ML20198E558
| ML20198E558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1992 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NACTMI, NUDOCS 9212070322 | |
| Download: ML20198E558 (55) | |
Text
. .
.%4444%W6%%%46%%%%W6%%%1,%%%%%%%Wd/6%46)yfgfggfig
- 2At! SMIT'4 TO: -[ Cocument Control Ce u , 016 Phillips 3
e -
! iDVANCED CCPY TO: The Public Document Ocem &
CATE: 2
/o */
M p FROM: SECY Correspondence & Recoros Branen
- - A Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting 5 document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Ar. cession List and g ,
placement in the Public Document Room. No other cistribution is reouested or g t recuireo. $
3 Meeting
Title:
/3 2* nab-2 4 d v g N Meeting Date: / :L // / 9.:L Open , X Closed e, .
-=
i: Item Cescription*: Copies '
3 Advanced DCS :
$ *s g E- to POR C3 13 B
g 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 k.- ,
i t' l:E l
Ii
$ 2.
i ii:
ii: c
_3:
c a:i C
= 3. g
=d
=>
~
=S k
- e
! 3
. 5. 6 3
3 22 5
$ 7"A"?83!922202 ~ '
i PT9.7 PDR p
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper. f I
C1R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY
) gV p
- acers. ;
t /, ,
KRKxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxggggggggggg+wwwwph$nymmi \
i i
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION i e i
i I
i i
1 I
j kI13l BRIEFING BY TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL 9
120CatiOD: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date: DECEMBER 1, 1992 PagGS 50 PAGES
]
4 d
NEAla R. GROSS AND C0., INC, !
, covet errestres Ano teANSC IDEE 8 l l 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest- ;
Washington, D.C. 20005 j e
(202) 234-4433 ,
q 4
t
DISCLAIMER .
1 4
, This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of l
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on December 1, 1992 in the Commission's office at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript 1 l l has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies, I
l l
)
l The transcript is intended solely for general !
informational purposes._ As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of I
the ' matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this l transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination i
or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument-contained herein, I except as the Commission may authorize.
I I
} .
HEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRittRS 1323 RHoOt ISLAND AVINUt. H.W.
(202) 234 433 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20005 ' (202) 232-6600
1 UNITED STATED OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
, BRIEFINu aY TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL PUBLIC MEETIliG
. 11uclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Tuesday, December 1, 1992 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., Kenneth C. Rogers, commissioner, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS to ANJ AV N N (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
l a
l PRESE!1TERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
ARTHUR MORRIS, Chairman, THI-2 Advisory Panel i
j JOEL ROTH, Member .
AN!1 TRUllK, Member THOMAS SMIT GALL, Member i
DR. NIEL WALD, Member DR. GORD011 RODIllS0!!, Member
- KEN!iETH MILLER, Member j ELIZABETH MARSHALL, Member l
l l
l l
l i
l l
l l
l l
\
l I
I NEAL R. GROSS !
COURT R[ PORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 l
t -
3 1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-ll-G-S 2 1834 p.m.
3 COMMISSIOllER ROGERS: Good afternoon, 4 ladies and gentlemen.
. 5 Chairman Selin is on travel and can't be 6 with us today.
7 The Commission will be briefed by the 8 Advisory Panel on the decontamination of Three Mile 9 Island Unit 2, known as the TMI++2 Advisory Panel.
10 This panel was established on 11ovember loth, 1980, 11 about one and a half years after the Three Mile Island 12 accident, and consists of a well balanced group of ten 13 public spirited local scientists and citizens who 14 serve independently to advise and consult with the 15 Commission on major activities required to 16 decontaminato and safely clean up the TMI-2 f acility.
17 The panel also provides the Commission 18 with a very useful and worthwhile way to interact with 19 the public, not only to make the Commission aware of 20 public concerns and opinions, but to improve public 21 understanding of the cleanup process.
12 This is the 14th time the TMI-2 Advisory 23 Panel has. formally met with the Commission since the 24 panel was formed. However, members of our staff have
. 25 attended all panel meetings and we have been closely NEAL R. GROSS l~ $ $H $ !'Is! $o Av$ $ f N 6ASHINGTON, D.C.
l (202) 234 4433 20005 (202) 234 4433 l . -- -- .. ~ . - - - - _ , - _ - . _ , - _ - . . . , - . - -
_ - . . .- ~. - - - - - _ - . .. . -=.- __ - -- .- _ .-
4 4
1 following its deliberations. Attendance at meetings i
2 has been exceptional over the years, with the panel 3 never f ailing to have a quorum.
- Considering that the 4 panel has had 76 meetings, this represents a
{
5 significant commitment of time over the years on the ,
l 6 part of the panel members. The Commission appreciates 7 your dedication.
8 I understand that the panel has some 9 interesting topics to discuss with us today involving 10 funding for decommissioning of TMI-2, spent fuel 4
11 storage and demolition of the facilities, the status 12 of entering into post-defueling monitored storage, 13 PDMS, and finally the issue of the future of the panel
, 14 itself.
15 So, without further delay, why don't wo 16 get on with the presentation. The floor is yours, Mr.
17 Morris.
18 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
! 19 If I could just ask the panel members if 20 they would introduce themselves briefly because I'm 21 not sure that we've met - each and every one of you 22 before.
4 23 I'm Arthur Morris, Chairman of the Panel 24 and I've been in this capacity for scme 7 or 8 years 25 now. ,
NEAL R. GROSS H At A (202) 234 4433 MSHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
4 S
1 Elizabeth?
2 MS. MIRSHALL: I'm "lizabeth Marshall. I 3 was asked to join the Pam1, I believe in about 1982, 4 after I had finished being Mayor of York. I was Mayor
. 5 at the time of the accident, the incident.
6 DOCTOR ROBINSON: I'm Gordon Robinson.
7 I'm Associate Professor at Penn State, Nuclear 8 Engineering. I believe I came on the panel about 9 1984, but I'm not sure.
10 MR. SMITHGALL: Tom Smithgall from 11 Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I replaced an attorney that 12 was on the original panel, Ms. Jean Corr. I believe i
13 that was in 1981, also it's beginning to fade into the 14 memory banks. Thank you.
15 MR. ROTH: My name is Joel Roth. I'm from 16 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I gueas I'm one of the few 17 originals still left and basically representing the 18 public.
19 DOCTOR WALD: My name is Niel Wald. -I'm 20 from the University of Pittsburgh. I think I came on 21 the panel about a year and a half after it began, 22 replacing one Doctor Joseph Palladino who was called 23 to higher duties. I hope it won't happen to me.
24 MR. MILLER: I'm Ken Miller. I'm the 25 Director of Health Physics at the Hershey Medical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 00'05 (202) 234 4433
6 1 Center of Penn State University. Z don't recall 2 exactly when I came on the panel, but it was somewhere 3 around 1983.
4 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. And just a little 5 bit of background, and I'll make this fairly brief ,
6 before getting into the formal agenda. There are 7 three members of the panel that are not here today.
8 Unfortunately they could not attend and they send 9 their apologies. This is the 77th meeting of the 10 panel. If you'd have asked us back when it started 11 how many meetings we would have, I think we were 3 12 considering it to be a three or four year assignment 13 and obviously that's not been the case.
14 The last time we met was on October the
- 15 25th, 1988, with the Commission that is. Since that 16 time we've had six meetings. We've actually met less, 17 quite frankly, in the last number of years. Previous 18 to that time we met maybe six or eight meetings per 19 year. We've actually only had six meetings since we 20 last met with you in 1988, 21 Since the last meeting, the panel has lost 22 cne member. That was Mr. Tom Gerusky, a former I
23 Director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection for the 24- rommonwealth of Pennsylvania.
25 Topics covered since we last met with you,
! NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 A INGTON D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
, 7 1 at almost every meeting the panel receives a status 2 report on the progress of the cleanup from GPU and a i 3 status of ongoing NRC activities. I want to stress 4 that the panel allots time at every single meeting, a 5 minimum of a half hour and we normally meet for 6 anywhere from two to three hours. It's held in an 7 evening usually, from 7:00 to 10:00 at night. We have 8 a minimum of a half hour discussion from the public.
