ML20138L708

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Summary of 851119 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Decontamination of TMI-2
ML20138L708
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/18/1985
From: Masnik M
NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2
To: Asselstine, Palladino, Roberts
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NACTMI, NUDOCS 8512200020
Download: ML20138L708 (7)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ .. - - . _ . .

P93/tKL l # o,, UNITED STATES f- g p

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,...../

v,

[s To TMI-2 Advisory Panel Transcript Distribution List (see attached):

Enclosed is a short summary of the meeting of the Advisory Panel for the

' Decontamination of the TMI-2 held on November 19,1985 from 10:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at 1717 H Street, Washington, DC 20555.

Sincerely,

~

s Michael T. Masnik, Liaison

.\ Advisory Panel for the Decontamination

~

' '2 -

of TMI-2 TMI Cleanup Program Directorate

- I lIn:losuren

+

.,As stated g

J'

\ *

y. .
3

+

%y z;

1 V

3

c. ,

s.

(')

05122000208$000$20 PDR ADOCK 0 PDR P

s

a. s N,

Enclosure SUMARY OF THE MEETING 0F THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 HELD ON NOVEMBER 19,1985 FROM 10:15 TO 11:00 AM AT 1717 H STREET, WASHINGTON, DC 20555 I. On November 19, 1985, the Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island Unit 2 met from 10:15 AM to 11:00 AM at 1717 H Street, Washington, DC 20555.

II. The Chairman of the Panel, A. Marcis, briefly listed the agenda items con-tained in a letter from NRC Chairman Palladino to Chairman Morris, dated November 6, 1985 (Attachment). These i ems were the subject of discussion at the November 19, 1985 Panel Meeting with the NRC Commissioners that began at 11:00 AM.

A. Advisory Panel Members expressed satisfaction with the licensee's plans for the defueling.

B. The Advisory Panel decided to have G. Robinson, Panel member, address the Commission on the potential for recriticality of the damaged TMI-2 core. The panel members were satisfied with G. Robinson's statement that the licensee's " actions were prudent, and reasonable steps have been taken to prevent recriticality."

\

t.,s'

' l *;

t C. The Chairman of the Panel, A. Morris, expressed his concern about the recent-slip in the scheduled commencement of defueling.

Although a majority'of panel members were of the opinion that the schedule slip was not of great significance, A. Morris felt that

\

y. the Commission should be asked if there was some NRC action, short of the compliance order imposing a schedule on the licensee, that might prevent future delays in the cleanup. ,

D. Advisory Panel member, T. Smithgall, agreed to present the Panel's

- experience to date under the new Charter on the issue of human health effects associated with the TMI-2 accident. There was general agreement among the Panel. members that the Panel was adhering to the new Charter and that the discussions have been beneficial to the public.

I E. The Advisory Panel introduced a fifth topic for discussion at the 11:00 AM Commission meeting that was not' included in the November 6, 1985 letter from Chairman Palladino. The topic pertained to the disposition of the Processed Accident Water (PAW) stored at the TMI site. The Panel agreed to pass on to the Commission the infor-mation provided to the Panel by the licensee at the September 11, l'

. 1985 panel meeting in Annapolis, Md.

,o ,

7 W" 1

  1. y o

F. Chairman A. Morris listed a number of topics for discussion at future Advisory Panel meetings. There was general agreement among Panel members on the topics listed. The same topics were provided to the Commission at the 11:00 AM meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM. Panel Members present were: A. Morris, E. Marshall, T. Smithgall, J. DiNunno, K. Miller, N. Wald, T. Gerusky, G. Robinson, and T. Cochran.

7 17hsJ Michael T. Masnik NRC Liaison Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI-2

- - - . _ - - .. . _- - - _ - . . - - = - _ - _ _ _ _ _ .

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR MATERIAL TO THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THE THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Chairman Palladino H-1149 Mr. Thonas Magnes's

. Comissioner Roberts H-1149 Council on Environmental Qualeb Comissioner Asselstine H-1149 722 Jackson Place. NW Comissioner Bernthal H-1149 Washington, DC 20006 Comissioner Zech H-1149

[ W. J. Dircks, EDO MNB-6209 PANE .

i H. R. Denton, NRR P-428 P.O. Box 268

~

W. D. Travers (5 copies) TMI Site Mail Pouch M. Masnik AR-5031 Mr. Frank D. Davis i

.-. 200 Gettysburg Pike J. R. Hall AR-5031 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 D. Cleary Rm. 234

~

Ms. 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 Charles J. Cook OPA MNB-3709 90 Nittany Drive J. Fouchard MNB-3709 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 i

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 016 i DCS. 016 TMI Alert - c/o Kay Pickering F. Miraglia 528 315 Peffer Street Dr. Randy Roig, Director Harrisburg, PA 17102 Power Plant Siting Prcgram Dr. Frank Parker Department of Natural Resources Tawes Building B-3 School of Engineering Annapolis, MD 21401 Nashville, TN 37203 Ms. Ruth Gentle Ms. Michelle Voso 1 Virginia Circle Society of Nuclear Medicine Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 475 Park Ave., South New York, NY 10016 Susquehanna Valley Alliance

i. P.O. Box 1012 Mr. Dave Janes Lancaster, PA 17603 Analysis and Support Division j

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Sid Langer 401 M. Street, NW (ARN-4580) 4 P.O. Box 1625 Washington, DC 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 o Mr. Bob Leyse Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director EPRI-NSAC Bureau of Radiation Protection 3412 Hillview Ave. Dept. of Environnental 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 I

Mr. F. R. Standerfer. Director Mr. Thomas Smithgall Three Mile Island Unit 2 2122 Marietta Ave.

i GPU Nuclear Corporation Lancaster PA 17603 P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Niel Wald, M.D.

