ML20205P045
| ML20205P045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NACTMI, NUDOCS 8811070280 | |
| Download: ML20205P045 (33) | |
Text
._ _
. ---. o . ,; v
'N ,
L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
PERIODIC BRIEFING BY THI-2 ADVISORY PANEL ,
Location: ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
., Date: TUESDAY, O'CTOBER- 2 5 . - 19 8 8 ' - , .
I e
, ,, ~ f. <> .
, ;, .+.. -
% 9 /
Pages: 1-30 *
't a *
, y a
, 1 > i
- s' *z
<o
-l- >
' ,' 1 a
- y y s,,. ,
, _, .g.
s . , .- ' ,
~
l 4
.o
\
... l l
,. } :- 1 !
4 Ann Riley & Associates '
coun w w. .
! 1825 i Street, N.W., Suite 821 i Washirgton, D.C. 20006 (k) ,,"', j (202) 293-3060 ' ' ' i, i.
l I C8110702OO 031025 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR ,
4
- 's 'e 1
2 3
4 5 DISCLAIMER 6
7 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting 8 of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held 9 on /0/d '
I in the Commission's office at One i
10 White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was 11 open to public attendance and observation. This transcript 12 has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may 13 contain inaccuracies.
14 The transcript is intended solely for general 15 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 16 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 17 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript 18 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
19 No pleading or other paper may be fi.9.ed with the Commission 20 in any proceeding as *':n result of, or addressed to, any 21 statement or argument contained herein, except as the 22 Commission may authorize.
23 24 25
e, .
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
4 PERIODIC BRIEFING BY TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL
- 5 ***
6 (PUBLIC MEETING) 7 ***
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 One White Flint North 10 Rockville, Maryland 11 12 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1988 13 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 ,
15 a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the commission, 16 presiding. l l 17 ,
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT i
i 19 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the Commission
- I 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission i
21 KENNETH CARR, Membcr of the Commission 22 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 23 JAMES R. CURTISS, Member of the Commission
, t 24 25
2 1 NRC STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3 W. Parler A. Morris 4 J. Luetzelschwab E. Marshall 5 K. Miller F. Rice 6 G. Robinson J. Roth 7 T. Smithgall N. Wald 8
9 10 ***** r 11 12 13 14 15 16 t
17 18 19 l 20 .
I 21 22 i
, 23 l
24 :
r 25 i
I
3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
3 Today, the Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of the Three 4 Mile Island Unit 2 is going to present a briefing to the 5 Commission on their recent activities and the current concerns 6 and comments they have on the plans regarding TMI-2. This is 7 an information briefing and no Commission action is planned at 8 this meeting today.
9 I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 10 and welcome our new Commissioner, Commissioner Jim Curtiss, to 11 his first public meeting as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission. Welcome aboard, Jim, happy to have you with us.
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Thank you, it's good to be 14 here.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Since the Three Mile Island accident 16 took place over nine years ago, the world has been following 17 the progress of the defueling and cleanup of the plant. The 18 Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island 19 Unit 2 provides an independent asseesment of the activities at 20 the plant to the Commission through these meetings and brings 21 us the concerns and perspective of the communities in the 22 vicinity of the plant.
23 The Commission has found these briefings to be 24 informative and of value to us in our deliberations regarding 25 TMI-2 and in considering related safety issues brought to the
4 1 Commission for decision.
2 We would also like to welcome the Advisory Panel to 3 our new headquarters, this being the first time that they have 4 briefed us in this environment. We've been here for a few 5 months now and we're beginning to feel at home. We welcome you 6 back to the Commission, and Chairman Morris, you may begin.
7 MR. MORRIS: Chairman Zech, let me just say on behalf 8 of the panel that we very much appreciate your invitation to 9 attend and vould like to say good morning to the other 10 Commission members as well and to say what a splendid meeting 11 place you have here and it's a pleasure to be here to meet with 12 you for the first time at this location.
13 We have met, particularly for the new Commissioner 14 and others, we have met, as Mike Masnik, your staff person, 15 told us before the meeting, some 60 times since we were 16 assembled back I think it was in 1980. So we have been very 17 busy during those years.
18 The panel members do wish to discuss two specific 19 topics with you to9ay. One is the post-defueling monitored 20 storage concept or the PDMS concept or proposal, and the second 21 would be the future work of the panel.
22 Regarding the PDMS, Tom Gerusky, one of our panol 23 members who is with the Department of Environmental Resources 24 in Harrisburg who could not be with us today, raised the issue 25 of PDMS back in February of 1984. We had, at that time, in
h 5
1 December of 1986 I should say, an original presentation by GPU 2 on that proposal. Then they gave us a re-briefing of that 3 proposal back in January of this year, in 1988, for the second 4 time we discussed with them and the public, and since that tir.e 5 we've had three other meetings with them. So in total, we've 6 really met with them five different times in the public domain 7 at our meetings to discons the PDMS concept.
