ML20154N410
| ML20154N410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1988 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACTMI, NUDOCS 8806020293 | |
| Download: ML20154N410 (170) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__. C ! O. ! ' f); UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e ADVISORi PAllEL FOR DECONTAMI?4ATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND Ut1I T 2 In the Matter of: ) ) PUBLIC MEETING ) l l LOCATIOti: Lancaster, Pennsylvania PAGES: 1 through 100 DATE: April 14, 1988 ...............................o..........................- l l l HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION opuwnewsm 1220 L Street, N.W., Seite det l WasWagton D.C. 20006 (292) 628 4888 8806020293 000414 PDR ADOCK 050003PO PDR T
1 - i 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF 3 THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 4 5 In the Matter of: ) ) 6 PUBLIC MEETING ) 7
- Thursday, 8
April 14, 1988 9 City Council Chambers Vine & Queen Streets 10 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 11 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 12 pursuant to notice, at 7:20 p.m. 13 BEFORE: ARTHUR MORRIS, CHAIRMAN 14 APPEARANCES: 15 PANEL MEMBERS: 16 THOMAS SMITHGALL JOEL ROTH 17 GORDON ROBINSON FREDERICK RICE 18 THOMAS GERUSKY 19 SPEAKERS: 20 JOHN STOLZ, accompanied by: CURT COWGILL 21 LEE BETTENHAUSEN DAVID MCGOFF 22 ROBERT VAN HOUTEN WILLIAM KIRK 23 ERIC EPSTEIN VERA STUCHINSKI 24 FRANK STANDERFER FRANCES SKULNIK 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
2 ( 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 NRC STAFF: 3 MICHAEL MASNIK 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2' (7:20 p.m.) 3 MR. MORRIS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and 4 'welcome to-tonight's meeting. I would like to welcome you to 5 our new Center Market Building. And just a couple of items 6 about that, and it will be very brief. 7 This was formerly a market building where there were 8 market stands, some two years ago, and it was only used on a 9 Saturday for about three or four hours a week. And it turned 10 out, we studied it and we determined to relocate that up to the 11 market which is about a block from here that was not open on 12 Saturdays. And reconvert this to the Chamber of Commerce 13 Offices which are up to the back of you on the second level, '14 and to a visitor's center and training rooms and City Council 15 Chambers. 16 And up above us, if you see windows, they're not 17 really windows, they're mirrors'that just basically mirror the 18 area back in this direction. 19 Those that come forward to speak tonight and the 20 panel members as they make comment, if they would speak 21 directly into the mikes. We are still experimenting somewhat 22 with the sound system. I think it's improving. It needs time 23 here. We're out here, but it is important to speak directly 24 into the mikes. 25 With that, I do not have any other comments to make l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
4 I 1 as Chairman, other than to say that several members did contact 2 my office. Ann contacted me to say that she couldn't be here. 3 I'm trying to remember who else. 4 There were two or three other panel members that got 5 in touch with me to say they couldn't join us, but not 6 everybody contacted my office. 7 The first order of business after the Chairman's 8 comments is an NRC status by Jay Stolz. Is he present, please? 9 Mr. Stolz, could you come forward and give us the 10 status. 11 You're not related to any stoltzfus from Lancaster 12 County, are you, sir? 13 MR. STOLZ: Not that I }.now of, Mr. Chairman. C-14 MR. MORRIS: Now those little pyramids that you have 15 right before you should work if you try to speak into them. 16 MR. STOLZ: Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, my 17 name is John Stolz. I'm the project director of the project to 18 which TMI 2 has been assigned. Along with TMI 2, we have eight 19 other projects that are assigned to that particular 20 directorate. And for your information, all of the GPU 21 operating plants, TMI 1 and Oyster Creek are also in my 22 directorate. 23 There are three areas that I think may be of interest 24 to the panel tonight, and I'd like to enumerate them now. 25 One, I'd like to talk about the NRC reorganization N.- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l l 1 5 ' k. I which involved the phase out of the TMI 2 project directorate 2 assigned to the TMI 2 cite. 3 Secondly, I'd like to talk about the draft' supplement 4 3 to the programmatic environmental impact statement which 5 deals with the post-defueling monitored storage and subsequent 6 cleanup. 7 And number three, I'd like to give you the status of l 8 the processed accident generated water disposal hearing. 9 Any questions about the scope of what I'm going to 10 cover tonight? 11 MR. MORRIS: No, sir. 12 MR. STOLZ: Beside me, Curt Cowgill and Lee 13 Bettenhausen are beside me from Region One, and they have t 14 responsibilities for both TMI 1 and TMI 2, as well. 15 Back to the reorganization. The last time we met, 16 Bill Travers and Frank Miraglia discussed the pending 17 reorganization which involved the phase out of the TMI 2 18 program office at the site. 19 Since that time, the program office has been 20 disbanded, and two of the personnel, Mike Masnik who is still 21 the project manager, and Lee Thonus, who is still the reviewer 22 stationed at the cite, have been assigned to me. The other two 23 reviewers who are at the cite will leave and the resident 24 inspector, Tom Moslak, will join, has joined already the TMI 25 resident inspectors staff which had been covering TMI 1. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6 y; 1 So the situation at the Region is that we have a 2 resident inspectors staff of about four people which covers the 3 entire site, including TMI 1, and that organization provides 4 complete coverage for both units. In other words, any one of l 5 those inspectors would be able to handle both sites. 6 To take up the shortfall in terms of having people 7 stationed at the site for ready access by the licensee for 8 review proalems, any overflow that occurs or any problems that 9 can't be handled at the site, we handle down at headquarters in 10 th,e White Flint Building in Bethesda. 11 Our mancqement is committed to and so is the 12 Commission is commitced to keep the progress of the defueling 13 program going. And we'*e given high priority to maintaining i 14 schedules. 15 All of this doesn't come without a penalty, of 16 course. It means that both the NRC management and staff, and 17 the GPU management and their staff have to do a little bit of 18 planning. We have to be a little more concerned about 19 priorities, to compensate for the inconvenience of losing two 20 reviewers who were previously at the site. I 21 To also_ help out on communications, we hold at least 22 weekly formal telephone conference calls to review any problems 23 that have come up during the week. And of course, if anything 24 does happen of any concern, we are always in touch in any 25 event. I l. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 ( '(, 1 Are there any questions that the panel.may have ~2 regarding the reorganization? 3 MR. MORRIS: No, sir. 4 MR. STOLZ: Okay. 5 Now, the second thing is we were returned to the 6 status of the draft supplement 3 to the programmatic 7 environmental impact statement. This statement dealt with the 8 post-defueling monitored storage and subsequent cleanup. This 9 document with which we had help from our contractor in the 10 Pacific Northwest, Battelle, we have run this through our own 11 management, and it has received some additional staff review. 12 Some changes have been made to it. 13 The document has been sent to the printers this week, 14 and we expect to get distribution on this document by the 27th 15 of April. I would think that the panel should receive their 16 copies during the first week in May. And the NRC staff and our 17 contractor would certainly be available to summarize the 18 results of our assessment at your convenience. And we can do 19 this certainly at the next Advisory Meeting. 20 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Thank you. 21 I'm sure if we can get the document by early May, we 22 would want to have on the agenda for the next meeting, a 23 discussion of that. 24 MR. STOLZ: Okay. 25 The last thing I want to talk about is the status of 1 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 - _. - - _. _ =.
I '(. 8 1 the process accident generated water disposal hearing. On 2 April 6, 1988, the Board granted a motion submitted by the 3 -joint intervenors to compel the licensee to provide the joint 4 intervenors with a purchase contract specification dealing with 5 the evaporator which will be used to dispose of the accident 6 generated water. And the licensee has until the end of April 7 to respond to this motion granted by the Board. 8 There is another motion that has been filed by the 9 joint intervenors and this is before the Board, which is 10 requesting additional information on the installation and 11 testing of the evaporator. This is still before the Board and 12 no action has been taken on it, yet. 13 The Board has not yet given us a schedule for all of 14 the subsequent actions that have to be taken between now and 15 the start of the hearing. 16 We would guess that the next likely step that has to 17 be handled is to have some of the parties, that would be the 18 NRC and the licensee, to provide summary ~ disposition on the 19 contentions that are before the Board. Actions have been l. 20 started on these, but no schedule has been initiated by the 2 Board on this matter. ~ 22 In summary, discovery has not ended. We have no date l l 23 for the hearing. But just as a matter of our guess, we would 24 think that late summer or early fall would be the best you 25 could expect for the start of the hearing. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t-
9 (. 1 MR. MORRIS: Any questions from the panel on this 2 particular matter? 3 Remember that we do have, under Item 8, the accident 4
- generated water evaporator preliminary system description later 5
on on the' agenda this evening. But even with that, is there 6 any questions at this point? 7 MR. RICE: I have a question. 4 8 MR. MORRIS: Fred? 9 MR. RICE: Mr. Stolz, you say they passed the motion 10 to give the licensee the ability to purchase the evaporator at 11 this time? 12 MR. STOLZ: No, the licensee has awarded a contract 13 to purchase the evaporator, and the joint intervenors filed a 14 motion to the Board, asking to see the specifications that were 15 used in this purchase contract. In other words, they want to 16 examine what the specifications said regarding the evaporator. 17 And I understand that that has been provided. 18 MR. RICE: Thank you. 19 MR. MORRIS: Okay, sir. We appreciate your 20 . presentation this evening, and we thank you very much for being l l .1 here with us this evening. l t 22 I would like to at this point, although it's not on 23 the agenda, but ask if Mr. McGoff is here tonight from the DOE, 24 that has indicated he would be willing to give us an idea of 25 the shipment of the fuel, the status of that? L k l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
.b a -.41 4 h +4-.--s-Ai 10 f- -1 MR. MCGOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is 2 David McCoff from the U.S. Department of Energy, 3 There had been some concern I know on the part'of 4 some of the people in the area that DOE would be delaying the 5 shipments of the fuel debris from TMI. 6 A short statement tonight is that an investigation of 7 allegations concerning Union Pacific's performance in the St. 8 Louis area has been completed by the Federal Railroad 9 Administration. All corrective actions have been~taken per 10 their recommendations. And we've recently completed a shipment 11 of three casks of TMI fuel from the Island to Idaho. 12 This is the 15th shipment and we estimate approximately eight more to go. We see no further impediments 13 14 to continuing ahipments. 15 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 16 Just one question from me, and other people may have 17 questions, but there is an outstanding rumor that later this 18 year in the fall era, maybe around October or so, that there 19 may be another delay in the shipments. And I guess publicly I t-20 just wanted to ask you whether you had any knowledge of that or l 21 whether you had heard the same problem? 22 MR. MCGOFF: There are a lot of rumors going around. 23 I don't pay much attention to them all. All our activities 24 been on starting the shipments again. We've done that. We'll 25 have to schedule the remaining shipments in accordance with the ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) fi28-4888 l l L
l i .1 11 (! 1 availability of the TMI facilities and our own, and that's the 2 only restraint that I know. 3 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. Does anybody else --' Tom -- 4 Mr. Gerusky? 5 MR. GERUSKY: What changes have you made in the 6 pattern of shipments and the method of shipping? 7 MR. MCGOFF: The allegations of Union Pacific 8 problems had to do with mislabeling of the'so-called idler 9 cars, the buffer cars on the train. These cars were placed in 10 the St. Louis area by Union Pacific. 11 To preclude that happening in tne future, we now have 12 a set of dedicated buffer cars that vill stay with the train, 13 put on the train at TMI, and remain all the way through to 14 Idaho. They will not be changed when the train goes from 15 Conrail to Union Pacific. 16 That's one thing you'll see here on the Island, now, 17 these new buffer cars. 18 The second thing you'll see here on the Island is the 19 addition of a DOE representative on the shipments to monitor 20 compliance with matters such as these. 21 There are some additional recommendations put into l l 22 place concerning training of UP personnel and the location at i j 23 which the switchover from Conrail to UP took place, but you l l 24 will not see that. That's all in Indiana and Missouri. i l 25 MR. GERUSKY: There appears or I've seen some c i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [
i 12 1 questions raised about the quality of the shipping containers, 2 the casks, and whether or not they meet the NRC requirements. 3 Can you comment on that? 4 MR. MCGOFF: Yes, these casks were reviewed by the 5 NRC and certified by the NRC. We meet and exceed all of the 6 NRC requirements. 7 MR. MORRIS: Mr. McGoff, we appreciate you coming 8 today, and I don't want to prolong your presence up front. 9 But I do want to publicly state that I was 10 particularly concerned when I heard of the delay and whether it 11 was a delay or whether it was a suspension or whatever they 12 wanted to call it, it did for a period of several weeks slow 13 down the process. And I know that one of the things they're 14 attempting to do now is nos to ship with one casket or two, but 15 possibly the consolidation of three caskets in each shipment so 16 they reduce the number of shipments. 17 I do feel that there was more involved than met the 18 eye, and I feel that for the safety of this area, people are 19 concerned about fuel shipments going through their 20 municipalities, and I understand that. l l l 21 This area's very concerned about the fuel staying on ~ 22 the Island. And I would have felt it would have been a better 23 decision had they made the decision to allow the shipments 24 continue while they study improvements. And I realize that's 25 water over the dam at this point. I would hope in the future l l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
13 1 that before anything would be delayed unless it's a real urgent 2 problem, and under those circumstances certainly have to delay, 3 but given the circumstances here, there was concern being 4 expressed by a Senator from the St. Louis area, it seemed to be 5 it was coming from that particular area and there were certain ~ 6 elected officials from that area were concerned. 7 We have similar concerns here if the fuel. shipments 8 are held up. And my message really is I would hope that we 9 would be informed ahead of time in the future before any 10 decision is made so that we also can have input into any 11 decision that is made. 12 MR. MCGOFF: Well, Mr. Mayor, we'll certainly do 13 that. I would add that the allegations had to do with 14 violations of the Department of Transportation's hazardous 15 transportation regulations. The investigation by the Federal 16 Railroad Administration did turn up apparent violations. 17 This matter has been turned over to the DOT general 18 counsel for enforcement action. The fact that a Senator got 19 involved, although he aelped to amplify the concerns of the 20 people, doesn't change the fact that there were apparent 21 violations and they had to be fixed before we started shipping 22 again. 23 We certainly will inform you, let you know, and so 24 forth, of future problems. But I think we had a real 25 obligation this time to insure that shipping was being done Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
q 14 f. 1 safely. 2 MR. MORRIS: Well, I guess I don't want to sit here 3 and argue the point because I appreciate your presence. But 4 there is a whole different side to that story that I've heard 5 reiterated from several other individuals. And I think there's 6 just a different thought regarding that particular process. 7 MR. MCGOFF: Nor do I want to quarrel, Mayor Morris. 8 But it seems to me that just as the citizens of this area have 9 the right to be protected while the investigation of a polar 10 crane takes place, so do citizens of another area have a right 11 to be protected while allegations of violations of regulations 12 occur in their area. 13 MR. MORRIS: Well, then I would suggest in the future 14 when you announce that there is a delay that everybody know 15 exactly what's happening. Because when the press area 16 individuals were contacted at DOE, I was specifically told 17 there was no suspension. I can tell you who made that. I 18 don't have the notes before me. But I was clearly told that. 19 They didn't believe there was a suspension, certain 20 people did not. And there was a lot of confusion on behalf of 21 the Staff as to what was going on, because it was apparently 22 made either by the Secretary or some high up individual in 23 closed doors meetings with the Senator from St. Louis. 24 And I still feel that what you're saying may have 25 some accuracy to it but I also feel there was other Heritage Reporting Cerporation (202) 628-4888
15 f 1 considerations in delaying the shipment. I think there were 2 political considerations in delaying the shipment, quite 3 frankly. 4 And you know, I'm just making my statement. I 5 understand what you're saying. 6 MR. MCGOFF: So we both have the rights to our 7 opinions. 8 MR. MORRIS: That's right. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. SMITHGALL: May I ask one more question? 11 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Mr. McGoff, could you hold up one 12 more second, because there is another question here from a 13 panel member. i 14 MR. SMITHGALL: Thank you. 15 Is there a revised safety evaluation of the buffer 16 cars that are being used, since now you're going to be using 17 them from site to site? I guess my concern is any safety 18 degradation in the cars that you're going to be hauling back 19 and forth, as opposed to what I thought was happening of 20 transfer of those buffer cars midway through the trip? 21 MR. MCGOFF: There is no safety advantage to 22 transferring the buffer cars transfer of railroad. It 23 primarily was a matter of jurisdiction before. Conrail wanted 24 their cars and UP wanted their cars. 25 MR. SMITHGALL: I understand that. 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
16 t' ~ 1 MR. MCGOFF: We'll have now dedicated cars. They'll 2 be inspected at this end by the Federal' Railroad Administration 3 on each shipment, and by NRC, by GPU and DOE before the 4 shipment. They'll be inspected throughout the shipment by FRA' 5 in the various states, though I don't think there is any 6 degradation of safety. 7 MR. SMITHGALL: That's what I was asking. e 8 Thank you. .9 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, very much. 10 MR. MCGOFF: Thank you. 11 MR. MORRIS: Prior to proceeding to the next agenda 12 item, I just want to indicate that we did receive, after the 13 agenda was put together, requests from Eric Epstein and Frances 14 Skulnik to have time on the agenda. And I will as we go 15 through here as the next person speaks, I'll try to figure out 16 maybe where that will fit and let you know the next chance I 17 get. 18 So the next item on the agenda is the NRC lower head 19 sample acquisition program and the NRC are to make that 20 presentation. 21 MR. VAN HOUTEN: I'm Bob Van Houten. I have several 22 view graphs. If I could, I will speak from the view graph 23 pro'j ec tor. 24 MR. MORRIS: Okay. If there's no PA system or mike 25 over there, if you could just -- are you going to give him that ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4638
i. 17 I to hold? I think you may be able to hear him anyway, but if 2 that's helpful, fine. 3 MR. VAN HOUTEN: It almost reaches. 4 (Pause) 5 MR. VAN HOUTEN: I'm Bob Van Houten. I work for the 6 Office of Research of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Our 7 research involves an examination of accident phenomena and 8 application for severe accident policies. 9 Accordingly, when it was established that 10 approximately 20 tons of previously molten material rested on 11 the bottom head of the Three Mile Island Reactor, the 12 opportunity to examine this material and the lower head 13 condition was recognized. And accordingly we established a 14 program to examine the condition of the bottom head in order 15 that we might establish the damage mechanisms, the damage 16 thresholds and accordingly with temperature profiles to 17 determine how close the head might or might not have beon to 18 failure, and how this information might be used in severe 19 accident policy. 20 Accordingly, we prepared a program and we now have 21 had discussions with more than a dozen foreign countries who 22 are interested in joining with us in this study. This study 23 will involve the taking of specimens. After they have been 24 removed from the reactor, they will be encapsulated and shipped 25 to laboratories in the United States, and in other countries, I,. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ~
a l i i 9 18 l i 1 for metallographic examination, ceramographic examination, and 2 mechanical property evaluation. 3 (Slide) 4 The second sheet is merely a background statement of 5 the reasons we felt it was indeed a unique opportunity to 6 perform this examination. 1 7 (Slide) 8 Our objectives, as stated, are to procure these 9 samples, to have the samples from the headliner, the instrument 10 penetrations, the penetration weldments. 11 (Slide) 12 The statement of our interests. The fact that there f, 13 could have been a potential impingement of molten material on 14 the lower head and limited local erosion. Depending on models 15 used, it could be postulated that temperatures as high as 16 1100 K were reached and accordingly to.f.ndicate whether those 17 models were valid or not, the examination of the bottom head. 18 Because from all evidence, the bottom head held, and we need to 19 see what that margin was, and what those damage mechanisms 20 were, and apply it for this general question of severe accident 21 policy. 22 (Slide) 23 To get a program moving, we had five steps, 24 effectively. First, the development of our full set of 25 extracbion tools and procedures. The preparation of the mock Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l L
19 .f. N 1 up of the lower head, the testing of all the extraction tools 2 and procedures-on the mock-up, and then-the extraction of ne 3 wanted metallurgical specimens, and then the transfer of the 4 specimens from the facility. 5 (Slide) 6 A recap of things that we'd be looking for. Which 7 would.be regions where stress was expected to be highest, where O 8 erosion was expected to be the worst, and where the temperature 9 might,be the highest. 10 Accordingly, there were zones where we'd be taking 11 the specimens: near the center, near the periphery, in areas 12 where it was felt that there would be a large amount of fuel on 13 the bottom, and areas where there would not be. ( 14 (Slide) 15 A listing again of the things that we'd find. 16 Temperature, actual mechanical properties, evidence of chemical 17 and thermal attack. 18 And then general metallographic studies for 19 temperature gradient, microstructures, and interactions between 20 the molten core of the vessel. t 21 And then the mechanical property determinations. 22 (Slide) 23 Here is listed the kinds of places we'll be looking. 24 (Slide) 25 A reminder for you. The core damage is believed to l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 v y.-vre--g-1 ,*r.- ,-g 3 7----- w w r-g----,ww,--w_,-,---,--...-,rwy.--+---m._v-w.- .r, 4. y - - -,_ _,, --,-,--m------m. r
20 r -r. ("* 1 be in this general form. 2 (Slide) 3 And we will be looking at specimens to_be taken from 4 the bottom. 5 (Slide) 6 Here is a cross sectional view elevation, and we will 7 be taking specimens in the regions near the penetrations and in 8 some cases, at the penetrations. J (Slide) 10 Looking down at the core from the top, we have this 11 map and we have determined the places where we wish to look. 12 (Slide) 13 Looking again from the top down upon the lower 14 portion, there is a core support assembly consisting of several 15 layers. And as a part of the defueling operation, they are 16 proceeding to cut through those layers of the core support 17 assembly. When they are through, they will see a series of 18 penetrations coming up through the bottom head and they will 19 see the bottom head at this point with a layer of debris over 20 it. 21 And it is after this debris is removed that we will 22 take the metallurgical specimens for examination. 23 (Slide) l 24 Another look at that elevation view in which you can 25 see what a penetration would look like, where the instruments {. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
~
- l 21
(- 1 have come through that were'used to tell the condition of the 2 core when the' reactor was first operating. 3 (Slide) 4 And an indication of the design of the-tool which 5 will be tested.to see if it is suitable for use in this ~* 6 operation. It's called a metals disintegrating machine, in 7 which an electrical arc spark will erode the immediately 8 adjacent metal. The tank will be full of water and the cutting 9 electrode will move slowly but steadily to the prescribed 10 depth. 11 As shown there, we have-two electrodes, one on each 12 side, which at this time are planned to work sequentially, and (- 13 then when the specimen is cut free, it will be lifted out for 14 the examination. 15 (Slide) 16 Now, a critical thing in this is to what kind of a 17 schedule are we working. As you see here, we felt to meet the 18 needs of the defueling and the reactor shutdown, we had to 19 place a contract by January 15th. We were successful in 20 placing this contract. 21 And all of the five steps I've described before, the 22 establishing of the equipment and the procedures, the testing 23 on the mock-up, the demonstration, the actual specimen removal, 24 and the removal of the specimens from the facility, our 25 contractor is committed to a schedule that will permit him to L Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