Professor and Chairman 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, Chairman Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dauphin County Commissioners P.O. Box 1295 Dr. William Kirk Harrisburg, PA 17108 Environmental Protection Agency TMI-2 Field Station l

Dr. Henry Wagner 100 Brown Street 3 John Hopkins School of Hygiene Middletown, PA 17057 i

615 N. Wolfe Street Room 2001 Mrs. Ann Trunk h Baltimore, MD 21205 143 Race Street

. Middletown, PA 17057 Dr. Thomas Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council Mr. Joel Roth l Suite 300 RD 1. Box 411 l 1350 New York Ave., NW Halifax, PA 17032 l Washington, DC 20005 i Mr. Glenn Hoenes l Mr. Ford Knight Pacific Northwest Laboratory l Westinghouse Electric Corp. P.O. Box 999 i Waste Technology System Div. Richland, WA 99352 P.O. Box 10864 Pittsburgh, PA 15236 i

l l

Pro-Women Ms. Leslie Klein c/o Judy Branett Intelligencer Journal 320 Elm Court 8 West King Street Middletown, PA 17057 Lancaster, FA 17603 Joyce Corradi Marjorie and Nonaan Aamodt Concerned Mothers and Women on Tlil 180 Bear Cub Road 2 South Nissley Drive Lake Placid, NY 12946 Middletown, PA 17057

.t

/4 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 Rep. Alan Kukovich House of Representatives Harrisburg, PA 17101 Debra Davenport 1802 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dr. Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Radiological Protection Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region !

631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PD 19406

. Ms. Mary Osborn-

[ 4951 Highland Street Swatara, PA 17111 t

Robert L. Vree Box 72 Middletown, PA 17057 John Kabler, Director Chesapeake Division Clean Water Action Project 2500 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218

l hh" "'49 -

t UNITED $TATES

[ S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I wAsmuaTON.04.20555 I (Attachment) orrcs or Tna November 6, 1985 CHAIRMMd 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.

2 scheduled for 11:00 AM, Tuesday, November 19, 1985.

i

1. Advisory Panel comments on the technical aspects of the licensee's defueling program. I understand that in July the Advisory Panel received a presentation on this topic.

1

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.
5. 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 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 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, f

/.:80-cb e Nunzio J. Palladino

Chairman c/ c__ \ ,

, r's th G % .

J' b Y&.j - l qu i

.J

..l CRISW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

/~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:

~

COMMISSION MEETING h 3

Periodic Meeting with -

Advisory P'anel on y@:,-

Decontamination of TMI-2 .;:

i '

(Public Meeting) ,

Docket No.

p= =-=.- -

~-  %

//

/ '\ '

  • /

.O.

.~

(s

  • t i.

ff( '

.u. .

s . .. 'y, j .'

e t- .. 33 .

^/

w' &

.j "i ^ l O .

Location: Washington, D. C.

Pages: 1 - 50 l Date: Tuesday, November 19, 1985 .

~

t i

$~

i-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES I -

Court Reporters

\- 1625 I St., N.W. .

Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 q- m , ,q>a 4 n n, . (202) 293-3950 my 4 4 v-7 ? t e j i

1

. _ . 9- , _. __1

1 D I SCLA I M ER .

2 a

S 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 . tJ . , (Ja s h i n g t on , D.C. The meeting was open to public 10 e att'odance and observation. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.

13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.105, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion.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 Cemmission may 21 authorize.

l

~22 .

i 23 l

24 <

25

e i 1

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 - - -

4 FERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY 5 FANEL CN DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 6 - - -

7 FUBLIC MEETING 8 - - -

9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Room 1130

.r.s 11 1717 "H" Street, N.W.

12 Washington, D.C.

13 14 Tuesday, November 19, 1985 15 10 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 11:09 o' clock p.m., NUNZIO J. FALLADINO, Chairman 18 of the Commission, presiding.

19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

20 NUNZIO J. FALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 JAMES X. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission 53 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 24 LANDO W. 2ECH, JR., Member of the Commission 25

.o .

2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE.

2 A. MORRIS 3 E. MARSHALL o

4 T. SMITHGALL 5 J. DiNUNNO 6 K. MILLER -

7 N. WALD 8 T. GERUSKY 9 G. ROBINSON 10 T. COCHRAN 11 12 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:

13 W. TRAVERS 14 F. MIRAGLIA t

15 16 17 f

18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

3 1 P ROC EE D I NO S 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Commissioner Asselstine is detained for a short 4 while but he will be joining us later.

5 This morning the Commission i s meeting with the 6 advisory panel for the decontamination of TMI-2 to discuss the 7 topics outlined in the November 6th letter to Mayor Morris.