8 I hope that you did receive the letter that I sent, I -
9 believe dated September 13th, which was sent on behalf of the 10 panel. And if I could for the record go through that, it's not 11 a long letter and I'd like to go through at least parts of it.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Certainly. We did receive it but you 13 may certainly go through as much of it as you'd like.
14 MR. MORRIS: Okay, thank you. Beginning in paragraph 15 2 I will read it, "The majority of the time in our meetings of 16 May 26th, July 14th and September 7th was spent discussing the 17 draft supplement No. 3 of the Programmatic Environmental Impact 18 Statement dealing with the post-defueling moriitored storage i
19 (PDMS) and subsequent cleanup. An initial presentation was 20 t
made on the document by the staff of the NRC with subsequent i
21 comment and observations by the NRC, G PU , the general public 22 and panel members.
23 "At the conclusion of the public portion of the 24 discussion at our last meeting..." -- and again, that was on 25 September 7th - "...the panel decided that we should take a
l 6 l i
i position on the PDMS. Prior to my outlining that position, I '
2 do wish on behalf of the panel to make several observations to 3 you as follows:
4 "One, while there clearly is a reduction in worker 5 exposure in cleanup following the PDMS plan, the amount of 6 reduction was not as significant as we had anticipated. Two, 7 there is no specific funding plan in place, and consequently no 8 guarantee that monies will be in place for cleanup following 9 PDMS. Three, after listening to the discussion, it became 10 clear that the 20-year period for PDMS was not definite, and in 11 fact after a 20-year period the PDMS could be coupled with 12 decommissioning and continue in the same basic state for an 13 additional 30 to 60 years. This uncertainty troubled the 14 panel.
15 "By a vote of 8 to 2, the panel took the following 16 position: At this time, the panel does not recognize any 17 compelling reason to follow the PDMS. The advantage of reduced 18 worker exposure was not convincing when considered against the 19 uncertainty of funding and the uncertainty of the length of the 20 PDMS. Therefore, the panel believes that cleanup should 21 proceed expeditiously. The poorly-defined and points of 22 cleanup cause the panel to feel a sense of frustration in 23 dealing with the PEIS and the PDMS.
24 "I would like to point out that throughout our 25 deliberations, members of the pub 1!.c were invited to comment.
o .
l 7
1 All comments from the public were in opposition to the PDMS 2 concept, and as such, I feel comfortable in saying that the 3 above-stated position of the panel also reflects the sense of 4 the public who attended our meetings."
5 At this point with that background on what happened 6 at the last meeting, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if you 7 would like to ask if there's any other panel members that would 8 like to offer any comment on this issue, or whether you 9 specifically have any questions of us prior to getting into the 10 second item that I hope we can discuss this morning. Of the 11 two items, PDMS being one and then the second item being what 12 does this panel expect to do in the coming months or into next 13 year, and we'd like to leave that maybe until last to discuss.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. I'll ask any of your other 15 panel members if they have anything in addition to what 16 Chairman Morris, we'd be pleased to hear from you at this time.
17 MR. MORRIS: Is there anybody that has specific 18 comment?
19 MR. ROBINSON: Just one. I was one of those opposed 20 to the motiori. I wanted to point out --
21 CHAIRMAN ZUCH: Could you perhaps move a little 22 closer to the microphone and identify yourself for the 23 reporter, if you would.
24 MR. ROBINSON: Gordon Robinson. I was opposed to 25 this motion more because of the way it was worded than most of
.~
8 1 the substance. I agree that there should be a more 2 comprehensive plan to pay for the completed cleanup, and there 3 should be a definite time, say 20 yecrs or whatever the time 4 that is realistic for completing the cleanup.
5 As far as no compelling reason, I somewhat disagree 6 with that. I think there are reasons. I don't think they've 7 been well articulated, and I th'A.a that more information should 8 be provided in that area.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Any other panel 10 members like to make any comments?
11 MS. MARSHALL: Yes. I'm Elizabeth Marshall, a member 12 of the panel, and it occurred to me that precisely because the 13 attention of the world has been focused on Three Mile Island, 14 that it might be a very positive state to clean up as quickly 15 as possible and restore it to the ultimate state which is 16 anticipated 20, 40, 60 years from now. That this would be --
17 if it sits there, that it would have a very negative impact on 18 nuclear power generally, and that working with today's dollars, 19 it might be more sensible to address the whole problem now.
