ML20137D230
| ML20137D230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NACTMI, NUDOCS 8511270029 | |
| Download: ML20137D230 (53) | |
Text
)
R fmt u R a stA _;.
J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Periodic Meeting with Advisory Panel on Decontamination of TMI-2
.(
i (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
E
't Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 1985 Pages:
1
.0 a
0011270029 051119 PDR 10CFR l
PT9.7 PDR
}
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters j
1625 I St., N.W.
s Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
O 1
D I SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on s
11/19/85 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracles.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discusaed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorire.
22 23 24 25
O I
1 UNITED STATES OF AMEHICA 2
NUCLEAM HEGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY 5
PANEL ON DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 6
?
PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Hoom 1130 11 1717 "H"
- Street, N.W.
12 Washington, D.C.
13 14 Tuesday, November 19, 1985 15 lb The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 11:09 o' clock p.m.,
NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman IB of the Commission, presiding.
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M.
HOBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 JAMES K.
ASSELSTINE. Member of the Commission 23 FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 24 LANDO W.
- ZECH, JH.,
Member of the Commission OS
s 4
2 1
STAFF AND PHESENTEMS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 A.
MOHHIS 3
E.
MARSHALL 4
T SMITHOALL J.
DiNUNNO O
K.
MILLEH
?
N.
WALD 8
T.
OEHUSKY 9
G.
HOBINSON 10 T.
COCHHAN 11 12 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
13 W.
THAVERS 14 F.
MIHAGLIA 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21
l; 3
1 P R0CEED I NOS f
2 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:
Good morning, nadies and 3
gentlemen.
Commissioner Asselstine is detained for a short 4
while but he will be joining us later.
5 This morning the Commission is meeting with the l
6 advisory panel for the decontamination of TMI-2 to discuss the I
7 topics outlined in the November eth letter to Mayor Morris, j
I 8
We are pleased to welcome the members of the 9
committee and pleased to see such an excellent representation.
J 10 The topics on the agenda cover the panel's views on i
I Y
11 technical aspects of the TMI-2 detueling programs, potential l
r 12 tot reorittoality during detuoling, the 11oensee's schedule j
13 tor tuel removal, results of recent health studies near TMI-2 r
i 14 and panel activities planned for the next six months.
1 l
~
15 Notore we begin I would like to point out that I
i j
16 D r., William Travers has been appointed project director for 5
17 NMC's TMI-2 eleanup project directorate within the Ottlee of I
i j
16 Nuclear Meactor Negulation.
He will manage NdC's activities j
i 19 at TMI-2 and report to Mr. Frank Miraglia in NRR at t
i r
j i
20 headquarters.
This is consistent with NMM*s planned overall l
1 i
i 21 reorganisation.
t l
l 22 I want to assure you that the organisation will l
23 maintain active NHC interest in the TMI-2 cleanup program and 1
24 should help to strengthen it by shitting the tocus from j
25 headquarters to the site.
I i
4 l
6
~
4 1
Do any of my tellow Commissioners have any opening 2
comments at this time?
3 (No response.)
4 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:
It not, let me turn the meeting 5
over to Mayor Morris, 6
MR. MORMIS:
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to 7
return to Washington and to meet with the Commission and we 8
thank you for this opportunity.
The panel continues to meet 9
on a regular basis and I want to tell you work very hard and to spend a great deal of hours not only prior to the meeting but 11 at the meetings.
12 I do want to congratulate you on your inne win on 13 Saturday.
That is one of the complaints I have gotten from 14 one et our panel members is that it is very unbalanced, not an 15 unbalanced line, but very unbalanced in the favor of Penn 10 State versus Pitt and we certainly hope that that continues 17 through this weekend.
18 (Laughter.)
19 COMMIS810NEN WMWNTHAL:
Joe, are those guys att11 20 winning up there?
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is the information I have.
22 MM. MOWRIS:
The complainer is Neil Wald and I don't 23 know it you want to do anything in regard to that complaint.
2t I would suggest that you do not.
25 (Laughter.)
t 6
6 5
1 MM. MOMMIS:
As to item one on the detuoling program, 2
the panel did receive a presentation and has received 3
information from time to time from GPU on this and the plans 4
seem reasonable.
We have not yet gotten a report on the first l
5 two weeks of the detuoling operation and so we will have to l
l l
l 6
wait until we receive an update at the next meeting for us to
(
7 provide you additional comment.
6 But we have been brieted and I think we teen 9
comfortable at this time with the way they are going to 10 proceed with the fuel removal.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It had been reported to me that 12 Mr. Smithgall had expressed concerns over the use of 13 tong-handled tools.
Was that resolved?
14 MN. WMITHOALL:
I lust bastoally asked the question j
15 as to what type of tools were going to be used, how they were l
10 going to be trained to use them and so torth.
I guess they 17 are using them so we will see.
The proot is in the pudding on 16 that one, I guess.
19 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
I wanted to make l
l 20 sure that any concerns that you had were properly addressed.
21 Thank you.
22 MM. MOMMIS:
That would be it on item one, 2 'J Mr. Chairman.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Do any other 25 members of the panel have comments on that topic or
6 1
Commissioner questions?
2 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Why don't you go on 4
to the next topiot 5
MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
The panel members, we have 6
discussed this, and as we go through here I will either roter 7
an item to another panel member or I will make a statement but 6
they will feel tree to jump in at the appropriate time to make 9
their own comment it they so desire.
10 On item two, advisory panel comments on the potential i
11 tor reorittoality of the damaged TMI-2 core during detuoling.
12 this is definitely a concern of ours and is an area that GPU 13 should not relax their toous of attention.
14 One of the individuais particularly that has been 14 concerned and raised this on several occasions is Gordon 10 Robinson and I believe that Gordon has a statement that he 17 would like to read for the record it there are any other panet 16 members wno would like to comment. I am sure they will do 19 that.
20 So I would turn it over to Gordon at this time.
21 CHAlHMAN PALLADINO:
I am very interested is this 22 topio because it is one that I have had concern anout and I am 23 very interested in whatever comments you have.
24 Md HOWINSON' These comments are from the July 18th 25 meeting that we had in the evening and also concern a meeting
s t
7 1
that Joe DiNunno and I had earlier in the day with GPU people.
2 The people who were involved with this meeting were 3
Dr. Hay Murray, consultant for GPU, Dick Killman, GPU, Dan 4
Williams, Bechtel, Pat Smith, GPU and Frank Standerter who was 5
also there for part of the meeting.
6 The major reason for this meeting was to go over 7
some of the previous considerations for preventing possible 8
criticality, what GPU and the various consultants had looked 9
into and why they had decided on the system that is now in l
10 place.
11 We reviewed the shutdown assurance of the heavy 12 horated core.
We reviewed the various reactivity monitoring 13 systems that were considered over the last several years and 14 why they were not considered leasible.
We reviewed the 1$
present system that will be used as far as monitoring the 16 boron is concerned.
We talked about neutron monitoring for 17 worker safety.
16 The not result of these conversations is that our 19 concerns have been satisfied.
We believe that prudent and 20 reasonable steps have been taken to prevent recriticality.
21 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Are there any other 23 panel comments?
23 (No response.)
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me express my concern.