9 Many times it's more than that.
10 In April of '89 we were discussing the 11 of fsite radiation monitoring program. In March of '90 12 meeting, the NRC staff-made a presentation of the 13 licensee's defueling completion report. I'd like to 14 mention at that point Gordon Robinson lookea over the
- 15 staff's analysis for the panel and found ~ it quite 16 conservative. There was a lot of concern expressed at
- 17 that time and Gordon in his capacity at Penn State was 18 able to review it and give us his-input.
19 Later that year,- in October of 1990, GPU 20 made a presentation on decommissioning funding plan.
21 for TMI-2. Still actively discussing that, but.I 22 think their first presentation was a couple years ago.
23 In January of '91 there was a presentation 24 :: Doctor Maureen Hatch of Columbia University, a
, 25 researcher, on the incidence of cancer in the vicinity NEAL R. GROSS 23 S AN AV (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
8 1 of TMI-2. The panel charter was amended in 1986 to 2 include the issue of health ef fects of TMI-2 accident.
3 Prior to that, we could not get into that kind of 4 discussion and the charter was amended to allow us to 5 discuss the health effects of the accident. This 6 change was in response to the overwhelming public 7 pressure on the panel to include this as a topic.
8 Then in April of '92, GpU provided a 9 status and it was -- I don't want to get into
- 10 personalities here, but you may have seen an 11 interesting interaction-between us and the individual 12 that represented GPU. It was kind of an unfortunate 13 setback and thats all I will say. The staif review 14 in response to the licensee's amendment request to 15 place TMI-2 into long-term storage took place.
5 16 Then, in the June 1992 meeting, the last 17 meeting of the panel prior to this one, staff and the 18 licensee presentation on decommissioning funding took 19 place. Two issues arose from-that meeting, two key i
20 issues. Staf f has preapproved the licensee's request 21 to extent the TMI-2 license for five years so that it 22 will expire simultaneous with the TMI-1 license.
23 There was quite a bit of discussion from the panel and 24 the public on that. Also, that there was no annual 25 audit of the licensee's decommissioning funding plan.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (2C2) 234 4433 WAS INGTON, D.C 200'0$ (202) 234 4433
9 1 That was a concern that we'll probably express again 2 today.
3 The panel also at that meeting had open 4 discussion on its future role. Actually, since we
. 5 last met, we've talked about that in four of the last 6 cix meetings. At any time, not that you need it, but 7 I do have copies of the agendas of those meetings if 8 you ever want to see them.
9 Having done that, if you want to -- after 10 providing that as background, if you would like to get 4
11 into the agenda at this time, Mr. Chairman, we'd be 12 happy to do that.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGEAS: No, thank you.
14 MR. MORRIS: Okay. On the funding for 15 decommissioning, Tom Smithgall was going to express a 16 concern that the panel has regarding that particular :
17 item.
18 MR. SMITHGALL: Thank you for allowing us 4
19 to come before you here today. When I' heard the 4
20 number of meetings that we've had before you, it 21 shocked me. It was on the order of twice of what I 22 thought it was. So, things do move along.
23 But what I would like to address is the 24 memo that came to the Chairman of the Commission from 25 James Taylor, Executive Director of Operations, on the i
-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHI!;GTON, D.C. 20005 - (202) 234 4433
~ -
-,y ----e ,, - w r- ,, . - . - - ,
10 1 evaluation of the TMI-2 decommissioning cost. The 2 memorandum deals with the staff's most recent
- 3 evaluation of the TMI-2 decommissioning costs. From 4 our discussions and you've seen them in the l
5 transcripts, it might -- and I hope I speak for the ,
6 panel on this, to take issue with the staff's 7 conclusion that the licensee's certification cost 8 estimates being reasonable and based on credible 9 methodology. I would argue, and we've had this 10 discussion in our panel, that these cost estimates to 11 be somewhat deficient in their accuracy since they're 12 based solely on the 1982 Battelle Study which was 13 noted in the evaluation by Mr. Taylor as NUREG-CR-2601 14 as a non-site specific analysis that is nearly ten 15 years old. It lacks, I feel and the panel feels, the 16 critical reassessment of current reactor technologies, s
17 safety issues and cost estimates. It doesn't actually 18 use actual decommissioning costs available since 1982, 19 It doesn't use any of the current technologies that 20 have been developed since the accident, and it doesn't J
21 account for the cost projections based on current 22 conditions within those areas, the most important of 23 which is the dramatic increase in disposal costs and 24 actual disposal sites.
25 I would think that it would be prudent of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, .C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
. . . ~ . -
11 1 the Commission to reassess the staff's conclusions and 2 require a more stringent preliminary decommissioning 3 plan that would reflect. more reliable economic 4 modeling, thereby assuring greater accuracy in the 5 financing of the commissioning process. An idea that 6 has surfaced is potentially requesting an annual 7 periodic audit of these funds.
8 I'm knocking this water over. I believe 9 it's the second time. You should never do this to me.
10 I spill it every time.
11 The evaluation goes on to conclude that 12 the licensee would have five years prior to 13 decommissioning to secure funds to cover any shortfall 14 that it may find. This uncertainty is unacceptable in 15 light of the gross under estimations made as smaller 16 undamaged reactors, illustrating somewhat of an 17 industry-wide problem. No one really has a handle on 18 how-much it will cost to dismantle a nuclear power 19 plant, let alone you're always estimating against a 20 moving target. These hidden costs of decommissioning 21 of undamaged reactors could pale against the costs at 22 TMI-2.
23 Since the Commission has revised its 24 position on decommissioning funding requirements and 25 allows more flexibility on a staff review, I.would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
12 1 suggest to the Commission that they take a unique 2 opportunity at Three Mile Island Unit 2 and use it as 3 a true case study against'a wofst case estimate for 4 decommissioning of a nuclear power plant. The bottom 5 line to all this is to require the licensee, and as a ,
6 regulatory agency require the public policy to put 7 more money in the trust earlier now, sooner in the 8 process. If you really are looking towards the 9 protection of the public health and safety, tying the 10 financial certainty to this process, we feel that it 11 would help in the public policy issues dealing with 12 decommissioning regulations.
13 If other members of the panel would like i
14 to embellish on those comments, you're welcome.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: We might as well ask
- 16 questions at each point.
l 17 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Actually, I just 18 had a couple of comments to fill in some information 19 that reflects . what we're doing. I do share the 20 observation that the decommissioning cost estimates, 21 not just.for TMI but for all the plants, ought to be 22 as accurate and reflective of the cost of-i 23 decommissioning as they- can- be. When the i 24 decommissioning rule was promulgated in '88, it 25 contained some minimum values, as you may recall, for , l
- l l
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
! (202) 234 4433 WAS INGTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
- 1 i
13-1 what we estimated based upon the Battelle work at the 2 time-it would require to clean up a PWR and a BWR. We 3 have gotten considerable experience with some of the prematurely shut down plan + s since that time, Yankee 4
. 5 Rowe and Shoreham e7d Rancho Seco and Fort St. Vrain.