20 And I say particularly in view of the worldwide attention that 21 this particular accident received.
22 CHAIRMAN ?.ECH: Thank you very much, Ms. Marshall.
23 Yes?
24 MR. LUETZEUJCHWAB: I wasn't at the meeting but I 25 think I have to ray that I havw to add my vote to the eight who
9 1 were in favor of the motion. I voted previously to get the 2 water off the island and I guess for that reason also, I want 3 to get it cleaned up as quickly as possible. So I think they 4 ought to just keep on going and get it done as soon as 5 possible.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Any other 7 comments?
8 DR. WALD: The problem that I thi:. de as a panel.
9 faced was that we are being asked to accept an and point to 10 this cleanup that was being proposed by the utility when we 11 really don't have any sort of guide from your side of the 12 question as to what an acceptable end point ought to be. And I 13 think we all realize that there is going to have to be some 14 period of PDMS; we just don't know at what point PDMS should 15 start, and that's been our dilemma through the whole discussion 16 of the situation.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, thank you very much. Any 18 other comments?
19 MR. SMITHGALL: Tom Smithgall. To comment on PDMS 20 one comments directly and indirectly on all aspects of the 21 cleanup process. By that I mean that I think the people that 22 surround TMI need more rather than less assurances that Three 23 Mile Island 2 will be cleaned up.
24 My comments follow the comments that were submitted 25 after the comment period for the PEIS of the Commonwealth of
10 1 Pennsylvania. Basically, I think number one, the general 2 public needs to know that the entire cleanup, including 3 decommissioning, will have.3 defined and very specific end 4 point. We've been dealing with this over nine years now and I 5 think there is a need for that.
6 Secondly, the environmental impacte of any storage 7 should be kept within the bounds of the PEIS, not only by 8 required surveillance and monitoring by GPU Nuclear, but ,
9 certainly by the NRC's active oversight that has been evident 10 over the last years over your regulatory surveillance.
11 And thirdly, I think importantly for people in 12 southcentral Pennsylvania that the financial assurances for 13 cleanup and decommissioning become more specific and more 14 defined. More than overall general guarantees are needed at 15 this point in light of the fact that the plant generates no 16 revenues for set-aside, that the actual cleanup goes well into 17 the future, and that they will be dealing with two plants 18 rather than one.
r
. 19 Therefore, as a member of our advisory panel, or your 20 advisory panel I should say, I'm asking that you reject the
. 21 PDMS proposal in favor of the expeditious cleanup, and I thank 22 you for the opportunity to come to speak.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Are there other 24 comments?
25 MR. RICE: I'm Fred Rice, former Dauphin County
11 1 Commissioner where Three Mile Island f socr 'ed. I sense that 2 the people in Dauphin County would like to get it cleaned up as 3 quickly as possible. I opposed the motion, the resolution, 4 because I felt that we just do not have the specifics for the 5 funding set up. That's why I was the other negative vote.
6 Thank you.
j 7 CRAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much, appreciate it.
8 The little microphones on the table here, just so 9 you'll know, these are the microphones and they'r6 really quite 10 good. We're getting used to them, but you have to get a litt.1e 11 closer than you were before. I think you're fine now. Please 12 proceed.
13 DR. WALD: We're not used to this high tech 14 environment.
15 ( Laughter. ]
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We're just getting used to it 17 ourselves. We're still getting LIJ.d to it, Please proceed.
18 DR. WALD: I don't want to rettardte many of the 19 points which were already raised bu. * ' 7' vanted to state i
20 that a matter of chronic anxiety for the population is a health 21 impact of the accident. We're fortunate thero were no others.
22 But anything we can do to have a firm timetable and firm and 23 definitive action would be desi.3ble to reduce " blic anxiety.
24 And I voted for the motion because of that.
25 CH1.IRMAN 2ECH: Thank yuu very much, appreciate that.
n . .
12 1 Mr. Roth?
2 MR. ROTH: Thank you. I appreciate what my fellow /
3 panel members have said. I happoned to be -- it's called the
$} 4 Roth Motion, I just had to say that, got that on my resume.
ut ,
5 For the last almort 10 years or 9 nine years that the
}
)h 6 panel ;1as been in existence, I guess I played the role of 7 almost the citizen from the area and what they think and what hr g
8 the pec;;1e feel, and it seems that this cne, the utility seems 9 to have lookee at this PLMS as n given and sort of expected us 10 to just go alci.g with it; and hence the term "no compelling 11 reason at L is point" was at least shown to '..he panel. And I e
12 was glad to hear .*uhn say that would make it a 9 to 2 rather 13 than 8 to 2 vote.
14 It just seems that it's so wide open, and the public 15 is thoroughly concerned with well, is it going to be 20 years, 16 40 years? The utility said it can be any period of time. And li it just seems that there is such a loophole, a loophole 18 probably large enough for a cooling tower to pass through, on 19 this issue. It just seems to be so nebulous. What ?.s it?