25 Since I have been in this business one et the points that has
8 1
been very strongly ingrained in me has been that one should 2
always monitor criticality when working with fuel 3
notwithstanding other protective means such as boron in the 4
water because one could postulate that maybe an error was 5
- made, e
I was interested and perhaps I should have this 7
background in what criticality monitoring we do have aside s
B from just monitoring the boron concentration.
9 1 don't know 11 you are prepare 6ser one of the statt
^
10 could respond to that.
My name is Bill Travers and I am x
s
,. N N_
12 acting director of the Three Mile' Island program ottice.
What 13 they do have in place of course is a first line against 14 recriticality is a large amount of boron in the reactor 15 coolant system.
i 16 The criticality monitors that are available 17 essentially are the nuclear instrumentatiDn. two start-up 18 count rate monitors, UF-3 tubes.
r 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are these outside the pressure 20 vessel) 21 22 MM. THAVENS:
Located on the wall of the pressure 2 'J vessel outside, that is correct.
24 Additionally to detect criticality during movements 25 of tuel, there are three sets of two redundant BF-3 tube
9 1
monitcrs on the deck inside the reactor building near the fuel 2
transfer canal, inside the "A"
pool where the fuel will be 3
moved and stored and near the truck bay where the fuel will be 4
moved into a shipping cask for ultimate shipment to Idaho.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you feel that this provides 6
adequate monitoring on the possibility of criticality?
?
MR. TRAVERS:
The existing instrumentation, th 8
nuclear instrumentation, two start-up count rate monitors 9
should give an indication if you have a criticality event.
I 10 don *t think they are going to give you much information on an 11 approach to criticality however.
12 There is not really and perhaps Dr. Robinson can 13 speak to it because he took at it in detail and we have looked 14 at it as well and we think that the likelihood of a 15 overwhelming criticality across the core is very small as a 16 result of the baron and the measures they have taken to 17 continuously monitor it and periodically sample for it.
16 The analyses that we have reviewed assumed the most 19 highly enriched fuel and several other conservative assumptions 20 relative to the possibility of recriticality, the maximum 21 contiguration of those kinds of things.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Has the recriticality question 23 been reviewed by recriticality experts on the statt?
24 MR. TRAVERS:
Yes, they have.
We have been assisted 25 by members of the statt in the Ottice of Nuclear Materials
t 10 1
Safety and Safeguards and we have run independent
- calculations 2
to confirm the hypothesis prottered by GPU that criticality is 3
an incredible event 4
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All I am looking for is 5
assurance that it is so.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Has the ACHS been consulted?
7 MR. TRAVERS:
No, they have not.
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
They might be.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is that?
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It might be appropriate.
11 MR. TRAVERS:
Periodically, Commissioner, we do 12 briet them at their request on significant activities but I 13 don't believe this particular subject has been addressed.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I think it might be appropriate 15 just to ask them their views.
It seems to me that would be 16 the appropriate trung to do.
i 17 COMMISSIGNER BERNTHAL:
I agree.
I think that is an 18 area where they clearly have considerable expertise and I 19 would certainly concur in that comment.
20 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It certainly seems appropriate 21 to ask their advice.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Of course, they are proceeding 23 and I don *t know what this would do to the schedule.
I am not 24 against getting their opinion.
As a matter of fact that is 25 what I am looking for.
11 1
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I Just think that it is a 2
prudent thing to do.
3 MR. TRAVERS:
We have reviewed and prepared a satety 4
evaluation in response to GPU*s request to begin the detuoling 5
ettort.
In fact, it has begun beginning on October 30.
It 6
began to move about some of the debris to clear space for 7
installation of additional equipment.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But nevertheless this is going 9
to be a long term operation.
10 MR. TRAVERS:
It sure will 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So I think a'dditional input 12 would be appropriate.
This is one area where ! Just don't 13 teel as comfortable as I might but that is mainly because I 14 haven *t participated in it.
15 11 I get the assurance of all the experts that 16 proper precautionary measures have been taken, I guess it is 17 as far as we could go.
18 MR. TRAVERS:
We have gone into evaluating this 19 question in some detail.
I don't have it all with me.
I can 20 certainly provide that to members et your statis if that 21 sounds reasonable in addition to following up on your 22 suggestion regarding the ACHS.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
I think you should follow 24 up on getting the ACHS comments on this.
Meanwhile I don *t 25 gather that we should stop what is going on.
12 1
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But it is a long term operation 3
and there are many other actions that are going to take place.
4 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
11 the panel is satisfied I see 5
no reason to change the schedule.
I just think it would be 6
well to consult the ACMS and to get their views, too.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is a good suggestion.
8 MR. COCHRAN:
With regard to the fuel in the core, 9
there are really only two good solutions.
One is to remove 10 the fuel and the other is to put boron in the water.
Both of i
11 those are being done.
It is an argument for not stopping 12 removal of the fuel.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Sure, I agree.
I don't see any 15 reason for changing he schedule at all.
It is just a matter 16 of additional assurance from somebody who has the expertise.
17 It is a first time event that we are doing and I don't think 18 there is any reason we shouldn't be as prudent as possible.
19 MR. ROBINSON:
I would like to reiterate that I 20 would like to see the ACRS take a look at it, too.
We had 21 suggested that about six months ago and were told that the 22 ACHS scheoule was such that they probably would not be able to 23 look at it prior to the start of the defueling process.
So we 24 sort of dropped that.
But I would sill 1 like to see it done.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Good.
i m
13 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We will tollow up on that.
Any 2
other comments on this topic?
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Could I just ask the broad 4
question, when you say that criticality is an incredible 5
event, can you give me some sense of what the margin is in the 6
calculations?
Are we talking two orders of magnitude or one 7
order of magnitude or what?
8 MR. TRAVERS:
Several orders of magnitude.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Several orders of magnitude.
10 MR. TRAVERS:
They are keeping right now procedurally 11 and by their tech spec license requirements 5,200 or so parts 12 per million boron in the reactor coolant system.
13 They also have very detailed requirements for the 14 sampling trequency.
They have boronometers in line at several 15 different locations so you are all right in pointing out the 16 very significant issue that criticality is in this evolution.
17 It is something that we have been looking hard at as 18 well in the course of reviewing their proposal.
19 As ! mentioned the assumption that criticality is an 20 incredible event is based on conservative estimates of 21 contiguring the most highly enriched tuel 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's right.
That is 23 really what I was referring to.
24 MR. THAVERS:
Taking no credit for any of the poison 25 materials that are associated with the normal core and t h'a t in
0 14 1
fact are in the debris bed and a number of things like that.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We will still be interested in 3
ACRS comments.
Are you ready to go on to the next topic?
4 MR. MORRIS:
Yes.
Item three, discussion of GPU's 5
schedule for fuel removal ~
6 (Commissioner Asselstine enters the meeting.)
7 MR. MORRIS:
Let me say as I begin comment on this 8
that fuel removal has begun I believe in late October.
9 However, prior to t,h a t date GPU did get fur..er behind on 10 their schedule that they had established last year and again 11 earlier this year.
12 They revised their schedule on several occasions.
13 They went from a July date to a September date and then 14 slipped that to a late October date.
15 I am going to try to paraphrase here what I think is 16 the sense of where the panel stands on this.
I think it is 17 tair to say that it is one of concern for potential future 18 slippage and that we are most certainly concerned that the 19 cleanup and fuel removal continue in a very safe fashion and 20 that we not rush ahead without regard for safety.
