR. STANDERFER: In some casas you would be 16 dropping it into water, which would f orm some sort of 17 cushion, yes. 18 BETTY TOMPKINS: When you clean up under 19 water and show this on the diagram, the water shoots 20 up and goes where? 21 MR. BUCANON: In the vacuum system. It is 22 all within the reactor vessel. 23 MR. STANDERFER: The dewatering? 24 BETTY TOMPKINS: Yes. 25 MR. BUCANON: It goes into a holding tank i E.
65 1 and will be processed through the submergent 2 mineralizing system. 3 BETTY TO:!PKINS: My second question is, 4 when all the tanks are filled and are being 5 transported, did I understand you to say they would 6 be transported by rail? 7 MR. BUCANON: That is correct. 8 BETTY TOMPKINS: I ask that there is safety 9 protection all along the way until the canisters 10 reach their final destination. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: One item on the agenda 12 tonight was movement of fuel; but it was going to , (') la be -- but we were asked that that be held off until . q -J%) 14 the next meeting because DOE was not prepared to get 15 into that. 16 This is a time for public questions and 17 this will be the last person called on during this 18 break. 19 GIORGINA SIEGLER: I was not clear on one 20 point about these filters. Would you explain the 21 missing filters? 22 MR. BUCANON: Metal filters. It was 23 similar to a wire screen. Water flows through the 24 screen and the screens are small enough that the 25 particles, the dirt will not go on through. Similar
66
*i^
5 ( ,)j i to a furnace filter. 2 GIORGINA SIEGLER: Where are they located? 3 MR. BUCANON: They are located inside of a - 4 canister. The water goes in the canister th rough the 5 filter and back out the canisters. 6 GIORGINA SIEGLER: Then you were not 7 talking about filters outside the plant? - 8 MR. BUCANON: No. 9 MR. COCHRAN: I wanted to ask that when DOE 10 makes its presentation, if possible, could you also ti he imeone discuss the disposition of the materials i2 shipee d on the rail for final disposal, including the
. i3 resins or filters or material removed from the i4 filters that have already been shipped?
15 MR. BIXBY: I can speak to that right now. 16 With respect to the epicor resins, the i7 department accepted the 50 epicor liners. GPU and is DOE were successf ul in commercial demonstration of a ig high integrity container. Forty-six of those epicor 20 liners were placed in high integrity containers and 21 disposed of in Washington at a commercial burial 22 grounds at GPU expense. The remaining four remain 23 with DOE as part of an R & D program. 24 With respect to the core, that core, the 25 canisters that GPU is designing are designed for 30 (Ob>
67
) 1 year storage. Our current plans are to keep it in 2 water storage at th e Idaho National Engineering 3 Laboratory at the test area north. They will remain 4 there until the repository program is available.
5 MR. COCHRAN: I read in this report 6 provided by the Committee on TMI-2 Technical 7 Information Determination Program in 1984, prepared 8 by DOE, that the prefilters have been buried at a 9 commercial disposal facility. 10 MR. BIXBY: Those are the epicor 11 p r e f il ter s . 12 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to see some 13 analysis. I would like to see some analysis 7 14 justifying how you can get awa,y with disposing them is as low level waste. 16 MR. BIXBY: Because we built a high 17 integrity container that was licensed by the State of 19 Washington and the NRC. We can provide you with a 19 design b sis report that explains the basis for that 20 design. ! 21 MR. COCHRAN: I would appreciate that. I 22 would like to look into that.
- 23 THE CHAIRMAN
- We will take a break now and i 24 start again at nine.
4 25 (Ten minute recess from the record.)
68
) i THE CHAIRMAN: The first review is the 2 review of health effect studies conducted in the 3 vicinity of the TMI-2 site in response to the 1979 4 accident. I should say this is the first item on the 5 agenda for the second half of the program.
6 The NRC staff does have a presentation to 7 make, after which I think it would be proper for us 8 to entertain questions at that time or comment from 9 the public rather than wait to the end. 10 Again we will follow-up those questions and 11 comment with a discussion of future scheduling of 12 what topics we should be talking about. 3 4 j3 MR. CONGEL: Good evening, Mayor Morris and
' 14 members of the panel. I am happy to be here tonight is to present a brief discussion that centers around a 16 paper that my group prepared f or the benefit of the i7 Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners.
is What the paper I am referring to is ig intended to accomplish is to review for the 20 Commissioners the dose and health studies that have 21 either already been completed as a result of the TMI 22 accident or are ongoing. 23 Upon review of these studies, as I will say 24 in a few moments, we presented the staff's 25 recommendation to the Commissioners regarding the (nV
69 : l h I future funding by the Commissioners of more studies. 2 Before I go any further, I would like to 3 point out copies of this paper are available. We 4 have quite a number right here in front of the 5 chairs. We also have copies of the viewgraphs from 6 which I will be speaking. 7 Can I have the first slide, please? Our 8 presentation is entitled'"The Summary of NRC Staff 9 Technical Findings Concerning TMI Related Dose and Health Studies." 10 11 Because of the questions I already received ) 12 tonight, I would like to point out, with the em, 13 organizational structure of the Nuclear Regulatory
\
14 Commission, we as staff members make presentations to 1 is the Commissioners in a manner that is very similar to 16 other members of the public or other special interest
. 17 groups. These are indeed recocmendations. The final la decisions in acting upon them are soley the 19 jurisdiction of the Commissioners.
20 I can add right now that, as a result of 21 the presentation that we made in the form of this 22 paper, as well as a brief discussion at the meeting 23 that the TMI Panel had with the Commissioners, we 24 have not had any definitive answer as to how they are 25 going to act on this paper.
70
) 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You will get an expeditious 2 answer.
3 MR. CONGEL: I will go on to my second
, 4 slide.
5 The early studies that were conducted as a 6 result of the Three Mile Island accident centered 7 primarily on the doses, the releases of radioactivity a and the anticipated health effects based on those 9 doses. ic I have in the first slide six references 11 that I believe pretty well summarize the status of 12 the knowledge associated with the plant's releases of i3 radioactivity in March and April of 1979.
)
i4 One of the first preliminary studies that is was conducted and published was the report by the Ad 16 Hoc Interagency Dose Assessment Group. This group i7 was made up by members of several different Federal is agencies, including not only the NRC, but the Center 19 for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, 20 Bureau of Radiological Health, and another agency of 21 HEW. 22 A second maj or study that was perf ormed in 23 1979 and was published was the Pickard, Lowe & 24 Garrick report. That was a report done by a 25 consulting group. It looked into details of the (()
71 3ri (/)
,,j 1 mechanism of the accident, as well as the doses that 2 were estimated for th e off-site population, and the 3 consequences of those doses.
4 Later on in 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission carried on one of its own internal studies 6 by the Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement. Of 7 course, there was the President Carter's Commission a on the accident, the so-called Kemeny Group. 9 There was another group that was contracted to by the Commissioners, called the so-called Special 11 Inquiry Group, which produced a report called the 12 Rogovin Report. That was the year following the
. i3 accident.
L22 14 And, of course, there was the Pennsylvania 15 Governor's Commission on TMI that also evaluated the 16 accident and its consequences. 17 MR. COCHRAN: Of these six studies that you la itemize here, did the last four really do any 19 independent dose assessment, or did they just sort of 20 rely on the first two, or the first one? 21 MR. CONG EL : The President's Commission did 22 a completely independent review of the accident, the 23 accident scenario, the dose consequences, as well as 24 a source term calculation. 25 The Office of Inspection and Enforcement
72 ( } I was primarily an overview or review group for some of 2 the existing studies. The Special Inquiry Group 3 reviewed all of the studies that took place prior to 4 it, those prior to 1979, to drew its conclusions. 5 The report of the Governor's Commission did not do an 6 independent evaluation, but reviewed some of the 7 earlier studies. 8 In terms of totally independent 9 assessments, I would say the Ad Hoc Interagency 10 Group, the Pickard, Lowe & Garrick Report, and the ii Kemeny Report were independent of each other. 12 For the purposes of just putting in i3- prospecti'te the con =equences of the accident in one [)
~'
- is table, I wanted to give a feeling of the kinds of ,
is releases that the staff regards as reasonable - a estimates. 17 For the noble gases, we have something on is the order of 2 to 10 or so megacuries of noble gases; i9 and radio-iodine somewhere in the 10 to 20 curie l 20 range. f 21 The doses that were calculated -- and I am 22 citing primarily the references I aighted on the 23 prior slide, a maximally exposed individual close to 24 the plant could have received something on the order 25 of 100 millirem, an average dose. This number is CO l
73 1 1 really only meaningful for estimating population 2 dose. But for the purposes of presentation *here, we 3 say the average dose is in the one to two millirem 4 range. 5 The population dose listed on the table is 6 somewhere between, I would say based on the prior 7 references once again, 1,000 to 5,000 or 6,000 person
-8 rem range. ,
9 Next slide. In addition to the studies 10 that I cited that estimated the doces and releases as 11 a result of the Three Mile Island accident, there had 12 been and there are a number of ongoing "d {) 13 14 epidemiolcgical studies. On this first slide, I am presenting the
~
is epidemiological studies that have been completed. 16 The organization that I followed here is one that I 17 had to choose, because as you will see in a moment, la some of the ongoing studies served as a basis for 19 some of the studies which are listed here as
- 20 completed. But nevertheless, I will talk about the 21 completed studies first.
22 There is a Radiation Dose Assessment Study. l 23 This was a study sponsored by the Department of l 24 Radiation Health in the University of Pittsburgh, the 25 Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Center of
- , - , -- - - - - - ,-w -,_,,,n.,
74 () i Disease Control, and the U.S. Bureau of Census. This 2 was another study that independently assessed 3 the doses that the local residents may have been 4 exposed to as a result of the radioactivity release 5 from Three Mile Island. 6 The findings of the group are consistent 7 with the values that I had on my prior slide, that is a after all the corrections are made for shielding, for 9 example, the individual dose on the order of 100 io millirem is what this group hac found. ,
!! The Health Behavioral Stress Study was 12 conducted or sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department i3 of Health. Three surveys were taken: July 1979, 14- January of 1980, and October of 1980. What the is purpose, of course, of the stress study was to 16 describe how the persons living in the vicinity of 17 Three Mile Island reacted during the crisis and also is to get data points three, nine, and 18 months after 39 the accident.