20 What does it, mean? How can they get away with it? How can it, 21 you know, 1" Cop ri"ht now.
'[ 22 - ' , ceciat . , members of this panel who represent l 23 the scier6 '
.n . > e depeted on +5em a lot. And when
(,I .
k' 24 the majorit' n ed with this notion, to me that was a
--- 25 cc-'+' ..,) reas a fs ur -4.tuation at this point to say it I
. o 13 1 just is not enough, we just can't leave it here, there has got 2 to be a lot more delineation of this issue and not just accept, 3 that is at this point.
4 There's very much concern -- I think it started on 5 the economics of where the dollars are coming from. I don't l 6 think I as one person and perhaps others here are ready to 7 accept the utility's promise that they will have the money. In 8 other words, that "trust us" mode I don't believe is enough for 9 the panel and also for the citizens of the area. And I thank 10 you.
! 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much, appreciate those ;
12 comments also. Are there any other comments?
13 MR. MORRIS: If I could just add just a couple. Oise 14 is that when we talk about funding, we are aware, Mr. Chairman, 15 and I would like to say that if you've had a chance, I realize l
16 our minutes are pretty longthy and you may not have nad a l 17 chanco to see them all, but in there if you would have a chance i
18 to read them you'd see that we are aware of the fact that I 29 think it's by July of 1990 or something like that, there's a 20 requiremsnt for pisnts to submit to the NRC some Pind of l 2 '. funding plan for decommissioning. We understand that, but 22 that's two years away. We have no knowledge of what that plan 23 really will entail, how specific shall it be.
24 So we're in a position now of not knowing what 25 they're going to submit, not knowing what the funding plan will
14 1 be, how specific will it be, and trying to act on a PDMS plan 2 with that concern.
3 And then secondly, the longevity of the PDMS process 4 possibly being longer than 20 years, maybe even 50 or 90 or 5 whatever if coupled with decommissioning. So that uncertainty.
6 And then the third one I think that Ken Hiller 7 mentioned, and I know I'm repeating some of the things here but 8 I think it's important to make the point that we hsve discussed 9 the July 9, 1990 submission, when is the end point of cleanup 10 really the end point is a good question. We did wrestle with 11 that. When what is known as the cleanup finishing now, there 12 will still be radioactivity in the piping, in equipment thet 13 they say is harder to get at. We're not sure whether that -- I 14 thir.k the sense of the panel is that we're not sure that they 15 can continue to at least remove the piping and equipment that 16 has that radioactivity in it before they would then get to the 4
17 point where they say, now we need to go into PDMS.
18 So again, the question of when is the and point 19 really the end po. int -- I'm not sitting here as a member saying 20 I never believed that that plant needs to have some monetored 21 storage to it. The question is when does that point begin, and 22 what funding will be available for the ultimate cleanup, and 23 how long will the PDMS be allowed to continue, I think are 24 three main unanswered questions at this particular point.
25 And I think because of that, you had the panel 4
-+
f
15 1 members not unanimously but close to it supporting the 2 position. And realize again that we spent five meetings on 3 this, and our meetings generally start at 7:00 p.m. and go to 4 10:00 at n.,.ht, they're three-hour meetings. And while the 5 first two may not have been totally devoted to this issue, the 6 last three were. And we don't always stop at 10:00, there have 7 been times in those meetings when we went on until 10:30, 11:00 8 o' clock at night.
9 So we really got into the issue. We do not taka our 10 position on this lightly. So I just offer those last words at 11 least o.. my behalf, and I don't know if anybody else has 12 anything they Want to add on this issue, or maybe the 13 Commissitners have some questions you want to ask or some 14 comments you want to make on it, too.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Are there any other comments that any 16 of the other panel members would like to make, the advisory l 17 panel?
18 (No response.)
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We thank you very much for those
- 20 comments. Before we go to the next issue, perhaps I'll ask my 21 fellow Commissioners if they have any questions or comments I
22 they'd like to make.
. 23 COMMISSIONER CARR: Yes. It seems to me that the l 24 consensus is that you're not against PDMS per se, but the 25 indefiniteness of when they'll go into it. In other words,
<o .
16 1 what right point to shift to PDMS, how long it will be, and the 2 assurance that the money will be there to finally do whatever 3 is decided to be done with the site -- whether it gets to 4' unrestricted use or whatever. Is that an accurate summary?
5 MR. MORRIS: I personally feel that while we might 6 not have unanimous comment on that, I would think that would be 7 the consensus of the panel, yes.
8 COMMISSIONER CARRt So it was the indefiniteness of 9 the plan rather than the idea itself that got you uneasy.
8 10 MR. MORRIS: I speak as Chairman and I think there 11 are other panel members who voted the same way that wou)d say 1 12 yes, that's true.