6 I do know that the staff has underway at 7 the same lab that did the original estimate plans to 8 update that estimate that you referred to. The PWR 9 estimate is supposed to be out in draft form for 10 comment in March of 1993. So, that ef fort is underway 11 right now. As they took a close look at it, it turns 12 out that a couple of the points that you've alluded to 13 are actually matters that they intend to take a look 14 at because the estimates are highly sensitive to, it 15 turns out, the cost of low-level waste disposal, the 16 spent fuel storage costs and then the amount of 17 concrete that you need to remove at the facility. I 18 think you, in fact, touched on a couple of those. I 19 guess I'm personally hopeful that the estimates will 20 bring us up to date on what the current cost is, 21 taking into account some of those sensitivities that 22 we had not previously gotten a clear sense of.
23 I guess the only other observation that 24 I'd make here is that with the estimates that we have
. 25 seen coming in, they are indeed higher than the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433
- INGTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
14 I I
1 minimum values reflected in the original rule. It 2 turns out that part of-the explanation for that is 3 that the estimates that we're s6eing for Yankee Rowe l
4 and Shoreham and Rancho Seco include some activities 5 that were not originally assumed'in the estimates in ,
6 the 1988 rule, like spent fuel storage, which was not 7 part of the estimate, in fact today is not part of the s
8 estimates, and then wnat's called . Greenfield cost 9 which would bring it down below even unrestricted use.
l 10 So, I just offer that as a partial explanation for why I
i 11 we're seeirig some deviation from the original numbers.
12 But having said that, I do share your view 13 that it would make sense to update those numbers and 14 take account of the experience a_ things move along.
15 In that regard, let me ask a question.
4 16 Aside from the expenses or categories that are generic
- 17 to all of the plants, regardless of -their type at low-
, 18 level waste disposal for example, are there issues or l 19 expenses unique to the situation that TMI faces that 20 you think deserve particular examination, issues that 21 because of TMI's condition we might not capture in the 22 Battelle update?
23 MR. MORRIS: If we're talking about 24 removal of radioactivity from concrete in the first 25 one to three inches or whatever it's in, it's going to ,
NEAL R. GROSS Coup.T REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 W I TON D.C. 200'05 (2013 234 4433 m ,-na. _
15 1 be quito different. I guess from the panel's 2 standpoint, because the costs are based on 1982 3 studies and because we all know disposal costs for 4 anything today aren't just going up with inflation,
. 5 they're going up almost geometrically. Because TMI-2 6 decommissioning is, from our standpoint, somewhat 7 uncertain because there's going to be an attempt to 8 link it with TMI-1, which would take it from 2009 to 9 2014, and then if there's an effort to further extend 10 the 2014 date to whenever, so you have an uncertain 11 date out there with a 1982 cost that's very old and 12 the longer we go on the bigger chance of a. variance 13 taking place, happening, and we are very concerned 14 that up-to-date figures be done as quickly as possible 15 and that they continue to be updated on a- regular 16 basis and not five years, more regular than that, 17 because in anything today, whether it's disposal at 18 landfills or radioactive wacte disposal, the cost we 19 would project for next year are never close. It's 20 always much more than that.
21 I think that's the sense you're hearing 22 from us, is there's an uncertainty as to the date of 23 decommissioning and we are concerned about having
~
24 enough money available when that occurs. The longer
, 25 we wait up the cost, the more the difference is going NEAL R. GROSS
$ N N OU!!*A D A U (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
_ _ _ _ - _ _ 1
16 1 to be. Our concern is it's going to be on_the low
$ 2 side, not the high side.
3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay. Well, 4 hopefully the Battelle effort that comes out later 5 this year or early next year for public comment will .
6 at least be a first cut at trying to take account of 7 the experience that we've seen in some of the 8 sensitivities, like low-level waste disposal, that 9 have cropped up. But that process, I think, is 10 partially underway and may move in the direction of 11 addressing that concern.
12 MR. MORRIS: We would just encourage the 13 quicker the better.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay.
15 MR. MORRIS: I think Niel Wald wanted to 16 speak a little bit regarding the auditing requirements 17 of funding, f
18 DOCTOR WALD: Yes. It emerged from 19 several meetings and particularly our meeting this i 20 past June that there is no specified procedure on the 4 21 part of NRC to monitor the accumulation of the 22 decommissioning funding as time moves on. Apparently,
, 23 and I think we've got this captured in the minutes 24 also, NRC audits, but not even on a regular basis but 25 sort of ad lib. It seems to us, at least from the ,
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 W HINGTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234-4433
17 1 public standpoint, the credibility of the NRC is such 2 that the public would be benefitted by knowing that 3 NRC is looking on a regular basi.s at the accumulation 4 of funds by the utility.
, 5 So, I wanted to reflect this concern of 6 the public and the panel.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I would just say 8 that in some backup material that the staff supplied 9 us with prior to this meeting, the point was made that 10 the Headquarters staff here is in the process of 11 initiating a technical interface agreement with Region 12 I to develop an inspection module for TMI-2 to-13 determine the status on an annual basis of the 14 licensee's funding progress. So, there is work afoot 15 to address that question.
16 DOCTOR WALD: Good. Well, we certainly 17 would encourage --
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It's a very valid 19 concern.
20 MR. MORRIS: Unless there's another panel 21 member have a comment, I think that completes for us 22 the' agenda item one. I m not hearing any. Would you 23= like to move along to item two?
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.
25 MR. MORRIS: Which will be very brief from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 WAS INGTCN, D.C. 00'05 (202; 234 4433
18 1 our standpoint. This item is on there to express a 2 generic concern not related really just to TMI-2.
3 That was in decommissioning matters, we had certain 4 comments expressed at the meeting, the last meeting, 5 that spent fuel storage and demolition of the ,
6 facilities themselves are not included in the 7 decommissioning costs. We felt, in further review of-8 this, that since our charge is really TMI-2 that while 9 mentioning it here in passing, it really should not 10 have been an agenda item and we just pass at this 11 point with that as a background on why it was on the 12 list.
13 We understand that you also understand the 14 concern and have been reviewing it and hearing from 15 all other sources regarding those matters, which then 16 would take us to PDMS, agenda item 3.
17 MR. SMITHGALL: Just one comment on that, 18 Chairman. This issue is one of many that have come 19 before the panel that shows the difficulty in the 20 public's eye of separating the TMI-2 issue, which is 21 our charge, and other related issues having to do with 22 nuclear power generation. It consistently comes 23 before our panel and the Chair does a very admirable 24 job in deflecting it as far as keeping us on track 25 with our charge. But it is foremost in the citizens NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234-4433 WAS INGTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 443-3
19 1 that do come and address the TMI-2 issue particularly.
2 That is part of a greater issue. Just so that some of 3 you who haven't been here as long as we have on this 4 particular issue, to give you a sense of what we deal
. 5 with when we go to these 77 or so meetings.
6 Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Excuse me. Just out 8 of curiosity, roughly how many people do you have that 9 come to your meetings that are interested in more 10 broad topics involving the nuclear issues?
11 MR. MORRIS: It varies. There's no 12 question that over time the number has diminished. We 13 may get at some meetings 20, as low as 10 members of 14 the public. Early on we had substantially more than 15 that. Obviously as the issue has been dealt with, and 16 there's been a lot of good work on the cleanup on j 17 behalf of the NRC staff and the licensee that has 18 helped to diminish some of the concern, but there's i 19 still a fair amount of concern on behalf of people 20 that have stayed with the issue. While we might only-21 get 10 or 12 people, those people are people that have 22 been involved with this issue almost since day one and 23 represent a larger segment of the population with a 1
24 concern.
25 So, while the numbers in recent years NEAL R.-GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 w it.GTON D C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
1 20- l l
I haven't been so great, the concern has been -
i
, -2 consistent. It's been broad. Again, as Tom said, my 3 biggest problem as Chairman has Been trying to stay-on
. 4 the issue before us when the whole concern for nuclear 5 energy is large and broad. That in and of itself has ,
6 caused some people maybe not to come back, because 7 we've tried to be pretty honest-to our charge that 8 we've been given.