20 There are details of the study given in the 21 paper that we prepared for our Commissioners. But 22 the conclusions can be summarized rather quickly. 23 . Major impact of the accident was felt 24 during the few weeks immediately following the
'25 accident. There are several other conclusions that
(
75 k 1 one drew in this study, if you care to take a look at 2 the findings. 3 We concluded some th ings that I regard as a 4 little bit of common sense; that those within 15 5 miles of the plant had more stress than those further 6 Out; that some individuals as a result of the stress 7 had to deal with anxiety and consequently had 8 increased use of sleeping pills and/or tranquilizers; 9 that the level of anxiety persisted for one year 10 following the accident but declined substantially by 11 the end of 1980; and also that people with more 12 social support tended to be less distressed than _rm 13 those without it during the actual crisis itself. r\ ) ' b 'I 14 The Mental Health Study was completed in is 1980 and dealt with the time frame from 1979 to 1980. 16 It was conducted by the Western Psychiatric Research 17 Institute. The purpose of the study was to determine la the mental health impact of three so-called high risk 19 groups around of the Three Mile Island site. The 20 three high risk groups consisted of the Three Mile 21 Island employees, mothers with small children, and 22 mental health clinic patients. 23 People who were residing near th e shipping 24 port of the reactor facility in western Pennsylvania 25 were used as controls. Of these three high risk
76 y';m - (,) i groups,-the one group that had a noticeable 2 difference in their anxiety levels were mothers with 3 young children. This group of people had 4 recognizably higher incidences of depression than the 5 controlled groups. The other groups did not have 6 demonstrably different responses to the crisis as 7 compared to the control group. 8 The Health Economic Study was carried from 9 1979 to 1982 and it is now complete. It was to performed by Penn State University and the U.S. NRC. 11 The primary purpose of it was to estimate the 12 economic costs incurred by individuals in communities 33 as a result of a change in the physical or mental \' i4 health status or the health care services due to the is Three Mile Island accident. 16 Some of the findings indicate that the 17 stress symptoms did affect some of the health related is services around Three Mile Island; and even a number 19 of cost estimates were prepared and said that about 20 S180,000 of extra costs associated with the stress on 21 the health care facilities for a period of ten months 22 following the accident within a five mile ring of 23 TMI. The primary costs were due to days of work lost 24 and physician visits. 25 The results also show there were (O\' 3
77
) I significant effects of distress manifested in the 2 form of increased alcohol, tranquilizer, and 3 cigarette consumption.
4 There was also a residential mobility study 5 that was intended to find out what effect the 6 accident had on residential mobility and the makeup 7 of the population in the vicinity after any movement $6 8 pushed or associated with the accident took place. 9 Some of the things that were discovered were a little 10 interesting, I feel. 11 About 15 percent of those who moved gave 12 TMI as the main reason for their decision to move. 13 However, the study also found that those moving D, 14 because of TMI had attributes highly associated with is mobility in general. If this was corrected for in 16 the study, there was no real movement that could be 17 attributed to the accident. And also the demographic la makeup of the people around Three Mile Island after 19 the movement that had taken place was not 20 demonstrably different from the way it was prior to 21 the accident. 22 MR. ROTH: Can you clarify real movement? 23 Can you define real movement from the area? 24 MR. CONGEL: As I mentioned, the survey of 25 those who moved indicated 15 percent of them
78 (( ) i indicated they moved because of the accident. But 2 the study was also performed in such a way so they 3 could attribute characteristics to those people who 4 are likely to move in any case or irrespective of any 5 outside motivating force, like the accident. 6 This study'said, once you correct for those 7 built-in characteristics, there wasn't any a demonstrable shift associated with the accident. I 9 am quoting from the findings of this particular 10 study. 11 MR. COCHRAN: Is the implication of that 12 that 15 percent of the people that moved don't tell r3 13 the truth? I an asking if you believe the study. I (V- ja am not suggesting you do. 15 MR. CONGEL: I don't think you can make a 16 simple determination of they don't tell the truth or 17 not. I am not a trained psychologist. 18 But when surveys are done of this sort, i9 interpretations by the reviewing group can lead to 20 certain findings. Whether we agree with them or not 21 are beside the point as far as I am concerned. But I 22 would certainly never say that 15 percent lied. That 23 doesn't make sense. 24 MR. COCHRAN: It seems to me you either 25 have to believe the person who did the study or the ( 0(>
79 4 Vf % 15 percent who moved.
- ts) 1 2 MR. WALD
- I think that is too simplistic.
3 The Coca-Cola taste test would prove that, that 4 people think one thing and then purchase a dif f erent 5 way. It is not a matter of attitudes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: But the original taste in 7 that case was the right one. 8 MR. SMITHGALL: Can you review the dates on 9 those for me again? I have the stress study. You 10 gave us that '79 and '80. But I missed the other 11 ones. 12 HR. CONGEL: The Mental Health Study 1979
- 13 to 1980, completed in '80. The Health Economics .?
h 14 Study '79 to '82, complete in 82. The Mobility Study is was also '79 to '82, completed in '82. 16 MR. SMITHGALL: And the Dose Assessment? 17 MR. CONGEL: '79 to '84, completed in '84. la Can I have the next slide, please? 19 Epidemiological studies ongoing are listed
- 20 on this slide. As you will see in a moment, these 21 are not only ongoing, but some of them had started in 1
22 the time frame very close to the time of the 23 accident. 24 The first one is the _TMI census. It is a 25 survey to be performed every five years, and done by 1 , s_
80 i
$, ) I the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Center for 2 Disease Control, and the U.S. Bureau of Census.
3 It was initiated in June of 1979. Its 4 duration is for 20 years or more. The primary ! 5 Purpose is to develop a population profile, which 6 could provide a basic framework for future studies of 7 mortality and morbidity. It is also referred to as a the TMI Population Registry. 9 Pregnancy Outcome Study. This one was 10 initiated in August of 1979. It also has a five year 11 repeat. It is being performed by or under the 12 auspices of Pennsylvania Department of Public Health, i3 It is to determine whether there was any measureable 14 impact on pregnancy outcome near the TMI site. 15 There were findings published both 16 short-term and long-term. Briefly these refer to 17 lengthy studies, and I am trying to give summaries is here. 19 Pregnancy outcome measures were done by 20 comparing exposed groups with unexposed control 21 groups. No significant differences were noted in the 22 short-term studies. In the long term, there was 23 apparently a small delay in getting the long-term 24 study underway; but there had been about an one day 25 delay in doing the long-term updates. Nevertheless,
81 y (/ N,) L I they are on a profile of five year time spans in 2 order to update th e studies. To my knowledge, this 3 particular study has not shown any demonstrable 4 effects on the pregnancy outcomes in the area, as 5 yet. 6 The congenital / neonatal hypothyroidism 7 study is being carried out annually, and also by the a Pennsylvania Department of Public Health. That is to 9 determine the incidence of what these effects could to be on newborn infants living within the 10-mile 11 radius of Three Mile Island. 12 The rate of hypothyroidism identified so 13 far has been attributed to be within the normal range c (~} bI 14 of expectation. There was a circumstance where th er e is were seven cases of congenital hypothyroidism in 17 16 Lancaster County. Most of these were beyond the 17 10-mile radius. These seven cases occurred in 1979. 18 There was an independent assessment done. 19 It was called the Independent 20 Hypothyroidism Investigative Committee organized by 21 the State Health Department. Of the cases 22 identified, none were attributed to any effects from 23 the Three Mile Island accident. 24 Infant Mortality Study took place in 1979 25 to 1980, and is to be done annually, also by the
82 f( t (. i State Department of Public Health, to determine if 2 _ the TMI accident has any measureable influence on 3 infant mortality in the vicinity of the plant. 4 The infant mortality data was analyzed by 5 calendar quarter for a 10-mile radius around TMI for 6 the years '77, '78 and '79. They were compared with 7 data from.other areas of Pennsylvania. There were no a statistical differences found in the comparisons. 9 There were some rates that were discussod to in the context of the report. And the basis of the 11 conclusions drawn upon looking at each of the cases, 12 there were no demon,strable effects associated with 13 the accident. \- 14 A new study th,at is taking place right now is is the epidemiological surveillance in Pennsylvania. 16 It Started in 1985 and is continuing. It is also 17 sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Health 18 and is coordinated with some other agencies, PEMA, 19 which I believe is the Pennsylvania Emergency 20 !!anagement Agency, the NRC, and I am not sure if BRP 21 is a state. agency or not. 22 The purpose of this study is to establish a 23 base line of health information that will permit an 24 interpretation of the health status of the population 25 living within 20 miles of the six nuclear plants that
83 y, t(j 1 exist in the state, the Commonwealth. 2 Can I have the next slide, please? One of 3 the reasons for the last study I mentioned was put in 4 place was because of the data that was presented by 5 the Aamodts. 6 "The Aamodts did a door-to-door survey in 7 regions surrounding the Three Mile Island plant. The a data indicated there may be higher than expected 9 deaths due to cancer in these areas around the Three to Mile Island plant. If that is the case, there is an 11 implication that something in the earlier studies had 12 been missed. Consequently, as I mentioned, the State _fs 13 of Peb.nsylvania instituted a study that. began this (() 14 year. 15 In addition, the Three Mile Island Public 16 Health Fund has sponsored a study that maybe not 17 accurately entitled here, but is called the Columbia 18 Study. It is a study that is being paid for out of 19 the Public Health Fund. It involves some scholars at 20 Columbia University. They are charged with the 21 responsibility of looking at some data to determine 22 if this -- if there is clustering of data or 23 so-called hot spots of cancer incidence, and whether l 24 they are statistically significant or not. On the 25 basis of the first level of this study, further 4
-- . - - - - - - - ,,,r-,-,,-. . , - , , ~ , , - , - ,.