22 m '(, I meet the appropriate window, so that the defueling and-2 deactivation of the facility can proceed on schedule. 3 Those are the end of my prepared remarks. 4 Have you any questions? 5 MR. MORRIS: Any questions from the panel? 6 MR. SMITHGALL: Whose the contractor? 7 MR. VAN HOUTEN: MPR Associates, Incorporated. 8 MR. MORRIS: Is there any element of risk regarding 9 the integrity of the bottom of the reactor as these tests are 10 operated? I 11 MR. VAN HOUTEN: We believe that the mock-up testing 12 will provide the necessary reassurance that it is a sound 13 procedure. I<. 14 MR. MORRIS: But you are showing that the bottom is 15 five inches in depth and you will be gouging out some 2-1\\2 to 16 3 inches? Is that sketch accurate? Is that about the 17 tolerances you're talking about? 18 MR. VAN HOUTEN: That's it. At this point, we expect 19 no penetration to go in more than perhaps 3 inches, perhaps 20 less. 21 MR. MORRIS: And the five inches is a given? There's l* 22 no --? 23 MR. VAN HOUTEN: Five to 5-1\\2 inches. So there i 24 should be at least a 2-inch margin. 25 MR. MORRIS: And again just to pursue that, there's o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l 23 1 no, there shouldn't be any tolerance change in that 5 to 5-1\\2 2 inches? That's' consistent throughout? 3 MR. VAN HOUTEN: There's no' reason to believe that 4 the vessel is any thinner than that the wall thickness at any 5 point. 6 MR. MORRIS: Okay. 7 Panel members, any questions? 8 Tom? 9 MR. GERUSKY: Are there any other studies on the 10 reactor vessel that are going to be performed besides this one? 11 MR. VAN HOUTEN: At this point, examination of the 12 bottom head will after the reactor is defueled and the core baffle plates are removed and examined, that should be to my 13 i 14 knowledge the final step. 15 MR. GERUSKY: Are there any other universities or 16 agencies outside of NRC that are looking at this, I think, was c l 17 more to my point, rather than what NRC is going to do? 18 MR. VAN HOUTEN: There are several advisory l 19 committees, and of course, we have the assistance of, as I t l 20 said, some dozen countries. And their specialists will als; be ( l l 21 working with us. And when we are finished, we expect to 22 publish reports peer reviewed and archival literature en th.s. 23 MR. GERUSKY: Does the Regulatory Staff look at this 24 the same way they would look at any operation by GPU? 25 MR. VAN HOUTEN: There will have to be the same ( S 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 24 i i safety evaluation reports prepared and approved. 2 MR. SMITHGALL: Can I just ask again, MPR Associates, 3 who they are, and how did you select them, what's their 4 background? 5 MR. VAN HOUTEN: MPR Associates has a very successful 6 record in providing nuclear support. One of the gentlemen has 7 been called in as a special assistant to handle issues and 8 exar' Ttions at Three Mile Island, Mr. Noman Cole. And Mr. 9 Nc ' '- Cole was the one who performed the first examination with 10 the television cameras for the original determination of the 11 extent of core damage. Mr. Cole is the Project Engineer for 12 MPR on this work. {.. 13 MR. SMITHGALL: And how is this funded? 14 MR. VAN HOUTEN: At present, it is funded by a tax on 15 mort of the other research projects within the Office of 16 Research, but it is expected that about half of the funding 17 will be supplied by the foreign countries who are also 18 interested in seeing that this unique opportunity to learn is 19 properly evaluated. 20 MR. SMITHGALL: So half by NRR and half by outside 21 sources? 22 MR. VAN HOUTEN: Yes. 23 MR. MORRIS: Any other questions? 24 Is it normal for the NRC to be able to contract with 25 somebody to do work on the property of GPU? Is that a typical e i 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/ 25 1 sort of thing? I mean, it seems unusual that you are actually 2 contracting to have somebody else perform work on the reactor 3 itself. 4 MR. VAN HOUTEN: Our charter is to do research which 5 will provide us the ability to make independent assessment for 6 support of the nuclear regulatory activities for the safety of 7 the general citizenry. And it's viewed that it's important 8 that we get this set of information. And without our effort, 9 we have reason to believe that it would not be collected. 10 So this we believe falls well within our scope. 11 MR. MORRIS: So this is somewhat independer.t from GPU 12 is what you're saying? 13 MR. VAN HOUTEN: This is a research study in which we I 14 have asked for and so far we have received the cooperation of 15 GPU, and we expect to continue to receive cooperation. 16 MR. MORRIS: Good. 17 Any other questions that anybody has? 18 (No response) 19 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, sir, very much. 20 If I could, Frances and Eric, it seems like, 21 particularly Frances, and maybe I shouldn't assume this. Are 22 your comments going to be more closely aligned to Item 8? If 23 so, it may make sense to schedule you maybe in and around that 24 period of time, if that is what you'd like to do, 25 And Eric, I'm not sure -- 1 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26 1 (Individual replies off mike -- inaudible) .2 MR. MORRIS: Are you picking this up at all? 3 THE REPORTER: No, it's not on the record, whatever 4 he_said. If he'll move forward to the microphone, he can 5 repeat it-for the record. i 6 MR. MORRIS: Well, let me just say from what I think 7 I heard, it may be just as well, Eric, unless you have problems 8 with this, in inviting you to come up right before Item 5 which 9 is public comment, and y9u can cover those parts that you're 10 referring to at that time. 11 Okay, the next item, Item No. 4, is the TMI Public 12 Health Fund Document on Radiation Monitoring at Nuclear Plants 13 by a private citizen, William Kirk, from Radiation Physics, f 14 Incorporated. 15 Mr. Kirk, it's great to have you back. You're in a 16 little different kind of a role that you play today, but you 17 don't look any different. 18 MR. KIRK: It took me six weeks to get used to not 19 answering the telephone, EPA. I wasn't expecting to be back l 20 here in any role quite so soon other than perhaps as observer. I' 21 My friend and yours, Ken Miller, took off for 22 Australia as a representative of the Health Physics Society at 23 the International Radiation Protection Association meeting via 24 a couple of days in Hawaii and a couple of days in Hong Kong 25 coming back. I 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l. l l
27 .f 1 MR. MORRIS: Some jealousy here, Bill? 2 MR. KIRK: Might say a tad of that. 3: Mike called ne last week to ask me, knowing that I 4 had looked over these documents a little bit, all two thousand 5_ and some pages of them, if I would fill in for him. It took me 6 a half a day to find the thing. I had it buried in a box in 7 the back of my office where I'd hoped never to see it again. 8 But I got it out and reread it. Compared the final document to 9 the last draft which I had reviewed in some detail, and got 10 some comments on it. 11 The genealogy of this thing's a little complex. As 12 you all know, there was a grant placed by the Public Health 13 Fund with the Natural Resources -- what the heck is the name of (- 14 that thing -- Museum of Natural History in Philadelphia, Ruth 15 Patrick -- Academy of Natural Sciences, excuse me, to study the 16 monitoring program at Three Mile Island. She had a co-17 investigator, Dr. John Palm from Emory and a number of l 18 assistants in it from different institutions, i 19 Along about mid-summer, the report from this research l, 20 effort, or a draft of it was brought to the Citizens Advisory l 21 Committee on Monitoring that the Public Health Fund had caused l 22 to be created in the Harrisburg area which constituted about 23 twelve local citizens of various backgrounds. There's farmers, 24 teachers, union members, newspaper editor, there's a bishop, 25 Ken Miller is a momber of that Committee. I was invited to r i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
) 28 1 attend some of their meetings, so I did get some of the 2 background on what was going on. 3 In August, this original draft was presented to the 4-Committee. It conotitutes approximately 1200 pages. Contains 5 a wealth of good scientific information in the Appendices. The 6 document itself tends to be confusing. I was confused going 7 through it. And I'm sure anyone that did not have a scientific 8 background would have been thoroughly confused. 9 The Citizens Committee asked the Public' Health Fund 10 if they could have created the generic equivaleht.of an 11 executive summary so that ordinary people could read it in 12 perhaps 50 or 60 pages and understand what was going on. The 13 idea at that time was that this would be done by the authors of i 14 the report. 15 For some reason or other, they were not available to 16 do it. So the Public Health Fund, with John Berger as an 17 editor, under the direction of the Public Health Fund 18 Scientific Advisory Board, wrote at least three drafts, getting 19 down from the 1200 pages to the current 140 or so that we have. 20 In the process, well the last draft which I reviewed 21 was October 1987. It incorporated a lot of material that had 22 not been included in the original Patrick Palm report, and 23 there were some substantial changes in the tone or emphasis 24 from the original report. 25 There was a lot of material that came from work done i Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 t
29 1 in a parallel study to the Patrick Palm study by Bert Franke 2 from the Institute of Energy and Environmental Resources in 3 Heidelberg. He had, I understood, reported separately to the 4 Public, Health Fund perhaps a year ago, and that report had not 5 been released. I understand about a week or two ago, a version 6 of his work was released. I have not had an opportunity to 7 look at it so I don't know what was in it. 8 In November, the Philadelphia Academy of Natural 9 Sciences released their original report. And in December, the 10 Public Health Fund rele?.ed the report we're telking about. So L 11 we have two, three documents on the street right now dealing 12 with monitoring at Three Mile Island. 13 I reviewed the October draft of the Public Health ( 14 Fund report, having looked at the original Patrick Palm report, 15 the last time I'd looked in some detail at it, was a little bit 16 like watching, let's say, an hour and a half movie on a 1500 17 page war epic written by a retired general, after it had gone 18 through a couple translations, condensed down to 300 pages, and 19 then beginning written into a screen play by three pacifists. 20 It was a complete change in emphasis and a lot of 21 detail got left out. Some of that detail was better left out. 22 Some of the detail I think would have been better included. 23 Anybody that really wants a detailed summary of what was left 24 out will have to go back to the original Patrick Palm report to 25 get it. t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w 3 -.we---yw--- e--ymmtp =-,.-+-y ew-+---...-,--------m
- ,r--~4
--c -,y
7y w-m--S w--
g-
30 in 1 MR. MORRIS: Whose writing your stuff these days, 2 Bill? I 3 MR. KIRK: Strictly original. 4 VOICE: Larry Speakes. l 5 MR. KIRK: I submitted 16 pages of comment on this 6 report, about 10 or 12 major concerns I had,.and something like i 1 7 211 specific comments. They neatly got rid of about 73 of the 8 specific comments by eliminating the glossary which had been in I 9 the last draft. That was 30 pages better off out of the 10 recort. 11 They chan-ed in the las+ draft taere was no 12 indication of who was really responsible for the report in its 13 current form. The Public Health Fund Advisory Board has taken ( 14 specific responsibility for the additions and changes that are 15 in the report, and in most cases, they have noted where they 16 disagreed with the original authors in changing the 17 recommendations. 18 Most of the rest of my generic comments on the thing 19 still applied. 20 Dr. Bernd Kahn at the Georgia Tech and I got specific 21 mention for extensive review. I have discussed the document as 22 it exists with him. Incidentally, it was six weeks after it 23 was published before either of us got a copy of it in the final 24 form. Neither of us want our names in here to be considered as 25 an endorsement of the contents. !~ t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t 31 1 1 There are some things in there that we consider to be 2 good ideas, and there are a lot of things in there that we 3 wouldn't consider to be good ideas. 4 So to specifics, there's still some inconsistency 5 between the major recommendations that are made by the Public 6 Health Fund and the discussion of-the questions back in the 7 text. There are a lot fewer of them than there were in the 8 last draft, and infinitely fewer than there were in the first 9 draft. 10 Some of the recommended improvements are already'part 11 of the existing program as I know it. I found difficulty going 12 through this report trying to figure out what was a generic 13 statement of what should be in a monitoring program and what 14 was a failing on the part of the TMI program, you know, 15 according to the findings of the investigators. 16 I think they have greatly understated the costs 17 associated with implementing the new program. They've given 18 costs for the new in-plant monitoring as between I think it's 19 something like 59 and $11 million to implement and about $1.5 20 million to implement the additional environmental monitoring 21 program. 22 No costs were given for the changes or implementation 23 in the data communications, the monitoring ena effects, or the 24 those are the two that there were no costs at all given. 25 I can't comment to any great detail on the in-plant ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
q 32 i 1 program because I don't know it in near the detail that I do 2 the external program. 3 There were several. things that I did note, one being 4 there's an ~ item saying for discharge lines containing 11gulds 5 with radionuclide concentrations requiring dilution prior to 6 release insure that the on-line monitor provides a signal for 7 automatic termination of effluent discharge. From some 8 documents I've seen from TMI, I'm sure that such.a device 9 already exists. 10 Someone that knows more about the in-plant monitoring 11 will have to comment on the desirability of some of the changes 12 and in the -- for the costs. One of the things I did notice i 13 for the costs in both cases they gave an implementario., cost (' 14 for putting a system in, but they did not consider the 15 operating costs as you know additional operating costs. And 16 probably more importantly, they didn't consider the fact that 17 most of these systems have a life span very much less than the 18 life span of the plant itself. And there should be 19 consideration given to the fact that every five to ten years, 20 they're going to have to be replaced. 21 On the other hand, one would expect some of the sort 22 of recommendations that are in this report to take place as an 23 evolving program within the plant. As something wears out and 24 needs to be replaced, the next generation will be put in place. 25 In a number of places, or several places, the i i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
!y-33 1 original authors had indicated there was room for improvement, 2 but that the plant was well within the existing NRC 3 regulatione. 4 The Public Health Fund Advisory Board chose to 5 challenge the NRC requirements for those particular areas and 6 state them as a deficiency that needed to be improved or 7 corrected, which may well be. I don't know if this.is the 8 place for it. It probably should be in an NRC hearing of some 9 sort. 10 In the environment, I noted there would be an 11 enormous increase in the number of samples collected and the 12 number of analyses done. I suspect it would cost on the order 13 of twice as much as the existing program to be able to f 14 implement them and run them. 15 A couple things that I have some particular problems 16 with are the implementation of routine noble gas monitoring. 17 As you know that we went through this at some detail, both the 18 GPU and EPA conduct 0d noble gas monitoring programs for a long 19 time. And they conduct such programs around the test site in 20 Las Vegas. 21 The main problem with them is, if you don't have a
- ~
22 reasonably large release, you're not getting much bang for your 23 buck. You're spending a lot of money and it's a very witchy 24 analysis that takes a lot of technician time and sampling time, 25 and you don't get near the amount of information you could by f i Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4888 t
34 1 improving the stack monitoring methodology and getting the 2 information at the point of release, rather than trying to get 3 it in the environment. 4 The increase in the sentry remote gamma reading 5 devices, I have several considerations here. One, the 6 comparison that was given indicating that the existing system 7 would miss a lot of information used an amount of iodine as its 8 standard of about 10 millicuries which is maybe five percent or 9 so which may be given to a single individual in a medical 10 procedure, and it's about one-third of what an individual's 11 allowed to walk out of the hospital with having in his body, to 12 put it into the environment in any way, shape or form. If you 13 move up to 50 millicuries, the largest part of that problem ( 14 largely disappears if you look at the curves that are in the 15 report. 16 I'm probably responsible for the fact they put in it 17 should be by satellite, that the data should be collected by 18 satellite, stemming from the problems that both GPU and EPA had 19 with getting data transmitted back by telephone from these 20 remote units. Neither I nor I doubt, I'm almost positive that 21 the Public Health Fund doesn't have a clue on how much this 22 would cost. I know that EPA is doing this sort of thing around 23 the test site in Nevada as a piggyback to a forest service 24 network that's being paid for by somebody else. I don't know 25 what the cost would be. They were not considered in the 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
35 1 implementation here. 2 The original costs of the sentry units that were put 3 in between the two systems were of the order of perhaps between 4 S500,000 and $700,000, so you'd be looking at two to three 5 times that plus the costs of putting satellite on to it. 6 MR. MORRIS: Bill, let me take a minute and stop you 7 here, if I may. 8 I'm going to take you to issue on costs. I mean, we 9 started this whole ball game with GPU at $600 million cost for 10 the clean up and it ballooned to a billion dollars. I guess, 11 but I'm looking at here -- nnd you're familiar with this and 12 this is right in your ball park -- but I would think that there 13 may be a method or a gaining of experience or a long term i 14 knowledge base that could be gained from this that could be 15 expanded to maybe a national model for monitoring nuclear power 16 plants. It could be a standard that could be used so that the 17 battle doesn't have to be fought here in South Central 18 Pennsylvania and then in North Carolina, and then down in Texas 1 19 again. 20 But to take this apart just because of cost, the 21 clean-up wouldn't have happened if we were going to say, hey, 22 the costs are ballooning from $600 million to a billion, hey, 23 we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing. 24 But you can see my point. 25 MR. KIRK: Well, I think we have a big difference, if ( Heritage Peporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
36 ( 1 you'll excuse me. The clean-up had to be -- 2 MR. MORRIS: I understand there's a difference -- 3 MR. KIRK: -- done. 4 MR. MORRIS: -- but to take it apart because of costs 5 and attack it because of that, I-think is grossly simplifying 6 what's trying to be accomplished. Now, I'm not a total 7 supporter of the Public Health Fund and what has been done. 8 But you know to take apart a desire to have long term 9 environmental monitoring because it might cost too much I think 10 over simplifies it. 11 MR. KIRK: I think there's an optimum amount that we 12 can spend on monitoring. I think that perhaps this has (, 13 exceeded it. To give you an idea where I'm coming from -- 14 MR. MORRIS: I'll allow that, but 15 MR. KIRK: -- from where I'm coming from, I looked up 16 some numbers a couple months ago before I got out of EPA and 17 when I was still really worried about this. 18 The average power reactor in the United States is 19 responsible for three to five person-rems of exposure from 20 routine operation per year. The cost of the program at TMI as 21 it exists now, which is held by this document to be grossly 12 deficient, is about $2.25 million per year. The documents 23 that, the various risk estimates that are used range between 24 one and ten per ten thousand persons-rem, one being what the 25 NRC would have used eight or ten years ago, and ten being what f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L 37 i! 1 the Public Health Fund used in this document. 2 If you push these numbers through, we're spending 3 'between S400 million and S4 billion to monitor the amount of 4 radiation that-might cause one death. As a taxpaying citizen 5 and as a scientist whose interested in a lot of competing 6 risks, I wonder _in my mind how much we can justify spending for o 7 this increment of safety, knowing that it is taking out of the 8 general power of resources we as a society have to spend. 9 Is there something we.can do with that amount of 10 money that will cause a greater increment in public health for 11 a lot less money. That's the only reason I bring up cost. I 12 recognize that this can be used as a research program. In 13 fact, one of the comments I intended to make was, both in the 14 original Patrick report and in this report, there's a failure 15 to differentiate between monitoring and pathways research. 16 Monitoring being something that you can get a number 17 back that tells you how much of which isotope was where and 18 when in the environment. The safety net program that's in 19 there basically consists of a flock of things that are not 20 calibratable, at least at this point in time. We don't have 21 enough information to calibrate them. So their use in the o 22 environment is research. Until such time as you can come up 23 with a number of how many picocuries per liter there was in the 24 water this stuff was sitting in, or in the air that the lichens 25 were growing in. (t' Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
38 1 We don't need something to tell us that there's 2 radioiodine in the Susquehanna River. It's there all the time. 3 It's just a question of how much are you willing to spend to b 4' get to what level rensitivity to measure it. How low is it 5 worthwhile going. The systems'that are in place now go to 6 maybe two or three picocuries per liter in'the system that EPA 7 was using, now being done by the Hershey Medical Center. 8 Some of the samples the GPU is taking goes down to a 9 sensitivity.of a tenth of a picocurie per liter. It's just a 10 question of how much water you want to process through to 11 separate out the iodine in it to analyze it. We know it's 12 there, and will be there as long as the medical profession is 13 using radiciodion in the treatment of patients. ( 14 .R. MORRIS: Bill,.is there any other comments, M 15 general comments you want to make regarding the report? 16 MR. KIRK: Yes. Well, I would say there's one good 17 thing I liked, one thing I really liked about the thing was the 18 computerization of the data, computerizing both the 19 environmental and the in-plant data with the caveat that the 20 whole thing be done in duplicate. That you have two totally l 21 complete computer systems that are alternately used so the one l l 22 can back-up to avoid a computer crash losing your whole data 23 base. Carolina Power and Light Company in Raleigh is using a 24 system like that around the Shearon I.arris plant. t 25 The one thing that I think is particularly bad -- I 'l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
39 ? I hesitate to say it in this manner -- I don't think that the ~ 2 population end points that they're recommending be studied are 3 appropriately studied by an organization associated with the 4 power plant or created de novo for this purpose. I think it's 5 a function of the State Health Deoartment to maintain the 6 appropriate number of registries and data banks to be able to 7 do this sort of study for all technologies, not just 8 specifically aimed at a reactor. 9 When we get right down to it, an operating reactor 10 doesn't release as many carcinogens as a number of other 11 industrial facilities. You really should be looking at the 12 whole picture, not just aiming at one. 13 MR. MORRIS: Does that conclude your formal comments? 14 MR. KIRK: I think so. 15 MR. MORRIS: I realize there's probably a whole 16 wealth of information there that you can cover, but there may 17 be questions. 18 Are there any questions from the panel? Let me ask 19 that. 20 MR. RICE: I have a question, Art. 21 What is your overall opinion of the complete study? 22 MR. KIRK: Scientifically, I liked the original 23 document better. It was hard to read, it was confusing, but it 24 had more good science in it. As it exists,. it's, I think it 25 may be a good place to start talking, but where fou go, these f t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
40 1 are the ideas'of one group of people and these are the ideas of 2 another, and some negotiation to decide where you go in 3 between. 4 I would not personally endorse or try to put the 5 plan, as it's written, into effect at a power plant. There are. 6 parts of it that I would. 7 MR. RICE: Well, as a former County Commissioner of 8 Dauphin County, I was put on the spot to spend more money to up 9 grade or, recommend the up-grading of the monitoring system-at 10 Three Mile Island. And I studied the monitoring system 11 personally. And I talked to Dr. Ruth Patrick on the telephone 12 a year or so ago, and she assured me that the program was 13 adequate that was in force. And I really believed that because t* 14 of the number of readings that we have and in view of the 15 overall program. 16 And now I doubt whether we really have an adequate 17 system. But how do we evaluate whether we got our money's 18 worth, where does the public stand, and where do we go from 19 here. These are the kind of questions that I have. I still 20 have an obligation to the new commissioners, so where do I get 21 these kind of answers? 22 MR. KIRK: Well, I think there are perhaps several 23 thinga here. One, if your objective is to get from Harrisburg 24 to H.:rshey, there are a number of ways of doing it. Assuming 25 yau get in a vehicle, you have anything from the choice of a i r i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
