ML20212Q980
| ML20212Q980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8704240185 | |
| Download: ML20212Q980 (57) | |
Text
__ __- -_ _-- - _ _ - ._ _
f f
ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Title:
Periodic Meeting with the Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI-2 (Public Meeting)
Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Thursday, April 16, 1987 i
Pages: 1 - 50 l
i l
i l
1 Ann Riley & Associates ;
Court Reporters -
1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 ~
(202) 293-3950 .
" 26
!!R4218a A PT9.7 PDR
4
.[ .
1 D l 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 S 4/l6/87, .. In the Commission'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
.f .
I g 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs, No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result-of or addressed to any s,tatement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Cemmission may 21 authori=e.
22 '
l 23 24 25
1 Lg-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.(.
+ 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-3 ***
4 PERIODIC MEETING WITH THE ADVISORY PANEL -
5 FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 ,
6 ***
7 . PUBLIC MEETING 8 ***
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Room 1130 11 1717 H Street, Northwest -
12 Washington, D.C. '
. 13 y
14 Thursday, April 16, 1987 15 16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 11:05 o' clock a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, 18 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
19 20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the Commission !
22 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the commission l l
23 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission !
. I 24 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 25
~
l r ,-n,.,--n, - - , n - ,- +~
O i
, 2 1 ' STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
- 7 ., ,
i 2 J., Hoyle 3 W. Parker 4 J. Roth 5 F. Rice 6 J. DiNunno -
7 T. Gerusky 8 J. Leitzelschwaub '
9 E. Marshall '
10 K. Miller 11 G. Robinson 12 T. Smithgall 13 N. Wald s
14 15 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
16 W. Travers 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 -
1 s-1 PROCEEDINGS p .
L 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
3 Commissioner Carr will not be with us today. He is overseas 4 travel and Commissioner Bernthal will be joining us shortly.
5 ,
Today the Commission is meeting with the Advisory 6 Panel on the Decontamination of Three Mile Island unit 2.
7 This is an especially timely meeting since the Commission was ,
8 briefed just yesterday by the Department of Energy on the 9 progress in the examination of the TMI-2 core examination 10 program.
11 This advisory panel has served to provide the 12 Commission with the insights and concerns of the residents in 13 the area surrounding the TMI plant. Today the panel plans to 14 cover the issue of the disposal of the accident-generated 15 water.
16 The discussion will address the draft NUREG-0683, 17 Supplement 2, the programmatic environmental impact statement 18 related to the disposal of the water. i 19 We understand that the panel will be led today by l 20 Mr. Joel Roth, vice chairman. Should the Commission have any !
l 21 questions for the NRC staff, Dr. William Travers is present 1
22 with us and as you know he is the TMI-2 project officer for
{
23 the NRC.
24 Do any of my fellow commissioners have any opening 25 comments? ,
\
4 1 (No response.]
(~
^
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Then, Mr. Roth, will you proceed, )
i 3 sir. l 4 MR. ROTH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 5 Commissioners. You did receive a letter from Art Morris, our 6 chairman, briefly summarizing what has occurred up in the 7 Lancaster/Harrisburg area where we have been having our l 8 meetings.
I 9 I won't read the entire letter but simply say that 10 we did have three semi-heated meetings on the subject, one of 11 which started at three o' clock and ended at nine o' clock, the -
12 other one starting at six o' clock and ending at eleven o' clock 13 and, of course, we just met previously to coming in here.
14 In Art's letter there is, I think, really one 15 addition. On page two, he mentioned, "The following motions i
j 16 were considered by the Panel."
17 A motion that the draft supplement to the 2 i 18 environmental' impact dealing with the disposal of the 19 accident-generated water is an acceptable document passed with 20 an eight for and two against.
i 21 A motion to oppose the evaporation option put forth {
22 by GPU was passed with a vote of five for, four against and 23 one abstention.
24 Number was a motion to maintain the status quo until
~
25 a stronger case can be made for definitive action, including
5 W
l evaporation or a more desirable alternative, was not approved l I
j7, . -
t, 2 due to a vote'of five for and five aga. inst.
3 Motion number four which he forgot to mention was 4 that there was a unanimous vote against dumping the accident 5 generated water into the river. That was a unanimous vote.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. We.will add that to our 7 letter. Thank you.
8 MR. ROTH: All right. What we hope to do here this 9 morning hopefully with questions and discussion is every panel i
10 member certainly will have the opportunity to voice their 11 opinion. On this particular issue, I would be very foolish to-12 sit here and say that I can summarize it. That is not the
., 13 case and I won't try to do that.
i 14 All I would like to say is that in the last three 15 meetings, January, February and March, particularly the two j 16 that we had in Lancaster, were quite crowded, a lot of people 17 and a large transcript and I think that a lot of our voting 18 represents that.
19 I would reserve any comments that I would make and 20 they will be on my own until last. Again, I won't summarize 21 what the panel says and at this point, I would wonder if you 22 have questions. If not, I know some of our panel members 23 would like the opportunity make some statements.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think you should proceed unless my 25 fellow Commissioners have any other thoughts.
I
. +
6
.g l-j 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's. fine.
l ,r -
I ( 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Please go ahead.
3 MR. ROTH: How about Neil, if you would start, 4 please.
5 MR. WALD: My concern in any of the matters that 6 come to our purview as an advisory panel tend to focus on the 7 health of the public since that it is my field and this l
.8 includes the degree of concern that may be aroused by various 9 actions that are taken in the process of the clean-up.
10 There is a basic radiation protection principle 11 which says that no activity should be released without a 12 compensatory benefit that can be explained to justify it.
. 13 The need for resolving the water issue at least has
(.
14 the appearance of following a requirement that has to do more 15 with procedure and the termination of a problem than it does 16 from any immediate technical concern unlike the issue of i
17 releasing the krypton-85 several years ago.
i 18 The pressure then at least the licensee explains the 19 presentation of this problem and solution to a request from 20 the Commission, this should not delay the attention and l l
21 dissemination of discussions and of the conclusions about the ;
22 best procedure and the benefits to be attained as well as what 23 hazards there may be however minimal.
24 I don't think the pu'lic b has quite received this 25 kind of benefit / risk judgment in 'a way 'that. would allow them i
7 s
1 at least to evaluate it. I don't think there is any one
.( . .
2' solution to this problem that will please all of the public.
3 I do think that a clear presentation of the 4 benefit / risk weighing that went into whatever path is chosen 5 for this problem and its resolution should be more 6 understandable to the public and that it may take a little 7 more time to do that but I don't think 't ihas been done up .
8 until now.
9 For example, there have been ten potential solutions 10 that have been looked at in the environmental impact statement 11 and the focus has been largely on the one proposed by the 12 licensee.
13 There are some others that upon reading the 14 comparison even though the position of staff was that there 15 was no best choice among the ten, there are some which, for 16 example, the option of solidification of the material on the 17 Island and disposal of it in the ground with the proper 18 precautions to minimize leaching gives le.=s exposure than the 19 evaporation.
20 The exposure of the public to the tritium is reduced 21 from two to two and a half years down to less than one year.
22 Retention of the long-lived strontium, for example, is much 23 more complete or maybe complete. l f
24 The cost is lower. There is no transportation l
25 hazard which is the main cost in human ' injury and loss of life
8 Q.
i 1 and this may be at a level which the Commission itself could y,
t 2 approve as being below regulatory concern. ,
3 This kind of an approach might at least satisfy both 4 the people who don't want the material to remain where it is 5 and those who don't want it to be released into their 6 environment through the proposed evaporation technique.
7 But this particular route hasn't had much discussion 8 because there hasn't been time. As you heard, our meetings 9 run long and we still never cover all the questions and 10 discussion that we would like to.
11 So I guess in summary, what I am saying is that the -
12 pressure for quick resolution and the lack of attention to
', 13 some potentially more acceptable solutions to all the parties 14 inc1'uding the public because of operational or regulatory 15 pressure should not short circuit this and cause an imposition 16 of a solution which is less acceptable to a larger proportion i
17 of people.
