ML20206E721
| ML20206E721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NACTMI, NUDOCS 8606230540 | |
| Download: ML20206E721 (74) | |
Text
ORlGINAL i
~
~
d-r' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l;,
~
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.+
,g
?
5
_.. J
'4 In the matter of:
l..
COMMISSION MEETING
~
': M Periodic Meeting 3
with Advisory Panel for the Decontamination I' 4
'J3 of TMI-2 e (.,4j,'
(Public Meeting)
I s
'8
.4 Docket No.
-2 3}l
,,i..u.
.-Z
,.4
%,7%
~
-m vp
-[
((
(:
t
' y!x
..-d,
.' I.W 8,
q;.
(
y 4
4 Location: Washington, D. C.
]
Date: Wednesday, June 11, 1986 Pages:
1 - 69
~'i :
4 0
h L.9 tt e.
c,9 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES j
g Court Reporters
,.,j, L
1625 I St., N.W.
- r. 1 Suite 921 cl 8606230540 860611 Washington, D.C. 20006 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR (202) 293-3950
.\\
- )
o 1
D 1 SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 8
6/11/86 In the Commissico's office at 1717 H Street.
9 N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.10S, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 23 24 i
25
1 f
~
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 Periodic Meeting with Advisory Panel 5
for the Decontamination of I
6 TMI-2 7
8 Public Meeting 9
10 Room 1130 i
11 1717 H Street, N.W.
12 Washington, 5.C.
13 Wednesday, June 11, 1986 14 The Commission met in public session, pursuant to 15 notice, at 11:10 a.m., the Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino, 16 Chairman of the Commissian, presiding.
17 18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 Nunzic J.
Palladino, Chairman of the Commission 20 James K. Asselstine, Member of the Commission 21 Frederick M.
Bernthal, Member of the Commission 22 Thomas M. Robc s, Member of the Commission 23 Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Member of the Commission 24 25 i
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 A. E. Morris 3
J.
Leutzelschwab 4
K. Miller 5
F. Rice 6
J. Roth 7
T. Smithgall 8
N. Wald 9
S.
Chilk, SECY 10 M. Malsch, OGC 11 12 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
13 Bill Travers s
14 Jane Axelrad 15 Steve Burns 16 17 i
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
s 3
1 PROC &EDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good morning, ladics and 3
gentlemen.
4 Commissioner Bernthal has been delayed, but will be 5
joining us shortly.
6 This morning the Commission is holding one of its 7
periodic meetings with the Advisory Panel for the 8
Decontamination of Three Mile Island Unit 2.
The panel was 9
established in Fovember 1980 to provide advice and to consult 10 with the Commission on major activities related to 11 decontaminate and safely clean up TMI-2 facility.
We are 12 pleased t'o welcome the members of the pane"1 to today's
(
meeting, and particularly pleased to welcome Mr. Rice to the 13 14 committee, Chairman of the Dauphin County Commissioners, and 15 Mr. Leutzelschwab, Professor at Dickinson College, and I 16 gather your field is radiation protection.
17 We are pleased to have you join us.
18 Today we will hear the panel discuss ACRS comments 19 on potential recriticality, the Licensee's defueling progress, 20 recent TMI-2 health studies, plans to ship damaged TMI-2 fuel, i
21 and plans for the panel's future activities.
22 At the request of the panel, we will also cover the 23 status of the polar crane enforcement action and the flow of 24 information from NRC to the panel, and possible end points for 25 panel activities.
~
n _
1 4
1 Before starting the meeting and turning it over to 2
the panel chairman, Mayor Morris, I would like to express my 3
sincere appreciation for the valuable work that the panel has 4
provided to the Commission during my five years on the 5
Commission.
With my term coming to an end on June 30th, this 6
may be my last time to meet with the panel, at least in my 7
capacity as Chairman, and I want to thank you again for your 8
insight and your dedication in dealing with the complex issues 9
that we have had before us.
10 Let me ask if there are any additional opening 11 comments from my fellow Commissioners.
i 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
13 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No.
),
i \\
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If not,'I propose we go through 16 the agenda, or the items on the agenda.
+
i 17 MR. MORRIS:
Mr. Chairman and other Commission b
18 members, let me just begin by saying it's a pleasure to be l
4
]
19 back with you to meet and discuss issues that involve the f
20 panel.
I would like to say now, maybe when we conclude as f
J 21 well, that we wish you well when you leave as Chairman.
We 22 have enjoyed working with you.
We appreciate your honest and j
t 23 very direct assistance and dialogue with us, and your
[
24 encouragement, quite honestly, to meat with you on a very 25 regular basis, and we want to thank you for that and i
i 5
1 acknowledge that.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
3 MR. MORRIS:
The first item, as you indicated, is 4
the panel comments on the ACRS conclusions on the potential 5
for recriticality of the damaged TMI-2 core during defueling, 6
and I think a simple comment from the panel on that would be 7
to read the letter that you received from David A. Ward, the 8
chairman of the ACRS, and it goes like this:
9 "During its 310th meeting, February 13-15, 1986, the 10 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards met with 11 representatives of GPU-Nuclear and the NRC Staff to review 12 studies done by GPU-Nuclear and procedures proposed to protect i
13 aga-inst criticality during the defueling of the TMI-2 core.
14 The Core Performance Subcommittee had previously reviewed this 15 matter during their meeting on January 29th, 1986.
We 16 conclude that appropriate studies have been performed and that 17 the procedures being followed will provide the necessary 4
18 protection against criticality during defueling."
- Signed, 19 David A. Ward, Chairman.
20 And that's the letter again of February 18th, 1986.
21 The member on our panel that has shown the greatest 22 interest was Gordon Robinson.
He is not with us today, but he 23 expressed a comment at the previous panel meeting that he was 24 satisfied with this report, and I don't believe that we will 25 be bringing it up as an issue unless something unusual would
~
6 1
arise.
I think it is resolved at this point.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I gather this confirms at least 3
the preliminary thinking of some of the members of the 4
committee -- of the panel, rather?
5 MR. MORRIS:
It does.
And Gordon, just because of 6
his particular expertise, wanted to be absolutely sure that it 7
was looked at as closely as possible, and I think that he 8
feels that way at this point.
9 If any other panel member wants to add anything, 10 please feel free to do so.
If not, we would move on to the 11 next item, which is the panel comments on progress of the
~
12 Licensee's defueling program.
['
13 We have received updates from the Licensee from time 14 to time on defueling.
I know that one of the items that was 15 requested for -- and I hope that you can hear me, I don't know 16 if this is really working properly today*--
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think it's working.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes, Joe Fouchard says he 19 can hear you fine.
20 MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
Thank you, Joe.
21 One of the items that we had asked, or I had asked 22 to discuss today was the reason for the three to six-month 23 slippage on the schedule, the defueling schedule, and we were 24 specifically interested in the reasons for the slippage, and 25 whether the delays could have been avoided.
-e-.
--..-.r
---,--c-.
.g
7 1
I know at the last meeting with the commission, you 2
indicated that you would er you did at that meeting direct 3
Staff as slippages occurred to review the reasons for the 4
slippage and issue some kind of report as to whether it was an 5
appropriate slippage, or whether it's something that should 6
have been avoided and could have been avoided.
7 Since we only meet with you about every six months, 8
we thought it may be helpful if there had been any interim 9
observation or decisions made by the Staff on this review, 10 that it might be helpful to receive that information today.
j 11 Other than that particular item, we have discussed 12
-- Tom Smithgall, particularly -- have dis' cussed items such as 13 whether or not they're getting enough fuel into the canisters, 14 and whether they have sufficient numbers of canisters, and we 15 received a pretty detailed explanation that that was not a 16 problem.
We received information on the problems they were 17 having with bacteria growth and what they were going to do to 18 resolve that.
They had gone over how certain material was 19 removed and what-have-you, and I think -- and again, I speak i
20 for the panel generally, and would want them to comment if 21 they disagree -- but I think generally we are happy or 22 comfortable with the type of work that they have done, and how 23 they are proceoling with the work.
24 The main concern, again, is regarding the slippage 25 of the three-to six months, and it would be helpful to us if-
.,e
,.-,,,-,,m..-,.,,
-,--ge, n_..
8 l
1 Staff had any observations on that particular item today, it b-2 may be helpful to us to hear them.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I discussed this briefly with 4
TMI-2 staff people.
They are prepared to give you a briefing, 4
5 but they would not have the benefit of GPU input, because you 6
may have questions for them.
My reaction was to let you have 7
a briefing in one of your regular meetings, and then give us i
8 your reaction.
9 However, if you'd like to get just *n overview of 10 how the Staff feels about the slippage, I would see no 11 problem, if they are prepared to make some comments.
But my 12 thought was this would be an appropriate item to have on one 13 of your regular meeting schedules, have GPU, so that any 14 details that have to do with their activities can be covered, f
15 and then give us your comments.
16 MR. MORRIS:
I guess the only reason I really 17 mentioned it is because we are something like 12 months, 18 almost, into the fuel removal, or nine months, and there is 19 something on the order of 12 months to go.
If we wait until 20 the next meeting for that briefing, we would not meet with the 21 Commission again for six months from now, which would be the 22 end of this year, and we are so far along in the defueling, 23 that for us to raise any concern -- it's kind of a little bit 24 late.
If we met more often, I would agree with you.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I presume you've gotten a
s 9
1 new bar chart schedule, and let me ask Bill Travers if he
, f' i-2 could comment a little bit about the slippage.
I didn't take 3
it off because I didn't think it was an appropriate topic, but 4
I thought maybe it involved more detail than we would cover in i
5 this meeting.
And I still think you ought to look at the 6
schedule with input from GPU as well as any comments we might 7
have.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Bill?
10 MR. TRAVERS:
I'm Bill Travers, and I am Director of 11 NRC's TMI-2 Clean-up Project Directorate.
12 By way of background, GPU has iss'ued its most recent
'(
13 program summary schedule in May of this year.
The last one 14 was issued in August of
'85.
And the most recent one has been 15 issued since the panel's last meeting.'
16 Basically that schedule, when you compare it to the 17 August 1985 schedule, indicates a slip of between three and six months in their targets for completing certain of the i
18 19 defueling milestones associated with the clean-up.
20 It indicates at the same time that GPU expects that it can complete the entire program estimated in August of 1985 21 22 to be September of 1988 on schedule, and it has moved up 23 several milestones associated with decontaminating building 24 surfaces and equipment in the reactor building.
The thrust of -- and my understanding, at least,'of" 25 l
I
nn,--
, -,,,~ -..~. --.,. -..
.n.
10 1
the panel's concern and the commission's, as well, is in j
2 noting any slips that occur in the schedule, for the Staff to i
identify whether or not GPU is making a good-faith effort and 3
4 reasonable progress in carrying out the clean-up.
We are 5
there on a day-to-day basis.
We haven't completed any kind of formal repo'rt on this issue, but just to sum up, without 6
7 giving you any detail -- and I can give you more detail -- we 8
believe that good-faith efforts are being made by GPU, and 9
that progress in fact is taking place in defueling and 10 ultimately in completing the current phase of clean-up.