8 We are pleased to welcome the members of the 9 committee and pleased to see such an excellent representation.

10 The topics on the agenda cover the panel *s views on 11 technical aspects of the TMI-2 detueling programs, potential 12 for recriticality during detuoling, the licensee *s schedule 13 tor fuel removal, results of recent health stuuies near TMI-2 14 and panel activities planned for the next six months.

15 Before we begin I would like to point out that 16 Dr. William Travers has been appointed project director for 17 NRC*s TMI-2 cleanup project directorate within the Ottice et 18 Nuclear Reactor Regulation. He will manage NRC*s activities 19 at TMI-2 and report to Mr. Frank Miraglia in NER at i 20 headquarters. This is consistent with NRR*s planned overall 21 reorganisation.

22 I want to assure you that the organization will 23 maintain active NRC interest in the TMI-2 cleanup program and 24 should help to strengthen it by shifting the locus from 25 headquarters to the site.

4

. - - - - .- ~ , - -. - -

4 1 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 2 comments at this time?

3 (No response.)

4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: 11 not. let me turn the meeting 5 over to Mayor Morris.

6 ,

MR. MORRIS: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to 7 return to Washington and to meet with the Commission and we 8 thank you for t h .8. s opportunity. The panel continues to meet 9 on a regular basis and I want to tell you work very hard and 10 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 fine win on 13 Saturday. That is one of the complaints I have gotten from 14 one of our panel members is that it is very unbalanced, not an 15 unbalanced line, but very unbalanced in the favor of Penn 16 State versus Pitt and we certainly hope that that continues 17 through this weekend. .

18 (Laughter.)

19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Joe, are those guys still 20 winning up there?

21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is the information I have.

22 MR. MORRIS: The complainer is Neil Wald and I don't 23 know 11 you want to do anything in regard to that complaint.

24 I would suggest that you do not.

25 (Laughter.)

5 1 MR. MORRIS: As to item one on the defueling 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 5 two weeks of the detueling operation and so we will have to 6 wait until we receive an update at the next meeting for us to 7 provide you additional comment.

8 But we have been brieted and I think we feel 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 long-handled tools. Was that resolved?

6 14 MR. SMITHGALL: I just basically asked the question 15 as to what type of tools were going to be used, how they were 16 going to be trained to use them and so forth. I guess they 17 are using them so we will see. The proot is in the pudding on 18 that one, I guess.

19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. I wanted to make .

20 sure that any concerns that you had were properly addressed.

21 Thank you.

22 MR. MORRIS: That would be it on item one, 23 Mr. Chairman.

24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Do any other 25 members of the panel have comments on that topic or

o 1 Commissioner questions?

2 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No. <I) 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Why don *t you go on 4 to the next topic?

5 MR. MORRIS: Fine. The panel members, we have 6 discussed this, and as we go through here I will either refer 7 an item to another panel member or I will make a statement but r

8 they will feel free to jump in at the appropriate time to make 9 their own comment 11 they so desire.

10 On item two, advisory panel comments on the potential 11 for recriticality of the damaged TMI-2 core during detueling, 12 this is definitely a concern et ours and is an area.that GPU 13 should not relax tneir focus of attention.

14 One of the individuals particularly that has been 15 concerned and raised this on several occasions is Gordon 16 Robinson and I believe that Gordon has a statement that he 17 would like to read for the record it there are any other panel 18 members who 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 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I am very interested is this 22 topic because it is one that I have had concern about and I am 23 very interested in whatever comments you have.

24 MR. ROBINSON: These comment $ are from the July 18th 25 meeting that we had in the evening and also concern a meeting

s 5 7

1 that Joe DiNunno and I had earlier in the day with OPU people, 2 The people who were involved with this meeting were 3 Dr. Ray Murray, consultant for GPU, Dick K111 man, GPU, Dan 4 Williams, Bechtel, Pat Smith, GPU and Frank Standerter who was 5 also there for part ci the meeting.

4 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 10 place.

11 We reviewed the shutdown assurance of the. heavy 12 borated core. We reviewed the v a r i'o u s reactivity monitoring 13 systems that were considered over the last several years and 14 why they were not considered teasible. We reviewed the 15 present system that will be used as far as monitoring the 16 boron is concerned. We talked about neutron monitoring for

- 17 worker safety.

18 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 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Are there any other 22 panel comments?

23 (No response.s 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me express my concern.

25 Since I have been in this business one of the points that has i

8 1 been very strongly ingrained in me has been that one should 2 aiways 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 S made. ,

6 I was interested and perhaps I should have this 7 background in what criticality monitoring we do have aside 8 from just monitoring the boron concentration.

9 I don't know 11 you are prepared or one of the statt 10 could respond to that.

11 MR. TRAVERS: My name is Bill Travers and I am 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.

16 The criticality monitors that are available 17 essentially are the nuclear instrumentation, two start-up 18 count rate monitors, BF-3 tubes.

19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are these outside the pressure zu vessel?

21 22 MM. THAVERS: Located on the wall of the pressure 23 vessel outside, that is correct.

24 Additionally to detect criticality during movements 25 of fuel, there are three sets of two redundant BF-3 tube

9 1 monitors 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 kdaho.

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 it 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.