18 I reiterate that there is not going to be any-19 solution that all will accept. What I am saying is, from the 20 standpoint of mental health and reducing the level of anxiety.
1 21 of the public, it would be good to have a solution, give the I l
22 benefits and the risks for that choice and then knowing that 23 not everyone will be satisfied, go ahead and do it.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
~
25 MR. ROTH: Tom. .
9 s -
1 MR. SMITHGALL: I am going to echo Dr. Wald's 2 comment to a certain extent but I will start and say that I 3 think there has not been enough exhaustive research into the 4 preferred options for dispersal of the accident generated
- 5 water. I will define preferred here to mean an alternative 6 that does not only meet the regulatory concerns of your agency
- 7 but meets the environmental and psychological concerns of the 8 people immediately surrounding Three Mile Island.
9 I recommend that you defer your decision in favor of 10 a more increased analysis of the water by you and hopefully 11 other agencies independent of the utility and of your agency 12 and to tighten up the assumptions that are made in the EIS and
! ,- 13 hopefully broaden the calculations on doses to people around l.
14 the' plant from any potential radioactive releases in any of 15 the various alternatives proposed.
16 I think it would be prudent for the staff to review 17 the results of the krypton venting of 1980 where strontium 18 releases exceeded the published predictions in order to allow 19 the more cautious approaches'that we have heard in our meetings 20 to the dispersal of this water to be heard.
21 Since the Commission has reserved to itself the 22 decision process on the accident-generated water, I 23 respectfully suggest that they opt for a more thorough review 24 prior to the decision and to not allow any intentional '
25 radioactive discharges to Pennsylvania "citi,zens around the' l
l i
10 1 plant by either water discharge or forced evaporation.
l 2 With this said, it appears that the options involving l
l 3 both shipments off site or as Dr. Wald stated, solidification 4 on Island may be preferable not only in one sense in the 5 savings of money to the utility that could be applied to the 6 more difficult decon and defueling operations but maybe as 7 importantly to the political and emotional concerns of'the 8 citizens in Pennsylvania.
9 Let's not make a decision here that is founded 10 solely on technological data and expert testimony. Hear the 11 people around Three Mile Island. Please read their comments -
l 12 in our transcripts. It doesn't convey necessarily the emotion f 13 when you see it in the printed word, but please heed their
(
14 caut'ious warnings and don't expose the population again 15 unnecessarily.
16 Nuclear emissions do take their toll. They may be 17 in small increments and in various physical and mental health 18 ways and your approval of the licensee's proposal or a fall 19 back to a river discharge, therefore, would be a public i
20 health and safety threat, I feel that would be an utmost 21 concern in Pennsylvania.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
1 24 MR. ROTH: Gordon?
l 25 MR. ROBINSON: The minutes ind'icate that I was i
4
,_. . , - - , , . , - . - . . , - . , . ,_r._ _ _ . _ _ , - _ _ - , , _ _ _ _ , . _ . . _ - _ . , _ . , -. , ,_.,.--,v. - . ~ .-. ,y,--
11 1 present at the meeting and that's incorrect. I was not. I r
'~
2 could not be there because of a death in the family two days
- 3 before the meeting. I did want to in'icate d how I would have 4 voted if I had been there.
5 On the first motion, acceptability of the draft
, 6 supplement 2, environmental impact statement, I would have
. 7 been for that and therefore, that would have made it 9-2.
8 On the motion to oppose the evaporation option put 9 forth by GPU, I would oppose the opposed evaporation option 10 which makes me for the option, therefore, that would be 5 for 11 and 5 against and 1 abstaining. -
12 On the motion to maintain the status quo until a 13 stronger case can be made, I would be against that. That
- (
i
. 14 woul'd make~it 5 for and 6 against.
t l 15 I would urge the commission to read this last
! 16 package here, simply because it does give you a flavor of how 17 the people think.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Excuse me.' On the additional item 19 that Mr. Roth gave us about the unanimous vote to not dump in 4
20 the river, you would support the unanimous consensus?
21 MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you.
23 MR. ROBINSON: I would urge that the Commission read 24 that last set of minutes, since I read them, they are rather
~
25 long, but they do go along with the flavor .from the. previous
. . _ _ _ _._.~._,._..- __.,_. ...~._ _ ,._,. _ _ _ _ - . , . . _ _ _ _ , __ ,, . . _ , , , _ - . . . . , _ _ _ ,
~
l
. - 12 2
ones and there are a group of people who a re adamantly opposed to any radiation being put into the e \
3 nvironment. That obviously is not a possibility in this ca 4
se to satisfy them, but it would give you a good idea of h 5 ow a certain group of people in and around TMI feel.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
7 Thank you very much.
MR. RICE:
8 time, I'd like to pass, Mr. Chairman, at thi s and I'll come back.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Certainly.
10 MR. ROTH: Ken?
11 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
12 I also was not at the last 13 meeting so did not have an opportunity vote. to I personally 14 find it inconsistent to vote approva l 15 and then turn around and vote against thof an EIS in one in e things that have just been approved or voted for in the EIS 16 .
My voting would have been that I approve of the EIS .
17 I have reviewed it. I can find nothing that I greatly disagr 18 ee with in it, so I would 19 have voted in favor of that.
{ I would not have voted against I any of the options.
1 20
\
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
21 Excuse me.
this. Let me make sure I get l
22 one? That would have made the vote then 9 t o 2 on the first 1
{ 23
\ MR. ROTH: 10 to 2.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: 10 to 2.
l 25 In the next one?
MR. MILLER:
In the next one, I would not have
\
13 1 opposed the evaporation option.
- y. .
. ( 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That would have been a vote of?
3 MR. ROTH: 5-6-1.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: 5-6-1. You would not have opposed 5 it; right?
6 MR. MILLER: I would not.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Then in the next one, to
. 8 maintain the status quo, 5-6 so far, your vote would have made 9 it?
10 MR. MILLER: Maintaining the status quo, I probably 11 would have voted in favor of that because the feeling that I 12 get is there is no real emergency in making a final decision
(~ 13 here, and I think there are some options that have been
\
14 brought out at the last several meetings that we need to take 15 a more in depth look at.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That would have made the vote then, 17 we have 5-6 so far and your vote would have made it 6-67 18 MR. MILLER: 6-6.
19 l CHAIRMAN ZECH: You would have voted how on not 20 dumping in the river? l 21 MR. MILLER: I would have not voted against dumping 22 in the river because I think that's an acceptable option. I 23 would have been the only descending.
9 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The only dissident so far on that 25 one; okay. All right. Thank you very much,
~ -e - , - , - , - - - -
w- - , - - - - , - . - - , - , - , a-- - ,- , r--- - , -- - - - - -e -- - - ,->
- \
j 14 1 MR. MILLER: I'd like to make an additional comment.
r, .
2 One of the problems that I have as a member of this committee, l
3 I think we are fairly well exposed at each of our meetings to 4 the same segment of individuals from the public. I personally 5 do not get the impression that the public is tremendously x 6 concerned with either the EIS or any of the options involved
= 7 here, what really is being done with the water. The sense that 8 I get from the public that I deal with is simply that they 9 would like to see this ended once and for all and be over with 10 and done with so there no longer has to be any concern at all.
11 So I think we get a rather skewed impression of what 12 the public really feels about this. I think that bothers me
{
13 somewhat because I have not in the community had any response i
14 or any criticism or any comments on any of what we have been 15 discussing here. The only time that I personally hear from 16 any members of the public is when we have our meetings and the 17 same group appears to testify.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
19 MR. ROTH: Elizabeth?
20 MS. MARSHALL: Well, I'm not a scientist and I hear 21 conflicting opinions from people on our panel who have 22 scientific backgrounds. I tend to feel to be concerned 23 about health problems, problems that might threaten health l
=
l 24 matters is something that is sometimes overlooked in favor of
. 25 expediency. I know there's a problem. "It doesn't seem to be
j 15 ,
1 critical at the moment, but I think it is important that the ,
(~
2 Commission find the best solution, the most rational solution l 3 with the people's health in mind and then do their utmost to 4 educate the public as to why they came to that solution.