21 But having said that, I think it is also fair to say 22 that there is concern of the panel that the slippage may 23 continue into the future and that there needs to be some kind 24 of mechanism 11 one can be established short of a compliance 25 schedule that would keep the pressure on with safety in mind
15 1
to keep on schedule and make sure that we don't fall further 2
ard further behind because there is not a schedule established 3
that the incentive is not there to stay on a schedule.
4 I would ask that while you do not consider a 5
compliance schedule at this time whether there is something 6
sort of that that can be done with more teeth in it than
?
presently exists with GPU establishing a schedule.
8 I hope from the panel members because there were 9
several comments that were made when we have talked about this 10 that I have fairly shared your comments with the Commission.
11 If not, please feel tree to offer them yourselves.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there any feeling about 13 whether or not GPU is proceeding with due diligonoe?
I can 14 understand that they may have dititculty in designing and 15 procuring special equipment but do you have any feel as to 16 whether or not they are pursuing that aggressively?
17 MR. MORRIS:
That is part of the problem in that as 18 panel members meet'ng once a month and even though we spend a.
19 great deal of time, three or four hours at the meetings, it 20 may be on other issues that there needs to be at least some 21 kind of evaluation on slippage for that very thing.
22 Is it because of things beyond their control or did 23 they just not order something early enough, they did not look 24 ahead and consequently slipped and that is the type of thing 25 that they should be cautioned against or having their hand
16 1
slapped for?
2 That is the concern that the panel expressed when I
'oncern that I have 3
brought this subject up because it is a c
4 and the panel members fee 4 that there are things beyond the 5
control of the utility company and we need to have somebody 6
really paying attention to each slippage.
Why did it happen?
7 Was it something that the utility company could have avoided 8
and 11 so, what is the penalty not necessarily financial at 9
this point but is there something that can be done to make 10 them more accountable and to study those issues as they come 11 along?
12 That is something that personally I would be looking 13 at.
I don't have an answer.
It is just a concern that when 14 we meet with you again a year from now we might be again 15 another six months behind in addition to what has happened 16 already and that is about a four or five months slippage.
17 It is a cloud on the horizon and I think we all want 18 to see the cleanup completed in a safe fashion and it is a 19 caution at this point.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does the statt have any comment 21 on this?
Bill.
22 MR. THAVERS:
I think from all our perspectives we 23 would agree that getting the cleanup under way as expeditiously 24 as it can be is an important goal.
I have had about a year and 25 a half of experience on site and in that time based on a review
17 1
of the record and my first hand view of what has transpired 2
over that year and a half, I think the GPU has made a great 3
deal of progress in the time that I have been there.
4 From my vantage point, there have been problems, 5
technical problems, in procuring equipment but for the most 6
part I think the licensee has been committed to getting the
?
cleanup going as expeditiously as they can.
8 I think there is a good mechanism for keeping in 9
touch with the panel when we view items that may result or at 10 least have the potential of resulting in slips and we have the 11 advantage of interacting with them on a periodic basis and I 12 would propose that we make that a focus in future meetings 13 with the panel.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What has been the slippage?
I 15 am not sure I am recalling correctly.
Sometime this summer, 16 early this summer, they predicted getting on with detuoling in 17 September.
Is that correct?
18 MR. TRAVERS:
The original target 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Wasn't it July?
at least as it existed for about a 20 MR. TRAVERS:
21 year was to begin in April, even earlier than that.
So for 22 about a year starting say sometime in April of 1984, there was 23 a target of beginning in April of 1985.
In April an I am 24 announcement was made that it was going to start 25 sorry.
The target was July.
18 1
In April they announced a slip to September and in 2
July an announcement was made that the schedule would further 3
slip one month into October.
4 The reasons for the slip were related to procurement 5
of the equipment essential to beginning the cleanup, certain 6
canisters that the fuel would be placed into for shipment, 7
handling devices and fuel storage racks as well.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINB:
Does the stati do a 9
rigorous analysis of the reasons for these schedule salps when 10 they occur and particularly focusing on whether they occur 11 despite the best efforts by the licensee snd were really 12 matters beyond the licensee *s con *rol?
13 For example, wh o.* it appears tnat this equipment is 14 not going to be available when it was needed did they order it 15 early enough?
Did they do everything that they could to 16 obtair. this equipment so that they would be able to meet 17 their original schedule and such that it is purely a matter of 18 their suppliers not giving them the kind of reliable service 19 that they need?
20 Do you do that kind of analysis?
21 MR. TRAVERS:
No.
We didn't do a very formal 22 analysis of that kind of ining.
We are on site.
The majority 23 of my ottice is located on the site.
So we have daily 24 interaction with all levels of GPU statt.
25 MR. MORRIS:
! think something like that would be
19 1
helpful though.
That might be the kind of interim thing that 2
would be very useful to give us all a feeling for why the 3
slippage happened and at least stati's summary as to what 4
they think happened.
5 MR. TRAVERS:
I was going to mention that we don't 6
do a formal analysis tut informally we get a good feel for 7
efforts being placed on procuring equipment and the reasons 8
behind any slips that may result in acquiring it.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Maybe it would be useful 10 to get the statt to do an analysis and to document it, write 11 up a little report that evaluates the slips that have occurred 12 over the past year or so and the adequacy of the licensee *s 13 efforts to obtain and procure the necessary equipment and 14 components early on and why in fact those efforts turned out 15 to be unsuccessful.
16 MR. TRAVERS:
We do that indirectly, Commissioner.
17 For example, in the case of the equipment that we are speaking 18 about, canisters I will focus on, we did a special inspection 19 at the fabricator to see how the QA program was being 20 implemented there.
21 What we found is that it was not being implemented 22 very well.
An inspection report documented these facts.
GPU 23 noted the same kinds of problems about the same time we did in 24 an independent inspection.
25 But once you have those problems inherent even in
20 1
finding them reasonably early on is some delay.
In this case 2
it was a delay of several months.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
To what extent did the tact 4
that development had to go on in deciding what equipment you 5
needed, to what extent did that impact on the schedule?
Was 6
that a major item?
7 MR. THAVERS:
No, not in this case, Mr. Chairman.
8 It really was focused on problems at the fabricator dealing 9
with how well or how not very well they were implementing the 10 QA program required by the licensee.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So you said that really 12 the root cause for the tailures or the tailures to meet the 13 schedule were really the licensee *s tailure to insure that its 14 contractors put in place, carried out and maintained an 15 adequate quality assurance program.
16 MR. TRAVERS:
That is partially true.
There are 17 two steps to it.
One of them is has the licensee laid on an 18 adequate quality assurance program required of its 19 tabricators.
That was the first thing we looked at.
Our 20 conclusion in that regard was in tact they had.
21 The next thing we did is we went to the fabricator 22 and looked at how well they were implementing that program.
23 At about the same time we went down there GPU was finding out 24 that in fact their QA program was not being very well 25 implemented.
21 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I am going to suggest that you 2
tollow-up on Commissioner Asselstine's proposal that you 3
periodically document the root causes of slippages.
I would 4
encourage the panel to keep this on their agenda and 11 you 5
sense that there is lack of due diligence in keeping on the 6
schedule that you don't hesitate to bring it to our attention.
7 MR. MOHRIS:
All right.