9 MR. SMITHGALL: And I'll just add to that,
{ 10 that if there's any advocacy point of view that you've 11 got on a particular issue, public policy issue, as it I
12 goes out in time, as this issue has, fewer and fewer 13 people get involved, as the Chair has said. I 14 personally want to not only acknowledge that numbers 15 of people have stayed with the issue that haven't been 16 on this side of the table or that side of the table 17 but out there that have provided not only guidance for 18 us, and I hope for the staff and to the licensee on 4
19 particular issues as they have dealt with the public.
20 At the-very beginnings of this, there was not a very 3
21 good rapport between the regulatory agency and the 22 licensee and we the public. That has come a long way,
. 23 but even as of three meetings ago it still cropped its 24 ugly head.
25 I just want to personally, for your ,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l (202) 234 4433 WASH 1h0 TON, D.C. 2 0'05 (202) 234 4433
21 1 benefit, recognize that the Eric Epsteins' of the 2 world have been with this issue and Deborah Davenport 3 who have stayed with this issue and studied it because 4 they, I feel, have been a help to me as a member of
. S this panel and I think have furthered the development 6 of good policy on it. So, I hope that -- '
7 MR. MORRIS: I think that's f air. I think 8 they really have made everybody do their job better.
9 While they're fewer in number, the amount of effort 10 that Eric Epstein and other people have put into this 11 has been enormous in researching and following up.
12 While the NRC or GPU or even the panel may not have -
13 been in agreement on certain issues that were raised, 14 they were sincere concerns and the meetings have 15 served, I think, a very important purpose. We've 16 gotten a lot of energies brought into the process in, 17 I think, a fairly constructive way.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Any other panel 19 members want to add to that?
20 MS. MARSHALL: I think-basically people 21 are a bit afraid of nuclear plants and they claim that 22 they really don't know what the cost per kilowatt is 23 when'you consider the cleanup. They haven't been 24 given that information. Perhaps in consideration of 25 the future new plants, it would be very important, I NEAL R. GROSS N$3 $H kNNAV U (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 00005 (202) 234 4433
22 1 think, that people understand the true facts about --
2 well, the facts about what the cost is of nuclear 3 energy versus the development of some other kind. I 4 think that your group could certainly get a lot of 5 information about that with all the experience that_ ,
6 you have already. It may be the way for us to go as I 7 a country or it may not, but I think it should be 1 8 based on experience and fact and dealt with 9 objectively or the public would have the confidence 10 that it was being dealt with objectively.
11 DOCTOR ROBINSON: I've been rather 12 disappointed in the citizen participation in the last -
, 13 year. For instance, at the last meeting we had I 14 believe eight panel members, nine NRC, seven citizens 15 and I don't know how many GPU people there.- We 16 overwhelmed the poor seven citizens that were there.
17 I think there is considerable lack of l 18 interest in the general public on what's happening at 4
' TMI Unit 2 these days.
19
- 20 MR. MORRIS
- In order to avoid a debate of 21 the panel here, there may be some --
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Which you see 23 shaping up.
24 MR. MORRIS: Well, there may be some 25 substantial difference of opinion on what represents ,
l NEAL R. GROSS 4 SA A EN (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305 (202) 234 4433
?
23 1 a large enough number of people from the public in 2 order to feel that the public is being heard. It is 3 true that the number, and th,ere were only seven 4 people, but the people that were there, if the
, 5 Commissioners could get a sense, as I said a few 6 minutes ago, of the effort that is put into preparing 7 commentary, public record information, whatever you 8 call it, it's hard to measure that.
J 9 I will agree that I think the public at 10 large have maybe grown tired of the issue and feel 11 maybe more comfortable such_that they're not coming 12 here, and I think to some degree the panel has been 3
13 hitting very heavily on the cost of decommissioning, 14 looking at PDMS and maybe there's some people that 15 feel that we have been trying to represent them as l 16 well. It's a complex issue and things are winding 17 down, I think for sure. That's the last part of the 18 agenda item anyway, is the future of the panel.
19 Joel, you had mentioned you might want to 20 speak to this issue.
21 MR. ROTH: Yes. I've counted to ten 22 slowly, so I'm ready now.
23 MR. MORRIS: I gave you time.
24 MR. ROTH: I'd just like to just br.iefly 25 talk about the evolution of the panel and the public P
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 443$ W INGTON, D.C. 00'05 (202) 234 4433
24 1 and GPU and the NRC staff because 12 years ago when 2 the panel was formed, the basic thrust was for the-3 panel to question the utility ahd the staff, and the 4 public was there only to observe. That was the 5 original guidelines. I think we've changed that 6 considerably where the public really plays a major 7 part in questioning not only us but the utility and 8 the staff.
4 9 In that basis, the number of people who do 10 attend find it very helpful to be able to publicly 3
11 question staff, ourselves and GPU. It's the only 12 forum to do that. So, I'll just take a little measure 13 and say I really don't care if there's one person 14 there or many, I think the essence of it is that it's 15 there and that the public has supported us, chastised 16 us many a times also.
17 The one issue that I think we've done a 18 good job on, at least from the beginning was the 19 funding issue. That's an issue that some of us felt 20 very strongly about way before there was money to even
]
21 clean up the damaged reactor. It's one issue that the 22 people can relate to.
23 I would just like to comment on what my
~
24 fellow panel members have said, is that we have, I 25 believe, served a useful purpose I guess 75 times and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 WAS INGTON D.C. 200'05 (202) 234-4433
25 1 that there are still some things lef t, I think, for us 2 to do, depending on our Chair's feeling on the issue.
3 But I'd just like to emphasize,the evolution of the 4 panel basically, that it's become a public forum.
5 Thank you.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Doctor Wald?
7 DOCTOR WALD: Just one additional comment.
8 I did give a paper at a meeting, an international 4 9 meeting, on the medical basis for radiation accident 10 preparedness. It was the third such meeting held down 11 at Oak Ridge. The emphasis for the particular meeting 12 last year was the psychological aspects. I did feel, 13 with my fellow panel members, that this mechanism 14 which NRC set up, whether it knew at the beginning 15 exactly what would take place, nevertheless it did set 4
16 up the mechanism whereby the public could relieve some 17 of its anxieties, could feel that they had a role, a 18 participatory role in what was going on in their 19 backyard, I think with a very salutary mechanism.
20 Since I'm on the faculty of a graduate 4
21 school of public health, I think the charge of the 22 NRC, which is to look after health and safety of the 23 public, was actually furthered by the existence of 24 this panel. That's not to say that when nobody needs-25 the panel anymore that it shouldn't be discontinued.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234-4433
26 l 1 I think maybe wo have succeeded sufficiently so that 2 we are ready to turn off this particular organization.
3 MR. MORRIS: Haviticf heard what Niel has 4 said, I did come armed today, not at Niel's request, b with copies of the paper he gave. The panel members, ,
6 I'm not sure, have copies of this either. I would 7 like to make sure you get a copy of it.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I'm sure we would 9 like very much to have that.
10 MR. MORRIS : Since we're talking about the 11 panel and-the role and we still didn't get to agenda 12 item three yet on PDMS --
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I wonder if Mr.
14 Miller wanted to add anything.
15 MR. MILLER: No, thank you.
16 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Before you leave 17 that subject, let me ask a question. Have there been 18 any media or press people at your meetings recently?
19 MR. MORRIS: There's always media 20 coverage, whether it's usually television and print 21 media both, usually several of each. Several J
22 newspaper people and several television stations cover 23 it. Within Central Pennsylvania, it still continues 24 to be --
I mean there was an editorial written at 25 least in one newspaper at our third meeting ago about NEAL R. GROSS AN AV (202) 234 4433 nASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
aae m m. __ 4 27 1 the way that one person from GPU handled themselves, i
2 that it was not very friendly. So, it continues to.