5 I must say that I felt that the environmental impact 6 statement certainly had a great deal of very informed and 7 expert opinion in it. I did vote to accept that. I didn't 8 vote for either of the alternatives of outright evaporation or 9 of dumping into the river.
10 The thing that seems the cleanest undoubtedly has 11 its hazards but if it could be solidified, if the water could 12 be solidified and trucked to a dump site which did not leach
, 13 into ground water as you might think a dump site on the Island
(
14 might, which is right in the middle of a river, and perhaps 15 I'm reflecting what the public's perception would be, people 16 who are not scientists either, which the majority of people 17 are not.
18 I do perceive in the people that continually come to 19 our meetings and they are the same people, that what we have 20 really is people who feel they are informed about this, they 21 care about it, they care about it enough to come to meeting 22 after meeting, and perhaps they are a minority of the community 23 and if it were put to a vote, the community might have 24 evaporated, I don't know.
1 I
25 I kind of think it's the thing that shouldn't hinge I
16 1 on a majority opinion. It should depend on a scientific i solution as to what is the least health hazard to the
~
2 3 community. I think it's going to be thought upon nationally 4 as I think the Commission may be judged by how they handle 5 this situation in relation to plants all over the country.
6 I thought your action in relation to Peach Bottom 7 and Peach Bottom is in my county, showed some strength and 8 determination on your part to concern yourself with how the 9 plants are run. It may have given reassurance to some of the 10 people, some of the citizens of our area.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. I can assure -
12 you that we do have great concern for the safety and operations 13 of our plants. I appreciate very much your remarks. Thank 14 you.
15 MR. ROTH: John?
16 MR. LEITZELSCHWAUB: I have a couple of the same 17 concerns the last two speakers had, how do we judge what the 18 public really feels? I live very close to the plant and my 19 neighbors and people I talk to near it haven't mentioned 20 anything at all one way or the other, so I sort of come up dry 21 except knowing that people who are opposed to things tend to 22 make comments before people who are in favor of something.
23 I'm at a little bit of a loss but I guess I would 24 have to sort of say that the public in general does not have
~
25 as much concern as that which is expressed in our meetings by
, 17 1 a very vocal group there, although I don't like to say, they
(~, .
2 shouldn't be saying what they are saying. It's good they )
3 speak up.
4 on the alternatives- I-get a little bit bothered by
, l 5 the concept of shipping the stuff off the site when the risk 6 of shipping 4s so much greater than the radiation risk of l
. 7 doing other. things with it. It bothers me that we are going 8 to try to trade risk to ourselves to the risk to somebody else 9 out on the highway between here and Washington or Idaho or
~
l 10 wherever they are talking about-shipping it, so I guess I 11 would oppose anything that would ship things off the Island in 12 any large quantities, other than the process they are talking 4
13 about now, where they ship to the bottoms. r 14 I guess I don't feel that much opposed to the 15 proposed method of evaporation. That wouldn't bother me any 16 at all.
i 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
18 MR. ROTH: . Thomas?
19 MR. GERUSKY: Thank you. I have not had a chance to 20 discuss this proposal with the new Pennsylvania Administration 21 so I'm not speaking for the Pennsylvania government at this 22 point, although I do feel in some discussions with my new 23 superiors that they are very concerned about the release of 24 the water to the river as a solution and would not support 25 that. I do not personally support that", not from a radiation i
, , ,.m. , , , . - - - - - - , , . , - - - , - . - , - . - ~ ,, -,, ,,,..e. . - , . , . - - - . ,- --- .- ...--n. --
18 1 safety' point of view but only from a ps'ychological impact ~
y~ . .
i 2 point of view.
3 My concern is that the decontamination of Unit-2 4 proceed on schedule and that the water issue be resolved 5 before the end of the " clean-up" at TMI. I do not believe 6 that we should leave the water on the Island in any form. I 7
- do not want to make the Three Mile Island a low level waste 8 disposal site. We are having enough problems trying to get 9 another permanent low level waste disposal site in Pennsylvania 10 and even though it may be "de minimis," it still is above the 11 normal regulatory limits. -
12 I am concerned about putting any radioactivity on
(
c 13 that Island in any permanent fashion and leaving it there.
, i i
14 I personally voted in opposition to the concern 15 about evaporation and I have no problem with evaporation.
16 Other than at the meetings, I've heard no -- we have received 17 not one telephone call or not one letter from the people in 18 central Pennsylvania opposing or even showing any concern at 19 all about the proposal. I haven't received any in favor 20 either.
21 I have a feeling -- the attitude that I see out l 22 there is the people want to get this over with as safe as they 23 can and as quickly as they can and then forget about TMI-2, 24 worry about TMI-l but not TMI-2. 1
~
25 There was a comment made earlier that I have to take J
19 1 issue with, that during the release of the Krypton from the 7.- x .
2 TMI-2 reactor that amounts of Strontium-90 were released in 3 excess of what was proposed. I disagree with that 4 wholeheartedly, there was no significant-Strontium-90 released 5 from our monitoring during the release of the Krypton.
6 Thank you.
-7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
8 MR. ROTH: Joe?
9 MR. DiNUNNO: The thing that strikes me about this 10 problem that we are trying to address, in our whole procedure 11 and process, including the EIS's that we put out, are all 12 geared at looking at two things, health and safety implications 13 and environmental protection consequences, and these are all 14 stan'dards as to whether these actions are appropriate given 15 those environmental protection laws, they are well prescribed
- 16 rules and regulations.
17 If you look at the situation up there as has been 18 done in the EIS, strictly on technical grounds, there doesn't 19 seem to be any reason why the option of evaporation or dumping 20 in the water for that matter or any of the others, appear to 21 be any significant health or safety matter or any significant 22 threat to the environment.
23 Based on purely scientific reasons, any of those
- 24 options could have been satisfactory and that is in effect.
~
25 what the EIS says. ,
. ~
20 1 What the applicant has chosen from among those 2 alternatives that were examined is that one which he thought 3 was scientifically sound and acceptable but also probably the 4 most acceptable from a community standpoint, and I think the 5 recognition that the dumping of that processed water into the 6 river was of extreme sensitivity so fa,r as the public is 7 concerned and led them away from that.
8 My vote against that option was not because I 9 thought it was an unsafe sort of thing to do but given the 10 other options, including evaporation, I thought it was less 11 desirable. -
12 One member -- incidentally, I made a count of
, 13 members of the public or those that did provide testimony,
(
14 going through the hearing records of the last two sessions, 15 and we are talking about 11 people who made presentations, 10 16 to 11, depending on which session you are looking at, and that 17 doesn't add up to 21, because there were overlaps, duplications 18 from one session to the other, and as other members.of the 19 panel have indicated, these are people that have come out time 20 and time again.
21 So what we have here is not necessarily an issue 22 that can be resolved by looking at the technical merits of one 23 versus the other so far as the public is concerned, what you 1 24 are dealing with here is a strong feeling and a segment of people who are in effect saying, we don't want any more
~
25 .
1
--. .. ,v e ,
21 1 radiation no matter how small. These people are very much l r' .
2 impressed by the arguments of those who say that even the 3 smallest amount of radiation can be harmful, and they believe. l 4 this.
5 I don't think there is any solution that you can 6 come up with technically that is going to resolve and satisfy 7 that group of people who think that any regulation that we 8 have is not adequate and any amount of exposure is too much.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
10 MR. ROTH: Fred?
11 MR. RICE: As County Chairman of Dauphin County, I'd -
12 like to give you a little feel from the standpoint of what my
, 13 perception is of the public feeling and I'd like to read a k
14 stat'ement.