11 The basic reason, in my own estimation, for the slip 12 that's indicated in the most recent schedule is due to 7
13 problems that have been encountered in defueling, most notably 14 the fact that in attempting to remove fuel from the reactor 15 vessel, they have run into some problems with bio-fouling and, 16 hence, the visibility in the reactor vessel has diminished to j
17 the point where they had to stop and employ techniques to 18 remove biological growths from the reactor vessel.
That's 19 been done, defueling has recommenced --
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
When did defueling recommence?
l 21 MR. TRAVERS:
It stopped in April and it began about 22 a week ago.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Have they solved the 24 problem now?
25 MR. TRAVERS:
They have in the near term solved the
=--,,i-rr,
---~,e
J 11
- / -
problem.
They have essentially chilled and filtered the 1
2 biologicals, killing it with a hydrogen peroxide solution and 3
filtering it with various filters.
It's going to require some 4
maintenance program.
They have been planning for a 5
maintenance program.
The effectiveness of it, given it's 6
relatively a unique problem, at least here at TMI-2 and in 7
reactors in general, remains to be seen.
But they are hopeful 8
that they can keep visibility to the point where the operators 9
can be most efficient in what they do.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why wasn't this problem 11 anticipated?
I mean anybody who's around a swimming pool 12 knows that you run this kind of a risk of algae and that kind
(
13 of stuff, and you have to control it.
14 MR. TRAVERS:
Well, that's a good question.
I think
~
15 it was just a problem that is not normally associated with 16 reactors, and it wasn't anticipated.
I don't know why it 17 wasn't, frankly, but once it was, it turned out to be a very 18 complex problem to deal with.
A great deal of effort, including the hiring of contractors and teams to address it, 19 20 was employed, and so far satisfactorily.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But that might be a good 22 question to discuss in more detail when you discuss slippage j
23 with GPU, whether or not they are looking ahead to anticipate 24 possible kinds of problems that ought to be looked at before l
25 they get to that point.
l 4
,w,,.w-e
..,..,4-.---.,--a,
,---.,._,,-,n...,
..,.-,.....,,_-n.,-
12 1
MR. TRAVERS:
Well, that's a good point.
And the 2
other -- in my own estimation, again, -- reason I would i
3 attribute it to a slip in some of the targets that they have 4
for completing defueling operations is the fact that they know 5
more today than they did in August of
'85.
In doing defueling efforts initially, they have run into some problems.
The 6
7 effectiveness of tools; how quickly they could manipulate 8
those things.
Some tools have worked better than others.
And i
9 they are focusing on those now.
Simplicity seems to be the i
I J
10 key in using tools, j
11 But basically it's experience in a very unique 12 endeavor, and I expect, frankly, that more experience will i
('
13 probably indicate the need for some additional slips.
I 14 wouldn't be surprised to be up before you or the panel or both 15 again, giving some more explanation about some of the problems 16 that have been accounted that have resulted in defueling 17 taking longer than the current target dates as listed in their 18 most recent schedule.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Go ahead.
20 MR. SMITHGALL:
Bill, do you feel that they have 21 built into this schedule that we have now in hand enough hold 22 periods to compensate for what you might consider 23 technological problems that they are going to have as they get i
i 24 down through the core?
Do you feel that this is a realistic 25 schedule, I guess is what I'm asking you, knowing what you l
i
a 1
13 1
have just said, that you will have periods where you will have
/~
2 to hold on defueling?
3 MR. TRAVERS:
I think it's a tight schedule.
I 4
think it's not unrealistic.
I think that the way to answer 5
that is to say that today we don't know anything that would 4
6 lead us to suspect that it's very unrealistic.
I think it's 7
tight, I think it's ambitious, I think it's designed in part 8
to keep the project challenged, to keep the thing moving, and 9
I think that's a good idea.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I think it is quite 11 proper and I think quite beneficial to the commission to have 12 the panel continue to keep looking at slippages, so even
/
13 though we can be sympathetic with problems they have, we want
(
1 14 to make sure that we're looking ahead to some of the problems, 15 that plans are being made to cope with them, and that there's 16 a good reason for whate'ver slippages enter, but to try to 17 avoid as many unnecessary slippages as possible.
18 But I do believe it would be wise to have a more 19 detailed briefing to the panel, both by you and by the Staff in GPU so that you can get in details about whether they're 20 21 utilizing the canisters in the best way, whether they're 22 properly designed canisters, or whether there are other issues 23 that might bear on this question.
24 MR. TRAVERS:
We certainly plan to do that, and it's 25 consistent with the direction we got from the Commission at i
l l.
_, _ _ l
14 the last meeting of the advisory panel.
1 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
3 Any more on this?
4 MR. MORRIS:
I don't.
Any other panel members?
5 Okay, the next item would be summary and panel 6
comments on its most recent activities related to TMI-2 health 7
studies.
8 Several things have happened on this particular 9
item.
Dr. Muller, who is the head of the Pennsylvania 10 Department of Health, visited our panel, made a presentation 11 on the study that they had undertaken, received questions and 12 answered where possible.
That was followed up with a
{
13 presentation and discussion by the Aamodts.
Suffice it to say 14 that it was a totally different point'of view than what the 15 Department of Health's point of view was on the effects of the 16 accident on the public.
There has been a fair amount of 17 citizen comment regarding their concern as to their health and 18 the future effects of TMI-2, and I think any time we discuss 19 this, I think I have to say that it is an emotional issue and 20 one that the public remains to be -- those that come to our 21 meetings, remain very concerned and very skeptical about all 22 of the things that happened during the accident and since the 23 accident.
And I know that there may be other people from the i
24 panel that have comments.
Tom Smithgall particularly has I
25 asked if he could speak to this subject, and at this point I' i
r.
.-.7.-
..,y 3
,,..,..--c.
v._ _,. -
,y..m
15 1
would turn it over to Tom and have.him say what is on his 2
mind.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
4 MR. SMITHGALL:
My comments primarily are just a 5
reaction to the number of meetings that we've had to the 6
comments of the public, and I still think that many of the 7
residents believe that they were not protected from radiation 8
exposure during the accident -- at least the ones that have 9
come and spoken to us.
Nearly 2000 of the residents in the 10 area are suing for personal injuries from that accident.
11 These residents have not expressed confidence in the NRC and 12 the Pennsylvania Department of Health studies.
Thus, the
(
13 matter of whether people and the environment were injured from 14 the radiation releases from the accident has not been publicly 15 resolved in their minds.
16 The public confidence on this issue is not high, and 17 beyond the TMI public health fund and our advisory panel, 18 there appears to be no other viable forum for people to go and 19 express their opinions on this issue, I still think that 20 these matters are of utmost public importance, as far as our
_21 panel is concerned, and certainly I think they're significant 22 public issues as they relate to Three Mile Island.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I appreciate your 24 comment, because when we added this to the chart, the idea was 25 to have you provide a conduit to the Commission on public
~
l
_ =
i
16 1
reactions to health studies.
I'm disappointed they don't have
,~.
2 confidence in the NRC or even the Pennsylvania Department of 3
Health, but the fact that they don't have confidence is a 4
question that I think this Commission has to give a little 5
attention to.
6 MR. SMITHGALL:
We even lost some confidence, I 7
think, in a few of the people that have been somewhat regular 8
attenders of our meetings, I think primarily out of 9
frustration with your organization as well as the Pennsylvania 10 Department of Health.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You say -- I missed the first 12 part.
(
13 MR. SMITHGALL:
I say I think we've lost some of the 14 confidence ourselves as being a viable forum for people to 15 bring their concerns.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Being a viable forum to bring 17 their concerns to us; is that where you -- I'm not sure I 18 understood the thrust.
19 MR. SMITHGALL:
I think the people that have c"7e 20 and continually expressed their concerns about the public 21 health studies to us, looking for resolution to those problems 22 through us, have got frustrated and left.
.That was a small 23 minority, I might say, but it has occurred.
i 24 MR. MORRIS:
Part of their frustration is that while 25 the Commission has widened our resnonsibility to permit us to'
\\
17 1.
be a conduit, that's all we can be.
We cannot offer th'em 2
advice or render a determination on what va've heard and 3
whether we feel there's problems er not a problem.
We really 4
have stayed within the charter that you have given us, and we 5
really are not necessarily qual'ified as a panel to do anything 6
different than that.
But the frustration is that they don't 7
feel that they are getting any credible direction, at least
)
8 those that are continuing to be concerned about it.
They 9'
don't feel they are getting any credible direction from a 10 specific source, and we know that we can't be that source 11 because that is'not our charge and that is not our background, 12 but it is a frustrating thing for citizens.
i(
13 CEAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You serve us well when you give 14 us that reaction of the public.
I think we might want to 15 consider wh~at we can and should do, and I think I will consult 16 with my colleagues on the Commission here later'and see if 17 they have any thoughts on what we might do and might have the 18 Staff also start to think along the lines of what could or 19 should we do, or both.
20 MR. SMITHGALL:
I think the problem is that basic 21 inability of the'NR'C to deal with this particular problem from 22 nuclear power plants.
In addition to that -- and we talked
=
23 about it briefly earlier -- through the TMI public health fund h
24
,t ere have been regional studies that have been approved, and 25 I think Niel outlined those for us in our pre-meeting'here, s
g n,
..n
,,-n
-n.
e
18 1
seven studies dealing from cancer studies to pregnancy 2
outcomes to monitoring dosimetry, psychiatric problems and so 3
forth.
So there is somewhat a mechanism in place that is 4
somewhat separate from your organization, but just to bring to 5
you the concern that when people come to the NRC, they are not 6
going to get the satisfaction that the health study -- they 7
are not going to be satisfied with the health studies, in 8
essence, because that's not what you are going to do.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Tom, that was the area 10 where I had a question.
How are the health fund studies, 11 columbia University study, progressing?
And is there a 12 prospect that that kind of a review might provide an objective
- /
13 and credible evaluation of the various points of view on this 14 subject, that the people up there really could have confidence 15 in?
I mean I'm not sure, quite frankly, that anything the NRC 16 would say at this point is going to carry much weight up 17 there, either.
Ccrtainly the same thing, I think, is true for 18 the state.
19 It does seem to me that what you need is somebody 20 that is credible and somewhat detached from it that could 21 provide, hopefully, a resolution of the differing views and 22 theories, and that the local community really could take some 23 comfort in and accept.
24 MR. SMITHGALL:
I can let Niel comment, too, but i
25 I'll just say briefly that it appears that that at least~1s'in
O 19 1
motion.
There was a concern that there would be a deadline 2
with funding for those, but I think that has been resolved, 3
and it seems like the mechanisms are in place to start, or 4
those are ongoing.
I guess in any of these studies you wait
'5 two years -- 1989 to the conclusion -- and aga(n tha 6
frustration builds, when there are people that are concerned 7
now, and rightly or wrongly, they look at you and the 8
Pennsylvania Department of Health for answers.