,,------.g.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . , , - . , - - . - - - - - - - + - - - - ---n -~-
84
) i studies maybe warranted.
2 Public Health Fund has also sponsored an 3 analysis of some of the existing literature data 4 called the BEYEA Report. The BEYEA Report served as 5 a basis for a conference that was held in 6 Philadelphia last November where some of the authors , 7 of the studies that I referred to over the last a several minutes gathered together to discuss the 9 bases for their original analyses and estimates and to to see if we could find or determine weak spots or 11 areas that warranted more study. 12 So far I haven't seen any final report come fg j3 as a result of that meeting. But I do know that one - (V '4i preliminary analysis by BEYEA indicates some of the is ranges of uncertainities that he attributed to his 16 literature search has been reduced somewhat. But i7 there have been no conclusions from that meeting yet. is That was my last slide. I wanted to inform 19 the Committee and the interested members of the 20 public here what basis the staff had for preparing 21 the paper that was sent from the staff to the 22 Commissioners. 23 As a result of our looking back at the 24 studies that have taken place, the staff has 25 recommended to the Commissioners that nor further 9
85 1 studies by_their sponsorship are necessary. The 2 studies that have been concluded and the studies that 3 are ongoing serve as a sufficient data base to 4 determine whether anything else is needed. Like you, 5 Mayor Morris, we have not heard back as to what 6 action the Commissioners will take as of yet. 7 -MR. WALD: In the interest of completeness, 8 there is one additional study which is.being funded 9 by the TMI Public Health Fund, approved by the court
-10 June 13, a research study to determine the rates of 11 adverse outcomes of pregnancy in the vicinity of TMI 12 before, during, and after the accident at the TMI
, 12 nuclear facility. One additional study is also being b-{J'} 14 done at the same group at Columbia under Dr. Seltzer. 15 MR. COCHRAN: Let me add one item. 16 On the BEYEA situation, there is a proposal 17 to do the follow-up to that workshop, which would 18 involve additional research on some of the unresolved 19 issues. That proposal is now sitting with the 20 attorneys for the insurance pool. They will either 2 21 say they accept it or reject it. If they accept it, 22 it would go to the court for court approval; and if 23 the court approved it, then the study would be 24 conducted and it would last on the order of a year 25 and a half, I would guess.
\ .)
86 r(m_) t i If the attorneys for the insurance pool 2 reject part of the proposal, then it might be 3 negotiated or could go to the scientific advisor for 4 resolution and then to the court for approval. 5 So I think there will be further studies 6 along the lines of the BEYEA Report, assuming it 7 works its way through the legal process and courts. 8 MR. SMITHGALL: Can you review with me 9 which studies were, in fact, sponsored by the NRC to outside of the Dose Assessment Group? 11 I don't know if that was sponsored by them, 12 but you said they were a part of it. I see
, ("g 13 Pennsylvania involved here. But outside of the .
(V 14 Health Economic Study with Penn State University and is the NRC, I didn't see any other NRC sponsored ones 16 th e r e , unless I am missing something. 17 Have you, in fact, sponsored any? 18 MR. CONGEL: Yes, there are some that I i9 mentioned. We have not sponsored very many of the 20 epidemiological studies. I can tell you which ones 21 the NRC has sponsored, but I can tell in advance, no, 22 that we have not sponsored a lot of epidem'iological 23 studies. 24 MR. SMITHGALL: Which ones have you? 25 MR. CONG EL : You want to know the ones I 4
87 h I cited as principle studies? I have a list of smaller 2 studies. 3 MR. SMITHGALL: Of the ones you just 4 mentioned here. 5 MR. CONGEL: I wanted to make sure. There 6 are smaller studies that we sponsored along the way. 7 The Epidemiological Surveillance in 8 Pennsylvania, the one that is j ust starting, we are a 9 cosponsor on that. I already said the Health 10 Economic Study. Those are the two. 11 MR. SMITHGALL: That was Penn State 12 University? 13 MR. CONGEL: And the NRC. 14 MR. SMITHGALL: You have on your slide, 15 Pennsylvania and Chilton Res. Services? 16 MR. CONG EL : Yes, but they were paid by 17 contract under NRC sponsorship. 18 Of the ones I listed, that is it. 19 MR. SMITHGALL: So basically the only ones 20 you have sponsored are the Epidemiological 21 Surveillance in '85 and the Health Economics in '79 22 to '82. 23 MR. CONGEL: Of the ones I chose to 24 represent here as principle studies, yes. There are 25 a lot of smaller ones.
~
r l 88 l l th lig,) 1 MR. SMITHGALL: You don't necessarily have 2 to cite them out , but what do you mean by " smaller 3 study"? 4 MR. CONGEL: An example is -- for example, 5 when we were preparing the environmental impact 6 statement for the cleanup, there were some studies 7 done under our sponsorship by Specific Northwest a Laboratories. 9 MR. SMITHGALL: Were they a review of to existing data or new data and studies? 1: MR. CONGEL: Review of existing data. 12 MR. MASNIK: How about the whole body em i3 count? ( C, . 14 MR. CONGEL: That was done during the 15 accident period itself, if you want to count that. 16 That was actually included as some of the results in 17 the first table or first slide I presented. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? 19 MR. CONG EL : One more thing. 20 Investigations of reported animal and plant 21 health effects in the Three Mile Island area. l 22 MR. DI NUNNO: You presented one slide that ( 23 indicated what I think you characterized those 24 release values or those doses that you felt from the 25 examination of the study that you, NRC, felt from the i
89 i GS I-i (_) . examination of the study were " reasonable". 2 Can you share with us just what sort of 3 assessment you all did at the NRC to come to the 4 conclusion that out of that range of estimates that 5 were made, and those studies, that this seemed to be 6 a reasonable estimate that you could draw from? 7 That is what BEYEA did in his report. He a did an assessment of those studies and came to a 9 conclusion. Did you do something similar to that? 10 MR. CONGEL: I pointed out some of the il studies that we regarded as the principle studies. 12 We are aware of other studies being published or 13 maybe even written down in other forms other than r
\'()' 14 scientific journals.
is - There is a consensus among the staff that 16 the range of values that came out of the studies I 17 referred to in the first slide are the most , 18 reasonable, given all the data that we are aware of. 19 Also I want to point out that you know the 20 workings of the commission and the staff. We report 21 to the Commission as technical individuals. 22 In order to do that, I form technical 23 conclusionc or opinions based on my knowledge of what 24 is in the field, in this case, the TMI assessments; 25 not only I, but the people who work with me and for
\
i
---...-~-.-.r-..-, , . , - , , , - , - - - - . . - . - . - - - - - - - - - - . . - . - , - - - - - - - - - . - - , - - - - - - - . ~ - . - - - - - - - - - , -
f ' 90 r; , it) i me. 2 We came up with these numbers after looking 3 at a large number of publications in the field. 4 After we did some analyses of our own, we had 5 contractors do analyses for us. Based on that, we 6 believe these to be the best estimates. And we 7 haven't seen anything to change our mind that this a doesn't represent the reasonable of what actually 9 happened. 10 MR. DI NUNNO: Any number of us have felt ii that those people that are sitting behind you and are 12 members of the public have to have some feeling of n confidence that the NRC has been looking at all these ( (" ) 14 , studies. You are, after all, the major protector of is the public health and safety. 16 Somehow we or you have to convince these 17 people back there that, indeed you have looked at 3 is th e se studies, they are reasonable, the rates and the 19 doses are things that you independently feel are 20 things in the public interest you can defend.
'21 I think it is extremely important that you 22 make that representation -- not if you don't believe 23 that, of course. If you do, then I feel we can feel 24 that you have done th a t job, that you can give us 25 this work and we could have some confidence in it.
(~ ( C))
i 91 h 1 That is what I am looking for. 2 MR. CONGEL: One of the reasons I organized 3 the presentation the way I did was to present in my 4 first slide of information the background of studies 5 and the depth of the studies that were performed 6 during the time immediately following the accident 7 itself. 8 It was also to point out the Governor's 9 Group, there was the group that was commissioned by 10 the Commissioners, there was the President's Kemeny l Il Report, the Pickard, Lowe & Garrick, an independent I 12 consulting group still active in the field. They 13 have a fine reputation. The Ad Hoc Group and all l )' {N' 14 these groups came up with, not the same conclusions, is buc certainly within the range that I indicated on i 16 the slide following that. 17 My intent was to show the authority and the 18 confidence of the groups and individuals that went , 19 into this assessment and was done when everything was 20 still fresh. 21 MR. COCHRAN: Who funded the Pickard, Lowe 22 & Garrick study? l 23 MR. CONGEL: GPU. l 24 MR. COCHRAN: And the Ad Hoc Interagency 25 Dose Assessment Group? I notice the report comes [# I i b -e
i 92 (i^b + ( (_/ 1 with a NUREG number, so the NRC staff participated in 2 that initial dose assessment? 3 MR. CONG EL : Yes. 4 MR. COCHRAN: Part of the public perception 5 of these studies revolves around the fact that the 6 staff, staff's own estimates are pretty firmly tied 7 to their original numbers. 8 You are not going to look to the staff to 9 get sort of an independent review of the whole group ic at some later date. They have lost a little of their it independence by being one of the original estimators. 12 So you have to look to one the other group for some 13 sort of review of all these studies that have gone i4 on. 15 MR. SMITHGALL: I have to concur. They are 16 all five or siX years old, GXcept the new studies i7 . that have been completed. The only one the NRC has is found themselves to cosponsor has been the 19 Epidemiological Surveillance that basically was 20 pushed by the public, by the Aamodts. It wasn't 21 really anything the NRC brought upon themselves to go 22 out and do an independent study on. 23 Secondly, it appears that you are going to 24 rely on Pennsylvania to do the study. You are not 25 going to rely on yourselves going out and sponsoring NJ
93 1 any studies. 2 Thirdly, I have to agree with what Tom 3 says. It is the old adage of the fox guarding the 4 hen house. They are not going to change the numbers. 5 I guess I have to, after making that 6 statement, I have to ask you a question. What did 7 you do, what did you do other than just spit back a these other studies to us? You haven't done 9 anything. We already knew all this. 10 Outside of saying -- reading through these 11 studies and their conclusions and spitting them back 12 to us, you haven't.done anything, I don't think. _(~' 13 MR. !?ALD: C:n I ask Tom what he envisioned 14 anyone doing? I am puzzled because I know that the 15 NRC back in 1979 was doing its doing. I am not clear 16 on what you are leading to. The MRC does sponsor 17 health research. 18 MR. SMITHGALL: My point is the studies 19 they are reviewing here today are dated '79 and '80. 20 The studies that are completed are all, basically, by 21 Pennsylvania agencies, Department of Health and HEW. 22 The ongoing ones are again by Pennsylvania. 23 The only one that the NRC sponsors now is an 24 epidemiological surveillance th a t they wouldn't have 25 done if the Aamodts hadn't pushed them to do it. f'
94 (r' L 1 MR. WALD: What you are saying is only the 2 health agencies are doing the health studies. 3 MR. SMITHGALL: Why are we asking the NRC 4 staff to review Pennsylvania health studies? 5 MR. WALD: Because we asked them to review 6 them when we were in Washington at the last meeting. 7 The Mayor asked them for this review when we were in a Washington. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me explain so everyone 10 understands how this came about. 1: It is my understanding that th e 12 Commissioners asked staff to take a look at some rs 33 studies that have been done, I guess for the purpose ja of making a recommendation as to what other work may 15 staff recommend, and I am paraphrasing. 16 This was a presentation that took place at i7 that meeting in Washington on June 20. That is the is same meeting at which we asked whether we would be 19 permitted as a panel to get into this subject matter. 20 Since we needed a place to begin, we 21 thought this would be a good place to begin. It was 22 the overview by the NRC. That is really why the 23 presentation is being made today. Simply that. 24 MR. DI NUNNO: In response to the comments 25 taken place here, I think it isn't so important that -(Otg ur 0
-<,. , -- _,, y y . . , _ _ . , .-. ._. ,. .-.. -.. - - - - . . - - . - - - . , . - .- r
95
.I h 1 NRC themselves sponsor these studies, as long as they 2 are satisfied that those studies that are being done 3 seem to be appropriate.