15 Following our February meeting in Lancaster, I l 16 invited the leaders of 40 municipalities to our March 25th 17 public hearing. I did this by letter'. I explained the
- 18 evaporation and the alternatives in my letter. This went to 19 40 mayors and supervisors of the various municipalities in-20 Dauphin County. Four officials attended as a result of my 21 request. Four officials attended the March meeting. One 22 expressed his opposition to the evaporation process and that 23 was' Mayor Reid of Middletown, where Three Mile Island is 24 located. The three others who attended expressed no opinion. ;
j .
25 The 36 others, I did not hear from. ~
- , - - . ,. .,___.y_ , , - _ - _ . - - - - .y__--.m, , . _ . , . - , , , , . , _ - 6,_. , , _ . , , - . . , , - _ - . _ _ . ,
. . _ , _m-. ..-_y
22 1 Also, three days before the 25th meeting, I had a 2 press conference with Joel and Ken and that didn't bring any 3 more people out. One call-in came from one who did not attend 4 the meeting, he said, go ahead with the evaporation and ha 5 said, after all, it's only 2.3 gallons.
6 [ Laughter.]
7 MR. RICE: I said it's really 2.3 million gallons.
8 [ Laughter.]
9 MR. RICE: As I went about my business, however, I 10 did find that people were opposed to this solution of 11 evaporation. My vote at our last meeting was yes on accepting 12 the environmental impact statement. I voted not to the
(
\
13 evaporation procedure. Yes on the third option. I joined the 14 unan'imous vote on not putting it in the river.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much, sir. I 16 appreciate it.
l 17 MR. ROTH: My comments will be brief. I 'would 18 really like to just divide it into two parts basically not 'to i 19 try to summarize, as you see, I could not, but basically to at i
20 least say that I think you can get a feel from the panel on 21 their honesty and the caring and the time they have put in.
22 I have been serving on the panel since its 23 inception. Even though there were times that I certainly-24 disagreed with fellow members, I just can never fault their-25 integrity on this. I don't think there~are,many panels who
- ._,, , - - - - ,- -,Q,-
. ~
23 1 after a vote would be taken would then give the opportunity to
(
2 people who were not there to cast their vote and I think that 3 was important that they have the opportunity even though they t
4 clobbered me in the process. -
5 [ Laughter.]
6 MR. ROTH: But I think it at least shows the time 7 and the effort, you know, that everybo.dy put in on this issue. .
8 I do believe that the panel should reflect -- these 9 are more personal feelings at this point now -- should reflect 10 public opinion, you know. I think that is one of our-11 prerequisites up there, to reflect that, since that was one of-l 12 the, I think, ideas for the panel. I guess sometimes I get 13 bothered to a certain extent by some comments that, well, we 4 \
14 see the same people over and over again, like that's bad, you 15 know. It's the first time I've heard of people showing up, 16 and I can understand other people's point of view but these 17 people do care and I have to really agree with what Elizabeth 18 Marshall said about their caring. They are more informed than 19 probably the average member of the public and that's why they 20 do go. I don't think they should be castigated because they 21 keep coming and I don't think they were being castigated for 22 that, but that's who shows up.
23 Everybody has the opportunity to speak at these 24 meetings. These people show up all the time and they do 25 speak. ,
v..--- -.
yr-r- ,--w. v --_,r--- - - - - . w-r..-- - e.,-,,. . ,_ -. ,;.., --. +w,e- 9g -
. 24 1
- g. .
I think one of the reasons that the numbers are
, ,2 small as far as public opinion is concerned, and that's from i
3 somebody who -- I came out of that so-called movement. I was
'4 Chairman, of Three Miles Island Aler't. I still do talk with 5 people there. I just have the sense that the people just feel j ,
6 they have.been on the side lines so long, after 7-8 years in l
7 the process, that sometimes they feel that it real'ly doesn't 8
matter, you know, if I show up or not, what's going to happon-9 cIsgoingtohappen. That was discussed at our preliminary 10 meeting, that some of us have that feeling.
l 11 I would just love to see the public have a feeling' 12 that they are part of the process again. They did show up.
< 13 They were there.
( k 14 One person who did appear before us was an attorney 15 and it is in the transcript, Tom Bailey, I believe his name 16 is, who I thought made some interesting comments pertaining to 1
17 1
burden of proof, being on the NRC or the utility, and I'm .
18
, adding on the utility, to prove what they are saying is 19 actually best. I think that's basically what a lot of our 20 panel members starting with Neil said, that the public was 21 taken for granted to a certain extent in this and that is why 22 I think we are seeing the divergence of opinions on this 23 panel, too.
24 The burden of proof should be somewhere along the 25 line that the public should feel that the method that is going
25 1 .to be used is really the best and to have that really shown to s
2 them. I think that is what a number of us are saying even 3 though we have voted different ways on the matter, that we 4 still are not comfortable with the overall process, that the 5 proof was really made, particularly at this point, by the 6 utility, that that is the best method.
7 I thank you. ,
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
9 Are there any other additional comments from the panel
' 10 members? Yes, sir?
11 MR. DiNUNNO: I would certainly like the record-of '
12 this particular meeting to reflect the fact that rather than 13 being critical of the people who come out meeting after k
14 meet'ing, they have my greatest admiration. I think having 15 members of the public come out to forums like that and express 16 their views is anything but something to condemn. I'd like to 17 say yea to that.
4 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much; appreciate it.
19 Yes, sir?
20 MR. SMITHGALL: I'm going to echo what Joe and Joel 4
21 have stated here. I will say that the faces that have remained 22 the same are mostly in front of you here today of the people 23 that have commented. The names and the faces that have 24 not changed are here in front of you today, the ones that have
~
25 changed are your agency and the licensee.
~ , --ee ----a - - , , ,,.v, . . , - - ~ ~ - . . . - . - . - - , - , . - . - - , , -. , - - - - , - - - - ,~.-e.
26 1 (Laughter.]
2 MR. SMITHGALL: Not to be critical of the 3 Commissioners on that, but the people that have come out have l
4 been the people that have been there from the outset and they-5 are earnest in what they are saying and I want to echo what-6 Joe and Joel have said on that and pass that along.
7 That is all I have. Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
~
9 MR. DiNUNNO: I have one other comment with respect 10 to continuing to study the alternatives. There is a certain 11 danger in this process. -
12 The longer you prolong this process, the more 13 perception that people have that you have a real problem on 14 your hands in a health and safety standpoint and that is very 15 difficult to continue looking at alternatives and continuing 16 to study this problem to death because I think you are creating 17 a perception which is already exaggerated by the long delay in 18 dealing with this problem that there is something there that 19 isn't.
20 That worries me a. bit.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Are there other comments I 22 from panel members?
4 23 [No response.]
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Comments from my fellow I 25 Commissioners, Commissioner Roberts. .
27 1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I just think this is a
- y. .
2 wonderful group,of public-minded people who are willing to 3 devote your time and effort to deal with some of these very 4 difficult problems. I am sure it is a thankless job and we '
5 are most appreciative. We may not agree with you always but 6 you certainly are to be commended. Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Commissioner j
8 Asselstine.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just a couple of 10 questions. One, I want to pick up on what you just said, Joe, 3
l 11 and go back, I guess, to what you said at the outset, Neil.
12 It has to do with the question of the timing of a decision and
.- 13 the benefit of some further consideration of it.
- k 14 [At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 15 Roberts exited the meeting.]
4 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think when we started 17 this whole process on the water, what, a year or so ago, one 18 of the things that the panel felt and that the Commission felt 19 was that it was good to get the option and the utility's 20 proposal out on the table early on. !
21 Everybody recognized it wasn't going to be an easy 22 decision. It was going to be one that many people had concerns l 23 about and that if we should hope for anything, it is to get the 24 proposal out early, to look at all the options early and to 25 give it fairly thorough ventilation so'that.everyone would know I
28 1 at least as possible what the' option was, what the implications p . -
2 were, what the alternatives were and reach some judgment on the 3 reasonableness of the proposal.