3 be, at least in Central Pennsylvania, an issue worthy 4 of coverage by the media.
, 5 I would commend the Commissioners and
- 6 those before you as well as you at present for having 7 the wisdom to establish a panel that served, I think, 8 a tremendous role in a very stressful situPtion, to 9 help answer -- we didn't necessarily provide the 10 answers, but we provided an opportunity for NRC and 11 GPU to provide them with public criticism and panel 4
12 criticism and comment. It has served a tremendous 13 purpose and I would be remiss if I didn't commend Lee 14 Thonus and Mike Masnik from your staff for the role 15 and effort that they've played in being very 16 responsive to the panel and being very helpful to us 17 during --
and there are people that have preceded 18 them, but those two particularly have been very 19 helpful to us and always responsive.
20 As we wind down at some point here in the 21 next year or so, we may not have an opportunity to say 22 that publicly again and just don't want to miss a
)
23 chance to say it today.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, we're very 25 pleased to hear that.
NEAL R. GROSS 0 A Av U (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
. = . = . . . - ..
28 1 Pd. MORRIS: They deserve'certainly big 2 pay increases.
3 Did I get that right, Mike?
4 DOCTOR ROBINSON: I'd like to second what -
5 Art said, but also in answer to your question there ,
. 6 were, according to the minutes, five media persons j
7 there.
8 COMMIST : ONER ROGERS: Five? That's pretty l 9 good, s
, 10 DOCTOR ROBINSON: I didn't count it. I 11 can't tell the media. personnel from any others. The 32 figures that I gave you were from the last minutes.
13 I assume someone made the correct count. My point a
- 14 only is that the interest appears to be dwindling and i 15 at some point we have to say, "Well, the interest just 16 is no-longer there." We don't have action items that 17 are required and I think we're going to talk about 4
18 that in a minute.
19 MR MORRIS: In a minute.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: All right. Shall we
- 21 proceed?
22 MR. MORRIS: Yes.- On item three, status 23 of PDMS. As I know at this' point, Tom Smithgall is 24 one person that wants to speak to'it.
25 MR. SMITHGALL: My comment is very short l NEAL R. GROSS A AV (202) 2'l4 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234,4433
29 1 and to the point and relates to some earlier comments 2 that these are now my -personal comlnents , not 3 necessarily that of the panels As you've already 4 found out here today, we don't always agree on mucn.
, 5 Sometimes we do come to some agreement.
6 But relative to the licensee's PDMS plan, 7 only to take the opportunity to remind the Commission i
8 of the old days which was -- and I think even today, 9 of its continuing policy of supporting an expeditious -
10 cleanup of Three Mile Island Unit 2. In my personal 11 opinion, the delay and uncertainty of the financial 12 underpinnings to PDMS I think make it inconsistent 13 with that policy, particularly if TMI-1 were to apply 14 for a license extension, thereby linking the two 15 processes together and prolonging a cleanup in some 16 scenarios for an indefinite period of time.
17 I realize that the license amendment for 18 PDMS has not been approved, but it seems all but a-19 certainty that that process will go forward. There is 20 the concern that this becomes a long-term waste site, 21 for one, and inexorably linked to the TMI-1 process 22 and with the uncertainty of the financial wherewithal 23 to go forward with the decommissioning plan.
^
24 That's basically my comment on the PDMS
, 25 and, as I realize, the issue is coming forward and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200'0$ (202) 234 4433
_ _ ~. _ - . ._ -
30 !
I will be resolved, but just as a commrat for today's 2 meeting.
3 COMMISSIONER REMICKt Is your point that 4 decommissioning should take place now?
1 5 MR. SMITHGALL: The concern is that as you ,
6 move the decommissioning process out into the future 7 and begin to link it with Unit 1, which would be the 8 desire for the economy of decommissioning, that 9 decommissioning of the damaged reactor begins to go 10 out further and further ieo the future with no i
11 certainty as to the financial package to do the actual 12 cleanup.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I understand that.
l 14 Is your point that it should be decommissioned now or 4
15 next year or five years from now? What is your 16 alternative?
17 MR. SMITHGALL: The alternative would be 18 to do it sooner than later. I don't know that that 19 gives you the answer that you wanted.
20 MR. MORRIS: On the panel there are people i
4 21 that agree that they should be linked. It makes sense 22 to link it for safety reasons and financial reasons.
23 There are other people that feel sooner is better for 24 -TMI-2. Whatever that does in regard to TMI-1, whether 2
25 you approve extensions of-decommissioning or whatever, ,
NEAL R. GROSS ,
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, .C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433 4
31 1 it should be done separate. But where we are Z think 2 in agreement is where you link that with your 3 financing plan and you base the, financing plan on old 4 numbers and you continue to let TMI-2 be linked with
. 5 TMI-1 to the year 2080.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK: All that I 7 understand. I'm trying to get what the proposal is on 8 sooner. Is it one year before TMI-1 or five years 9 before --
10 MR. MORRIS: We don't have a proposal as 11 a group. If you want an individual, there's two l 12 points of view, is what I'm giving you from the panel.
13 One is it should be as quickly as you legally can do 14 it without any extensions. That's one point of view 15 of this panel. The second one is it ought to be 16 linked with TMI-1 and whenever that time is it should 17 happen. I shink we're fairly split on that. We can't 18 give you a good consensus.
19 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: But the concern 20- with the-linkage is then the increasing uncertainty in l
21 the time and the cost. Is that --
22 MR. MORRIS: We-see that and I personally 23 see that. To me,-that is the biggest issue that I 24 have today is the fact that we're going to find out at 25 some point here that these costs we have are so out of i
NEAL R. GROSS
$3h$!!!fA$AV i (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
32 1 line for this particular plant because it is a damaged 2 plant with radioactivity .n it and we're certainly 3 going to find out we don't have enough money to do it 4 properly and the utility isn't 0:ing to be able to do 5 it. We're going to have a problem which is not going ,
6 to fulfill the commitment'by the NRC that they will 7 make sure there will be an expeditious cleanup of this 8 facility. I would be less concerned about the 9 expeditious cleanup if the numbers were timely and as 10 accurate as they reasonably could be, and I don't 11 think at this point that it's even close to being as 12 accurate as it reasonably can be because it hasn't 13 been looked at closely enough and it hasn't been 14 updated enough. That needs to happen.
15 One voice here of the panel is that I 16 think it's sad, quite frankly, that we are in the i
17 state we are in being able to make projections on 18 this. I know it's not an art, but we should be able 19 to d a heck of a lot better than we've been able to do 20 at this point. That's a criticism, I guess. I just 21 feel rebl troubled in listening at the meetings and 22 how numbers are put together and everything related to i 1
23 it.
' l 24 That's my concern is we're going to miss I 25 the target. If the target doesn't happen until the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ A D TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAt:0 AVENUE . N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
- , . -.. . - - . - - = ,
__._._m . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . __.-_ _ ..- _ __ _ . _ .
33 1 year 2050, I generally agree that it can be held 2 safely. Other panel members, again, will disagree 3 with that, but my feeling is as,long as the money is 4 there to get rid of it when it happens and it's in
. 5 sufficient numbers, with the lack of a regular audit, 6 with the lack of good updates, all of those things are i just trouble.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK Let me hypothesize.
9 Suppose that we were able to develop costs that you 10 felt more comfortable. Would that change your mind on 11 sooner? If you felt better about the cost estimates 12 for decommissioning, would that allay your fears about 13 putting off the decommissioning until a later 6 ate 14 rather than sooner?