Whether or not 9
you will give them adequate answers or ones they will be lo satisfied with is certainly a personal opinion.
11 (Commissioner Bernthal entered the room at 11:34.]
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Well, clearly the Staff
(
13 has given some answers in the past that they are not satisfied 14 with.
15 MR. SMITHGALL:
That's right.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The same thing is true for 17 the state.
18 MR. SMITEGALL:
Sure.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did Niel want to comment?
20 MR. WALD:
I'll just comment briefly that the 21 Columbia University studies, which are the key ones, I think, 22 that relate to the TMI population specifically -- that is, the 23 pregnancy, outcome and the cancer incidents -- are in a 24 feasibility stage, and so the first step will be for Columbia 25 to determine whether it's feasible to carry out a~ meaningful'~~
1 20 i
=
1 study.
That information should be forthcoming within a year.
2 The next step, if it is feasible, is the long term 3
step, and there's no getting around the problem that there's a 4
4 latent period for radiogenic cancer, and that it has to be 5
lived through before you get any information, and I don't know 6
anything that anyone can do about that.
The infant mortality 7
and pregnancy outcome study, though, should come up with 8
results within the next two or three years, and I think 9
perhaps if people know the timeframe, it might be a little 10 less frustrating to wait it out.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I don't know if we can do 12 anything to help the credibility of these various. studies, but
)
{'
13 as I indicated, I may suggest to my fellow Commi'ssioners that 14 we give this a little more attention, and perhaps have the 15 Staff look into it.
But let's take that as follow-up action 16 after this meeting.
All right.
17 MR. MORRIS:
Does anybody else from the panel have a 18 comment?
If not --
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would just add on that I think if the panel has any thoughts or ideas as you go forward 20 21 on ways or things that we could do to help strengthen the 22 Columbia University effort, to help make sure that they get 23 whatever support they need to do the job, do it in a credible 24 and objective way, that hopefully would resolve some of these 25 very serious and open questions, as soon as they'can l
21 legitimately be resolved.
We appreciate your thoughts and 1
2 advice on that.
3
[ Commissioner Roberts left the room at 11:37.]
4 MR. MORRIS:
Just as a passing comment, if it would 5
be appropriate for the NRC to have Staff at least monitor what 6
the health fund does, because there are times when decisions 7
are made on some pretty pressing issues, at least from the 8
public standpoint, that if it would be appropriate for the NRC 9
to make comment supportive of certain studies, I think that's 10 one role you could play.
And I believe you might surprise 11 some citizens if you would ever do that.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And, incidentally, we benefit
{
13 from any individual comments, even though it may not be 14 something you'd take up in a meeting of the panel.
If you've 15 got ideas, we welcome them.
16 All right.
Why don't we go on.
Any more on this 17 topic?
18 MR. MORRIS:
I don't think so.
19 The next item is the panel's assessment of the Licensee's and DOE's plans for shipment of damaged TMI-2 fuel 20 21 to Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
22 We received at least two presentations, I would say 23 excellent presentations, from the Department of Energy from 24 their testing procedure, on the casks that they're going to be using in shipping the fuel, to the transportation routes 25
~
22 1
they're going to be following, to how they're going to go back 2
and forth, how many shipments would be needed and how long it 3
would take to accomplish that task.
I can tell you personally 4
as chairman that I've been very impressed with what they have 5
outlined and the degree of effort that they have put into 6
both the casks, the testing and the shipment, and I feel that 4
7 my reaction is that the panel seems quite comfortable and 8
satisfied with the presentations that we have received from 9
DOE on that particular matter.
10 I don't know if any panel member wants to add to 11 that.
Tom Smithgall?
12 MR. SMITHGALL:
My concern here would be -- and they
(
13 have made a very good presentation, I might add, too -- I 14 believe the public concern here might be the actual timing of 15 those shipments, would be -- it would'be well worth 16 Dr. Travers' office there to coordinate with DOE as to public 17 notification of those shipments.
That's a concern of the 18 people in the area as they start to occur, and I believe those 19 to be some time this summer.
And to make the public aware of 20 the process that will occur on that notification.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me ask this of my Staff.
22 Is there a security problem in timing or is there --
23 MR. TRAVERS:
There is, and consistent with our 24 regulations, the Department of Energy, who takes title to that 25 material as it leaves the north gate of the island, plans to-
23 1
generally in time make the public aware that shipments are 2
going to be beginning in a timeframe.
But the specific 3
schedule for shipments is not going to be addressed.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But your suggestion is to make 5
sure they are generally aware of this so it doesn't come as a 6
surprise at the last minute?
7 MR. SMITHGALL:
I'm aware of the security situation.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Any other panel member?
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, here again, I think staff 10 ought to look into their suggestion and see what, if anything, 11 we could or should do with regard to letting the public be 12 aware of what's going to go on with regard to shipments.
13
(
MR. TRAVERS:
I think we've been doing that to some 14 extent, and DOE has been the primary agency briefing the panel I
i 15 on its plans.
i 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
When you discussed the 17 shipment, that was in a public meeting?
18 MR. TRAVERS:
Yes, it was.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So at least that's a first 20 step.
It may not be enough.
21 MR. TRAVERS:
And I understand that the Department 22 of Energy is considering a media day or something of that ilk 23 wher.e the public and reporters are going to be introduced to 24 the casks firsthand, and generally that the schedule for beginning shipment looks to be occurring in this month, or the-25
24 1
general timeframe.
2 So those efforts are underway, but specific details 3
of shipment schedules are not planned.
4 MR. SMITHGALL:
They did take the American flag off 5
the side of it.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Where was the American flag?
7 MR. SMITHGALL:
There were American flags on the 8
cask.
I think they did take those off.
9 MR. MORRIS:
Blazing on the side.
Very impressive.
10 Certainly not very good for security reasons, however.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I can think of other things 12 I'd rather advertise with an American flag.
13 MR. SMITHGALL:
I will add just one other comment, 14 and it kind of ties to our topics here today, and one that 15 I've been beat on in our meetings, and that is the potential 16 for the increase in the number of casks or canisters that are 1
17 going to have to actually leave the island.
I'll bring it up 18 again, Art.
19 I brought this up in one of our panel meetings and a l
20 Licensee meeting.
A very good presentation.
As a matter of 21 fact, they beat me into the ground with it.
But nonetheless, 22 I'm still concerned about that.
I think the Staff ought to 23 still be concerned by the potential for the number of casks to 24 increase; therefore, having more shipments leave the island.
25 I think that ought to still not necessarily be the number one-1 I
?.
-~
i 25 1
priority, but it ou'ght to certainly be looked at, and that has 2
to do with shipping from the island, obviously.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
With what?
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You mean from the standpoint 5
of public information and expectations; is that what you're 6
saying?
7 MR. SMITHGALL:
Well, the whole process of 8
defueling, the schedule, public notification or knowledge that 9
the shipment won't take nine months, they're going to take a 10 year, that kind of thing.
i 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But you were talking about 12 reducing the number of canisters?
/
13 MR. SMITHGALL:
I'm saying to continue to look at 14 the potential for the number of canisters to increase; 15 therefore, having more tasks being required.to leave the 16 island.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Oh, I see.
j 18 MR. MORRIS:
Tom has been raising this as an issue 19 because he constantly looks at the number of pounds that are 20 loaded into canisters to see if they are loading to the level l
21 that they expected to, to make sure the number of canisters is 4
22 not exceeded.
He was quite anemic at the last meeting when he i
23 left, because he was so badly blooded, because the 24 presentation was so convincing that as to the last meeting 25 schedule, they were loading -- they were meeting the loading -
.-..L...- -.- --.
26 1
schedule or exceeding the loading schedule per canister, which 2
would indicate that they're going to have adequate numbers of 3
canisters.
4 I think what Tom is saying is, they should continue 5
to look at it, because the worst -- one of the things that 6
will happen for sure if they exceed it is, they're going to be 7
suffering from Smithgall saying, "I told you so."
8 (Laughter.]
9 MR. MORRIS:
But it is a major item in that first it 10 will delay, because they've told us that they have to have 11 more canisters made, they would need more shipments, and I 12 think it's a point that is worth making, and that they have at
(
13 least acknowledged that there is a chanca at some point that 14 they would not, because of the shape and size of fuel removed, be able to get the loading they would'need in the canisters, 15 16 and it could potentially, I guess, be a problem.
17 But as of our last meeting, it was not a problem, 18 and they did a very convincing job of it to show us that it 19 was now.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me ask, Bill, to what 21 extent do we monitor or participate in monitoring the shipment 22 activities?
23 MR. TRAVERS:
Well, we monitor very clor. fly the 24 success that the Licensee is having in loading these 25 canisters.
The packing density is the issue.
How much can *
-c.
_._.,_p
-.9 i.-.s
.g_qy-
- 7 9,rw_.-.
_.g<
v
27 1
you get in any given can?
That's being monitored primarily by 2
them to begin with, to assess in real time whether or not they 3
need to order more.
I 4
That is done, as far as a formal thing on the part 5
of the NRC, we sit in on their meetings once a week where an 6
assessment is given on how they're doing and whether or not 7
the current order for canisters is a reasonable one or whether 8
or not it ought to be adjusted.
9 The alternative -- and that may need to be adjusted, 10 frankly, depending on how well they do in packing these 11 canisters.
The alternative, though, of leaving it on the site 12 versus shipping it several more cask rail trips across the
('
13 country, I don't think is very significant, but it is 14 something that we and necessarily they need to monitor, and 15 we'll continue to do that.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This tcpic is of such interest 17 that the panel's continuing interest in it could provide 18 insight that we might overlook, and I think the panel ought to j
19 continue periodically to ask questions about the shipment, how 20 it's going, any problems that have surfaced.
21 MR. MORRIS:
I think that the Commission can feel i
)
22 comfortable that, in this particular case, we'll continue to 23 be questioned, and I'm sure Tom is going to continue to ask 24 that question, and hopefully the NRC and GPU will be r
t 25 constantly aware of it and will try to look ahead and not have l
l r-g----------y
- -.-----c-
-T
-'7--
r m----W
-Mr- -, -
---r-
+-r+m,-
9-- - -, -
w-9
-y----
--+
g---
,--- w 7-
--m--wy-wwm-T 1
y*-v-+w*rwm-
28 1
a delay because they run out of canisters or something like 2
that happening.
3 Anything else on that?
4 (No response.]
5 MR. MORRIS:
The next item, if we could, it's been 6
suggested that we might want to combine the next item with the 7
discussion on the very last item, the point at which the 8
panels work would conclude, because the agenda or the 9
activities for the future would include such things as 10 discussion of fuel removal, enforcement actions, funding, 11 water disposition, the end point, offsite monitoring and 12 health effects are the major items that we would expect to 13 have on our agenda in the future, with one of them being the 14 end point or at least the point at which the panel's work 15 would conclude, and maybe it would be' good if we could at 16 least discuss that item as part of this whole agenda matter.'
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you want to discuss that 18 now?
19 MR. MORRIS:
I think so.