4 I guess what I am wondering is after the amount of 5 time that you all have spent on it, a couple of meetings, the 6 amount of time that people have had, is there a benefit in 7 .taking a few more months in furthering the understanding of ,
8 the utility's proposal and the other options, in furthering 9 the understanding of the likely consequences and in giving 10 some added thought.tx) options that either were not highlighted 11 or at least were not the chosen options as Neil had suggested?-
12 I would like to try to get a sense from you whether 13 you think there is a benefit to th'at or whether you think we 14 are really at the point where enough is enough and we ought to 15 be thinking about making a decision fairly soon.
16 I certainly agree, Tom,.with your point that there !
17 ought to be a decision made. This ought not be a case in j l
) 18 which the water issue just stays on and on for long periods of l ->
19 time and certainly goes beyond the supposed end point of the 20 clean-up.
21 What I have in mind is more a shorter term. Are we 22 to the point where about as much has been accomplished as is 23 possible in terms of public understanding and trying to build 24 a consensus on any option or is there~some benefit in some 25 further efforts for a few more months? ^ ,
29 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, sir, please.
f'- .
2 MR. RICE: Mr. Chairman, thank you. The problem I 3 have and I think by deferring it somewhat would be the water 4 that surrounds the hard fuel right now, it is still there and 5 how can we solve that water problem while we are still fiddling 6 around with the hard coal, trying to clean that up by next 7 year. ,
S So I don't see any rush to the whole situation.
9 Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Other comments? We have 11 heard some of the comments are different, but please go -
12 ahead. Yes, ma'am.
, 13 MS. MARSHALL: I think that our panel member from i
14 DER made a good point when he said that this shouldn't be 15 after the clean-up takes place, that there shouldn't be this 16 residue problem remaining, the water remaining on the Island 17 so it shouldn't go beyond the time that would make it 18 impossible to resolve that pretty close to the time the other 19 is taken care of.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
21 Any other comments? Yes, sir.
22 MR. ROTH: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I guess I have a 23 question back and that would be the process. EIS was put 24 forth. The utility made their proposal and that basically is
._ 25 what we were dealing with, mainly their proposal whereas NRC F
. e 30 1 staff, of course, said all these are possibilities and that is 2 where it was ended. ,
3 So I guess I find the process at this point to not 4
~
4 be fulfilled yet until maybe NRC comes in and says what their 5 position may be prior to a formal decision. Is that meaningful 6 if you follow where I am going?
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I am not sure I do but it would seem 8 to me what you are saying is that -- well, let me just say it
.9 this way.
10 Eventually, this Commission will make the final 11 determination in this matter. -
12 MR. ROTH: Right.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But I guess you are saying and 14 plea'se correct me if it is not correct that you think that I
j 15 prior to making that decision we.should perhaps expand the i
16 options that we have looked at. Is that what you mean?
7 17 MR. ROTH: Yes. I think basically it was that we 18 were reacting -- that is a good choice of words maybe -- to 19 the proposal by the utility.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: To the specific proposal.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And are there other proposals.
23 MR. ROTH: And I think what Neil has just mentioned 24 briefly here today is sons other thought that really never l 25 receives a full benefit of discussion. 'Tha.t is where I am at. l i
l
. _ - _ - . ,__, . . . . , , . _ . , _ . , _ . _ . - - _ _ - , . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . - , , .,.,... y,
31 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: So you are asking essentially that 2 the Commission and the staff look at are there other options 3 other than the one that the utility has proposed.
4 MR. ROTH: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That seems to be a fair question.
6 [At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 7 Robert re-entered the meeting.]
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, Neil.
9 MR. WALD: I think it is troubling that the 10 environmental impact statement takes a completely neutral 11 position and says there is no basis to select one over another 12 which then says that it is up to the licensee whatever they
. , 13 want to do and I think some of us are uncomfortable when we 14 look at table 5.1 in the impact statement and there are quite 15 different costs, there are a quite different number of traffic 16 accidents and so on associated with different option.
17 But yet all we have from the NRC is these are all 1
18 okay. I am not sure that just because they meet some criteria 19 for environmental impact says that the benefit of any one of 20 them justifies the risk of any one and there are differences I 21 in these.
22 There is no getting away from it. There is a range 23 from zero dollars to $12 million and to my mind, at least, I i
24 don't feel these things are all identical and I think we are 25 left with that from the NRC standpoint because this is the
32 1 only thing we have from NRC.
e- .
I 2 MR. SMITHGALL: My comment was a little along that 3 line at our last meeting, that since there was no according to the EIS no preferable approach, you in essence give a tacit 5 approval to what has been on the table.
6 The explanation that was made was that the staff was 7 trying to comply with regulations so that they could conform ,
8 to environmental impact statements to review all cptions. But 9 as Neil states, with the range of risk benefit that is in 10 there, the staff really hasn't come up with one that it has 11 said is more preferable than others.
12 So in essence, you give a tacit approval for the one
.~ 13 that is already on the table. I had problems with that and I k
14 think the people that I have spoken to had problems with 15 that. It appeared that it was a foregone conclusion, that you 16 will approve evaporation.
1 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I am not sure. Maybe we need to )
l 18 call in the staff right now. It seems to me that perhaps the 19 staff properly responded to what they were asked to respond 20 to.
21 MR. SMITHGALL: I understand that.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Then you are saying beyond that 23 perhaps they should broaden the view. Dr. Travers, could you 24 comment?
25 MR. TRAVERS: Yes. The enviro ^nmen.tal impact
33 1 statement looked at ten alternatives that you might consider
,f,., ,
2~ and we looked at.those in some detail. We also considered
- 3 other alternatives and we laid those out in short. We didn't 4 consider those very viable options, if you will, so they were 5 not addressed at length.
i
! 6 of course, what we were looking for in the 7 preparation of the environmental impact statement is whether
., 8 or not any alternative was clearly preferable and based on the l
l 9 impacts that are quantified in.our environmental impact 10 statement, we couldn't make that finding.
j 11 There is one option that involves a considerable 12 greater amount of money and that is the solidification of the i 13 entire volume of water and the shipment of that waste off the i
14 site'.
15 But generally, the environmental impacts were not 16 such that we could make a clear determination on being 17 preferable and if we haven't explained that rationale very 18 well, these kinds of comments are helpful because we will try 19 to do that a little better in the final document and certainly 20 the comments we have accepted will all be addressed in the 21 final document.
- 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH
- I think that is important and 23 obviously at least some of the panel members feel that the 24 emphasis on the expanded options that you have looked at 25 should be emphasized and perhaps clarified ,and I think that is l
l l
34 1
a 1 a valid comment. I would ask the staff to take that for 7 ~. .
2 action.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But Bill, if I could l
4 follow-up on that, if the staff's view basically stays the 5 same as it is now, isn't Tom right that in all likelihood then 6 the staff's recommendation to the Commission will be'since we 7 see no clearly _ preferable alternative, the recommendation is l 8 simply to approve the licensee's proposal.
9 MR. TRAVERS: I have been asked that question 10 frankly and given the process that I am embarked on, I have j 11 avoided answering it. I think that is a reasonable -
1 12 interpretation of where the staff might head.
13 But I would like to complete the final environmental 14 impact statement.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Sure. That is why I i 16 qualified it by saying if your view stayed the same as it is 17 in the draft.
18 MR. TRAVERS: Yes.
j 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If it changes, obviously l
j 20 then --
21 MR. TRAVERS: With that qualification that I am 22 obligated to consider the comments and to address them and if 23 they don't change my mind, then I think it is a reasonable
! 24 statement.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All "righ.t which really 1
t t
.-,.-,.c , , - - . - , . . . , , . . , . . . . , , . . . , - _ _ , , ,
35 1 goes to the heart of the question about further consideration 4
g 2 and taking a hard look at other alternatives.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Anything else, Commissioner 4 Asselstine?