4 l 13 COMMISSIONER CARRt Thank you.
l 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Rogers?
l 15 COMMISSIONER ROGERSt Well, that was really my j 16 question. I thit.k that's the issue that is so central here; I
i' 17 whether the panel feels that with further work and further j 18 definition and further elucidation of remedies for your 19 concerns, whether PDMS would then be a reasonable approach.
j 20 MR. MORRIS I think the answer to that would be yes 21 but that GPU has a lot of work to do. Again, as a panel member i'
22 and as Chairman, they hae a lot of work. There's a lot of
- 23 things they need to do to answer these questions in a a
24 definitive way. And I wouldn't want anybody to feel that that 25 fa am aasy thing for them to do; they've got work to do and i
- - , - - - ~ - - _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ __ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ,
17 1 they've got some commitments I think they need to make in order 2 to at least have the panel feel comfortable in supporting such 3 a concept. But I think in the end, it's only practical to 4 assume that PDMS -- there has to be a place for PDMS at some 5 point under certain circumstances.
6 DR. WALD: One amplification. We did discuss very 7 thorsughly the addition of the opening words of the panel's 8 position, "At this time. . ." and it was the constensus after some 9 disagreement that that really reflects our feeling. At this i
10 time.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That's an important thought, 12 appreciate that. Commissioner Curtiss, any comments?
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: No, thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I think my colleagues 1. ave 15 summed up essentially your views; I think we understand *. hem.
16 Defining the end point, when in it; how long the PDMS should ,
l 17 continue; the financial assurances. I think the regulatory l 18 oversight point was also one that I would say was an importart !
19 point to be brought up, too, and we certainly intend to .
20 continue our responsibilities in that area.
21 But I think you have nada your posit.2n clear. I 22 appreciate very much your thoughts in that regard, and ;
23 certainij they will be carefully considered.
24 COMMISSIONER CARR: Just one sore question. During (
25 your deliberations did you ?ook at the question of when it
18 1 becomes too expensive to clean up?
2 MR. MORRIS: When it becc wus too expensive to clean S what up? First of all, let me say --
4 COMMISSIONER CARR: How will the panel decide when E you're on what slope of the curve beyond which it's probably 6 reasenable not to go any further?
7 MR. MORRIS: Well, I personally feel that is 8 obviously the question -- the answer that we're seeking when we 9 talk about when do we go into PDMS.
10 COMMISSIONER CARR: And I'm looking for criteria.
11 MR. MORRIS: I think at this point what we're saying 12 is based on what we've heard, we don't feel comfortable in 13 supporting PDMS. We are looking to those individuals, 14 particularly the operator, GPU, and the NRC -- and I speak, 15 again, as one -- to provide the parameters for us to review.
16 And we're saying we're open for that kind of discussion, but l 17 there's been very little as far as I'm concerned information 18 offered to resolve that particular issue. And I'm not sitting i
i 19 here saying I'm an expert on this and saying that I know those 20 answers, but I am saying that I an open to supporting PDMS.
21 But --
22 COMMISSIONER CARR I guess my question then should 23 be, are you open to an argument that at some point it's too 24 expensive to continue the cleanup?
25 MR. MORRIS: Well certainly. I mean, if you didn't
19 1 consider that you would say we should go forever and a day and 2 we should get every single bit of t,adioactivity out of that 3 plans then you can mothball it. That's not what is being said 4 here. Obviously you've got to look at the finances and the 5 benefit, and those come together at some point.
6 COMMISSIONER CARRt Well, I was reading your position 7 as really we should go ahead and do the final -- whatever the 8 final cleanup ir -- do it now and if that happens to be 9 unrestricted use, we should proceed in all haste and clean it ,
10 up.
11 MR. MORRIS Well, that -- in the end if they come 12 along and say we can do that for $3.50, we'll say sure, we want 12 to go right until the end. Now clearly, that's not going to be 14 the answer, but we don't know those dollars and cents. We've [
15 hsard the numbers given by the staf f of the NRC in the PEIS of 16 $240 million or so if you would continue to remove all the 17 piping and what have you, or up to $100 :sillion; and we've l P
18 heard the GPU say well, they're not sure that those numbers are 19 accurate. We've heard those kind of things.
20 But again, the specifics of it, the commitments that 21 thLw oney is going to be there -- that's a key point. At some 22 point they're going to have to decommission the plan, and if j 25 they leave PDMS run into decommissioning, we feel we need to be 24 assured that that money is going to be there. So you can't 25 just take the one question out because then you still say all l
l l
l i
20 1 right, when they do have to spend money is it going to be 2 there. And how long down the line will that be?
3 So we've raised three issues here and I think yours 4 really speaks to when is the cleanup finished and PDMS begins.
5 And it goes to money and degree of removal. And most of the 6 panel members that I've spoken with individually agree with the 1
7 PDNS concept; it's the beginning point, your question. And if a you would read our --
9 COMMISSIONER CARRt Well, Ms. Marshall particularly 10 s*id she would like to restart so people would look at Three
! 11 Mile Island and see it as never had a problem. I assume. Is 12 that what -- ?