I would hope that the statt 6
and I am not suggesting that they go back and review the ones, 9
the delays, that have already happened because that is past 10 and it might be extra work that may be not necessary but as 11 to future slippage, it they would be willing to do a summary 12 and a review of them and provide the panel and the Commission 13 with that, I think it would be very helpful and we certainly 14 will keep you involved as we go along as we are today.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think I would even to suggest that since what I heard from the statt was they have 17 basically done the review for the past slippages, that it 18 would be useful just to get a short paper from them that 19 summarises what their conclusions were.
20 I guess what I am particularly interested in is 21 identitying what the root causes were for the slippages that 22 occurred during the past year as well as the stati's assessment 23 tor what has been done to make sure that those root causes do 24 not cause turther slippages, 25 It seems to me while it is nice to look at future
22 1
slippages when they occur, one thing we might learn is let*s 2
learn trom the mistakes over the past year or so to make sure 3
that those mistakes don't cause future slippages.
Let*s take 4
a little pro-active approach to it.
5 Unless it is a huge burden on the statt, I would 6
suggest they do a little report on the slippages over the past 7
year and in particular focus on what has been done to insure 6
that the problems that existed then won *t recur in the future.
9 MH. THAVERS:
I think we can address that.
There 10 have not been that many ships and I think it would be a 11 tairly straight forward thing to do.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would give it to the 13 panel and then you all could comment on that at a tuture 14 meeting it it is worthwhile.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right, le MR. MOHNIS:
Fine.
17 CHAlHMAN PALLADINO:
So we can expect to see to something about this analysis of slippages to date and you 19 will keep us posted on the potentials for slippages as they 20 artse 21 MM. THAVENS:
As best we can, Mr. Chairman.
I think 22 there is something that I ought to point out and that is as a 23 result of the first of a kind nature of this job I think it is 24 very likely that we will see additional slips.
25 For example, OPU now is moving core debris about.
1 23 1
They may find very soon that they need additional tools and 2
equipment to do that job.
There is a certain lag time in 3
procuring and designing that equipment.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sure.
5 MR. THAVENS:
But I think that is a technical kind o
of thing.
7 GHAIHMAN PALLAulNO:
I think what we are looking for 8
to assurance that there is due diligence in pursuing the 9
schedule.
We recognize that there are going to be slippages 10 but they should be only for good cause.
11 COMMISSIONEH ASSELSTINE:
That is right.
12 COMMISSIONER ZECH; I agree but I think that we 13 should trankly exercise some judgment here too because we 14 don't want to bring the pressure on people to bring torth 15 something on this very unique operation that would you to know, it there is any question about safety we should rely on 17 safety side and so on.
10 COMMISSIONEW ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
19 COMMISSIONEW ZECH:
I agroo that it is worth looking in other words, it they are 20 at but I think we simply must 21 making up equipment that has never been made up before, it 22 they are using techniques that are rather special, it seems to 23 me that we should encourage everything to be done that would 24 provide safety and that to me is something I think we should 25 keep in mind.
24 1
CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:
We certainly agree with that 2
and I think our attention to schedule does not mean we are not 3
interested in maintaining the safety.
4 COMMISSIONEN ZECH:
It is just the balance is all I am trying to say.
6 MM. MONMIS:
I think I mentioned safety several
?
times.
I think right now there is no balance.
There is 8
really nothing that causes GPU to feel that the schedule has 9
to be met or should be met.
There is none of this reporting 10 and study of why it slipped.
That is all I am asking is for 11 the balance, to have safety with 12 COMMIS810NEN ZECH:
I think that is fine but I agree 13 with your opening request for salety.
I am just trying to 14 re-emphasise the balance and I hope we don't lose sight of 15
- that, In other words, we should not let the pendulum swing 16 completely the other way.
17 MM. MORMid:
I think we all agree with you on that, le certainly.
19 CHAlHMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Any other comments 20 on this topto?
21 (No response.)
22 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:
Do you want to proceed with the 23 next?
24 MN. MONNIS:
All right, item tour is advisory panel 25 comments on the results of the health studies conducted in the
25 1
vicinity at TMI-2 in response to the aooident the tact that we 2
received a presentation and Tom Smithgall, a panel member, is 3
going to speak to this item or try to.
He found this out 4
right betare the meeting.
5 (Laughter.)
6 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE:
This will be very briet.
7 MM. MOMMIS:
I apologise for that. Tom.
8 MM. SMITH 0ALL:
Joe DiNunno and mysell as you 9
probably are awa r t-were charged with preparing a proposal for to guiding our discussions on these health studies and had that 11 and I believe approved that and as you know we will act pretty 12 much as a conduit for information and not necessarily as a 13 orttique of these health studies.
That takes us over old 14
- ground, l$
We have had an ongoing discussion with the State 16 Department of Health in the sense that they have made a 17 presentation to us at our last panel meeting.
We intend to as le I believe our schedule is now dictating to hear trom the IV Aamodts hopefully in December and then also hear trom the TM1 20 Public Health Fund.
21 There have been a number at discussions in our 22 meetings and as you read our last transcript, Tom Cochran had 23 some concerns about how we review these and our discussions on 24 them.
25 It is the sense of the panel I believe and I will
20 1
reiterate that we do not act as a turther level of critique 2
tor these health studies but act as a conduit of information 3
to the publio.
4 1 think it is being very well received by the public 5
and they teel it is a necessary area for discussion and our 6
initial assumption that the public has really nowhere else to
?
go with these concerns I think was correct.
8 We have had some lively discussions and some 9
interplay between the parties.
So I think it is something 10 that we should continue with on the schedule that I outlined 11 here.
12 1 hope you feel contident that we will stay within 11 our charter.
I think we have the balance in our panel that 14 will do that.
Again, I think it is one that outs across a lot 15 of the issues at Three Mile Island and one tnat the public to really feels is necessary.
17 We do get a lot of active interplay at our panel 18 meetings, I know that some people feel unnecessary and arduous, 19 but I think it is something that we need to continue.
20
!! anyone else on the panel wishes to add to that, 21 they may, 22 MR. COCHMAN:
I will add a low comments in the 21 capacity of serving as a conduit from the public back to you.
24 to begin with a little background, is you recall 25 there was a citizen study of health ettects in the area which
27 1
is now often called the Aamodt study, two of the principals 2
involved in it.
3 That study worked its way into the licensing hearings 4
of TMI-1 and was critiqued by the Pennsylvania State Health 5
Department and the critique was written by Dr. Tokuhata 6
and one of his colleagues.
?
We were told at the meeting when that study was in 8
effect being presented to us, reviewed for our benefit and for 9
the benefit of the members of the public that there was a law 10 suit pending and that the authors of the report had received 11 legal advice not to appear in public.
Therefore, the 12 presentation was made by Dr. Muller who is Tokuhata's superior.
13 The state study at least from my perspective has two 14 components.
One is to look, part of their ongoing analysis is 15 to icok at the cancer incidence within the live-mile radius or 16 roughly a live-mile radius and as an appendix it also critiqued 17 the Aamodt study.
18 As many people might have predicted the study did 19 not find any statistically significant excess health effects 20 in the live-mile radius and because of the numbers and the 21 latency period and so forth you would anticipate that or at 22 least I would.
23 With regard to the critique of the Aamodt Study 24 which raises the question of whether there is a significant 25 incidence in the form of a cluster of cancers in one of two
l 28 l
1 areas about live or six miles distant, I look at that issue as 1
2 two separate issues, one, whether there are any signittoant 3
health ettects there first and secondly, whether they are TMI 4
related.