18 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 configuration 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

10 1 Safety and Safeguards and we have run independent calculations 2 to confirm the hypothesis proffered by GPU that criticality is 3 an incredible event.

4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All I am lookihg for is S assurance that it is so.

6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Has the ACHS been consulted?

7 MR. TRAVERS: No, they have not.

6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: They might be.

9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What is that?

10 COMMISSIONER 2ECH: 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 thing to do.

17 COMMISSIONER 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: 02 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.

l l

1

l 11 i i

1 COMMISSIONER ZECH: 1 Just think that it is a 2 prudent thing to do. I 1

i 3 MR. TRAVERS: We have reviewed and prepared a safety o

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 additional input 12 would be appropriate. This is one area where I just don *t 13 feel as comfortable as I might but that is mainly because I s

  • 14 haven *t participated in it.

15 If 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 of your statis it that 21 sounds reasonable in addition to following up on your 22 suggestion regarding the ACRS.

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. I think you should follow 24 up on getting the ACRS comments on this. Meanwhile I don *t 25 gather that we should stop what is going on.

e ,

12 1 COMMISSIONER 2ECH: 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: If the panel is satisfied I see 5 no reason to change the schedule. I just think it would be 6 well to consult ths ACRS 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 11 those are being done. It is an argument for not stopping 12 removal of the fuel 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes.

14 CC:4M I S S I ONER 2ECH: Sure, I agree. I don't see any 15 reason fer changing he schedule at all, It is just a matter 16 of adultional assurance from so e5cdy 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 ACES schedule 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 still like to see it done.

25 COMMISSIONER 2ECH: Good.

O 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 a

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 baron in the reactor coolant system.

13 They also have very detailed requirements for the 14 sampling frequency. They have boronometers in line at several 15 ditterent 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 I mentioned the assumption that criticality is an 20 incredible event is based on conservative estimates of 21 configuring the most highly enriched fuel.

22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's right. That is 53 really what I was referring to.

24 MR. TRAVERS: Taking no credit for any of the poison 25 materials that are associated with the normal core and that in

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.)

? 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 that date GPU did get further 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 l

15 1 to keep on schedule and make sure that we don't fall further 2 and 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 sch'edule at this time whether there is something 6 sort of that that can be done with more teeth in it than 7 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 It not, please feel free to otter them yourselves.

'. 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is there any feeling about 13 whether or not GPU is proceeding with due diligence? I can 14 understand that they may have difficulty 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 meeting once a month and even though we spend a l

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.

l 22 Is it because of things beyond their control or did j

23 they just not order something early enough, they did not look l l

24 ahead and consequently slipped and that is the type of thing 25 that they should be cautioned against er having their hand l

10 1 slapped tor?

2 That is the concern that the panel expressed when I 3 brought this subject up because it is a concern that I have 4 and the panel members feel 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?

? Was it something that the utility company could have avoided 8 and 11 so, what is the penalty not necessarily financial at 9 t ,h i s 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 4 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 tour 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.

1 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Does the statt have any comment 21 on this? Bill.

22 MR. TRAVEES: I think frcm all our perspectives we 7 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 wnat 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 wantage point, there have been problems, 5 technical problems, in procuring equipment but for the most 6 part I think he licensee has been committed to getting the 7 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.

o -

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 detueling in 17 September. Is that correct? .

18 MR. TRAVERS: The original target --

19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Wasn't it July?

20 MR. TRAVERS: -- at least as it existed for about a 21 year was to begin in April, even earlier than that. So for 22 about a year starting say sometime in April of 1994, there was 23 a target of beginning in April of 1985. In April an 24 announcement was made that it was going to start -- I am 25 sorry. The target was July.

C 18 1 In April they announced a slip to September and in 2 July an announcement was made that the s c h.e Q u l e would further 3 slip one month into October.

4 The reasons for the slip vrere relat'ed to ptopurement 5 of the equipment essential to beginning the cleanup, certain .

e canisters that the fuel would be placed into for shtpment, s

.s

? handling devices and fuel storage racks as well 8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Does the statt do a 9 rigorous analysis of the reasons for these schedule salps wnen 10 they occur and particularly focusing on whether they occur 11 despite the best efforts by the licensee and were really 12 matters beyond the licensee's con *rol? s 13 For example, wh e .' it appears tnat this eq ipment is 14 not going to be available whea 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 m

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 thing. We are on site. The majori y

. x- ;_

23 of my office is located on the site. So we have daily 24 interaction with all levels of GPU statt.

25 MR. MORRIS: I think something like that would he M

m

, -. 4 - .- -. -

7 19 1 helpful'though. That might be the kind of interim thing that 2 wouib be very useful to give us all a feeling for why the 3 slippage happened and at least statt*s summary as to what a

4 they think happened'.

-s .

5 MR. TRAVERS: I was going to mention that we don *t 6 do a formal analysis but informally we get a good feel for

? efforts being placed on procuring equipment and the reasons 8 behind any slips that may result in acquiring it.

9 COMMISSIONER A S S E L S T,I NE : Maybe it would be useful 10 to get the sta!! 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.

8 y, 17 For example, in the case of the equipment that we are speaking a p. 18 about, canisters I will focus on, we did a special inspection

. a.