13 MS. MARSHALL Well, I think that's the ultimate 14 goal, but it seems to be projected for the future, the 15 uncertain future. In the meantime it sits there and I think 16 has a very negative impact on nuclear power throughout the 17 country. If it is conceived that that is a continuing source 19 of power for our country, then it seems to as we've got to 19 clean as we go and not leave it to the next generation.
20 MR. MORRIS And I would just like to add on to what 21 Elizabeth is saying, and I know that Joel has sonc comments he 22 want to offer, too. But if you have a chance, and I don't knov 23 if you've had a chance to go through our last three meeting 24 minutes, but if you have a chance to do that the reading is 25 pretty quick and it doesn't take that long, but I think you
21 1 would get a sense for the information that we were provided and 2 the lack of specificity in many cases that led to the 3 uncertainty and the frustration of the panel in making this 4 determination. And I think when you go through that you'll see 5 that there is not a lot of meat to the proposal of the variety 6 that we're looking for and need to make a determination.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Rice.
8 MR. RICE: It appears to me that the panel is very 9 cost conscious from that standpoint and we haven't been able to I l
10 get any answer. The people that appeared before the panel, !
11 however, they don't care how much it costs; they want it 12 cleaned up.
13 COMMISSIONER CARR: Sure.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other comments?
i 15 MR. ROTH: Yes, basically to commissioner Carr's I
16 statement. I think that if one reads the minutes of that 6 i
17 meeting where the motion was made, I think the principle that I 18 was going under just as one individual was the fact that it 19 wasn't up to us as a panel to make a determination of numbers, 20 but rather to see what the presenters, the utility, was doing.
21 And I just felt as an individual that it was almost non-22 existent, it was almort a fait accompli that they were looking 23 at on their part and we weren't buying it.
24 COMMISSIONER CARRt They didn't make their case as 25 far as you were concerned.
- e. >
22 1 MR. ROTH: Didn't make their case at all. Yes, sir.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Rogers has a comment.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just, how much credibility or 4 how much weight perhaps is the better way to put it would you 5 place on the notion that by waiting a longer period of time 6 before the ultimate cleanup, that there is less personnel 7 exposure of those individuals that have to perform the cleanup.
8 And there is an ALARA concept involved here to some extent 9 that as little radiation exposure as possible ensues from the 10 total process, 11 MR. MORRIS: As a lay person -- and I would hope that 12 maybe Ken Miller and some others would speak to thic, but I 13 nust say that when those numbers were presented to us -- and 14 they put it in the number of exposures as far as how many 15 people might die from cancer as a result of continuing to clean 16 up now versus wetting. And the two-tenths of a life or I
17 whatever isn't important, but the number -- and it's something 18 li.e that, two-tenths or three-tenths -- was not nearly as 19 convincing as what one person expected it would be. I thought 20 there would be significant savings in risk to life as a result 21 of waiting. And while there is a number and there is a i 22 difference, it was not very convincing.
23 And there has to be -- I think if that's the best i
i 24 that can be done in that, there has to be something else built 25 on top of that to make the argument convincing to go with PDMS. !
I t
23 ;
- 1 One may be finances, certainly. One may be just common sense l 2 that you can only get to a certain point. But exposure to l I
3 workers alone from one person was not the compelling reason to j 4 go into PDM 3. l t
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, is the panel also able to i i !
, 6 deal with the possibility that there will be no compelling -
i i 7 reason to go one way or the other; that a choice has to be r 8 made, a decision has'to be made that is not based on an j 9 obvious, compelling reason but simply a collection of reasons l t i 10 that put together could lead to a decision una way or the ,
i i
! 11 other, either of which might be a reasonable decision?
[
i 12 MR. MORRIS Mr. Commissioner, yes, I would say I an [
l 13 prepared to say that that may happen, and under those l t
14 circumstances I know the Commission would say let's proceed, f I
15 because under those circumstances the Commission has always !
r j 16 said, at least staff has said, that cleanup must proceed f i
j 17 expeditiously. That *. hat has to be the goal. j i
) 18 And as one, i supported -- I don't want to [
l [
19 necessarily get into the evaporation of water but I want to
{
j 20 tell you that I supported the evaporation of water for that [
L l 21
=
concept -- we need to proceed, we need to rid the island, if we l
! i
! 22 can't use it as a storage area. That has been the position and 23 to. lass something compelling comes along to change thst, that l j i
j 24 has been the direction of the NRC, and I think it speaks a lot !
25 to what Elizabeth Marshall said before, that there are people .
r
. - - .-__E
. n ,
24 1 in the area that have great concerns about the plant. The 2 world has looked at TMI and I still think there's a great deal 3 of interest in it. And when everything else is avsn, the 4 answer hrs to be we're going to clean that up. If there's no 5 compelling reason not to, then we ought to proceed with it.