15 MR. SMITHGALL: possibly, yes. Out my 16 fear is that as we go forward with these estimates, 17 that they're not necessarily 25 or 30 percent off, 18 which t:.ey could be very likely, but they're 100 or 19 150 percent off. So, yes, if these projections were 20 brought forward sooner with more reliable economie 21 modeling, which I think is possible, yes, possibly 22 there's a potential that you could do that. I 23 wouldn't deny that. I'm one that is advocating for 24 that on the panel.
. 25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Let me just make NEAL R. GROSS Al Av (202) 234 4433 nASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
._ . - _ . . . _ . , . . . . . ~ . , , , . - . . _ _ , _ , , _ . . . , . , , . . . . . . _ _. , ...- ,.,~ - ..,,,-._
34 l l
I 1 two comments here. In part the uncertainty that 2 exists about the cost of deco.itmissioning today is not 3 unique to THI, it's unique to the fact that we are undertaking decommissioning now for the first time on 4
5 a large scale basis with the facilities that are , l i
6 beginning to shut down. We've got a Jittle bit of l 7 experience with llumbolt Day, but that's not terribly 8 helpful in a facility of this size. We've got some !
9 experience with Pathfinder in South Dakota now under 10 our belt.
11 COMMISS10!1ER REMICK: Elk River. There 12 we. one there.
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: But we're just now 14 beginning, with the rule that was established in 1988 15 and with the general goal of unrestricted use, to get ,
16 some real world experience with the decommissioning of 17 facilities like Fort St. Vrain, which is of course a 18 unique reactor itself, but Rancho Seco and Shoreham 19 and Yankee Rowe, Trojan at some point, San Onofre 1.
20 Those utilities are all now starting to take a good, 21 hard look at what the decommissioning estimates will 22 entail.
23 I do think it's generally recognized that 24 the minimum amount set forth in our framework need to 25 be reevaluated and will probably be revised upward to .
NEAL R. GROSS t $ AY N (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
35 1 account for some things that were not estimated at the 2 time in 1988.
3 There is a school o,f thought though that 4 if you proceed with decommissioning earlier,
, 5 particularly at a multi-unit site like you have there, G if you proceed with decommissioning earlier and in 7 particular at this point in time, that your estimates 8- are going to be highly uncertain and they pe ' haps will 9 he more expensive. I guess I'd cite three or four 10 factors in that r? gard. We talked about low-level 11 waste cost. The fact is that today we have, I hope, 12 fewer waste facilities than we will have ten or 15 13 years from now, low-level waste facilities. If the 14 process for developing those f acilities moves forward, 15 including one in Pennsylvania, we hope, where the cost 16 of low-level waste disposal will perhaps go down as
, 17 the number of facilities and the capacity in those l
l 18 facilities increases and expands.
I 19 Secondly, it does seem to me that'you're 20 f aced with the prospect today that the decommissioning 21 techniques that are necessary -to decommission a 22 facility in some respects are probably state-of-the-23 art and under development right now and that as you 24 gain exLerience over time with the development of
. 25 decommissioning techniques those by definition will NEAL R. GROSS "SS2$!$o!'!!!A$
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 d!$ N '
(202) 234 4433 (202) 234 4433
-~ , - ~, .- . _ . - _ ,_ _, , , , - , _ , _ , _ . _._
36 1 become more widely available and perhaps less j 2 expensive.
3 Third, it's I think' generally true that, ,
1 !
4 and this depends obviously on how long you wait, but j 5 the amount of low-level waste that you need to dispose ,
6 of is affected by how long the waste is allowed to I 7 decay. And it may well be, if you take a look at the
- 8 numbers, that there's a point in time, obviously not 1 9 longer than 60 years which is the limit for SAFSTOR 10 under the current rule, where you're talking about
! 11 lesr, 'ot more low-level waste to dispose of.
12 And then fourth and finally, you've 13 mentioned of course the efficiencies at a multi-unit 14 site that come from decommissioning two units at one 15 time rather than one after the other at different 16 pointa in time. In fact, I think that's exactly what 17 San Onofre is thinking about doing with the San Onofre 18 Unit 1 facility. There are other sites like Shoreham.
19 and Fort St. Vrain, single units where they're 20 decommissioning those facilities - "deconning" the 21 facilities, to use our term -- immediately.
l 22 And so, in part I think the uncertainty 23 that you see with the estimates is a reflection of the i
24 fact that we're at the front end of-this process.
f 25 We've just put the estimates together in '88. We're ,
i I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS (202) 234 4433 AS I Gio , D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
. - , . . . , , , - , - - , . .- .. , - . . . ~ . , , . - . - . ,
37 1 updating those and we're gaining a lot of experience 2 that I think with the process is going to be plugged i 3 into the process of estimating , decommissioning costs 4 and conducting the decommissioning.
. 5 But I guess I don't take it as an article 6 of f aith that earlier decommissioning in all cases is 7 necessarily desirable from the standpoint of the cost 8 and the certainty of the task that's before the 9 1. .:ensee. I think it depends upn the particular 10 case.
11 MR. MORRIS: I think it depends significantly upon your ability to project numbers.
13 The longer you wait and not have updated numbers, the 14 bigger the risk of extending decommissioning, I think, 15 and that's what you're hearing from us.
16 But when you look at the monies that will 17 be set aside, there are limitations on how you can i
18 invest those monies and how much money you can make on l 19 them, since the cost fur disposing of waste material, i
20 if that does grow at a fairly rapid pace, your sense i
21 is maybe that it won't, but there's no -- if the past 22 is something to look at, they will- go up fairly-t 23 quickly and with a limited ability for the monies 24 already put in place to keep pace with that, so it's
. 25 going to be a law of. diminishing returns here if we l NEAL R. GROSS i A AV (202) 234 4433 MSHINQiON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 I
38 1 don't again have regular updates on it.
2 We all know what has happened with -- I 3 mean, it's a law of supply and domand and you have one 4 place in Pennsylvania that's going to supply an area 5 for low-level waste. It's still going to be a ,
6 captive. There's no competition in that region, so, 7 yes, it'd be great if the costs are going to come 8 down. That remains to be seen. I've not seen that in 9 my suburban cable rates that I have for television, 10 and therefore the regulations -- and I'm not being 11 smart when I say that. I don't know what the future 12 holds, but, if the past-is any indication, the costs 13 are going to go up and they're going to go up more 14 than the four or five percent inflation.
15 And on the quality issue --
well, two 16 other points. Regulations, I don't know what 4 17 regulations are going to change regarding low-level 18 waste or whether there's going to be a change. I know 19 that I'm President of an engineering company and we 20 work in sewage treatment and sludge and we know how .
21 those regulations have gotten tighter and tighter and 22 tighter on how you can handle them. What will happen 23 in this area, I don't know. But they haven't gotten 3 24 easier and less coctly. They've gotten more dif ficult 25 and more costly. ,
NEAL R. GROSS' AN A (202) 234 4433 WASHINGlON, D.C, 20005 (202) 234 4433
_ . . - _ = .- - - . - .. ._.- ._ -- -=. _ - . . . - . . - - _ - . - _ _ _
39 1
1 And on the quantity issues, we haven't 2 seen that. We haven't been told at this point that 60 3 years from now there will be one,-third the quantity to i
4 dispose of than there is today. There are numbers
, 5 that may happen, but we don't know that. And again, 6 it's the uncertainty that you're hearing from us of 7 the future. And the longer it takes to get to that 8 poir.t , the more concerned we are.
9 I mean, we understand it's a difficult 10 issue and we understand there's pros and cons on each 11 side of the issue, that weighting might make sense in 12 some instances. We ask you, please, try to take out 13 the uncertainty as quickly as you can in as many areas 14 as you can, so that we can stop beating this horse.