19 i 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

.i 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 I

t 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 fact, 1

4 that development had to go on in deciding wha't equipment you 5 needed, to what extent did that impact on the schedule? Was 6 that a major item?

? MR. TRAVERS: No, not in this case, Mr. Chairman.

6 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 tallures or the tailures to meet the 13 schedule were really the licensee's failure to insure-that its 14 contractors put in place, carried out and maintained an 15 adequate quality assurance program.

I 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 fact 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.

13 At about the same time we went down there GPU was 11nding out 24 that in fact their QA program was not being very well 25 implemented.

4 21 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I am going to suggest that you 2 follow-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 age'da n and'it you

$ sense that there is lack of due diligence in keeping on the t

6 schedule that you don't hesitate to bring it to our attention.

7 MR. MORRIS: All right. I would hop'e that the statt 6 'i 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, 11 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 p

[ -

14 will keep you involved as we go along as we are today.

15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think I would even 16 suggest that since what I heard from the staff was they have 17 basically done the review for the past slippages, that it 16 would be useful just to get a short paper from them that 19 summarizes 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 statt a assessment 23 tor what has been done to make sure that those root causes do j ,'

24 not cause further slippages.

23 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 from the mistakes over the past year or so to make sure 3 that those mistakes don't cause future slippages. Let*s take

~ '

4 4 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 d that the problems that existed then won *t recur in the future.

9 ME. TRAVERS: I think we can address that. There 10 have not been that many slips 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 future 14 meeting 11 it is worthwhile.

15 CHAIRMAN PALLADING: All right.

16 MR. MORRIS: Fine, 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So we can expect to see 18 something about this analysis of slippages to date and you 19 will keep us posted on the potentials for slippages,as they 20 arise.

21 MR. TRAVERS: 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, GPU now is moving core debris about.

P-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.

. a 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Sure.

5 ME. TRAVERS: But I think that is a technical kind 6 ci thing.

7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think what we are looking for 8 is 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 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That is right. .

12 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I agree but I think that we 13 should trankly exercise some judgment here too because we o

  • 14 don't want to bring the pressure on people to bring torth 15 something on this very unique operation that would -- you 16 know, if there is any question about safety we should rely on 17 safety side and so on.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.

19 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I a g r.e e that it is worth looking 20 at but I think we simply must -- in other words, 11 they are 21 making up equipment that has never been made up before, 11 22 they are using techniques that are rather special, it seems to 2'3 me that we should encourage everything to be done that would 24 provide safety and that to me is something I think we should I

25 keep in mind.

)

24 1 CHAIRMAN 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 COMMISSIONER ZECH: It is just the " balance'is all I S am trying to say.

6 MR. MORRIS: I think I mentioned safety several 7 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 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I think that is fine but I agree 13 with your opening request for safety. I am just trying to 14 re-emphasize the balance and I hope we don't lose sight of a 15 that. In other words, we should not let the pendulum swing 16 completely the other way.

17 MR. MORRIS: I think we all agree with you op that, 18 certainly.

19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Any other comments 20 on this topic?

21 (No response.)

22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you want to proceed with the 23 next?

24 MR. MORRIS: All right. Item four is advisory panel 25 comments on the results of the health studies conducted in the

1 25 -

1 vicinity of TMI-2 in response to the accident the fact 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 o

4 right before thu-meeting.

5 (Laughter.)

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: This will be very briet

? MR. MORRIS: I apologize for that, Tom.

8 MR. SMITHGALL: Joe DiNunno and myself as you 9 probably are aware were charged with preparing a proposal for 10 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 critique of these health studies. That takes us over old 14 ground.

15 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 18 I believe our schedule is now dictating to hear from the 19 .Aamodts hopefully in December and then also hear from the TMI 20 Public Health Fund.

21 There have been a number of 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. i l

25 It is the sense of the panel I believe and I will i

, e , , - - - ,, - - - - . - - . . - - - - , . . , , - - _ , , , , , - . , - -- . - - , ,, .. ,- ,.,-, -, . - - . - - ,

26 1 reiterate that we do not act as a further level of critique

2. for these health studies but act as a conduit of information 3 to the public.

a 4 I think it is being very well received by the public 5 and they feel it is a necessary area for discussion and our 6 initial assumption.that the public has really nowhere else to 7 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 I hope you feel confident that we will stay within 13 our charter. I think we have the balance in our panel that 14 will do that. Again, I think it is one that cuts across a lot 15 of the issues at Three Mile Island and one that the public 16 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 t h i r.k it is something that we need to continue.

20 If anyone else on the panel wishes to add to that, 21 they may.

22 MR. CCCHRAN: I will add a few comments in the 23 capacity of serving as a conduit from the public back to you.

24 To begin with a little background, as 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 S 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 ongoin3 analysis is 15 to look at the cancer incidence within the five-mile radius or 16 roughly a tive-mile radius and as an appendix it also critiqued 17 the Aamodt study. ,

18 As many people might have predicted the study did le not find any statistically significant excess health e11ects 20 in the tive-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

28 1 areas about five or six miles distant, I look at that issue as 2 two separate issues, one, whether there are any significant 3 health effects there first and secondly, whether they are TMI 4 related.

S The citizens group that did the original' analysis 6 strongly believe.s 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 effect argued that 9 they were not real -- they certainly were not caused by TMI 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 choice of the roads which 13 were surveyed in so forth. The picked roads which had cancer 14 incidence on it and dismissed roads that did not.

15 So from my perspective these two i s s u.e s , whether the 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 19 because in their view --

20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL- Your recommendation was 21 w h.s t ?

22 MR COCHRAN: My recommendation was to have a  ;

l l

23 further exchange at least between myself and the person making j 24 the presentation over whether their analysis was adequate with 25 regard to the question of whether there was something real )

4 .

29 1 there 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 6 unsatisfactory state bearing in mind that our charter we are 7 not to critique these analyses to begin with and further 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 j

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 forthcoming for a couple of years.

o -

14 But you are going to get a lot of citizen concern 15 over this because the citizens still believe it is TMI related 16 but the analyses doesn't really get uncoupled from whether t

17 there may be something there or not, ,

l 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Are you suggesting that the. l 19 question of the relation to TMI is arguable or that that was '

i 20 not settled by the State? 11 everybody agrees that it is not 1

21 TMI rei4ted, then whether one should go around doing a survey 22 of.who are smokers, icr example, and non-smokers does appear 23 to me to Get a bit beyond the charter of your group.

24 MR. CCCHRAN: I personally having looked at this 25 issue and looked a number of studies related to this issue l

_ . _ ~ . _ . . _. __ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ . _ _ _ , - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a .

30 1 don't believe it is TMI related, that the cluster of cancers 2 he it whether they are real or not, I don't believe they are 3 TMI related.

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 6 you from the standpoint of whether the State Health Department 7 is doing its job adequately and in that regard that is a TMI 8 related issue.

9 It they are not doing their analysis there 10 adequately, then there is reason to suspect their analysis of 11 TMI related health effects. That is as far as I am willing to 12 go.

13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Tom, have you brought your 14 feelings to the attention of the Public Health Department as 15 an individual aside from being a member of the panel?

16 MR. COCHRAN: No, I have not.

17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It might be worth bring,ing it 18 to their attention because I think they welcome input from 19 people from their work as well as anybody else.

20 COMMISSICNER BERNTHAL: I guess I agree with your 21 point that 11 as a separate question you as a citizen or 22 others are concerned about why the phenomenon was observed or

~23 whether an agency is carrying out its duties quite the way it 24 should, that is certainly a matter worth pursuing in itselt 25 but it also seems to me that la a sense it is your duty to say

a ,

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 TMI

$ because that finally is the charter of your group and I think 6 the important question that the public is interested in

? hearing.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I thought you took that O .

9 away from him. I thought we said quite clearly that they were 10 not supposed to critique these studies. I would disagree.

11 That is not their duty.

12 MR. COCHRAN: You recall I made that statement 13 explicitly in my letter to you the first time around.

14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Exactly.

11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL; I am talking about Tom 16 personally who has }ust made a statement here today and 11 1/ people ask him wnat his opinion is, it seems to me that he 18 clearly ought to say what that opinion is.

19 CCMMISSICNER ASSELSTINE: I thought you said though 20 that that was their duty as a panel 21 CCMMISSIONER EERNTHAL- No. I am talking about his 23 personally. He made a statement here today that even given

!3 and I think you really have misinterpreted what I was saying, 24 that even given all of the conc +rns that he may have and they 25 may be valid concerns on these ather issues, there is a key

32 1 issue that the public at large deserves to have you speak 2 clearly on as you have spoken here today and that is whether 3 in your judgment they are TMI related.

4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We did put a restriction on not 5 getting another layer of critique. i 6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I don *t think that 7 restriction is on individuals.

8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Excuse me. Let me finish my 9 paragraph. But that does not in any way restrict an individual 10 from bringing his opinions or her opinions to the attention of 11 the Public Health Department of Pennsylvania.

12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Tom, is the TMI Health 13 Fund Study going to examine health issues both whether the 14 State *s analysis or the Citizen analysis if you will of the 15 incidences of cancer and the locations of them, not only 16 cancers but the incidences of health effects and the locations 17 of those, which is the accurate view, was there an abnormally 18 high incidence of health effects at that time in certain 19 specific locations as well as the causal relationship question?

20 MR. COCHRAN: Yes, to some extent. It certainly 21 will address probably more carefully the issue of the 22 clustering issue. If you do such a survey and you measure

~

23 .something statistically significant, is that just a random 24 cluster event?

25 It will also look at the issue ci relationship to

. _- .- . _ ~ .

4 , .

33 1 TMI by looking at correlations with the plume and so forth.

t 2 Now whether they will do it satisfactorily, I don *t know. We 3 will have to wait and see. But there will be some attempt to 4 address that.

5 The problem is you might in your mind reach a 6 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 8 because there are people up there that firmly believe it is 9 and believe that the analysis showing that it isn't has not 10 been adequately performed.

11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It sounds to me like it 12 might be worthwhile having the people who do the statistics 13 explain in somewnat more detail as they explained it*very 14 broadly and I have read some of the transcripts of meeting hcw 15 those statistical 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 just as separating from one population from another 19 population and finding similar aberrations comparing two 20 groups.

