ML20148F235
| ML20148F235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8803280098 | |
| Download: ML20148F235 (110) | |
Text
-
4 ORIG NA-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
ariefing on status of TMI-2 Location,:
Washington, D.
C.
Date:
Thursday, March 17, 1988 Pages:
1 - 51 i
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 ffk l0f9y 0B0317 PT9 PDR i
S t
e
~
1 D I SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unsificial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 3
3/17/88 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
' N. tJ., LJa s h i ng t on,
D.C.
The meeting was open to public 4
10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not.been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 4
12 inaccuracies.
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 discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorire.
22 23 24 25
4 1
3 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COkiMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON STATUS OF TMI-2 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N.N.
11 Washington, D.C.
12 March 17, 1988 13 14 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 15 notice, at 2:03 p.m.,
the Honorable LANDO U.
- CECH, JR.,
16 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
17 18 Commissioners Present:
19 20 LAULO U.
"ECH, Chairman 21 THOMAS M.. ROBERTS, Commissioner 22 FREDERICE M.
BERNTHAL, Commissioner 23 KEMMETH ROGERS, Commissioner 24 KEUMETH'U. CARR, ' Commissioner 25
2 1
Staff and presenters seated at t a b i s.:
2 3
S.
J.
CHILK - SECY 4
W.
G.
KUHNS 5
P.
R.
CLARK 6
E.
E.
KINTNER 7
F.
R.
STANDERFER 8
R.
Q. MARSTON 9
U.
C.
"A"LER - OGC 10 11 Audience Speakers:
12 13 Eric Beckjord 14 15 16-17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
O 3
1 PROC E ED I NG S-i 2
(2:03 Ja.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and t
4
-gentlemen.
This is an information briefing by GPU Nuclear 5
Corporation on the status of.the Three Mile Island Unit'2 6
cleanup.
~
7 There is no commission voting actions anticipated 8
at this briefing this afternoon.
TNis is the fourth 9
annual meeting to bring the' Commission up to date on the 10 status and plans for the future activities at T!!I-2.
1-1 We will hear from General Public. Utilities i
~
12 Nuclear executives and from the chairman of the T!!I-2 13 Safety Advice Board.
14 I understand that the defueling has progressed to i,
15 the point where about 60 percent of the fuel has been 16 shipped to a Department of Energy facility in Idaho.
The 17 progress at THI-2 is of continuing interest to the 18 Commission and we look forward to hearing about the status 19 of the work.
i 20 We are also interested in the plans for the 1
l 21 longer term care and monitoring of the plant.
22 Ue are interested too in hearing about the j
i 23 efforts to characterize the molten' mass at the bottom of 24 the THI-2 reactor vessel.
4 25 The presentation today I understand includes a
.--..-.,.-_c.,_m.-,-
,-w
...,,,,,,,n,,
-_,,,__,,,-,,,,,,n,n,.,,,-
-,..,,,,,_.,--.--.r--
4 1
videotape of the 1987 work which the NRC is now 2
participating in funding.
3 Mr. Kuhns, we were saddened to hear of the 4
untimely passing of Mr. Jack O' Leary last February and we 5
thank you for your willingness to return and to serve at 6
that time.
We welcome you and your colleagues, and we are 7
pleased to have you here today.
8 Any comments from my fellow Commissioners before 9
we begin?
Commissioner Roberts will be joining us 10 shortly.
11 You may begin, Mr. Kuhns, and welcome~ again.
12 MR. KUHNS:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 13 Commissioners.
I am Bill Kuhns, chairman of the 14 board / chief executive officer of GPU and chairman of the 15 board of GPU Nuclear.
16 With me today are Phil Clark, president / chief 17 executive officer of GPU Nuclear; Ed Kintner, executive 18 vice president of GPU Nuclear; Frank Standerfer, vice 19 president and director of the TMI-2 program for GPM 20 Nuclear.
Also with us is Dr. Robert Marston, chairman of 21 the T!!I-2 Safety Advisory Board since !!a y of
'36 when Dr.
22 Jim Fletcher who was then chairman returned to I:A S A.
23 When we appeared before you in February of
'C7, 24 did introduced Jack O' Leary as you indicated, 25 Mr. Chairman, as my replacement as chairman of GPU, and
=
5 1
Jack did indeed' die an untimely death and a sad death 2
after serving as chairman of our corporation for only 3
seven months.
He did a super job while he was there and 4
we miss'him.
I was then asked to return and I did on 5
December 19, 6
We are pleased to be back for this fourth annual 7
report to you on the cleanup of TMI-2.
We continue to 8
believe that the successful completion of this cleanup 9
program and the extraction of as much information as we 10 can obtain from it have great significance to the NRC, the 11 nuclear industry, an. of cou'rse to the our own company.
12 In each of our previous meetings with you, I 13 committed the GPU system's full support for safely 14 completing the THI-2 cleanup and f'o r the safe operation of 15 TMI-1.
And I reaffirm those commitments to you today.
16 The cleanup is proceeding without financial 17 constraints, and we now believe despite some continuing 18 uncertainties that the plant work will be completed within 19 the $1 billion funding program.
20 The various contributors under the plan, all of 21 them are current in providing continuing cleanup funding, 22 and an updated funding plan is attached to our information 23 here as Attached A.
24 The system, the GPU system's present energy 25 supply plans do not reflect the return to service of
6 1
TMI-2, and no funds are presently being expended to 2
preserve that plant and its equipment for any future use.
3 TMI-1 continues to operate well; very good 4
capacity factors compared to the other plants.
We intend 5
to continue to supply the personnel, the training, and the 6
management support necessary to maintain the excellent 7
THI-1 record since you authorized restart in October of 8
1985.
9 TMI-2 cleanup operations have continued without 10 significant safety incidents and now with the removal of 11 all of the fuel from the initial core volume and shipment 12 of much of it off site, the safety implications of TMI-2 13 have been further mitigated.
14 Upon completion of the cleanup program, we plan 15 to place the plant into monitored storage:
A safe, 16 stable, and secure condition suitable for the long term.
17 Now I would like to turn it over to Phil Clark, 18 president of GPU Nuclear.
19 CCMMISSIONER BERMTHAL:
May I just ask one 20 question?
21 MR. KUHNS:
Yes, sir.
22 COMMISSIONER BERUTHAL:
I know that you had a 23 three month planned outage at THI-1.
Was that to do some 24 specif1: maintenance items?
I seem to r,ecall some steam 25 generator work.
Is that the principle reason?
I.
4 7
1 MR. CLARK:
That was actually a five month outage 2
of which the last three months came in
'87.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I see.
Okay.
4 MR. CLARK:
It was refueling and the major work 5
was Appendix R.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
7 MR. CLARK:
But it was just a five month outage,
~
8 and we just counted here the '07 part of it.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
All right.
Thanks.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
You may proceed.
11 MR. CLARK:
I really appreciate the opportunity 12 to discuss TMI-2 directly with you again.
13 We think we are making good progress in a 14 difficult and unprecedented project.
We believe we are 15 now at the point where we can see fairly clearly the end 16 of the cleanup program.
17 You may recall cleanup is integrated between GPU 18 Nuclear and Bechtel.
The director Frank Standerfer is a 19 vice president on the company, and then the deputy 20 director who is here with us today, Tom Demmitt, is a 21 program manager of Bechtel National.
22 People fill the positions in the organization 23 without real consideration of their parent organization, 24 and while GPU Nuclear is responsible, we have fully 25 integrated the operation.
I think it's working quite
4 8
r 1
effectively.
2 In addition to the GPU Nuclear and Bechtel, a 3
major contractor primarily supplying labor is Catalytic 4
Construction Company.
5 We have today working on the cleanup about 960 6
people:
475 GPU, 145 Bechtel, 275 Catalytic, and 65 7
others.
~
8 Last year when we appeared before you, that 9
number was 1,050.
You can see the work force-is being 10 reduced, and while there is not a great, reduction as yet, 11 this is going to continue at an increasing rate during 12 1988.
13 A year from now we expect the total work force at 14 THI-2 to be less than 400.
So comparative to the 960 now, 15 we'll be down by more than half we expect.
16 We are taking special steps to try to see that we 17 retain the capability to do the remaining work safely.
We 18 have a thought-out program for phase down, retention 19 bonuses, things like that, but it is something that as we 20 go forward is going to.be very important to us.
21 During the last three discussions with the 22 Commission, we described our plan for safe, stable, and 23 secure storage of the facility following removal of the 24 fuel and decontamination of the major radiation s,ources.
25 We've called this post defueling monitored storage.
9 1
It is based on the following princip1cs:
Fuel 2
has been removed and shipped off site such that the 3
criticality is precluded.
.4 Potential for a significant release of 5
radioactivity has been eliminated.
6 Water has been removed from the systems and the j
7 potential for reintroduction of water has been minimized.
8 Radioactive wastes have been packaged and shipped 9
off site or are safely stored pending shipment.
10 Radiation has been reduced to levels which will 11 allow monitoring of the plant, performance of required 12 maintenance, and plant inspections.
13 Finally, containment systems will be maintained 14 in accordance with NRC approved' technical specifications.
15 I think meeting these will provide three separate 16 levels of public protection:
First is inherent stability.
17 The plant will be in a condition which is not open to 18 transients or accidents.
19 Second and we have more detail here which I'd 20 go in, but I think you've seen it before second, we'll 21 have effective containment.
They have an inherently 22 stable plant inside an effective containment with closed 23 systems and a locked reactor containment building, and 24 finally we'll have positive monitoring and control.
We 25 will be conducting radiological and environmental
4 10 1
monitoring.
We will maintain plant protection systems 2
such as fire protection, and we will maintain plant 3
security by enclosing TMI-2 basically within the TMI-l 4
security boundary and a fencq.
5 We will have available on site trained manpower 6
and equipment from TMI-1 in addition to what we see as a 7
small work force devoted to TMI-2.
8 So we think in short that we will have a safe 9 _ monitored plant condition which can be maintained 10 indefinitely when we enter PDMS.
11 This plan has been discussed over several years 12 with the TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board, and Dr. Marston will 13 ccmment with your project staff and with the !!R C Advisory 14 Panel on the cleanup of TMI-2.
15 We are moving to formalize actions on this plan 16 by submitting changes to our technical specifications.
17 Frank Standerfor will discuss the plan and its 18 status in some more detail.
19 Your staff has prepared a draft E n v i r o n m:n t a l 20 Impact Statement on PDMS and it's our understanding that 21 that would be ready for issue as the draft ear / next 22 month.
23 Ue think this is a sound plan that resulta in a 24 condition that poses no risk to public health and safety.
25 The reviews over the past years have not identified any
t 11 1
substantial safety or health concerns with the PDMS plan.
2 (At 2:12 p.m.,
Commissioner Roberts joined 3
the proceedings.)
4 MR. CLARK:
As we indicated earlier, we are 5
proceeding to accomplish the planned work and phase down 6
the staffing.
Contractors are being let go; our own 7
people are being reassigned, some of them within the 8
system; some will be leaving GPU system entirely.
So it 9
is extremely important during this next year that we. reach 10 agreement on all the work that remains to be done.
We aro l
11 and we need to be staffing d own.-
12 Two years ago, the Commission recommended that we t
13 take special. steps to assure public understanding of what 14 is happening at THI-2 and the reduction and potential i
15 threat which cleanup progress was providing.
We have 16 continued a major effort in that area.
i l
17 During '87 we had 17 specific news releases on 18 THI-2, nine status reports on TMI-1 and 2 to the local 19 news outputs.
We published a series of newspaper ads on i
20 the progress of the cleanup program.
We've continued 21 meeting with the local town governments for residence and 22 reporting monthly to the local governments and I
23 periodically to state and federal officials.
24 We really have had I think a very active program 25 in that area.
As a result, we are finding a significant 1
.. _ _.. _ _ _ _, ~, -. _ _ - _ _ - _
9 12 1
increase in satisfaction among the public with the way the 2
c1'eanup program is being handled, and we are finding 3
increased sentiment among local residents who are seeing 4
the cleanup program come to an end.
i 5
Finally as ~ you are probably' aware, there have 6
been questions raised recently.by members of the House and 7
Senate about DOE's program of THI's fuel shipments and DOE 8
taking possession of the core.
9 If this results in delay or interruption of the 10 shipments, it will delay completion of the cleanup 11 program.
We are working with DOE and others to try to 12 prevent any delay, although based on what we now 13 understand since we've prepared this, it's my impression q
14 that there will be a several month delay in completing l
4
~
15 shipment of some fuel from the Island and that that will 4
16 impact entering into PDMS.
17 Nonetheless, that is an important issue.
I think l
18 with potential for further delay, that we are working on j
19 it as hard as we know how.
1 4
20 At that point, I would like to or this point, 21 I'd like to turn it over to Ed Kintner unless there are 22 questions.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
You may proceed.
24 Thank you very much.
1 25 MR. KINTNER:
When we met with you a year ago, we 4.
j
13 1
decribed the delay we bad incurred in defueling due to b
2 turbidity in the water in the reactor vessel which many i
3 times limited visibility to an inch.
l 4
Fortunately the corrective action which we 4
4 5
5 developed worked-better than we could have hoped, and the 6
original system design required -- specified a million t
7 gallons of through put to each filter; we were getting 8
about 10,000 gallons at that time, while the problem was 9
height.
We are now filtering over 10 million gallons l
l 10 before the filters clogged and so that has been prov'iding 11 us with good visibility and allowed the good progress 12 we've made this year.
[
13 There is one other factor which allowed us to r
14 make such good progress in
'87.
Water level in the vessel 15 did not get down to the core support structure.
So that 16 the last two to four feet of the' subassemblies were always
[
i 17 covered with water.
18 So as you can see in some of the pictures later, 19 the molten fuel did not go down through the cork support 20 assembly and cause any brazing of these assemblies to the j
21 support structure, and that allowed all but one of the 177 22 assemblics to be pulled up easily and put into canisters.
23 It made it much easier than it would otherwise been, and 24 is a major reason why we were able to get so much of the 1
25 fuel out this ycar.
t I
~
1 That fuel which has been shipped, and the samples 2
as well as the masses of the fuel, have been the subject 3
of a very considerable amount of research in I!!EL and some 4
very interesting things have been discovered and reported.
5 There is an IAEA meeting this week in Italy and 7
6 on one of the major papers there the summary paper on 7
the results of TMI-2 research.