41 (*"% 1 Yugo to a Rolls Royce.- All of them will-get you there. It's 2 dependent on how much comfort and how many luxuries you have 3 with it. 4 Personally, I think the main function of an 5 environmental monitoring program is to have the sampling, 6 samplers and what not in place operating in case something 7 happens at the plant. I frankly don't give a damn what the 8 data comes out in between. I don't think they really matter a 9 whole lot. 10 If you did have an accident, a serious Chernobyl type 11 thing, not the type that happened at Three Mile Island, you 12 could without serious error assume that nothing was there 13 beforehand in calculating dose effects, because the numbers (", 14 would go up so high so fast that the little bit of each isotope 15 that is in the environment from fallout and previous operations 16 would be negligible. 17 Obviously, I don't agree. I in jest one time called 18 this thing the 1987 Full Employment Act for Radiation 19 Ecologists. I think what's there with a few, comparatively few 20 changes is adequate fer the purpose. I think normal 21 evolutionary change will up grade these things, you know, as 22 time goes on, like computers have been and electronic 23 equipment. I mean, when I first fooled with a computer, a 24 little thing that handled 20,000 bytes took up a room that was 25 almost 20 feet long and 12 feet wide. i i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I i 42 ,m ~' 1 I now carry a lot more than that around in my pocket. 2 And you.can get megabytes on a little thing that sits on your 3 desk. I think what happens in these systems.is you get to the-4_ point where the cost of maintenance and the difficulty of 5 keeping.them operational gets so great, you decide they've got 6 to go and you replace them with something new. 7 MR. MORRIS: If I could at this time, unless there's 8 another quick question, I'm just aware of the time. 9 Bill, I do appreciate the fact that you on your own 10 time reviewed the document and came here and made this 11 presentation. We thank you for it. I know that Ken Miller I 12 had been asked and as you said, he was either heading out of 13 town, or he was out of town. And so we appreciate your being 14 with us today and making the presentation. l 15 Thank you very much. i 16 At this point, it takes us onto Public Comment, and I 17 as I indicated a few minutes ago, I was going to see if Eric [ 18 ' wanted to be the first person up to make whatever comments he'd 19 like. And I think he indicated he may have a couple of ( 20 questions, as well. I 21 MR. EPSTEIN: I would just say briefly that if we're 22 going to discuss monitoring in the future I think it would be a 23 good idea to invite Dr. Patrick or somebody from the Natural e 24 Academy of Sciences which is an extremely prestigious 25 institution. I really take issue with Dr. Kirk's presentation. ( f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
43 1 I'm at a loss for words. I was unaware that anybody in the 2 scientific community didn't consider Three Mile Island a major 3 accident. I don't know what it's considered now. 4 But I think Dr. Franke or somebody from his 5 organization should be called upon to talk about monitoring, as 6 well. That's just a brief aside, and it's an extremely 1 7 partisan issue. 8 I have two requests: one for GPU and one for the NRC. 9 And the reasons why these might seem a little out dated is 10 because the evaporation has taken up so much of our time in 11 recent months. But the first, and I'd like to as GPU if the 12 results from the study, and I quote, "various options for 13 decontaminating the reactor building basement" are available. 14 On the status report. issued September 28, 1987, they 15 said it would be out soon. So I would ask the Utility if those 16 results are available, if they could make a copy available to 17 the Three Mile Island Alert and the Susquehanna Valley 18 Alliance. 19 MR. STANDERFER: We do provide a monthly report. 20 MR. MORRIS: They'll want to know your name, sir. 21 MR. STANDERFER: Frank Standerfer from GPU. Tom 22 Gerusky gets that monthly report. That information is included 23 in that in a monthly basis. 21 MR. MORRIS: Could you stand a little closer to the 25 mike, Frank? t hs '< e' [d}3 - Heritage Reporting Corporation ,?e (202) 628-4888
q _(,~ 44 1 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. The monthly report that we do 2 _put out includes that progress on a monthly progress report 3 basis. The actual reports of this work-that come out in 4-detailed technical reports which do follow the work by six 5 months to a year. 6 MR. EPSTEIN: There's my misunderstanding. I thought g there was a report or some kind of a report that drew together 7-8 all the information on the various options for decontaminating 9 the reactor building basement. I didn't realize it was an on-i 10 ' going study. But if that's the case, I'm wondering, Frank, if 11 it's possible to get some of that information. 'T 12 I mean, if.it's in Tom's office, it's not -- 13 MR. STANDERFER: I guess I'm not familiar with what ( 14 you're talking about other than plans we put in place to finish 4 15 the basement cleaning. l t l 16 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I'm drawing this from a TMI-2 17 Status Report issued by the NRC. I mean, I can produce the 18 report for you maybe during the break and clarify the issue. 19 MR. STANDERFER: Maybe we can talk after on the 20 break. 21 MR. EPSTEIN: Fine. Okay. 22 Secondly, I wondered for the NRC if the PEIS on GPU's 23 post-defueling monitored storage program is available, if 24 that's out yet? 25 MR. MORRIS: They indicated that it would be printed l' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
45 1 and available I believe in the early part of May, the first 2 week in May is what I had heard. And if I'm incorrect, please, 3 .somebody yell. It's out to printing and it will be printed 4 late in April and it should be mailed out in May, at least to 5 the panel member. You may need to make a request directly for 6 a copy of it. 7 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I'd like to save a stamp since 8 they're at an exorbitant price right now, and ask if TMI 9 Alliance and Susquehanna Valley Alliance could receive a copy 10 of that, or have it mailed? 11 MR. MASNIK: Eric, you will receive a copy when it's 12 mailed out to the panel and everyone else. 13 FR. EPSTEI!It Okay. I just want to amplify a request J i 14 in a public: forum. 15 I had two questions. I don't know if the g9ntleman 16 from DOE is still here? 17 MR. MORRIS: He is. 18 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. We are in contact with several 19 organizations and individuals throughout the country who are l 20 concerned about the waste. And I was wondering, there are 21 still unresolved issues that weren't addressed. 22 For instance, I was under the impression that Senator 23 Danforth and other people were concerned that exploration was 24 being done to find an alternative waste transportation route. 25 I wonder if that's under investigation, if they've found an f s l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ~ c----- ,---,-m-+n-~-
1 alternative, or if.that's not under investigation. 2 The other problem from what I understand is the 3 legality of the agreement with DOE about them accepting all of. 4 the waste. 5 He didn't deal with those issues, and-I-wonder if 6 those issues are resolved', or are not going to be dealt with. 7 MR. MCGOFF: On the first question, the Senator did 8 ask that we look at alternative shipping routes. We are'doing 9 that in parallel with the continuation of the shipping program. 10 And your second question, sir, I'm sorry? ,11 MR. EPSTEIN: The second question is over the 12 legality of the DOE agreement? I mean, the concern that people 13 have is that if you're doing research on the fuel, why do you i' 14 need to take 99 percent of it. Now, obviously, I would like to 15 have the waste off the Island, but this was a concern that 16 Senator Danforth and people throughout the country have, is if 17 the agreement with DOE and GPU is in fact legal? 18 MR. MCGOFF: It is legal. We are taking all of the 19 waste because quite frankly, we're not smart enough to know 20 which 10 or 15 percent of the waste we want to examine 21 ultimately. If the waste is in storage at the Idaho 22 laboratory, we can pull it out, look at it. If it's back here, 23 we can't. But there's no question about the legality. It's P 24 been checked by a general counsel. 25 MR. EPSTEINr Your general counsel? I rt i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 P .m..
47 1 MR. MCGOFF: E.? s. 2 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. All right. Well, I think there 3 still may be a question, but I'm not going to pursue it. 4 Is it-possible though at some point that that waste 5 might be reshipped somewhere else when there's a permanent 6 waste site relocated in the country? 7 MR. MCGOFF: Yes. The storaga at Idaho is for 30 0 8 years. It will be shipped to a permanent repository when one's 9 identified and ready. 10 MR. EPSTEIN: And just one more question. Not for 11 you. 12 MR. MORRIS: Sure. Just a side comment. I certainly 13 hope that the agreement between DOE and GPU continues and that 14 you can take all the waste from the Island. 15 MR. MCGOFF: Well, this whole matter was the subject 16 of a General Accounting Office study last year, and the GAO 17 found no problems whatsoever with our arrangements. 18 MR. MORRIS: Well, I hope that nobody does. We'd 19 like to see the fuel moved from the Island. 20 MR. EPSTEIN: All right, the last question, and I 21 have comments for the evaporator, but concerning GPU, I know at 22 Unit 1, I was wondering if they would comment on allegations 23 that the Director of the polar crane was unqualified, that some 24 procedural requirements were deleted, and that this arrangement 25 has serious safety implications regarding individuals working ( i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f 48 ,(i 1 out of their job description. 2 And I know this incident occurred at Unit l but is 3 - there any reason to believe that this type of activity is not 4 taking place at Unit 2 in regard to the polar crane, having 5 people. working out of job description, that might cause health 6 and safety problems, e 7 I was wondering if Frank could comment quickly on 8 that? 9 MR. MORRIS: Frank? It's easier, Frank, if you could 10 come up to the' front here and use this mike. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. STANDERFER: I 'ni not familiar with the point on 13 Unit 1. I just don't keep track of Unit 1. And I'm not aware 14 of any indication that the people running my polar crane in 15 Unit 2 have an qualification problems. 16 MR. EPSTEIN: Would it be too much to ask if it were 17 possible if I sent you the document just to look at it? It's 18 just a page or two. 19 MR. STANDERFER: The Unit 1 question? 20 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes? t 21 MR. STANDERFER: If you send them into the Island, j 22 I'm sure we will answer it, f i-l 23 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. I 24 That's all the questions I had. 25 I do have a comment which I'd like to present later k 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 s + wry-
- w,
-.,e_em--v..,_mmy.,,,,,,-,-y-,.y-..yy.mm--,y,e,,-,,,-,.yyppy-w, m y w y y m y,- %-we +,.r-, ,-ew,_,<
49 r 1 concerning the evaporator dilemma. 2 MR. MORRIS: Okay, and there will be an opportunity 3 after the presentation for you to do that, Eric. 4 Thank you. 5 Is there any other public comment at this time? 6 Yes? Would you please come to the front and ask 7 them? 8 I am going to ask again that if you could possibly-9 keep within the five minute period, it would be great. 10 Mr. Kirk, if you want.to join us up here, it might 11 make it easier. 12 MS. STUCHINSKI: My name is Vera Stuchinski with 13 Three Mile Island Alert. i' 14 I was just wondering, were you studying the Patrick 15 and Palm report as an independent advisor or are you here 16 representing the Public Health Fund? 17 MR. KIRK: I'm here as a favor to Mike Masnik and the 18 panel I had read the thing back in the mid-summer when I was 19 with EPA. 20 MS. STUCHINSKI: I had a couple of comments here. 21 One, I'd like to reiterate what Eric said about the fact that i 22 the public needs to have a meeting with the investigators, 23 Patrick Palm and Franke. It seems to me that there was 24 approximately $600,000 spent for Patrick and Palm? Somewhere 25 in that neighborhood. And $200,000 on Franke. Is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 4 50 1 So we're talking about a million dollars was spent on l 2 studies that don't appear to be useful to the public. We do 3 not hear from the principal investigators. We keep hearing 4 summaries. It's very frustreting that a million dollars went 5 down the tubes that way. 6 I think a mill.on dollars could surily have been used 1 7 to upgrade some of the monitoring around the Island. It's l 8 frustrating also for the puolic to hear that these studies have 9 been done at great length and great expenso, that there were 10 recommendations made and the fact that many of them are 11 rejected because of the cost factor. 12 The other item I wanted to mention was the Franke 13 study. I was hoping that everyone was aware of how difficult (- j 14 it was to get that released. The Franke report I understand 15 was ready more than a year ago to be published. The Public I 16 Health Fund had some problems with it. But they had to be 17 compelled actually by a Court Ordor by Judge Rambo to release 18 the document. 19 Even after the Court ordered that the Franke study be 20 released, the Public Health Fund released their own summary of 21 the study, and then released portions of the study. And they 22 continued to withhold the entire report until Judge Rambo 23 ordered that the waiting period was up, that they had no more 24 excuses to make, that they did have to submit the entire study. 25 It's very difficult for members of the public to hear Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'.. o 1 51 1 this sort of information and not feel that there is definitely 2 some stonewalling going on, that all this money was spent for 3 show. 4 Again, I'd like to ask the panel if there's anyway 5 that you can. I think the public deserves something more-than 6 just continued bits and pieces of summaries of reports. I 7 think we reelly need to hear from the individuals who conducted 8 the reports. 9 MR. KIRK: I can give one comment on that. And I 10 know the Citizens Advisory Panel, on the monitoring, tried a 11 number of times.to get Ruth Patrick and John Palm at their 12 meeting with no success. I could probably fill an hour with 13 hearsay on what went on but I don't have any specific (' 14 information of my own on it. 15 The only place you're going to get information on 16 that is going to be from the investigators themselves, or from 17 the Public Health Fund. They're the only two groups that 18 really know. 19 MS. STUCHINSKI: Well, I understand also that Patrick 20 and Palm distanced themselves from the Public Health Fund 21 summary, saying that the summary did not adequately reflect ~ 22 their findings. 23 MR. KIRK: Did not adequately reflect their report or 24 their views, yes, that was published. 25 MS. STUCHINSKI: So the whole thing's just become a ( t Heritar,e Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
52 1 very frustrating mess. 2 Do we have any suggestions from the panel on how to 3 better'get information? 4 MR~. MORRIS: Well, I t't know. 5 Does Tom Gerusky have any thoughts at c11 on it at 6 all? 7 MR. GERUSKY: No, but I believe Commissioner Rice 8 does. 9 MR. RICE: What more action can be taken than going 10 to the courts? Are you satisfied with Judge Rambo's decisions? 11 MS. STUCHINSKI: I'm satisfied now. I think it's 12 just incredible that the Public Health Fund had to face 13 contempt of court charges before they'd release it. yes, I am. ( 14 And I know the documents are there for publication. 15 But what we need to know, how was the money spent to 16 help citizens in the area if the information is not really 17 readily available. We need I think some agent. I would hope 18 it would be local officials, some individuals who have a little 19 more power than citizens in a volunteer organization, to get 20 the information out. 21 MR. KIRK: A thought crossed my mind I could run the 22 EPA program for three years on what was spent. That was back 23 when I was with EPA, of course. 24 MR. MORRIS: I wish I could offer you some thoughts 25 on it. At this point, I'm not in a position to, and I don't ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.I 53 1 know if anybody on the panel is. You're raising a point that I 2 think is very complex, and even Mr. Kirk comes here with all 3 the expertise he has and tries to analyze the one summary and 4 has really mixed reviews on it, how you put that in a language 5 that the public would feel comfortable hearing, it seems like 6 it's so full of conflicting information, some good, some bad, 7 that I don't know how you make sense out of it, quite honestly. 8 And I don't know how we could play a role to 9 summarize it so that the public would understand it better than 10 happened here this evening. 11 MS. STUCHINSK1: Well, I'd ask you, give it some 12 thought. I think it's worth keeping. I don't think it's worth 13 forgetting just because the reports are now finished. I would 14 hope that somehow or another, maybe with enough work, maybe 15 that something will be able to come through. 16 MR. MORRIS: Yes. It just seems to me that the 17 structure that was used in setting this whole effort up was 18 flawed and obviously did not have the checks and balances it 19 should have had. 20 MS. STUCHINSKI: I don't know what the vehicle is. 21 We're just still looking. 22 MR. GERUSKY: I can't answer your question concerning 23 how you could make it more available. We didn't get a copy of 24 the report, either, until about two weeks ago. It came in the 25 mail. And here's a copy for your information kind of thing. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
54 [ 1-But we have looked at it and have some of the same 2 criticisms that Dr. Kirk had, but there are some good ideas in 3 the report. And we are now discussing whether or not and how 4 we can implement those with the utilities so that, for example, 5 on-line monitoring system information can be fed directly to 6 our program instead of just to the utility. We're at the stage 7 electron.' lly that that can be done pretty easily with not too a. 8 much funding costs. 9 But some of these things are real research programs 10 and are not necessary or eveu desirable for routine 11 environmental monitoring. 12 MS. STUCHINSKI: How about the Franke study? Have 13 you ever received a copy of that? 1L 14 MR. GERUSKY: No. Not at all. 15 MS. STUCHINSKI: Would that be the responsibility of 16 the Health Fund or the -- 17 MR. GERUSKY: It's the Health Fund. 18 MS. STUCHINSKI: Would it help if we wrote to the 19 Health Fund and asked them to send a copy to your department? 20 MR. GERUSKY: No Because we have and we haven't s 21 received one. I just don't know bow to get them. 22 And we've written to Judge Rambo and have never 23 gotten responses. Maybe we can writ.e to the President who 24 appointed her. I don't know. 25 MS. STUCHINSKI: Okay. T1ank you, Mr. Gerusky. i i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4889
t 55 1 That's all. 2 MR. MORRIS: Thank.you. 3 Thank you, Mr. Kirk. 4 Is there-any other public comment at this time? 5 (No response) 6 MR. MORRIS: Okay, hearing none, we will take a ten 7 minute break and begin again at five of 9:00. 8 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 9 -MR. MORRIS: I'd like to begin the second part of the 10 meeting and we begin with the Status of Clean Up, provided by 11 the GPU staff headed by Mr. Frank Standerfer. 12 Hi, Frank. 13 MR. STANDERFER: I'm Frank Standerfer, Director of '(- 14 the TMI clean-up. I'll make a couple of comments, and then 15 I've got a series of-view graphs which you have a copy of there 16 in front of you and we'll show on the screen. Incidentally, 17 this screen set up is really I think excellent for both the 18 audience and the panel members. 19 We met with the NRC Conmission on March 17, 1988. It 20 was the Fourth Annual Meeting where we gave the Commission an 21 up-date of the status of the clean-up. My understanding from 22 Mike Masnik is that the panel members have our presentation 23 from that meeting. 24 I might say that in the meeting that we met with the 25 Commission a year ago in 1987, we encouraged the Commission to Is-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
56' 2 1 consider.the type of program that Dr. Van Houten discussed this 2 evening, because we believed there was some data that should be 3 obtained from the bottom of the vessel by the nuclear 4 community. 5 So GPU has supported that program for the last year. 6 And we are currently working closely with the NRC to make sure 7 the program is successful. And we actually will do some of the 8 work but we are not charging them the full cost of what it'll 9 cost us to do some of the work. 10 MR. MORRIS: So for the record, you're just 11 indicating that you are involved with some of that work? 12 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. And of course, we would not 13 allow them to do anything in our plant which we thought was 14 detrimental or unsafe. And we, as the licensee, will have to 15 take their program and submit it back to the other part of the 16 NRC from which we have to get approval from to do the program. 17 MR. MORRIS: Yes. That was the only point I was 18 trying to understand and he did not offer that you were going 19 to do any work, and he seemed to imply that you weren't 20 involved. 1 21 PR. STANDERFER: Yes. We will do some of the mock-up r 22 testing in our facilities for them at their direction. The 23 actual operators of the tools will be our people, but we will 24 allow them to supervise our people. So it's a joint effort. 25 MR. MORRIS: Thank you for clarifying that. Heritage Reporting. Corporation (202) 628-4888
e 57 1 (Slide) 2 MR. STANDERFER: Let me start with the production 3 curve. You've seen this curve several times. I'd just like to 4 make two points here. The first major activity in 1988 was the 5 cutting of the lower core' support structure with the core 6 drill. That was scheduled to take two months. We just U e -7 finished that a week ago, so we're almost two months'behind 8 schedule. 9 We are now preparing to finish the cutting with the 10 plasma arc cutting torch, which is the second activity. The 11 blue line projects that down, so right now, roughly are about 12 two months behind on this schedule. 13 Whether we'll make that up and finish the defueling 14 in October, or whether it'll be a couple of months late, I'm 15 not sure at the present time. Incidentally, the defueling at 16 the present time is not on the critical path to finishing the 17 clean-up in the PDMS about this time next spring. 18 We also made a fuel shipment last weekend. It is 19 that blip on the lower curve. We now have shipped 180,850 20 pounds of fuel. The last shipment was 21 canisters just like 21 the shipment that was made in February. But this shipment was 22 14 filters and several miscellaneous canisters that didn't 23 contain as much fuel. So while there was 21 canisters in both 24 those last two shipments, you can see there's a lot more weight 25 in the early shipment. But there were three casks filled with . k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
58 1 21 canisters. 7 (Slide) 2 3 The next chart shows what we'll be doing over the 4 next month of so. We finished cutting with the core bore 5 machine'on April 9th, we removed it'on April 10t. Between 6 April lith and April 24th, we're installing the. plasma arc 6 7 cutting system. It's an underwater arc cutting torch. We will 8 be checking that torch out the last week of this month. 9 Then we will follow that with removal of the pieces 10 of the lower core support structure which were produced by the 11 drilling machine. And I'll show you a picture of that a little 12 bit later. And with the cleaning of that material out, the I'3 next layer, which is the distributor plate, will be started to 14 be cut to the plasma arc cutting torch about the lith of May. 15 MR. MORRIS: Excuse me, Frank. I missed, you have 16 180,850 shipped. 17 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. 18 MR. MORRIS: The amount defueled? 19 MR. STANDERFER: 195,000 pounds. 20 MR. MORRIS: Still at 195,000. 21 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. If I was on schedule, I'd be 22 up on that dotted line there. 23 MR. MORRIS: Okay. I'm with you. Thank you. I 24 (Slide) 25 MR. STANDERFER: The next chart shows a diagram of f t. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1
59 .(- 1 where the fuel is in the vessel. Again, the top number is the 2 number defueled, 195,000 pounds. The core region, the A.and B 3 regions, and C region are essentially empty. 4 The lower core support structure, which is D, 5 contains about 27,000 pounds of fuel. And th'e bottom head, E, 6 contains a little over 60,000 pounds of fuel. 7 (Slide) 8 I want to talk a little bit about item D, which is 9 the lower core support structure. And the next view graph 10 shows that orange component, whien is the lower part of the 11 CSA, and it's fairly complicated structure. Ten feet in 12 diameter made up of five horizontal layers, and it's tied 13 together by S2 vertical instrument guides, and 48 support posts ,[ 14 at the top. 15 And I'll be showing you a number of charts on how 16 we're going to take it apart. But when it's half taken apart, 17 the top two layers will be removed, and it'll look like what 18 this shows. 19 (Slide) 20 Now, we're down to a thick 13-inch forging, and as we 21 cut that up with the plasma arc cutting torch, we will open up l* 22 a hole all the way to the lower head, and then the center 23 portion will be missing. And Dr. Van Houten showed a view 24 graph earlier looking at the lower head, and he was looking 25 through this hole. On the diagram, he said when they're done Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
60 1 defueling the vessel, we'll-look at the bottom head. And this. 2 is what he was looking through. 3 (Slide) 4 Let me now back up a minute and show you a 5 photograph. This photograph was taken-inside the reactor 6 vessel with a 33 millimeter camera, waterproofed. It had a 7 wide angle lens or a fish eye type lens. That's why it's 8 distorted slightly. But essentially views the entire core 9 support structure and all the fuel elements have been removed. 10 You see those boxes which hcve an X in them are those 11 that have instruments. So there's 52 that have the X's, and 12 that's called a spider. You see a little bit of debris beneath 13 this grid, which is lying on the next layer. ( 14 And this is the component that we've cut up with the 15 core boring machine. And let me show you how we've cut that 16 up. 17 (Slide) 18 The next view graph is a diagram of what we were just 19 looking at, and you can see there's 52 X's where the end cores 20 are shown. And the first thing we did with the core bore j 21 machine was drill those core instrument spiders away. 22 (Slide) 23 And the next view graph shows the diagram with those 24 52 spiders drilled away. I showed one in orange here to show 25 you what they looked like. 1:ow, actually each of those boxes (' i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 r
61 1 that have a' spider missing still has the end core sticking up 2 in the center of it like that little green dot, but I've left-3 them off to show you just what this component looks like. 4 The next task was to drill around the support posts 5 and those are the round circles, there's 48 of them, that hold 6 this component up and attach to the forging. 7 (Slide) 8 The next view graphs shows what the grid looks like 9 with those drilled out, and again, there's a little post in 10 each one of those drilled positions that looks like the green 11 circle, but is no longer attached to the grid itself. 12 (Slide) 13 And the next diagram shows the 16 cuts which were (- 14 made to finish detaching all of the parts of the core support 15 structure. And we now have a center piece about six feet 16 square and we have eight pieces that look like that little 17 smaller green circle, two on each side of the big square. Then 18 we have four of what we call H-pieces, which are that lower 19 piece, and a number of smaller pieces. 20 (Slide) 21 And when we lift those out, the next diagram shows 22 you what that looks like with the support posts and instruments 23 still sticking up through those holes but detached. 24 (Slide) 25 And the next diagram shows you the H-sections ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
62 o 1~ removed. 2 (Slide) 3 The next diagram shows the eight pieces on the sides 4 of the square removed. 5 (Slide) 6 And the next diagram shows the grid section which has 7 all of the center material removed. Now, again, that was all 8 done with the core bore machine. It exists that way today. And 9 we'll be removing those pieces at the end of the month. 10 (Slide) 11 When we look at the next layer, which is called the 12 distributor plate, it looks like this. There have been a 13 number of locations which we've drilled through it. Around / I 14~ each support-post, for example, those black circles, we drilled 15 through the grid, and then we drilled through this plate. And 16 we drilled through this and a number of the outside instrument 17 tube areas, but not the center instrument tube areas. 18 And when you remove those pieces that are sticking up 19 through the-holes, the actual piece looks like the next 20 diagram. L 21 (Slide) 22 And we will be cutting this with the plasma arc 23 cutting torch. And it has not been decided yet whether we'll 24 cut that up into four pieces or eight pieces, but basically we 25 will cut around the outside and then cut across the center to i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
63 [ 1 make it manageable pieces to pick it up. And that's the work 2 that'll be started in May. 3 What I've got now is a short video tape which again 4 gives you an idea of what some of this stuff looks like in-5 photographic form. 6 MR. MORRIS: How long a presentation? 7 MR. STANDERFER: Three minutes. 8 MR. MORRIS: Three minutes, thank you, Frank. 9 MR. STANDERFER: And then we talk evaporators. .Three 10 minutes on the video tape and then evaporators is the next. 11 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 12 MR. SMITHGALL: Frank, when was this? What's the 13 dating on that? / 14 MR. STANDERFER: That was taken in January, just 15 before the core bore machine was put on to begin cutting. 16 MR. SMITHGALL: Okay. 17 MR. STANDERFER: This is again that picture which you 18 just held up, this is a video of that same area. And we're 19 going to rotate around just so you'll see this on video. 20 Now, we're going to stop. You see, we really haven't 21 found any damage in this part of the reactor. There's only one 22 spot that's really damaged, and you'll see it here in a second. 23 There.. t is right there. 24 In the east section, this is where the material 25 flowed through the baffle plate and flowed to the bottom head, fs Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 h
.(,. 64 1 and that.one spot right there in the corner of the 177 fuel 2 assemblies, this was the only fuel assembly in that corner that 3 didn't lift out. We had to drill that.out. So there was 4 assembly that didn't lift out. We lifted 176 out, and that 5 last one right in the corner there is where the material flowed 6 down. So this shows you the damage. 7 And the point is, the assemblies have all been 8 removed. It looks pretty clean and we don't see any structural 9 damage. 10 This is the drilling machine mounted on top of the 11 rotating platform. They're installing one of the drills in 12 this picture, and then in a minute, you'll see it actually 13 rotating. And it's that center piece in the middle there that ,.i 14 actually grabs hold of the drill and rotates it. 15 There are three operators on the platform, I believe. 16 Down at the grid, in this particular cut, we're making one of 17 the last 16 cuts where we're cutting the grid, the final cuts 18 of the grid, and you see two fingers that center the drill at 19 the cross section, and then the drill comes down and starts to 20 cut. l 21 We're 30 feet underwater at this picture. That's a l l 22 six-inch diameter drill that has cutters mounted around the 23 outside, as you can see. It turns at about 50 revolutions per 24 minute. We'll get one, two, and sometimes three of these cuts 25 before we have to change the cutter. ( i 7 Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
65 1 In this case here, the drill was lifted up, and 2 you'll see about the first inch of the cut, there it is there, 3 that grid is five inches thick. We've cut through the first 4 inch and you can see the last four inches of the web just below ~ 5 the cut. And the drill was brought back in of course to finish 6 that cut. 7 MR. RICE: What's that grid composed of? What kind 8' of metal? 9 MR. STANDERFER: That's stainless steel. 10 MR. RICE: Okay. 11 MR. STANDERFER: Now, we're looking at around one of 12 the end cores, and you can just see up at the right hand side, 13 that used to be continuous, and when we cut with our drill, we 14 had made that cut there. And you'll notice these cuts, as we '15 look at them, they look like they're done on a machine lathe in 16 a shop almost. They're really nice cuts. 17 We'll stop here in another minute. You can see 18 another edge of one of those cuts. Now, there's debris down in 19 that hole that fell in after we finished cutting. There's an 20 edge of another one of the cuts. You see that piece used to go l 21 all the way across. 22 Looking down at one of the end cores. Now, this is 23 what the grid looks like today, and you can see there's a 24 jumble of pieces that are there now. That's what it looks like 25 cut up, and those pieces are the pieces that we'll be removing Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
66-I and some are fairly small pieces, and of course, some are big 2 up to the center section which is six foot square. 3 This is one of the H-sections. It's the smallest of 4 the three bigger pieces that I showed you. We lifted it up and 5 lifted it out of the water briefly to measure the radioactivity. 6 'of it. It's activated stainless steel close to the core of the 7 activities, mainly cobalt 60, and we wanted to know, or verify 8 the radiation levels that we would encounter as we lift these 9 pieces out of the reactor vessel. 10 And so one of the things that's interesting there is 11 there's no fuel adhered to this stainless steel. It's 12 relatively clean. 13 That's all I really want to say about project status. j 1 14 I'll be glad to answer any questions. And then we could get 15 into the evaporator design description. 16 MR. MORRIS: Any questions on the presentation? 17 Just one? What was the reading in R per hour or 18 whatever on that piece? 19 MR. STANDERFER: Oh. It was in contact about 150 R 20 per hour on the top and about 100 R per hour on the bottom. As 21 you get just five inches away, it drops off pretty fast. And 22 of course when you get out, five, ten feet away, you're talking 23 less than one R per hour. So we aren't going to have any 24 trouble with people operating the cranes in the building, 25 moving these components. I s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t .,_,.._.,,,,,_._.7 ,-_-.e ,,,,v,
67 i. 1 I can send you-a curve if you're interested. 2-MR. ROBINSON: Yes, I would be interested. 3 MR. STANDERFER: I will. g 4 MR. MORRIS: Okay, Frank. Would you proceed then 5 into the next item, which is Item 8, Accident Generated Water 6 Evaporator Preliminary fystem Description? 7 MR. STANDERFER. Yes. 8 You have one of the system design descriptions I 9 think we provided to the panel earlier, and then we provided 10 you one this evening, if you hadn't had it with you. 11 (Slide) 12 And in that description, there is a system diagram of 13 the evaporator system, and its pretty busy. And what I've done ( 14 is broken it down into its functional parts. And I'll come 15 back to that diagram slightly different. 16 (Slide) 17 But the water goes through a feed system that .18 delivers the water to the evaporator. It is evaporated in the 19 evaporator, separated from the sodium borate and the majority 20 of the reactive material. And the condensate is condensed and l 21 is water again at this position right here. 22 (Slide) 23 That water then containing all of the tritium and a 24 very small amount of other radioisotopes then goes through 25 another section where it is evaporated and discharged up the l 4 t l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i L. '.
m (.. 68 1 100-foot tall stack. 2 (Slide) 3 The concentrated water goes down to another system 4 and there's another boiler down there that can evaporate it 5 again. The vapors can be introduced back into the evaporator. 6 And the more concentrated solids go into a drying system and 7 then a system which converts that to dry solid. And the result 8 is the material which we will ship to a low level waste burial 9 ground. 10 (Slide) 11 Going back to the more complicated diagram again, the 12 particular storage tank which we're pumping from goes down into 13 this smaller feed tank which is part of the evaporator system. fI 14 Is pumped from that, goes through a conductivity meter and a 15 sampling point. Is pumped into the evaporator. 16 And this is where it evaporates in the evaporator. 17 Goes up through a system to allow any entrained water or solids 18 to be washed out. The vapor then goes through a compressor 19 which'superheats it, and that goes back through the tubes of 20 the evaporator. 21 And actually the energy put into this compression 22 stage here by this 125 horsepower motor is the energy which 23 actually evaporates the incoming water. And it takes very 24 little other energy. So this is a regenerative system on an 25 energy basis. I ( i l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
69 (' 1-(Slide) 2 And this is that secondary evaporator which is also 3 adding some small amount of vapor to the top from this system 4 here. To start it up, of course, you've got to use an 5 auxiliary heater, but once you've got it running, this 6 auxiliary heater is not required. 7 (Slide) 8 The concentrated material from the main evaporator is 9 pumped through a storage tank into a settling tank. Water from 10 that tank can be put through the secondary evaporator whose l 11 vapors are introduced back up into the main evaporator. And 12 the bottoms then more concentrated are sent to a holding tank, 13 the dryer blender, and the system which the vendor has the f. J l 1 l 14 option to use which converts it to pellets. 15 And depending upon what he chooses in the design, he 16 can either produce pellets here or produce a material which can 17 be compacted. And that goes into the shipping containers. 18 (Slide) l l 19 The vapor from the main evaporator, which is i j 20 superheated by this compressor and then condenses again in the 1 I 21 tubes of the evaporator to evaporate the incoming water, is 22 water again at this point. It goes to a distillate tank. 23 Again, through a conductivity monitor and a sample point. 24 And then is pumped from that tank down through 25 another pump, which pumps it up through one of three 300 1:i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
70 1 kilowatt' heaters. And this is nhere all of that water then is 2 again converted to steam electrically and goes through a vapor 3 separator. And the vapor is discharged up the discharge stack. 4 And normally, during normal operation, two of these 5 three units would be operating if we were operating at five 6 gallons a minute. 7 (Slide) 8 And again, there's a conductivity cell and a sample 9 point. And se also have an in-line radiation monitor at this 10 point to monitor the material which is the water that's being 11 sent to these vaporizers. 12 That's the system which we've authorized the vendor 13 to begin a design and fabrication of. One of the things that i 14 changed recently was the U.S. restrictions on imported steel to 15 protect, or help the U.S. steel industry started making 16 stainless steel hard to get. 17 The six-month fabrication schedule in January was 18 projected to be nine months, and if we didn't get in line to 19 get stainless steel ordered, the fabrication schedule was going 20 to extend out further because stainless steel is short supply 21 in the country as the U.S. suppliers attempt to provide to make 22 up that which was being imported. 23 We currently expect this system to be available for 24 installation at the end of the year, although we don't have 25 detailed schedules on that, yet. i t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
71 V 1 I can answer any questions on the details of the 2 system that you might have. 3 MR. RICE: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 4 MR. MORRIS: Yes, sir, Mr. Rice? 5 MR. RICE: Do you through this system recapture all 6 the radioactivity in the sludge? 7 MR. STANDERFER: All of the tritium goes with the 8 water and is discharged up the stack, as described in the 9 environmental impact statement. 10 The other radioisotopes are concentrated in the 11 evaporator. We take credit for the evaporator reducing those 12 by a factor of one thousand. We fully expect the evaporator to (_ 13 perform better than that. And so the environmental analyses 14 are all based on one-tenth of one percent of those other 15 radioactive materials being present in this water which is 16 discharged. And that's the basis that the NRC environmental 17 analysis was done. 18 MR. RICE: Thank you. 19 MR. MORRIS: Gordon? 20 MR. ROBINSON: How do you assure yourself that you do l 21 have the decontamination factor that you're expecting? I 22 MR. STANDERFER: Well, as we start the system, we'll 23 be checking the reduction in conductivity before the evaporator 24 and after the evaporator, so conductivity is the first 25 indicator that the water has been reduced to the levels that we i s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
72 1 1 are interested in. ^ 2 We'll take samples that will be analyzed in the 3 laboratory. Initially, we'll be checking the system out by-4 laboratory samples on this tank here. The initial operation 5 will be a batch operation so that we're confident that the 6 system is running properly and these conductivity measurements 7 and other measurements actually represent the performance of 8 the evaporator. 9 We will then go into a more continuous operation 10 where as long as the instrumentation shows that everything is 11 running satisfactorily, the samples then that we take and 12 analyze in the laboratory will be the record for the 13 performance for reporting purposes. Of course, if there is any 'k 14 serious interruption of the process, this radiation monitor 15 then would alarm and the system would be shut down at this 16 point, and there'd be no further material discharged, although 17 the evaporator would continue to cycle internally. 18 MR. ROBINSON: What does the radiation monitor, how 19 is it set up? What will it monitor and what won't it monitor? 20 MR. STANDERFER: Well, it's basically monitoring 21 gamma. And so it is monitoring mainly cesium-137. We believe l-22 that the other radioisotopes will, those that can possibly 23 carry over, will carry over in the same ratio of cesium-137. l 24 We've got no reason to believe they won't. We will determine i 25 that of course in the early sampling. 4\\ Heritage Reporting Corporation E (202) 628-4888 l l
.~ 73 1 And so based on the gamma monitoring.and the relative 2 ratio of cesium-137 to other isotopes, then.we will on an day 3 to day basis have an understanding of the radioactivity present 4 and then of course the final laboratory samples will again be 5 analyzed for all of the isotopes. 6 MR. ROBINSON: And how long does it take you to 7 analyze a sample? 8 MR. STANDERFER: I don't have a turnaround time for 9 that, but that's a matter of days. Some isotopes even a week 10 or more. We have to make quarterly reports on performance and 11 releases, and we'll be continue to make those analyses. So as 12 long as the conductivity cells are indicating that the water's 13 as clean as it's supposed to be, that will be the primary 5 14 indication that the system's working satisfactorily. 15 Remember we are operating at levels of radioactivity 16 here which are considerably below those which we would normally 17 be allowed to discharge under NRC and EPA discharge limits. 18 MR. MORRIS: Any other questions from the panel at 19 this time? 20 Mr. Roth? 21 MR. ROTH: Frank, I guess I have to compliment you on 22 your very positive performance here. If I was attending this 23 meeting for the first time, or maybe somebody in the audience, 24 I would naturally assume that this was a given. Not once in 25 your presentation or in this piece of paper is it stated that ( t ,i Heritage Peporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 74 l. 1 permission has not really been given yet. I did not hear that 2 at all. 3 And I just wonder, I have some questions, wonderment 4 questions, I guess. 5 First of all, who authorized, I'd like to know names. 6 You say authorization was issued? -~ 7 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. I authorized the vendor to 8 proceed with the fabrication. 9 To go back just a little bit, well first of all, I 10 believe the panel understood the status of approval. Of 11 course, the EIS has been written. The NRC staff has taken the 12 position that this is satisfactory. We currently are in 13 hearings on that question. 14 We do not have approval to actually discharge any of 15 this material at the present time. We in about January last 16 year, which was six months after we made our recommendation, we 17 put this process out for bid. We received six bids which were 18 evaluated last spring. 19 The successful vendor was selected last summe;. A 20 contract was written with him last August. It had provisions 21 which had escalators in there for when it would be started. So 22 if we started it later than the first of September, there would 23 be changes in cost based on the inflation in the country. 24 Last fall, we authorized him to do a small amount of 25 work associated with what the foundation would look like, f 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
75 1 because we had to do some planning as to where we would locate 2 this on the site. By January, we concluded that based on the 3 slippage and steel. availability in the country, that if we 4 authorized the design, we could get the equipment by the end of 5 the year. 6 We concluded that from an overall project standpoint, 7 we should do that. That was my recommendation to my superior, 8 the President of GPU Nuclear. He approved that recommendation, 9 and the contractor was given the approval to proceed with 10 design fabrication and delivery of the equipment. 11 We plan to install it, check it out and have it ready 12 to operate if and when we receive approval to use it. 13 MR. ROTH: What basically is the cost to date that 14 you have spent on this project? 15 MR. STANDERFER: It's a fixed price contract, so I 16 don't - the cost to us, we've spent only about $80,000 so far. 17 The evaporator design procurement and installation is $800,000, 18 a little over S800,000, which is the first phase of the 19 contract. 20 The second phase of the contract is for him to 21 actually operate the evaporator and produce the materials. The 22 total contract's about $2.2 million. 23 MR. ROTH: In any way, does this money come from the 24 clean up funds? 25 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, it does. f a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
76 1 MR. ROTH: .It does. 2 If permission, you know, if the ceiling drops, is not 3 given, how is that $2.2 million or $80,000 or $800,000, 4 depending on that, how is that reimbursed? 5 MR. STANDERFER: If approval is not given, the -6 $800,000 will have been spent. There is a provision in the 7 contract which says the vendor will buy the equipment back from 8 us because he believes that it has some residual value for half 9 that price, so the actual commitment of this decision is about 10 $400,000. 11 MR. ROTH: I have just a couple further questions on 12 this. 13 You've given a number of reasons why you have acted 14 as you have and the company's as it has. And I guess I'd just 15 like to go back to the initial question, and I guess the NRC 16 gentleman who is here, what, Mr. Stolz, is it, who is involved. 17 Perhaps you'd like to be involved in this also. 18 MR. MORRIS: Let me just say, Frank, it might be 19 easier at this point, unless we need the chart, for you to take 20 your seat and we could turn the lights back on at this point. i l 21 And maybe see each other a little better. And see who fell 22 asleep if anybody. 23 MR. ROTH: Is the whole process involved in, I guess 24 you'd have to call it to a certain extent, speculation, I 25 guess, we could agree on that as a term, on doing it, and the 1 { l t j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
77 ( I reason I.probably like to have the NRC gentleman up here is to 2 get his feeling subjectively or objectively on this. 3 It just seems that you have a process that is'unto .4 itself almost. If I had a piece of land and it was zoned 5 residential and I wanted to put a gas station on that, I 6 couldn't really do that and speculate without permission first. 7 And yet, I know this is a regular routine with the NRC and the 8 utilities, in other words, that the utility goes ahead and the 9 NRC then rules on it. 10 And I just wonder if you, sir, would have any comment 11 on your feelings in this action as far as pressure you may 12 feel. 13 MR. STANDERFER: I might -- k 14 MR. ROTH: Yes, Frank? 15 MR. STANDERFER: I might, over and over again on the 16 project, we buy equipment long before we have approval. 17 MR. ROTH: Yes, I understand that. 18 MR. STANDERFER: The plasma are cutting system for 19 example which started over a year and a half ago, I've spent $4 20 or $5 million on it. I don't have all the approvals today to 21 operate it. 22 MR. ROTH: No. I understand that. 23 MR. STANDERFER: The SDS system which cleaned up all 24 this water was being built while it was quite controversial. 25 MR. ROTH: That stil. doesn't 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
78 1 MR. STANDERFER: Lots of times -- 2 MR. ROTH: Can I just -- okay. I think that, you -3 know, you're certainly a major point. I guess I'm trying to 4 have the gentleman now from the NRC state the I guess the 5 Commission's feeling or staff's feelings on this type of 6 operation. 7 MR. STOLZ: The Commission operates initially on 8' criteria, performance. They expect that this evaporator will 9 perform in a certain way, and we work on criteria. And we',ve 10 given you know approval on that through our environmental 11 impact statement approval. 12 What Mr. Standerfer is saying is correct, though. In 13 proceeding with the hardware, and this is juct one example, the ( 14 licensee, most utilities are at risk in terms of assuring that 15 what they're buying will eventually conform to the criteria 16 that we've approved. 17 If this doesn't happen, then they've got a problem. 18 They have to fix it to make it conform. So I believe Frank is 19 sufficiently confident in what he's buying that he feels it 20 will meet this criteria. And that's something we'll see. A i 21 written -- he has made a procurement, sent out specifications, i 22 purchased specs. ' o 23 And I think this is the stuff that is of interest to 24 the joint intervenors. This has been handed to them, as I 25 understand, so that they can try to match what they see to the i t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
79 k 1 criteria that was approved in the impact statement. 2 This happens a lot. Standerfer's quite correct. 3-MR. ROTH: Let me pursue this one second longer, 4 because I know Gordon has to go back to State College. 5 But-doesn't it strike you somewhere along the line 6 that the system even though it's being done that there's 7 something really wrong if on speculate you know you can go 8 ahead and really spend other monies that you really raven't 9 earned on something that hasn't been approved, whereas a 10 hearing is going on to validate or non-validate, you know, and 11 yet the utility in this case, you know, is moving ahead as if 12 it's really a given. 13 And I just wonder, don't you feel somewhere along the 14 line that you have pressure then to okay something because it 15 has been done, or don't you, can you see for a second the lay 16 person, the citizen who says, well what kind of a system is 17 this where we go through a hearing process to find out if it's 18 allowed and meanwhile it is being built. 19 I.mean, how can you justify the system. I guess 20 that's what I'm asking you, the justification in allowing this 21 tu go on. I mean, forget tradition. I mean, I know it's 22 tradition, but why? 23 MR. STOLZ: You know, there's a practical aspect to 24 the whole business. For example, let's take the example of the 25 way we license nuclear power plants. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
80 (. 1 We go throug' .a two-step process. We issue first a 2 construction permit which again is based on criteria. Based on 3 that criterion, the licensee then starts building the plant. 4 He creates a book a!.d he' hcs all of the final design built into 5 that book. 6 Meanwhile, he's building the plant. And it's true 7 that he's at risk during this process, if we find out later on, 8 for example, if we are analyzing the plant and I'll take as an 9 example, the Diablo Canyon plant, where a licensee built that 10 plant based on certain seismic criteria. 11 Subsequently the Staff found new evidence of other 12 earthquake faults which required us to change our inputs into 13 the seismic analysis, and there were extensive modifications 14 incurred by the licensee to beef that plant up. Many millions 15 of dollars. We went through the hearing process on that also. 16 So there's an example of where a licensee was at 17 risk. He thought he was doing the correct thing, and we had a 18 disagreement. And he suffered having to make extensive 19 modifications. 20 I think the concern that I hear expressed by you, and 21 I think we've heard it before, is that when the licensee has ( 22 this huge investment, there is extreme pressure on the staff to 23 back off and kind of yield to the fact that he's got this 24 investment and acknowledge that we've got to move on. 25 I think we know he's got a big investment, but my I s Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
81 1 experience is that the Staff does a fairly honest job in 2 evaluating the design to make sure that it meets the criteria 3 or any new information'that pops up as you go along. .4 MR. STANDERFER: But it's fair to say that the NRC in 5 some cases did not-issue licenses, also. The fuel reprocessing 6 plant in South Carolina which over $600 million were invested ~ 7 in it. That plant was not licensed to operate, and has never O 8 operated. And was ready to operate 12 years ago. 9 MR. ROTH: I certainly see the philosophical and the 10 objective reasons. 11 Just one further question here, sir. And that is, if 12 you had your druthers in this, would this be the system that 13 would be ideal for you to operate under as a regulator? 14 MR. STOLZ: I think practically I go along with the 15_ system as being practiced because it would, you know, after 16 all, we're all taxpayers, and we want to minimize the cost that 17 are imposed on the licensee in terms of minimizing stretch out 18 of construction schedules. I think we have to recognize that 19 the licensee's job is to provide power, that's his business. 20 He has to provide power at minimum cost. He has to do his 21 management well. He has to respond to the public utility 22 commissions, and we recognize that. 23 So our job is safety and we do that job and try to 2' separate ourselves from the cost picture. And we emphasize m that over and over again. But this being at risk is something ( l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 e g n .--,,--,,,,n-----m -y-p. a r, -m-or-. -7
r 82 I that's practiced, I think it's just part of the game. We know 2 it's there and we just have to recognize that our job is to 3 evaluate safety, make sure that the final design matches the 4 criteria that was laid out in the beginning. 5 And when we get around to reviewing this package, 6 we'll.txa doing the same thing. 7 MR. ROTH: I thank you both. 8 MR. MORRIS: Any other panel member have a question 9 at this point? 10 (No response) 11 MR. MORRIS: Okay. You may both be prepared to 12 answer questions during the public commentary because I'm sure 13 there's going to be some questions that the public will have, f 14 I would like to at this point ask Frances Skulnik if 15 she is prepared to come forward and make her presentation. 16 Frances, do you have any questions you're going to 17 ask at that time of these two gentlemen? 18 Would you like to come up to the mike, maybe, and 19 maybe those two gentlemen can consolidate themselves at one 20 mike and Ms. Sku1nik can come to the other one. If you can ask 21 your questions now, and then these two gentlemen can take their t l i 22 seats and you can proceed with your presentation. o 23 I would ask, since you had asked for special time on 24 the agenda, Frances, if you could hold your part to ten minutes 25 as is traditional here unless you ask for additional time, I s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l L
= 83 l 1 would appreciate it. 2 MS. SKULNIK: Yes. That's fine. 3 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 4 MS._SKULNIK: My name's Frances Skulnik. 5 .And Mr. Stolz, it seems to me from the-conversation 6 that you were having with Joel Roth that there was a point you 7 were missing. And that is that the hearings aren't to 8 legitimize the evaporator. It's not to look at the evaporator 9 and check out whether or not it's the best possible evaporator. 10 Indeed, the hearings are to decide whether or not the 11 water should be disposed of. And being a member of the public 12 and of course being involved in the hearings, it does sadden me 13 that you do seem to have missed that point. 14 MR. STOLZ: I'm going to have to get help from Mr. 15 Masnik who is my project manager on the contentions that are 16 now before the Board. That's the basis of the hearing. 17 MR. MASNIK: I disagree with that. I don't think 18 there was ever any question that the water would have to be 19 disposed of ultimately. Whatever the Board decides, ultimately 20 that water will have to be disposed of. 21 Part of the question is whether or not the proposal 22 that the licensee has come forward with is an acceptable one. 23 MS. SKULNIK: That is a part, that's true. But the 24 ree - the hearings are taking place is because the licensee 25 b.. had to apply for a technical specification. It needs an f t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
84 b 1 amendment for the disposal of the water. There's presently a 2 ban on the disposal of the water. Therefore, the only reason 3 the hearings have been called is because there is this question 4 of whether or not there should be lift on the ban for the 5 prohibition of the disposal of the water. 6 MR. MASNIK: In a sense, -- well, that is correct. 7 But I think the bigger picture is, what is going to happen to 8 that water. That bigger picture is that it ultimately will 9 have to be disposed. Whether we store it in tanks for 40 years 10 or dispose of it now, the end result is the same. The water 11 will be disposed of. 12 MR. MORRIS: If we could avoid arguing on semantics 13 here, I think I understand the question, and I think the answer 14 to it is that the immediate quest'.on is whether or not it will 15 be disposed of from the Island at this particular time. And if 16 we could avoid what might happen 20 or 30 years from now, I 17 think generally that is the question, is it not, along with if 18 it is, then is the evaporation the method that should be used. 19 MR. MASNIK: That's correct. t 20 MS. SKULNIK: Mr. Standerfer, the other question I t 21 just wanted to ask is right now the vendor is planning the 22 evaporator? He's looking at the system and fabricating it and 23 designing it? 24 MR. STANDERFER: Actually designing, procuring 25 materials, and probably is actually fabricating some equipment, I t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
85 1 but I'm not sure about that. 2 MS. SKULNIK And you said that then installation and 3 testing will follow? What will be your-plan if the hearings 4 are not over when it comes to the point that it's being 5 designed? 6 MR. STANDERFER: Well, obviously after we are 7 satisfied that it operates satisfactorily, it would await 8 approval to use it. 9 MS. SKULNIK: In other words, it won't be brought on 10 site before the hearings began? 11 MR. STANDERFER: I would plan to bring it on site 12 this fourth quarter when it's available. 13' MS. SKULNIK: Regardless of the status of the 14 hearings? 15 MR. STANDERFER: I guess if I had the conclusion that 16 we would not be allowed to run it at some point, we would 17 discontinue the procurement of it. 18 MS. SKULNIK: Okay. That's all I wanted to ask. 19 Thanks. 20 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, gentlemen. 21 MS. SKULNIK: May I proceed with my statement? 22 MR. MORRIS: Sure, please. 23 MS. SKULNIK: Okay. 24 MR. MORRIS: Gentlemen, you may take your seats, if 25 you would. Thank you, i s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
86 _(' 1 MS. SKULNIK I'm speaking for the membership of the 2 Susquehanna Valley Alliance. 3 The purchase Jar GPU Nuclear of the evaporator is.both-4 presumptuous and arrogant and shows a total lack of respect and -5 understanding for the procedures invoked by members of the 6 public. Procedures by which they are able to become a part of~ 7 the decisionmaking process which our system fortunately 8 permits. A procedure whereby a decision will be made about 9 something which clearly affects the safety and health of the 10 people who have invoked the process, 11 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings will 12 provide a forum wherein it will be decided whether or not the 13 water should be disposed of,-and if it is to be disposed of, p. ( 14 should that method proposed by GPU be chosen as that one most 15 adequate to protect the public health and cafety. 16 By purchasing the evaporator, G?U is creating a 17 situation whereby the panel of judges could be pushed into a 18 hurried decision since the investment has already been made. I 19 should add that when GPU states that they are taking the risk, 20 it is somewhat deceptive, since the funds for the clean up come 21 from the public, the government and investor utilities. 22 It's somewhat underhanded of GPU to create a 23 situation whereby we, the public, who have invoked these 24 hearings become the scapegoats for the delay in the completion 25 of the clean-up. It's important to remember that clean-up was ( x Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
87 t (- l' supposed to have been completed a few years after the accident. 2 Delay, therefore, has been a part of the clean-up from the very 3 beginning because of the developmental nature of the clean-up 4 and the difficulties encountered along the way. 5 And we could expect to see more difficulties, too, 6 because the clean-up is not over. It seems important to define 7 what exactly completion of clean-up means before we start to 8 think of delay. It appears from the post-defueling monitored 9 storage proposal presented by GPU Nuclear last year, that 10 completion of clean-up is not synonymous with being cleaned up. 11 Having read the proposal, I see that the basement 12 will still be so radioactive that humans will still be unable 13 to enter. Radioactivity is imbedded in the concrete and will k 14 continue to provide a source of radioactive contamination. Due 15 to in-leakage of at least 5,000 gallons and more each year into 16 Unit 2, GPU Nuclear will have to get rid of this water. 17 It is not, they say, accident generated water. Are 18 we to assume that it will find its way into the Susquehanna 19 River and therefore into our water supply? For it will indeed 20 remain in the reactor because if it was to removed, it would 21 cause too much exposure to the workers. It remains there as a 22 source of radioactive contamination. 23 During post-defueling monitored storage or end point 24 of clean up at TMI Unit 2, we are therefore in the unenviable 25 position of having a reactor which needs constant monitoring i k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
88 1 and maintenance because of its potential for radioactive 2 exposures to the public and the workers. 3 It would appear then that by-invoking the hearings, 4 we are not delaying end of clean-up, but rather we are delaying 5 GPU's schedule to go from one phase of clean-up to the next 6 stage which, with reduced staff levels, they will maintain the 7 plant in a so-called safe radioactive state. 8 This panel did recognize the problem involved in 9 disposing of the water. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that 10 they agonized over the vote in Harrisburg. The majority of the 11 panel did vote against evaporation, and unanimously voted 12 against disposing of it by dumping it into the Susquehanna 13 River. ( 14 Which leaves the question of what to do with the 15 water as being undecided. We have entered into the hearings 16 with the intention of opposing disposal by evaporation and 17 insuring the safe disposal or containment of the radioactive 18 water. The hearings are indeed of great importance to the 19 people in this area and will be undertaken at considerable 20 expense to us as we call upon expert witnesses to defend our l 21 case. 22 We therefore want to insure that the hearings are i 23 meaningful. I then am asking this panel to pass a resolution 24 this evening to send a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory 25 Commission indicating your displeasure with GPU's actions in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
89 (I 1 purchasing and planning to design and fabricate the evaporator 2 prior to the hearings. And I sincerely hope that you will 3 respond to this request tonight in a favorable way. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 6 Let me just say, and if panel members disagree, I'd 7 certainly entertain some comment on this, but typically we have 8 been told by the panel members that if there is action planned 9 to be taken at this meeting, then it should be an item that is 10 on the agenda for a vote, so that all members that could not be 11 here would at least have had an opportunity to.try to make it 12 to discuss that issue. 13 And I'm welcome to take discussion on that, but I [: 1. 14 believe in the past we have received criticism from other panel 15 members when we have taken action on an agenda item that was 16 not listed, and you're asking for us to do so tonight. 17 My position as Chair would be that we ought not to do 18 that. I don't have a problem at some point if this panel wants 19 to take that up to do it. And that's open for discussion, but 20 I believe that has been at least an unwritten understanding 21 before. c. 22 MR. ROTH: I remember that happening quite a bit, and { 23 I'm not sure we can take or should take, but I think again, the 24 criteria is if you can attend the meeting, you attend, not 1 25 based on what is, you know, going to be brought up. i I t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
90 k 1 Even though the people who complain are the ones who 2 sometimes, you know, don't show. But in the case not being on 3 the agenda, I don't know about anybody else, and I'm certainly 4 not pointing fingers, but I received the agenda a half hour 5 before the meeting, so nobody could have known whether it was 6 on the agenda or not. 7 MR. MORRIS: All I'm saying, Joel, and correct me if a 8 I'm wrong, is the panel's position has been in the past that if 9 -there's an action item planned, for us to take action and a 10 vote on it, panel members want to know that ahead of time and 11 at least have been alerted to it and not have it brought up at 12 the meeting as an action matter. 13 I'm just trying to be consistent with past action. 14 MR. ROTH: No, I agree with your consistency pattern. 15 MR. MORRIS: Okay. So unless there's a disagreement 16 here, we would, I would be willing at least as Chairman, to put l l 17 it on the next agenda for discussion. The issue is not going 18 to go away, I don't think, and the panel can freely, in fact, 19 they might want to express an opinion tonight, but I just don't 20 feel it's appropriate for us to be taking a vote, based on what 21 I've already said. 22 MS. SKULNIK: I suppose then, the question -- it's 23 all right, I understand your. position, but then I'm also 24 thinking of my position. I'm thinking of how long it's going 25 to be before you meet again? Is it going to be another three !t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
91 1 or four months? Because it seems from what we heard tonight 2 that the hearing may not be until the fall, but still, if we're 3 going to wait for another three or four months before another 4 panel meeting, it could be important. 5 MR. MORRIS: We need to discuss when the next meeting 6 will be held. My feeling is that since the PEIS up-date is due 7 out in early May that we would meet some time in June, so it 8 would be a two-month delay but not a four-month delay. 9 MS. SKULNIK Okay, then. So I do have a commitment 10 that it will be put on the agenda for the next time? 11 MR. MORRIS: Yes, we would discuss the issue on 12 whether this panel wants to take action on that. I mean, it 13 will be a discussion item and if the panel wants to take action k 14 and move forward on at least what you're saying, we could do 15 that, yes. 16 MS. SKULNIK: Thank you. 17 MR. MORRIS: Michael, you make sure that that's not 18 overlooked, and I'll try to remember as well, please. Thank 19 you. 20 Who else, I think Eric indicated that he had some 21 other time that he wanted to use up at this time. 22 Is there anybody else from the public that would like 23 time on the agenda this evening to express an opinion? 24 Just let me say again, is there anybody else from the 25 public that wants to speak after Eric, just so I'm getting a 1 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
92 (J 1 feel here for time? If not, 2 MR. EPSTEIN: Let me just finish off the debate that-3 .you all were talking about by saying that this became an issue 4 of prominence only recently. Therefore, you know, we didn't 5 undergo the logistics of submitting it to you to entertain as a 6 motion because it's just arisen also. 7 And because I am also going to ask for you to take 8 action on it. I'm not going to belabor the points but it's a 9 matter of timing, too, and when these things come up at the 10 last moment, it's hard for us to present them to you in a 11 timely fashion when it's not presented to us in a timely 12 fashion. 13 MR. MORRIS: I am not questioning why you or Ms. 14 Skulnik asked for us to take action. I understand clearly why 15 you're doing that. I just want you to understand that if you 16 check past testimony, we have discussed that type of thing at 17 length and generally agreed that we should not take action on 18 an item not on the agenda. 19 MR. EPSTEIN: I understand and I'm not going to 20 disrupt your continuity at this point. 21 Let me read a statement. My name is Eric Epstein, 22 TMI Alert. 23 Speaking for the organization, let me say that we are 24 infuriated by the Utility's decision to purchase, design, 25 fabricate, install and test an evaporator system on site while ri Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ~. _,. _.
93 1 the ASL&B hearings are in progress. This not only displays an 2 incredible-arrogance towards the public and the adjudicatory 3 process, but presumes the outcome of the hearing will be in the 4 Utility's favor. 5 Lat me read from a press release that they released 6 on March 17th, and I quote, "work on the system is being o 7 started now with the expectation that NRC approval will be 8 forthcoming and to minimize the lapse of time in disposing of 9 the water." 10 GPU claims that the $800,000 they will spend on the 11 purchase is a gamble, but it's a worthwhile risk since they are 12 losing months, perhaps years, in their efforts to get rid of 13 the water. Yet, all of us are aware that the disposal of the 14 water has no bearing on the removal of the coze and it's .15 component material from Unit 2. 16 Let me read from the same press release. "GPU 17 Nuclear Corporation along with its prime contractor, Bechtel, 18 expects to complete the clean-up program by mid-1989 at the 19 cost of about $965 million. The goal of the clean-up is to 20 eliminate the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction and the 21 chance of a hazardous release of radiation by removing 99 22 percent of the damaged nuclear fuel core from the reactor 23 system and the majority of loose radioactive contaminants from 24 the plant. Upon completion of the clean-up, the plant will be 25 placed in a safe, stable and secure condition known as PDMS for i s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
94 k.i 1 an extended period of time." 2 This is to buttress my point that the water in no way 3 prevents the clean-up from taking place in an expedient 4 fashion. 5 The utility, as Joel had mentioned, is utilizing a 6 common strategy frequently employed by nuclear utilities. This 7 strategy includes expending large investments on construction, a c 8 licensing and or license amendments before the NRC has actually 9 granted approval, the foregone conclusion being that since the 10 money has already been spent and the construction completed, 11 the NRC might as well endorse the utility's actions, regardless 12 .of the financial health and safety impact on rate payers and 13 area residents. 14 And if you'll look at the ASL&B's records throughout 15 their history, they almost always, always approve what the 16 licensee requests. It's rare that they don't, it's an 17 exception to the rule. 18 And again, you can counterbalance GPU's blatant 19 attempt to influence the outcome of the hearings by sending a 20 message to the NRC indicating your displeasure with GPU's 21 actions. We do not feel it is too much to ask for GPU to 22 respect the integrity of the hearing process. Therefore, we 23 are calling on this panel to write 'an official protest to the 24 Commission on GPU's decision to purchase, design, fabricate, 25 install and test an evaporator before the issue has been i \\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
95 ( 1 resolved in the'A5L&B hearing process. 2 And I_ trust we'll take that up at the next meeting. 3 Furthermore, and I'm quite serious in this 4 suggestion, furthermore we suggest that GPU Service 5 Corporation's incentive compensation plan for officers be 6 diverted to pay for the evaporator. According to GPU's annua'. 7 proxy statement, and I quote, "under terms of the incentive 8 plan and the aggregate of approximately $800,000 of awards for 9 business objectives achieved in 1987, would be payable in April 10 1988." 11 We feel in this way, GPU's officers tould pay for 12 their gamble and personally shoulder the economic burden, 13 rather than have the burden fall upon the shoulders of the rate k 14 payers. And I think this is something that should be looked 15 into. 16 And I'm going to raise the issue at the annual 17 shareholder's meeting, and whether or not I receive a favorable 18 response is yet to be determined, but I think it should be 19 introduced publicly. If they want to take this gamble, let 20 them do it with their own money. 21 You know, to me S800,000, as Frank said, S400,000 is 22 rate payers money, that's a lot of money. So I mean, let me 23 end by making that suggestion and also implore you to take 24 action on our recommendation to condemn their decision to go 25 ahead and test an evaporator prior to completion of the (: Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
96 4 .1 hearings. 2 MR. MORRIS: Let me hear what was the very last thing 3 you said, Eric? 4 MR. EPSTEIN: The very last thing? 5 MR. MORRIS: That you just stated? 6 MR. EPSTEIN: That I implore you to take action to 7 condemn them for doing what we think.is an arrogant action of 8 going forward with having evaporator tested on site prior to 9 the resolution of the hearings. 10 MR. MORRIS: We will put it on as an action item in 11 the June meeting. 12 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. i 13 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Eric. l {l 14 MR. EPSTEIN: Also, I don't know if you want it, I 15 have a copy of the press release which I read from, if that 16 would be helpful. 17 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. I would, certainly. 18 MR. MORRIS: That is the end of the agenda at this 19 point. 20 MR. STANDERFER: Mr. Morris? 21 MR. MORRIS: Yes? 22 MR. STANDERFER: Can make two points? 23 MR. MORRIS: If they're real quick, yes, sir. 24 I hope we're not going to begin a debate now, Frank. 25 MR. STANDERFER: I hope not, f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 97 1 The decision to procure the evaporator was announced 2 in letters in the 16th of February that accompanied the system 3 design descriotion provided to the NRC, to the Hearing _ Board, 4 and to the intervenors, so that was not recently. That's two 5 months ago. 6 The second point is the Thornberg plan for the clean-7 up adds up to $951 million. At the present time,.the S965 i O 8 million budget includes another $14 million of GPU funds. So 9 these, it's not clear at all that this isn't GPU's risk 10 associated with this. 11 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Thank you. 12 At this point, what I would like to do is discuss 13 when we will next meet and if there's any specific items that 14 we should have on the agenda other than the one that's been 15 requested and agreed to this evening. 16 I assume the document that's going to be forthcoming 17 in May? 18 MR. MASNIK: I think'yes, the PEIS should be in the 19 hands of the panel by the er.d of the month, and at the very 20 latest, by the middle of the first week in May. If we assume 21 two weeks for the panel to review that document, it would be, 22 May 18th would be a Wednesday, May 19th would be a Thursday. 23 That would be the third week in May. 24 MR. MORRIS: I know that week I'm out of town. 25 MR. GERUSKY: I am too. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
98 I.' 1 MR. MORRIS: Pardon? You're out of town. 2 MR. MASNIK: We could either go back a week, but that 3 would provide the panel with a minimum of one week prior to 4-that. 5 MR. MORRIS: How about the next week? 6 MR. MASNIK The following week would.be the week of 7 the 22nd of May. And that would be the last complete week in 8 the month of May. And Wednesday would be the 25th and Thursday 9 would be the 26th. 10 MR. MORRIS: Well, typically we have been going to 11 Thursday nights on these meetings at 7:00 o' clock. And how is 12 that date with everybody that's here. Is that Thursday, the 13 26th, Mike? 14 MR. MASNIK Thursday, the 26th. 15 MR. MORRIS: That's what we will go with then, May 16 26th, Thursday night. 17 What about the location? 18 MR. SMITHGALL: This is great, Art. 19 MR. MASNIK: I might add that PDMS is probably more 20 of a local issue, and perhaps more properly at least for this 21 initial meeting to be in the Harrisburg area. 22 MR. MORRIS: I think that's fine. Just because you 23 save about $500 holding meetings here, Mike, that doesn't have 24 any bearing on it. 25 MR. MASNIK: I might also say that for the members of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
99 t ( 1 the public from now on if we do meet in Lancaster, it will be 2 at this location. 3 MR. MORRIS: Lancaster. 4 MR. MASNIK: Did you get that? 5 MR. MORRIS: Okay, but May 26th at Harrisburg at the 6 -- you would assume that you could get the Holiday Inn at this 7 point? 8 MR. MASNIK: If there is a problem, I will contact 9 you, but we'll assume it's at the Holiday Inn. 10 MR. MORRIS: Okay. So there's two items for the 11 agenda at this point. Any other suggestions? 12 MR. RICE: Yes, Art, I have a suggestion. 13 Since the evaporating system is the key question and k 14 you're going to spend close to a billion dollars on the clean-15 up, Frank, there must have been other procedures where you 16 spent a lot of money on start-up and then got your approval. 17 Could we have a list or some information prior to the next 18 meeting? 19 MR. MORRIS: Let the record show that Mr. Standerfer 21 said yes, he will provide that list of information. 4 21 MR. RICE: Thank you. 22 MR. ROTH: I would also like to see when they didn't 23 approve. 24 MR. MORRIS: In other words, what they started making 25 ahead of time. e~ i e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
T 100 1 MR. ROTH: Yes. 2 MR. STANDERFER: I can supply those, too. 3. MR. ROTH: Okay, like to see thEm both. 4 MR. MORRIS: Did you get all that for the record? 5 Mr. Standerter~said he would.- He a:1so said he has at' 6 least one that they began to fabricate and was not then 7 approved, is what I understood. 8 Another agenda item? 9 MR.. ROBINSON: Not an agenda item. I would just like 10 to ask if it's possible to have the agenda ahead of time? 11. MR. MORRIS: Mr. Masnik, sir, could you and I work 12 together on the agenda, maybe even a couple of weeks ahead of 13 time. ( 14 MR. MASNIK: That would be fine. I normally try to 15 include it in my packages to you on material, but we will try 16 to get it formalized a little bit more in advance of the 17 meetings and get it out to the panel. 18 MR. MORRIS: I think normally it is sent out ahead of 19 time. I don't know what happened this time. So -- postage has 20 gone up, Eric, yes. 21 Is there anything else that anybody wants to bring 22 up? If rot, we stand adjourned at this time. Thank you. 23 (Whereupon, at 10:13 p.m., the hearing in this matter 24 was concluded.) 25 (- t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in.the matter of: 5 Name PUBLIC MEETING ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND 6 UNIT 2 r Docket Number: 8 Places Lancaster, Pennsylvania 9 Date: April 14, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me e,nd, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction k 14 of the court reporting company, and tha't the transcript is a true and accurate rec /'d of to oing oceedings. 15 16 /S/ VVC 17 (Signature typed): Kent Andrew 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
(' / [h0 / ifNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Agenda for the April 14, 1988 Veeting in Lancaster, PA Minutes 1. Chairman's Opening Remarks - A. Morris 5 2. NRC Status - J. Stolz, NRC 10 3. NRC Lower Head Sample Acquisition Program - NRC Staff 20 4 TMI Public Health Fund Cocument on Radiation Monitoring at Nuclear Plants - W. Kirk, Padiation Physics Incorporated 20 5. Public Comment 20 6. Break 10 e' i 7. Status of Cleanup - GPU Staff 20 8. Accident Generated Water Evaporator Preliminary System Description - GPU Staff 15 9. Public Comment 15 9 e L I \\ g---.e --w ,y e s e. ,e--- - - -.--
e a. s JOINT l#0ERTAKING TO ltWESTIGATE MATERIAL FROM TE LOER EAD OF TE THREE MILE ISUN) PESSURE VESSEL GMI-2) APRIL 114, 1988 R. VAN HOUTEN lMITED STATES !0 CLEAR EGA.ATORY C& MISSION OFFIE OF 10 CLEAR EGULATORY ESEAR0l s
4a +w DECD/TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD EXAMINATION INTRODUCTION THE TMI-2 REACTOR ACCIDENT HAS PROVIDED A UNIOUE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS AND SOURCE TERf1 PHENOMENOLOGY BASED ON AN ACTUAL SEVERE ACCIDENT IN AN OPERATING COMMERCIAL PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR. RECENT OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF DEFUELING INDICATE THAT THE THI-2 ~ ACCIDENT PROGRESSED EVEN FURTHER THAff WAS ENVISIONED WHEN THE THI-2 ACCIDEllT EVALUATION PROGRAM WAS ESTABLISHED. BRIEFLY, THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE: 1. MOLTEN CORE MATERIALS HAVE MOVED LATERALLY THROUGH THE CORE BAFFLE PLATES INTO THE CORE BYPASS REGION BETWEEN THE BAFFLE PLATES AND THE CORE BARREL: AND 2. THERE IS VISUAL EVIDENCE OF THERMAL DAMAGE TO INSTRUMENT STRllCTURES IN THE LOWER PLENUM AND AR0llND FLOW HOLES IN THE FLOW DISTRIBUTOR.
~ R ^ OECD/TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD EXAMINATION RESEARCH OBJECTIVES THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF Tills RESEARCil PROGRAM IS TO PROCURE A SERIES OF METALLURGICAL TEST SPECIMENS FR0f1 Tile INNER HALF 0F Tile LOWER HEAD OF THE Tril-2 PRESSURE VESSEL IN ORDER TO CHARACTERIZE THE EXTENT OF LOWER HEAD DAMAGE, THE HATURE OF DAMAGE, AND THE DAMAGE MECHANISMS. REGIONS TO BE SAMPLED INCLUDE: THE HEAD LINER THE INSTRUMENT PENETRATiedS, AND THE PENETRATIONS WELDMENTS e b
c m OECD/TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD EXAMINATION PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL DAMAGE 1. ANALYSIS OF THE P0TENTIAL FOR THERMAL ATTACK 0F THE LOWER VESSEL HEAD BY JETS OF MOLTEN MATERIAL INDICATES THE POSSIBILITY OF ABLATION DURING THE ESTIMATED ONE MINUTE RELOCATION TIME FOR CORE DEBRIS. 2. RECENT THERMAL ANALYSIS OF Tile LOWER VESSEL HEAD IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS DEBRIS CONFIGURATIONS IN CONTACT WITH Tile LOWER HEAD SUGGESTS THAT VESSEL llALL TERMPERATURES AB0VE 1100* K COULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED. AT THESE TEMPERATURES, CREEP RUPTURE OF THE VESSEL BECOMES IMPORTANT. 3. ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGE TO INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBES SilGGESTS TilAT DEBRIS COULD MELT THROUGH INSTRUMENTRATION PENETRATION N0ZZLE WELDS IN Tile LOWER PLENUM. 4. s
4 R ^ OECD/TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD EXAMINATION WORK SCOPE 1. DEVELOPMENT OF A FULL SET OF EXTRACTION TOOLS AND PROCEDURES, 2. PREPARATION OF A M0CK-UP OF THE LOWER HEAD, 3. TESTING 0F ALL EXTRACTION TOOLS AND PROCEDURES ON THE MOCK-UP, 3 i ~ i 4. EXTRACTION OF THE WANTED METALLURGICAL SPECIMENS FROM THE TMI-2 LOWER HEAD, AND i 5. TRANSFER OF THE SPECIMENS FROM THE FACILITY. I i i i 4
5 g OECD/TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD EXAMINATION SAMPLES FROM LOWER HEAD (MULTIPLE POSITIONS) PENETRATIONS NON-PENETRATION REGIONS i A. WORST STRESS B. WORST EROSION C. HIGHEST TEMPERATURE ZONES - HOTTEST NEAR CENTER - HOTTEST NEAR PERIPHERY - COVERED BY NON-FUEL - SEVERE EROSION l
OECD/TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD EXAMINATION METALLURGICAL SPECIMENS TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD SPECIMENS WILL BE EXAMINED TO DETERMINE: THE TERMPERATURE THE VESSEL HEAD REACHED DURING THE ACCIDENT, THE ACTUAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AS OPPOSED TO THE PROPERTIES FROM THE i j AS-MANUFACTURED CONDITION, AND EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL AND THERMAL ATTACK AT TYPICAL LOCATIONS BASED ON CURRENT UNDERSTANDING. INVESTIGATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED ON TMI-2 LOWER HEAD METALLURGICAL SPECIMENS FALL INTO TWO AREAS: 4 1. METALL0 GRAPHIC STUDIES TO DETERMINE TEMPERATURE GRADIEltT, MICROSTRUCTURE, AND l INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MOLTEN CORE AND THE VESSEL t 2 METALLURGICAL STUDIES TO DETERMINE ACTilAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
~ s r DECD/TMI-2 REACTOR VESSEL LOWER HEAD EXAMINATIOR TMI-2 LOWER HEAD METALLURGICAL SPECIMENS WILL BE TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: 1. AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE UNDER THE LOCATION WHERE IT IS BELIEVED THE PRIMARY JET OF MOLTEN CORE MATERIALS ENTERED THE LOWER PLENUM, 2. TOWARD THE RADIAL CENTER OF THE LOWER HEAD UNDERNEATH THE MAXIMUM THICKDESS OF
- DEBRIS, 3.
IN THE QUADRANT OF THE LOWER HEAD WHERE A "WALL" 0F CONSOLIDATED DEBRIS SINILAR TO A LAVA FRONT HAS BEEN OBSERVED, 4. IN A LOCATION OF THE LOWER HEAD NOT CONTACTED BY THE MOLTEN CORE MATERIAL TO ACT AS A "CONTROL" SAMPLE, 5. TO INCLUDE ONE OR MORE INSTRUMENT PENETRATIONS ESPECIALLY IN THE AREAS NOTED AB0VE, AND 6. OTHER LOCATIONS AS MAY APPEAR DESIRABLE ONCE WORK IN THE AREA 0F THE LOWER HEAD IS STARTED. L
C-28 ( Enc-State Core Configuration - 1987 mm r'3@ 3 i j 3 5 s El ! fl YCCCEC'c N l l_ n i '\\ jUpper grid f damage /h ( ) 2B inlet ~ ~ // A1 inlet Q ). 's M / G 0 p I -d 0 h *0.gOgg;gf = ~ 0 i 0 void B outlet n 0 ~~~ o rr '? i os.:m::;se w-i;.:. .mid; - W jb Crust b q[l}, l . l. ' Nfit. j/) hflfj]' i I Previously molten j!! /.h material )J.f Ib i f(h. f ] kb Lower plenum Previously J l molten iP, " o, debris material N Failed instrument NN' ~ ee.- structure i Ud l s , l. u l
.<n-Primary Shield Cavity Under Reactor Vessel Elevation View PRiaAARY SHIELD ( j '~ n ELEY.- 290'-5 7/16* ,,i" " m ELEV.-289' s 1/4* N ' <ND Or N0ZZLIS ~ ~ ~ / / INSULATION 3/4* pipe .~. E lev.- 288*-3* sca. iso p IN - .,si uCORE, /. CuoE RPES s/2' scH. eo CUiOE PlPE CHASE PIPE CEHitns ELEv. 282*-0* ROOR ELEV.-28t'-0* 4 + 01 A.- 150* i l l 1
s ~~ fj2gre 1. THi-2 lower plenuin debris bed depth (m) measurments and suggested reactor vessel lower head sample locations A 8 C D E F G H K L M N O P R Y A
- Incore instrument position Cliff-IB:e formation i
is at edge of debris \\ N
- Machanical probo (core bore drB string) u
'i ( OControl sample location (D14) row on e nwm 0.00 Lg ;*,- - *, - BDamage zono sampk locations 13 e o u 0.48 o.: o 11 10 V n
- o. s
/ o.si o.i a oo os o.61 M 8 X o.2a Z 7
- ~
Ablated incoco o3 Instrument rA a gy;-.i 20% to e __{ \\ .ai .a i Hole in baffle platOS o.ss o.ss o3 a 3 0.44 0.6 E 0.68 Core relocation 2 M' zone 3 W I .i
( 3 Y l ii i l ^N }' / N x / 4 h 'N / 4'ed w bo.t hA 'x L. pm x ~ ksN y , o.( e N; gh \\' / gfD oc Ie .ML\\ \\, / !,!9.; e !e \\ l 6 e e e oc sS{G;h\\ \\ \\-wA,=- k$'s ? s - A, ) ) 1,, _ i t 'i. = = W~.~ i Fk I, x ga w u i ( w a,. c. f/ ,i j ? ? ? ? g M[/ / so g I 3 pQ(f,/ ,I k)QnQ .~~~T .@s 999 f(* M/ ,/ 3 f Ntas -@W/ / -y y l ~. i w l { TMI-2 MACHINING AND DISASSEMBLY OF LOWER CORE. SUPPORT ASSEMBLY PLAN .. -.. -. - - ~ -
a" s 1 J x N N x N 3 -,c g m _ ,s ~~~y er y MMY 6 j I I i 8 ni" l 1 sa }* l I (' 6'. 4 {} ( l g j s t i N .I g ,/ j j ~ l x C s } l n= W Q e B 4 TMI-2 MACHINING AND DISASSEMBLY OF LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY ELEVATION
i i MPR ASSOCI ATES F-73 -3 0 18 3/7/88 \\. 6' TO 7'. ,/ / / / / // / / / l /., f (- + %g-2 Old c'a./ ,i j' MDM _CUTJING ELECTRODES \\\\ !/ ! i. L/ (gg'- ), i 's!E!1 ! L.! 5' ii y TYPICAL INCORE I - NOZZLE LOCATION MDM SAMPLE REMOVAL TECHNIQUE
.. m. . ~,, s TMI-2 BOTTm HEAD SPECIEN SAMPLIN_G PROGRNi MILESTONES ACTIVITY TARGET DATE PRIME CNTRACT PLACED (PPR) JANUARY 15,1988* ' TIME WINDOW' FOR ' GOUGING OUT' OCTOBER 15 - DECEPBER 1, 1 % (TAKING) SAMPLES FR m THE BOTTOM HEAD SAMPLES PACKAGED AND EN-ROUTE APRIL 15, 1989 TO THE PRIMARY EXAMINATION SITES ~ CmVLATIVE REPORT, INCLUDING DESCRIPTION JUNE 5, 1989 OF SAMPLES AND ALL PHASES OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM
- COMPLETED ON SCHEDULE
-t NRC ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 PRESENTATION APRIL 14, 1988 4' f l-F. R. STANDERFER DIRECTOR, TMI-2 1 i \\ 1 l l t
s ,.. ~, e% , = J ,/ ".'.. ,.j m. s .. "4 -. ~;,,a .0#., . ;e T." ..u.. =' ,s ~... - ~. m ~ sso y Dee = ... = ,r = -... = ... --s ,._____/ E-. ... -E TMi-2 DEFUELING 'tg E-,,. = ' " --E PROGRESS ,e E- "* ,,. = = n. = ... = =-... = = 310 --[ ~ r 30 = j F20 --@ j F20 = C 290 T PeO 1, FOO ---= = r ISO = = e90 7 e9O = see --- f --- see _= = e70 ~ ETO = POUNDS OF DEBRIS LOADED C too q EL O. x #000) = _,,, ego C ~- eso = 2 seg C ~~ 040 = = e30 i ] b 030 = = er o - -.-- r sto = 2 .O m: r #O = 2 e00 m_ 7 00 0 so C POUNDS OP DESRIS SHfPPED = (L D. M 8000)
so C
90 --{ 2.- 90 70 i_ ~ 2-- 70 eo i ~ 90 7 90 - 50 0 i_ 3-- *O 30 ~ Z-- 30 20 C L 20 C A5 OP 88-APR-99 2 ~~h l DDe8 A Pet t:DEPPROJ h*
- ,.'.'f".'.'T".'.'T**T.'"T""1"n*4"*f'"Y.'"T""1*:}',!Tl.' T'.T:Y."'f:::1 Y T = 1".'"Y f1"Tl.'.f.'T"l1'::."t:::1;"C'f "n"T'".T:."T'."'
E080 f 997 8999
CURRENT DEFUELING ACTIVITIES I APRIL 9 COMPLETED CUTTING WITH CORE FORE APRIL 10 CORE FORE MACHINE REMOVED APRIL 11 - APRIL 24 INSTALL PLASMA ARC SYSTEM APRIL 25 - APRIL 29 OPERATIONAL CHECK OUT - PLASMA ARC SYSTEM ' I APRIL 30 - MAY 10 REMOVE CSA PIECES FROM DRILLING MAY ll START PLASMA ARC CUTTING OF THE DISTRIBUTOR PLATE 4
- k
l ~., n 1 i l l ESTIMATED CORE MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION i ESTIMATED ZONE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY Hb) A Defueled Matettal as of 3/1/88 195,000 B Mid-Cote Region a)Large Rocks 0 b) Donut 0 l [- I 'L1 c) Remaining Loose Material & Rods (Above the Lower Grid) O C Le h %h P Resolidified Mass 200 ( R-6 Grid Location) i [ 3 D Lower CSA a)Resolidified Material 10.000 A b) Loose Material (Vacuumable) 9.500 c) Loose Materia!(Rodsand Rocks) 7.500 3 i i i i E Lower Head i B a)uonoiiihorrused uaieria ii.000 l b) Post-Acadent Loose Material (Non-Vacuumable) 20.000 1 c) Post-Acc6Jent Loose Material (Vacuumable) 10.000 i p-d) Newly Relocated Loose Material (Vacuumable) 17.000 i e)NewlyRelocated Rodsand Rocks 2.500 = s i l C t r Cor. ro.m.r necion 9.300 i . c. .- 7 g' f G Ex-Vessel RCS 1.000 k Q TOTAL 293,000 } HQIE; Additional material is expected to relocate to the lower regens during future defueling activities. ) i i
e t p e 4 .eJ % .O LOWER GRID DISTRIBUTOR RIB SECTION PLATE jSUPPORT POST (48) l sr i s m s r, c r i s r-i s rn c r, s r, t r, s m s r(s r, c r, t r, s r, a y 88 1 88 1u a 1 y, a l .(( .,,. ".. """. 'j .,. '., [., i. ( .i. i. .,i. l#ll-lll.lsl,ll,,,l,lll, 4 i t v EnhMWN / II FN M El h1 i I NI I Ni N Ei I h1 FN Ici KhMW m i 1 FORGI p p---R q INCORE INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBE (52) INCORE GUIDE SUPPORT PLATE i FLOW DISTRIBUTOR LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY
,4V % Y I FF 1 l i l l l l l l l l l l$l l/lg y \\lyff M % r th4 7 k %r! 4 s i mxmwi e si m o o ra s i o s i ra a ra is o m ra smww l D DD D ff FORGl 8 r9 a INCORE INSTRUMENT GUIDE TUBE (52) INCORE GUIDE SUPPORT PLATE FLOW DISTRIBUTOR LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY llGT's AND SUPPORT POSTS CUT AND REMOVED
.i SF ] [ o i s r 1,m_ ~ l o# i i 1 l i-LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY FLOW DISTRIBUTOR CUT AND REMOVED I LCSA DISASSEMBLY COMPLETED i i
4 (' d (PHOTOGRAPH IN ORIGINAL) 4 6 /' O l l 1 l 1 { l l l
A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R D '8 ..L. 41 N.j..
- +1 e
.s ,s f+ -P+'#' +' A +. +. +w lI w 11 1 1 A k 10 l es. es es es es les I fr M M .m 9 lc I + -I i- ' L ,&+. + ,' n' 4 ~' ~' l m m 6 ~ 5 s es s ss e se we we se s ' T' a <br, r we' r y /@ ~ y: p r' Lower Grid Rib Section '5
l A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R (' D 28W' 15 J m s L .h K' s f t t 14 ,au es es t sf sf-sf-sf 1 l I I I t 1 i t I 13 f ',- 7 12 i q i i a
- s
_/s _/s
- s Nwf sf-sf-sf-sf s
I I l I I 11 l L m i t I t i a 10 s /s_ _/s
- s
/s _/s _/s t sf" ~ s!~ s! sf~ sf I a l I i 1 a 9 s .ps _/s e ,i
- S 8 i
i t i i 2 sf s f sf t i i l i I i i i 7 fs /s _fs
- A
_fs sf~ s! sf sf~ s! ~s!- a 6 t I 1 i i r 1 : I l r I I i i i i s l s ss ss- _fs ss e f s#~~ sf sf sf' sf i 1 i I 4 e s 1 7r, w f r i a l I 3 es _es es. .es g-si sf-sf-r \\ 2 m 7 s N ._ m Lower Grid Rib Section AFTER DRILLING OUT INCORE GUIDE TUBES i
A B 'C D E F G H K L M N O P R i i .-t i-i G 15 em .. ).. ,f t 14 i L p - k Asd .r I t I i i a 12 8mm W Hun und kuda put huma summi pa a m t I r i s 1 J 11 ~s L e s 10 I I l I k i a y g M best aM bums umma pum u ma pse I I t i i i i q 9 aums umas ammq > mamp 9 I I I I t i g I G8 . puma had leu m > gyg s I I I I I I I I I I 7 N. m pumm W pmet m w meng umas l \\ p I i I n ( 6 .f R r-y- r d a o a l I 5 '-ummm ame unsa sua >=== -g >mm uses >me uma i l I I 4 mm a 3 g, h ( r t I t 2 1 a ,,, m Lower Grid Rib Section AFTER DRILLING OUT INCORE GUIDE TUBES AND SUPPORT POSTS [
A B C D E F G lH K L M N O P R c 0 a 15 m. g f I I I t I > t i 13 mm . m + l q i i a 12 W D'un W >=88 C gmW kuma W puet E I I I i ' t I I 11 g i l l p q 10 1 1 I t l I i 1 a 9 buur M bums C M pour B i I I t 1 I ( I E8 t, pues M bem ~ W nuns I I I I t I i I 7 m >== W nuet m na =-a >=us D I i t i i g 6 7, l l l q 5 I I 4 t < l 1 r >m m >ma m >-- -.a >-. m m.m. y 1 I 4 m } j l 3 k i I 2 >== =
=
Lower Grid Rib Section AFTER ALL THE DRILUNG IS COMPLETED i
A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R ( n -O .=O. O.--O
- 1. -
I n o.<,.. l O-o_ S, $U., O -O- *b- -O O~ i i 24 { w ..o., O--U~., O l O- -O- ~O-o O. ~.,~O = O. ~~O a i i ae O- ~O -O~ ~O [ 9. o., 7 t -O. -O~~O O~~O~ - O.. I 3 e ~ ,. u .o., s ~O~ ~O- -O- =O- -O- -O 4 O-O i 3 O =O-On-=O m -b=OA ~ l Lower Grid Rib Section i
i A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R 6 t B 15 q_ ,j, f 13 I t i I t t I "V
- L i
i i i a 12 = I I I i ' i 1 11 l { 10 1 i i t t M i=.a au-d,mmes u.mq - gymq pdh 1 t I a t i i 1 a 9 y D i t i i S8 ( sused W sumi I i I i 1 i I 7 ?;> 1 i i i 6 t i 1 : a l i 5 t i I 4 .g t q 3 4.I 'u.ED1:
- I m rw M
Lower Grid Rib Section AFTER ALL SMALL FALLOUTS AND H SECTIONS I ARE REMOVED l t
A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R .-(. E i 'S ) . L ~ A 12 i
=
l l ' t 11 L i t 10 l I t l I l 9 W r 1 i G8 m l I I i I i i 1 7 w w saw men 1 i i 1 6 r i 1 : a i 1 5 4 r - r' l 1 1 sang beang _Y L my. Lower Grid Rib Section AFTER ALL PERIPHERAL PIECES ARS REMOVED 4 i .~
A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R i t I D is i- ]" 13 ~ -_ a 12
- > mum amme
~ to ( r kann maa 4 3 y V t 2 amma m Lower Grid Rib Section AFTER ALL PIECES REMOVED 1 l l 1....
A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R ah i B ,y.D: : :: :y y III
- x_
15 I_OmO: - X: :: :: : 11: :I kr-et
- .I: :: Ul IX :
LIIy hi 14 Ml, -n .n., , N,eA,,, e. N l S' VN N V,, M N Nr N + t e e, 13 a e uo,O,:,; ', :,.
- , :, :,:, :,:, 1 : ::-
sg ri
- 1: :: :::: ::
, p,e ,,,1 7 N N N, t i o ,,M ,M N " a ~, u t :: :: :: :: :: :: ': :. :: :1 :: :: :: :1: :1: ': :11: :: :: :111
- 7 :::' ': ":::': 1: :1:
- :e1I: ': :e: :
t 1o -Trx x.: : r* Q' 'O, O' ' O',"."'O c. p 4*> >::4 4 N N II
- e::::: L: :e: :: :1 X
- N N 9
<e. + .Y'
- :: :: :: :II: :: :: :I..: ::
~'
- N N
N (qc e I: :: :: :: :eII: :: X :1: ': :: :: :: :: :*1 2 8 N m ,77, ,7 N N, M
- :: :: :" :: ';,,N N >4, 6
- el I
- ; ::;
- ,:2 :
.N. O'g,gpN ' A*: 'N N s 1 7 N N N N 't ': Ng .,O' gp:, ,g gg,o-gggg gg 5g, fj N M * .N :: :: :1I: :: :I: :: :: :: :: :I1: :. :II: :: :Ih g,<,:N
- :: :y;M N N N Ty
- y 7,
,e 'g 'g ', :,A. : ::, s -N N er P Q >,,,> <,. Q > ..Q.,,. <.Q q 4 Q,g,,. , >,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,..g,,,.,y 4 < uogO x: :1x 11:
- 111:
- 11 y ri ft :::::g:1:
w 1:
- 17 m f."'n
.44%" 3 3+PM o n Lower Grid Distributor Plate AFTER THE DRlLLING OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED i i, __n,,_..----- n-
A B C D E F G H K L M N O P R 1 i (I B ~ a AN 1XQ 15 11: 7 4-m m h N .: i I2 h k
- 5 N N::is! NkNC[ $> <
.,: <1: <I. 2 .2 ,m a
- I
- ;g L C :: :: : I' 12
/I: :: :1 N N $# N N[.$[ N N IN:[ N N 11
- e..a
- 1:
- 11: :: :11: :: :11:
- :: :: :: :1: :: :111:
- 1111 fk kN N Y?b I IIIb Ib Ib I
?b bII k I fi [I[ D[ N N 'I I I 'Y' 9 4 N W n N N N C 1,>,<,,,> e [N l (
- 1: :: :: :: :X: :: m :: : :
S8 u q , y >, ', >,, >,,,i 3 s gy a h M N 'N N N k N j M 1 h
- N N N
- N N N h:'
E! e E 1: :: :: :1I11: 1 :: :: ::
- 1: :: :1 f,11 h
IIh Ib h! hb:b h N d
- iEifut:N N N 4
- 1.
- ::'11
- 'II;$ :1:
C l 'IIII .o 3 M Lower Grid Distributor Plate AFTER THE DRILLING OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED .---.-----c--
( PRELitt! NARY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION FOR ACCIDENT GENERATED WATER DISPOSAL .('- Rev. 0 l i i // M Mpared 0y anage M ecovery Engineering ) 2 - a -se zAcA77 { Oate / Date t l l t
I 1.0 PURPOSE, SC0FE AND ORGANIZATION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe the system and evolutions which will accomplish the controlled disposal of approximately 2.3 million gallons of "Accident Generated Water", hereinafter referred to as processed water. 1.2 Scope The scope of this system descr' addresses the processing of this inventory by forced evaporation followed by a vaporization process and atmospheric release of the product distillate. It also includes the separation and final treatment of the solids removed and collected during the evaporation process and the preparation of the resulting waste product for shipment and burial at a commercial low level waste facility. 1.3 Organization Section 2.0 describes the process and contains a system description of the evaporator, the vaporizer and the associated waste processing operations. 4 i 1 0078H/3H
Section 3.0 describes the cont'rol of process and the operational (. options.
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF THE PROCESSED WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM
2.1 Background
The TMI-2 accident resulted in the production of large volumes of contaminated water, herein referred to as processed water. Through mid-1981, when the submerged demineralizer system (SDS) began operation to process water contained in the reactor building, approximately 1.3 million gallons of water existed at TMI-2. Of this volume, about 640,000 gallons were located in the reactor building. Direct release from the reactor coolant system e: contributed 69% of this water. An additional 28% was river water introduced via leaks in Reactor Building air coolers and the remaining 3% was added via the containment spray system during the first several hours of the accident. Subsequent to 1951, most of the water was processed by both SDS and EPICOR II to reduce radionuclide levels to very low concentrations. In addition, approximately 570,000 gallons of water existed in the auxiliary and fuel handling building tanks, most of which had been processed by EPICOR II by mid-1981. The reactor coolant system contained an additional 96,000 gallons which also required processing by both the SDS and the defueling water clean-up system (DWCS). Since i 2 0078H/3H
\\, 1981, the total inventory of processed water has increased to the current volum# of approximately 2.1 million gallons due to continued additions from support systems and condensation from the reactor building air coolers during the summer months. Considerable care has been exercised to minimize the additions of new water and to ensure that the comingling of non-contaminated water with the processed water is restricted. Even with exercising care to minimize additions of rvw water, the final volume of water requiring disposal is expected to be 2.3 million gallons (as stated in Section 1.1). 2.2 Process Description i. The processed water disposal program consists of: (a) a dual evaporator system designed to evaporate the processed water at a rate of five GPM; (b) an electric powered vaporizer designed to r:ise the evaporator distillate temperature to 240*F and release the resultant steam to the atmosphere via a flash tank and exhaust stack; (c) a waste concentrator designed to produce the final compact waste form, and (d) a packaging section designed to prepare the resultant waste for shipment consistent with commercial low level waste disposal regulations. If desired, the product distillate from the main evaporator can be routed to an interim staging tank for holding purposes, i.e.; to permit radiochemical analysis, batching evolutions and system shutdown, prior to being 3 0078H/3H
routed to the vaporizer assembly for atmospheric release. The L residual concentrate (bottoms) from the main evaporator section will be routed to the auxiliary evaporator for additional processing and then to the final concentrator where it will be processed into the final compact waste form. The project will employ well proven technology and be continually monitored and controlled with automatic shutdown capabilities designed to terminate the vaporizer and atmospheric release process. With the exception of two controlled release points, one at the vaporizer section, which will release the superheated steam to the atmosphere and the oth( at the waste processing section which will discharge the final waste to a collection pnint, the system will operate in a closed loop configuration.
2.3 System Description
The processed water disposal system consists of four major component groups. They are: (1) the evaporator, (2) the vaporizer, (3) the blender / dryer concentrator, and (4) the waste preparation sections. (See Attachment 1., Process Flow Diagram) 9 A contract agreement was entered into with the selected vendor for construction of these four component groups and authorization was issued February 1988 to proceed to final design and fabrication of the equipment for the specific TMI-2 application. Certain i 1 4 0078H/3H
definitive design details necessary to prepare a comprehensive system description are not currently available as these final designs are an on-going effort. The descriptive information that is available and used extensively in the preparation of this system description is: (a) the vendor's contract proposal, (b) a system description for a unit similar to the one proposed for this application, and (c) preliminary design information submitted by the vendor January 1988.for review /coment by GPU. Given these limitations, the following provides a general system description pending completion of the final designs. 2.3.1 General e ( The main evaporator is a vapor recompression type unit with the designed flexibility to be co7 figured as a spraying film or climbing film evaporator. Yapor recompression units are designed to continually recycle the latent heat of vaporization (heat necessary to change water into steam) to sustain continued boiling at reduced pressures and therefore at lower temperatures. ) The main evaporator employs a vapor dome, positioned over a ~ l horizontal tube heat exchanger, to collect the natural rising vapor from the evaporator process. This vapor collection is through two 12 inch diametrically opposed uptake pipes which feed an ent"ainment separator housed within the dome. The entrained l l' l \\ l 5 0078H/3H i i
j water is screened by capillary action on the wires of two-stage mesh impingement screens that drain the separated solids to the bottom of the separator. There, the solids are extracted by the recycle pump and routed to the concentrate tank. The vapor compressor, taking a suction on the vapor dofre, superheats this dried vapor by the heat of compression and discharges the heated 2 vapor down through the tube side of the 520 ft heat exchanger. The vapor is condensed and then routed to the skid mounted distillate tank for ultimate vaporization and atmospheric release. If desired, due to batching evolutions, system shutdown or radiochemical analysis, the distillate can be routed to an interim staging tank. The product concentrate, separated by the two-stage impingement screens and collected in the concentrate tank, will be recycled back through the main evaporator for further processing or, depending on the level of its concentrate, outed to the settling tank for second stage treatment by the auxiliary evaporator. The second stage treatment consists of increasing the level of solids concentrate to 100,000 to 500,000 ppm by forced evaporation in the auxiliary evaporator section which is similar in design and employs the same method of solids separation as the main evaporator. I l 6 0078H/3H L
i The increased concentrate from this separation process is collected i at the bottom of the auxiliary evaporator separator where it is extracted by the second stage r'ecycle pump and returned to the settling tank. This increased concentrate will be recycled through the auxiliary evaporator for further processing or, depending on the solids concentrate level, extracted by the concentrate feed pump and routed to the blender / dryer section via the concentrate holding tank for final treatment prior to packaging operations. 2.3.2 Evaporator The principle utilized in a high vacuum vapor compressor distiller concentrator is similar to the refrigeration cycle except for the use of water as a refrigerant. As the system pressure is reduced, so is the boiling point of the product solution. Therefore, rapid evaporation takes place at a lower temperature and the latent heat of vaporization (heat necessary to change water into steam) can be continuously recycled by the use of a vapor compressor. Vapor recompression evaporation requires steam heat to initiate start-up and occasional supplementary heat to make up for heat l losses during operation and feed heating requirements. This auxiliary start-up and supplementary heat will be provided by the auxiliary evaporator which is designed to raise the start-up temperature to approximately 131 *F. Once started, the main { l 7 0078H/3H
g evaporator will boil the processed water under a vacuum on the shell side of the heat exchanger tubes at temperatures of 130' to 140*F. The excessive evaporator feed, that feed above the designed rate of evaporation, will combine with the vapor generated and exit from the shell via twin 12 inch uptakes to the separator. The foaming tendency of the water during this process will completely "wet" the tubes and the resultant vapor being generated will be in the 'orm of minute vapor bubbles. This action prevents the formation of large vapor bubb'es which would insulate the tubes, raise the hydrostatic head and reduce heat transfer rates. The evaporator twin uptakes, diametrically opposed, discharge the larger water particles of the excess feed to the bottom of the (' separator. Any fine mist carried upward by the vapor, impinges on the two-stage mesh where it coalesces and drops to the bottom of the separator for extraction and recycling by the concentrate recycle pump. This feed and bleed action not only assures continuous wetting of the heat exchanger tubes, it provides the maximum concentration of the liquid for discharge to the auxiliary evaporator for additional processing. The compressor action is described in Paragraph 2.3.4 The superheated vapor from the vapor compressor is discharged down through the annulus between the 1 inch titanium sheaths of the heat exchanger where the vapor is condensed by the ev6porating action 4 8 0078H/3H
from the processed boiling water. The condensate (distillate) is ( propelled to the back end of the titanium sheaths where it is sucked out through 1/4 inch stainless steel tubes and discharged to the distillate collection tank. 2.3.3 Vaporizer The vaporizer section takes a suction from the product distillate supply. It is used to raise the product distillate temperatures to approximatelj 240*F under pressure, release the heated distillate to atmospheric pressure via a flash tank and exhaust the resultant steam through a 100 foot high stack. The vaporizer assembly consists of: (a) three, 300 (KW) heaters used to elevate the distillate temperature to 240*F at 10 psig; (b) a 24 inch diameter 1 by 60 inch high stainless steel flash tank, used to expose the 240*F distillate to atmospheric pressure and to contain the resultant steam; (c) a 7-1/2 HP pump, used to recirculate the distillate in the flash tank through the heaters; and (d) a 3 inch diameter by 100 foot high stainless steel exhaust stack, used to releast the steam at a velocity of approximately 350 feet per second. The exhaust stack will be equipped with a sound abatement dampener to modulate the souhd levels during exhaust operations. 1 [ t I l l 9 0078H/3H l t
2.3.4 Yapor Compressor The vapor compressor is designed to take suction from the vapor dome after the vapor has been dried by passing through the two-stage mesh separators. Flexible expansion joints will be incorporated to relieve any strain on the compressor housing. The rotary lobe compressor is a positive displacement blower with a capacity of about 5230 CFM at full lotu speed of 1750 rpm on the 125 HP compressor motor. Its designed application is to take suction on the rising vapor, heated by the latent heat of vaporization being collected in the vapor dome, and compress the vapor to create a rise in temperature e due to the heat of compression. This superheated vapor is then discharged into the tube side of the evaporator heat exchanger. 2.3.5 Auxiliary Evaporator A small waste heat auxiliary evaporator using heat generated from the before and after electric heater (s) and/or the 143*F product distillate from the main evaporator, will evaporate the product concentrate from the main evaporator at an approximate temperature of 130*F. The vapor from the process will be routed to the main evaporator vapor dome to provide supplementary or start-up heat to the main evaporator. The increased concentrate (bottoms) from the i, 10 0078H/3H
auxiliary evaporator will be extracted by the recycle pump and ( ) routed to the settling tank. The concentrate will be recycled through the auxiliary evaporator and the settling tank until the level of concentrate is between 100,000 and 500,000 ppm at which time the a feed pump will take suction on the settling tank and route the concentrate to the concentrate holding tank. 2.3.6 Blender / Dryer The blender / dryer will process the concentrate collected in the concentrate holding tank to the final waste fonn in a batch type process. The blender / dryer consists of a cylindrical, horizontal vessel equipped with an agitator for drying liquids and slurries to t total dryness. The dryer body will be equipped with a 150 KW electrically heated jacket. The liquid in the waste slurry will be evaporated as it comes in contact with the heated body of the vessel as the agitator moves the waste slurry from both ends of the dryer vessel toward a center discharge valve. The agitator consists of rotating helical ribbons which continually scrape the dried product from the sides of the vessel and move the waste product to a center discharge valve. The drying process is controlled so that the waste batch is discharged when the liquid is removed, at which time the final waste product will be discharged directly into the collection section for packaging preparations. k 11 0078H/3H
The liquid from the dryer section will be returned to the main t evaporator concentrate tank and reprocessed. 2.3.7 Packaging Waste packaging options permit packaging by one of three methods, the selection of which is lef t to the discretion of the vendor. All options are acceptable methods, relative to applicable regulations, and all employ satisfactory volume reduction techniques. In the event a binder agent is required, to minimize the dispersion factors involved in calculation of release fractions during a postulated median transportation accident, its addition will not appreciably increase the estimated volume of waste f generated as a result of any of these options. Option 1 utilizes a i pelletizer to compact the waste into a pelletized form and then discharges the compressed product into a Spec.17, 55 gallon transport drum. Option 2 discharges the waste product directly from the dryer into a 55 gallon drum, compacts the drum (and product) to a fraction of its original volume and loads the compacted drum into a transportation over-pac container. Option 3 discharges the waste product directly into a Spec.17, 55 gallon transport drum and loads the drum, uncompacted, into a transportation over-pac container. 12 0078H/3H l
The volume of waste generated as a result of any of these 3 techniques is estimated to be 4400 to 4500 ft. This volume represents a significant reduction to the estimated waste volume presented in the PEIS Supplement 2 which used as the method of 3 waste packaging solidifying the waste in 170 f t liners. The base case, resented in the PEIS Supplement 2, which addresses 3 the solidification of waste with Portland cement in 170 ft liners, provides a waste volume estimate of between 27,000 to 3 46,000 f t, for 25 wt. t solid and 16 wt. % solids respectively, assuming a 0.35 cement to waste volume ratio. ~The base case further estimated that in the event of chemical impurities retarding the curing rate and final strength of the concrete the projected volume of solidified waste could be as high as 3 88,000 ft, 2.3.8 Instrumentation The system design will provide conductivity monitoring at three independent system locations during the evaporator process. Each of these monitoring points will be equipped with a sample point station for the extraction of process fluids for radiochemical analysis and a conductivity probe for the steady state monitoring of process liquid quality. Thes's monitoring locations are at the f~ i 13 0078H/3H
main evaporator feed and at the main and auxiliary evaporator distillate discharge. Additionally, there will be a sample station located at the auxiliary evaporator concentrate discharge for concentrate sampling and a conductivity probe and sample station at the radiation monitor. Operational experience and an accumulated data base accrued during g actual evaporator operations will provide a sound basis for comparing these two methods of analysis, i.e., physical sampling with laboratory analysis and steady state conductivity monitoring. After adequate demonstration of comparable analytical results and conductivity data, operational procedures may be modified to rely more extensively on the steady state conduc'tivity instrumentation. However, until a data base can be compiled based on actual system operations, the control method utilized in procedures and operating programs will be the physical sampling and laboratory analysis of process liquids. Radiation monitoring of the vaporizer influent will continue to be the essential method of process control of environmental release by the vaporizer assembly. The vaporizer section of the system, which releases the vaporized distillate into the atmosphere, will be monitored and controlled by a gama radiation detector. This detector, located in the vaporizer assembly flow path, will monitor levels of gama radiation in the distillate prior to the distillate being routed to i; 14 0078H/3H _..=_
the vaporizer heaters. The detector will be calibrated to sound an (' audible alarm and terminate atmospheric release by tripping of f the vaporizer heaters and/or initiating valve closure to isolate the distillate supply to the vaporizer section. In the event an alarm condition occurs, the evapo.rator will continue to operate in a batch cycle mode, discharging the product distillate to a staging tank or recycling it through the system until the system is secured or the alarm condition is removed. The pre-determined set points i of the radiation detector are based on insuring the present TMI-2 Technical Specification instantaneous release limit of 0.3 uCi/sec. will not be exceeded. Monitoring ecuipment is available which will allow a setpoint at 25% of this instantaneous release rate limit for particulates which is 7.5E-2 uCi/Sec. ~ ( Assuming the gamma emitting isotope Cs-137 is at a concentration of 3.7 E-8 uCi/ml., the level of concentration permissible for continuous release per Table 3-1 and the PEIS Supplement 2, is present in the vaporizer influent then a corresponding maximum l l continuous release rate of 2.8E-4 uCi/sec. for all the l radionuclides is also present. This is the permissible rate of 6 continuous release as bounded by the PEIS Supplement 2. This ratio of Cs-137 concentration to the maximum permissible continuous release rate yields a scaling f actor of 1.32E-4. Using i this scaling f actor and the determined instantaneous release rate l l l l ( 15 0078H/3H I - =.
of 7.5E-2 uCi/sec., which is 25% of the Technical Specification maximum instantaneous release' rate, it can be calculated that the Cs-137 concentration of 9.9E-6 uti/ml. is the pennissible limit for controlling the rate of instantaneous release. (1.32E-4 X 7.5E-2 = 9.9E-6). State of the art instrumentation will be installed which is capable of detecting this level of Cs-137 although it will be unable to detect minor variations in the extremely small quantities of most isotopes present. (Table 3-1 notes that 22 isotopes are expected to be present at levels <LLD). Others are of such small quantities as to be a small f raction of the Technical Specification limits. Therefore, this monitor is expected to detect "gross upsets" and terminate releases to the environment before the (' Technical Specification release limits are exceeded. Conservatively, assuming a 100% carryover of the particulate content through the vaporizer, radioisotopic content of the influent to the vaporizer (i.e., the evaporation distillate) is the process control mechanism and will be additionally controlled by sampling and conductivity monitoring. It is note worthy that the radiation alarm set point is approximately the same as the limit for the average Cs-137 concentrations permissible in the evaporator influent. Thus, the set point limit of the detector provides reasonable assurance that the evaporator is not by-passed, f 16 0078H/3H i e w-. 7
.~ TABLE 3-1 VAPOR 12ER INFLUENT CRITERIA ( Continuous Release (I) Quantity concentration Constituent .C_i. uti/ml Tritium (Hydrogen-3) 1.02 x 103 1.3 x 10-1 Cesium-137 3.2 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-8 Cesium-134 7.66 x 10-6 8.8 x 10-10 Strontium-90 9.6 x 10-4 1.1 x 10-7 Antimony-125/ Te11urium-125m 2.0 x 10-5 2.3 x 10-9 Carbon-14 8.7 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-7 4 Technetium-99 8.7 x 10-6 1,0 x 10-9 Iron-55 4.2 x 10-6 4.8 x 10-10 Cobc1t-60 4.2 x 10-6 4.8 x 10-10 Boron 0.15 tons H 80 3 3 3.0 ppm 8 Sodium 0.011 tons NaOH .7 ppm Na+
- lodine-129
<5.2 x 10-3 <6.0 x 10-7
- Cerium-144
<1.4 x 10-5 <1.8 x 10-9
- Manganese-54
<3.5 x 10-7 <4.0 x 10-11
- Cobalt-58
<3.5 x 10-7 <4.0 x 10-11
- Nickel-63
<5.2 x 10-6 <6.0 x 10-10
- Zinc-65
<8.5 x 10-7 <9.8 x 10-11
- Ruthenium-106/
Rhodium-106 <2.9 x 10-6 <3.3 x 10-10 (
- S11ver-110m
<4.9 x 10-7 <5.6 x 10-11
- P rometh i um-147
<4.2 x 10-5 <4.8 x 10-9
- Europium-152
<3.3 x 10-9 <3.8 x 10-13
- Europium-154
<3.8 x 10-7 <4.4 4 10-11
- Europium-155
<9.6 x 10-7 <1.1 x 10-10
- Ura ni um-234
<8.7 x 10-8 <1,0 x to-11
- Uranium-235
<1.0 x 10-7 <1.2 x 10-11
- Uranium-238
<1.0 x 10-7 <1.2 x 10-11
- Plutonium-238
<1.0 x 10-7 <1.2 x 10-11
- Plutonium-239
<1.2 x 10-7 <1.4 x 10-11
- Plutonium-240
<1.2 x 10-7 <1.4 x 10-11
- Plutonium-241
<5.7 x 10-6 <6.5 x 10-10
- Americium-241
<1.0 x 10-7 <1.2 x 10-11
- Cu ri um-242
<8.7 x 10-7 <1.0 x 10-10 Totals Concentration (Average): 2.61 x 10-7 uCi/ml. Continuous Rate of Release at 5 GPM: 8.23 x 10-5 uC1/sec.
- Denotes assumed constituents l
< Oenotes less than level of detection (1) Release concentration overage over any calendar quarter. ( i s l 17 0078H/3H i
TABLE 3-2 CONTINUOUS CYCLE EVAPORATOR INFLUENT / EFFLUENT CRITERIA i l Influent l Effluent l I I Quantity concent rat ion l Quantity Concent ra tion Constituent l .C_i uti/mi l ,C_i, uti/mi I i Total volume l 2,300.000 gal. l l l Tritium l l (Hydrogen-3) l 1.02 x 103 1.3 x 10-1 1 1.02 x 103 1.3 x 10-1 Cesium-137 l 3.2 x 10-1 3.7 x 10-5 1 3.2 x 10-4 3.7 x 10-8 Cesium-134 l 7.66 x 10-3 8.8 x 10-7 1 7.66 x 10-6 8.8 x 10-10 Strontium-90 l 9.6 x 10-1 1.1 x 10-4 l 9.6 x 10-4 1.1 x 10-7 Antimony-125/ l 1 Tellurium-125m 1 2.0 x 10-2 2.3 x 10-6 l 2.0 x 10-5 2.3 x 10-9 Carbon-14 l 8.7 x 10-1 1.0 x 10-4 l 8.7 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-7 Technetium-99 l 8.7 x 10-3 1.0 x 10-6 l 8.7 x 10-6 1.0 x 10-9 Iron-55 l 4.2 x 10-3 4.8 x 10-7 l 4.2 x 10-6 4.8 x 10-10 Cobalt-60 l 4.2 x 10-3 4.8 x 10-7 l 4.2 x 10-6 4.8 x 10-10 Boron l 150 tons 3000 ppm 8 l .15 tons 3.0 ppm 8 l H 803 l H B03 3 3 Sodium l 11 tons NaOH 700 ppm Na+ l .011 tons NaOH .7 ppm Na+
- Iodine-129 l<5.2 x 10-3
<6.0 x 10-7 l<5.2 x 10-3 < 6.0 x 10-7
- Ce ri um-144 l<1.4 x 10-2
<1.8 x 10-6 l<1,4 x 10-5 < 1.8 x 10-9
- Manganese-54 l<3.5 x 10-4
<4.0 x 10-8 l<3.5 x 10-7 < 4.0 x 10-11
- Cobalt-58 l<3.5 x 10-4
<4.0 x 10-8 (<3.5 x 10-7 < 4.0 x 10-11
- Nickel-63 l<5.2 x 10-3
<6.0 x 10-7 l<5.2 x 10-6 < 6.0 x 10-10 (
- Zine-65 l<8.5 x 10-4
<9.8 x 10-8 l<8.5 x 10-7 < 9.8 x 10-11
- Ruthenium-106/ l l
Rhodium-106 l<2.9 x 10-3 <3.3 x 10-7 l<2.9 x 10-6 < 3.3 x 10-10
- Silver-110m l<4.9 x 10-4
<5.6 x 10-8 l<4,9 x 10-7 < 5.6 x 10-11
- Promethium-14 7 l<4.2 x 10-2
<4.8 x 10-6 l<4.2 x 10-5 < 4.8 x 10-9
- Europium-152 l<3.3 x 10-6
<3.8 x 10-10 l<3.3 x 10-9 < 3.8 x 10-13
- E u ropi um-154 l<3.8 x 10-4
<4.4 x 10-8 l<3.8 x 10-7 < 4.4 x 10-11
- Europium-155 l<9.6 x 10-4
<1.1 x 10-7 l<9.6 x 10-7 < 1.1 x 10-10
- Uranium-234 l<8.7 x 10-5
<1.0 x 10-8 l<8.7 x 10-8 < 1,0 x 10-11
- Uranium-235 l<1.0 x 10-4
<1.2 x 10-8 l<1.0 x 10-7 < 1.2 x 10-11
- Uranium-238 l<1.0 x 10-4
<1.2 x 10-8 l<1.0 x 10-7 < 1.2 x 10-11
- Plutonium-238 l<1.0 x 10-4
<1.2 x 10-8 l<1,0 x 10-7 < 1.2 x 10-11
- Plutonium-239 l<1.2 x 10-4
<1.4 x 10-8 l<1.2 x 10-7 < 1.4 x 10-11
- Plutonium-240 l<1.2 x 10-4
<1.4 x 10-8 l<1.2 x 10-7 < 1.4 x 10-11
- Plutonium-241 l<5.7 x 10-3
<6.5 x 10-7 l<5.7 x 10-6 < 6.5 x 10-10
- Americium-241 l<1.0 x 10-4
<1.2 x 10-8 l<1.0 x 10-7 < 1.2 x 10-11
- Curium-242 l<8.7 x 10-4
<1.0 x 10-7 l<8.7 x 10-7 < 1.0 x 10-10 Effluent Totals Particulate Concentration: 2.61 x 10-7 uti/ml. Continuous Rate of Particulate Release at 5 GPM: 8.23 x 10-5 uti/sec.
- 0enotes assumed constituents
( < Denotes less than level of detection 18 0078H/3H
o l 3.0 PROCESS CONTROL AND OPERATIONAL OPTIONS t 3.1 Process Control The process control of atmospheric releases during the evaporator and vaporization process will be implemented via the radiation monitoring and radiochemical sampling of the influent to the vaporizer section. Establishing process control at the vaporizer influent conservatively assumes a 100% carry-over fraction through the vaporizer assembly. There is no credit for plate out or solids separation in the heaters, flash tank or exhaust stack. To establish a basis for this influent acceptability the criteria established in Section 2.0 of the PEIS Supplement !! was used as a ( basis for comparison of the radiological constituents and respective concentrations acceptable for release to the atmosphere during operation of the vaporizer assembly. The average influent to the vaporizer assembly, noted in Table 3-1 is approximately 2.61E-7 uti/ml. This concentration, discharged at a rate of 5 GPM limits the continuous release of non-tritium radioactive material, principally cesium-137, strontium-90, and carbon-14 to approximately 8.23E-5 uC1/sec. This rate is less than 0.4% of the continuous particulate release rate permitted by the TMI-2 Recovery Technical Specifications (0.024 pCi/sec.) when averaged ( 19 0078H/3H
^ over any calendar quarter. It is also less than the rate of ( release stated in the PEIS Supplement !!, section 3.1.1.2 (0.00028 uCi/sec. (2.8 E-4)) which was calculated at a flow rate of 20 GPM. The radionuclides and their permissible level of concentrations as influent to the vaporizer assembly for atmospheric release are listed in Tatile 3-1. This table conservatively assumes that certain radionuclides, not positively identified in the process water samples, nevertheless exist at the stated lowest limit of detection. These assumed radionuclides, identified by an asterisk, are included in the table. 3.2 Operational 00tions ( The designed flexibility of the evaporator / vaporizer equipment permits the evaporator assembly to be de-coupled f rom the vaporizer assembly. In this configuration, the evaporator operates independent of the vaporizer and processes the water in a batch cycle method of operation. Conversely, if the vaporizer is coupled to the evaporator during operationi, the water will be processed in a continuous type method of operation. The operational options e addressed in this section describe these two methods of process operations. f 20 0078H/3H
-I 3.2.1 Batch Cycle Operations y i 4 In this configuration, the evaporator assembly will process water independent of the vaporizer assembly. The product distillate from the evaporator will be collected in a staging tank for sampling and radiochemical analysis. The benefits realized by this operational method are primarily in the area of radiological waste volume and occupational exposure reductions. By using the evaporator assembly as a pretreatment technique for certain of the volumes of water, pretreatment by one of the ion exchange systems and the resulting contamination of demineralizer resins would be eliminated. Thus, the handling and shipping o' the resin liners for disposal purposes is eliminated. [ The collected product distillates, sampled at the staging tank, will be radiochemically analyzed for compliance with the controlling concentrations noted in Tables 3-1 or 3-2. Process operations by the evaporator coupled to the vaporizer assembly or by the vaporizer assembly independent of the evaporator, will not be permitted until after it has been analytically determined by NRC approved process control procedures that the controlling constituents of the distillate are at or below those levels of ~ concentrations noted in the influent column of the applicable table, (i.e., Table 3-1, vaporizer influent criteria, and Table 3-2, continuous cycle evaporator influent criteria). ( 21 0078H/3H
3.2.2 Continuous Cycle Operations k, In this configuration, the evaporator and vaporizer assemblies will be coupled and operate as a continuous cycle unit. The control of this operation will be initially established by the isolation of the body of water scheduled for continuous cycle evaporation. Once this isolation is complete, a physical radiochemical analysis will n be performed on the water and compared to the controlling radioactive constituents noted in Table 3-2. Process operations by the evaporator and vaporizer equipment will not be permitted until af ter it has been analytically determined by NRC approved process control procedures that the controlling constituents are at or below those level; of concentration noted in the influent column of the table. l The imposition of these evaporator influent limits coupled with a conservative carry-over fraction of 0.1% assumed during evaporator ( operations, will assure that the rate of atmospheric release of particulate radioactive material will be in compliance with the permissible release concentrations established in Section 3.1 Operational experience and historical data accrued during actual operations (i.e., batch and continuous cycle operations) will provide a sound basis for the continued use of a 0.1% carry-over fraction for operational limits. Development of an operational f 22 0078H/3H
data base using physical sampling and radiochemical analysis may (,,,' demonstrate that a less conservative carry-over fraction may be applied and the operational procedures modified accordingly. However, until compilation of this data base during actual system operations, the 0.1% carry-over fraction will be assumed as the procedural control limit for continuous cycle operations. 6 ( i f. 23 0078H/3H I I
i, L.. c I-c-.- I 4 r; l t- -l t gg --+. - ,1 g 9 ~ s g.i.st f '!.) r m ~ ~. ~
- )-
-li .c... x I O h, i.I I;. _ t .!g.t yr f u -+-il y 4 m,. ~,5
- )
_i ,./-- ,,,,: 4 II i i i a . i, . u1 u.: , I, p. j..,. w a I i .i ix: -En !!!g,~ s ~ i. x e ji 'e -i; *i at. 5 jjjLl , i: fr - i 0 o ,. s v e-i -e
- i. 5
.= m - l !N i Ig g O I -3 .L ' l :: g x (- 2 x t w, u un O !, t su i i. 2 E !! - Si mr t l ii i e: ll:- ll: ~WQ li ". =
- l l
._ -.j) 9 g 1 l i ilti
- 3 !g
!l i r e. 5 s wg a i,t r 4 ( = g g. c. sg g ii )! M l, e a ?_; g. [I 1 \\ V 'fli :: i ;a!! ( M I Pi h ~ \\! l i e d I ~ I I il i:s w if t "I i I,
- s'
-8 [. % s ! E9 I ! g.. a, 's il *".' { t El j g e .N w l ' I .- --i
e a m MAIN EVAPORATOR DISCHARGE a VAPORIZER FEED u CONCENTRATE PROCESSING (SOLID WASTD 1 r SHIP TO LLW SITE EVAPORATOR PROCESS BLOCK DIAGRAM
(~'. if l y 1 1 -- wa I f S'l 'l I I IgI :~t ll g m sell ll > "ll jl, l 1 ~ L~" ' ~ ~ 5 { - k h. !!' )- g),,% r, g3!i 4 5 hl ' l'Il{ 1 ~ Q a ~ I ~ .4~Q Q ,p.. 8 n i,c4 r ll a u (' l{ 1 M !l s = n I 7 DII S i, )> b,Q i1 f .T e m. a N E l s I ,s E jl ll 5 M I ~*' L ,j::.p.n J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i 1 p y i ' lE ~ ' '~ l q!$lli it!, h.. y ,r -...... ] !n I D! y Ej 7----... Q ^ [. t
1 il 3 I '^ ut u4 i i III 1;I ", "!, y !r I( E ett I '-' > !) 7 ~ ,l Rebg g h I = b O fri D I y p-p -~--9 ( 2 > ys ~ (;.;;:;!!!4 sl [ (> j ~ I = 5 a / I 4 rf t i j ( 4IlfMf i h) 1 V +-- a e a i1n i r "s-L a 1 =; I gM D 8 f a 8 4 5 9 i p4 r e .n n E gl I a pu T=L I
== J ri W.....ks ~ -- ~ i 9 1* 1 Y 9 h!,I ) ~. a 3 ,.......q in $1 ,J 9 -.......l h, ,;g l IE {b $ l , - -.....E s,s 1 i.n 1
[ c _L cl ~ fjf ~ m'*$f n -i I - = =
- I r
a i "p' -> I) T r L I 7~ 5sll po-cfJi / ~k i! 1: C
- '"*d*===e Y'
( N h '.'I I M ' ' i) hll.-llqk i[hi p l 4 y i y I" ,) Q. +*N gi ! Fl! " ll*- llo-J dJ7.1-[---[. s w .= i i,n r-c r . ! ji e -f n I i 0 i ta ] 55 {i, g f I' y q, w s s e c l' !j M4 I = I t s >vu J = " - +1 n s,p _ '_ s r~, - -. -. r;,' - g 'l 4 -+4- ,. Lp q,l / l 3 ' Alh, 919 D I' ' N 'sa I D
- s b
u~ ~ I.'iD c-4 M i s Q w._ 1, i, c19
- E& j r~-
~ i v. N
M FF F TMIUa TnRet McLe ISLAHn ALERT, MC. n 315 Peffat St Harrisberg, Pome 17102 (717)233 7857 ( TMI A 's COMMENTS FOR Tile APRIL h 1988 ADVISORY PANEL MEETING I would like to address GPU's decision to acquire and test an evaporator prior to the resolution of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearings on this issue. I also have several general questions relating to the cleanup. We are inf uriated by GPU's decision to purchase, design, fabricate, install, and te st, an evaporator system on site while the ASLB hearings are in process. This not only displays an incredible arrogance toward the public and the the adjudicatory process, but pres umes the outcome of the hearing will be in the utility's, f avor, i.e. "Work on the system is being started now with.he expectation that NRC approval will be forthcoming and to a minirize the lapse of time in disposing of the water." (GPU Nuclear News Release w10-88N, March 17, 1988, p.2). GPU claims the $ 800, 000 they will spend on the purchase is a "ga m bl e", but it's a worthwhile risk since they are losing months, perhaps years, in their efforts to get rid of the water. Yet all of us are aware tha t disposal of the water has no bearing on the removal of the core and its component material f rom Unit-2. ("GPU Nuclear Corporation, along with its prime contractor, Bechtel, expects to complete the Cleanup Program by mid-1989 at a cost of of about $965 million. The goal of the cleanup is te I-eliminate the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction and the chance of a hazardous release of radiation by removing more than 99% of the damaged nuclear f uel core f rom 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 secure condition known as PDMS for an extended period of time." GPU Nuclear News Release #10-88N, March 17,
- 1988, p.1).
GPU is utilizing a common strategy f requently employed by nuclear utilities. This strategy includes expending large i7 vestments on construction, licensing and/or license amendments before the NRC has actually granted approval. The foregone conclusion being that since the money has already been spent and tne construction completed, the NRC might as wel1 endorse the 4 utility's actions, regardless of the financial, health and safety impact on ratepayers and area residents. You can counterbalance GPU's blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the hearings, by sending a message to the NRC indicating your displeasure with GPU's actions. We do not feel it is too much to ask for GPU to respect the integrity of the hearing process. Therefore, TMI-Alert is calling on this Panel to write an of ficial protest to the Commission on GPU's decision to purchase, design, fabricate, install, and test an evaporator before the issue has been resolved in the ASLB hearing process. 1 l
i .(' Furthermore, we suggest that GPU Service Corporation's Incentive Compensation Plan for Of ficers be diverted to pay for 'the evaporator. According to GPU's annual proxy statement, "Under terms of the Incentive Plan, an aggregate of approximately $800, 000 of awards for business objectives achieved in 1987 would be payable in April 1988." (p.9). This way GPU's Of ficers would pay .for their "gamble" and personally shoulder the economic burden. o I have some questions for GPU concerning the cleanup: .o - Are the results f rom GPU's study of "various options f or decontaminating the reactor building basement" available? (TMI-2 Status Report, September 28, 1987, p.3). Also, is it possible to obtain copies. of the NRC's PEIS on GPU'e PDMS program? - Would GPU comment on allegations that the director of the polar crane was unqualified, that some procedural requirements were deleted, and that this arrangement has serious safety implications regarding individuals working out of their job g descriptions? Although this incident occurred at Unit-1, is there any reason to believe that this type of activity is not taking place at Unit-2? (Inspection Report #50-289/87--19). - Finally, would GPU of fer an opinion on developments regarding t.he shipment of waste: Status of finding alternative waste routes? Number of casks involved with shipments? Legality of DOE agreement? Eric Epstein Spokesperson, TMIA 4-2 ]
a-2 DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR MATERIA'. TO THE ADVISORY F ANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Chairman Zech 16 H 3 Commissioner Roberts 16 H 3 Rogers 16 H 3 Comissioner Bernthal 16 H 3 Comissicner Carr 16 H 3 H. R. Denton, NRR 17 f 2 PANE T. E. Murley 12 G 18 P.O. Box 268 j" M. Masnik 13 D 16 Middletown, PA 17057 F. Congel 10 E 4 J. Zerbe 2100 Mr. Frank D. Davis M. Libarkin, ACRS H-1016 200 Gettyburg Pike T. Major H-1016 Nechanicsburg, PA 17055 J. Fouchard 2GS R. Browing, MNSS 4H3 Ms. Beverely Hoss, THI-PIRC Docket Fe 50-320 016 1037 Maclay Street PDR 016 Harrisburg, PA 17103 LPD.R 016 DCS 016 Mr. Edward Charles F. Miraglia 12 G 18 90 Nittany Drive S. Varga 14 E 4 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 B. Boger 14 A 2 J. Stolz 13 H 3 Mr. John H. Murdoch L. Thonus TMI Site Mail Pouch 44 Kensington Drive R. Conte TMI Site Mail Pouch Camp Hill, PA 17011 L. H. Bettenhausen RGN-1 Director TMI Alert c/o Kay Pickering Power Plant Research Program 315 Peffer Street i Department of Natural Recources Harrisburg, PA 17102 Tawes Building B-3 Annoplois, MD 21401 Dr. Frank Parker School of Engineerina Ms. Ruth Gentle flashville, TN 37203 l 1 Virginia Circle l Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Ms. Michelle Voso Society of Nuclear Medicine Susquehanna Valley Alliance 475 Park Avenue, South P.O. Box 1012 New York, NY 10016 Lancaster, PA 17604 Mr. Dave Janes Dr. Sid Langer Analysis and Support Division P.O. Box 1625 U.S. Environmental Protection Angency Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Washington, D.C. 20640 Mr. Kenneth L. Miller, Director Mr. E.E. Kintner Execut ve Vice President Division of Health Physics and i Associate Professor of Radiology General Public Utilities Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Nuclear Corp. i Pennsylvania State University 100 Interpace Parkway Hershey, PA 17033 Pansippany, NJ 07054
Mr. Bob Leyse Dr. John luetzelschwab l EPRI-NSAC Professor Physics 3412 Hillview Avenue Dickinson College i Palo Alto. CA 94303 Carlisle, PA 17013-2896 Mr. David J. McGoff Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director U.S. Department of Energy Bureau of Radiation Protection A-439GTN Dept. of Environmental Resources Washington, D.C. 20585 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 F.R. Standerfer, Director Three Mile Island Unit 1 Elizabeth Marshall GPu Nuclear Corporation 736 Florida Avenue P.O. Box 480 York. PA 17404 Middletown, PA 17057 Niel Wald, M.D. The Honorable Arthur E. Morris Professor and Chairman Mayor of Lancaster Department of Radiation Health P.O. Box 1559 University of Pittsburg 120 N. Duke Street A512 Crabtree Hall Lancaster, PA 17C05 Pittsburg, PA 15561 Dr. Gordon Robinson Mr. Ford Knight Associate Professor of Westinghouse Electric Corp. Nuclear Engineering P.O. Box 286 231 Sackett Building Madison, PA 15663 Unversity Park, PA 16802 Jim Detjen Dr. Henry Wagner Philadiphia Inquirer Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene 400 N. Broad Street 615 N. Wolfe Street Philiadelphi, PA 19101 Room 2001 Baltimore, MD 21205 Mr. Glen Hoenes Pacific Northwest Laboratory Frecerick S. Rice P.O. Box 999 Personnel Financial Management Inc. Richland, WA 99352 1 2 Crums Lane Harrisburg, PA 17112 Mr. Joseph DiNunno 44 Carriage Lane Mr. Joel Roth Annapolis, Md 21401 l RD 1, Box 411 Halifax, PA 17032 Ms. Leslie Klein Intelligencer Journal Pro-Women 8 West King Street l c/o Judy Branett Lancaster, PA 17603 320 Elm Court Middletown, PA 17057 Sally S. Klein, Chairperson Dauphin County Board of Comission Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17101 l l
1 Joyce Corradi Marjorie and Norman Aamodt Concerned Mothers and Women on TMI 180 Bear Cub Road 2 South Nissley Drive P.O. Box 652 Middletown, PA 17057 lake Placid, NY 12946 Francine Taylor Jane Lee 151 Hamilton Rd. 183 Valley Rd. Lancaster, PA 17603 Etters, PA 17319 Mr. Ad Crable Pepper, Hamilton and Sheets Lancaster New Sra P.O. Box 1181 8 W. King Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Lancaster, PA 17603 c/o Debbie June -/ Dr. Frederick J. Shon John Kabler, Director Administrative Judge Chesapeake Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pane Clean Water Action Project U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2500 N. Charles Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Baltimore, MD 21218 US Environmental Prot. Agency Debra Davenport Region III Office 1802 Market Street ATTIN: EIS Coordinator Camp Hill, PA 17011 CurtisBuilding(SixthFloor) 6th and Walnut Streets Robert L. Vree Philadelphia, PA 19106 Box 72 Middletown, PA 17057 Rep. Alan Kukovich House of Representatives Harrisburg, PA 17101 Ms. Mary Osborn 4951 Highland Swatara, PA 17111 Mr. John W. Crawford, Jr. 11405 Farmland DR. Rockville, MD 20852 l 1 l}}