5 The citizens group that did the original analysis 6
strongly believes that they are real and that they are TMI 7
related.
The State Study appeared to in its critique rely 8
heavily on that causal relationship and in etteot argued that l
they certainly were not caused by TM1 9
they were not real i
10 and that they were 11 anything a normal clustering that you 11 would expect in doing that sort of analysis and thirdly, they 12 allege that there was bias in the chotee of the roads which 13 were surveyed in so torth.
The picked roads which had cancer 14 incidence on it and dismissed roads that did not.
15 So from my perspective these two issues, whether the i
i 16 cancer incidence is real and secondly, whether it is TMI 17 related, the panel majority voted against my recommendation 18 not to address the first issue whether they were real at all i
19 because in their view l
20 COMMISSIOMBR BERNTHAL' Your recommendation was 21 wh a t 't 22 f tR. CCCHRAN:
My r e c onunend a t i on wa s to have a 23 turther exchange at least between myself and the person making 24 the presentation over whether their analysis was adequate with 25,
regard to the question of whether there was something real i
f
29 1
these should be addressed irrespective of TMI Because that 2
was irrespective of TMI and other panel members can express 3
their own views on this, the majority of panel members thought 4
that was beyond our charter and voted not to pursue that.
5 So I find that the situation is in a somewhat o
unsatisfactory state bearing in mind that our charter we are 7
not to critique these analyses to begin with and turther that 8
the panel is certainly not going to get involved with issues 9
where they perceive they are not TMI related.
10 So I don't think there will be any further resolution 11 of that until perhaps the Health Fund Study which is a contract 12 with a group at Columbia addresses that and those conclusions 13 will not be torthcoming ter a couple et years.
14 But you are going to get a lot of oltizen concern 15 over this because the cittsens still believe it is TMI related to but the analyses doesn't really get uncoupled from whether 17 there may be something there or not le COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are you suggesting that the 19 question of the relation to TMI is arguable or that that was 20 not settied by the St4te?
It everybody agrees that it is not 21 TMI related, t h e n wh e t h er r one should go around doing a survey 22 of who are smoker 1 for example, and non-smokers does appear 2 '3 to me to get a bit beyond the charter of your group.
24 MM CCCHEAN-I personally having looked at this 25 issue and looked i n uns b e r of studies related to this issue
30 i
i 1
don't believe it is TM! related, that the cluster of cancers f
i 2
be it whether they are real or not, I don't believe they are i
3 TMI related.
j I
4 I do believe that the issue of whether they are real 5
or not is important to address perhaps not by this panel or I
I e
you from the standpoint of whether the State Health Department I
7 is doing its job adequately and in that regard that is a TMI i
8_
related issue, j
I 9
11 they are not doing their analysis there d
l 10 adequately, then there is reason to suspect their analysis of l
1 l
11 TMI related health ettects.
That is as far as I am willing to l
12 go.
4 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADING:
Tom, have you brought your 14 feelings to the attention of the Public Health Department as i
15 an individual aside from being a member of the panel?
[
l to MM. COCHMAN:
No, I have not.
[
r 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It might be worth bringing it l
I 18 to their attention because I think they welcome input from i
4 19 people from their work as well as anybody else.
L i
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I guess I agree with your 21 point that it as a separate question you as a citison or 1
j 22 others are concerned about why the phenomenon was observed or l
23 whether an agency is carrying out its duties quite the way it 24 should, that is certainly a matter worth pursuing in itself f
25 hut it also seems to me that in a sense it is your duty to say i
31 1
what you have just said and say it clearly and not confuse the 2
issue.
3 Say clearly what you have said here today that in 4
your judgment these cancer incidences are not related to TM1 5
because that finally is the charter of your group and I think o
the important question that the public is interested in
'I
- hearing, 4
COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE:
I thought you took that 9
away from him.
I thought we said quito clearly that they were 10 not supposed to orttique these studies.
I would disagree, 11 That is not their duty.
12 MH. COCHHAN:
You roo411 I made that statement 11 expliottly in my letter to you the first time around.
14 COMMISSIONEH ASSELSTINE:
Exactly.
t5 COMMISS10NEH BEMNTHAL:
I am t41 king about Tom to personally who has just made a statement here today and it it people ask him what his opinion is, it seems to me that he 16 clearly ought to say what that opinion is.
t9 COMMISSIONEH ASSELSTINE' I thought you eaid though 20 that that was their duty as a panel 21 COMMISSIONER BENNTHAL No.
I am talking about his 22 personally He made a statement here today that even given 2 'J and I think you really have misinterpreted what I was saying, 24 that even glven all of the concerns that he may have and they 25 may be valid concerne on these other tesues, there is a key
32 1
lasue that the public at large deserves to have you speak 2
elearly on as you have spoken here today and that i s whether 1
in your judgment they are TMI related.
4 CHA!HMAN PALLAd!NO' We did put a reatriotion on not S
getting another layer of orttique.
O COMMISSIONEN HERNTHAL:
I don't th1nk thet 7
restriction is on individuals.
O CHA!HMAN PALLADINO:
Excuse me.
Let me tinish my e
9 paragraph.
Uut that does not in any way restrict an individual i
)
10 from bringing his opinions or her opinions to the attention of 11 the Public Health Department of Pennsylvents.
12 COMM18810NEH ASSEL8 TINE:
Tom, is the TMI Health 11 Fund Study going to examine health issues both whether the 14 8 tate's analysts or the Cittson analysts it you will of the 14 incideaces of eancer and the locatnons of them, not only to c4ncers but the incidonoes of health ellects and the loostions 17 of those, whleh is the accurate view, was there an abnormally 4
19 high incidence of health ettects at that time in certain 19 specific locations as well as the causal relationship question?
'O MW. COCHNAN:
Yes, to some extent.
It certelnly J
21 will address probably more carefully the issue of the J2 clustering tesue.
Il you do such a survey and you measure 21 something statistically signitloant, is that just a random 24 cluster event?
25 It will also look at the tesue of relationship to 1
- - ~
o
- -, - - - ~ - - - - -,
c-l l
f i
l
'J "J 1
TMI by looking at correlations with the plume and so torth.
2 Now whother they wt11 do it satieiactorily, I don't know, We 3
will have to want and see.
Wut there will be some attempt to 4
address that.
5 The problem is you might in your mind reach a o
conclusion that the cluster of cancers is not TMI related but 7
it sure is going to be related to your conduct of your work 6
because there are people up there that ttrmly believe it is 9
and believe that the analysts showing that it isn't has not 10 been adequately performed.
It COMMISSIONEW BENNTHALI It sounds to me 1Lke it 12 might be worthwhile having the people who do the statistics l 'J explain in somewhat more detall as they explanned it very 14 broadly and I have read some of the transcripts of meeting how 15 those stattstical comparisons are made.
16 As you know. Tom, in any given population seeing 17 that there are 50-percent more or less has a certain reasonable 18 probability lust as separating from one population from another 19 population and finding almtlar aberrations comparing two 20 groups.
21 Those are inne points of statistical analysts that 22 perhaps the public deserves to have somewhat better explained.
23 CHAIMMAN PALL.ADINO:
la Pennsylvanta looking at the 24 radon problem in this particular area?
25 MW. OEWUWKV:
No, not yet
34 1
CHA!WMAN PALLADINO:
Not yet.
Do you plan tot 2
MM. OEMUWKY:
Yes, but not because of 3
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No, not because 04 TMI.
4 MM. OEMUWAY:
In eastern Pennsylvanta, we are going 5
to look at redon, o
CHAlHMAN PALLADINO; I was thinking that among the 7
other ettects that might have to be considered is that one.
W COMMIWWIONEN HEMNTHAL:
I have to say that I lavored V
as many of you know and have heard more than you care to tu account, I lavored the NHC giving some innanotal support to 11 the Wtate of Pennsylvania or other responsible bodies for that 12 matter to try to bring some closure to this issue of statistics 11 and clusters and the incidence at disease and whatnot.
14 The thing that gets lost in all the epidemiology and 15 in so much of the discusaton is the single questisn of why it le is that nobody in a controlled experiment has ever been able 17 to demonstrate any residuo anywhere out there.
le I will say with characteristto immodesty perhaps 19 that this does happen to be an area of my expertise and I 20 tooked at the raw data in some considerable detall.
21 They weren't exactly as complete as ! might have 22 liked or might have done it I were doing it mysent but there 23 simply la not an tota of evidence that there is any residue 24 and it is absolutely certain that it there were a major plume 25 emission other than the inert gases that that residue must be
35 1
there.
2 My response to a lot of this is that somebody who l
3 believes in that kind of large emission needs to go out and 4
try to prove it in a controlled situation wnere there can be 5
no dispute.
6 Thus tar, there has never been any evidence of that
- /
type presented.
6 MH. MOHHIS:
As to the panel's charge, however e
9 LOMMinW!ONEN HENNTHAL:
That is not your job, 10 MH, MOHHIS:
1 think you understand that when you 11 agreed to open this up and allowed us to be a conduit that wo 12 were going to get into certain times when there would be some 13 trustrating discussions as to what we can and cannot do and 14 there will be times when we may have to vote on it.
15 As it happened, we have one or several panel members le in this parttoular case, Tom Cochran and some others, who telt 17 one way and some other panel metab e r s telt the other way.
le The only way to determine it is to take a vote.
19 That is not always an easy solution but at this point it is
'0 (no only one that we have in order to determine just how far 4
31 we can and cannot go.
l 23 We intend on continuing the discussions on this.
33 The Aamodts will be as Tom Smithgall mentioned be at the next l
44 meeting to present tholt viewpoints and the public has been 41 very active ani very interested and the trustrations will 1
36 t
build to some degree because while there will be a chance to 2
explain at least understand where the Department is coming 3
from, where the public is coming from, there will be no one 4
entity that will attempt to necessarily resolve,the 5
ditterences.
6 I think that is what the trustration is.
We as a 7
panel are not that entity and apparently nobody else may be 8
is.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Tom, did you have a comment?
10 MW. SMITH 0ALL:
Bastoally echoing what Art is 11 saying, either do we want to be a critique but we also don't 12 want to be an endorser one way or the other.
1 *J COMMISSIONEN ZECH:
I think you are handling a tough 14 leeue very responsibly trankly, I think you are doing a good 15 Job with that, just exactly what you ought to do.
le Mr. OEHUSKY.
One additional comment, the level of 17 trustration at least has a chance of receding as person years to at risk build up over time.
Heally the answere will come in 19 as that element increases and therefore the statist 1oal JU certainty or uncertainty of any evidence et an etteet will 21 become clearer So it really is a matter of patient waiting and the 2 'J additional study the Public Health Fund is doing will take us 24 turther down the road in time and may have some more definitive 23 answere c
l t
l 37 l
1 MR, WALD:
One of the issues that is clouding the i
2 review, not our view but other people's review of the Health I
3 Department's data. is the confidentiality of that data.
That 4
is the iaw sult business.
There is a 1aw sult requesting I
that the data be made available to other people, 6
So that issue, it may hinder the critical review of 7
the Health Department Study by anyone.
There have been i
l l
8 crittoal reviews but they have been done by people selected by 9
the Health Department who have maintained the confidentiality l
10 of the data.
I1 So there are some problems and the courts are going l
12 to make the decision.
I think we will have to wait for the 13 courts to make that decision.
l 14 CHAlHMAN PALLADINO:
All right, I think you are 15 approaching the problem or this issue the way that the to Commission had indicated.
Nevertheless I do find this i
17 discussion very interesting and maybe that is where I will l
16 leave it for now.
I may want to ask the statt som. questions 19 but I will do that as a Commissioner and not in relationship t 20 this panel.
21 MW. MORRIS:
All right.
Item tive I believe is a 22 listing of the advisory panel's activities for the next six l
2 'J months or items the panel believes are important to consider 24 during the next six months.
25 11 I may for the record Just read ott in no special l
38 1
order the types of things we will be going into during the 2
next six months, a discussion of the strontium calibration 3
mistake.
If yod want further discussion on this today please 4
let me know and I will just go through this list quickly right 5
now but the first one is the strontium calibration mistake.
6 Next is the status of canister tabrication and
?
canister QA program.
We will revisit the issue of monitoring 8
to determine whether federal or state agencies are 9
contemplating any changes due to TMI-1 Restart.
10 Defueling discussions and updates will continue and 11 that will be on next month's agenda particularly, a 12 presentation by DOE on fuel transportation, burial of Epicor 13 filters at commercial burial sites.
14 Also on the next meeting *s cgenda would be the 15 Aamodts' critique of the Pennsylvania Department of Health 16 studies, polar crane hand brake mechanism and particularly the 17 OI report of investi ation of 9/23/8b, and a presentation by 18 the TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board at some future meetings.
19 That again in no special order lists what we will be 20 doing over the next six months and probably some other things 21 as well.
Do you have any questions or suggestions?
22 MR. SMITHGALL:
I think we also, Mr. Morris, added 23 the water disposition issue that is probably on your next 24 page.
25 MR. MORRIS:
It is, i
39 1
MR. SMITHGALL:
If you read the transcript of our 2
Annapolis meeting there was a presentation made by GPU on the 3
disposition of accident generator water and I would like to 4
suggest that staff begin to gear up to look at that particular 5
issue since I believe they made a suggestion that it mgy be a 6
year away for making presentations to you all.
?
So I think it would bear beginning a new review of 8
that for the panel's review as well as the public's and 9
possibly your own.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are you suggesting we have the 11 stati look at options.
12 MR. SMITHGALL:
Review the options that were 13 presented at that Annapolis meeting and correlate it to the 14 previous analysis that was done by the staff and see where we 15 stand and bring you up to date.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there a likelihood that it 17 is going to be within a year?
My impression was that it was 18 down the road.
19 MR. MORRIS:
They are saying within a year that they 20 are expecting to take this issue up and make a presentation.
21 Since it was, I believe, something that was treated pretty 22 significantly either in the EIS or the update to that it may 23 be good for the staff to start getting involved in it now 24 before the issue surfaces so that we will be in a better 25 position to respond to it.
40 1
There is a lot of interest in it both from the panel 2
and the public*s standpoint.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I know there is a lot of 4
interest in what is going to happen to that water.
5 MR. TRAVERS:
My expectation is that a year from 6
January or February according to what the licensee has told me 7
is that they plan to come in with a proposal.