~8 Last year we also talked to you about the 9
significance to saiety of the fact that some 20 tons of f
10 molten co.rium material flowed down into the bottom head of l
11 the vessel apparently in a minute or so; and the vessel 12 did not fail, the boundary remained intact.
i
~
l 13 The Commission picked that point up and pressed i
14 to investigate it fully, and 'as a result of that you now 15 have a safety program under Dr. Beckjord.
We are working 16 very closely with him.
17 Electric Power Research Institute has now joined 18 in in support of that program and I believe that theru 19 uill be a thorough investigation in the natrar beforu the j
20 containment is closed up.
I
{
21 Before we completed the removal of the core l
22 s u b a s s e.m bli e s stubs, we knew that we were going to h a v.: to 23 cut through this whole assembly of five layers of core l
24 support structure to get the fuel out of the bottom in any 25 significant for'any significant cleanliness.
That was
,..,...--,m.
,e.
15 1
something we really didn't have the slightest idea how to 2
do it.
f 3
We developed two different techniques.
One which 4
uses the core boring equipment the Department of Energy 5
had provided to take the initial core samples.
We've'now
)
6 extended use of that to cut through the -core support' 7
assemblies and we are in fact moving with that process 1
8 now.
9 In addition, we've developed plasma are cutting
~
10 equipment which will have to work under 45 feet of borated 11 water.
We've tested it' thoroughly and we think it will 12 work and the last stages of this disassembly in core 1
13 support is going to be done using that plasma arc h,
14 technique.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Have you thought about 1
1 16 selling any of this to the Navy'when you're done?
17 MR. KINTNER:
I don't know.
Are there any Navy 18 members present?
\\
19 MR. CLARK:
Maybe DOE should, they own some of 20 that stuff, t
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Go ahead.
i 22 MR. KINTNER:
Now, I would like to talk a little 23 bit about disposal of accident-generated water.
There is 24 two million gallons of that water which was associated in 25 one way or another with the accident, it's stored on the
1 d,
16
(
T.
o 1
Island.
2 In the normal course of events, it could be 3
discharged into the Susquehanna well within the limits 4
im; nad in any other place in the world,'hyt because of 5
ine fact that it is TMI-2 and the public objections to it I
6 in that area, there are special arrangements required.
7 Pe proposed to evaporate the water and.ta.ke the 8
solid?.fied bottoms and handle them as solid waste, and we we believe re've proposed something whi h is 9
have 10 totally acceptable from a standpoint,of environmental
~
11 effect we believe.
The staff agrees with that and said so 12 in Supplement 2 to the Preliminary Environmental Impact 13 Statement which was issued last July.
14 We are now in the middle of a public hearing
.5 process on that.stbject, and it appears e t. a t this matter i
16 will not find its way back to the Commission before 17 December which is two and a half years after the original i
18 proposal; thus aesual disposition of water will not be 19 completed at best before we would enter into PDM 3.
20 The design, fabrication, installation of the 21 evaporator system will take about nine
.m o r.t h s.
f we 22 waited for final approval that would be a further delay 16 23 the complet.on, so at our risk last month authorized the 24 system vendor to pr:ceed with the design, fabrication of 25 the evaporator system for this specific TMI-2 application.
i.
~ g s,'
s s
N
)
s s
,)
1 Throughout the cleanup project it has been i
2 monit6 red by.the Saf ety Advisory '3oard made up of ten
\\,.,
3 outstanding scientists in the various fields important to 4
assuring the-coStinued dafe conduct of the work, s
5 The Safety Advisory Board chairman has reported 6
to you each time we have.
Last year was D r.,) Mardton; h,in Fletcher.
i 7
before that, And Dr. Marston is here today 8
to report on t$eir conclusions w..tb i i:qa rd to worit ct the 9
Island.
N s
s 4
s 10 Dr. Marston has very etizong crudentials including e
i 1
11 five years as head of the National Institure of Health,
^-
l s
12 ten years as president of the Unive dity F1.orida System L
s 13 and here he has shsrod some of the problems with 14 Commissioner Roger,. rom his background in the universi y i
xys T.
15 and college syrtems.
s a
s 16 It's our intent - - - che Safety Advidory Board will, s
i
~
c e n t. i nu e to moniter the :crk untll th[ cleands' progt'am is 17 4
x i
N 13 complete.
We don't believe t h a t, we '1.1 ask tdom to s
a 19 discharge their responsibilities,bdfore week is it's s
.i
'\\
20 quite clear that tne issues associated with s bf kt; publi'c 21 in that area, are settled.
\\
22 As you know on/ February 1st, the NRC site office, 23 project office a t -the site, was closed.
We no.,have the 24 more typical interface vith Region 1,
the program stdfL 25 here in Washington J would very much like t!) express our
(
\\-t 1
lm
\\
3 i
A jpg 18 t ]?
+
L 1
appreciation for the great assistance given the TMI-2 Ll '
q m
'i i
2 cleanup program by the project office first under k
.< (
-3
,v t
3 Dr. Snyder who's here in the audience today; more recently i
,4 under Dr. Bill Travers.
Their confidence, s
?
5 professionalism, and hard work have been essential to 6
carry out this prortam safely.
I'd have to say despite
,s the major technical issues associated with safety in the
'7
\\
8 entire cleanup, at no time has approval from NRC Staff in
- ir f
any way impeded our being able to go forward with the l'
10 work.
11~
Looking ahead to the next year or year and a 12 h a l i', the safe completion of this program will require 13 additional-NRC reviews and approval, and we're going to 14 mak'e a.nuw.ber of submittals over the 'next year, that will 15 be in addition to the ongoing oversight inspections t
16 activities.
l 17 The site-located office has provided the focus 18 and detailed understanding of the situation as we made our 19 proposals.
We've_been discussing with your Staff the need j
20 to effectually address and resolve the remaining issue.
21 We and th'ey both recognize I believe the need to 1
l monitor and track the progress so that completion of the l
'22 23 pr, gram and the ettendant removal of the remaining risk i'
l
'2 4 proceeds as promptly as safety will allow.
li' l
25 One point we are very proud of I think you will
\\
1
. 1
.~
.~
4 f
19 1
be glad to hear is that the redi. tion doses to workers i
2 have been relatively low, less than projected.
~
3 The total dose from beginning of cleanup to this-4' point is 4,600 manrem.
The ~ tctal dose in '87 was 975 5
manrem.
6 If we don't run into any special problems from 7
here on,-we think another l',400 manrem will allow us to 8
complete the program which would make'for a total overall 9
of 6,000.manrem, and the estimated ranges in the !!R C ' s 10 Preliminary Environmental Impact Statemeni was 13,000 to 11 46,000.
12 So I think here we again hav~e been in some degree 13 fortunate and to some degree I think there has been good 14 work on the part of a number of people to make it come 15 t h a t- - w a y.
16 As the project now stands, we expect to complete 17 the defueling operations in the last quarter of this year, 18 and then unless there are fuel shipments delays which Phil 19 has talked to, we will ship the last fuel off site in the 20 first quarter of 1989 and then there will be another two 21 or three months.we'll have to dewater the fuel pools and 22 pack up some of the remaining solid wastes.
17 e would then 23 hope to.be able to place the plant in the d e f u e l e ri 24 monitored storage condition -- late Spring of
'89.
25 Now Frank Standerfer has some videotapes and
-20 1
other information -- more details of the cleanup as it 2
proceeds.
3 MR. STANDERFER:
This brief video shows the 4
progress that was made last year and shows some of the 5
cutting that we.were doing in the last two months.
6 (A video presentation.was shown at this 7
time.]
8 9
MR. STANDERFER:
I might draw your attention to 10 Attachment c whlch'is the defueling progress curve versus 11 time.
The defueling began in the Fall of 1985; the first 12 fuel was actually transferred from the reactor in January 13
'86.
14 During '86 many challenges arose using a neu and 15 unique tools and techniques to remove the damaged fuel; C6 'however and it was very slow in.1986.
17 However by early 1987 a number of solutions to 18 these problem had been developed.
These included the 19 method to main'tain clear water in the reactor vesscl that 20 Ed Kintner referred to, and the development of many neu 21 tools.
22 One new tool was an air-lift s y.x t e m which you sau 23 on the videotape.
Other tooling modifications included 24 improvements to the tools to remove partial fuel 25 assemblies which you saw on the tapes.
21 1
More than twice as much fuel debris was loaded in 2
1987 than in 1986.
At the beginning of 1987, 20 percent 3
of the core debris had been removed from the reactor 4
vessel, and by year's end about two-thirds, or 195,000 5
pounds of fuel debris had been loaded into canisters and 6
removed from the reactor.
The debris is made up of the 7
damaged fuel and internal reactor components.
8 The next attachment, Attachment D, shows our 9
estimate of the 98,000 pounds of fuel that remains in the 10 reactor.
This is distributed with about 9,500 pounds in
'11 the upper core support a s s e rabl y, about 27,000 pounds in 12 the lower core support assembly, a little more than 60,000 13 pounds in the bottom head of the reactor ve'ssel proper, 14 and about 1,000 pounds remain in various components in the 15 primary system loop.
16 In addition to making headway in the actual 17 removal of fuel debris, TMI-2 Division developed primary 18 and-alternate methods for future defueling.
19 The last phase of defueling will require 20 different techniques and tools than the earlier phases 21 did.
22 A major part of the defueling in 1988 will 23 involve the cutting and disassembly of the internal 24 components of the reactor.
25 In 1988 defueling plans require a significant
22
[
1 portion of the core support assembly to be cut apart and 2
removed from the reactor vessel.
This involvec removing 3
the stepped baffle plates from the upper core support 4
assembly, and cutting and removing the center of the lower 5
core support assembly.
6
~
I show a' number of figures in the attached 7
appendix which are rather detailed, but in summary, the 8
lower core support assembly co'nsists of five horizontal 9
components.
They are tied together vertically by 52 10 incore instrument guide tubes and 48 support posts.
11 A combination of cuts with the core bore machine 12 and the plasma arc cutting torch will result in opening up 13 a nine foot diameter hole in the lower core support 14 assembly.
-15 This will allow defueling of the lower core 16 support assembly and access to defuel the lower reactor 17 vessel head.
18 This CSA cutting work was. started in early 19 January and was scheduled to be completed by the end of 20 April.
The work to date has taken abou. twice as long as 21 originally planned.
Although the cuts are coming out 22 clean and exactly as we expected, it is taking a little 23 longer.
So we do not expect to finish the cutting by the.
24 end of April at the present time.
25 The stepped baffle plates in the upper core
+
23 1
support assemb'ly are planned to be removed by a' 2
combination of plasma are cuts and the removal of about 3
860 bolts.
These bolts will be removed either by 4
unscrewing, drilling, and/or cutting.
5 There are approximately 60,000 pounds.of fuel 6
debris in the lower head of the reactor vessel.
When 7
we've gained sufficient access through the lower CSA, this 8
fuel will be. removed by vacuuming, air lifting, and 9
picking up pieces.
We may need to break up some large 10 pieces, and we may encounter a layer of unknown 11 consistency right on the bottom of the reactor vessel 12 head.
13
[At 2:37, Commissioner Roberts leaves the 14 proceedings.)
15 COMMISSIONER BERMTHAL:
You still don't have a 16 terribly good picture then of that of the physical 17 characteristics of that?
19 MR. STANDERFER:
We know that most of the 19 material on the bottom is loose.
We've put sample probes 20 it.to it.
We know there are some chunks down there.
We've 21 seen one of the instrument tubes that's been melted off in 22 the lower head, we expect to find another 15 or 20 that 23 look like that because the thermal cupples have reformed 24 junctions down,there, and we don't know whether there is a l
25 layer of materials resolidifi.ed material right on the l
24 1
bottom head or whether it's just loose on the bottom.
2 MR. CLARK:
I don't think we've seen anything 3
fused to the reactor vessel head, or we haven't seen 4
everything.
What we've seen has tended to be chunks or 5
what not.
6-I was going to suggest that if you go to the very 7
back -- and if Frank will let me interrupt up if you 8
look at Figure 1 which locks likes this.
I think you're 9
may be about seven now, Mr. Chairman?
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
11 MR. CLARK:
That's the core support assembly as 12 it existed and it shows the various layers and it shows 13-the incore instrument thimbles coming through.
14 And now if you'll turn eight pages to Figure 8,
15 the intermediate one shows step by step, and if you get to 16 ' figure 8,
we will have cut out and remove from the vessel 17 all of the support structure that was on F'gure 1 and is 18 not on Figure 8.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And this you expect to 20 achieve by 21 MR. STANDERFER:
Well, we expect that to take 22 four months total, and it's going to take a little longer 2 '3 than four months, but late this spring that should be 24 done.
We also will be defueling various layers and 25 corners as we go also.
25 1
MR. CLARK:
So that's really what's underway now 2
and I'm sure you've recognized that we are working down in 3
amongst the instrument thimbles which comeninto the 4
reactor vessel from the bottom.
5 MR. STANDERFER:
Of course all of this cutting is 6
being done with these-tools between 30 and 40 feet away 7
from where the men are.
8 The defueling of the ex-reagtor vessel portions 9
of the system was continued in 1987.
This work included 10 defueling the upper tube sheets of both steam generators, 11 t'he pressurizer, both the A and B hot leg pipi'ng runs and 12 an initial exploratory defueling of.the defueling -- of 13 the decay heat drop line and sevaral other smaller piping 14 systems.
15 In 1988, we will defuel the lower portions of the i
16 steam generators and related piping, the decay heat drop 17 line which we entered for the first time this last fall, 18 and the cold leg piping and the main coolant pumps.
19 All the while we've been shipping fuel, a 20 shipment is done from the Island by the Department of 21 Energy and is stored at Idaho.
That was started in July 1
22 of 1986.
23 The casks which the Department of Energy bought 24 were two NRC license casks for the program, and this fall I
25 as the videotape indicated, we leased a third' identical l
l L
26 1
shipping cask which was bought -- or leased a's'back up to 2
the other two and to increase the flexibility in shipping 3
schedules.
4 The shipments are now made by dedicated' trains.
5 To date, a total of 14 rail shipments or core debris have 6
been made to the Idaho station, sone included one cask, 7
some two casks and some three casks.
8 The shipments contained a little over 176,000 9
pounds of debris or a little more than 60 percent of the 10 total core has been shipped.
11 The shipping has caused some' frustrations on the 12 project because extra costs have been required by a number 13 of restrictions the railroads have imposed on us to go 14 beyond existing DOT or NRC regulations; further, the 15 shipments have been a target for opposition particularly 16 in the St. Louis area where the transfer is made from 17 CONRAIL to Union Pacific.
18 In the basement of the reactor vessel we washed 19 down surfaces as shown in the videotape using the robots 20 that have been developed for this work.