4 I think that is what I read into their 5 conclusion. They are not saying the studies should 6 not be done. They are saying that the NRC should not 7 sponsor any in view of the fact that there are other , 8 studies being done. 9 Secondly, it isn't unusual for any 4 to technical staff, NRC or otherwise, having done a 11 report in 1979 or '80 to neglect looking at later 12 data, the results of later studies that have come g m 13 along. Technical people change their minds. If you LUJ .14 have more evidence that would allow that to happen or is justify that, that is not an unusual thing. 16 I would expect that if the results of these 17 studies, whether they are the BEYEA Report or out of 18 the workshop or whatever the case, if there are f acts 19 that are developed that would allow taem to or cause 20 them to change whatever conclusions they have derived 21 from earlier studies, I would expect in their review 22 they would do that. 23 THE CHAIRF1AN: Obviously the reason it is 24 on the agenda is the concern expressed by the public. 25 Maybe that is what we should be going to now. f#
96 i MR. SMITHGALL: I can appreciate the
~ .2 review. It was helpful for me.
3 The implication that there was no need or 4 no need for concern for further epidemiological 5 studies by the presentation here tonight is probably 6 what I am more concerned about. 7 I appreciate the summary. I don't think it a has ever been done. I don't mean to demean that this 9 review should never be done. It is the implication to that there is no need for concern of further is epidemiological study. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't agree with the 13 conclusion of the staff is what you are saying? 14 MR. SMITHGALL: Yes. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I think what the staf f has 16 done in the way of summarizing has been very helpful i7 and necessary. At least it is a point of beginning, is because the public maybe has not had this type of 39 listing before. 20 I really do want to give the public a 21 chance to come forward. There have been two people 22 just so the people know that Miss Osborn will be 23 first and Ms. Taylor will be second, because they 24 asked to be on the agenda ahead of time. Then we 25 will take people with their hands raised.
97 i h I .MR. CONG EL : Let me make two. points. 2 First of all, I didn't say further studies 3 should not be carried out. I said that the staff 4 recommended to the Commission that based on what is 5 ongoing and what has been done, we see no need for 6 the Commission to sponsor any more work. 7 Secondly, it is not my decision in any a case. The Commission makes the final decision. I am 9 only telling you what the conclusion was in the paper 10 that my group prepared. I know there is lots of room 11 for disagreement. 12 MR. SMITHGALL: You bet. 13 MR. CONG EL : I will be happy to entertain l 14 questions. 15 MS. MARSHALL: Did the Union For Concerned 16 Scientists do any study? 17 MR. CONG EL : An epidemiological study? - 18 MS. MARSHALL: Any study. 19 MR. CONGEL: The only study I can think of 20 by the UCS was some analysis they did prior to the 21 containment purge in 1980. I remember them coming up 22 with ways to vent the containment to minimize impact. 23 MS. MARSHALL: Did you, did the staff 24 examine the report? 25 MR. CONGEL: Which report?
98 e f(_) 1 MS. MARSHALL: Opinions of the Union of 2 Concerned Scientists when they were working on this. 3 MR. CONG EL : I don't know of any opinions 4 that UCS had on epidemiological studies, only on that 5 one issue. That is how the venting should take 6 place. 7 If my memory serves me correctly, that was a a proposed route for venting the krypton-85 that 9 would perhaps maximize dispersion and minimize dose. 10 MR. WALD: That was a review and study 11 asked for by the Governor of Pennsylvania at the time 12 prior to the venting, in representing the people of i3 Pennsylvania, i4 They* wanted more information and he asked is the UCS to look.at that specific issue. They did and g reported to him. 17 MS. MARSHALL: That really wasn't a health is study as far as the effect? 39 MR. WALD: No. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to ask that you 21 stay to five minutes. 22 MS. TAYLOR: The citizens have been very l 23 well aware of the studies that the NRC gave you. And 24 that is what has been our concern. What health ( 25 studies has the NRC, or I would even say the l (( )
99 fl~) I Department of Pennsylvania llealth Department, what 2 actually did they do. 3 I do want to say I do not view this as a political issue. I believe, and I feal very deeply 5 that this a moral, religious, and I dare say 6 spiritual concern that we the citizens of Three Mile 7 Island have. 8 I do want to talk about the dose assessment that the NRC staff member talked about. I have to 30 reiterate that all of their data was based on false
assumptions, as you all know or maybe you don't know, 12 that for the first 12 hours, 42 hours, or even 72 t
13 hours of the accident there are missing records, lost Id filters, stripped chart sheets missing, and all the is data that the MRC said and GPU'said they are bas'ing 16 their studies on were based on this very sparse I7 information, data. la So that is why the citizens have been
" concerned, especially when -- and I would like to 20 just outline this, during the days of the accident 21 thousands of residents of the Three Mile Island area 22 experienced metallic taste, sunburn, hair loss, 23 vomiting, diarrhea, nausea. They called the y
24 Governor's hot line and reported these experiences. 25 They called their local representatives ani TMI (O
100 1 Alert, which was the only route organized at the 2 time. They told these people who were somewhat in 3 authority about their experiences. 4 Stephen Reed, who is now mayor of 5 Harrisburg, wrote a letter to the NRC on August 8, 6 1979, saying I have had hundreds of calls from my 7 constituents with these experiences. The NRC said, 8 "Oh, it couldn't happen. Not enough got out." 9 I want to put on record, I have documents 10 here that I would like to share with you all. The 11 first three documents are the briefs that are now in 12 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This is Marjorie 13 and Norman Aamodts' briefs written with the help of I 14 their lawy e r s.; the first being Joseph F. Rhoda and 15 that's their lawyer from Lancaster, and then Allen 16 Kaner from Philadelphia. These speak specifically 17 about the health issues and the basic noninterest la that the NRC had in what the experiences of the 19 people were and are at this point. 20 Throughout the experience of six years I 21 would say at this point, citizens have been trying to 22 get authority, people in authority, interested in 23 what actually happened, their own experiences. We 24 know now that the dosimeters, the LTD's were 25 inadequate. But we do maintain there were dosimeters
+,
101 e l' <(T_) 1 out there and they were the people, che plants and 2 the animals. It was incumbent of the NRC to look at 3 those dosimeters, and that is us. 4 After asking the State Health Department to 5 do something about it, going to the Three Mile Island 6 Public Health Fund and asking them to do an 7 epidemiological study, citizens were exhausted. We a said we will do it ourselves. That is when Marj orie 9 and Norman Aamodt and 16 other people went door to to door in areas we heard had real problems. 11 So on April 18 we did ic for about a month, 12 in April of 1984. We went to three areas north, 13 northvast of Three Mile Island. But to our horror, 14 we the interviewers found not only metallic taste, is but cancer deaths and other cancers in almost every 16 household we interviewed. 17 The end result was a seven-fold higher is cancer death rate, or almost 600 percent when you 19 compare it to the Pennsylvania vital statistics. 20 We also gathered affidavits of the people 21 who experienced the plume, experienced unusual events 22 that could only be explained as high radiation doses. 23 And yet nobody in authority would look at that. 24 So on June 21, 1984, Marjorie and Norman 25 Aamodt presented their health study to the public by
102 1 a press conference. This was a motion to the NRC to 2 look into not only the health ef f ects we were talking 3 about, this was a management integrity issue. If GPU 4 could lie about this, what else would they lie about? 5 The NRC did nothing. That was June 21, 6 1984. They did nothing. On August 15, the Aamodts 7 presented oral argument and restated the devastating 8 health problems. The only reaction we got was 9 everybody saying blah-blah-blah. They fumbled; they 10 didn't know what to say. 11 On August 30, 1984, the NRC, the 12 Pennsylvania Department of Evironmental Resources, 13 and the Aamodts went to the study area with radiation
- 7. ("
14 detection devices and radiation was detected at 15 certain spots, particularly on a porch railing. It 16 was an alpha radiation detection. And I know that 17 you all know what that means. 18 The NRC and the Pennsylvania Department of 19 Environmental Resources are now saying they didn't 20 find anything of significance. They have said they 21 found something; but they attribute it to bomb 22 testing fallout from China bomb testing. 23 On November 12 and 13 in 1984 the TMI 24 Public Health Fund sponsored a dosimeter workshop at 25 which Marj orie Aamodt discussed the study and
103 r[ ) I convinced the scientists there that a large 2 epidemiological study should be done by independent 3 researchers. They were all ready to say nothing 4 happened at Three Mile Island because the NRC said 5 nothing got out, so nothing could have happened. 6 But th e scientists who were supposed to 7 look and question and wonder, said, Yes, that is what a really did -- that is the result of that dosimeter 9 conference. That independent study was finally 10 decided to happen. That is the study that Columbia 11 University School of Public Health is doing right 12 now.