My intent and I think your 20 intent was just really to have us list the major areas that we 21 would be looking at, and if you had any that you thought maybe 22 should be looked at that we were missing, you could raise 23 that, but other than just listing them, it seems like we might 24 want to go right into the end point or at least when we would 25 conclude our work.
~
w 4
~w
,.7-,
g--.,
,y
29 1
And on that, if you'd like to, I'd like to just 2
offer some observations that were made by Joe DiNunno, because 3
he could not attend this meeting.
This was the item that he 4
went to some length to explain his position on, so maybe I 5
could read some of his thoughts.
6 He indicated several items.
One is that the 7
advisory panel represents a continuing reminder to GPU that 8
the public in the TMI-2 area want the radioactive materials in 9
the damaged reactor safely out and away as soon as possible.
10 That was his first point.
11 His second point, however, was that once the fuel is l
l 12 removed and shipped offsite, and the issue of the 13 decontaminated processed water is resolved, the need for the 14 panel can hardly be justified, at least again in Joe's mind.
4 15 He then indicated that meetings should be scheduled --
16 meetings recently have been scheduled every two months.
He 17 feels that these have been attended by a smaller number of 18 citizens or the public in the past.
He feels that the time I
19 and effort of the panel members hardly seems justified, either 20 by public concerns or the nature of the decontamination activities if we're going to meet too regularly, so he's 21 22 really suggesting that, as part of this process, that maybe we 23 start meeting on an every-three-month basis or as-needed, i
24 depending upon the issues.
25 But just to summarize, I think what Joe is saying is-c._,-
-,.-v.,
y
- r ~. -.-
y y,
-.-e..
30 1
that once the fuel has been removed and the matter on the 2
decontaminated water resolved, that he feels that they are the 3
two points that would signify that maybe the panel's work 4
really would be concluded or should be concluded.
5 I don't know how you react to that or really how 6
would the panel members react to that, but that is a point of 7
beginning maybe.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Art, how about the issue 9
of how clean is clean enough?
10 MR. MORRIS:
That is an item that he does not 11 mention, but that was an item --
i 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It strikes me that that is
(
13 one of the gut issues.
14 MR. MORRIS:
It should be, because when we -- we did
)
15 discuss the and point, which is a subject that we will discuss 16 too, and depending upon what the panel would conclude would be i
17 the end point along with GPU and everybody else involved with i
18 the discussion, that might shed some light on when our work i
19 should conclude.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I must say, I hadn't given this 21 a lot of thought, and I don't want to jump to a conclusion 22 right away.
But you do touch on two items that certainly come 23 to my mind.
24 Even when I was on the panel, there was great 25 interest in what's going to happen to the water.
l
.m
31 1
MR. MORRIS:
That was a long time ago, wasn't it, 2
Mr. Chairman?
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And you were heavily involved.
4 Quite a number of people were heavily involved.
And that has 5
to be addressed, and I certainly would hate to see the panel 6
disbanded before that issue is settled, and I think it's going 7
to be a very lively one.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The other is, what's going to 10 happen to t:41s plant, and I think the question that 11 Commissioner Asselstine raised about how clean is clean 12 enough, I think, is one that we're going to want input from
~
13 the panel.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Now we may generate other 16 thoughts here, and I would welcome them if any of us have any 17 thoughts.
But I think we ought to approach this on a -- with 18 more consideration.
19 I would propose to the Commission that we actually 20 tank our TMI-2 staff to see what issues they think are i
21 important on which to get panel input, use that then as a 22 talking paper to interact with the panel, and then maybe from 23 that come to some recommendations for the Commission.
24 But I'm open to other thoughts on this as well.
25 MR. MORRIS:
I would think it would be excellant. * ~
32 1
Particularly the Staff seems like they are in as good a
,g 2
position as anybody to put together some general thoughts on 3
it that the panel could discuss and then offer some comment to 4
the Commission or some form of recommendation.
5 I think for some of us it's an item that obviously i
6 we are very much interested in the clean-up.
We're at the 7
major point in the clean-up, and that's fuel removal and i
{
8 deciding what to do with the water, but we also see that these 9
things are coming -- will be coming to a' conclusion at some lo time finally in the foreseeable future, and we're starting to i
11
-- some of us starting to wonder when might that be, and are 12 there things we should be doing to prepare for that, and so
,(
13 it's a timely topic, and the NRC Staff hopefully would be able 14 to shed the kind of light on it that's needed.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me ask -- I don't know if 16 this is a fair question; if it isn't, Bill, just tell me -- do 17 we have any indication of when GPU might make a propos11 as to 18 what they want to do with this system in terms of 19 decommissioning it and mothballing it, making some -- put in i
20 some monitored interim position?
4 21 MR. TRAVERS:
No, that's a very fair question.
22 They're all fair, but that's very fair, especially in the i
j 23 context of their most recent schedule that was issued, as I J
24 mentioned, in May of this year.
On that schedule, they give
)
25 an indication as to when they're going to be coming to the NRC' i
l 33 1
with a proposal.
And right now that's in August, the summer 2
timeframe of this year.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Of this year?
4 MR. TRAVERS:
Yes.
The water disposition issue is 5
expected, according to their schedule, in July of this year, a 6
proposal to the NRC Staff.
It's expected in July.
And that's 7
an issue, of course, that the Commission has expressed its own t
8 interest in participating in.
}
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I think the timing of 10 that, of the submittals and the amount of time it's going to 11 take us to make decisions in time to get the panel input, I 12 think would all be considerations that you ought to address in i
13 working up a possible determination time for the commission --
l 14 for the panel.
I hate to say a termination date, because I f
i 15 think it ought to be tied in to specific actions we'd like to 4
16 have the panel provide input on.
17 MR. MORRIS:
I think, though, that if you look at 18 what was just mentioned, the water issue, if it does -- there 1
19 is a recommendation forthcoming from GPU in July, and it would I
1 20 take six months to discuss that or even a year to discuss it; i
21 that would take us into the middle of next year.
The fuel 22 removal is scheduled to be concluded in the second half of L
23 next year.
While that process is going on, we should be 24 easily able to discuss some of these other issues, including I
25 end point.
So it looks like, unless something unusual comes- -
m..,g
..,._..-,,m_,
-,-,c.
..m_..,_m,y.,
34 1
up or unless the fuel redeval is really delayed, that sometime 2
late next year or by the end of next year, that that may be a 3
time a look at, and the advantage with the Staff looking at 4
this issue is that if there are issues that we need to address i
5 that can be scheduled so that they can be 1 coked at in that
]
6 timeframe work, I think this process would hava been very J
7 worthwhile us going through.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Well, unless the 9
Commission has any objection, I'm going to say, let's task the j
10 Staff to give this matter of the work that needs to be done l
11 and items on which we very much need the input of the panel, I
{
12 discuss it with the panel, and then prepara a paper for iI(
13 possible Commission action on the ending of the activities of l
14 the panel.
1 15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes, I agree with that, t
I 16 Joe, and I also like your thought about focusing on 17 accomplishments, major milestones or accomplishments, rather l
18 than perhaps arbitrary dates.
You know, what is it that we 19 want to see addressed and resolved, where we want the panel's i,
20 advice and input before they would go out of existence?
t i
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So far as your next six-month 22 schedule, it seems like the items you listed are appropriate 23 ones.
1 24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
I think also, given 25 those couple of hot topics coming up this summer, we may want-i 4,. -,. - -,, -
,----e--.
,y,..,,,,
-.-n.....
.,-a_.._
,,,_,,.,_-n.,,,,,,,.enn m.r-,,y,w-,---,n,-n-,,.4
,p,,
35 1
to take that into account in deciding when we want to have our l
1 2
next meeting with the panel.
It seems to me that maybe
~
3 something a little bit shorter than the six months might be 4
appropriate, given the obvious local interest and panel I
5 interest in those two topics.
6 MR. MORRIS:
I think we could have a little bit of 7
fun talking with you in the September or October timeframe, a
8 because I would hope that we would have had at least one good 9
public discussion on the water issue.
So it may be good for 5
10 us to meet again at least in that timeframe.
j 11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In fact, given the 12 sensitivity and significance of those couple of issues, what
('
13 we might want to even consider is perhaps a couple of 14 meetings, a meeting devoted to each of the issues, a meeting 15 devoted only to the water issue, perhaps a meeting devoted 16 only to the question of how clean is clean'enough, so that we 17 could really zero in and discuss them in detail.
18 MR. MORRIS:
Well, I'm sure we would be available, 19 and, really, if you would like to come to Lancaster to discuss i
20 the water issue, we could serve a dinner, and we could have a 1
21 q
wonderful meeting after it as well.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's not a bad idea.
23 It's not a bad idea.
)
24 MR. MORRIS:
Well, think about it.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'll leave that in the hand's of~
1
-,--,,,..,nn-.,
,,.,,.,-_---...,-,------,---c-.
..-.-,.-,--,n~-----..--.n.,-,-,_,---
-~-n.--.--.,--.-
36 1
our --
i 2
[ Laughter.]
3 MR. MORRIS:
Well, you could come as an interested 4
observer.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If I could get in there with i
6 dark glasses and observe, I'd be all right.
7 (Laughter.]
8 MR. MORRIS:
Well, actually, we thought you'd like 9
to return to the panel, Mr. Chairman.
10 (Laughter.]
i 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's the second invitation 12 I've gotten.
I got one from the ACRS and~~one from the panel 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
None that you can't refuse.
l 14 MR. MORRIS:
He already did, didn't he?
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'll take that as a compliment.
16 MR. MORRIS:
It was intended as a compliment.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Any more on the 18 activities for the next six months or when the work of the 19 panel will end?
20 (No response.]
21 MR. MORRIS:
Okay.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I don't really think we have 23 to concern ourselves about when the work of the panel ends.
I 24 don't think the pay is so good that they won't let us know 25 when they think it's --
4
_ _ _ ~ _ _,.. _. _. _ _ _,,. _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _. _. _ _ _. _ -, _
l 37 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, they were the ones,who 2
raised the question.
3 MR. MORRIS:
We're raising the issue, and I think l
4 that what you've said here is exactly what we've been thinking 5
of, and that's milestones, maybe accompanied with some 6
tentative schedule, but that would not necessarily be the 7
gov'erning factor.
It would be the milestones.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sure.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's what I'm saying, that 10 I'm inclined to listen very carefully to the wishes of the 11 panel in that regard.
4 12 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you.
13 MR. ROTH:
Just to follow up on some of these 14 things, I think the citizens' feelings are really the key 15 issue at this point, and up to this point, I, as one citizen j
16 member, and some others have tried to bring up what the J
17 citizens are feeling or thinking, and perhaps this would be a 18 good time to at least jump in on some of these.
19 Definitely, the end point of clean-up, I think today i
20 was the first time I actually heard the word " decommissioning" J
i 21 actually used in public.
We have been asking this question --
1 22 I know I have been -- since about November of 1980 when the 23 panel was first established, was:
When will you determine 24 whether you are going to decommission or whatever it's going 25 to be called?