21 Those are line points of statistical analysis that 22 perhaps the public deserves to have somewhat better explained.

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is Pennsylvania looking at the 24 radon problem in this particular area?

25 ,

MR. GERUSKY: No, not yet.

34 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Not yet. Do you plan to?

2 MR. GERUSKY: Yes, but not because of --

3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No, not because of TMI.

4- MR. GERUSKY: In eastern Pennsylvania, we are going 5 to look at radon.

6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was thinking that among the 7 other effects that might have to be considered is that one.

'B COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I have to say that I favored 9 as many of you know and have heard more than you care to 10 account, I favored the NRC giving some financial support to 11 the State of Pennsylvania or other responsible bodies for that 12 matter to try to bring some. closure to this issue of statistics 13 and clusters and the incidence of disease and whatnot.

14 The thing that gets lost in all the epidemiology and 15 in so much of the discussion is the single question of wny it 16 is that nobody in a controlled experiment has ever been able 17 to demonstrate any residue anywhere out there. .

18 I will say with characteristic immodesty perhaps 19 that this does happen to be an area of my expertise and I 20 looked at the raw data in some considerable detail, 21 They weren't exactly as complete as I might have a

22 liked or might have done if I were doing it myself but there 23 simply is not an tota of evidence that there is any residue 24 and it is absolutely certain that 11 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 3 believes in that kind of large emission needs to go out and 4 t,ry to prove it in a controlled situation who're ther'e can be 5 no dispute.

6 Thus far, there has never been any evidence of that 7 type presented.

J B MR. MORRIS: As to the panel's charge, however --

9 COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL: That is not your job.

10 MR. MORRIS: I think you understand that when you it agreed to open this up and allowed us to be a conduit, t,h a t we 12 were going.to get into certain times when there would be some 13 trustrating discuasions as to what we can and cannot do and

c.
  • 14 there will be times when we may have to vote on it.

15 As it happenea, we have one or several panel members 16 in this particular case, Tom Cochran and some others, who felt 17 one way and some other panel members telt the other way. -

18 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 20 the only one that we have in order to determine just how tar 21 we can and cannot go.

22 We intend on continuing the discussions on this.

23 The Aamodts will be as Tom.- Smi t hg a 11 mentioned be at the next 24 meeting to present their viewpoints and the public has been 25 very active and very interested and the trustrations will l

36 1 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 differences.

6 I think that is what the frustration 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 MR. SMITHUALL; Basteally echoing what Art is 11 saying, either do we want to be a ciitique but we also don *t 12 want +o be an endorser one way or the other.

13

  • COMMISSIONER ZECH: I think you are handling a tough 14 issue very responsibly frankly. I think you are doing a good 15 Job with that, just exactly what you ought to do.

16 Mr. GERUSKY: One additional comment, the level of 17 frustration at least has a chance of receding as person years 18 at risk build up over time. Really the answers will come in 19 as that element increases and therefore the statistical 23 certainty or uncertainty of any evidence of an ettect will 21 become clearer.

22 So it really is a matter of patient waiting and the 23 additional study the Public Health Fund is doing will take us 24 turther down the road in time and may have some more definitive Ot answers.

37 1 MR. WALD: One of the issues that is clouding the 2 review, not our view but other people's review of the Health 3 Department *s data, is the confidentiality of that data. That 4 is the law suit business. There is a law suit requesting 5 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 8 critical reviews but they have been done by people selected by 9 the Health Department who have maintained the confidentiality 10 of the data.

i 11 So ther'e'*ilre some problems and the courts are going 12 to make the decision. I think we will have to wait for the 13 courts to make that decision.

11 CHAIRMAN FALLADINO: All right. I think you are 15 approaching the problem or this issue the way that the 16 Commission had indicated. Nevertheless I do find this 17 discussion very interesting and maybe that is where I will 18 leave it for now. I may want to ask the stati some questions l 19 but I will do that as a Commissioner and not in relationship t 20 this panel.

21 MR. MORRIS: All right. Item tive I belteve is a 22 listing of the advisory panel's activities for the next six

'3 i months or items the panel believes are important to consider 24 during the next six months.

25 If I may for the record just read ott in no special

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 you want further discussion on this today please 4 let me know and I will just go,through this list quickly right S now but the first one is the strontium calibration mistake.

6 Next is the status of canister fabrication and ,

? canister QA program. We will revisit the issue of monitoring 8 to determine whether federal or state agenotes are 9 contemplating any changes due to TMI-1 Restart.

10 Defueling discussions and updates will continue and 11 Ida t will be on next month's agenda particularly, a 12 presentation by DOE on tuel transportation, burial of Epicor 13 tilters at commercial burial sites.

14 Also on the next meeting's agenda 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 investigation of 9/23/80, and a presentation by 18 the TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board at some tuture 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 b3 the water disposition issue that is probably on your next 24 page.

25 MR. MORRIS: It is.

39 1 MR. SMITHOALL: 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 stait begin to gear up to look at that particular 5 issue since I believe they made a suggestion that it may be a 6 year away for making presentations to you all,.

7 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 3,.

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 stait 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 he good for the stati ta 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.

I I

l L

m ..

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 effectively 23 comes in and says, "This is what we would like 'o do," we are 24 not in a very good position to do much more than stay abreast 25 of anything.