..(^ '! i3 THE CHAIRMAN: Uhere are you going on this?
v 14 I said from the beginning the length of time, and I 15 am trying to be fair here. You are already into the 16 eight minute mark. 17 MS. TAYLOR: The NRC has 20 minutes and is they get paid and we don't. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: If you want to continue, 20 fine; but you have to give me a chance to finish. 21 I have seen six hands. You have taken 22 eight minutes of the 30 minutes for public comment. 23 If you are going to take 15, then everybody else will 24 have less. 25 MS. TAYLOR: I was told I had seven minutes
.)
104 L - I for myself. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't jump in until you 3 got to eight. So you go ahead, but keep in mind you 4 are going to take time away from other people because 5 we are going to conclude this item by 10:30 or 10:35; 6 because we have another item to complete. We are 7 going to go to eleven o' clock to allow public 2 8 comment. 9 MS. TAYLOR: What I want to say I will say 10 very quickly. 11 We found 20 cancer deaths in a population 12 of 450 where you are supposed to have something like f 13 four or five. These cancer deaths have been I' ) 14 verified. 15 CDC, a letter from Dr. Caldwell said, "If 16 these cancer deaths are verified, then you have 17 something of statistical significance." They have 18 been verified and I have documentation to that. 19 What I am saying now is that as a panel, as 20 a citizens advisory panel, you should take up the 21 health issue. That should be a very important aspect 22 of your mandate. We the citizens should be able to 23 come and have people come and tell their own
'24 experiences to you people. Then and only then should l
25 you make some kind of decision. r-C'! l
105 [/~') 1 MARY OSBORN: My name is Mary Osborn. I 2 have one comment first on the NRC before us. 3 All the studies that I have ever read 4 relating to any kind of a health impact mention the 5 same line over and over again for the past six and a 6 half years. "Not enough got out, so we didn't need 7 to look any further," and they didn't. They never a did chromosome studies. The Kemeny Commission was 9 told, "Not enough got out. You don't have to look," to and they didn't. 11 These two books here represent what 12 everyone has based their findings on. This NUREG 600
) i3 and MUREG 558. Since nothing got out, they said I "( '
a people could not e::perience metallic taste and skin 15 burns and blisters; and that is my one comment. 16 I am going to go into a map I prGPared. I 17 don't know if you will be able to see this because of is the lights, but you can look at it. 19 This was prepared for a Congressional 20 briefing a few months ago in Washington. This is a 21 10-mile radius of TMI; and this is Three Mile Island 22 in the middle. The blue is the Susquehanna. All 23 these little red dots represent lawsuits. 24 MS. TAYLOR: Personal injury lawsuits. 25 These are the lawsuits against GPU for cancer deaths, [1
106 iJ l birth def ects, and other health related problems. 2 MARY OSBORN: These are only about 260. 3 There are almost 1,000 by now in this area; and this 4 is only about 260. 5 In 1979 TMI Alert got a lot of calls as 6 Francine said. We did a questionnaire, and this is 7 the result of the questionnaire on health ef f ects. 8 There are gold stars and purple stars. The 9 gold represent people with metallic taste or some 10 other symptom. The purple are people with other 11 symptoms such as skin burn or nausea or headaches, 12 but they didn't have the metallic taste. It does r
- 13 sort of fit a pattern.
f 14 This is Lancaster County neonatal 15 hypothyroidism for 1979. There were six locations 16 with seven neonatal hypothyroidism cases. There is a 17 definito pattern. 18 The blue dots represent cluster cases that 19 have been reported to citizens, mainly Susquehanna 20 Valley Alliance or TMI Alert. There are 16 here, 21 but there are a whole lot more. I have not updated 22 this since March. 23 MS. TAYLOR: I just got a list yesterday 24 from some people; people with cancer, cancer of the 25 throat, brain tumor, cancer of the bowel, breast (~~) - (23
107 [n, kl I cancer, etc. This is within a mile radius in 2 Lancaster County. 3 MR. COCHRAN: Cluster of what? 4 MARY OSBORN: Three or more. I didn't use 5 anything less than three. In one instance there are 6 five on one street. 7 The little green stars are locations that I 8 found deformed plants around the area. 9 This is a plume. The green one was 4:30 io the day of the accident, that is the first one I 11 have. I have a copy to submit to the panel to be 12 included. It shows where I got it. Thic black plume covers the Harrisburg are: {]) i3 14 mostly, and that was 8:30 Wednesday, the day of the is accident. It only goes this far because tha t is as 16 far as they had it on here. I used the identical 17 maps. 18 MS. TAYLOR: And these are Department of 19 DOE maps. 20 MARY OSBORN: It is getting harder to see, 21 but this black circle stretches over 20 miles. That 22 is a residual cloud of xenon 133. The highest doses l 23 are supposed to be in the center. 24 The ironic thing about this is it stretches i l 25 from Hersey through Harrisburg to Mechanicsburg. !(,) l
108 f a 1 Hershey is where they evacuated pregnant women and 2 preschool children. 3 There is also a narrow plume right here in 4 the middle. It fits straight up the river. We got 5 calls from people who apparently were impacted during 6 the accident; because there was one report of a girl 7 with hair falling out in clumps in that area. Then a there is another wide one impacting the same area. 9 This xenon cloud and this little plume that 10 is just starting both occurred at 5:00 p.m. on 11 Thursday,- March 29. This one impacted York Haven. 12 Then I have others showing different areas. 7
-j
() 13 There is a narrow yellow line going over Hershey. 14 There is another one that goes almost over the same 15 area. There is one going over Elizabethtown at'2:00 16 a.m. in the morning. It stops because that is as far 17 as my copies went. 18 This is three different days. The black 19 plume is April 1, which goes off the map. I don't 20 know if it hit Baltimore or not. The green one goes 21 over and j ust misses parts of Lancaster, and the 22 other one goes in another northwesterly direction. 23 These were March 31, April 1, and April 2. I only 24 did these as examples just to show where they went, 25 how far they went, and the fact it does impact. J N_: - m m' mum : - -
109
/(\J>
f 1 We did our study on the west side of the 3 2 river. I have no data before 4:30 in the afternoon. 3 I have a whole lot of information I would like to put 4 into the report. , 5 We are going to continue this because 6 nobody else is going to do it as good as We will. 7 Some of the things they are looking f or we think are a not enough, mostly the symptoms that go along with 9 the illness. 10 MS. MARSHALL: How did you determine 11 plumes? Was this from questioning people? 12 MS. TAYLOR: No, this is based on n 13 Department of Energy plume maps that they plotted. [(: _) 14 This was by helicopter. This is from DOE 15 documentation. This is simply put on here as they 16 did it. This is all documented in the DOE. 17 MS. TAYLOR: I have a document I would like 18 to put in the record. It is about health ef f ects. 19 It admits where the NRC admits that operation of 20 nuclear power plants will kill people out of the 21 population, but they also say it is random. They 22 expose the population, and it is random death. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: So you understand, you can 24 give that to me. I will look at it. I think a 25 judgment has to be made of whether these will be (\ A . ( vs .
110 ' - 1 included in the record. We will take a look and give 2 you an answer on it. 3 JANE LEE: Mary's map shows only about a 4 fourth because we haven't had an opportunity to go as 5 far ranging in this area. Lancaster area, nothing 6 has been done. Many areas in York, some of the 7 deaths already there have not been included in what 8 she is doing. We think they are there, but they 9 haven't been included. 10 The door-to-door surveys from the Aamodt 11 findings and the present door-to-door studies that 12 are now going on reveal many residents, better than 4j 13 50 percent, were never contacted by the Health kl 14 Department according to the individual responses is which we encountered. The question was, Were you 16 ever contacted in a health survey from the 17 Pennsylvania Department of Health? That is on our is form. More than 50 percent were never contacted. 19 In fact, there hasn't been a single 20 door-to-door effort to obtain health effects around 21 TMI, except by local citizens who undertook this 22 effort because no one would undertake the effort. 23 Now, we witness the NRC staff without any 24 door-to-door surveys publicly claiming there are no 25 health ef f ects. Where were the professionals for the t ;
111 I ( r; ) J 1 last six years? 2 This entire matter that we are discussing 3 here this evening would never have reared its head 4 except through the efforts of the public-minded 5 citizens who decided the only way to find out what 6 was going on was to go out there and undertake it 7 themselves. What a pitiful example for a country a with all the colleges and professionals that we have 9 and all the academia, that we nonprofessionals have 10 to go out there and do your job. 11 Furthermore, the method of acceptable 12 health surveys or studies that could be considered ( ; i3 scientifically or statistically viable would be to
- us _
14 count overy household, every member with that i3 household, the age of each person, were they in the 16 area or absent, did they ev2Ouato, UOrc they inside 17 or outside at the time of the accident, and what is health problems each individual encountered in that 19 household. 20 This is considered a viable health survey, 21 not a random selection conducted by the Health 22 Department. I find it absolutely appalling that the 23 NRC and the Pennsylvanis Public Health Department 24 would allude their findings to a professional study. 25 We do not lay claim to professionalism. Yet what we r, CO
112
~# 1 have done is far more credible and far more 2 professional than any evidence eminating from the NRC 3
staff or the Pennsylvania Department of Health, d We think the bottom line is the health 5 effects on this whole subject. That is the bottom 6 line. 7 I spoke to many of these residents 8 There is absolutely no doubt about our personally. 9 findings. The Pennsylvania Department released their 10 Did this panel response to the Aamodt studies. 11 receive a copy of that release in response to the 12 Yet it was released to the CDC, Aamodt studies? No. f 13 and it was released to other professionals throughout ((-]) Id the country. 15 I called last week for a copy; and I am 16 still waiting for a copy to the response to the 17 Aamodt findings. 18 I find the representation that was 19 presented this evening by the NRC an incredible 20 fraud; and it has all the earmarks and the stamp and 21 the fingerprints of Dr. Tokahotta (ph onetic) , who has 22 in the past been so dishonest and certainly has not 23 been candid with this panel. 24 How long can we go on this way? l 25 JOYCE CORRADI: I am Joyce Corradi, ((,) I l
F 113 I ~ Concerned Mothers and Women. 2 I have two questions. What I would like to 3 know f rom both the panel and the NRC is, if there was another study that confirmed what the Aamodt study 5 had found, would the Commission and would this panel 6 change their position? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: What position are you 8 talking about with this panel? JOYCE CORRADI: Am I correct that you
'O haven't made a decision as far as hearing?