And always I was told, "Well, it's.too.early.to-
~
.__..r
._,,,..v..
.,.,m-.-.,w._.
38 1
tell."
2 So now we're six years into*it, and maybe it's now 3
time.
I did hear a new term -- and we were talking about it 4
in the pre-meeting, and I hope I have it written down here j
5 somewhere -- yeah, here it is -
"the interim monitored I
6 storage," a great euphemism for what?
I'm not sure.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Dirties.
8 MR. ROTH:
Dirty.
9
- \\
(Laughter.]
10 MR. ROTH:
Seriously, because I think here is the l
11 time when some of these things can be put out in the open and l
j 12 clar1fied as to, you know, just what do these terms actually
~
4l[
13 mean.
I mean, it's like somebody sits in a room and comes up 14 with these great-sounding terms that nobody really, you know,
}
15 is sure, just what does that mean?
Is that decommissioning; l
i.
16 is it not decommissioning?
Is it just, you know, asking for 17 time?
18 And the public is really very concerned with that, 4
19 particularly in relation to two other occurrences.
And I 20 bring this up as a person who has received some phone calls on a
I 21 this and had some public comment.
22 The first was the Bob Arnold coming back, whatever 2
23 that might be called, episode or the reinstatement of Bob i
24 Arnold.
Some of the comments from the public and their 25 concern was the fact that now, perhaps, that Unit-1, you knowr
.u, -, _ _
w
.r-%..,
--w.,
-. ~.
-y.---eeww m
--m-.-,e------..--.-y,w_,-y,,,--,_-~%.,+.%
.r,,-w v
,w-m a.
e-.
.-r m---,.,-e,,
y
--y.g--,
-.v--
..wm
39 was back online and some of that has passed, now is the time 1
2 when some of these people who, at that time, were very 3
thoroughly castigated by a number of people, are now 4
surfacing.
The good or bad of it, I'm certainly not sure 5
about, but just the question of how that happened, and he's 6
now back, and I know the Commission's, you know, vote was 7
split on that.
8 The second area of interest to some of the people --
9 and again, I'm sure Bill Travers will jump in on that -- was 10 the non-press release -- underline "non-press release" -- of 11 the accident that they had pertaining to the crane.
The most l'2 people said, "We'll ask GPU and NRC, you know, it was not a
(
13 serious occurrence and therefore, you know, nothing needed to 14 be said about it."
And there's certainly, I guess, certain 15 merit to that, but again in the overall picture, I think that 16 GPU has consistently said how much and how often and how 17 frequently they were going to say exactly what was happening, 18 regardless of whether it was good or bad, we were just going 19 to put it out for consumption.
And in this case, they chose 20 selectively not to do that, and the balance would be, in the 21 past, their press releases concerning -- and, you know, I 22 guess there's a certain amount of hilarity in this, but --
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Joel, which accident are you 24 referring to?
25 MR. ROTH:
When the polar crane -- well,'not the-A
c 40 i
1 polar crane -- but the crane fell off, hit one of the workers, i
2 and he was taken to the hospital for, you know, some things.
i
)
3 And I think Bill can probably speak on that, right?
1 i
4 MR. TRAVERS:
Sure.
f 5
MR. ROTH:
I mean, just that area, this wall crane.
6 But whether the importance of not, it's just again public 7
perception now, is saying, "Okay, the only reason that came i
8 out is because someone gave that to a reporter in the 9
Harrisburg paper who then printed it."
so it became, you 10 know, know.'.' edge at that point.
I guess it was --
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Was there a press release by 12 GPU?
(
f 13 MR. TRAVERS:
Well, that someone was me.
An 14 industrial accident occurred on the island.
A man working on l
l 15 the defueling platform was grazed and' required stitches.
In 16 my weekly status report, I happened to note that fact.
- GPU, s
i 17 for better or worse, decided it wasn't something upon which l
I L
18 they wanted to issue a press release, and I was called for l
j 19 more information, and I believe GPU was also called by the f
4 i
20 press.
i 21 Whether or not they issue a press release is l
22 certainly outside of what we"do.
i l
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay, thank you.
24 MR. ROTH:
Right.
I certainly concur.
And I'm just bringing it up as an overall thing of again people saying~, you~
25 I
41 know, "D'on't necessarily pay attention to what we say; watch 1
2 what we do."
And it just seemed to be a little bit 1
3 paradoxical in this case, particularly when in their past 1
4 press releases, you know, of feeding deer on the island and j
Boy Scout merit badges for nuclear energy, you know, I mean 5
6 stuff like that which they find time to print, and even 4
7 marijuana plants, I guess, was one of the last items.
And I i
8 just bring that up as saying that the public sees this, and i
9 they say, "Geez, all these press releases come boiling out, j
10 but yet we have an industrial accident" --
l 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:
What was that last item that 12 was unimportant.
(-
13 MR. ROTH:
Marijuana plants.
I'm not sure who it's 14 unimportant to, but --
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You mean, growing on the 16 island?
17 MR. ROTH:
But I just think it has to be seen in its 18 total context of, are they going to actually keep on putting 19 out all the information?
And I'm not saying, you know,
.l certainly Bill's staff or your Staff, but I think just as a 20 point for GPU is maybe not to be selective again and just keep 21 on doing what they say they're going to do and just put 22 23 everything out.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Were these plants cultivated 25 or what?
4 l
. ~.. -.. _
.._,-_---.-_-.-.-m
~..-,---,,m
- -_ - --.-__,, _-___~.,-..-. -
-,__,,.m_-.
~.-
-..m
t 42 1
MR. ROTH:
Well, I have some, and they're for sale.
2 No, strike that, please.
3
[ Laughter.)
i 4
MR. ROTH:
But that's --
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's not getting very far.
4 6
MR. ROTH:
We can talk about it afterwards, I guess.
7 That would be where the public, I think, is seeing i
j 8
things, and I think to piggyback a little bit on what Tom had I
9 said about the public perception, I think this is all, you 10 know, like the people are sensing that with Unit-1 online, 11 there is going to be a certain amount of less of the spotlight 12 being on the plant at this time, and I th[nk it's important to n
(
13 show that that's not true.
14 Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, on the first item you 16 mentioned about Arnold -
- 1 17 MR. ROTH:
Bob Arnold, yes.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That was an item that came to 19 the Commission.
Its order, I think, explains what it did and i
l i
20 why it did it, and maybe that's as much as I ought to say 21 about it.
22 But your comments about keeping the public informed i
23 are something we'd better keep before us, because when the I
public is not informed, and then they learn something by the 24 25 backdoor, then they do create suspicions.
4 9
9 w.r-
,----mw,---
r-*-
re,
--+.-..,.7--r-.
w. ~ -. -
-w
, -, -,, = - -
-,---v----,.-ev.--- - - -,,. -
43 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:
Is there an expectation 3
being built in the public's mind that TMI-2 will be 4
decommissioned and some sense in the public mind of exactly 5
what that means?
In other words, do they think that this j
6 plant is going to be jackhammered and cut apart and removed 7
from existence, so to speak?
Or what are -- I didn't quite 8
understand.
9 MR. ROTH:
Well, from the start, one of the major 10 questions has always been, what's going to be the ultimate I
11 disposal or condition of Unit-27 Is it going to be thoroughly 12 decommissioned so that it is finished as a'n operating nuclear
(
13 plant, or is it going to be put in, quote, " interim monitored 14 storage," so that at a later date or at a later time, whatever 15 the timeframe is, that Unit-2 then is'put back, you know, into 16 service?
And that's been a question that's always been, I 17 think, a very important question to the public and has really 18 never been thoroughly answered by really anybody to this point 19 of just what is going to be the status of Unit-2.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I gather, though, GPU is 21 developing a proposal, and it's going to be interesting to I
22 know what it is, and then to react.
23 MR. MORRIS:
I think Joel's point is that thero's a 24 lot of interest in exactly how specific the final 25 recommendation is going to be from GPU.
' ~
4 r-,-,
--w, r--
n
,r--
n n,
n,.---.e-w
44 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Any more on this 2
topic?
3 MR. MORRIS:
For a person that had brief comments, 4
Joel, you did a pretty good job there.
Thank you.
5 The next item is regarding the Commission update on 6
the state of the polar crane enforcement.
7 We shared some correspondence on this, Mr. Chairman, 8
where I had sent a letter to you, and you had responded, and 5
i 9
the gist of my letter was that the panel,is very concerned, 10 remains very concerned, about the long length of time in 11 dealing with this particular issue.
I believe that the 12 allegations originated'in March of 1983.
1 (
13 We are aware of the detsil to which the NRC must go 14 through the O&I and the Enforcement Division and Staff 1
15 interaction and all of those things and then render a 16 decision.
We know that there's been reports done by GP'J that 17 has caused the process to maybe slow down in order to give j
18 additional review to those reports that GPU has submitted.
19 But even all of that said, it really is amazing, at 20 least to me as chairman, and at least to some if not all of 4
21 the panel members that something would take almost now three l.
22 and a half years to resolve.
If one believes that penalties i
23 help in keeping somebody.on their toes and protecting the 1
24 public, then we're failing in the process, for whatever 25 reasons.
And that was the sense of what the letter maant, and.
~
i I
l
45 4
1 I understood when you responded back that there are things 2
that cause delays, and you have to go through certain things 3
to~nake sure you can assess penalties.
4 I think what we're raising is more of a 5
philosophical concern that something has to be done to move i'
6 the process quicker than that.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, you do raise a very 8'
important philosophical question, one that I think every 9'
Commissioner on this Commission has' asked of himself and asked 10 of the Staff and asked of ourselves:
Why does it take so long 11 to get some of these things settled?
12 Now this one is a b'it more comple'x than some of
- (
13 these.
I think it involves three issues, if I understand 14 correctly, and'maybe rather than trying to use what little bit 15 of knowledge I have, I ought to call on Jane Axelrad --
16 MR. MORRIS:
Well, I'm not sure..
In fairness to 17 everybody -- well, maybe Jane wants -- if Jane is here and 18 wants to speak to it, fine.
I think we're familiar that there 19 were several actions involved, and you slowed down -- you were 20 ready to move on one, and then something else came up, and you f
21 decided to slow down on the other ones.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, yes, we started out on 23 general violation -- allegations involving general violations 24 of procedures, and then there was, I believe, a notice --
25 there was an enforcement action at least taken on that.
-And -
+ - -
.-.--.w
- -.-,w-.-
,,,,__,--_v ew-_,
,,.--,_.-epc-9
46 1-then the question came up whether it was willful, which took 2
another investigation.
And then there was a second issue -- I 3
call it the lashing mechanism for the polar crane.
4 (Commissioner Bernthal leaves the hearing room at 5
12:10 o' clock, p.m.]
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And that had to be 7
investigated.
Then there was a question of whether there was 8
some willfulness involved, and I've forgotten where that led 9
us,'and now I'm getting to my --
10 MR. MORRIS:
Maybe Jane Axelrad would like to speak 11 to it.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes, I think just a brief 13 review.