We've used very 21 high pressured sprays to remove the thin surface layer of 22 the parts of the concrete that are particularly 23 contaminated, and that work was finished in February of 24 this year.
25 We also have devised a method to flush water
27 1
through the concrete block wall where there's still a 2
significant quantity of radioactivity in the basement.
3 The two stairwells, one was contained by a 4
concrete block wall for fire protection purposes and that 5
block wall acted as a sponge for radioactivity and is.the 6
major source of activity in the basement, and the testing
'ndicates that we can fill that block wall up with
~
i 7
to date 8
water and flush water through that porous structure, and 9
if it is as successful as our testing indicates, we will 10 dissolve and flush a significant quantity of the 11 radi'oactivity from the block wall without having to 12 physically remove the blocks themselves.
13 In the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings, we 14 continued decontamination in 1987.
We decontaminated nine 15 systems, 29 cubicles, and they have reached the end point 16 required for the post d? fueling monitored storage.
These 17 cubicles represent a little over 14,000 square feet of 18 floor area.
19 In addition, the areas that have been previously 20 decontaminated have been maintained clean as we've 21 continued to work in the plant.
22 We in 1987 shipped a little over 23,000 cubic 23 feet of low level waste to burial grounds.
Prior to 1987 l
t 24 all of the THI-2 low level waste was sent to the U.S.
25 ecology site in Washington state.
As you may remember, I
28 9
l' the South Carolina site was closed to us right after the 2
accident.
3 In 1987 it was reopened and about 3 percent of.
4 the waste was sent'to Barnwell in South Carolina and about 5
97 percent was shippe~d to Hanford last year.
6 While these shipments last year exceed the annual 7
volume targets in the 1985 Low Level Waste Policy Act for 8
an annual shipment basis, we currently expect to complete 9
the cleanup within the 7 year volume allocation for THI-2 10 in that Act.
11 In addition, we've rece.ived additional volume.
12 allocation from the Department of Energy for the bottoms 13 that would be generated from the evaporation of the 14 accident water.
15 In February of 1987, we placed into operation a 16 new facility at TMI shown on the videotape to reduce the 17 volume of low level waste that is shipped from the plant.
18 Finally, Attachment F indicates our current 19 project schedule.
It's based on completing defueling in 20 the fourth quarter of this year.
We expect to be ready to 21 place the THI-2 plant into post defueling monitored 22 storage in !!ay of 1989.
That was based on findahing fuel 23 shipping.by !! arch of 1989 which may be delayed past that 24 point because of the shipping restrictions that Phil 25 mentioned earlier.
. -. ~
. - -...~.
29 1
In December of 1986, we provided the NRC with our
.2
-plan for post defueling monitored storage.
That was 3
followed in 1987 with our submittal of the e n vi ro nraen t a l 4.
evaluation for post defueling monitored storage and 5
answers to the Staff's questions on it.
6 We understand that the NRC's draft' Environmental 7
Impact Statement for post defueling monitored storage will 8
be. issued for public comment early next month.
9 The time from the draft to final on accident 10 -water was six months so the final EIS for PDMS could be 11 issued by October of this y e a r'.
12 In the next month, I will be submitting to the 13 NRC a number of documents in support of our post defueling 14 monitored storage proposal; that is the safety analysis 15 report, the licensing and technical specification changes, 16 the new quality assurance plan, the new fire protection 17 plan, the new org'anization for PDMS, and revised TMI site 18 emergency plans and security plans for the PDt!S plant 19 configuration.
20 It is important to effectively manage the 21 remainder of the program and that these materials be 22 reviewed and any questions be promptly resolved.
23 At effective conclusion of the TMI-2 cleanup 24 program is dependent upon our achieving a conclusion to 25 these submittals by January 1989.
30 1
MR. CLARK:
Are there any questions at this 2
point?
I would like to ask Dr. Marston to provide his 3
comments on behalf of the Safety Advisory Board.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Dr; Marston, why don't you 5
proceed.
6 MR. MARSTON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since its 7
inception in March of 1981, the TMI-2 Safety Advisory 8
Board has reviewed on a continuing basis the cleanup 9
operations performed in the damaged TMI-2 plant to ensure 10 protection of the health and safety of the' public and of 11 the workers involved in the cleanup.
12
[At 2:50, Commissioner Roberts joins the 13 proceedings.)
14 MR. MARSTON:
Although the cleanup in not 15 complete, additional SAB safety reviews remain to be 16 performed before the removal of damaged fuel from the 17 reactor system is completed.
18 I plan to focus today on the safety of the THI-2 19 plant in the proposed post defueling monitored storage 20 condition.
21 The Board has spent a significant fraction of the 22 last year reviewing the effect on public health and worker 23 health and safety when the TMI-2 plant is placed in the 24 PDMS condition.
25 In November of 1987, the Board issued the I
31 8
1 following statement:
"Post defueling monitored storage 2
has been analyzed in depth by the Safety Advisory Board, 3
THI-2.
The Board has agreed that PDMS is an acceptable 4
THI-2 plant condition that when achieved, would pose no 5
hazard to public health and safety."
I want to emphasize 6
that the Board continues to hold this position.
7 "On further Board review of the PDMS plant at a 8
subsequent SAB meeting in February of 1988, it 9
become apparent that in light of the extentsive SAB 10 reviews and deliberations on the technical and'saf'ety 11 aspects of PDMS, documentation of the basis on the above 12 statement was necessary."
And I intend today to provide 13 the Nuclear Ragulatory C'ommission with that documentation.
14 The SAB is charged with oversight of the actions 15 of GPUNC management to assure that those actions relating 16 specifically to the cleanup of'the damaged TMI-2 plant do 17 not jeopardize the health and safety of the public and the 13 workers.
19 These actions sometime require decis' ions which 20 involve trade offs between health and safety, and some 21 limited lou level radiation exposure to the public and the 22 workers.
23 This was a case, for example, when extremely 24 small amounts of krypton gas were released to the 25 environment in order to improve the ambient air quality
4 32 1
within the TMI-2 containment building and thus reduce the 2
potential radiation exposure of workers who had to gain 3
entry to.begin the cleanup operations.
4 Whatever the costs of such trade offs and the 5
personal exposure are in dollars, there has been no 6
adverse effects on the public health and safety; although, 7
the protection of the health and safety of the workers is
~
8 a matter of highest priority, the SAB must continue to 9
. exercise a considerably greater responsibility in its 10 concern of the effects of the cleanup on the health and 11 safety of the public.
12 The 1979 accident at TMI-2 left the interior of 13 the reactor building so contarinated with radioactivity, 14 that entries by cleanup crews were not possible without
~
15 extensive preparations and precautions to minimize their P
16 exposure.
17 A truly remarkable job has been accomplished in 18 these past nine years.
Only insignificant and neglible 19 exposures of the public have occurred as well as 20 remarkably limited exposure cf workers as Mr. Kintner has 21 just pointed out who have been carrying out the cleanup.
22 This has been achieved by judicious care, 23 planning, deliberate steps, and appropriate decision 24 making.
25 GPU Nuclear management has directed the
33 1
allocation of sizeable funds for the protection of workers 2
and the public.
Decisions were always in the direction of 3
being overly safe.
4 Until recently the quantity of damaged fuel 5
that's been presant in the reactor vessel has been 6
sufficient to require precautions against any inadvertant 7
criticality occurrence, although the probability of 8
occurence was extremely small.
9 A significant Jilestone will be achieved by the 10 end of 1988, however, then more than 99 percent of the 11 damaged' f uel-will have been removed from the reactor and 12 most of it shipped to the nearest Department of Energy 13 National Engineering Laboratory in Idaho.
14 The remaining small amount of fuel debris in the 15 reactor system represents only a small fraction of the 16 nriginal fuel, and will pose no threat for criticality of 17 radiation exposure to workers or the public.
18 At this stage, there will no longer be any need 19 for special precautions such as maintaining borated water 10 in the reactor vessel.
21 This does not mean that the plant interior has 22 been fully decontaminated and that no radioactivity 23 remains.
24 During the PDMS phase, workers will have access 25 to m is t of the plant without protective clothing and with
4 34
(
i little exposure to radiation.
With the reactor building t
2 basement and a few places in the auxillary and fuel 3
handling building, will remain radioactive to the extent 4
that workers will not be permitted access to these areas; 5
however, there appears to be no reasons for workers to 6
enter these contaminated areas when the PDMS phase has 7
.been reached.
8 To ensure the health and safety of the public as 9
well as the TMI-1 workers, TMI-2 plant conditions during 10 the PDMS phase will be monitored co,ntinuously to preclude 11 development of any dnforeseen circumstances.
12 Once assurance is present, if there is no 13 potential hazard to the public health, GPU Nuclear 14 management must decide what still.must be done concerning 15 further cleanup of the small amount of contamination 16 remaining, should it continue to proceed vigorously 17 spending additional tens of millions of dollars to improve 18 the condition of the reactor basement building and other 19 areas beyond the end point levels projected in the 20 licensing documents.
21 If it were the intention of GPU Uuclear 22 Management to use the containment building for another 23 energy producing facility sometime in the future, then 24 there would be valid reasons to continue to reduce the 25 radiation level in the remaining more radioactive areas.
35 1
Since the radioactivity is in an immobilized 2
state within the basement walls and structures, and GPU 3
has announced as was repeated by its chairman again today, 4
no plan is under consideration to rebuild and restart 5
TMI-2; there appears to be no rational ~e basis to continue 6
to subject workers to unnecessary radiation exposure 7
beyond that currently needed to remove the damaged fuel.
8 The most responsible plan would be to slow down 9
the cleanup operation considerably, to be even more 10 protective of the health and safety of workers as well as 11 the public than in the past and use this prolonged 12 duration of time for additional national decay of the 13 remaining radioactivity, some of which will essentially 14 disappear.
15 When the time comes to decommission the TMI-1 16 plant well in the future, steps can be taken at that time 17 to remove any remaining radioactivity in the THI-2 18 containment and associated buildings.
19 In the intervening years, the residual 20 radioactivity will have been further reduced by natural 21 decay.
22 The two principal radioactive products is 23 cesium-137 and strontium-90 and have been decaying at the 24 rate of two and a half percent per year, so that the 25 radioactivity remaining after approximately 30 years will n.,,-
36 1
have been reduced to about half of the present levels.
2 It's also anticipated that advanced robotic 3
systems will be available that will further reduce 4
potential exposures of workers expected in the 5
decontamination of the TMI-2 reactor plant in preparation 6
to decommission the facility.
7 Now this statement, Mr. Chairman, represents a 8
consensus statement by all members of the THI-2' Safety 9
Advisory Boards, their names and backgrounds are included 10 in Attachment A.
11 Now before concluding my statement, let me say a 12 word about GPU Nuclear management as we have observed it 13 from the safety perspective.
14 GPU Nuclear has made remarkable progress in both 15 its engineering and work performance capabilities.
It has-16 proved itself to be an unusually capable organization and i
17 one of high integrity.
18 GPU Nuclear has tackled the cleanup effort with 19 great vigor, and it has demonstrated to the world that the 20 cleenup could be accomplished without release of 21 radioactive products to the public, the only exception 22 again being the controled release of krypton during the 23 early phase of the cleanup.
24 -
As entrance to PDMS has initiated, GPU Nuclear 25 leaves behind a remarkable legacy of engineering
37 0
1 excellence in performing this' cleanup task.
2 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
4 MR. CLARK:
Mr. Chairman, I might just simply 5
summarize what we've tried to present to -you today by 6
saying we believe the end of the cleanup program is in
. 7 sight, that agreement on what constitutes PDMS i.e.,
the 8
final detailing of the remaining work that is extremely 9
important so that we can'be able to do it, and that 10 Dr. Marston has today highlighted one of the key elements 11 underlying the idea to go into PDMS and that is the 12 princip'le that there is from a public health and. safety 13 standpoint to decontaminate further now as opposed to 14 allowing decay and development to occur and to complete 15 the decontamination later in conjunction with r
16 decommissioning.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
18 Questions my fellow Commissioners?
Commissioner Roberts?
19 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I have no questions.
Dr.
20 Marston has a mellifluous voice, it makes me homesick.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Bernthal?
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I'll never miss someone 23 when someone's speaking that foreign dialect to you.
24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Well, now I have Bi'll 25 Parler, the cultured gentleman from South Carolina.
.,_.-___..-,__...,_.,y
,,,,,_,-._.,__w
,,n
,_-,--__7-.,
-___.--.-.r
38
/'
(
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have only two 2
questions.
One I'm not sure you can address here, but 3
I'll try anyway.
4 Where do we stand on this business of 5
evaporation?
I gather the hearings are proceeding.
The 6
later question, of course'.
7 MR. KINTNER:
Well as I said, there has been the 8
discovery process underway, it is not yet completed.
9 Hearin'gs themselves will be started we believe in June and 10 we think the process will come back to you by the end of 11 the year, some recommendation from the Board.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
All right.
I guess 13 that's about as far as we can go right now.
14 The other question is money.
I would like to 15 have somebody speak to me about money if you can, that is 16 the money available particularly as you understand it from 17 your viewpoint, now not from any government agency's 18 viewpoint, as to the funds to do the research that ought 19 to be done in studying the lower head and the degree 20 associated with that.
21 MR. KINTHER:
Well Dr. Beckjord is here, and I 22 think he has the very latest information.
My information 23 is there is something now total from all sources including 24 European sources to about $3 million available to do that 25 work.
He'll have to speak for himself.
- ~....
-0 39
~t 1
I would think that with as much background and 2
preparations-already existing in terms of people being 3
there and the equipment development, that this is going to 4
come very close to do the job properly.
But maybe~you'd 5
'like to ask --
~
6 MR. CLARK:
I might just add, Fred, that from our 7
. standpoint we have been working with your Staff and I l
I 8
believe cooperating fully and making available access to' 9
try and work out schedule arrangements to allow them to 10 get the needed information.
11 I think looking back to last year.when this 12 question appeared to be headed nowhere, I think it clearly 13 looks much much better and appears to us to be headed on a 14 very safe path.
l 15 CH AIR!!AN ZECH:
Last year at this time, us'd 16 hoped that the Department of Energy would come through 17 with a few more dollars, they had spent a lot of money I 18 know on it.
As it turned out, the Muclear Regulatory 19 Commission research program is spending some m o n.: y on 1
20
- this, i
21 Maybe Mr. Beckjord would like to giva us a brief 22 resume.
And identify yourself for the reporter, please, l
i 23 Eric.
l 24 MR. BECKJORD:
Yes, I'm Eric Beckjord, Director 25 of the Office of Research.
40 c
1 Our expectation is that the reactor vessel bottom 2
head investigation will cost about S7 million including 3
the gathering of the samples and the examination the 4
laboratory examination and the conclusion.
5 Now I should say that the total cost may be 6
somewhat more than that because I expect there will be 7
international cooperation, some of which would be 8
contributed at no cost.to us, but the cost that I refer to 9
is the total cost of gathering the sample and the 10 examination work to be performed in this country.
As I 11 said, about S7 million.
12 We have-asked the Organization'of European the 13 OECD states to join in this effort with us, and the usual 14 basis for the agreements through the Nuclear Energy Agency
~5 which is part of OECD is that the host country provides 50 16 percent of the research funds.
17 And so we have gone to them on that basis that we la would ask for the balance of 50 percent from the member 19 states totally about S3.5 million.
20 I was in Paris last week to make our third 21 presentation on this project there.
There was gathered l
22 the experts on pressure vessel questions from all of the 1
23 EOCD states or all of the Nuclear Energy Agency states.
l t
24 And there is very high interest in this project 25 I'm sure of that particularly when we indicated that our l
4
--,.--,_._.,._,,,y,
,,,a.
41 1
plan i's t o '-- after we've cut these bolt samples from the 2
vessel, we think that they can b'e divided in half and we 3
would do half' of the investigation in this country, in the 4
U.S.
for certa'in, possibly making available the other 5
halves of the samples for investigation and examination in 6
laboratories in Europe and in Japan.
That was the point 7
at which it was clear that everyone was extremely 8
interested.in pursuing the project.
9 As a result of that meeting, I'm very encouraged 10.
t' hat we will -- that we've got a very good chance of 11 getting a subscription for the total amount that we have 12 asked.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALi Well I certainly hope so.
15 I know that the Chairman and all of us have been disturbed 16 a little I guess from time to time about the question of 17 availability of funds.
I would make the point with you 18 Dr. Marston, you have had a very distinguished panel of 19 people, many of whom have experience in the research area 20 including yourself, and I would just ask that if at any 21 point in this process in your panel's judgment we are 22 about to lose important research information that might 23 otherwise be available, that you would step forward and 24 speak clearly..and forcefully on that so you're heard all 25
.the way down to Washington where it needs to be heard, and
~
42 r
1 then of course I would hope all of you associated with GPU 2
would do the same.
3 This is terribly important research because it's 4
the.only example really we have of a core melt accident, 5
arrested core melt perhaps, and 'therefore invaluable I i
6 think, and we simpir can't afford to let this opportunity 7
slip away.
8 That's all I have to say.
Thank you very much.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes, I just had one curiosity 11 question.
I read some tra'de magazine the other day about 12 a machine that was supposed co generate ice crystals for 13 decontamination against walls'and surfaces.
Have you seen 14 anything or read anything about that or tried to use one?
15 It sounds much more effective than water.
16 MR. STANDERFER:
I haven't seen that.
17 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
If I can find it, I'll 18 send it to you.
19
!!R. CLARK:
We'll go look.
I think we are 4
20 interested in anything that would do it better.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
22 CO!! MIS S ION E R ROGERS:
Well just to reinforce what 23 Commissioner Bernthal said; I hope that everything will be 24-done that can be done to identify as.much as possible the 25 materials' properties that have developed during this
43 1
event in the pressure vessel, and that you know by the 2
time you're finished-where the highest thermal stresses 3
were and what the charateristics of the materials were in 4
those areas because it is terribly important information l
5 and unique.
6 Have you started on your decommissioning 7
dismantlement program plan for.the final dispositioi. of 3
8 this site?
9 MR. CLARK:
!!o, we haven't.
We've been' basically 10 consumed with the cleanup.
I think we!re looking for the nbt. expecting 11 final decommissioning rule.
We really are 12 to decommission.
At least as we look ahead nou, our 13 expectation would be we would not decommission it until 14 TMI-l would be decommissioned which is a good way from us.
15 So we really have not studied decommissioning'or developed 16 a plan at this point.
17 COMMISSIollER ROGERS:
I see.
All right.
Thank 18 you.
19 C H AIRt! All "ECH:
Are there any r e m a i n i n.; technical 20 problems that you see to be resolved as far as the cleanup 21 is concerned?
2^
MR. KI!!T!!E R :
Well until we get through with t h rc 23 core support assembly cleaning the way we've described, 24 that's a technical issue that's still unresolved, but we 25 think with two different techniques very well developed,
9,
(<
44
- ll 1
we'are going to be ablg to do that.
As Frank' said it's
- s 2
g'oing a little more for slowly than we'd like, but 3
nevertheless we really believe we are going to be able to 4-do that.
S i.
5 The only other area of probled.s from a 6
development point,of view are areas like the pressurizer.
7 He mentioned we tried to defuel the pressurizer by 8
vacuuming and that worked up to a point, and then we found 9
there were clumps of what looked like resolidified clay 10 material, so we've developed, if. you,'ll pardon the 11 expression, a small submarine to go'down there pick up 12 t h'e s e pieces and bring them.out.
I' don't -- Frank, that's s
13 about what you use now?
g N
14 MR. STANDERFER:
Yes.
In fact it's been well 15 tested.
16 MR. KINTNER:
But not yet used in the 17 pressurizer.
But I don't.think there's any fundamental 18 technical issue remaining so long as we do complete the 19 project essentially along the lines that we've proposed.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Okay.
How about are there any 21 technical --
22 MR. CLARK:
Mr. Chairman, could,: add a little 23 bit to that?
24 CHAIRMAN'ZECH:
Yes, go ahead.
25 MR. CLARK:
We have to cut out radially through
m s.
'y.
py 5'
r
,1 s' s
<(
~../ :
)
u-t 3
1 the core f ormer walls 't.nd remove tne fuel that's out 2
there, so that'cys6setbji19 we haven't tried.
We don't.see 3
a fundamental problem.
l 4.
Also I guess if we ran into material-fdsed to the.
i i
ikj
- 5
' bottom head -- let's ask Frank.
Are we fully reefd to
,l 6
deal with that?
I loVi ' t know.
w We.'dpp't know how we 7
MR. STANDE.RFER:
Well, no.
k 8
would approach that if there's fused matedrial.
We'd have 9
to see it first.
'And of course, as mentioned in earlier 10 meetings, we have.to be careful as ue.defuel a bottom head 11 so. that if there are weak spots, that sie don't result in,
.')
'N a
12 any leakage from the' bottom reactor vedsel in t'nis i
9 13 process.
So that's going to be a carofdl defueling step 14 th,ere.
15 CHAIR!iAN ZECN:
How about in thd -- any technical 16 problems you_ nee in the long-term stora e plan at all?
I
\\
17 MR. K IllT !i E R :
I don't believe so.
The normti 18 monitoring k i.n d of instrumentati n will be available and s
19 essentially the plant will be a s' w'c '" U said, it will. be l
20 dry, there will be no possibility offeckticality, and i. t.
}
4 21 will be sealed to the point where distributior: of. activity l
j 22 outsida *: h e boundary is extremely u:41 i k e l y.
23
- !R. STA!!DERFER:
It is not much different than i
24 some of the shut down Depact nsnt of Energy production i
25 facilities that have been used on an interim basis.
l i
_,_ _,.. __._.. _ _ _..__ _._,_..,_._ _._ __.-_ _ -. u
- jf T p x,?
A>
i U
46 s
..s.
- 4 6 i
s dh
- ~ \\
. n,.'
f i
.(
1 '
CHAIR!!AN ZECH:
All right.
Fine.
Did you say 2
that by 1988 by the end of this year that you'll have 99
+
W
' M ~'
3 percent of the fuel removed, is.that A
t 4
MR. KINT!!ER:
In canisters.
That's correct.
- i M,%-
s 5
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What will remain after that as s
6 far as the total defueling operation?
7 MR.
. KINTNER:
There are areas of fuel deposition i
8 which are.almost impossible to get to:
Cracks, crannies,
.9 and so forth.
Some is tightly adherent film.
In various
-10 places a large number of square feet of surface area in 11 steam generators are. films on th'ose.
12 The removal of that from the system would require
'13 a totall'y new technology for decontamination, a chemical 34' cleaning-of'some sort, and we do not propose to do that.
15 But the material remaining will be of that kind.
16 It will be in places where it is either tightly adhered or 17 will be in nooks and crannies that's almost impossible to P
18 get out by any normal mechanical means 19 C H A I rt!! A!! ZECH:
Uhen do you intend to deciare th 20 defueling project completed?
21 MR. F.I N T !! E R :
The criterion we have e s t :4 bl i s h e d l
22 for defueling has been -- first of all we are going to get 23 all that we can practically get out.
o 24 Gecond, we want to be absolutely sure there's no 25 possibility of any criticality under any circumstances, s
g
47 1
That is there's no critical mass anywhere and no 2
combination of masses from various parts of the system 3
which could conceivably get together to be a critical 4
mass.
5 So that's the criterion.
We think that's 6
something under 400 kilograms total.
We really hope and 7
believe we're going to be able to do better than that.
8 MR. CLARK:
But that's kind of the nominal 9
number, Mr. Chairman.
Several hundred kilograms.of 10 fueling material and films and little --
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Little he remaining that's about 12 as 13 MR. CLARK:
places in the plant, some few 14 hundred kg.
15 UHAIRMAN ZECH:
Okay.
I was impressed by your 16 projected manrem dose -- I think you said 6,000 manrems in l
17 what you projected compared to estimates of 13,000 to 18 46,000.
19 MR. E!UTMER-That's correct.
20 CHA!RMAN CECH:
That's certainly is a ex..mendab2.
l 21 achievement.
You modestly stated that that was d u.: to 22 good fortune as well as to good work and I suppose that
23 right, but I would like to say that it's an awful lot of 2 ",. good work involved in that, an awful lot of engineering 25 practice that's in planning,
0 48 1
We'll always all of us accept all the good 2
fortune we can, but I'm impressed by the fact that that 3
was a great achievement.
4 MR. KINTNER:
At various times we've had help 5
from the Safety ' Advisory Board.
If you'll notice, three 6
members of that Board are truly world experts in this 7
area, and from time to time they've held our hands in 8
those matters, if you'll pardon me saying that.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, however it was achieved, by 10 a team effort or whatever, I'm sure ther'e's a lot.of fine 11 folks involved, but it's certainly,is a commendable 12 achievement and that's my point.
13 I know that you mentioned too the NRC people have 14 been in the leadership role up there -- and I see Dr.
15 Travers in the audience, and also Dr. Snyder over here too 16 and you've mentioned them -- and I too would like to 17 commend them on the part of the entire Commission for 18 their efforts.
I think that it has been something a
19 very difficult effort that GPU Nuclear of course is taking 20 the lead in, can take a great deal of credit for, but I'm 21 pleased to note your recognizition of the NRC people that l
22 were involved too and to commend them myself on behalf of 23 the Commission for their efforts in order to achieve the i
l 24 results that we've achieved to date.
2.5 I guess finally I'd like to say to GPU Nuclear, l
49 1
you've the whole organization, GPU, has been through an
'2 awful lot in TMI days and we've discussed many of the 3
.other issues at this table, not only this Commission but 4
previous commissions.
5 So I think it's something here at this particular 6
very important cleanup project that we're talking about 7
and eventual storage, I would just like to say that your 8
initiatives in the recent months and years in this 9
particular effort has been a very commendable effort and 10 you've done a -- we're not done yet, but you've had an 11 awful lot of fine people we've alluded to briefly here
'12 today, some of you are' sitting right here, but you've also 13 taken it on in what I think is a very responsible manner, 14 and it's important as Commissioner Bernthal and others 15 have pointed out here today to me and to the entire 16 Commission that we not only finish the cleanup right that 17 you're involved in, but that we do indeed get the research' 18 value that we can from this tragic accident.
19 We might as well learn what we can 'from it, and 20 we should.
We have an obligation to do that.
That's why 21 this Commission has dipped into our own research funds 22 where they're not very. big, but it's so important, I think 23 we would be completely irresponsible not to make sure that 24 we get all we can and we learn all we can from especially 25 the bottom of the vessel where you're working right now.
4 50 1
So we are very interested in following through on 2
this and making sure that we do learn what we can about 3
this.
4 There's many other applications that you're well 5-aware of about the vessel itself and that we might gain 6
important knowledge from this accident.
7 So we want to follow through in the research
~
8 aspect of it too, and I know you're also interested in 9
assisting in that regard as well as the entire cleanup 10' operation.
11 But let me just say again, I think you've taken 12 on a technical challenge here, and certainly to date 13 you've shown a very responsible achievement, and for that 14 I think all of us here look to that as a very professional 15 piece of work.
16 Knowing we are not finished, but we look forward 17 to working with you and making sure we do finish up, not 18 only the cleanup but the research work and get what uo can 19 f r o.r.
it.
20 I think the public, health, and safety will be 21 served by this, and we have an obligation to get 22 everything we can from this endeavor that you're cbviously 23 working so hard at right now.
24 So I commend all of you for the specific
(
i 25 achievements t h a~t you're doing during the cleanup
51 1
operations and the responsible way you're handling this 2
very important project.
3 Are there any other comments?
If not, then we --
4 MR. KUHNS:
Mr. Chairman, let me just say we 5
accept those comments gratefully, but less in the sense of 6
gratification than it is a challenge-to keep up the work.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
8 MR. KUHNS:
As someone wiser than I said one 9
time, it isn't over until it's over.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You're right.
We'll all not 11 forget that.
12 With that we'll stand adjourned.
13 MR. KUHNS:
Thank you.
14 (Whereupon at 3:20 p.m.,
the meeting was 15 adjourned.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
s 1
l m.
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the, attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
5 6
7 TITLE.0F MEETING:
Briefing on Status of TMI-2 8
PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
Thursday, March 17, 1988 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12
. transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
(
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15.
that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17
?
/
- a.
/
18
'* '^44%11g'g g' #
g gggg---
19 9
20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 i
~
24 l
25 f
..r.,_,._...
m,,,,_._.,_______._____,-,..._-..,.__,..,__-_,_,.__.,___,_,__-__,._.,,__,.,s
3/17/88 I
SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF TMI-2
-SCHEDULED:
2:00 P.M.,
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1988 (OPEN)
DURATION:
APPROX 1-1/2 HRS PARTICIPANTS:
- WILLIAM G. KUHNS 5 MINS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CEO 0F GPU
- PHILL'IP R. CLARK, PRESIDENT 10 MINS GPUN CORPORATION
- EDWIN E. KINTNER 5 MINS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDEllT OF GPUN CORPORATION
- FRANKLIN R. STAf1DERFER 15 MINS DIRECTOR AtlD VICE PRESIDENT, TMI-2
- ROBERT Q. MARSTON, CHAIRMAtl 5 MINS TMI-2 SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD i
e I
,~rm-+-.e.em..
.e-m--,,-
~,----
e,
---r,m ee,--,--.,---, -ve---
r.-.
--w a
--o---
-e.--..-
-e-,-,
e o
MARCH 17, 1988 STATEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION AND GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ON TMI-2 CLEANUP BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:
I am William G. Kuhns, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of General Public Utilities (GPU), and Chairman of the Board of GPU Nuclear (GPUN).
With me today are Philip R.
Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of GPU Nuclear, Edwin E.
Kintner, Executive Vice President of GPU Nuclear and Franklin R. Standerfer, Vice President and Director of the TMI-2 Program f or GPU Nuclear.
Also with us is Dr. Robert Marston, Chairman of the TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board since May of 1986 when Dr. James Fletcher returned to NASA.
When we appeared bef ore you in February 1987, I introduced J. F. O' Leary as my replacement as Chairman of GPU.
Jack O' Leary died an untimely death after serving as Chairman for only seven months.
I was asked to return to the position of Chairman in December.
We are pleased to be back f or this f ourth annual report to you on the Cleanup of TMI-2.
We believe the successful completion of the Cleanup Program and the extraction of as much information as we can obtain from it have great significance to NRC and the nuclear industry as well as to our company.
7 4
2 (William G.' Kuhns' Chairman)
In each of our previous meetings with jou, I committed the GPU System's full support for safely empleting the THI-2 Cleanup and for the safe operation of TMI-1, and I reaffirm those caninitments today.
The Cleanup is proceeding without financial constraints; and we now believe, despite sate continuing uncertainties, that the planned work will be completed within the
$1 billion funding program.
The various contributors under the funding plan the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the customers of the GPU System, the Edison Electric Institute, the Department of Energy, the Japanese nuclear industry and the System stockholders -- are all current in providing Cleanup funding.
An updated funding plan showing the source and application of funds is provided as Attachment A.
The GPU System's present energy supply plans do not reflect the return to service of TMI-2, and no funds are presently being expended to preserve the plant and equipment for future use.
s TMI-1 continues to operate well. For all of 1987 it operated with a capacity factnr of 74% despite almost three months of planned outage.
During the present operating cycle which began in April 1987, it has operated at a capacity factor of 96%. We intend to continue to supply the personnel, training, and management support necessary to maintain the excellent TMI-1 reccrd since NRC authorized restart in October 1985.
TMI-2 Cleanup operations have continued without significant safety incidents and now with the removal of all of the fuel from the initial core volume and shipment of much of it off site, the safety implications of TMI-2 have been further mitigated.
Upon completion of the Cleanup Program, we plan to place the plant into Monitored Storage -- a safe, stable, and secure condition suitable for the long term.
I will now turn the presentation over to Philip R. Clark, President of GPU Nuclear.
. (Mr. Philip R. Clark, President GPU Nuclear)
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss THI-2 directly with you again.
We are making good progress in a difficult and unprecedented project.
We believe we are now at a point where we can fairly clearly see the Cleanup Program caning to an end.
As you may recall, the Cleanup is conducted by an integrated organization of GPU Nuclear and Bechtel.
The Director of TM1-2, Frank Standerfer, is a Vice President and Division Director of GPU Nuclear.
The Deputy Director, Tom Demmitt, is a Program Manager of Bechtel National, Inc.
GPU Nuclear and Bechtel engineers and managers fill positions in the organization without consideration of their parent organization.
While GPU Nuclear is responsible, we have fully integrated the operation with little reference to parent organizations.
In addition to GPU Nuclear and Bechtel, a major contractor primarily for direct labor is the Catalytic Construction Company.
We have today working on the project a total force of approximately 960 people, about 475 GPU, 145 Bechtel, 275 Catalytic personnel, and 65 other persons.
That total last year was 1030. So you see that the work force is being reduced.
This will continue at an increasing rate during 1988 as individual tasks in the Cleanup are l
c ompleted.
At this time next year we expect the total work force at TMI-2 to be less than 400.
l l
l l
a
. t We are taking special steps as we phase down to ensure that the capability required to complete the planned work safely is retained until no longer needed.
A carefully thought out program f or personnel phasedown is being followed to provide that assurance.
During the last three discussions of TMI-2 with the Commission, we have described our plan for safe, stable, and secure storage of the facility f ollowing removal of the fuel and decontaminati on of tne major radiation sources.
We have called this condition Post Oefueling Monitored Storage (POMS).
In summary, PDMS is based on the following principles:
o Fuel has been removed and shipped off-site such that criticality is precluded.
o The potential for a significant release of radioactivity has been eliminated.
o Water has been removed from the plant systems; the potential for its reintroduction has been minimized.
Radioactive wastes have been packaged and shipped off-site o
or are safely stored pending shipment Radiation has been reduced to levels which will allow: (1) o continued plant monitoring, (2) performance of required maintenance, and (3) plant inspections.
& o Containment systems are maintained in accordance with NRC-approved Technical Specifications.
Meeting these principles will provide three distinct levels of public protection:
First: Inherent Stability --
The plant will be in a condition which is stable and not open to transients or accidents.
Over 99.5 percent of the fuel will have been removed. A nuclear o
chain reaction will not be possible with the small quantity and configuration of the fuel remaining.
~
Contamination will have been removed to the extent that there is o
no reas onable possibility of hazardous release of radioactivity.
Remaining contaminati on will be contained in place.
o Water in plant systems and equipment will have been removed.
Systems will be depressurized.
Few cambustibles will remain; therefore, there will be low fire o
potential. Fire protection will continue to be provided.
7 Second: Effective Containment The radioactivity remaining in the plant will be isolated from the environment by protective structures:
o Closed piping systems o
Closed cubicles.
Locked Reactor Containment Building.
o Secure Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building.
o Third: Positive Monitoring and Control -- These will be maintained by:
Conducting radiological and environmental monitoring.
o Maintaining plant protection systems, such as fire protection.
o 1
o Maintaining plant security.
The THI-2 plant will remain enclosed within the TMI site protected area during POMS. TMI-2 f acilities will be locked with access controlled by the site security force.
i Additional resources of trained manpower and equipment will be available on site from TMI-1.
1 In short, a safe, monitored plant condition which can be maintained indefinitely will have been established.
a e
J n.__, _,, - -,,,
n.,_
.---_,,,r,,,,----.nr.,,
-n
.n,-.-----e--
4 This plan has been discussed over several years arith the TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board', the NRC Project Staff, and the NRC Advisory Panel on the Cleanup of THI-2.
We are moving to formalize actions on this plan by Technical Specification change submittals.
F. R. Standerfer, Vice President and Director of TMI-2, will discuss the plan and its status in greater detail.
The NRC staff has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement on PDMS which we understand is expected to be issued early next month.
We believe this is a sound plan which results in a condition that poses no "isk to public health and safety.
Reviews over the past several years have identified any substantial safety or health concerns with the PDMS plan.
not We are, as I indicated earlier, proceeding to accomplish the planned work and are phasing down the staffing applied.
The contractors are being let go and our own people reassigned within GPU Nuclear or other GPU System companies.
Some will be leaving the System entirely.
Thus it is extremely important that agreement be reached on the remaining work.
Two years ago the Comission reccanended that we take special steps to assure public understanding of what is happening at TMI-2, and the reduction in potential threat to the public whicn Cleanup progress has provided.
We have continued a major effort to provide information to the public, and we believe that effort is being effective.
(
h
-g.
During 1987 we issued seventeen TMI-2 specific news releases and nine status reports on both TMI-l and TMI-2 to local news outlets.
We also developed and published a series of local newspaper advertisements on progress of the Cleanup Program.
We continued our program of local town meetings for residents as well as reporting monthly to the local governments and periodically to state and federal officials. As a result of these efforts, we are finding a significant increase in satisfaction among the public with the way the Cleanup Program is being handled.
We are also finding increased sentiment among local residents for completing the Cleanup Program.
Finally, as you are probably aware, there have been questi ons raised recently by Members of the House and Senate about DOE's program of TMI-2 ' fuel shipments and 00E taking possession of the core.
If this results in delay or interruption of the shipments, it will delay completion of the Cleanup Program. We are working with DOE and others to try to prevent any delay.
Now let me turn the presentation over to Edwin E. Kintner, Executive Vice President of GPU Nuclear.
J (Edwin E. Kintner, Executive Vice President, GPU Nuclear)
When we met with you last, we described the delay in defueling during 1986 due to turbidity in the water of the reactor vessel which reduced visibility to less than one inch.
Fortunately, the corrective actions which we developed worked far better than we could have hoped.
The filters in the Oefueling Water Cleanup System, which had been expected in the original design to pass a million gallons of reactor vessel water before clogging, but which in early operations were clogging at less than 10 thousand gallons, are now filtering over 10 million gallons before having to be replaced.
The system has provided good visibility for all critical operations in defueling during all of 1987.
We confirmed one other fact during defueling in 1987.
The water level in the vessel during the accident did not drop below about two to four feet above the bottom of the active portion of the core. As you will see later in Frank Standerfer's presentation, the molten fuel in the center of the core did not reach down through the bottom of the assemblies but moved out through the core baffle walls.
We found that 176 of the 177 core assembly stubs two to five feet long were free in the core support assembly, and we were able to retrieve them and load them into the shipping canisters relatively easily.
That is the major reason we were able to make good progress in defueling during 1987.
~
. The Department of Energy's research work at Idaho Nuclear Energy Laboratory (INEL) has continued to provide important insights on reactor accidents, including recent results on source term and noble gas retention in fuel, which we believe will be quite useful.
Last year we discussed the significance to safety considerations of the fact that approximately 20 tons of molten "corium" flowed into the bottom head of the reactor vessel.
There was no failure of the reactor vessel pressure boundary.
As a result of the C amission's pressing to investigate this v.tter, the NRC's safety program under Dr. Beckjord has taken the initiative to obtain data on the material in the bottom head and on the structural material of the reactor vessel proper.
We are working closely 'with Dr. Beckjord to lay out a detailed program.
Before we had ccrnpleted removal of the core subassembly stubs, we realized that we would have to cut apart the lower core support structure in order to clean out as thoroughly as practicable the fuel debris from the bottom of the vessel.
We nave completed a year's development work on two processes for cutting through these five ccrnplex layers of structural material.
One method is to use boring tools with the core boring equipment developed by the DOE and used to take core samples a year ago.
That machine is now being used.
The initial steps to remove large sections of the core support assemblies have been completed.
. The second process is to use plasma are cutting under 45 feet of borated water to make necessary cuts in the core support structure.
The use of these processes in the way we are using them is unprecedented; and as I said required extensive development and testing before we could start the actual work in the reactor vessel.
I want to report briefly on the disposal of the processed, accident-generated water, because it is an important part of the Cleanup effort.
On July 31, 1980 GPU Nuclear proposed disposal of the water by evaporation and disposal of the residue as commercial low-level waste.
Given the low radioactive content of the processed water, it could be discharged in a controlled manner to the Susquehanna River within NRC regulations.
- However, in recognition of expressed concerns, GPU Nuclear proposed evaporation wnich provides for permanent offsite disposal of the radioactive wastes, and results in very small and clearly acceptable environmental effects.
Inis conclusion was also reached by your Staff in Supplement 2 to the PEIS issued in July 1987.
. We are now in the midst of the public hearing process ordered in July 1987.
It now appears that this matter will not find its way back to the Commission before December 1988 -- two and one-half years after our proposal.
Thus, actual disposition of the water cannot begin until 1989 and will not be complete until 1990 or later -- af ter we enter PDMS.
Design, f abrication, installation, and testing -of the evaporator disposal system will take about nine months.
Were we to wait for the end of the hearing before proceeding, this process would delay commencing disposal of the water.
Therefore, last montn at our risk, we authorized a system vendor to proceed with the final design and fabrication of an evaporator system for the specific TMI-2 application.
Throughout the Cleanup the project has been monitored by a Safety Advisory Board (SAB) made up of ten outstanding scientists in the various fields important to assuring the continued safe conduct of the work.
You will hear later a report from Dr. Marst on, Chairman of the Safety Advisory Board, who brings to his position very strong credentials, including five years as head of the National Institutes of Health and ten years as President of the University of Florida.
It is our intent that the SAB will continue to monitor the Cleanup Program until its conclusion. (Attachment B)
_ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. As you know, on February 1, 1988 the NRC Project Office at THI-2 was closed.
We now have a more typical interface with Region I and the rogram e
Staff here in Washington.
I would like to express our appreciation for the 4
great assistance given the THI-2 Cleanup Program by the NRC Project Office under Dr.
Snyder and more recently Dr.
Travers.
Their competence, professionalism, and hard work have been essential to the ability to carry out the Program safely.
Looking ahead, safe completion of the Cleanup Program requires NRC review and approval of a good number of submittals from us during the next year.
This is in addition to the on-going oversight and inspection activities.
The site-located program office provided an effective focus and a detailed understanding of the situation and our proposals.
We have been discussing with the Staff the need to effectively address and resolve the remaining TMI-2 Cleanup matters.
We and they both recognize the need to monitor and track progress so that completion of the Cleanup Program and the attendant removal of remaining risk will proceed as pronptly as safety allows.
An additional point which I believe you will find satisfying is that radiation doses to workers have thus far been relatively low, less than projected.
The total dose from beginning of the Cleanup to this point is 4,600 manrem.
The total dose in 1987 was 975 manrem.
If we do not run into special Jifficulty, another 1,400 manrem should bring us close to completion.
The total then would be 6,000 manrem as compared to an estimated range in the i
NRC's PEIS f or TMI-2 of 13,000 to 46,000.
. As the project now stands, we expect to complete defueling operations in the last quarter of this year and then, unless fuel shipments are delayed by external factors, ship the last fuel offsite in the first quarter of 1989.
After another two to three months or so of cleaning up fuel pools and fuel shipping facilities, we plan to place the plant in Post Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS) in the Spring of 1989.
Now, Frank Standerfer will show you some video tapes which will provide a better vnderstanding of c onditions in the reactor vessel and discuss the status of preparations for Post Defueling Monitored Storage, i
i h
-,.----.--,_.-.,.n-----
. (F.R.Standerfer,VicePresidentandDirectorTMI-2)
Video Tape of 1987 Work (5-7 min.)
Defueling/ Fuel Shipping Progress / Projection (Attachment C)
Defueling began in the fall of 1985, and the fire,t fuel was transferred in January 1986.
During 1986, many challenges arose in using new and unique tools and techniques to remove the damaged nuclear fuel and core material from the reactor.
Progress of ten was slow.
However, by early 1987 a number of solutions to these problems had been developed.
These included the method to maintain clear water in the reactor vessel to which Ed Kintner referred and the development of new tools.
One new tool was an air-lift system (a kind of vacuuming device) to load loose core material.
Other tooling modifications included improvements to the tools used to remove partial fuel assemblies fran the lower core.
More than twice as much fuel debris was loaded in 1987 as in 1986. At the beginning of 1987, twenty percent of the core debris was removed from the reactor vessel.
By year's end, about two-thirds, or about 195,000 pounds of debris, had been loaded into canisters and removed from the reactor.
The debris is made up of damaged nuclear fuel and internal reactor a.omponents.
i 1
e
-i7-Estimated Core Material Distribution (Attachment 0)
We estimate that 98.000 pounds of core debris remain.
This is distributed as follows: Upper CSA = 9,500 pounds; Lower CSA = 27,000 pounds; Lower Head =
60,500 pounds; and Coolant System - Ex-vessel = 1,000 pounds.
In addition to making headway in the actual removal of fuel debris, the TMI-2 Division developed primary and alternative methods for future defueling.
The last phases of defueling will require different techniques and tools than did earlier work.
A major part of the defueling in 1988 will involve cutting and disassembling internal components of the reactor.
1988 defueling plans require a significant portion of the core support assembly (CSA) to be cut apart and removec fror, the reactor vessel.
This involves removing the stepped baffle plates from the upper CSA and cutting and removing the center of the lower CSA.
Several Viewgraphs Showing CSA Cutting (Appendix)
e
, The lower CSA consists of five h2. izontal components which are tir;d together vertically by 52 incore instrument guide tubes and 48 support rosts.
A cmbination of cuts with the core bore machine and the plasma are cutting torch will result in opening up a 9 foot diameter hole in the lower CSA.
This will allow defueling of the lower CSA and access to defuel the lower reactor vessel head.
This CSA cuttic) work was started early in January and was scheduled to be completed by the end of April.
The cutting work to date has taken twice as long as originally planned so we do not now expect to be finished cutting by the end of the April.
The stepped baffle plates in the upper CSA are planned to be removed by a combination of plasma arc cuts and ths removal of 864 Dolts.
Bolt remosal will be done by unscrewing, drilling and/or cutting.
4 There are approximately 60,000 pounds of fuel debris in the lower head of the reactor vessel.
When we have gained sufficient access through the lower CSA, this fuel will be removed by vacuuming, air lifting, and picking up pieces.
We may need to break up some large pieces.
We may encounter a layer of unknown consistency on the bottom reactor vessel head.
i j
k i
i
]
i
4 4'
i y
)
4 4
,,o i
- e. -
t.
Q-vessel Defuelino locations (Attaenngnt E)
The defueling of the ex-vessel portions of the reactor system was continued in 1987.
This work included defueling: 1) the i,pper tube sheets of both steam generators. 2) the pressurizer, 3) both "A" anc "B" hot leg phing runs, 4) the initial exploratory defueling of the decay heat drop line, and 5) several other smaller piping systems.
In 1988 we will' defiel the Icwer portions of the steam generators and related pipirg, the devay heat drop line, the cold leg piping, a:id the main coolant pumps.
l Defueling/ Fuel Shipping Progress /Projec Qo,,n, (Attachment C)
Shipmer.t of the fuel by 00E for investigation and storage in Idaho began in July 1986.
Tne 00E developed and ourchased two new, NRC licensed rail casks for this f. hipping program.
In October 1987, GPU Nuclear leased a third shipping cask as a backup unit and to increase flexibility in shipping schedules.
The shipments are being made by dedicated trains.
To date, a total of fourteen rail shipments of core debris had been made to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for research and storage.
The shipments 1, ;
contained 176.859 pounds of debris, or about 60.4 percent of the total to be snipped.
/
\\,
s 1
s
\\
i 1
-20,
I I
This shipping has caused somNfrustrations and extra costs since the railroads have imposed a number cf restrictions in addition to those required by existing Department of Transportation and NRC regulations.. Further, these
\\
shipments have been a target for opposit on, particularly. in O: Louis where the trarsfer is made from CCkRAIL to the Un' ion Pacific.
j I
y Q\\
In 1987, crews substantially rer'sced '60's/ surfats contamination in the reactor builoing basement with robots. Temotely controlled vehicles were used to flush contaninants from surfatis #th high pressure wi ber sprays and
. \\
sN(
vacuumed sediment f ros the basewnt floor.
Robots have enabled crews to' i reduce contemic3 tion in the' basement with minimum occupatior.il exposur'e.
4 By November, crews had gone a step further and began to remove the surface
}
layer containing fixed contaminants from concrete walls with very hich.
pressure water sprays of 30,000 pounds per square inch.
This surface removal work Ws completed February 23, 1988.
In 1987, we also devised a method to flush water througa Ue cr.acrete i
block wall where a significant cuantity of the radioactivity in the basement is located.
Initial prototype and decstration tests of this nietnod have been conducted.
If this method is successful, we expect to flush a significant amount of radioacti d ty' ? rom the wall.
f l
i o
s
7
. In the auxiliary and fuel handling building in 1987, we decontaminated nine systems and 29 cubicles to Phase III End Points.
These cubicles represented 14,235 square feet of floor surface area.
In
- addition, n.a intenance of previously decontaminated areas was continued to support routine personnel access to work areas within the plant.
During 1987 TMI-2 completed the shipment of 23,255 cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste.
Prior to 1987 all TMI-2 low-level waste was sent to the U.S. Ecology Hanford site in Washington State.
In 1987 the Barnwell site in South Carolina was reopened to TMI-2 and in 1987 the split was 97% to Hanford and 3% to Barnwell.
While the current THI-2 annual LLW shipment volume exceeds the annual targets in the 1985 Low Level Waste Policy Act, we currently expect. to complete the Cleanup within the seven year volume allotment for TMI-2.
In addition, the DOE has granted GPU a special LLW volume allocati on for the solidified bottoms fran the evaporation of the accident water.
In February 1987, we placed into operation a new f acility at TMI to reduce the volume of low-level radioactive waste shipped from the plant.
I l
l l
'%4
=_
. Program Master Schedule (AttachmentF)
The current Cleanup Project schedule is based on completion of defueling in the fourth quarter.
We expect to be ready to place TMI-2 into Post Defueling Monitored Storage ir May 1989.
In December 1986, we provided the NRC with our plan for POMS.
That was followed in 1987 with our submittal of the Environmental Evaluation for PDMS and answers to the Staff's questions on it.
We understand that the NRC's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on PDMS will be issued for public comment early next month.
The time from draft to final on the accident water (EIS) was six months, so the final PDMS EIS could be issued by October 1988.
In the next month I will be submitting to the NRC the following documents in support of PDMS.
- 1. PDMS Safety Analysis Report
- 2. PDMS License and Technical Specifications
- 3. POMS Quality Assurance Plan
- 4. PDMS Fire Protection Plan
- 5. POMS Organization Plan
- 6. Revised TMI Site Emergency Plan
- 7. Revised TM1 Site Security Plan l
.m
-- = - - - -
~ - - - -
- ~ ^
. It is important to effective management of the remainder of the Program that these materials -be reviewed and any questions be resolved promptly.'
An efficient conclusion to the TMI-2 Cleanup Program is dependent upon our achieving a conclusion to these submittals by January 1989.
PROJECTED TMI-2 EXPENDITURES AND SOURCES OF FUNDS _
($ MILLIONS)
ACTUAL PROJECTED Pre '88 1988 1989 Post-1989 TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$M
$J
$3 Sources of Funds GPU Customers
$ 210
$ 34 7
$ 251 GPU 72 5
5 19(4) tog Subtotal
$ 282
$ 39 12
$ 19
$ 352 States
$ 34 7
$ 41 Insurance 306 306 78 (5)
USDOE 74 4
Industry: EEI 77 23 24 29 153 18 Japan 12 3
3 Subtotal
$ 89
$ 26
$ 27
$ 29
$ 171 Total
$3
$ 76
$J
$J
$3 Cumulative Company Advances
$ 54
$ 69
$ 65
$ 17
$ 17 Notes:
(1) Spending budgeted for 1988 is $98, allowing a contingency of $7 whict may be used in 1988, 1989 or later depending on fuel removal progren and final cleanup end point definition and approval.
(2) The 1989 project work plan includes $20 for known cleanup work durin the first five months, with $15 remaining as project reserve fo contingencies.
(3) Annual O&M costs for post-delueling monitored storage ("PDMS") of abou
$10 in the last seven months of 1989 and $5 each year thereaf ter ar expected to be required.
[
l (4) B&W 1awsuit settlement rebates of $2 and amortization of permanent TM1-f acilities of $17 will be collected af ter completion of cleanup.
(5) DOE had been expected to provide $83 total funding.
DOE's curren planning supports $78.
l l
Attachtnent A l
2/19/88
a -
SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD CHARTER INTRODUCTION The unique importance of the TMI-2 Program to GPUNC and to the utility industry in general requires the highest quality technical performance possible.
The program should reflect the best scientific and engineering judgement.
Provision of an independent safety advisory board of highly qualified people to provide a broad appraisal of the TMI-2 Program will further this purpose.
ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE The Safety Advisory B'oard is established by the President of GPU Nuclear Corporation and serves in an advisory capacity to him.
The primary purpose of the Board is to provide to GPUNC Management a high level appraisal of the technical aspects of the TMI-2 Program as to how it fulfills the responsibility to protect public and worker health and safety.
(A secondary purpose is to support and evaluate communications between GPUNC and interested groups outside of GPUNC in carrying out this program.)
SCOPE The TMI-2 Program encompasses cleanup, waste disposal, and decommis-Moning or recovery.
The Board will review the technical plans for Program operations and the technical basis for these plans and report to the President of the GPU Nuclear Corporation on the safety and operational adequacy of these plans.
It may also perform other related duties as mutually agreed between the SAB and President of GPUNC.
BOARD SIZE AND COMPOSITION The size of the Board should be the minimum consistent with providing a broad overview capability with the required variety of skills and backgrounds.
BOARD OPERATION 1.
The SAB will meet approximately once every 3 months.
2.
The SAB meetings will be scheduled so as to permit review of planning for major activities before they are implemented.
3.
The proposed agenda for each SAB meeting will be agreed upon between the Chairman and GPUNC prior to each scheduled meeting.
4.
The agenda and relevant written material will be distributed to the SAB members 2 weeks before each scheduled meeting.
Attachment B 1
t
5.
A nonvoting secretary, supported by appropriate staff, will be made available to the SAB by GPUNC to assist in the development of the agenda, arranging meetings, and the drafting of the re-quired reports.
6.
GPUNC, its contractors, or other interested part!es, as agreed, will provide briefings to the SAB on agenda topics.
The SAB shall be provided full access to all relevant information.
7.
A formal report of each meeting will be riubmitted by the SAB Chairman to the President, GPU Nuclear Corporation, within 1 week following each meeting.
Meetings will be scheduled to provide time for preparation of a draft report before adjournment.
In addition, the SAB summarizes the Board's overall assessment of the adequacy of all aspects of TMI-2 activities as they relate to public and employee health and safety.
8.
The SAB is expected to reach a consensus on all important issues, if this is not the situation in a particular instance, the Chairman's should include identification of significant minority views.
report 9.
The President of GPUNC will respond formally to all recommenda-tions made by the SAB why particular recommen,dations were not adopted. stating what ac 10.
Correspondence between the SAB and any of its members and the President, GPUNC, involving recomnandations and conclusions will be made available to interested groups and members of the public.
Approved:
/s/
R. C. Arnold President, GPU Nuclear Corporation
(
2
~ - - - - - - -. -.
--...z.----.--..
~
APPENDIX D SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Dr. James C. Fletcher, Chairman (until June 1986)
During his chairmanship of the SAB, Dr. Fletcher was also Distinguished Public Professor (Whiteford Professor of Technology and Energy Resources),
University of Pittsburgh, and a director of several companies.
He has a PhD in Physics from the California Institute of Technology and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
- Formerly, he was President of the University of Utah and the
^,
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
In 1986, he was reappointed Administrator of NASA.
Dr. Fletcher brought to the SAB his extensive experience in directing sophisticated tech-nological and organizational projects.
Dr. Robert Q. Marston, Chairman (beginning June 1986)
Dr. Marston is currently President Emeritus and Professor of Medicine at the University of Florida.
He has an MD from the Medical College of Virginia and a BS degree from Oxford University.
Formerly, Dr.
Marston was Director of the National Institutes of Health, President of the University of Florida, and Vice Chancellor and Dean of Medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson.
He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Marston provides the SAB with a broad background in medicine and health physics, and experience in managing large and complex organizations.
Dr. John A. Auxler Dr. Auxler is currently the President of the Applied Science Laboratory, Inc., in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
He has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering i
from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Formerly he was Director of l
the Division of Health Physics and Safety at the Oak Ridge National l
Laboratory and president of the Health Physic: Society.
He brings to the SAB extensive experience in nuclear health physics and radiological protection.
Dr. Merril Eisenbud Dr. Eisenbud is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Medicine and was Director of the Laboratory for Environmental Studies, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University Medical Center.
He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and has served for many years on the National Academy of Sciences Board on Radioactive Waste Management.
He is currently Scholar in Residence at the Duke University Medical Center and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Science at the University of North Carolina.
He brings to the SAB extensive experience and expertise in the fields of environmental and l
1 m
industrial health and hygiene, with special emphasis on environmental radioactivity and radiological protection.
Dr. Jacob 1. Fabrikant Dr.
Fabrikant is currently Professor of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, and Professor, Biophysics and Medical Physics, University of California, Berkeley.
He has an MD from McGill University and a PhD in Biophysics from the University of London.
He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations and Board of Radiation Effects Research.
He is a Fellow of the American College cf Radiology, and is certified in diagnostic, therapeutic, and nuclear radiology.
He brings to the SAB expertise in the radiological sciences, radiological protection and the health effects of ionizing radiation exposure.
Dr. Robert S. Friedman Dr. Friedman is currently Program Director for the Center for Science Policy, Institute of Policy Research and Evaluation, and Professor of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University. He has a PhD from the University of Illinois. He brings to the SAB extensive experience in the politics of developing public policy in response to scientific and technical issues.
Dr. Bruce T. Lundin Dr. Lundin is currently a private consultant. He was formerly Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center.
He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Dr. Lundin has a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Universicy of California and an honorary Doctorate of Engineering degree.
He brings to the SAB extensive experience in the organization and management of large, advanced technology programs.
Professor Howard Raiffa Professor Ralffa is currently the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Manage-ment Economics, Harvard University Graduate School of Business l
Administration and the Kennedy School of Government. He has a PhD in l
Mathematics from the University of Michigan.
He brings to the SAB extensive experience in the application of risk analysis techniques and decision-making processes to advanced technology activities.
Professor Norman Rasmussen Professor Rasmussen is currently the McAfee Professor of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He is a member of the l
National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences.
l He was the chairman and principal author of the WASH-1400 Report, a major contribution in the area of nuclear power plant safety analysis.
He brings to the SAB extensive experience in nuclear engineering, nuclear safety, and technical risk assessment and risk management.
-2
- 5::::I&IIEiE!EE: I::::
- eo In!I!nlinlinIn! inI nlin\\nilinIn!!inli!iln!!nt!nilitt niliti!n'I n\\tnIinInt n'ItnIn! ntIn!IttiI l
I I
I brj7
,; ji
.n
=
,si:
I e-:.:
- g1 l
$oF l
e :)
N, o
=I It gt
< o 2-eo
- =
N.
ll e
- l e
g-
's,
- d s
- i:
- g:
"I l
0 I
lII!
I il l
1.
m I
iS h
j'I q
3-li E*
ii i
e F
i = !I o
-1 z
a.
h l 0
Q t'! ! i a
- I n
g t-e ti s
a N,
Eg 5 H
5m a-5e
%=
u z
- f if 3 s
C d
. 'g
- I s w e
g f
La.w a
Q
=
Q L
I.
8'
'4 e e 1
T.
- v L
- t 1a og F-ti
- I
~
O
_ii jl!!!!
Z
- !I d
tr-
!.I :
W ((f)
{
- g f)
-h
- u. W e
W G
Fi O
I 1tlIll O
r',
. w.
N "Q.
I'
- g 1
\\
11 2
El s
[:
Ig i.
I ti piijoijiujiii nijn,joij,opiip. pnjoijnipojiapiijiiijiiijiiijinjoijn jinjinji.;jiiijinjn.j'i'jiu a::::::::::;;;;;;;;
a::
- a*
~,,
~-
e
,a. - - -
-n
--.e-,
..,-,r--
ATTACilMENT D ESTIMATED CORE MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION 1
j ESTIMATED ZONE DESCRIPTION l
QUANTITY Ob) i A
Defueled Matettalas of 3/1/88 195,000 l,
8 Mid-Core Region 0
0 a)Large Rocks i
j
[ ]g Lh c) Remanng loose Material & Rods (Above the Lower Grid) 0 0
b) Nmt I
I 0
I C
Lower Core Region V
Resoidfied Mass 200
..( R-6 Grid Location) 4 3
j D
Lower CSA A
) "*5 'idd'*d " ' '
i b) Loose Material (Vacuumable) 9.500 i
i c) Loose Material (Rods and Rocks) 7.500 E
Lower Head B
a)MonobthorFusedMaterial 11,000 b) Post-Acadent loose Material (Non-Vacuumable) 20.000 c) Post-Accident Loose Malenal(Vacuumable) 10,000
{'
d) Newly Relocaled Loose Material (Vacuumable) 17,000 j
s e)NewlyRelocated Rodsand Rocks s
2,500
,^
C g
F Core Former Region
'.........ahi, D M
9.300 l
g h
G Ex-vessei RCS 1.000 TOTAL 293,000 i
i i
~
NC. E: Additional materialis expected to relocate to the lower regens during future defueling activities.
3/l/88 i
e
ATTACII2 TENT E OTSG-A Upper Tube Sheet Hot Legs OTSG-B Upper Tube Sheet gg Main Coo! ant a
l Pumps I' sjyp H "
4pp Pressurizer J
4 SW
'M lgll ;
c n
e
%m1
/
u r
= I '
i i I
' l '
i
==
n e
e l>
ih 8
C.
l.'.; ; l g
1 d
II I, li II
)
11 Decay Heat g
El w
y Drop Line Y
'kii_k k
4L
- : :==
5, Cold Leg Piping r;; ---S i
l Lower Steam Generator 1
z Piping [ J-Legs]
1____
J Ex-Vessel Defueling Locations
TMI.2 PROGRAM MASTER SCHEDULE 1987 DESCRIPilON 1988 1989 I.
,l I I I I I I I I I I I I f t n
I it I I f I I f f b
bb eaML3 edGIE 3 Peas O
--C '
O N-VESSEL DEFUELING gy RCS hspection/ Drain ll l
T-O-II
)
l bo-8 EX-VESSEL DEFUELNG o- ",,5.E'!,'M%",,,",, Cw g.,8,[ <
- 8 F-
---l e
1
. - -- Jawrwt i
DAT A ACOUISIIION t"*"'*"""
tt
- '"""""'M**"""*"'"T"2 g-Q 3
I i
8 FUEL SIG N t
F **" "
u.#y l
l
- s oc 7
r'I I
I I
I e l 1 1 I
I DECON - AFIO t
a-
'N r!hs I )
c
)
I t
i i
DE CON--RD t
tc A--
l l
I 1
(
l l
POST DEFUELING MONITORED t
i :
"'C " * * [ a*r c.'.'"" * '""T t
TT T
STORAGE g g g
I I
g g
k ja==== -(? - )
.o I
o.- _ ~) :
~~
- - a - c' 26 #N rROCESSED wArER t
4t c
7 I
l l
I
)
l I -- - - '
f l
.-_h.
1 CASTE MANAGEIENT t
" " ' ' " * - " ' " ' ~ ~ ' ****'
uw W. W t
e e
9 4
APPENDIX DRILLING AND CUTTING OF THE LO'.lER CORE SUPPORT ASSDfBLY
-TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
, - +
LOWER GRO DISTRBU10R--
RIB SECTION PLATE jSUPPORT POST (48) er 1 ma r,
s r i c r-i s r i c r,
s r, t r i i r, r f r 1 : r i c r i s r, m o
- i ai i s za z; 3 z ;
- 5 ans L
L t
t pih j
t t
ty L
L L
L y
2 l
1r 1r 1r
'I r 1 11 1r 1 r 1r
- i r or
'l li Ir i
lw L I i
l I I l *l yl elvl l, I
e 1
m., a m,,
s I
, r_
m m
m m.
m
\\
D D D D
Y/
q INCORE INSTRUMENT 1
GU10E TUBE (52)
]
INCORE GUOE
{
SUPPORT PLATE l
FLOW DISTRBUTOR LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY F1 CURE I BEFORE CUTTINC
{
(also see Finure 9) j
LOWER GRID DISTRIBUTOR--
RIB SECTION PU.TE jgijr:tjj [jr:tjr:tjctjjr [pgjr:tjrny [jr:tjr:tjr:t:j
..c_.3,.c_.e_ _,_..ci.q
,..c_.,c___
3 9
.y 3
dzzzzzz a um s
um zn
,i m
-1 ma m: mxxxx ii um r
s mm a u exxx l~l L s,ll,I,lJ,,ll,l,lilll, v
- ammm, i
m m
m ra i imi l m o
ra 1 m
m m
mwxw O
OO O
"f 1
l l
q INCORE INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBE (52)
INCORE GUIDE SUPPORT PLATE FLOW DISTRIBUTOR I
LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY llGT's AND SUPPORT POSTS DRILLED FIGURE 2 (also see Figure 10) s
LOWER GRID D!STREUTOR--
RIO SECTION PLATE
' r' 1:t I:{ [I L;I Lgf L;I L:I L;L I;I L7I L:I L:L I 32.
Q q
.g
(
3 q
3 3
3
.[
q p
9 h
i n a-n n n.:
- n- : w s
=
=
1 i
i i
s! l i
i l
t 1
i t
t tes t
t
>t t
t t
t s
p
%.rs a
t 3, _1 3 s
s s
v,_,
o msmmw -
i m
a m
m >> m,, m o
o i:
m m
m
.m m e I
r zow q
INCORE INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBE (52)
INCORE GUIDE SUPPORT PLATE nOw OtsTRouTOn LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY llGT's AND SUPPORT POSTS DRILLED LOWER GRID RIB SECTION CUT AND REMOVED FICURE 3 (also see Figure 11)
~
LOWER GRID RIB SECTION rr 1:I IS[ I:I L:I L:I L;I L:I L:[
II:I L:I L:I L:[
l E 5
.c[
.[
-[
.[
g g
_[
q b
g
.g g
.g 3
1 l
~l l i
'l l I r
'I r
'I r
'I r
'I r
'I r
~l r
'I r
'I r
'I r f
s, 7
)
l t
a styrP*
i n.
1 t
s
_,, cie v
l L\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1 7
I E'l I']
IXE hi i NI El IXI hl I l'f W
h1 I M W sN'l' FORGI n'""'
q INCORE INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBE (52)
INCORE GUIDE SUPPORT PLATE FLOW DISTRIBUTOR LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY LOWER GRID RIB SECTION AND DISTRIBUTOR PLATE CUT AND REMOVED FICURE 4
1 d
sr l
I i
k i
i g
- [ [
r$
ra ((m [ r$
r [
ru m(dkwu mwxwww r
m ra 0
00 0
- f i
F i
\\
q INCORE INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBE (52)
{
NCORE GUIDE i
SUPPORT PLATE l
l FLOW DISTRIBUTOR LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY i
IIGT's AND SUPPORT POSTS CUT AND REMOVED 1
FIGURE 5 i
{
1
=x=::[
i p
k 1
V
\\
I"1 I"1 l~1 I"1
/
["I twww<w n i
m o
o ra m
rea u
ra a
ei o
s:w s
www q
INCORE INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBE (52)
INCORE GUIDE SUPPORT PLATE l
FLOW DISTRIBUTOR LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY LOWER GRID FORGING CUT AND REMOVED FIGURE 6
_=,
y, W
LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY INCORE GUIDE SUPPORT PLATE CUT AND REMOVED FICURE 7
i 1
'" r
I
- i N
/
1 I
l l
4 LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY FLOW DISTRIBUTOR AND INCORES REMOVED LCSA DISASSEMBLY COMPLETED I
FIGURE 8
a l
A B
C D
E F
G H
X L
M N
O P
R h
l D
1
..e.
is g
(
m A
EA ss st c
i p
~seg g
me nr
%v l
a<ge w
H 12
- "O O
O i-') g M
,H i
2 I
w
$ 1; sW 5-
~
'~
~
sr sry h
l esI
.ss es s
es I
<,s 4
r; se
+e I
L F
'I s
s
,f s.
I I _e s
(
es e
e sr we w
_w e s
,xe
+,.
h.
w 7-r Lower Grid Rib Section FIGURE 9 BEFORE DRILLING AND CUTTING
A B lC D
E F
G H
K L
M N
O P
R I
6 l
=
.t.
4 I
-O O
,'. I i
l
-o-,- o o- -O
.{.
u g.
43 I
~~O O
I
~
12 i
l o--o--o ro--o- >
l
'I'
'IfI' I
I.o I
,.I io On-O- -0, O- -O= do O
O
=O O
n
- ss O
O
,.o
.;f O
O r.
7 O- -O=-0 0- -O- -O.,
g g.
g.,
u.
s I
.I
,.u
.o s
-O- -O- -O-
-O-,.,
j 4
OO
'y I.
3 0- -O On -O
, L,
~O O
~
g r)y 2
3
~
f-Lower Grid Rib Section After Drilling Out incore Guide Tubes And Support Posts H.Section Dropoute Removed FIGURE 10 AFTER DRILLING
,x-7-
,.i 1
~
m
- r i
f,
]
E~
K L
M N
O P
R r
. a.
1 1
., f
v'.
15 s.-
. J '
R..o.
I
^
2... I,'
M 14 i
A*1, E
,;p;(,
13 I
- c..y
- p, i
12
. c J.::
M y
umud
'g:n; 11 an
- j--
,4 to e
9
.lf
-w 38
.y
~,
- ??.
7
=
6 L
5 ML
-e a
-s n
,Q '.,
f,.
3
.M 1
r:g y, '.
1 m
i s,a 1
2
..
- i
_s
- n.
m 4,-s -
3
. P 9
Lok
'b Section All.
. aken Out e,x..; x.-
a-sb i
7(
-11 AFTER.
ARC CUTTING y
u.
/
n' Y
b)
Statement to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Dr. Robert 0. Marston, Chairman, TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board March 17,1988 Since its inception in March,1981, the TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board (SAB) has reviewed, on a continuing basis, the cleanup operations performed in the damaged TMI-2 plant to ensure protection of the health and safety of the public and of the workers involved in the cleanup. Although the cleanup is not complete and additional SAB safety reviews remain to be performed before removal of damaged fuel from the reactor system is completed, I plan to focus today on the safety of the TMI-2 plant in the proposed Post-Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS) condition. The Board has spent a significant fraction of the past year reviewing the effect on public and worker health and safety when the 'MI-2 plant is placed in the PDMS condition.
The Board issued the following statement at its November 5-6,1987 meeting:
Post-Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS) has been analyzed in depth by the Safety Advisory Board, TMI-2. The Board has agreed that PDMS is an acceptable TMI-2 plant condition that, when achieved, would pose no hazard to the public health and safety.
I want to emphasize that the Board continues to hold this position.
Upon further Board review of the PDMS plan at the subsequent SAB meeting on February 4-5,1988, it became apparent that in light of the extensive SAB reviews and deliberations on the technical and safety aspects of the PDMS condition, documentation of the basis for the above statement was necessary.
I intend today to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with that docu-mentation.
\\
I 2
The SA8 is charged with oversight of the actions of GPUNC 1ent to
...o.
assure that those actions relating specifically to the clee k of the damaged TMI-2 plant do not jeopardize the health and safety of the public and the workers. These actions sometime require decisions which involve trade-of fs between health and safety and some limited, low-level radiation exposure of the public and of the workers. This was the case, for example, when extreme-ly small amounts of krypton gas were released to the environrnent in order to
\\
improve the ambient air quality within the TMI-2 containment building and thus reduce the potential radiation exposure of workers who had to gain entry to begin the cleanup operations. Whatever the cost of such trade-offs, in personnel exposure or in dollars, there has been no adverse effects on the public health and safety. Although protection of the health and safety of the workers is a matter of highest priority, the SAB must continue to exercise a considerably greater responsibility in its concern of the effects of the l
cleanup on the health and safety of the public.
l The 1979 accident at TMI-2 lef t the interior of the reactor building so con-l taminated with radioactivity that entries by cleanup crews were not possible 1
without extensive preparations and precautions to minimize their exposure.