6 So that's the problem. I'm not saying they can't 7 build a strong case but they've got to go back and they've got 8 to sit down und say geese, we'd better do a better job on this.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH Thank you very much. Any other 10 comments before we move to the next subject?
11 (No response.)
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You may proceed that!, Chairran 13 Morris.
14 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Simply put, we have as a panel 15 deliberated on what we expected to be the major issues. We've 16 basically completed them, atid what we would expect to happen 17 over the next year would be to follow certain activitico, one la would be the fuel removal, as it continues to remove the fuel 19 from the reactor we would follow that issue. We would 20 certainly follow the progress of this PDNS issue as the NRC 21 takes it under advisement. We would follow the issue relating 22 to the water, the ultimate disposition of the water. There are 23 hearings scheduled to begin very soon on that.
24 So they would be the three issues we would follow.
25 There's two other things we would obviously want to do. One i
i
- n .
25 I
1 would be to receive public comment on any issue and at least 2 give the public a forum. And lastly, we would want to offer 3 any comments we feel appropriate in advising you, the NRC 4 Commiscioners. And really, that would be it in a nutshell. We 5 do not have a specific major issue or milestone on our agenda 6 at this point. Now one could develop, but at this point we 7 don't have one. ;
t 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Any of the l
9 other panel members care to comment in addition to Chairman 10 Morris' views on that subject?
11 (No response.)
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Comments from my fellow ,
i 13 Commissioners?
I 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, just that this is my 15 first opportunity to meet with you. I' ve been on the 16 Commission for a year now and I think that it's most helpful to 17 have your point of view and the thoughts that you've expressed, ;
L 18 and I'm sure the enormous number or t.ours that have gone into l 19 your meetings, because I know how these things are. They are .
20 consuming, and I would just like to express my appreciation for ;
21 everything you've done so f ar.
l 22 MR. MORRIS: Thank yvu. If I could suggest, and I 23 realize we're getting close maybe to adjournment, but if I 24 could ask the panel members, for the new members, maybe to give 25 you a sense of who we are, to maybe introduce ourselves very l
i
26 1 briefly.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think that would be very '
3 appropriate.
4 MR. MORRIS: Because we do have I think a very well-5 balanced panel. I think you need to know that. So maybe we 6 could start with Xen Hiller.
7 MR. MILLER: Ken Miller, Professor of Radiology and 8 Director of Division of Health Physics at Pennsylvania State 9 University. l L
10 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB t John Luetzelschwab, I teach 11 physics at Dixon College and health physics is my area of 12 interest.
13 DR. WALD: I'm Niel Wald, I'm professor and Chairman 14 of the Department of Radiation Health at the University of 15 Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health. I'm also 16 Professer of Radiology in the School of hedicine and a 17 physician, 18 MS. MARSHALL: I'm Elizabeth Marshall, I served for 19 four years as Mayor of the City of York and on its council for 20 six years prior to that time, and I've been involved in a lot 21 of community organizationo in York. I am now a real estate 22 agent in the City.
23 MR. SMITHGALL: Tom Smithgall, I'm f rom Lancaster, 24 Pennsylvania; also a realtor, oddly enough, although I wasn't 25 the mayor of Lancaster. I've been on the panel since 1981.
. n .
27 1 MR. MORRIS: Arthur Morris, Mayor of the City of 2 Lancaster for eight and a half years, previously City Engineer 3 and Director of Public Works. My background is in civil 4 engineering, I'm a professional engineer registered in the 5 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6 MR. ROBINSON: I'm Gordon Robinson, Associate 7 Professor, Nuclear Engineering at Penn State, and my major 8 interest is reactor safety. 1 9 MR. ROTH: My name is Joel Roth, I've been on the 10 panel since its inception and previous to that was Chairman of 11 Three Mile Island Alert, which could be classified as a safe 12 energy group, and I guess in terms of everything else you can ,
13 classify me with that "L" word, Liberal. The big "L" word.
14 (Laughter.]
15 MR. RICE: I'm Fred Rice, I'm e retired county 16 commissioner of Dauphin County and I'm now a sales executive in 17 brokarage. Nice to be on this panel.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Well, thanh you f
19 for that suggestion, Chairman Morris. I think that was helpful l i
20 to our n0wer commissioners and I appreciate that recognition of 21 your panel. And certainly you do have a distinguished panel 22 and we're most appreciative of that. l 23 Let me just say first of all that I think the 24 advisory panel has and continues to provide a very important !
25 servicc to the Commission. I've said that before and I'll say
28 1 it again, and I think it's very important that you recognize 2 that we do feel that you are providing us a service and we're 3 gruteful to you for that.