II THE CHAIRMAM: I am saying the Commission 12 has been asked to allow us the opportunity to have 13 people come to this panel and give testimony
regarding studies that have been completed. So we .
15 would really be only acting as a conduit for that 16 information. The public would be allowed to ask I7' That is what the NRC has questions and make comment.
'8 been asked to allow.
19 It is my They haven't said yes yet. 20 understanding that we expect a positive response; and 21 So so we are getting into those discussions tonight. 22 there is no position to change. 23 I will relate my question JOYCE CORRADI: 24 to the NRC at far as their position with the paper 25 tonight. m a
114 4's 1 If there would be another study that would 2 confirm what the Aamodt study found, would they have 3 a change in their position? d THE CHAIRMAN: A change in what position? 5 JOYCE CORRADI: That there is no further 6 study that should be pursued by them. 7 MR. CONG EL : If an independent study a sponsored by the State of Pennsylvania or anyone 9 else, judged to be scientifically credible, indicated 10 there were health ef f ects attributable to the il accident, I am certain that I as well as the 12 Commission would be interested in knowing the cause
,(]) 13 and effect relation.
14 JOYCE CORRADI: Interested or would you 15 pursue it? 16 MR. COMGEL: By saying interested, I mean I 17 would pursue it. 18 JOYCE CORRADI: I want to make one brief 19 statement. On page 14 of, as I agreed with Jane this l
- 20 charade of a statement by the NRC, the findings that 21 say, "TMI mothers have an excess risk of experienced i
22 clinical episodes of anxiety and depression during 23 the year after the accident. They also reported more i 24 symptoms of anxiety and depression at,some clinical 25 levels." l i i b I
, - , - - . , . ~ - - - - , , - . , , , -, --,c--.,- r-. - - - , .
-a . ,
1 115 '-' i Well, I am a mother of five children. I 2 can tell you where my depression comes from and my 3 anxiety. It is from observing such things as I did tonight from the NRC with their callous disregard of 5 our health considering this matter. 6
, MR. ROTH: If dreams would come true, what 7
would be acceptable to you as a study, an independent 8 study? What would be acceptable? You don't know what the results of the study would be, let's say. 10 Who would be credible to you? II JOYCE CORRADI: I would hope to think that 12 the people that have been working with the court
/m 13 e decision from the Berger case would be a starting
$(l) Id stone to start pursuing this with some real interest is' and some real concern as to what is happening to the
'6 people in this community.
'7 Shcondly, it is like Jane an'd the other la people who have spoken before me, you cannot look for something if you are -- you cannot find something 20 that you are not looking for it.
21 I was under 6. h e impression that, when one 22 went into the study, they presumed nothing until they 23 found what the results of that study were. When you 24 have an attitude that there is nothing there, how can 25 one really feel secure that there will be obj ective A
116
- p
' I decisions made on that.
2 As a citizen and a mother of five children, 3 I resent it vehemently. It is not that I want d studies to be adjusted to my point of view. I want 5 studies to relate to what people in the communities 6 have experienced. 7 BETTY TOMPKINS: I interviewed Dr. Kemeny a after he had done his three-day study, I think it was 9 Whatever he caid in his report, I at Middletown. 10 will never forget what he said to me that day. He 11 said, "This was a day I will never forget." 12 The more we get distanceed from the Three
,() 13 Mile Island accident, the easier it is to forget how 14 traumatized people were. I do believe, and I am not 15 a mathematician in any way, but I do believe to come is up with any kind of an answer, you have to know the 17 properties of X that you started from or something 18 like that.
19 If all of the doses went off scale that 20 time, how can you come up with any kind of answers 21 that are credible to people? 22 Then I just want to say this. In my 23 opinion it is a moral issue. If all of us in this 24 room were drinking from a well and we were enjoying 25 the water. But if one of us knew that that water was
117 I contaminated, I do believe that we would have a moral 2 imperative to warn all of you that that water was 3 contaminated. d The independent studies or surveys, whether 5 you call them scientific or not, and I know the 6 Aamodt data was thrown out because pages were lost in 7 the mailing before it got to the NRC or to CDC. But 8 there ought to be a way that we get all our humanity
.together and say, Something is wrong around Three
'O Mile Island. We are the citizens of Pennsylvania.
It is our grandchildren and our children that are 12 feeling the effects of this.
.r, '3 I myself hr.d the metallic taste going up Id Route 340 not long after the accident, within that is week. And you come from Washington, and we respect 16 you and we respect your position, but we are the II victims.
'8 We want you to do your -- make sure that the Aamodt study is given credibility, that you 20 yourselves initiate an independent health study. We 21 pay the NRC. I think'they start at a very terrific 22 salary. There are human lives at stake here. I ask 23 you that you reconmend to the panel you do an 24 independent study here.
25 DEBRA DAVENPORT: I am wondering if they
118 e
/
k, I can really assess doses that people receive if they 2 don't know yet all the things that happened during 3 the accident. 4 I would like to point out a question I 5 asked to the panel back in March, and the response to 6 it. I asked if there had been a transfer of water 7 from Unit 1 to Unit 2 during the accident. The a response was in the affirmative. , 9 Were there other transfers to and from? 13 Did other things happen that we don't know about yet? 11 I don't really think that all the data is in on what 12 happened during the accident. If we don't know, how
]) can we judge? '
13 14 I Would like to ask in reference to that, is they mentioned there was Cobalt 60 in the borated 16 water storage tank for Unit 2. I am curious to know 17 if there were other contaminants in that. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We presently are on the 19 health ef f ects studies. 20 DEBRA DAVENPORT: I feel this does relate 21 to it.
- 5 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I am ruling it doesn't 23 relate. If you hase a question on health effect 24 studies, raise that question.
25 DEBRA DAVENPORT: I think this one. (O,
119 I THE CHAIRMAN: I am saying it is not. 2 DEBRA DAVENPORT: Then I do feel that 3 people in areas are sick. And denial that they are d ill or dying or have died means they are going to be 5 denied care, because some people are sick and they 6 cannot work or af f ord treatment. I While we go on doing this or do not a carefully look at what is emitted from the plant now or what we are going to do on an ongoing basis, we
'O are adding to the problem. We are all responsible II and we have to do something. This is the way I feel.
12 THE CHAIRMAM: We are going to have two or rf tw)
'3 three more minutes. I am going to take one more I'
person. It is twenty minutes of eleven. We have two 15 other agenda items. 16 This is not the last night; this is the
'I first night. It will not be the last opportunity. I is will say people like Francine, if there is anybody who wants to speak to this panel on a matter longer 20 than five minutes in the future, I ask that you send 21 me something in writing telling me what you want to 22 speak on and how much time you want to take. Maybe 23 in that situation we can allot additional time.
24 Because it makes it impossible for me to 25 moderate not knowing how long you are going to speak.
- LC 1
120 ( I am saying tonight if you want more than five 1 2 minutes, I want a written request telling me what you 3 want to speak on and how much time you want. 4 But under these circumstances, I cannot 5 allow you to go on. You can take the time or give it 6 to the gentleman. 7 L VOICE: I will give it to the gentleman. 8 UORMAN AA!!ODT: I apologize for arriving 9 late. I came principally with a single intent this 10 evening; and that was to offer our thanks to you for M having taken the serious interest and the position 12 you have that this is a valid ro.le for you, to cet as
, (mJ 13 that conduit th a t we want to you act as ..
1d We greatly appreciate that and that was my is principal purpose of coming. Having come, though, 16 several other things came to mind that I would lik e-17 to address very briefly. 18 First, in response to Dr. Cochran's 19 question with regard to clusters. It should be 20 clearly understood those are clusters within
\
21 households. The kinds of clusters we saw, for 22 example, in two cases a mother and daughter developed 23 breast tumors within the same month. That is a 24 fairly remarkable occurrence in anyone's statistics. 25 Those are the kinds of clusters we are talking about. i(A ! Q,
%-)
121
? 1 'T The other thing I was utterly appalled by 2
this evening, was the NRC comment with regard to 3 scientific method. I hate to make this kind of d comment, but I th ink the record would bear th a t I 5 have given more papers to technical symposia probably 6 then any of the individual who criticized me on the 7 NRC staff. I am appalled. 8 We did not do an epidemiological study by epidemiological standards; but we did a very
'O thoroughly scientific study. We observed what was there. Our observations were demonstrated to be I
true. We provided valid conclusions based on those 13 el ) observations.
\
J .
'd Not a single finding.that we presented has is been proven falso, not one. 'Bect that in mind. Show 6
me a study done by the NRC -- look at th eir film II study if you want to look at a real dilly -- or by la the Pennsylvania Department of Health who escribed the 10 fold increase in neonatal hypothyroidism to 20 genetic aborations amoung the Amish, who today are 21 still having babies. They are still there, and the 22 neonatal hypothyroid rate is right back to where it 23 was before the accident. Where is the scientific 24 method? There has been none by the Pennsylvania 25 Department of Health or the NRC.