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 5 could have an explanation of what kind of schedule the utility 6 company expects to follow.

7  !! they are going to come up with a proposal a year 8 from now and they are not going to be pushing and there is no 9 haste to make a quick decision and 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 4

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 25 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 if there are some specific 4 things that the panel thinks we ought to be d'oing now, we 5 would like to be kept abreast of those suggestions.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Joe, it I could, maybe the 7 stati could check with the licensee and see not only when 8 their schedule is for proposing something but also the time 9 trame in which the licensee now anticipates wanting some kind 10 of an answer from us as to what should be done.

11 Second, the stati mentioned that they had informally 12 looked at some p o s s i'b l e 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 propossi from the licensee.

16 If that period of time passes, are there options for i 17 disposing that would be foreclosed or more limited? ,

16 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 staff and the Commission and specifically they 21 have said beginning of 1997, 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 statt within five

43 1 months.

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: M ..ing 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. TRAuERS: I would have *o look at the spectite 25 levels but I think we are talking about hundreds of thousands

44 1 of curies.

2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I am }ust looking at it 3 right now and you are talking about 20 mil 11 curies of strontium 4 and 60 mil 11 curies of cesium in 860,d00 gallons which is not 5 very much.

6 MR. COCHRAN: It is irrelevant.

7 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 SERNTHAL: Yes. The tritium though 16 being a big number and 800 curies sounds big, isn*t that 17 mostly ionic, hydrogen ion 11 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 FWR discharges I think it is 24 like 500 curies.

25 MR. MIRAGLIA: Five hundred to a 1,000.

o

-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 E111 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 trankly 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 took 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 statt 13 live months or suggesting that the stati 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 wnen the proposal is 20 made the staff will be in a position to react as to the lengtn 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 l

. . , , , . __ - - - ~ _ . . . , , . , _ . _ - . - - , _ _ .m _ , . . . _ .

. . [ s

~

40 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.

6 MR. MORRIS: Yes,. fine.

A

, s 9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is the one year period the 10 time necessary for the licensee to evaluate the issue and s 4 11 decide what it wants to do? It sounds like technically di may 3

12 not be all that difficult 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 1987?

16 (Commissioner Roberts leaves the meeting.)

17 MR. TRAVERS: The issue obviously is not a technical 19 one. I think if 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 s,

21 issue than that. .

22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Then 11 the more pressing i

23 part of this may well be the debate and 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 I

+

y s sc p 47 t

\

I now with their proposal and then allow a year to evaluate it, r

2 for people to discuss it, for people to understand what the I .

l 3 technical significance is before a decision has to be made?

~

\ 4 Why doesn*t that make sense?

5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is a good point.

s 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I wonder whether we should be 7 pushing in that direction because I think it is a problem that

- s,,

.A

'd h'as tmportant political overtones and I think those ought to g \' s

\g 9 be factored in both in the scheduling and in the decision.

' Frank Miraglia of the staff. I did s

10 MR. MIRAGLIA:

11 attend the meeting in Annapolis and I think there is one

\

. b2 1 issue, at least the sense that I got at my first exposure to 13 -this,whole question as it is going to be part at my new o

  • 14 s responsibilities, one thing the utility did say is that this 15 is a valuable resource for them right now in the cleanup

\' .

16 operation.

17 It is a clean source of water. They use it in 18 decontamination operations. Every time they use it, it turns

,N 12, out they make more water. So the number whatever it is, 800,

\ .

., 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 s wT 33 defueling operations.

23 So to characterize a proposal too early, they may Y 24 not be characterising exactly what they are going to dispose 25 of. So I think there is a sensitivity at least. I think it

\ \s  %

  1. 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 mIeeting.'

5 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.

8 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 spectiied time but it does seem to me 11 that it wouldn't hurt to get the staff to raise the issue with v, 7 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 suiticient time to insure a careful

!$ 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 it the 20 panel does have points that they think the stati aught to be 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 PALLADINC: 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 s

4 we had expected to cover. I don't know it any of the other 5 panel members had anything they wanted to add to the discussion 6 or bring up at this time.

7 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 ottice building and see how many of, your people 12 want to drink the water.

13 CCMMISSIONEH ASSELSTINE: We can drink it, right?

14 LLaughter.)

15 MM. 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 ter 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.

B

$0 1 Anything more that we should cover today?

2 (No response.)

3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me express my appreciation 4

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 gratetul 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 functioV.

12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Anything turther?

f3 (No response.)

14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you again. We will stand 15 adjourned.

16 (Whereupon, the Commission meeting was adjourned at 17 12:20 o' clock p.m., to reconvene at the Call of the Ch, air.)

18 19 20 21 22

~3 2

l

'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 Ccemission in the 7 mattwr of:

8 9 Name of Proceeding: Commission Meeting 10 4..

11 Cocket No.

12 Place: Wa'Shington, D.C.

1? cate: Noverber 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) yy( g<d i (Typed Name of Reportler) Marilynn Nations 20 21

.22 l

23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.

24 1

25 l

l 1

' 11/19/85 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:

.ez e

  • PANEL COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL FOR RECRITICALITY OF TMI-2 CORE DURING DEFUELING
  • GPUNCS 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

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20138L708&oldid=3369118"