15 MR. SMITHGALL: I will risk sounding an 16 echo for the Chair here, but -- he's kicking me under 17 the table, so --
18 MR. MORRIS: I'm not.
19 MR. SMITHGALL: I respectfully disagree l
20 with your first two points about the cost of disposal, 21 again echoing the Chair, and the ability of increased 22 technologies to handle this process. I'll say "no" on 23 those first two points and "maybe" on the final two 24 points that you made. I may give you an agreement on
, 25 that as far as decay quantities and the economies of
(
NEAL R. GROSS AV (202) 234 4433 . ASHINGTON, W D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 l
n 40 1 scale.
2 I just don't think -- I'm not an engineer
! 3 like Art, but, as a lay person looking at this 4 objectively, any time I look at my garbage bill, my i
5 electric utility bill, gasoline bill and so forth, ,
6 those costs don't go down. Those costs go up. And
! 7 when you're dealing with radioactive materials, I l 8 don't know how you can safely argue that those costs
! 9 will go down. So just as a cortment to your points --
l 10 CO!OiISSIONER CURTISS: Let me just 11 postulate one scenario in which they would go down.
12 It's quite clear today that the cost of low-level 13 waste disposal is a function of the fact that you've 14 got a captive market where Barnwell can essentially 15 set the price. I mean, there's a situation where the i
16 state is going to balance its budget based upon the 17 cost that it charges for Barnwell-disposal.
! 18 I respectfully submit that, if you had a
, 19 facility in Pennsylvania as you're seeking to do and 20 I think hopefully with great success, that the ability l
21 to control the - cost of disposal there r!ght at home 22 for the waste generated in Pennsylvania is in fact 23 going to hopefully lead to some moderation in what I 24 think have been exorbitant increases in the cost of 25 disposal. .
NEAL R. GROSS 3 AV U (202) 234 4433 MSHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
41 1 MR SMITHGALL: I can agree with that. My 2 only problem with that is that -- not to get into a 3 long protracted discussion of t: hat, but I think the 4 basement has been set on cost. There may be some
. 5 moderation of that, but it's not to say that other 6 states may not want to balance their budgets since 7 state governments have their own financial problems as 8 well, our state, Pennsylvania, notwithstanding. I 9 believe that the floor has been set, again with some 10 moderation, but I can't see those costs being halved 11 since there are-the same problems in pennsylvania as 12 you have in South Carolina.
13 MR. MORRIS: It depends on taxes and all 14 of that. You can buy a cigarette for twenty cents a 15 pack if there wasn't a tax on it. But if they decide 16 that this is a nice lucrative place to tax -- we don't 17 know that. And again, it's -- you may be right. The 18 costs may drop. Typically they don't, because 19 somebody will-find a way to make them more costly.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK: And although I think 21 we all agree with what you'-e saying, we should be 22 able to estimate the costs to the best of our ability, 23 but I think you've made a number of examples why it's 24 difficult. What would you put down as-the dollar 25 value of a cubic foot of low-level waste right now or NEAL R. GROSS AN AV
.(2C2) 234 4433 nASM!NOTON, D.C. 200'05 (202) 234 4433
48 1 in 20, 30 years from now? l 2 MR. MORRIS: I'd put $200.00 today, l 3 because I think that's the cost, but it was $100.00 4 more recently. I mean, you're asking -- obviously we 5 don't -- you have to trend it and you can do that and ,
6 you can make assumptions and you can update the trends 7 overy couple years and change the line. And that's 8 all I think we're suggesting is that you can trend on 9 a regular basis --
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: And I think we're in 11 complete agreement. As Commissioner Curtiss pointed 12 out, there-is a study underway that's due this spring 13 to try to update that, so I'm not sure we're not 14 beating a dead horse here.
15 MR. MORRIS: We may be. You live with 16 many issues. We've been focusing. Out of the 77 17 meetings, maybe half of them we've talked about 18 funding. We spend three hours at those meetings 19 talking about this. So understand what you're hearing 20 from us is not an attempt to be argumentative. It's 21 an attempt to bring sensitivity to you just from the 22 panel, and that's really why we're here. You may 23 disagree with what we have to say, but what you're 24 hearing from us is genuine-concern.-
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, that's what we ,
NEAL R. GROSS t At Av '
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
43 1 want to hear. We want to hear exactly how you feel, i
2 MR. SMITHGALL: Just as a suggestion, 3 Commissioner Remick, generally,,1f you want to address 1
- 4 the cost per cubic foot, generally at least, some of I
. 5 the analyses that I've seen come from staff is you 6 postulate two er three of them and then project out i
) 7 and trend out, so obviously there is a kind of a
)
8 precedent as to how that would be handled.
e 9 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But I don't know 10 what comfort that gives me anymore than the comfort we 11 have now. I agree, I think that costs will be higher 12 than perhaps we've projected now, but I can see many i
13 reasons why perhaps it chouldn't. And it's not just 14 on experience in this country. It's experience in 15 other countries also with decommissioning.
- 16 I think we will learn a lot about
{
17 decommissioning. I saw a very impressive effort in 18 the U.K. of decommissioning their gaseous diffusion 19 plants, including the cooling towers and all kinds of
, 20 things, and they estimate that they could decommission i
21 some of our plants in the United States much less than 22 what we're projecting in the United States. Whether 23 they're right or not, I don't know.
24 MR. SMITHGALL: Let them start in TMI-2.
! , 25 Let them go to work. Late at night or something, who NEAL R. GROSS AND AV t (292) 734 4433- WASHINGTON, D C, 70005 (202) 234+ 4 433 1
w x- - , ,, .,,w,n , , - , . , , , ,.-x-
- , , . . , , , - , ,- ,wa, ,,w.-. .,-.-..-.-.er., ,.-..--,.m.ae, ,- - ~ , , - - ,
44 1 knows, whatever.
2 COMMISSIO!1ER REMICK: I think your point 3 is well made and I think we agree. I certainly agree 4 that we should do the best job we can at estimating, 5 but it will be indefinite if we do it now and we're ,
6 projecting out to the year 2014. We agree you should 7 trend them. You should do sensitivity analyses, all 8 those things.
9 MR. MORRIS: And again, the reason why 10 this is such an issue is because there was an accident 11 there and there's radioactivity still in that concrete 12 and it's going to be there until it's removed and 13 that's why it's different than most other plants.
14 That's why it's really important- to make sure the 15 costs are done as regularly as they can be and the 16 best way they can be done..
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, of course 18 that's one reason why I'm not sure that it actually 19 does serve very well as a model for updating 20 decommissioning costs for ordinary plants that have 21 not ..ad an accident and just come to the end of their 22 life. That is a big difference.
23 MR. MORRIS: It's an unknown to a great 24 degree, and that unknown will jack up the costti for 25 sure. ,
NEAL R. GROSS l At AV H t!
(202) 234 4433 nASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 734 4433
l 45 l
l 1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Proceed.
2 MR. MORRIS: The other item, unless panel 3 members have something else they want to raise, is 4 really the future of the panel.
. 5 The sense of the panel that I've received 6 is that we feel that our job will be done -- and again 7 this is consensus and I'm generalizing here -- with 8 the implementation of the PDMS which now is expected 9 to take place I think October of next year. And not 10 to tie it in so much with October, although I think 11 most panel members would at this point hope that 12 that's when maybe it would happen, that it doesn't 13 drag on and drag on so we remain as a panel for the 14 next 20 years, but that we would tie the future of the 15 panel with the implementation of the PDMS, that when 16 that begins that we respectfully request the 17 Commissioners to put us into PDMS, or something like 18 that.
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Immediate 20 dismantlement, eh?
I
, 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: How about SAFSTOF.?
l 22 MR. MORRIS: That's better.