Although the radioactivity has been confined within the building since the accident, except for the planned release of the small amount'of krypton soon af ter the accident, there was a small but finite possibility during the first postaccident months of much lower levels of radiation exposure to nearby l
residents. A truly remarkable job has been accomplished in these past nine l
years; only insignificant and negligible exposures of the public have occurred, as well as remarkably limited exposures of workers who have been carrying out the cleanup. This has been achieved by judicious care, planning, deliber-ate steps and appropriate decision making. GPUNC management has directed
l'
\\
\\
r f
3 the ellocation of sizeable funds for protection of the workers and the public; decisions were always in the direction of being overly-sofe.
\\
Until recently the quantity of derdsged fuel that has been present in the reactor vessel hos been sufficient to require precautions against any ined-vertent criticolity occurrence, though the probability of occurrence was extremely small. A significant milestone will be echieved by the end of 1988, however, when more then 99% of the demoged fuel will have been removed from the reactor and most of it shipped to the U.S. Department of Energy National Engineerir.g Laboratory in Idaho. The remaining smell amounts of fuel debris in the reactor system represent only a smell fraction of the original fuel and will pose no threat of criticality or radiction exposure of the workers or the public. At this stegee there willaot longer be o need for special precautions, such as maintaining borated water in the s
reactor vessel.
This does not mean that the plant interior hos been fully decontaminated and that no radioactivity remains. During the PDMS phase, workers will have access to most of the plant without protective clothing and with little exposure to rediation, but the reoctpr building basement and a few places in a
the euxiliary and fuel handling building will remain radioactive to the extent thet the workers will not be permitted access to these areas. However, there oppear to be no reasons for workers to enter these more contaminated erees when the PDMS phase has been reached.To ensure the health and safety of the public, es well as the TMl-1 workers, TMI-2 plant conditions during the PDMS phase will be monitored continuously to preclude the development of any unforeseen circumstances.
Once the assurance is present that there is no potentiel hozord to the public
4
\\
4 4
health, GPUNC management must decide what still must be dona concerning further cleanup of the small amount of contamination remaining. Should it continue to proceM vigorously, spending additional tens of millions of dollars to improve the condition of the rrautcr building basement and other areas beyond the end point levels projected in licensing documonts? If it were the intention of GPUNC management to use the containment building for another energy producing facility sometime in the future, then there would be valid reasons to continue to reduce radiation 'evels in the remaining more radio-active areas. Since the radioactivity is n an immobilized state within the basement walls and structures, and GPU nas announced that no plan is under -
consideration to rebuild and restar* TMI-2, there appears te be no rational basis to continue to subject workei s to unnecessary radiatic:n exposure beyond that currently needed to remove the damaged fuel. The most respon-sible plan wruld be to slow down the cleanuo opvation considerably, to be i
even more protective of the health and safety of workers, ds well as the public, than in the past, aid to use this prolonged duration cf time for cd-l ditional natural decay of the remaining radioactivity, some of which will l
essentially disappear.
l l
When the time comes tu decommission the TMI-I plant, well in the future, steps can be taken at that time to removo any remaining radioactivity in the TMI-2 containment and associated bui'aings. In the intervening years, the l
residual radioactivity will have been further reduced by natural decay. The two principal radioactive products, cesium 137 and stronuum 90, will have been decaying at a rate of 2-1/2% per year, so that the radioactivity remain-ing af ter approximately 30 years will ha/e been reduced to about half of the present levels. It is also anticipated that advanced robotic system 3 will be l
1
e!q l[;!,
l 5
available that will further reduce potential exposures of workers expected in the decontamination of the TMI-2 reactor plant in preparation to decommis-sion the facility.
This represents a consensus statement by all members of the TMl-2 Safety Advisory Board.
Dr. Robert O. Marston, Chairman TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board i:
x
News Roloaso Three Mlle Island
[
gg Nuclear Station Post Off ce Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 717 948-8197 Public Information Services For Further information
Contact:
Gordon Tomb For Release:
Data March 17, 1988 Immediately No.10-88N GPU UPDATES NRC ON PROGRESS TOWARD POMS Washington, D.C. -- Top officers of the General Public Utilities System (GPU) said today that the company is on target to place Three Mile Island Unit 2 in Post Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS) in 1989.
The officers, who addressed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission here in GPU's fourth annual report to the agency on the THI-2 Cleanup Program, also noted the continued, successful operation of TPI-1 in 1987 GPU Nuclear Corporation, along with its prime contractor, Bechtel, expects to complete the Cleanup Program by mid-1989 at a cost of about $965 million. The goal of the cleanup is to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction and the chance of a hazardous release of radiation by removing more than 99 percent of the damaged nuclear fuel core from the reactor system and the majority of loose, radioactive contaminants from the plant. Upon completion of the cleanup, the plant will be placed in a safe, stable and I
secure condition known as PDMS for an extended period.
l The main activity in the cleanup is the defueling of the reactor vessel.
l Two-thirds of the estimated total of 293,000 pounds of core debris has been removed from the reactor. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has shipped by l
rail about 60 percent of the debris from TMI-2 to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
William G. Kuhns, GPU Chainnan and Chief Executive Officer, said the contributors to the cleanup funding plan -- the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the customers and stockholders of GPU, the Edison Electric Institute,00E and the Japanese nuclear industry -- are current in their i
contributions.
"The Cleanup is proceeding without financial constraints; and we now believe, despite some continuing uncertainties, that the planned work will be completed within the 31 billion funding program," he caid.
-more-
7 March 17,1988 No.10-88N Kuhns also said, "The GPU System's present energy supply plans do not iflect the return to service of TMI-2, and no funds are presently being axpended to preserve the plant and equipment for future use."
On TMI-l operations, Kuhns reported that the plant had a 1987 capacity factor of 74 peNent despite almost three months of planned outage and that the capacity factor for the present operating cycle that began in April 1987 is 96 percent. The 1987 capacity factor of 74 percent compares to an industry average for 1987 of 62 percent.
"We intend to continue to supply the personnel, training and management support necessary to maintain the excellent TMI-1 record since the NRC authorized restart in October 1985," he said.
THI-1 operated from 1974 to 1979, but was shut down for six and one-half years after the THI-2 accident while the NRC reviewed questions stemming from the accident.
Philip R. Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of GPU Nuclear, said the company is proceeding with a carefully thought-out program for phasing down the THI-2 staff while retalning sufficient personr.el to ensure the safe completion of planned cleanup work. The number of people working on l
the THI-2 cleanup has decreased from 1,030 a year ago to 960 presently and is expected to be less than 400 a year from now. Staffing is expected to level out to about 50 people after PDMS is in place, f
Clark reviewed key elements of the PDMS concept. They are:
l
-- Fuel will have been removed and shipped off-site such that a nuclear l
chain reaction is impossible.
-- The potential for a significant release of radioactivity will have been eliminated.
-- Water will have been removed from plant systems, and the potential for its reintroduction has been minimized.
-- Radioactive wastes will have been packaged and shipped off-site or are safely stored pending shipment.
-- Radiation will have been reduced to levels which will allow continued plant monitoring, performance of required maintenance and plant inspections.
-- Plant containment systems are to be maintained in accordance with NPC-approved technical specifications.
These principles will provide inherent stability to minimize the possibility of industrial or radiological mishaps, effective containment of radioactivity and positive monitoring and control of plant conditions.
-more-
_ __ ____ _____________-___ March 17,1988 No.10-88N L
Kuhns also said, "The GPU System's present energy supply plans do not reflect the return to service of TMI-2, and no funds are presently being expended to preserve the plant and equipment for future use."
On THI-1 operations, Kuhr.s reported that the plant had a 1987 capacity factor of 74 percent despite almost three months of planned outage and that the capacity factor for the present operating cycle that began in April 1987 is 96 percent. The 1987 capacity factor of 74 percent compares to an industry average for 1987 of 62 percent.
"We intend to continue to supply the personnel, training and management support necessary to maintain the excellent TMI-1 record since the NRC authorized restart in October 1985," he said.
THI-1 operated from 1974 to 1979, but was shut down for six and one-half years after the THI-2 accident while the NRC reviewed questions stemming from the accident.
Philip R. Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of GPU Nuclear, said the company is proceeding with a carefully thought-out program for l
phasing down the THI-2 staff while retaining sufficient personnel to ensure the safe completion of planned cleanup work. The number of people working on the THI-2 cleanup has decreased from 1,030 a year ago to 960 presently and is expected to be less than 400 a year from now. Staffing is expected to level out to about 50 people after PDMS is in place.
Clark reviewed key elements of the PDMS concept.
They are:
-- Fuel will have been removed and shipped off-site such that a nuclear l
chain reaction is impossible.
-- The potential for a significant release of radioactivity will have been eliminated.
-- Water will have been removed from plant systems, and the potential for its reintroduction has been minimized.
-- Radioactive wastes will have been packaged and shipped off-site or are safely stored pending shipment.
-- Radiation will have been reduced to levels which will allow continued plant monitoring, perfomance of required maintenance and plant inspections, j
-- Plant containment systems are to be maintained in accordance with NPC-approved technical spec'ifications.
These principles will provide inherent stabfif ty to minimize the possibility of industrial or radiological mishaps, effective cortainment of radioactivity and positive monitoring and control of plant conditions.
-more-i Parch 17,1988 No.10-88N 5
Clark said, "We believe this " a sound plan which results in a condition that poses no risk to the oublic health and safety. Reviews over the past several years have not idrntified any substantial safety or health concerns with the PDMS plan." The PDMS plan has been discussed with the TMI-2 Safety Advisory Board, the NRC staff and the NRC Advisory Panel on the Decontamination of TNI-2. Clark said it was extremely important that agreement be reached on the remaining work in view of the advanced status of the project and the phasing down of staffing levels that is unden#ay.
Clark said a major effort by GPU Nuclear to continue to inform the public about THI-2 activities has proven effective.
This effort included news releases, mailings, newspaper advertisements and direct contact with local officials and citizens.
"As a result of these efforts, we are finding a significant increase in satisfaction among the public with the way the Cleanup Program is being handled. We are also finding increased sentiment among local residents for completing the Cleanup Program," Clark said.
Clark noted that questions have been raised recently by members of the U.S. House and Senate about DOE's shipment of THI-2 core debris by rail to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
"If this results in delay or interruption of the shipments, it will delay completion of the Cleanup Program," Clark said.
"We are working with DOE and others to try to prevent any delay."
Edwin E. Kintner, Executive Vice President of GPU Nuclear, reported good progress in the defueling of the THI-2 rd: tor vessel in 1987. Cloudy water that caused poor visibility in the reactor in 1986 was cleared up early in 1987, and visibility has been maintained since then by an improved water filtration system. Core debris is removed from the reactor by crews who manipulate tools and equipment through 30 feet of water that covers the core.
In addition, Kintner said, nearly all the 177 fuel assembly stubs in the core were removed relatively easily in 1987. All debris has been removed from the nonnal core region of the reactor.
Also in 1987, Kintner reported, GPU Nuclear completed a year of developmental work on two processes for disassembling internal reactor components to remove the last one-third of core debris from the reactor. The two methods involve a drilling machine, which currently is in use, and an underwater torch that is to be used later.
Kintner said GPU Nuclear is unable to begin disposition of processed accident-generated water until 1989 and would be unable to complete the
-more-March 17,1988 No.10-88N i
process until 1990 or later -- after THI-2 is placed in PDPS. GPU Nuclear first proposed evaporation as a means of disposing of the water in July 1986 The proposal is to be reviewed by an NPC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board prior to being submitted to tne NRC for approval. Kintner estimated the proposal would not reach the NRC before December 1988.
The evaporation is projected to produce a total average exposure to the public equal to one or two hours of natural brckground radiation over a period of one to two years. An environmental impact statement published in June 1987 by the NRC staff found evaporation to be environmentally acceptable.
GPU Nuclear, at its own risk, has authorized a vendor to begin design, fabrication, installation and testing of the evaporator system. The work is to take about nine months to complete. Work on the system is being started now with the expectation that NPC approval will be forthcoming and to minimize l
the lapse of time in disposing of the water. The water, which originated with
(
the 1979 accident, has had most radioactive contaminants removed from it but l
remains slightly contaminated.
Kintner said the GPU Nuclear is working with NRC researchers to develop a l
program to obtain data on core debris in the bottem of the reactor and on the structural material of the reactor itself.
During the accident, approximately 20 tons of molten core material flowed into the bottom of the reactor vessel l
where it was contained.
Kintner said GPU Nuclear continued to project that total worker exposure from the cleanup would be significantly below earlier projections. The current projection is 6,000 man-rem, compared to an NRC estimate of 13,000 to l
46,000 man-rem.
Frank Standerfer, Vice President and Director of THI-2, reported that a number of documents in support of PDMS would be submitted to the NRC over the next month. These documents, like others that have been submitted to the NPC over the past year, are largely revisions made to existing documents to reflect improved plant conditions. They generally outline administrative and l
l operational requirements of the plant's NRC license.
I The GPU System serves 1.7 million customers in an area covering half the land mass of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
PH l
1 l
W6MWn%Wibt(\\%W$titWi(%%W;tW;(p(ggygyggggg;(;ygygggg h
TP.AHSMITTAL TO:
[
Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips sij ADVANCE 0 COPY TO:
The Public Document Room
[/b///[
DATE:
{
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting j
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and h
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or g
A t
required.
R R
Meeting
Title:
bt s i /c.,
& k W i [Lt. Y
[/
s>tu 5 a,
t y
e l
e g
Meeting Date:
// 7 /F <f Open_ Y Closed bi m
item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS G
'8 to POR C3 g
~
it:
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 h
p /Ae/c.4 J< n /:v M c 2
V
- 2. prim.a.cl y dpn L dhp,y
/
/
e6'd. - &7 fff l
/
/
f 2.,6r,n.~. 1 n 4 s e G'
ge ws~ &
sh/6 ga
=5:
- 4. GMt /J M( ac u /$' b j U -
l l
f (Md.5//7 /f Y 5.
g l :i::;
s l
s 3
6
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
h C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachtrents, withcut SECY l
l papers.
l s
l 1
l