8 We don *t have any idea what that proposal will be 9
obviously.
We have already taken some preliminary looks at 10 possible options of disposing of that processed accident water 11 but we have done that informally.
12 As of now and probably for a year we won't yet have 13 received even a proposal from the licensee.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there any work that you 15 might profitably do between now and then in anticipation of 16 that?
17 MR. TRAVERS:
We have done some and I personally 18 don't think that we could do much more effectively between now 19 and the time that we get a proposal.
20 We are staying abreast of the kind of radioactive 21 materials that are stored in those tanks.
There are tech spec 22 limitations on the totals but until the licensee ettectively 23 comes in and says, "This is what we would like to do,"
we are 24 not in a very good position to do much more than stay abreast 25 of anything.
4 41 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The panel feels that there are 2
some things you can do.
Maybe we need to understand that a 3
little better.
4 MR. MORRIS:
I guess it may make it clearer it we could have an explanation of what kind of schedule the utility 6
company expects to io' low.
7 11 they are go.7g to come up with a proposal a year 8
from now and they are not g.ing to be pushing and there is no 9
haste to make a quick d e c i s i o c.
sd we can take another year to 10 really look into it, then maybe there is no need for the statt 11 to be reviewing anything ahead of time.
12 What I don't want to have happen is to have them 13 make a proposal in a year nd say they need to move quickly and 14 that we don't spend the kind of time that I think a Tom 15 Smithgall and other panel members feel needs to be taken.
16 I am just cautious as to what will happen in a year 17 and don't want to see any options passed by because there 18 isn't time to review them or spend time on them.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If I recall correctly the 20 Commission did step in on this and made an agreement I think.
21 MR. TRAVERS:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
In 22 fact you stated that the Commission will take a direct role in 23 any proposed method for disposing of that water.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is correct.
That is what 2$
I was going to follow up with.
It will come back to the
42 1
Commission.
I don't sense any urgent need to move promptly on 2
this when the proposal comes in but let me ask the stati to 3
keep abreast of the situation and 11 there are some specific 4
things that the panel thinks we ought to be doing now,%ie 5
would like to be kept abreast of those suggestions.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Joe, if I could, maybe the 7
staff could check with the licensee and see not only when 8
their schedule is for proposing something but also the time 9
frame in which the licensee now anticipates wanting some kind 10 of an answer from us as to what should be done.
11 Second, the staff mentioned that they had informally 12 looked at some possible options.
I would be interested in 13 knowing what options they looked at and whether any options 14 would be foreclosed by simply waiting for the next year to 15 pass until we get a specific proposal from the licensee.
16 If that period of time passes, are there options for 17 disposing that would be foreclosed or more limited?
18 MR. TRAVERS:
Maybe I will start from the beginning, 19 We have already some indication of the licensee's plans for 20 coming in to the stati and the Commission and specifically they 21 have said beginning of 1987, that is the target, January of 22 1987 for coming to us with an approach, a proposal for 23 disposing of the water.
24 They have indicated again on their target that they 25 would like to have an answer from the stati within five
43 l
1 months.
l 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
After that?
3 MR. TRAVERS:
After that, They have also indicated 4
that they expect an implementation period of about a year 5
after that for actually disposing of the water.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Do we have any indications 7
of what options they are considering?
8 MR. TRAVERS:
No.
I could guess because we have 9
thought about it in some advance.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Which ones did you all 11 look at and which ones do you think they are considering?
12 MR. TRAVERS:
Making concrete out of it, disposing 13 of it in the river as a normal operating plant would do, 14 evaporating it somehow, cooling towers or in a pond, things of 15 that nature.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Excuse me.
I gather that 17 the isotope of principal interest and concern is tritium, is 18 it not?
19 MR. TRAVERS:
It is the isotope with the largest 20 curie amount, that is for sure.
Its biological significance 21 though is way down from things like strontium cesium.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Does strontium cesium even 23 at those levels are greater biological significance?
24 MR. TRAVERS:
I would have to look at the specific 25 levels but I think we are talking about hundreds of thousands
44 1
of curies.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am just looking at it 3
right now and you are talking about 20 millicuries of strontium 4
and 60 millicuries of cesium in B00,000 gallons which is not 5
very much.
6 MR. COCHRAN:
It is irrelevant.
?
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I know.
8 MR. COCHRAN:
This is a political thing.
9 (Laughter.)
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
That's right.
11 MR. SMITHGALL:
We don *t operate in a vacuum, do we?
12 MR. TRAVERS:
I think it is fair to point out that a 13 normal operating reactor these kinds of levels or radioactivity 14 are routinely discharged including tritium.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
The tritium though 16 being a big number and 800 curies sounds big, isn*t that 17 mostly ionic, hydrogen ion if you will in solution and can't 18 that be easily removed by some simple ion exchange mechanism?
19 MR. TRAVERS:
No.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It is too low a level?
21 MR. TRAVERS:
It acts chemically like water and that 22 is the problem.
Even at those levels I think if you want to 23 compare it to what an operating PWR discharges I think it is 24 like 500 curies.
25 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Five hundred to a 1,000.
45 1
MR. TRAVERS:
Five hundred to 1,000 curies per 2
year.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Forget it, it is too low.
4 MR. MORRIS:
I think the concern though is what you 5
are outlining here and what Bill is and that is that is in the 6
technical society there may not be any concern for the level
'7 and that it is my judgment quite frankly personally that the 8
recommendation is going to be to dump that water in the river.
9 I want to make sure that there is adequate time to 10 look into that and respond to it and it is strange to me that 11 they have had years to look at the question and they want to 12 take one more year but they are only going to give the staff 13 tive months or suggesting that the staff only take five months 14 to look at it.
15 I would hope that in their schedule and that we 16 would say it to them very soon that they should look at more 17 of a length of time than five months because that really goes 18 by every so quickly.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think when the proposal i s-20 made the statt will be in a position to react as to the length 21 of time that they think they are going to need to assess the 22 problem.
23 MR. MORRIS:
I am just going on record that five 24 months for them to react and get all the input because it may 25 not be a technical and that is why it might need more of an
s 46 1
answer, will not necessarily be a technical answer as to the 2
health effects but more of a political concern and a citizen 3
concern.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
One thing the staff might do 5
since it has gotten information informally, it might also 6
transmit informally their concern about the length of time 7
that might be available for Commission action.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Yes, fine.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is the one year period the 10 time necessary for the licensee to evaluate the issue and 11 decide what it wants to do?
It sounds like technically it may 12 not be all that ditticult a question to address or is it 13 simply that well they don't need to worry about it until some 14 time in 1987 and therefore they are not going to worry about 15 it until 198??
i 10 (Commissioner Roberts leaves the meeting.)
17 MR. TRAVERS:
The issue obviously is not a technical 18 one.
I think 11 they wanted to make a proposal based on what 19 is standard practice they would come in and say, "We would 20 like to release it."
Obviously, it is a much more sensitive 21 issue than that.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Then 11 the more pressing 23 part of this may well be the debate uuf discussion about the 24 merits of the licensee's proposal, then why doesn't it make 25 more sense to get them to come in earlier say six months from
47 1
now with their proposal and then allow a year to evaluate it, 2
for people to discuss it, for aiuple to understand what the 3
technical significance is before a decision has to be made?
4 Why doesn't that make sense?
good, point.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That is a 6
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I wonder whether we should be 7
pushing in that direction because I think it is a problem that 8
has important political overtones and I think those ought to 9
be factored in both in the scheduling and in the decision.
10 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Frank Miraglia of the staff.
I did 11 attend the meeting in Annapolis and I think there is one 12 issue, at least the sense that I got at my first exposure to 13 this whole question as it is going to be part of my new 14 responsibilities, one thing the utility did say is that this 15 is a valuable resource for them right now in the cleanup to operation.
17 It is a clean source of water.
They use it in 18 decontamination operations.
Every time they use it, it turns 19 out they make more water.
So the number whatever it is, 8bo, 20 is going to go up.
The curie content may change a bit.
They 21 don't know what is ahead of them in the next few months of 22 defueling operations.
23 So to characterize a proposal too early, they may 24 not be characterizing exactly what they are going to dispose 25 of.
So I think there is a sensitivity at least.
I think it
s 48 1
is worth exploring your suggestion, Commissioner Asselstine, 2
but I had the sense that there are those other kinds of 3
considerations at least in the utility *s mind, at least in the 4
conversations that I heard at the Annapolis meeting.
There is a risk of coming in too early because they 6
might not be characterizing the exact quantities of material 7
involved or the volumes involved.
O COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fair enough.
I am not 9
suggesting that we direct them that they have to come in with 10 their proposal within a specified time but it does seem to me 11 that it wouldn*t hurt to get the stati to raise the issue with 12 them about the timing and to emphasize what appears to be a 13 concern on the part of the panel as well as I suspect the 14 community that~ there be sufficient time to insure a careful 15 evaluation.
16 MR. MIRAGLIA:
They were at the meeting and I think 17 that concern was concern was clear to everyone at that meeting.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
all right.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I would suggest that 11 the 20 panel does have points that they think the staff ought to be A
21 exploring as time goes on and we would appreciate knowing 22 about them.
23 MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
24 MR.
SMITHGALL:
We will suggest it again.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
49 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Maybe this is a subject for 2
a solar pond.
3 MR. MORRIS:
Mr. Chairman, those are the items that 4
we had expected to cover.
I don't know 11 any of the other 5
panel members had anything they wanted to add to the discussion 6
or bring up at this time.
?
MR. COCHRAN:
I would just observe that the Savannah 8
River Plant uses about 100 million curies of tritium per year 9
and releases about 1,000 which may be 100 times too high.
10 MR. MORRIS:
We are going to run a line, Tom, from 11 TMI to your citice building and see how many of your people 12 want to drink the water.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We can drink it, right?
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. SMITHGALL:
I suggested taking it to the Mason 16 Dixon line at the Annapolis meeting, I think that was my 17 suggestion, and there wasn't any concern at least from the 18 gentleman speaking.
I don't know that he spoke for the entire 19 state.
20 MR. MORRIS:
He did not.
There were several senators 21 who were upset with his answer.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It sounds as though we are 23 going to have some interesting times ahead but getting this 24 input early is very valuable and we will expect any additional 25 points that you may have as time goes on on this issue.
50 1
Anything more that we should cover today?
2 (No response.)
I 1
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me express my appreciation 4
and the Commission's appreciation for the extensive amount of 5
time that you as a panel give to the issues related to TMI-2.
6 We are very grateful for your ettort and we look forward to 7
continuing to work with you on these issues.
Unless there is 8
something more to be said, I will conclude the meeting.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL; I agree.
I second what the 10 Chairman has said.
I think that this is working out rather 11 well and is a valuable function.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Anything further?
13 (No response.)
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you again.
We will stand 15 adjourned.
i 16 (Whereupon, the Commission meeting was adjourned at 17 12:20 o' clock p.m.,
to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.)
18 19 20 21 22 1
23 24 25
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of:
S 9
Name of Proceeding:
Commission Meeting to 11 Docket No.
12 Place:
Washington, D.C.
Is Cate:
November 19, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
13 (Signature) 1 (Typed Name of Report 6r) Marilynn Nations 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.
24 25
e 11/19/85 a
SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY PANEL ON DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 SCHEDULED:
11:00 A.M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1985 (OPEN)
DURATION:
APPROX l-1/2 HRS PROPOSED
- PANEL COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF DEFUELING PROGRAM TOPICS:
- PANEL COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL FOR RECRITICALITY OF TMI-2 CORE DURING DEFUELING
- GPUNC'S SCHEDULE FOR FUEL REMOVAL
- PANEL COMMENTS ON RESULTS OF HEALTH STUDIES
- PANEL ACTIVITIES DURING NEXT SIX MONTHS
REFERENCES:
NOVEMBER 6, 1985 LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN PALLADINO TO A. MORRIS
kkY k kkkkQ h kt G f kkf Q kkg Q kkkk(hg0thghghg(q0909Qg(g(gQgQj)qQgQgQhhhpQ
,j 9/35 TRANSMITIAL 'IO:
/
Wmmt Control Desk, 016 Phillips
_g::
ADVANCED COPY 'IO: /
/
'Ihe Public Document Ibm cc: C&R= =.
s S- -
papers)
Attached are copies of a Cartmission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting docment(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Doc e ent Bo m.
No other distribution is requested or required. Dcisting DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual documents wherever known.
Meeting
Title:
N k W h b i W L.A k d m J
J DOde OS T ACf. i
\\
il M frS Open Y Closed l
Meeting Date:
I l
DCS Copies (1 of each checked)
It s
Description:
Copies Advanced Original May Duplicate To PDR Document be Dup
- Copy
- 1.
TFANSCRIPT 1
1 When checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the DDR fx:
wIsu.% n.k tls. L ci..nhL,
a
/
2.
k n.c S wu.?h I
ll-(e-8 5 3.
4.
Change to "PDR Available."
$lflflllb bY bYlYlbb$bYIYbYbYbYlY bYbYYbYb I b bYI lY
p*" "'*%,,\\
UNITED STATE $
y l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
wAsmMGTON,04.20585 wves or tne November 6, 1985 CMAIRMAN The Honorable Arthur E. Morris, Chairman The Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island Unit 2 Mayor of Lancaster 120 N.
Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17603
Dear Mayor Morris:
The following is a list of topics that I propose for discussion at the Commission Meeting with the TMI-2 Advisory Panel, scheduled for 11:00 AM, Tuesday, November 19, 1985, 1.
Advisory Panel comments on the technical aspects of the Itcensee's defueling program.
I understand that in July the Advisory Panel received a presentation on this topic.
2.
Advisory Panel comments on the potential for recriticality of the damaged TMI-2 core during defueling.
3.
Discussion of GPUNC's schedule for fuel removal.
4.
Advisory Panel comments on the results of health studies conducted in the vicinity of TMI-2 in response to the accident.
I understand you received presentations by NRC staff and the Pennsylvania Department of Health on these studies.
Please discuss your assessment of public concern on this as well.
i S.
A listing of the Advisory Panel's activities for the next six months, or items the Panel believes are important to consider during the next six months.
I request that any additional topics that the Advisory Panel would like to discuss at the November meeting be sent to me as far in advance of the meeting as possible so that we can l
consider them for the agenda.
I am looking forward to seeing you and the rest of the Panel Members at the November 19 meeting.
Sincerely.
WS" Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman 3 6.LI h 11 fi l
. - --.