4 I would certainly agree with your thoughts on the 5 issues that you raised, Mayor Morris, especially the four that 6 you articulated that the panel is involved in; the fuel 7 removal, the PDMS issue, the water issue and other advice that 8 you may provide to the NRC. So I know I speak for myself and 9 I'm relatively certain I speak for all my colleagues that we 10 are not anxious to have the panel disestablished; we think that 11 your service is important to us, and we look forward to your 12 continued service. And certainly, these issues that you've 13 mentioned and I've just mentiored are ones that we know are not 14 going to be resolved any time very soon, and so we would hope 15 that the panel would continue the public service that you're 16 providing to not only this agency but to your fellow citizens 17 of your area and to cur country.
It I think that what you've said to us this morning is :
19 very important. We hope that you would keep us apprised of any l 20 other activities or any other concerns you might have that we l 21 haven't talked hbout here today. I'm informed that our staff ,
22 is aware of your comments and your concerns regarding the PDMS 23 issue in particular and are addrassing them in their 24 preparation of the final Environmental Impact Statement on 25 PDMS.
- 29 4 .
I 1 The Environmental Impact Statement documents -- the i
2 purpose of course is to document the staff's analysis of this I a ;
j 3 whole situation and look at all the alternatives. It will be
- T 4 used eventually to evaluate ene application that GPU has made i 5 to terminate the cleanup activities. I think that the points !
you've raised on and point and the point you've raised on the
- 6
, t 7 specifics, the parameters, how long the PDMS should continue, !
8 are very important issues that should be carefully considered. j 9 I would ask that the staff do so very carefully and bring the 10 thoughts of your advisory panel to the attention of all those j 11 who will be analysing what positions we will be taking, I 12 specifically regarding the PDMS issue.
13 And I think that needless to say, decisions will be 14 made and I can only assure you that your concerns will be t 15 carefully considered and with great respect for the public 16 service that all of yt a are performing, again, to our agency 17 and to our fellow citizens. [
18 Are there ary other comments of my fellow f 19 Commissioners? Mayor Morris, do you have any final comments 20 you'd like to make?
21 MR. MORRIS No, I don't. I just appreciate the 22 opportunity and would very much appreciate your consideration j We do deliberate long and hard f 23 that you are indicating today.
24 and know that you will weigh our ccncerns very seriously. J 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We appreciate that, and again, we j l
I
30 1 thank you for your service. We stand adjourned, thank you very 2 auch.
3 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the commission meeting was 4 adjourned.)
L 5 [
6 7
8 l
9 -
1 10 11 l 12 i
13 14 15 16 I
17 l i
18 i t
19 20 21 i l
22 )
23 24 f
i 25 [
t
[
l s
.,e. . .
l l
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: PERIODIC BRIEFING BY THI-2 ADVISORY PANEL PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1988 I
were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best 4
. of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and I
accurate record of the foregoing events.
f I YVMAMML )
o y q e
- l s l
s Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
e
3..... ,
e[ , 10/19/88 SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE: PERIODIC BRIFR!N4 BY TMI-2 ArvlSORY PANEL SCHEDULED: 11:00 A.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1988 (OPEN)
DURATION: APPROX 1 HR PARTICIPANTS: TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL.'.
60 MINS
- ARTHUR E. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN '
- THOMAS GERUSKY
- DR. JOHN W. LUETZELSCHWAB
- ELIZABETH N. Mr.RSHALL
- KENNETH L. MILLER
- FREDRICK S. RICE
- DR. GORDON E. ROBINSON
- JOEL ROTH
- THOMAS D. SMITHGALL
- ANN D. TRUNK
- NIEL WALD, M.D.
AGENDA IJP!CS: - FUTURE ACTIVITIES
- POST-DEFUELING ll0NITORING STORAGE (PDMS)
M EWA%W M Wd%Wd%W6fdffffffldtjgtffff i g ggi g g gg.g g TPAHSMITTAL TO: Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips i ADVANCED COPY T0: The Public Documnt Roem
. DATE: /e /.4 7//[
j FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch
! Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and
.l placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or required. .
Meeting
Title:
Cu / ^ h-b Orid - 2
[ _
Meeting Cate: / / / # 4 ~/ f Open Y Closed l!
- l Item Description *
- Copies ,
1 *
!: Advanced b *8
~
to POR Cg
- [ i i i 1
l I, 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 ,
k uJ/AcALAubh Aw%
]
.G ;
1 :
- 2. l ll o:
1 J :
3 3.
m :
3 :
h'
-o
- 1: 4.
3: m i
3 !
s 5- :
2 [.
b! '
ll 3:
- 6. ,
3 3:
$!
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper, gi 3 l C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY papers, l'p f
5 (
- F --
.. . - _ _uu .
s l l I I i lilII '
.