122 h- 1 So for that reason, I would like to close 2 I think that fairness, the search with a request. 3
-for truth which you are embarking on, the voyage on which we would greatly appreciate some company, could 5
best be served if you would give us an opportunity to 6 respond to the testimony given to you tonight by the 7 And so help me with all the work we have been NRC. a doing, I am not looking forward to putting together 9 the equivalent of one more brief. But on the other 10 hand, I do not like to see a lie stand. Il Thank you. 12 THE CHAIRMAM: You are suggesting that you be permitted time on a future meeting agenda to acke (
~
13 14
'a presentation?
15 - MR. AAMODT: Yes, sir. I think wb could 16 make it very brief. What I would like to suggest we 17 do is provide you with a written response. If you la will provide us a copy of the transcript of the 19 comments this evening, because I only got it second 20 hand. 21 But'I assure you f rom the years of contact 22 with the Commission and their responses since April 23 of last year, I think I have a very good idea of 24 their responses. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: All I was trying to do is, t
123 7 I if you want to give a presentation to the panel, how 2 much time would you need? If you don't know tonight, 3 let me know. I don't think there is problem in finding 5 time in the future. 6 MR. AAMODT: We would be perfectly happy 7 with 15 minutes, if we could at the same time provide 8 you with a written document that gives you details. We would use the 15 minutes only to highlight and
'O respond to your questions.
MR. ROTH: I would like to make a 12 suggestion and get feedback from the panel on this.
3 I would like in the future to submit that wi th the interest in this area or other areas, that is this type of discussion and dialogue take place in M the beginning of the meeting.
'I For five years we have had NRC first and
'8 GPU and the NRC people have left. I think that is unfair. I think after five years we can switch for 20 the next five years. Well, expeditiously 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. Wait a 22 minute.
23 MR. ROTH: That the public be first on the 24 agenda, and let the NRC and GPU and DOE and those 25 folks wait.
124 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me say this. I think as 2 to the type of thing we are talking about tonight, 3 the health ef fects study question, may have been d better scheduled. I think that is a fair 5 observation. 6 I think as to other matters, we have a need 7 to have certain presentations made to us by the NRC 8 and GPU early on. We have tried now to provide 9 public comment in the first half and the second half 10 so we can be more responsive. il I th ink as it relates to the health effects 12 studies, we will try and schedule it early on. I ,j 13 think if th a t is what you are talking about, that 1: 14 a valid point. 15 MR. ROTH: Yes. And I think the public 16 has -- Francine, Jane and whoever wishes to speak, 17 really has an obligation in knowing that is where we la feel, to advise us in advance that this is how much 19 time. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We have many people who want 21 an opportunity to speak to this issue, but we don't 22 know very much ahead of time. If it is a length of 23 time beyond the normal public comment, then we will 24 schedule you at that meeting or a future meeting to 25 do it. I don't really want to get too much further
%,N
125 1 on this, because we have another item to discuss. 2 NORMAN AAMODT: In that vein, if you would 3 be good enough to let us have a time before you, we d would appreciate as much notice as we could have. 5 We might even because of the legal 6 involvement say, We can't this time, but another 7 time. We would greatly appreciate the notice. 8 Cnce again, I am sure I don't speak only for only Marj orie and me, but I am sure I speak for a
'O whole bunch of us here, we are appreciative of th e
'I fact that you folks are taking this issue seriously.
12 MR. COCHRAM: First I want to say about
-'3 Francine' remark about the railing, I went up there d
personally to stand over Bill Kirk's assessment or
~ 'S reassessment of the alpha radiation of the railing.
16 I am satisfied that there was not any alpha
'I radiation (inaudible) background levels on that
'8 railing.
Second, there was a statement made about 20 confirming the Aamcdt study. That study, as some 21 people here know, was confirmed of the cancers in 22 those areas. It is on that basis that the Public 23 Health Fund has taken the initiative to do an 24 independent study of the cancer risk in clusters like 25 the ones that were studied by the Aamodts. If those
-g
r-126 r I prove out, then the proposal envisions further 2 studies in those areas. 3 I would like to ask Mr. Aamodt or any d others whether the independent studies you seeking 5 are limited to radiation induced health effects, or 6 are you also seeking additional studies of what a lay 7 person would call the stress phenomena in the area; 8 or have you had enough of those? Do you know you 9 , have been stressed and you don't need any more? 10 There are proposals floating around to do 11 additional studies in that area. Should they be 12 done, or should they not be done? g 13 NORMAN AAMODT: I would not like to offer 14 an opinion with regard to those. What I am concerned is about and what Marjoria is concerned about and most 16 of the people we have been interf aced with over the 17 past year are concerned about is, if indeed there is is a present danger to individuals in that area that is 19 the result of the accident, if indeed people could 20 statistically be expected to develop cancer either 21 because of an exposure at the time of the accident or 22 an exposure subsequently for what might still be in 23 the environment, those people are alerted to the 24 hazard. 25 It seems to me that we are doing little p
127 1 less -- or the MRC is doing little less than 2 committing murder when they deprive these people 3 intentionally by avoiding the issue, deprive these people of the opportunity of knowing whether or not 5 they should take some extra ordinary precaution. The 6 data indicates that. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand you have 8 opinions on the NRC, and that is fine. But I guess Tom is just asking what would you like to see happen.
'O I am trying to get the answers as specifically as possible.
12 ggg;;g3 gg;,ODT: I am trying to say we are
'3 There may be other concerned about health ef f ects.
I' studies that are .cntirely valid that people can is I have no basis f or justifying or not justify. 16 justifying except in regard to the health matter. I# MARY OSBORN: As far as the stress goes,
'8 overybody has agreed there is stress. But I am not
" talking about stress because of the accident.
20 Some people have stress because they have 21 been lied to nonstop for six and a half years. I 22 have stress from being told this could not have 23 happened to you when you know it happened. 24 JOYCE CORRADI: That is exactly how I feel. 7 25 MR. COCHRAN: The question is whether
*/
L
128 6' - I additional studies of the stress phenomena are 2 warranted, or whether the citizens up here fe71 they 3 have had enough studies of stress and they want the 4 people to be looking at another area. 5 JOYCE CORRADI: My answer would be, if it 6 means taking away from th e other studies, absolutely 7 not. If it is in conj unction with other studies, I 8 wouldn't care. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to go to the 10 final agenda item. Il The last item is scheduling future topics. 12 MR. SMITHGALL: What minimum standards is 13 the NRC going to place on GPU in reference to the 14 training of the operators with these long-handled 15 tools? What kind of standards are they looking at? 16 Are they looking at an examination, of a base line or 17 testing? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: You are really into these 19 long-handled tools. 20 MR. SMITHGALL: I know there is a Sears 21 vice grip, Craftsman vice grip, at the end there. I 22 know when I try to get into the engine of my car with 23 a vice grip on a broom handle, it doesn't work. I 24 think we ought to look at that. 25 I think f uel movement that Willis is going
\ /
l 129 1 - 1 to talk about at the next meeting, we should be 2 updated on th a t . The issues in reference to the 3 canisters and the casks and shipment of those. That is all I have so far. 5 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to allot time to 6 discussion of how the epicor filters ended up in a 7 commercial burial ground. I find that hard to a believe. I would like to see discussion of the 9 analysis that led to the conclusion that that be an 10 appropriate place to dispose of that.
'I THE CHAIRMAN: You are going to get prior 12 to the meeting information. I would assume that you
'3 could look at.
Id MR. COCHRAN: I would hope maybe all th e 15 panelists would get that information. I know there 16 are others interested in that same issue. 17 MR. BIXBY: We are working on a report that
'8 would summarize the ef f orts associated with the 19 commercialization of the high integrity container and 20 the disposal of that.
21 Can I let you know when that report will be 22 available to you? We need to get a copy of that 23 report to you, and then we can discuss it at a panel 24 meeting. 25 MR. COCHRAN: Have you already buried these
l 130 , 1 /[' d I things? 2 MR. BIXBY: Oh, yes. We got a license from 3 the State of Washington. The State of Washington 4 went back to the NRC and got their technical review 5 and approval of that design before they issued the 6 We have already buried them. They are in license. 7 the ground. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: That is going to be an item 9 for discussion. 10 MR. COCHRAN: When can you have the report? U MR. BIXBY: Let me find out and get back to 12 Mike on that. 7j 13 THE CHAIRMAM: Any other topics for futurc 14 discussion? All the public left, and I guess they is don't want health effects. 16 JOYCE CORRADI: I am here and I do. 17 MR. MILLER: I wanted to ask a question, la but I see Mr. Aamodt has left. We keep hearing about 19 the Aamodt study. I would like to get a copy to 20 review. 21 MR. SMITHGALL: I th ink some of th e things 22 Francine brought for us tonight are a synopsis of 23 some of th a t . 24 THE CHAIRMAN: There is an awful lot of 25 information here.
,a
131 Fh I MR.' MILLER: I want to read the Aamodt 2 study and not lawsuit. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Tell me what you want. MR. MILLER: We were told that this is a 5 scientific study, which implies it has been published 6 and reviewed by peer group review. Therefore, I 7 would like to know where it has been published, so I 8 can get a copy of it. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: If we can't find where it
'U has been published, would you like a copy of it?
'I MR. MILLER: Yes.
12 MR. MASNIK: Can anybody be a little more n , I3 [, ) specific as to what is the Aamodt study? Id MARY OSBORN: You need the two, the 15 original and Revision 3. 16 MR. MASNIK: Send it to me. 37 THE CHAIRMAN: So you understand, the l8 information you gave me and Francine gave me, Mike is I' going to copy it for all the panel members. I am not 20 going to have it attached to the transcript. 21 Any other topics for future meetings? 22 MR. ROTH: Follow-up on th e enforcement 23 action. 24 MR. SMITHGALL: Keep that going until they 25 decide to respond.
132 h 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else? If not, when 2 do you want the next meeting? Do you want one in 3 August or September? 4 MR. R'TH: O September. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: We will have a September 6 meetihg and no August meeting. Where will it be held? 7 MR. DI NUNNO: Maryland. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Obviously, if this happened, 9 we would not schedule for that meeting certain 10 topics. But there had been a suggestion that we hold il the meeting in Maryland at some point. 12 I don't know if you could work with us on ,(L^T 13 comething along those lines since you are from that ' s-/ 14 neck of the woods, to schedule such a meeting for 15 September? 16 MR. SMITHGALL: Not that I don't want to go 17 to Maryland, but is there an interest in Maryland? 18 Would it help us generate funds or something? 19 MR. DI NUNNO: There is a constituency 20 there who is interested enough to follow this 21 , program. We are opening that up to the public to the 22 extent they may be interested. 23 MR. SMITHGALL: I don't mean that as a 24 prerequisite. 25 MR. DI NUNNO: I don't have anybody banging
.f)
(t;)
133 1 on my doors saying, " Bring that panel down to 2 Maryland." 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Did anyone want to suggest a date? There are certain topics that would not be 8 conducive to the Maryland meeting. So I doubt if Mr. 6 Aamodt would be upset if he is not on the September 7 schedule. 8 How about September 5? (Discussion held off the record.) 8 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you this, Does it
have to be at nigh t t ime ?
12 MR. ROTH: What about the public that would
'3 be there?
'd THE CHAIRMAN: Can we have a late afternoon 15
'because of public involvement?
16 MR. MASNIK: I don't think we have to have
'I it at night, but in deference to public involvement,
'8 in the alternative, if you make it so some of the
'9 You could invite some state officials could attend?
20 of the state people and have it during the day. 21 MR. DI NUNNO: If you are going to do that, 22 you may want some presentation by GPU with more of an 23 overview. We hear it up here and the people are very 24 current. But you are going to be dealing with a 25 group are not familiar with it or aware of where it
134 g 1 So'I think something along that line.
~
stands.- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: How about a late, starting 3 at three and going to six or something? 4 MR. MASNIK: Certainly. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody have a problem with 6 doing something like that or would you like something 7 different? 8 (No response.) 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's shoot for a three 10 o' clock to six o' clock meeting on the lith of
'll September.
12 We will get notification out as to the
.(])
13 meeting location. Mike you will arrange for, dinner? 14 Anything anybody else wants to bring up bef ore we
- adjourn?
~
15 16 MR. DI NUUNO: One thing. From what I ws: 17 hearing tonight, I really appreciated getting some of 18 the input we got f rom the members of the public. I 19 think for the first time I got a feel for what is 20 really bothering people. 21 But I am uneasy because I think with the 22 limits that were placed on us with the health effects 23 issue -- We are arguing for that, but we are not an
- 24 arbitrator. Somehow we have got to make sure people 25 understand that we are not in a position of perhaps A '
(\. ) k -. . - . - - . . .
135 '- 1 doing some of the things they would like this panel 2 to do. We are not empowered to do that. 3 I would hate for somebody to think that I am hear to do something, and I really don' t have the 5 authority to do it. 6 I know that the letter that we sent to the 7 Commission which limited our involvement in this was 8 read and part of the record; but I think it is worth 9 reminding people that we have a limited function.
'O We can only operate within those limits and
'I controls. I would like to see us keep from being 12 unduly criticized for not doing some of things they
^ '3 would like un to do. We can't.
,N}
tj Id THE CHAIRMAN: I do think we could need to 15 spend sometime on that very subject matter at a not 16 too much in the future meeting because it is an item that concerns me.
'8 I wsnt to make sure we provide the kind of 19 sounding board that people need us to be. But I got 20 the feeling tonight it was not a clear understanding 21 of what it is we have asked to be able to do. I have 22 explained it a couple of times, but I don't think 23 they understood it.
24 I got the feeling tonight that people are 25 looking at us for more than what we had thought of.
f 136 (Q I MR. ROTH: I think it really shows the 2 f eeling that we are the only place that they have had 3 the opportunity to say what they have had to say. 4 And just the f eeling of at least having the 5 opportunity to say it and having it in the record so 6 people can see and hear it -- I think that is a sad 7 commentary that we have ended up being the only group 8 that they feel they can talk about it to. Everyone 9 else has turned them down and turned them away. 10 MR. WALD: It is all the more important 11 that we don't raise expectations that are 12 unrcalistic, because that vill cut us off.
,() 13 MR. ROTH: I would rather-not see our panel 14 be part of the problem that the public is seeing the 15 problem as. I would like to air on at least having 16 it heard.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we did that tonight, 18 and we had to do it, because it was necessary to give 19 the public an opportunity to speak their mind. We 20 may need another meeting similar to this. 21 We do need to stabilize into a function 22 that the public understand what we are going to do. 23 MR. DI NUNNO: The conduit can work both 24 ways. I think the results of studies could be l l 25 discussed here, so the public could hear what th e
- (
i 137 ' 1 experts are saying on these matters. 2 At the same time, there is a reflection 3 such as Tom mentioned there was some indication there may be cluster phenomena, an anomaly of some kind. 5 And this being looked at, so their concern at least 6 in that area is not being ignored. Somebody is I looking at it. 8 When the results of that are in, hopefully those who have done the studies will come here and to present the results so people can hear and ask I' questions.
'2
!!R . COCHRAN: I move we adj ourn.
d) ,
'3 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a second?
i ! 14
!!R . DI NU!!NO: I second'. .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: We stand adjourned. 16 (Hearing adj ourned at 11:15 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 s 25
r 1 2 3 4 CERTIFICATE 5 6 I hereby certify that the proceedings 7 are contained fully and accurately in the notes a taken by me during the hearing of the foregoing 9 cause, and that this copy is a correct to transcript of the same. 11 12
,.~ 13 i
L J l4 i5 4%,8 An/
/
16 Gwen A. Leary, Reporter 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR MATERIAL TO THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THE THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Chairman Palladino H-1149 Mr. Thomas Magness Commissioner Roberts H-1149 Council on Environmental Quality Commissioner Asselstine H-ll49 722 Jackson Place, NW Commissioner Bernthal H-1149 Washington, DC 20006 Commissioner Zech H-1149 W. J. Dircks, EDO MNB-6209 PANE H. R. Denton, NRR P-428 P.O. Box 268 B. J. Snyder AR-5031 Middletown, PA 17057 W. D. Travers (5 copies) TMI Site Mail Pouch M. Masnik AR-5031 Mr. Frank D. Davis R. A. Weller AR-5031 200 Gettysburg Pike R. Lo AR-5031 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 D. Cleary Rm. 234 C. Hickey P-314 Hs. Beverly Hess F. Congel P-712 1037 McClay Street J. Zerbe H-1013 Harrisburg, PA 17103 M. Libarkin, ACRS H-1016 T. Major H-1016 Mr. Edward Charleg J. Cook, OPA MNB-3709 90 Nittany Drive
'J. Fouchard MNB-3709 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 R. Browning, NMSS SS-623 M. Wagner, ELD MNB-9604 Mr. John H. Murdoch Docket File 50-320 016 44 Kensington Drive PDR 016 Camp Hill, PA 17011 LPDR 01 6
, DCS 016 TMI Alert - c/o Kay Pickering 315 Peffer Street Dr. Randy Roig, Director Harrisburg, PA 17102 Power Plant Siting Program Department of Natural Resources Dr. Frank Parker Tawes Building B-3 School of Engineering Annapolis, MD 21401 Nashville, TN 37203 Ms. Ruth Gentle Mr. Richard Chamberlain 1 Virginia Circle Society of Nuclear Medicine Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 475 Park Ave., South New York, NY 10016 Susquehanna Valley Alliance P.O. Box 1012 . Mr. Dave Janes' Lancaster, PA 17603 Analysis and Support Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Sid Langer 401 M. Street, NW (ARN-458C) P.O. Box 1625 Washington, UC 20640 Idaho Falls ID 83405 Mr. Kenneth L. Miller, Director Mr. E. E. Kintner Division of Health Physics and Executive Vice President Associate Professor of Radiology General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. Milton S. Hershey Medical Center 100 Interpace Parkway Pennsylvania State University Parsippany, NJ 07054 Hershey, PA 17033 I
\gh g 90 1
r
, Mr. Bob Leyse Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director EPRI-NSAC Bureau of Radiation Protection 3412 Hillview Ave. Dept. of Environmental Resources Palo Alto, CA 94303 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Willis Bixby U.S. Department of Energy Elizabeth Marshall P.O. Box 88 736 Florida Ave.
Middletown, PA 17057 York, PA 17404 Mr. F. R. Standerfer. Director Mr. Thomas Smithgall Three Mile Island Unit 2 2122 Marietta Ave. GPU Nuclear Corporation Lancaster, PA 17603 P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Niel Wald, M.D. Professor and Chainnan Mr. J. J. Byrne Department of Radiation Health Three Mile Island Unit 2 University of Pittsburgh GPU Nuclear Corporation A512 Crabtree Hall P.O. Box 480 Pittsburgh, PA 15261 Middletown, PA 17057 . The Honorable Robert Reid Mayor of Middletown Dr. Gordon Robinson 60 W. Emaus Street Associate Professor of Middletown, PA 17057 Nuclear Engineering 231 Sackett Building University Park, PA 16802 Ms. Mary Hartnett The Honorable Arthur E. Morris 109 Cambridge Dr. Mayor of Lancaster Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 P.O. Box 1559 120 N. Duke Street Susan Fitzgerald Lancaster, PA 17605 Philadelphia Inquirer 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 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 RD I, Box 411
! 1350 New York Ave., NW Halifax, PA 17032 l Washington, DC 20005 l Mr. Glenn Hoenes l Mr. Ford Knight Pacific Northwest Laboratory l Westinghouse Electric Corp. P.O. Box 999 l Waste Technology System Div. Richland, WA 99352 P.O. Box 10864 l Pittsburgh, PA 15236 L
r -. Pro-Women-c/o Judy Branett 320 Elm Court Middletown, PA 17057 Joyce Corradi Concerned Mothers and Women on THI 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 Pepper, Hamilton and Sheets . P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108 c/o Debbie June
.}}