.f 5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: One last question. In 1
- 6 Art's question, Art mentioned that there were a couple of j 7 reasons why there seemed to be fairly strong or at least there 8 was quite a bit of public opposition to the utility's I
9 evaporation proposal and one of those was that the public just 10 didn't trust GPU's operation.
11 I guess one of the things I am wondering is, is 12 there anything that the panel sees that could be done to try 13 and minimize at least those concerns regardless of which 14 option the Commission ultimately signs off on? If it is
, 15 evaporation or if it is one of the other options, is there 16 something that can be done that the panel sees that could 17 address that concern?
18 MR. ROTH: I would just like to take a preliminary 4
19 crack at it. That is an open question. Tell me when the time l
4 20 is over.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You recognize that our i
22 credibility isn't all that great either.
23 MR. ROTH: I think that, and I have made the comment 24 before, and that is why I will just take an initial crack at 25 it and I have said this to Frank Stande'rfer,whom I think is a
~
36 6
1 very honorable person, I think the overall corporate arrogance 2 of the utility stands in its way.
- 3 They are their own worst enemy. I don't think it is 4 the public, I think they are their own worst enemy. I think 5 their public information and press, you know, is absolutely 6 horrendous and I don't want to misquote Tom Gerusky on this, l
.7 but I think he said, "if you want something mishandled, have 8 their press do it."
9 [ Laughter.]
10 MR. ROTH: I think unfortunately that is true to a
- 11 certain extent. I think I overheard and some other people
- I 12 mentioned it to me at our Lancaster meeting when the media 13 asked some of their press people, like wi:at was going on, and I
.14 basically their answer is, *Well, it is just merely a 15 discussion and really what is said is really not important 16 because the Commissioners will make the final decision" and I
- 17 think that is the type of arrogance that gets them absolutely 18 nowhere and they have never changed it since the accident.
19 As I said, I think there are a lot of honorable 20 people who do work there. I think Frank Standerfer is one of l
21 them and I have said that to Mr. Standerfer a number of 22 times.
i 23 I think he should not have those people available or l
),
24 around but that is their feeling and I hope that I am coming 25 to the essence of it, is that type of c'orporate arrogance that
37 1 is displayed by their public relations people.
f7, .
2 CHAIRMAN ~ZECH: Commissioner Asselstine, do you have 3 anything further?
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That is the only question 5 I have. I don't know if anybody else has comments?
6 MR. SMITHGALL: I had two.
1 i
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Go ahead.
8 MR. SMITHGALL: One, Frank provided us at our 9 February 26th meeting the status of their proposal and maybe
- 10 this will get to my problem and dovetail on what Joel has 11 said. -
4 12 They made their recommendation on July 31, 1986. We i
13 were briefed in August of 1986. The EIS was issued in December 7
N ~
j 14 of 1986. We then had January meetings, our advisory panel met 15 and had a January nesting. Then GPU provided a complete t
i 16 radiochemical analysis of the water February 3rd and February
- 17 18th with only about two weeks left to go in the comment-18 period.
J 19 If we had not gone into a request for an extension
- 20 for that comment period, that information would have been i 21 given two weeks prior to the expiration of the initial comment j
22 period on the EIS.
l
[
23 That process doesn't work, I don't think, for people 24 to give a thorough analysis of that particular proposal. So I
^
25 think that is one part that is a kind of se.rious flaw there.
38 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is that when you requested an r~ .
! 2 extension of the comment period?
3 MR. SMITHGALL: I am not exactly sure when the 4 extension was. The request came at that time. I think it was 5 granted by Mr. Denton.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The Commission granted the extension.
7 MR. SMITHGALL: That's right.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine.
9 MR. SMITHGALL: So I think the 45-day extension was 10 granted the 26th and the first information, I think, we got 11 was February 3rd and another presentation on February 18th on - -
- 12 that information.
< 13 I know it didn't necessarily change the staff's l (
14 opin' ion but the process and the timing of that didn't seem to 15 work very well.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
17 MR. SMITHGALL: I am not necessarily familiar with
, 18 the actual vendors that they are going to be using, the actual 19 hardware that is going to be proposed, whether it has been 4
20 test 2d, what is quality assurance is and so forth so if you i 21 are looking at just their proposal and what has been laid out '
)
! 22 for review, not only for staff's review but for us to comment I
23 on, I think there is precious little there. !
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you.
1
~
25 Commissioner Bernthal? .
39
+
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I believe Joe wanted to
(~ . .
2 comment.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Please.
4 MR. DiNUNNO: Yes. There is in the record 5 indications of several individuals who have raised questions s 6 about the monitoring that might be associated with evaporation,
. 7 and that has led me.to believe.that if that is an option that 8 is taken, that a monitoring program structured in such a way 9 that the public has access, and also an independent check of 10 those monitoring results, independent of GPU, would be 11 ingredients that I think would help again because of the -
, 12 distress problem.
< 13 It's not that GPU is maybe doing a poor job, but the t
(
14 fact that no matter what they do, that there will be some 15 uncertainties, that I think if one built in a process of 16 independent check, that the public would readily have access t
17 to the results, I think this would go a long way to helping 1
18 some -- not all -- but there was that area of inquiry that l
19 suggested to me that if you go that route, we would like to '
have ready access to the results of monitoring.
20 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
22 Commissioner Bernthal?
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I guess -- first of 24 all, I apologize that I was tied up in a meeting and was late 25 getting here. I think I got the general dr.ift of the o
40 1 conversation, though.
(-
2 I don't really have any questions. I guess the one 3 point that -- well, there were several points that make sense, 4 but the one point I'd like to focus on that seems to me is a 5 fairly good argument, is whether we do need to worry about 6 what is the relatively small quantity of radiation in this 7 water storage, in these water storage tanks, at least until 8 the large quantities of radiation that we're now in the 9 process of removing from the reactor vessel are removed.
10 I suppose you could argue that there's time to 11 defer, given the fact that there's a much bigger problem that 12 we're still in the process of straightening out, unless there 13 is a reason to believe that the tanks themselves pose the k
14 greater hazard, in fact; in other words, in all the scenarios 15 that you might imagine, that they more likely exposure would 16 come from the tanks themselves.
17 I have to say that I just think that the option of 18 maintaining that water there, even with that level of tritium 19 contamination, indefinitely is just the least desirable option 20 from the standpoint of public health and safety. I just 21 cannot imagine that over the long haul anyone would really 22 want that either. Tanks do leak, after all. Hanford learned 23 that to their dismay many, many years ago.
24 So in my judgment, we do want to remove the material 25 one way or another, and it may not be e~ssen,tial that we get
41 l~ that done the day after tomorrow, but it should be done at
- 7. ~. , ,
2 some point, and it could well be that it's worth giving it 3 more time, particularly in view of the fact that we're right i
- 4 now moving far-larger quantities of radioactivity from the 5 core itself.
6 So I don't really have anything in particular by way 7 of questions. I think Jim asked the question which is a key 8 one, whether we really are prepared to make a decision at this 9 point, or whether, at least in this case, procrastination 10 might be a better path. It could well be, and I'm prepared to 11 defer this for some time, primarily if you people feel that we 12 should defer it.
. 13 That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
k 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well let me just --
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: There was a comment here.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: A comment; yes, sir, please.
17 MR. ROBINSON: I would be against deferring it for
- 18 too long a time, because there are preparations that have to 19 be made, and if you do evaporate it, it's going to take, what, 20 two years, two and a half years. And that doesn't seem -- I 21 would hate to have this as the limiting situation for the 22 cleanup.
23 So while I don't think there's a great hurry, I 24 would not like to see it delayed beyond, oh, let's see, six 25 months. ~
i
4 s
42 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I appreciate that, because I think, (m .
2 although commissioner Bernthal wasn't here, there were other 3 panel members that -- at least some other panel members who l- 4 would share that view.
5 Well, let me just' conclude, if I may, by thanking 6 all of you again for your public service and for your --
. 7 simply your dedication to your fellow citizens.
8 I would like to specifically like to ask the Staff 9 to emphasize the analysis on other options to, in other words ,
- 4 10 give a little bit broader look, so we can be confident, when l
11 the time comes to make a decision, that we have indeed focused 12 as broad as possibly on other viable options.
13 I think what we're faced with here -- at least it's
~
14 pretty apparent to me -- what is kind of a balance between 15 making a decision soon, as opposed to trying to make the '
16 correct scientific decision, and that's very often the case in 17 difficult decisions. You balanced the appropriateness of the 18 possibility of not taking the correct scientific decision if 19 you move into it too fast. On the other hand, we can't, I
[ 20 don't think, procrastinate forever.
l 21 So that will be the Commission's responsibility, and 22 I can assure you that the Commission will try to make a 1
23 judgment that is scientifically correct, using the best i
24 analysis and expertise that's available to us, but also trying
~
l 25 to look at the importance of coming to a final decision also.
~ _ . - - . _ _ . , , - _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . , _ , _ _ . _ . _ . , _ _ . _ , . . _ . . . . _ , - . - _ . , , - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - - . _ - . _ , . . _ , - - . . . _ . . . - _ . ..
43 1 So we're going to try to make the' proper decision.
p 2 But my view would be, we shouldn't rush too far because we 3 simply need the confidence on making the correct decisions.
4 So that's how I look at it, and I would like to again give my 5 admiration to all of you who are spending your time on behalf 6 of supporting our agency, because your views are extremely 7 important to us. You do provide, I believe, a cross-section 8 of not only expertise, but of the public, and I can assure you 9 that what you say to us, representing the people in your area, 10 this is extremely important to each of us, and we take very 11 seriously your views, and we recognize they are not unanimous,- '
12 but we wouldn't expect that, but each of your views are i
r 13 important to us, and I especially want to thank you again for 14 your' time and your effort on behalf of not only this agency, 15 but your fellow citizens.
16 Are there other comments? Yes. 1 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me just make -- or pose 18 the question. Perhaps we should consider more formally, or 19 asking the Advisory Panel more formally, now that they've 20 addressed the substance of the issue, to come in with a 21 recommendation on timing. That really is a question that Jim
, 22 asked and, it seems to me, is a key question right now.
23 Why don't you tell us when you think it's time for l
24 the Commission to make a decision, because it is a matter of l 25 public concern and perception, public e'ucation d and 1
44 1 understanding the various options and alternatives?
- ps, .
2 I would wonder whether perhaps that might not be a-3 charge that Commission would want to give the panel, if they
[ 4 could make a recommendation at least on fairly short notice --
5 or not short notice, but reasonably expeditiously on what the 6 timing of the Commission's decision should be, in your judgment.
7 -
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think that's appropriate to ask, 9 recognizing, I think -- earlier you expressed different views 10 on it, but I would like to say, I believe eventually that's 11 our decision to make, but certainly your recommendations and 12 your views would be very important to us. And although you've
]
13 expressed them, I think, in general here today, it might be j 14 useful for us to have a more formal recommendation from the
! 15 panel, if that's possible.
16 So we don't expect you to necessarily -- to give us 17 a unanimous view, but perhaps the timing question would be 18 useful for you to discuss amongst yourselves, and certainly we 19 would be appreciative of that.
i 20 Again, I must emphasize, we certainly recognize that
. 21 the final decision is ours, and we will eventually make this 22 decision. But your views and your recommendation would be 23 very important.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We're really talking about l 25 the timing of our decision.
~
. _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ , . _ . , , _ . _ . _ . ~ . . . _ _ _ _ , _._ _ . , , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ .
45 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: 'Yes, timing is what I want to I, ~ '
2 emphasize, is what we're asking you to do, if you can discuss 3 that.
1 4 Yes/ Jim?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Lando, I was just going to 6 add, I agree with your comments to the Staff about expanding 7 the scope of their inquiry, and I would just suggest that one 8 thing that they look at in particular is Neil Wald's 9 suggestion. I think that's one that is worth giving some
{
i 1 10 additional thought to in terms of --
11 MR. TRAVERS: I should state that I believe, unless -
i i 12 I'm not interpreting what Neil has said accurately, that that
. 13 is one of the alternatives that we did address in some detail
! k.
- 14 in the environmental impact statement. And I don't think it
, 15 would be accurate, at least in my own view, to say that we 16 focused on evaporation in that document. We focusad on ten 17 alternatives in detail and a number of others, perhaps as many 18 as eleven more in less detail, so that I'm not sure today how 19 I could expand much more on what we've done in the context of 20 what we've done.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The point is, I think, if you have 22 done that, at least some on the panel don't -- haven't gotten
- 23 that perception. So all I can say is, I think what we need 4 .
24 for you -- if that's correct, to emphasize it and give us the i
25 analysis that -- to show what you feel'you've done,.because at ,
1 4
i
. _ . . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . - . . - _ _ . . - . -_ _. _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . - - _ - . ._ _
O a- 46 1 least some feel that there should be some expanded view, and
( . . -
4 2 if you think you've done that, perhaps you can take another 3 look at it and make sure that you've given the emphasis to
- 4 that broadening scope.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. And I think -- my 6 sense was, in looking through it again, as Neil was talking i
1 7 about it, is that you're right, that that is one of the i 8 options that's identified, although there is some variation in 9 the degree of treatment of that first list. You might just
- 10 want to take a look at that one in particular.
11 MR. TRAVERS: Yes, we will certainly do that. -
,1 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Great, good.
I i r 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If there are no further comments I(
- 14 from my fellow Commissioners, let me thank --
1 l l'5 COMMISrIONER BERNTHAL:
~
I think the gentleman on the I 16 and --
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Oh, do you have'another comment?
18 Yes?
i i 19 MR. GERUSKY: Yes, sir. Your question on timing is
- 20 a good question, but I think we can come back to you and say i
21 that that question depends upon your decision, unfortunately.
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. GERUSKY: Because of the problem of the time it 24 will take to do the -- Whatever is done. If it's released to 25 the river, it could be done over a shor'ter period of time than 1 .
47 1 evaporation -- I mean, I'm not proposing release to the river.
4
- g. ,
2 If it's' solidification onsite, it's a different 3 timeframe. And I want to see it completed -- at some point, I 1
4 want to say, "TMI-2 is decontaminated," and that's what my 5 concern is. When the decision is made, then, it depends on 1
6 when TMI-2 will be decontaminated and what option is finally
- - 7 chosen. ,
t l 8 So I don't think there's very much time. I'm hoping -
i
{ 9 that it's not going to take much longer than two years before I.
- 10 that process is over at TMI.
I 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The idea is really not, I -
i 12 think --
-' 13 MR. GERUSKY:
.' It's a few months, rather than --
k i 14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: To clarify the charge here, 15 the idea is not so much that we should say, " Start it week l
16 after next," or decide the week after next.
! 17 MR. GERUSKY: No.
+
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But rather that the public 1
! 19 is not quite ready for this yet. There are still some i
j 20 questions, and we have some work to do. We need to listen to 1
l 21 some more people. " Don't do this yet, fellows," or let us 1
22 know when you think that we've reached the kind of maturity i
- 23 where further talking isn't going to help much.
~
l
{1 24 That's really the point that I was trying to make.
j 25 I, at least, would like to get some sense of that.
~
t l
i
1 48 '
1 MR. GERUSKY: I have another question as to what p . -
\ 2 your role will be in this final -- in this process.
! \
- - 3 If the ut.ility submits a proposal, and one proposal 4 only, and their proposal now is to remove the restriction on l l
5 the water issue, and it'is not -- part of that proposal is not j 6 evaporation, it's just to remove the restriction on the water s
, 7 issue -- at that point, that's your decision: yes, we will .
8 remove it or, no, we will not remove it right now -- are you 9 going to make the decision on the procedure that they use lo also, or is the Staff going to make that decision as part of 11 the normal Staff review process? -
l 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, our normal procedure would be i
j - 13 to get the recommendation from the Staff and some options.
i k.
i 14 Perhaps they will want to comment further, but that is our 15 normal procedure. So the Staff would give us their options 16 and their recommendations, and as far as I understand, the 17 Commission is committed to make the final decision on that, 18 unless anybody feels differently.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. I'm not sure, Tom, 20 that we've actually taken a position on how far, how detailed i 21 we would go. I guess my own preference would be to say that 22 the Commission ought to really take a hard look at what 23 they're going to do, what the disposition is, and sign off on i -
i 24 the whole package.
25 But I think, quite frankly, we" haven't really i
l
- i i
p L .9 49 1 discussed that among ourselves, and we haven't decided for g .
t-2 sure.
I 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We have not faced that, but I would i 4 --
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We can decide anything we 6 want to.
i
- 7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
- Yes. '
8 [ Laughter.)
l 9 MR. GERUSKY: That's what my concern is.
10 (Laughter.)
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, to the extent that -
12 you have a view on that issue, though, that's helpful to us as 13 I mean, if your feeling is that the Commission really well.
,(,
14 ough't to make the decision on the whole thing, the details of 1
15 the disposition of the water, then that would be helpful for j 16 you to tell us.
- 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH
- But the point is, we do rely on 4
18 recommendations from experts, our Staff, others, and so --
! 19 before we make the final decision, so it's not done -- at l
20 least we don't attempt ever to do it without all the input we l 1
21 can get.
22 So if you have suggestions on it, certainly from the i
23 panel, we'd be most grateful to receive them, too.
- 24 Are there any other comments from anyone at all, on f
' ~
25 the panel or the commission? .
i
- . 50 1 [No response.]
- (. .
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much again. We are 3 adjourned.
4 (Whereupon, at 12:16 o' clock, p.m., the Commission i
5 meeting was adjourned.]
a I 6 1
7 .
8 9
4 l 10 1
11 .
12
.13 4
[s 14 15 16 l 17 ,
18 l 19 1
j 20 21 22 l
1 23 l 24 I
25 -
t t
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 the Advisory Panel for the Decontamination fo TMI-2 -
8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 Thursday, April 16, 1987 DATE OF MEETING:
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 i
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
i 18
' _Y I n d % w d _9 h s c s2._ _ _ _
Mahilynn Nations 19 20 2
al 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
i 23 24 j 25 -
4/16/87 SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE.: PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION'0F TMI-2 SCHEDULED: 11:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1987 (OPEN) i DURATION: ,
APPROX 1-1/2 HRS , .
AGEND TOPICS: - PANEL COMMENTS ON DRAFT NUREG-0683, SUPPLEMENT 2 - l PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATED TO DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL OF ACCIDENT-GENERATED WATER
, s. {
ATTENDING - JOSEPH J. DINUNNd '
PANEL MEMBERS: - THOMAS GERUSKY
- JOHN LEITZELSCHWAUB l
- ELIZABETH MARSHALL
- KENNETH L. MILLER
- FREDERICK.S. RICE
- GORDON ROB'INSON
- JOEL ROTH, VICE CHAIRMAN
- THOMAS'SMITHGALL
- NEIL WALD o
S
p+>RSIG
!' '% THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF 5' 'l THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 l
~s.,*..../
l March 31, 1987 l
l Vice Admiral Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Mitanic Building ,
1717 'H' Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Dear Chairman Zech-1 A meting of the NRC's Citizen Advisory Comnittee for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island Unit II was held on Wednesday, March 25, 1987. The purpose j of the meting was to receive public testimony and comment on the Draft Supplemnt to the Environmental Inpact Statemnt dealing with the disposal of
- accident-generated water and the disposal option of on-site evaporation recomnended by GPU. mis meeting, which was a continuation of a 5-hour session held in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on February 26, began at 6:00 p.m. and concluded shortly after 11:00 p.m.
At both of these metings virtually all public cament was in opposition to the proposed evaporation plan put forth by the operator. Continued storage in the holding tanks on the island was the preferred option put forth by most citizens.
We public, in stressing this option, expressed distrust of GPU's operation of l the plant in general and the evaporation in particular, together with the strong feeling that the area around the plant had already received radiation exposure from the accident and subsequent cleanup and did not want to add any additional exposure, at any level.
GPU testified that any one of a number of alternatives reviewed would safely do the job and that on-site evapora tion was their reccmnended alternative. Wey stressed that they were very sensitive to comunity concerns and that is why the discharge to the Susquehanna River was not given strong consideration.
Se NRC staff outlined the work that they had performd in completing the Draft Supplemnt EIS. We staff stressed that no alternative was found to be clearly preferable and that the total quantified impact of any alternative is very small.
According to the staff, the nest significant potential inpact associated with any disposal alternative is the risk of physical injury associated with transportation accidents. Lastly, NRC staff stated that indefinite on-site storage is inconsistent with the Comnission's policy that the cleanup, including the removal of radioactive wastes from the TMI site, be carried out ufely and expeditiously.
(
4/6...To EDO for Appropriate Action... Copies to RF, SECY.. 87-0330 i
T Vice Admiral Lando W. Zech, Jr.
m rch 31, 1987 Page 2 Following the receipt of these coments, the Panel then attempted to develop a consensus on the issues for recomendation to the Comission. The following notions were considered by the Panel:
- 1) A notion that "the Draft Supplenent to the Environmental Inpact dealing with the disposal of the accident-generated water is an acceptable document" passed with a mte of eight (8) for and two (2) against.
- 2) A notion to " oppose the evaporation option" put torth by GPU was passed with a vote of five (5) for, four (4) against and one (1) abstention.
- 3) A notion to "naintain the status quo until a stronger cam can be nude for definitive action, including evaporation or a nore desirable alternative" was not approved due to a vote of five (5) -
for and five (5) against. .:
'Ihe Panel devoted a considerable amount of tine to the water disposal matter.
I have attempted to sumarize what happened at our meetinesof February 26 and March 25. In order for the Comission members to get the total picture, the Panel would encourage you to review the entire transcripts of these meetings.
We look forward to meeting with you at 11:00 a.m. on April 16 in Washington; this will provida us with a further opportunity to discuss this subject, which is of considerab ' importance to the clean-up effort. Lhfortunately, due to a long-standing cama.tnent, I will be unable to join you in Washington. However, it is expected that the Panel will be well represented by ten (10) of our merbers; Joel Roth will act as the chair.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions in regard to this letter.
Sincerely, L LW Arthur E. W rris, m yor 01airran AEM/dk cc: Mike Masnik All Panel Menbers i
5
E YrfWWmnWRGMmn0Mn MMMmnnnnittV;UVEgy;Vggyststgy;psygygggggpgggg, . ,
! TRANSMITTAL T0:
M Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips il i ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Rocm DATE: #/ dl!$7 I
l
{
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch i
[ FROM:
5 $
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting h A
[, document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and i: placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or h
{ required. g Im Ne wh ik b,sd.c a~d k n-f Meeting
Title:
7 i
C u w C s - ec -
4/(r, lt'T Closed l Meeting Date: Open X E
E ttem oescription*: Copies -
N Advanced DCS 3
[ to PDR Copy *8 h
g
~
i
- g. 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1
$ u>/ c;e1Ala, AW m
$ 2. L+c S r- M ch. AHLme ) i a
$ I. NerIs d41 'sisdg7 3.
^i *- @
E '
h 2
- 5. _
2 6.
B
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper, Ig C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY g i papers. ,g I 2
h d/R6 Y0Y hl l bYl b bb hlh bbbkhY
- - - n