It won't satisfy you; it won't satisfy us.
But I
(
14 think we have to keep looking at these things.
Otherwise 15 years go by, and we wonder why it took so long.
16 MR. MORRIS:
Yes.
And if as part of the comments'by 17 Ms. Axelrad, maybe she could at least tell us what the future 18 might look like, or maybe somebody else could, as far as how 19 much --
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, there have been a couple 21 of things that were done along the way that I think helped the 22 situation.
23 But, Jane, could you just briafly highlight the --
24 MS. AXELRAD:
I'll just reiterate what the Chairman 25 just said in terms of what was involved.
We had'the brig'ina'l-
,,.-n--
47 1
violations involving violations of procedures.
They were 2
investigated.
We took enforcement action, as you're aware, in 3
February of '84 on those violations.
After that, later in 4
'84, in September, the issue of the hand Ielease mechanism l
5 came up, and there were also discussions with OI about the 6
willfulness of the first set of violations.
OI investigated 7
the issue on the hand release mechanism.
They issued their 8
report in '85, September of '85.
9 (Commissioner Bernthal reenters the hearing room at 10 12:12 o' clock, p.m.]
11 MS. AXELRAD:
We evaluated that.
We were in the 12 process of trying to determine what enforcement action to take 4
(
13 on that when we got additional submittals from GPU and Bechtel 14 contesting some of the OI conclusions on willfulness.
15 The Staff has been reviewing those.
We are giving 16 it a high priority.
We are trying to expedite our review.
As 17 you know, when you go through the whole three-year history, 18 it's very complex, and the issues are very complex, and no one 19 has been able to easily reach conclusions on it.
l 20 We expect that in the next month or so we should be 21 finished with our review of the additional submittals, and we 22 will be recommending action to the Commission then.
So we 23 hope to conclude it in the next few months.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What's the item that is at 25 issue in a hearing?
~
r m
- ___c, y.
48 1
MS. AXELRAD:
The other item, the third item that is 2
really sort of separate from this, is the civil penalty that 3
we issued with regard to the harassment and intimidation of 4
Mr. Parks, the original -- one of the original allegers, and 5
that matter is actively in hearing now.
There has been a 6
Board established, and that will go through the hearing 7
procedure.
8 MR. MORRIS:
That's under appeal, is it?
9 MS. AXELRAD:
Yes.
4 i
10 MR. MORRIS:
That particular one.
11 MS. AMELRAD:
Yes.
We issued the civil -- proposed 12 a civil penalty.
The Licensee contested it.
We imposed the 13 civil penalty, and the Licensee has asked for a hearing, and s
s 14 it's in the hearing process, 15 MR. MORRIS:
Under appeal, can the fine, instead of 16 being eliminated, is it possible that it can also double or 17 something like that?
l l
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can it what?
I'm sorry.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You know, that's an 20 interesting question.
The FAA has just threatened to do that, 21 I think.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is that?
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Doubling a fine or --
24 MR. MORRIS:
I've always been interested that when somebody appeals, is the risk -- can the risk goes both ways?--
25
y--.-
-,-.--,-.-r
~
w<-.n--
e
49 1
Can it be instead of saying that the fine isn't in order, can 2
a decision be made that the fine really wasn't enough?
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I don't know.
That's an 4
interesting question.
5 MS. AXELRAD:
My lawyer has just advised me that 6
they can't do that.
I'll let him --
7 MR. BURNS:
I'm Steve Burns, Deputy Director of 8
Regional Operations and Enforcement in the Office of the 9
Executive Legal Director.
10 As I recall, given the structure of 10 CFR 2.205 11 now, I think the language in there and the way it has been 12 interpreted heretofore is that the Administrative Law Judge or 13 the Board who hears the case can only impose the fine as 14 imposed by the Director or reduce it.
15 Periodically, I think there have been a couple of 16 times in the past, or there has been some brief discussion by 17 the commission whether to open it up again, but no serious 18 consideration has been given to it.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Do we have the statutory 20 authority to do that?
21 MR. BURNS:
I think so, from the standpoint that I 22 think the constraint that we've looked at has really been one imposed on ourselves under 2.205, which is our own regulation, 23 24 and the only constraint would be, I would think, is the i
25-statutory cap, $100,000 per violation.
50 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sure, sure.
2 MR. BURNS:
In a sense, what the Appeal Board and 3
the judges who have seen civil penalty cases to date have said 4
is that -- and we agree, the Staff agrees -- is that 5
essentially what you have before them is a trial de novo, if 6
you will.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And if you do that, if 8
it's basically a complete fresh look, why shouldn't the 9
Administrative Law Judge be able to make his own independent 10 recommendation, unfettered by what was initially proposed.
11 MR. BURNS:
Subject to looking at it again, as I 12 recall again, I believe our look at it has been that the
{
restraint is one imposed by the regulation, not necessarily 13 14 the statute.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I.think we're getting 16 into a subject that's very interesting.
17
[ Laughter.]
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But I'm not sure it's germane to this meeting, although I think it relates -- it may end up 19 20 extending the process further.
I have never found, with all 21 due respect to my legal colleagues, found that every addition 22 to the process prolongs it far greater than I --
23 MR. MORRIS:
Could I just conclude with my comments 24 and then turn it over to Tom?
25 In fairness to what you said, Mr. Chairman, I've
~
rn
0 51 1
always felt that if somebody is going to appeal and they know 2
that the risk goes both ways, they might be more likely to 3
say, "We might better settle now," and therefore shorten the 4
process.
Whereas if they have nothing to lose other than 1
5 maybe the money to fight it, why not appeal?
6 My personal feelings are that it may shorten the 7
process if you look at your regulations and at least have that 8
as a possibility out there for consideration and the operator 9
making a decision to appeal or not to.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It happens extremely rarely 11 that.we get an appeal of that kind against a commission 12 decision, and I might say further that I know of absolutely
['
13 nothing, although I am certainly not the most knowledgeable 14 person in this room, that I am aware of no tradition in 15 American jurisprudence where someone who decides to bring an 16 action gets penalized for bringing the action.
17 As you know, it has been cleverly set up to be quite 18 the contrary, in fact, in this country, quite different from 19 Europe, I might say.
So we really would be swimming against 20 the mainstream to initiate something like that.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I am not so sure, though, 22 in the civil penalty authority that we would, Fred.
Again, I 23 would go back to the recently publicized FAA case where in a 24 civil penalty proceeding, because the subject of that 25 enforcement action has chosen to challenge it, the FAA appears.
~
,-,._...m-r,,-..
~m_,-,..w
52 1
to be saying "all bets are off, fellas," and if you want to 2
challenge it, if there is going to be a completely open and de 3
novo review, we may and up coming out with a different result 4
than we first proposed.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We are all talking from just 6
our feelings.
I think it is an important subject and it 7
should be discussed, but not at this time.
I share a little 8
bit the feeling of Commissioner Bernthal.
It is not the way 9
you get the feeling in this country things are done, but I am 10 not that familiar with the difference between civil and 11 criminal to be very definitive on what my feelings are.
12 Why don't we get back to the question that you
(
13 raise, and that is why is it taking so long to get these 14 enforcement actions?
I guess the short answer is it takes time to get all the things done that are in the process, but 15 16 that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be examining ways to speed 17 it up -- and I think we have in a number of cases not 18 necessarily germane to this one -- to see what we could to 19 speed up our enforcement process.
20 Tom, I didn't mean to cut you off.
21 MR. SMITHGALL:
This is a procedural question, and 22 maybe it will help answer the question on the table.
In your j
letter you referred to that the Staff took action in February 23 24 of 1984 on the initial '83 allegations, and since that time, 25 several lengthy reports were prepared by O&I and others, and-I-
O 53 1
understand the others to be the Licensee.
2 My question here is when do the submittal dates 3
cease on these?
If they can come in at the eleventh hour with 4
submittals, they can certainly stretch this thing out -- and 5
this is a question for Jane -- three years, four years and 6
heyond.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I have no objection to Jane 8
saying these things, but I do think it is a little bit off the 9
charter of the panel, but we are open to criticism from 10 every source on anything, so we will take it.
Jane?
l 11 MS. AXELRAD:
Normally you wouldn't e);pect to get 12 that kind of information before you take the action.
It just 13 happened that we happened to receive it before we took the 14 action.
One would normally expect that to come in if we had 15 proposed some enforcement action.
They vould have a chance to 16 respond and they would submit that.
But since they did submit 17 it in advance, we feel obliged to consider it.
It just was 18 the timing of the thing that we hadn't issued the thing when 19 we got the information.
20 So it is either consider it now or consider it 21 later, and we figured we may as well consider it now since we 22 have it, and that is what we are doing.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I guess, Art and Tom, I 24 would add for myself I think it is clear the process took too 25 long in this case.
There are a lot of reasons for that.. I_ _
~
i 54 1
think, quite frankly, part of the reason was that the initial 2
Staff job on the first package just wasn't up to what it 3
should have been, particularly on the willfulness question but 4
also on the seriousness of the violations, and I think that 5
was reflected in the later commission decisions on this.
6 You are absolutely right that as a practical matter, 7
enforcement loses some of its effectiveness if it is not 8
timely. If it drags on and on and on for a long period of 9
time, the beneficial effects of it wear off.
The fact that 10 the Licensee has done some things to try and address these 11 kinds of problems in this case is to the good, but there is a 12 question about trying to move the process' forward more swiftly 4
13 than we were able to do in this case, and we probably ought to 5
l 14 take a hard look at it and try and learn for the future.
15 I think, Tom, on the last point you just mentioned, 16 it does seem to be to be a fairly significant issue.
As a 17 matter of policy, if licensees come in with submittals after 18 submittals after submittals trying to defend their case in 19 advance, should we drag out the process, particularly if it 20 goes on over an excessive period of time, or should we say our investigations show that you did this, we are going to impose 21 22 the penalty, and then you have the opportunity if you want to 23 challenge it to challenge it?
Maybe we ought to take a fresh 24 look at that.
i 25 I think the last point I would make is that I
~
f e.-
,,nnn-,
55.
appreciate your calling our attention to the provision in the 1
2 regulations that arguably would restrict the Board's ability 3
of the hearing examiner's ability to go beyond the proposals, 4
and I would like to pursue that as a generic matter.
I think 5
that is an interesting comment.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I facetiously leaned over to 7
Commissioner Bernthal and said that maybe what we need is an 8
advisory committee on legal safeguards.
9
[ Laughter.]
10 MR. MORRIS:
Do you want to change our title?
We
{
11 have got a lot of experts today on that.
12
[ Laughter.]
~
13
(
Well, thank you for your patience.
I underst'and 14 that.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think.there was one more item l
16 on the flow of information.
Why don't you address that.
17 MR. MORRIS:
There is.
This is one that will be 18 led by Tom because it was an experience that he had recently 19 that caused him to want to at least have this brought back to 20 you just for your information.
Tom.
21 MR. SMITHGALL:
We had this problem before.
This j
22 isn't in the same vein but it is constructive criticism.
My 23 concern here involves two points, and we touched on them 24 already, and that is the disposition of the water, and 25 certainly on plant decommissioning.
m.---.m..
,--------r--,,.--,.
56 This panel's business is going to be concentrated in
- 1 2
the next six months to a year on that, and I think it is 3
important that you as regulators give utmost diligence to 4
getting that information to us in a timely fashion.
The 5
problem that I had was a process where the filtration system 6
was approved.
The information that was circulated between the 7
Licensee and Staff occurred in March.
Our meeting occurred 8
April loth.
I received the information that circulated 9
between Staff and the Licensee at the end of May, about the 10 same time that the process had been completed.
11 I don't want that to happen with the information 12 that flows back and forth between the Staff and the Licensee 13 on the proposals for the disposition of the water or the end 14 point or any other fuel removal systems.
I have discussed it 15 with Staff.
There are two piles in which this information 16 comes to us, one that is prioritized to go out to us e
17 immediately, the other to be stacked an'd sent to us in bulk.
18 I am one that probably reads down through that stuff, at least 19 peripherally, but I appreciate that information and that does 20 come to us.
21 My criticism is that we prioritize that stuff that 22 comes to us immediately as opposed to stacked and sent to us 23 later.
I don't want to read about it in the newspaper as 24 being approved and the process completed when we have sat 25 through four hours of meetings discussing the proposal.
That_
~
-m..
57 is my criticism.
1 2
As I said, I have talked to them about it and I 3
think we have got an understanding, but I think it is 4
important that we have that information come in that manner.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
I can share your 6
concern.
As a matter of fact, I am impressed by the number of 7
items I read in the trade press about what the NRC is doing 8
that I haven't caught up with any other way, and I thank them 9
for that.
10 It may be that we need to examine how they decide 11 what is of immediate interest to you and what is not.
I don't 12 know how we can better do that.
~
(
13 MR. SMITHGALL:
I have a suggestion.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay. Go ahead.
15 MR. SMITHGALL:
I will refer you to the recent SALP 16 report, which is the Systematic Assessment of Licensee 17 Performance, which I bugged everybody for and we got.
I think 18 it is appropriate to pay attention to one of the 19 recommendations in there that cited the preparation of 20 detailed procedures for carrying out cleanup activities that 21 involved that area.
Due to the unique nature of the cleanup, 22 the licensee is required to submit detailed reports to the NRC 23 for review and approval.
This is the process I have already 24 talked about, and maybe this is where it lies.
25 It does cite on page 8.that the number of flawed I
58 1
progedures initially disapproved by the NRC indicates the 2
licensee's review process is not effective in assuring all 3
procedure details are correct.
Maybe the problem lies in that 4
before it is sent to us, they want to make sure the procedural 5
details are correct.
I'm not sure.
But I bring that up since 6
it appears the agency is pushing for more self-regulation 7
within the industry and more and more cost-benefit analysis.
8 I point that to you, but I don't know if this is 9
where the problem lies or if it is just a matter of the 10 prioritization.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We might ask the Staff if they 12 have any comment.
It may be that we will~miss things no 13 matter how we categorize them.
14 MR. SMITHGALL:
Paperwork is high; I realize that.
15 MR. TRAVERS:
Mr. Chairman and Advisory Panel 16 members, we are certainly interested in getting information to 17 the panel.
I frankly think we have been doing a pretty good 18 job.
As Tom mentioned, we have to make and we have been 19 making certain decisions on the timeliness of the paper, and it is quite a volume of paper that is sent to the Advisory 20 21 Panel.
In real time, things like the SALP that Tom mentioned 22 they get within a week.
The day we got the SALP signed by Tom 23 Murley, they got it.
It went in the mail.
24 A number of items that I am responsible for that I 25 don't wait for Advisory Panel comment or interaction on are
~
, ~,
59 1
sent in bulk every month or so.
We can certainly up that to 2
two weeks if that would be helpful.
I haven't had any comment 3
in the negative recently from the panel on this.
I would be 4
willing to work with them to improve it to the extent they 5
think it is helpful to them.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is the nature of the 7
problem the bulk mailings, the timeliness of the bulk 8
mailings, or is it things still getting left out of the bulk 9
mailings all together?
10 MR. SMITHGALL:
No, they have been very good about 11 getting us the information. I think it is probably 12 prioritization between those two piles, stuff that comes out
(
13 to us immediately and stuff that is held for bulk.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why not do the bulk 15 mailings on a weekly basis?
Is it much more of a job to do 16 that than to ship it out on a monthly basis?
17 MR. TRAVERS:
It is, but I think we can do it.
I 18 don't think it is that much more difficult.
{
19 MR. SMITHGALL:
I'm not for a make-work project.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does the panel feel that it 1
21 wants the bulk mailing more frequently?
22 MR. SMITHGALL:
My concerns are two.
One, I don't 23 want to sit in a meeting talking about information that should be in front of me while we are listening to a presentation 24 25 from a licensee.
S 60 1
, CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That.is fair enough.
2 MR. SMITHGALL:
And secondly, I don't want to get 3
the information after the process has been completed. I don't 4
want the history lesson.
If you are going to value our 5
comnents and concernt on the processes that are going to 6
occur, we have got to get those in more real time or we can't 7
give you timely comment.
8 I'm not saying I need every change of the regulation 9
or change of their tech specs, but I am concerned about the 10 issues that we have outlined that we will be talking about in 11 the next six months.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Would you want to try more
-J 13 frequent bulk mailing?
14 MR. MORRIS:
I think that would be helpful, although I
15 I think what Tom is saying is that the Staff either needs to 16 prioritize, spend a little more time reviewing it as to the timeliness on issues that we are considering and are being 17 18 considered, and either prioritize them and get those items out right away, or they need to do the bulk mailing more often.
19 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, they do prioritize.
21 Maybe they are not perfect.
22 MR. MORRIS:
In this case, apparently, they may have 23 missed something or held it in bulk mailing and shouldn't.
So 24 they could accomplish it either way, by bulk mailing more 25 often or trying a little closer to be more precise.
~
.,_--,n.-
_m,----,n, gm m, --
61 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, they could try both.
2 MR. TRAVERS:
I think we can do that.
I don't want 3
to leave the impression, however, that in the normal course of 4
doing business we necessarily wait until we have a meeting 5
with the Advisory Panel or we get some input from them before 6
I act.
We don't do that.
7 The filtration system that Tom makes reference to 8
was something that was requested and that my office took 9
action within four days on it.
It was something that we 10 evaluated the safety implications of.
GPU needed to do it to 11 remove the bio-fouling problem.
We looked at it in detail, we 12 came to the conclusion that it was not a safety hazard, and we
('
13 acted.
Then we sent the paper out.
Maybe we could have done 14 that a little sooner.
15 MR. SMITHGALL:
I think you are missing my point.
I 16 used that as an example of a problem.
If you do that with the 17 water disposition and the end point decontamination --
18 MR. TRAVERS:
We won't.
19 MR. SMITHGALL:
-- you are going to have everybody 20 all over you like a wet blanket.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How do you make the decision on which issues you wait to hear from the Advisory 22 23 Panel on and which ones you don't?
What are the criteria you 24 use?
25 MR. TRAVERS:
Well, I have to use some judgment
~
e
=
0 62 there, and on most things we can schedule a briefing and get 1
2 some Advisory Panel comments, major activities.
Beginning 3
defueling is an example.
Beginning fuel shipment is an 4
example.
But there is a lot that we do on a daily basis that, 5
frankly, we don't wait for Advisory Panel input or comment 6
upon.
7 The procedure question that Tom made reference to is 8
a technical specification requirement that because of the i
9 unique activities being conducted at TMI-2, the NRC reviews 10 the detailed procedures.
The Advisory Panel never gets 11 those.
So where we are talking about a little higher plane, 12 Safety Evaluation Report level, that we afways send them and
(
13 maybe we can send them a little more ' swiftly, but we don't 14 necessarily wait for interaction with'the panel.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me suggest that Art, you 16 communicate to Bill what frequency you want the bulk mailing.
17 We will also exhort him, and I think he doesn't need the 18 exhorting any mors, to look carefully at what he feels is 19 urgently needed and what goes in the bulk mailing, and I hope 20 maybe that will help solve it.
I would like to avoid the kind 21 of situation you have where if I need a piece of information 22 at a meeting, I would like to have it in advance.
23 MR. MORRIS:
The intent here is not to put the Staff 24 on the defensive or to be unfairly critical; it is more of a 25 constructive comment that we are trying to avoid a future
,_,,,.,.-w
,ey, _ ~..... _ _,
_--7,.e y
n~
<,,. +---,,
,.y
63 1
problem, and I am sure Tom wants to have it t1 ken in that 2
light.
The Staff has been trying very hard, we feel, in 3
providing us with all of the appropriate information, and we 4
want to thank them for that.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why don't you get the pulse of 6
the panel and see at what frequency.
Some people may want it 7
more frequently than others, but we will have to strike a 8
balance.
9 MR. MORRIS:
Okay.
Thank you very much.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think that concludes the 11 items on the agenda as I understand it.
12 MR. MORRIS:
I think Niel indicated that he wanted 13 to add something.
14 MR. WALD:
Mr. Chairman, you suggested that you and 15 your colleagues would be considering what might be useful to 16 give greater credibility from the public to activities of the 17 NRC in statements.
It occurred to me that one point I would 18 like to make might be useful for your consideration.
The 19 credibility question came up not in connection only with NRC 20 but with the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
21 In the Pennsylvania Department of Health we have 22 medical and public health competence, but there is no specific 23 radiation competence.
In the NRC we have radiation competence 24 but there is no identifiable medical or public health role or 25 person activity in the NRC.
The public looks to medical and -
~
__._____y__y,_....
_________,.____m,
. r-
-_._,e
_.. ~,
~
\\
64 1
public health people for concerns about health, and I think 2
this may have something to do with the problem of credibility 3
both of the Pennsylvania Department of Health and of the NRC 4
in this.
5 I realize this is a larger issue, the one I refer 6
to, in connection with the NRC, but in this context it might 7
be worth at least being aware of this.
The only NRC medical 8
competence that I know of is a panel of physicians who are 9
consultants to inspection and enforcement and individually are 10 called on when a licensee has a mishap that may have health 11 implications, but that group is not used for any other issues 12 related to health specifically, and you might want to consider
(
13 whether the NRC needs a more visible and more focused health 14 input.
15 I think I have indicated this view to you in the 16 past, and so in a sense I am reiterating it, but I think 17 specifically in your considerations about the difficulty in la getting public credibility for the health issues.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do we have a single M.D. on 20 the entire NRC staff, or can't we afford to hire one?
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We would all go for treatment 22 there.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am quite serious.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No, I am, too.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do we have a single M.D..on. _
l 7--n.-
w
+g
65 1
our staff?
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I don't know.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
While we are promulgating 4
all these regulations and regulating hospitals, do we have 5
one?
6 MR. WALD:
I don't think you do, just from the 7
outside.
Your charge is the health and safety of the public.
8 The health is there in your charge, but --
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
We may not be able to afford 10 to hire one.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Before we conclude we don't, I 12 think we better check.
But you do make a'very interesting
[
observation, and I think it can bear on what we do.
I think 13 14 we should explore how many, if any, M.D.'s we have on the 15 staff.
I think we do.
16 Is there anything more?
17 MR. RICE:
I have something more.
Having been a new i
1 18 member on the panel, I was amazed that we were discussing 19 disbanding the panel.
As a public servant, I would like to 20 pass on to the Commission that I think the citizens in Dauphin 21 County and the surrounding area, even in Lancaster County, e.re 22 at an all-time low from the standpoint of a comfort zone of 23 Units 1 and 2 being there.
So I think that some public 24 participation in the monitoring system has to be devised.
25 Now, this probably will come out in the. studies that_
~
l
66 t
1 are going to be released by Dr. Ruth Patrick in about two e
2 months; however, I think that since what happened in Russia,
.I 3
the people are very doubtful and feel very uncomfortable with 4
Unit 1 and 2.
Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
Well, the topic 6
sort of surprised me when I saw it, but when I thought a 7
little bit more about it, I thought, well, there is eventually 8
an end point.
I am not trying to rush it.
The reason we 9
undertook to address it is because the panel thought it was 10 important to the panel, but speaking for myself, I don't want 11 to terminate this panel until we are quite clear that it is 12 not needed.
That is all part of our consideration on dealing
(
13 with when there is a possible end point.
~.
14 MR. MORRIS:
I can see Fred and John's reaction.
15 They just came on the panel.
But they also need to understand 16 that when we came on the panel, we were thinking three or four 17 years, and it has now been six. So even while we are talking 18 about the end point of the panel, we may be back here in 1995 19 still talking about it. So no, we just felt it was a timely 20 topic.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
22 MR. MORRIS:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just again go 23 back and thank you for your attentiveness to the panel.
You 24 have been extremely responsive to filling vacancies, and you 25 have been very responsive to setting up meetings.and having.us.
~
p-q---WWr i------.
r--%w+---w-y---
,.i-
--m--.
- - _ ~,. - - - -
r-.+-r-.m9-e-.--e-
67 1
come to Washington, and I think you have been very diligent 2
and concerned about dealing with the panel.
I want to thank 7
you personally as chairman and wish you well in whatever it is 4
you are going to be doing when you leave here, up there at 5
Nitany Valley, I assume.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
I think the thanks 7
go to you folks, not to me, because you have been identifying 8
areas that need to be addressed, and in being responsive, we 9
are only doing what I think our job is to do, to take 10 advantage of your eyes and ears and make sure that what we are 11 doing in the cleanup at TMI-2 is being done promptly, on time, 12 and that there is not going to be any great slippage in it
(
13 because of funding or any other items.
14 So again let me thank you on behalf of the 15 Commission for dedicated and very valuable service to the 16 Commission, and I'm sure we will be interacting with you for 17 some time on the rather knotty problems that still remain.
18 Any other comments?
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I would like to say something, 20 Mr. Chairman, very briefly.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Go ahead.
22 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
First of all, I think your 23 comments today have been very helpful and very positive and 24 constructive, and I appreciate them very much.
25 Second of all, I would like to thank all of you.for. -
.~.3.
r, e__
..m
68 1
the service you are giving to our, agency and to the public.
2 You are serving the public as public servants in this 3
capacity, as are we.
That is a grave responsibility and I 4
just want you to know how much I appreciate what you are 5
doing.
It is not easy, it is important, and I think that your 6
service to us and the public is so'mething that is most i
7 necessary and I thank you for that.
8 I would particularly like to welcome the two new
.I 9
members to the panel and thank you for your willingness to 10 participate.
i 11 The recommendation for termination, I think it is 12 important to know that it did come from the panel, not from 13 the commission.
I personally feel -- and I will be looking 14 very carefully to see what the Staff recommends -- but also it 15 will be most important to me to see what you recommend, what 16 you the panel recommend.
If you feel collectively that, after 17 determining the accomplishments and milestones that you see 18 ahead need to be done, that there is a time to terminate, I think that will be appropriate, but I am not particularly 19 20 anxious to have you terminate yourself.
I want you to know 21 that.
I think you are performing a service.
22 It will be important to me to know that you really 23 feel you have completed your service, and if you may feel it 24 necessary to leave some items for us to follow through, I 25 would appreciate that if that is what you conclude.
On the.._
~
69 i
1 other hand, it will be important for me to hear what you-all 2
collectively and individually recommend as far as terminating 3
your service.
For the time being, I think it is necessary and 4
helpful.
5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
7 Any other comments?
8 (No response.]
9 Thank you again, gentlemen, and we will stand 10 adjourned.
11 (Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m. the meeting was l'e concluded.]
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
]
22 23 24 25
~
1 i
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7
TITLE OF MEETING:
Periodic Meeting with Adivsory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI-2 (Public Meeting) 8 PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, June 11, 1986 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken 13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17
L-4 I'g%---------
18 Ann Riley 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25
- - - + -
~,-m_
4,
.m SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 SCHEDU'.ED :
11:00 A.M.,
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1986 (OPEN)
PROPOSED
- PANEL COMMENTS ON ACRS CONCLUSIONS ON THE POTENTIAL FOR TOPICS:
RECRITICALITY OF THE DAMAGED TMI-2 CORE DURING DEFUELING
- PANEL COMMENTS ON PROGRESS OF THE LICENSEE'S DEFUELING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
AND PANEL COMMENTS ON ITS MOST RECENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO TMI-2 HEALTH STUDIES
\\
l
- PANEL'S ASSESSMENT OF THE LICENSEE'S AND DOE'S PLANS FOR 3HIPMENT OF DAMAGED TMI-2 FUEL TO IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (INEL)
I
- PANEL'S PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR THE NEXT 6 MONTHS I
- COMMISSION UPDATE ON STATE OF POLAR CRANE ENFORCEMENT
- DISCUSSION OF FLOW OF INFORMATION TO PANEL ON MAJOR / KEY ISSUES
- DISCUSSION OF POINT AT WHICH PANEL'S WORK WILL CONCLUDE PANEL
- ARTHUR E. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN MEMBERS:
- JOSEPH J. DINUNNO
- THOMAS GEAUSKY
- JOHN LEUTZELSCHWAB
- ELIZABETH MAR 3 HALL
- KENNETK L. MILLER
- FREDERICK S. RICE
- GORDON ROBINSON
- JOEL ROTH
- THOMAS SMITHGALL
- ANN TRUNK
- NIEL WALD l
(NRC PANEL LIA! SON 0FFICER - MICHt3 T. MASN!K)
{
4 i
e
'l 4
6
?
l s
b 5l c
-ir$,
.y.
-4W c-
.v w ey s.4
')$*
4.
e
,', r :'*,4 e
, c r.*
p>
- , '1641 49
"..<j?.C 4
a p. Z,
.s
. y'- ;, :.e e
$4-s.
I 6
.v
', j e 6, ',:
-3'
,a: -
'.s c~u f,
-i, 9, ' *
.'., ;, j,p e
- v. p ys
^'
y p.
q
+ $ t..',.
]
- y L '. ' Hg
=
.y,i.......-,o e%
,,.. ~. @.,Q.
c n.; g.,
., ey,
.,.l w,
-6 <s
.'1 f 1
q%'d.
m
., p.:.
~
' gkh,,
s 4u0
'j.
?,
- ,1,-
!^C..
y.
+
+
o.
.w
, ( *. (,..Q 4-r"
- r
-Yr 3rw
.L y, Q,i,f<t i
+'.r
.'f
- (l /,. +
- :-C! !$
w,..;
4
,.n, m.J.a 1
',"t g.,.
s.-- >- gp g
- Ny t#'. j 'g4.:,.., f, 4.,
9 g
-5 I
/ '-,>
g' g
.Ye/
e j)p 4
e s
,.>; s ff%
-e,
.n g,..
s
- -s
-i.3,
..y.
, 3
~
f.
,..' %,.n'.
M.'., z,M s
-' I '.ft[* C '
~
p 4
. # s.4,
'.. s._ s.-
, % :;. g 4, t,.
1.. -..,,fm s
s f-
< s " ',
s
, - ~ '.
,m,
,,- p,.,.
,,'yl -.
^"
q,,,b g e s,
. 2
',s.
. 't a9,. ;g < s' n,,, y, s. v
,y, s
3
"",,..'%'.,(,,,.,.
e
./
-..,c _,.s, 3 ;.1..wg-3' i,
.- l g
1-',c4
,e i
ss
., y
~
e,,
.i.,, v,u
- u
^
's-
's,:)
'T r
~
- g. o'll e.
j ij h.
o. g.)
s s m s.
,s.
i f *.
L
,W
? Y
- ,f,'
a
,..s r
.4 p'i s,
r
~
9 2
4.
ne M
. s 4.g.
-r e
r.y
'. f g
..t.
n st
?I
.A 4
- 3
~e
,e s.
9 y
4 r.,,
, =
'/..
,4
.i m
s
.r.
,Q-
.I
- ~-
1 rYS.
t.
s -
3-s s.
k,
,SO
~
.*r
's
+
4 -I4
.i, g r
.3-
+
A
,g.
4
',b 6
M.
i
~.' $'s. h-
.. w p
R
-+
o 9
I hhhrh) p 9/35 i
f a;;
TRANSMI' ITAL 'IO: _ / il /
Documnt (bntrol Desk, 016 Phillips j
Y lj EE i
E ADVANCED COPY'IO: /
/
'1he Public Document Ibcm F
[ l"%,, P[o DATE:
cc: C&R g-
/attac 3
N FPCM:
SECY OPS BRAfG1 it
~
pacers' f
Attached are copies of a Cormission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting
$l document (s). 'Ihey are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List
{
and place'unt in the Public [bcunent Pocm. tb other distribution is requested
)
22::!
or required. Dcisting DCS identification numbers are listed on the iniividual j
f docu ents wherever krom.
s F
Mk W
h tsk M6.6Lk iy hd d
meting
Title:
t$ ocu f
}
2ll 4 --
o E lTM -L f
Tk CAc cLi tA e
Neting Date:
b ll %b Open[
Closed
{
CCS Copies f
5 sy N5 (1 of each checked) t M
Iten
Description:
Copies f
Advanced Original May Duplicate;
'Ib PDR Docurent be Dup
- Cc=v*
5 1.
TP M CRIPT 1
1 g
hhen checked, DCS should se:d a g
F copy of this transcript to the LPDR for:
f Sc.
Au.
O c3 I
2.
g h
- 1b EI e,
f 3-7 f
a
[,
e jl 4.
j f
t
- Verify if in DCS, and I
(PDR is advarx ed one copy of each docurrent, Change to "PDR Available."
tw of each SECY paper.)
t f
MbOMMMMd000bObOb3d5d3Mb0ddb0h3d3Mb0h0h0MMdid3)0h0hh0h0lfhYhlh5lhf3hfh3lfhfhI