23 COMMISSIOi4ER ROGERS: Do you have anything 24 more that you want to.say on that natter,-other than-25 that?
NEAI,R. GROSS COUhi REPOR1ER$ AND TR W ' RIBE 8iS (202) 134 4433 WAS I TON, 0.0, 20005 (202) 234 4433 y,,+, -,,...y.-.- e ,e -.c.--=- . g g--- +.,,--+ y . ,y y
46 l 1 MR. MORRIS: On the particular matter of 2 the future of the panel?
I 3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.
i
- 4 MR. MORRIS: The only other comment I would make, and I think I touched on this earlier, and 1
5 , l q 6 that is that there has been a role we've played in 1
7 providing the public with an opportunity to comment.
8 There will still be members of the public that will 9 feel that this panel should continue beyond next 10 October. I mean, they've expressed that because they 4
11 feel it's the only body available to them to really 12 express concern with the evaporation- process or 13 anything else that's happening relating to TMI-2, and 14 TMI-1 whenever they feel they can get away with it.
15 But, there is still some genuine concern
, 16 and a need for come members of the public to express i
17 themselves in a public setting. I think the majority 18 of the panel feel that we have played that role 19 extensively in the past and that come implementation 20 of PDMS we are personally ready to move on with some 21 other things, but we don't want to neglect the fact 22 that there are members of the public that may wish for 23 the panel to continue. We understand that and we have 24 played-that role, but we feel we're ready to move on 25 following the implementation of PDMS. ,
NEAL R. GROSS l- COURT PEPORitRS AND TRANSdtlBERS (202)'234 4433 ASHI #GTON, ,C. 25005 (202) 234 4433 1
n
.,, ,y _.w-, -
y-o r . - , ,. -
,ma - '
.-+-,.y g . . --.-, e
47 1 COMMISSIONER REMICK: lias the licensee 2 made any indication what it might do to provide public 3 input? lias it suggested anythi,ng at all?
4 MR. MORRIS At this point we haven't
. 5 suggested anything and that may be a good subject 6 matter for us to discuss at the next meeting, which we 7 have not yet set, but, whenever it is, next year, to 8 talk about some form of recommendation once we are 9 dismantled to provide some public access to what's 10 going on there. I think it would be important for 11 that to happen and, whether it's the NRC and GPU or 12 just the licensee that does it, it may be helpful.
13 It's not going to be looked at as the best, because 14 we, being public representatives, will be gone,' but at 15 least it would be an effort and I think maybe a wise 16 one.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I wonder if you have 18 sufficient documentation or records or-anything else 19 that allows one to learn as much from this experience 20 in now the panel has worked and what the dynamics of
{ 21 the panel's interaction with the public has been over ,
22 the years. What were the concerns? How did they 23 change? What was important in changing a concern, 24 What you saw to be the public's concern?
. 25 I think this has been a unique experience.
NEAL R. GROSS AV (202) 234 4433 MSUNGTON, D.C. 2000$ (202) 234<4433 -
L . . u
40 1 I hopo unique in many ways, but not in all ways, 2 because the commission has been very interested in 3 trying to have more publio involvement with everything 4 we do, particularly at the beginning stages of 5 something before misunderstand 1ngs develop, positions ,
6 become hardened, before all that takes place to try to 7 get issues out on the table to understand what really 8 bothers people, what suggestions thcy have- for 9 alternatives that would be more acceptable to them 10 than perhaps something that we might have thought of 11 initially, and so on.
12 I wonder if there's any way that your 13 experience can be somehow or other documented in 14 something like a case study. Has anyone given any 15 thought to that?
16 MR. MORRIS Would this help, 111el , in 17 speaking to that issue, this paper?
18 DOCTOR WALD: Yes. I did try to cover in 19 this presentation that I made last year and the paper 20 that was published, I made an effort to indicate where 21 the committee started, what the problems were then, 22 how they were addressed sequentially over the period 23 that I covered since the beginning.
24 ' Admittedly, I am not a psychologist. I'm 25 on the panel from the medical, biomedical side, but I .
l l
liEAL R. GROSS A Av .
(202) 234 4433 *ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 . (202) 234 4433 .
l
49 1 felt that it should be documented because I think it 2 was an important development and this is at least a 3 first crack at answering just wl,1at you're suggesting.
4 I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done right by
. 5 people with the proper background and training to 6 . evaluate it.
7 COMMISSIONER REMICKt Having not ;
8 completely eliminated my academic background, I could 1
9 soo a nice PhD thesis in the social sciences or policy 10 and so forth.
11 MR. MORRIS Tom may want to speak to 12 that, because he did do --
13 MR. SMITHGALL You can teach an old dog 14 new tricks and I did go back and got my masters degree 15 at the University of Pennsylvania in the years of the 16 carly '80s in this process. I finally did graduate 17 and I did write a thesis on this, on the public input 18 into public policy issues, and patterned it after this 19 particular issue. Certainly I had roams of documents 20 to read, so I didn't have to go too far for my 21 background. So I'll pull that out and dust it of f for 22 you and see if it might be of help to you and send it 23 along.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. I think we'd
. d appreciate it very much.
NEAL R. GROSS m m m , o.c. , ova ?
- $$$ISE!!!A A iron n4.un 4,on n .uu
_. _ _ __ , -_. .._._._ _. .i
50 1 MR. MORRIS: If you look at this --
I 2 mean, I spent 20 years in the pubito life before 3 getting involved in the private sector about three 4 years before and I was the Emergency Management 5 Coordinator for the city of Lancaster when TMI went ,
6 off and then I became the Mayor of Lancantur about a 7 year later. What I remember mostly was -- and he's 8 sitting right over here -- Harold Denton boing on the 9 ocene right away representing the NRC, particularly, 10 and doing -- and I'm not just saying this because he's 11 here -- but doing what I thought was an incredible job 12 of speaking to the issue, doing it very well, keeping 13 people informed through the crisis period and then 14 following it up with a panel and the other things you 15 do, but particularly the public panel. I think it was 16 a very wise thing to do.- It provided the-kind of 17 input that the public seeks. They don't always 18- necessarily get the answers,-because maybe they aren't 19 always there, but the opportunity to raise questions 20 and concerns and be provided with the most recent 2.1 information I think is extremely important.
22 From that standpoint, I would encourage 23 the commissioners on any significant issue that's 24 involved within - a given region to make themselves 25 available in that - region to the public. I think ,
l NEAL-R. GROSS i I$$$o!'!NEoAv!$!*E' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 (202) 234 4433
51 1 that's what this speers to is first-hand interaction 2 between individuals that know the information and the i 3 public, or at least are concerqed about the problem.
And '
4 You can't replace it. You can't do enough of it.
l . 5 I know you're very busy doing other things, but that 6 kind of interaction either through a citizens panel, 7 your own staff or yourselves, you need to do as much 8 as you can of it.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, we thank you 10 all very much for this very interesting mooting, for 11 your time and effort that you've spent in making the 12 panel as effective as it has been both for us in the 13 Commission and for the public. It serves as a-model 14 of how government and the public can work together in 15 an open and mutually beneficial manner and we l
16 ' congratulate you on your success-thus far, t
17 We thank you for your hard work and for 18 coming to be with us today.
19 MR. MORRIS:. Thank you very much.
20 (Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the above-21 entitled matter was concluded.) i 22 23 24
. 25 NEAL T. GROSS non 23..u33
$SN mmm~, Eo!'!![E[v!**DP o.c. A non 234. u 33
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitledf a
TITLE OF MEETING: BRI'EFING BY TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ,
DATE OF MEETING: DECEMBER 1, 1992 were transcribed'by me. I furthcr certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the beat of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
(1.1 cNtoto i
Reporter's name: PETER LYNCll 4
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPokitt$ AND TRANSCRIBtR$
1323 RHODI l$L AND AVINUI, N W.
(202) 234-4433 W A$HINGTON, O C. 2000$ (202) 232-6600
_ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _