ML20235S991
| ML20235S991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1989 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACTMI, NUDOCS 8903080101 | |
| Download: ML20235S991 (137) | |
Text
- - - _ . ______
NjQ 5%p..Q & j'4L% Q;y& n.
g fy u d:4.- < -&$ n .N *
. ik l% I; <
DV & .4. u <.* q . + x G.". , & Q .;
.. }. Q }
,. ;. i'~
, 1,. , h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q4nQQ . < . &e r.i..nC ' .. < ,& .'- Q 9 3
h$:
, 4,,
- ^
~
'@$k!'& $ W:
$5.f{$ tty @ 9 '
- b. h'i: ~OM6~.5ul. .
. ,.q'.l:N'f
??.$f MWEMWW *In the Tattii'r ~ef: er' 4* M
{Mhk$2 [
-.g
~~,<- ) - ~. , . n,,.
y ...py*s -
PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ADVISORY ) '
PA!!EL FOR THE DECOt1TAMIl1ATIOli )
4,j,4.,. e :OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2eig; g p _
,c- Q gg L5 :..
~* c :h,'g ,
. rg g w.. ..t$pr#NeWm Wi2k
- aw. + ;e.-
u4 .%. - -
h x i> h ' YW
.,a
}- - ..c ~ :- - . +-.
, qqt 79 2 &
PAGES: 1 through 119 . . s.,A
. e.
PLACE: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
+' t .h
-9 l DATE: February 16, 1989
-,r
.p-m& pp-
....--------------------=================================
1, l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OfkielReporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 N.[O t
990sosa201 e 9cc. u., aj hDK ADOCK osooojg..o
( FDC L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- n. .
in s. o.s 1
UNITED STATEG' 11UCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION
'In the Matter of: )
l PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ADVISORY )
PANEL FOR THE' DECONTAMINATION OF )'
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 )
Thursday, February 16, 1989 Room No. A Holiday Inn 32' South Second-Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at- 7:06 p.m.
I BEFORE: ART}iUR' MORRIS Chairman APPEARANCES:
PANEL MEMBERS::
J. ROTH K. MILLER T. GERUSI;Y J. LEUTZELSCHWAB A. TRUNU (1 WALD
?. RICE Heritege Reportino Corporation (202) 67.3-4000
es. ,,.e 2
(APPEARANCES, CONT 113UED : )
-9 E. MARSIML T SMITHGALL FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF:
M. MAS 11IK K. COWGILL Lu . THolTUS FJR GPU 11UCLEAR, 1110 .
- M. ROCHE G. KUEHN MEMBERS OF THE FUBLIQ1 i F. SKOL13ICK V. STUCHINSKY T. BAILEY
- 0. DAVEliFORT Heritage Reporting Corpore. tion (292) 67.n-4000
- . c L.*
4; '!. '
CHAIRtiAll MORRIS : Good evening, Ladies and' 3 Gentlemen.
4 Welcome to tonight's Panel meeting. I would like
.5 to thank~the Panel members. We have a complete turnout 6 tonight.
l 7 Joel'Roth had to step out for an interview. He 8 wi13 be back in a-moment. Tom Smithgall called me and said 9 he would be here about 7:30.
10 The only person that could not make it this' 11- evening is Gordon Robinson. He had another engagement. So 12 I do want to tliank' the Panel for their continued excellent 13 attendance at these meetings.
14 t do want to briefly report on the fact that we
'S met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on October the 4
16 25th, I believe it was, last year.
17 The purpose for the meeting was to brief the 10 Commission on the action of the Panel, the action that we 19 took on the PDliS. That is the post-defueling monitored 20 storage concept that was discussed at great length in 1900.
21 We also discussed with the Commissioners the
^
22 future work of the Panel. And I felt we had a very good 23 hearing with the Commission as we specifically expressed out 24 concern for PD113 and explained to them why we were opposed
.25. at that time to the concept of the PDMS.
Heritege Reportirr? Corporation (2n2) 620-4000
e- . . .
P 4
~
- 1 .TheLlast thing I would like to.say.in just opening I 1'? comments.is'the_ individuals that come forward to give
.3 ' testimony this evening, we have been' asked to have you 4- fplease write your name on the paper provided. I hope there 5 is a pen there as well.
6 Is there?
7 (Pause) 8 If not, somebody might want to put there just'in
.9 case somebody forgets to bring a pen up. With that, I would 10 go to.the second item on our agen'da, which is the status of' ,
11 the NRC actions.
.12 That will be presented by the NRC Staff
- 13. MR. MASHIK: Mr. Chairman, I am Mike Hasnik.
14 Next to me I have Kurt Cowgill from the Nuclear Regulatory
'5 Commission. We have three items we would like to briefly
-16 tell the Panel.about tonight.
17 The first is dealing with the licensee's proposal 18 to evaporate the processed accident water. On February
+
19 second, th? Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a final 20 initial decision, a copy of which I have made available to 21 all of you.
22 The Licensing Board found in favor of the Licensee 23 in all the issues and dis.ected the Staff t<> go farward and 26 issue the amendment that woul1 allow the evaporation of the 25 water.
Heritage Reportino Corporation (2nz) c;n-4000
5-1- That particular ruling has been forwarded to the
. Commission. And as you are aware, the Commission has the 3 final say so in' allowing the Staff to issue or not issue the 4 ' license amendment.
5 :The Commission a year ago agreed to decide on the 6 issue within 45 deys of the' Board ruling. So that would put 7 it approximately the 20th of March that the Commission has 0- agreed to inform the. Staff as'to whether or not to go ahead 9- on issuing the amendment or. net.
10; The Commission also is going to rule on another i
11 issue and that is whether or not if they do approve the 12 evaporation,~ whether or not the license change can go into 13 effectLif there is an appeal at the same time.
~
- 14- En other words, whet it is, is if the license i
. '5 amendment is oranted, the Commission will decide whether or j t
16 not the Licensee.can go forward and evaporate the water L l7- while there is an appeal in process.
18' There are some other steps involved in approval 19 assuming the Commission rules in favor of the Licensee. And 20 I will talk about that a little later when we talk about the 21 . safety anetysis report for the evaporator.
22 The second issue I would like to just touch on is 23 the PDMS review. As you are eware, there are two major 24 components te this. The first is the FE.TS prdete which yon
-25 saw last Ar t:il as the draft environmental impect statement steritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000
\
I l
1 I\
. r.
1- We have factored in-all the comments. Tlie
+
1 ~ Commission, as a result of our-meeting in October, directed 3 the Staff to look into some additional alternatives and also 4' to examine more closely the Licensee's proposal in ceratin 5 areas.
6 The impact statement is scheduled now to be issued 7 probably in late Spring. We have spent a good bit'of tima 8 on different alternatives and it has taken a little bit more 9 time than we expected.
10 The second part of the PDMS review is the safety 11 analysis report which has been submitted by the Licensee and 12 is under NRC Staff review.
r '13 We have issued one set of questions which I 14 believe the Panel has received. We have probably another
'5 set comino in another month and tha Licensee is in the i
16 . process of responding to those questions.
17 We hope in the next couple of months to bring a 10' team of experts from Pacific 11orthwest Labs to the site for l 19 an actual site inspection.
20 We anticipate having a safety analysis report by 21 the end of the year.
~
22 The third item has to do with the OI report. I 23 will osh I'urt Cowgill to give you an update on that.
24 01.C. COWGtLL: Go or.1 asening, Mr Chairman and Fane) 25 Membern.
IIeritace Pared;i.rtg Corporation (202) r.7n-400n
a e. ..
7 1 My~name is Kurt Cowgill and'I am a Froject Section 2 Chief L within the 11RC's Regions I office in King of Prussia, 3 Pennsylvania.
4, With respect to the Office of Investigation report 5 with the alleged, sleeping incident at'TMI-II,-we have
'6 ' received this report and we are currently reviewing the 7 report to determine what enforcement action, if any, would 8 be appropriate to take.
-9 With respect to immediate safety significance of 10 this report, we do not believa at this time thera is en 11 immediate safety significance involved because the 12 individual involved is no longer with the Licensee.
13 There have been several management changes and 14 personnel changes at the site as a result and the
'5 individuals involved are no longer in their positions that
'.I 6 they t"ere at the time.
17- And we note that there are heightened aware of the v 10 management at the site to potential problems of this sort.
19 We also note that the Office of Investigations has referred 20 this report to the Department of Justice for their review.
'21 I would =ntertain any questions thet you have for
~
22- me-at this time.
23 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: You are saying the Office of 24 Investigate.ons has - ef cried the report te'i
S f fR . COWGILL: Tha Dapartment of Justice for thei)
Heritspe Reporting Corporation (202) C7.H-4009 l
T:;g. 9,.
n 1 review.
- 7. ? CITAIRMA11 MOPRIS : Is that a step that is normally-
'3 taken or is that normally.taken when certain findings are 4 found?
5' can.you elaborate on that?
6 1E. COWGILL: Not really. The Office of 7 Investigations, when they deem it appropriate, can refer 0 these reports to the Department'of Justice and they make 9 .that determination and we do not.
10 CJ1AIPliM1 MOPRIS : Any questions of either 11- gentlemen at this point?
'12 (11o response) 13 Okay. .Thank you very much.
'14 MR. COWGILL: You ere welcome.
'5 CILAIPJ1M1 MOPRIS: The next item on the agenda is S
l' 116 the status of the clean-up activities by the GPU Staff.
17 MR. ROCHE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Panel 10 Members.
19 I am Mike Roche. I am the Director of TMI-II. I 20 wanted to iuct give you e short status of where the TMI-II 21 clean-up im since Frank Standarfer and I last spoke to von 22 in September of 1980.
23 Greg, if we could - you have in your package the .
-24 transparen;ie.m th"t .T will be showing. We' break the cleani-25 up activiti.es int <. e coupla m?ior headings.
F~ 4 0.aoe Reper+ing Corporation (2 f)2 ) 6 7, H -4 0 H ft
9 l (Slides shown at this juncture)
- ?? - .One of them we call the_defueling of the' reactor-13 vessel. At this' point we are approximately 75 per cent 4- complete o E the' removal of the damaged fuel f rom the reactor-5 vessel'.
6 We have, as'you may remember from prior sessions,
- i. 7 a series of horizontal plates that are in the bottom of the 8 reactor vessel. Those plates, we have cut'through four-of 9 five plates.
J0 We have the one remaining plate to go and we 11- should be starting.the cutting and removal of'that within,a 12 couple of weeks.
13- We say that we are A9 per cent complete with that 14 task. Third, you may remember that we have material that is
'. 5 behind vertical plates-around the perimeter of the reactor 16 vessel.
17 We'have we believe in the neighborhood of about
- 18. 9,000 pounds of that material behind those plates. We have
-19 made two test cuts with our torch and have been able to 20 successfulI.y cut through the three quarter inch stainless 21 steel plate.
22 rou may remember the last time we spoke that that 23 was one of the uncertainties. We were not sure whether we 24' would be successful in cutting that plate.
.25 In the peripherel material, in the peripharel aran Beritage Reporting Corporntico (202) 628-4880
l j
10-1 of the reactor vessel, we believe-that.we.have about 1,800 l
. g _ 'Z L pounds of material that is in the. lower-portion of the 3 reactor vessel.
- 4 We have done some tests to determine whether we.
5- can remove that material and at this point we believe the 6 tests show that we.can successfully do that.
7 We do have kind of late-breaking riews . We,did 8 just yesterday begin examining the topography on the bottom.
.9 You remember that when we were last here we talked about the-10 hard layer that I think if sone of you were here back in
'I 11- 1986 there was a videotape shown of the material that was at 12 the bottom of the vessel.
13 Well, we have now removed roughly 20,000 pounds of 14 material that had rained down from above onto that hard
'S material and just yesterday we determined the extent of tbnt
>i J6 hard materi.al.
17 It is not news in the sense that we didn't know 10 that it was there before but it is in the sense that we 19 finally uncovered the surface of that.
20 The second area that we think about is the 21 deCueling of the areas outside the reactor vessel. I think 22 we have made substantial progress in that aree.
23 when I was here in September, we told you that we 24 had materi,1 in a small ten-inch pipe, the so-called decay-25 heat drop line.
Heritege Reporting Corporation (202) 62n_40eg I
p co s - .
I L
11 1 WeLhave removed that material. It wr,s, at the j- ? time in September',' that material was hard and we were not.
1 3L quite sure how we were going to break through it.
4- HWe used what I will call a nuclear grade Roto-15 Rooter to auger our'way through that material. We have 6' pulled the material back up and I think we have been able to 7 remove that.
O We'have characterized, that is, we have determined 9 the amount'of material that is in the steam generators and 10 in the decay-heat drop line.
11 In general, I think we have completed what we 12 believe is necessary in terms of the defueling outside the 13' reactor vessel.
14 The next item in your package just kind of gives
- '5~ you a box score of the areas outside the reactor vessel 4
- 16. where we have'done our defueling, where we have made 17 measurements and have estimated the fuel.
18 And. you can see kind of the bottom line is we 19 believe that there is in the neighborhood of 130 kilograms 20 in all of those various locations, pipes and systems. That
.21 is kind of the' summary of the ex-vessel work.
22 The next area that we have in the past provided 23 progress reports to you on is the fuel shipping where 24 approximately 66 per cent of the material thet we believe is
.25 in the veswel has been shipped. The material has been Ueritage na po.rting Corporation (202) r,zn-annn
.q. - . . -
1?
1 shipped to. Idaho.
1 That amounts t'o_ 197,000 pounds.
3 The next area is the' decontamination of the 4 ' facility. 'After the meeting, your meeting, in September we 5 made a decision that was to separate the defueling work.from 6 the decontamination work.
7 What we wanted in the past, we wanted to*have
- 8. those two projects moving along in parallel and what we 9 decided to do in late 1988 was to have the defueling_ work be 10 our primary focus and only do decontamination work that we 11 need in order to support the defueling.
12 30 we made that substantial change in philosophy 13 and we did have, et the' point we made that change, we were l14 approximately 60 per cent or more completed in the
'5 decontamination of systems and cubicles in the plant.
4 16 3ince then, with the activities that we have been 17 involved in in the defueling, that number is down to about 10 60 per cent. Our intent is once we finish the defueling --
19 we really are focusing our energies and our resources on the 20 defueling now - once we finish that, then we will shift in 21 to do the completion of the decontamination work.
22 We did finish the basement scarification work.
23 That is where we have removed the concrete off the walls and 24 the floor surfaces. That metm.ial has been picked up. The 25 material w's picked up by a robot that wa have in tha neritege Reporting Corporation ;
(202) C7.n-an98
4 e . . .
13 i
l basement.
The material has'been solidified. So we believel
}~?
3 the-basement work is completed. Just kind of a progress 4 report, all.of the material, radiological materials that we .
1 15' generate in our work processes we have shipped.
.6 In 1988, we shipped 32,000 cubic feet of that-
'7 material to either Washington or South Carolina.
8' one final thina: there is, you may remember, an l 9 effort that we have. At the completion of the defueling 10 there is an effort that has an international cast of 11 -characters, if you will.
12 There are ten cotmtries around the world that are 13 funding an examination of the lower head. The question is 14 what type of environment.-- what was the conditions under 15 which the - -during the eccident so upon the completion of 1
16 defueling we will be taking eiuht to twenty samples of the 17 lower head.
10 Those samples are approximately six-inches long-19 and about -- they are an equilateral triangle in cross-20 section -- about two-and-a-helt inches on the altitude.
21 The various countrias will be sectioning those 22 samples and analyzing them fex what metallurgical reactions 23 occurred e? a result of the accident.
24 That is kind of a gnich thumbnail sketch of whete 25 wa are. .T would be happy tn noswer questions. I will be Heritaua Repertino Corporation (202) 670-40011
-o o , . . - .
14-
~
I coming back to' talk to you a little bit about where we are
-? - going;in the. future after we finish.some other things.
!3 CIIAIRMAO MORRIS : Yes. I did want to' remind the l-
, 4 Fanel befot;e.we went into this that-there is an item, Item 6-
-5' on the cle=.n-up schedule and' funding, that I have some l- 6. concerns about that I would like to raise at thet time.
7 But there is an opportunity'for people to ask 8 question ou other matters.
9 Ken, do you have something?
10 f 4R . MILLER: Yes. On your chart of the ex-vessel 11 defueling. status, I note that the status is listed as 12 complete y?t there is remaining fuel.
13- Is that because you cannot get to it or is it in
.14 nooks and trannies or what?
,'5 iiR . ROCHE: In some cases, the remaining fuel
.1
.16 would be say a film. We have done extensive sampling in 17 some of these systems where we, for example, have inserted a 18 string of copper foils, left them in there.
19 The results where we have an indication that we 20 have measured the fuel, what that means is that we have in 21 either nooks, crannies or an actual thin film on the surface 22 of the pipes, we have estimated or calculated that type of 23 residual Oiel . .
24 ~; e I think, nen, wbet you said, I'lus the thin 25 filma.
U=ritage Rere'; ting Corporation (202) 620-4000
W:s . - ae.
IU 15 11' CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: 'One of those items is Item 4 up s3 there I guess it is that indicates what is it? " OTSG ' B' J-3i legs complete, 60 kilograms remaining". That kind.of jumps 4' out at you.
5 Could you. cover what that is, where that fuel remains?
7 MR. ROCHE: That again is an estimate. -These OT3G-
-0 is the steam generator. The steam generators are structures 9 --we have, I think, a diegram I can show you.
~
10 They have a large number of tubes. You can see 11- there:is two of them. That is "A". The one Grep is 12 pointing to now is "B".
13 The J-leg is the aree at the bottom, the J-legs 14 are the areas at the bottom end these values are values that
'S we have'calculeted. I forget exactly the state of the 1G' material.
- 17. We have, for example, in the pressurizer, in that 18 system, we have.put a submarine into the pressurizer to
-19 remove material. I think the steam generator number is so
- 20 high because if you think of the surfaces of all these tuben
-21 you have e tremendous -- the aenerators io a heat transfer 22 device and the numbers.come from the calculation of the
-23. tilma that we have on all these tubes. j 24 There is I believo in that generetor one aten that 25 in in the ct-legs that hos materiel thet .i s ndber et* On n peritege Reperting Corporation (2n2) 62n_anco
. . .c.
tG l '1 pipe wall'that is in the J-leg itself.
y 'I .Just to clarify, that number is the generator
~3 itself plus the J-leg, not just the C'-leg.
'4- .MR. ROTH: Okay. Just a quick question,' Mike.
5 If you could, in'a brief period of time, explain to a l'ay 6 person just briefly the criteria that you used to say you 7- have a number "60" and you also say " complete".
O Could that number have been 807 Could that number
'9 have been 207 Could it have baen :n?
30 t mean what criteria were used'to get that fine .
11 line theret 12 1m. ROCHE: Okay. There were three criteria that 13 were used to establish that. One was that the material in 14 the vessel itself, whatever that structure was, would be
'5 suberitice1..
4 19 secondly, that the material upon the draining of 17 that system. when all the water is removed from the system, 10 that that material could not move to the extent that it 19 could'get into a condition where it would become potentially 20-- critical.
21 Thirdly, and it is kind of e more broad thing ami 22 difficult to apportion to any one system, but we wanted to 23 have the 7.esidual fuel in the entire system less than one 24 per cent oC the original ma',e. rial.
25 90 those are the thrae criterie thet wa used. Am1 j Maritege P.eporting Cerrm:ntion (202) 620-4000
.c .c 17 1 the one per cent number comes to the neighborhood of about 1 940 kilograms totel.
3 tiow this sheet is just the sheet that is external 4 to the vessel itself. So to really show you the whole 5 shooting match, you would have to look at the material in 6 the vessel and we are still working on the vessel.
7 Go that is why you do not see a value for the 0 vessel itself.
9 tm. ROTH: Just a fellow-up on that.
10 Were the same three criteria used in the other J-11 legs and the pumps and all that?
12 t1R . ROCHE: Yes.
13 MR. ROTH: The same?
14 MR. ROCHE: Yes.
'S tin. ROTH: Thank you.
(
16 H AIRt f N 1 MORRIS- Go sheed.
17 tiR . RICE: Mike, is there additional water being la contaminated by the defueling process? l 19 f fR . ROCHE: We estimate I think 2.3 million 20 gallons of water. We attempt tu reuse water; that is, not 21 add new water but I believe if you look over time you will 22 notice thet we have added water since the clean-up has 23 begun, 24 r. em not personally .mure how mueb we bave addal
?5 but by end larce we try to racycle tha water to reuse it foi 1
1 Heritage n e perting Corporation (2n7) c?n-open L. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- c. _ _- ._ __. . - - _ _ _ . - - __-- _ - _-__ _ _- - _ __ -____--_---
10
<1: ~ cleaning purposes,'but I believe we have added water. .
pN CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: Tom Gerusky?
3 LliR. GERUSIW : Can you explain.why you shifted 4 emphasis from doing both.the. clean-up, the decontamination-5 and the defueling to just defueling or a major portion of it!
6 defueling?
7- MR. ROCHE: Yes. The decision had a couple of 8 aspects to it. The cne that to'me was-the most important 9 was the fact that we were recentaminating areas that we-had 10 decontaminated.
11 If you think of the two components, we have .
12 systems an 1 those systems wdul1 be pipes, pumps, things of 13 that nature.
14 We would decontaminate a system or e portion of a 15 system and then by virtue of what.we were doing in the 1
16 refueling, we would have to mone water say through that 17 -system that we had a portion of a system that we had
- 18 decontaminated.
19 So we were in this type of a cycle of cleaning and
^ 20.
then the anticipation was we would not have to use either 21 that system or that area of the plant and then 22 recentamin,. ting it.
23 That process I felt was -- first of all, it was 24 not all th't gaed for the m<n. ele of the peeple ~1"> wera 25 working on the cleen-up efter they kind of put their heart Uerita.ge Reporting Corporation gn2) c i n -. a n n n
p.. ..
19
. l' .and soul linto1 cleaning up an area,'then that crea becomes
?! contaminated again.
- 3. It becomes contaminated not out of -- just out of L4-~ the normal process of work that we are:doing. So that was
.5 -the'first' reason. I wanted to stop that recleaning up of 6 areas.
7- The second was that I really wanted to put a focus 0 'on theldefueling. We have in the neighborhood of 600 to 700 9' people at the time. And I really wanted to have people 10 .really devote their attention to the defueling.
11- If you think of it in terms of the safety 12 implications, if you will, the defueling is more important 13 from a safety point of view than the decontamination work.
14 30 we decided that I"xtting those things in series
'S .rather than parallel was a better approach, recognized that i
16 ^1t' would take us more time. Totally it would take us mote
~17 time. It would probably even cost us a little bit more 18 money.
' 19 ' But I think it was my decision that we do it;
-20L .that it we' tid be a Inore judicious use of our resources. .
21 CIIAIPEAF MOPRIS : liiel?
22 tm. WALD: I may have missed it but could you 23 explain on the ex-vessel defueling status chart under the 24 defueling status and some of the buildinga. Tuv hava 25 " complete /Cinal decon".
Heritage Reporting Corporation (292) <:7n-4 nan
1
.e .,
1 2n 1 And I am not exactly sure what is meant by that.
'? MR. ROCHE: The " complete" is a part of it has f 3 been complete. The final decon has to be done in order for 4 the whole thing to be complete.
5 For example, in the basement of the reactor 6 building, the work we believe that is important to do and 7 needs to be done, we believe is done in the basement.
0 Out on the elevations f. hat we are currently 9 working on which would be two or three different floors in 10 that buildi_ng, we canno' finist he decontamination work 11 until we have the defueling finished because at any given 12 time we mey have four to six people working in those areas.
13 And -just by virtue of that work they would be 14 decontaminating. So those, where it says " final decon",
'5 that meanc to truly complete that effort for the whole of i
.16 that structus.e or system, would await the final 17 decontamination.
]8 t in . WALD : Thank yeu.
19 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: Auv other questions?
20 (11o 2.esponse) 21 C11AIRtiA11 MORRIS: Thank you.
22 im. ROCHE: The ne~t presenter is a fellow that 23 works f or ine . His name is Joo I;uehn . Ha is the Di>ector of 2 <1 TM.1 - I I ope'.ations end he will be describing the accident
?5 generated vnter evaporation.
Heritepe n epe. ding Corporation
(;tm r;n-48nn.
..; 1
.g 21 2
il : f iR . .KUEHNi Thank you.
7 ~(Slides are shown at this juncture) >
'3-Thank you, Mike.
14 Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Fanel Members.
5 :- As. Site Operations Director of TifI-II, I am 6 responsible for the Operations Department, the Maintenance 7 Department, the Waste Management Department and the' Recovery O. Engineering.
- 19. It is the latter group,' Recovery Engineering, that 10 is responsible for the evaporation process and will.eversee 11 that process through its completion.
12 On the first overhead we are going to look at we
'13 are seeing that the design and construction of the 14 eveporator was a contract let to Nuclear Pacific Services,
'5 Incorpos;a t ed .
(
'.16 They, too, will be responsible for operating the 1*7 evaporator once installed with oversight by GPU 11uclear-10 people on site.
19 Procedures for the operation of the evaporator
-20 will be developed by 11urac, will be reviewed, submitted to 21 GPU Nuclear and reviewed by GPU liuclear. And then the 22 process control program itself for operation of the l
23 ' evaporator will be submitted to the NRC fox URC approva) 1 24 pr.i u t to commencing operatien of the evep<.ucatet.
l 25 The next everhead is a pictorial view of the l
Heritage Reporting cewaratian (202) CC ft - a ft fill
, + . . .
22 1 location o f the evaporator as it is intended. Currently the 7 concrete pad for the evaporator is poured. Electrical 3 service is run to that pad.
4 The evaporator itself is not on site yet. Not 5 allowed to be on site yet until we have our permits to 6 receive tha evaporator and put it on the pad.
7 So you can see in the diagram the orientation is 8 that the evaporator will sit on the northeast side of the 9 containment building.at Ttil-Il 10 The drawing of the building itself shows supply to .
11 the evaporator from a storage tank; evaporation in the block 12 in that diagram; the clean distillate to a distillate tank; 13 a radiatico monitor in line; and then the vaporizer which 14 will supply the heat to the evaporation process and vaporiza i
'S the final product out of the stack that you see depicted 3
16 there, a 190-foot tall stack 17 The next overhead will show a block diagram that 10 we can follow through and will give you a feeling of how the 19 evaporator will work.
20 It is a two-stage evaporator with the ability to 21 operate in a closed-cycle mode or to recycle water bach 22 through the process to attain the levels we want prior to 23 supplying the water, the distillate, to the vaporizer and 24 then up th3 stach l
25 T40 we con control before release tha Heritage R= porting Corporation
< 2 02 > c2n-48nn I ,
t ___
, .s: ... l l
23 L ~
1! . concentrations of radioisotopes, the boren and the sodium 2- concentrations in the processed water.
4 3 We start in the upper left at the concentrate i
- 4. tank. That is the supply to the evaporator. About two per i 5 cent solids in that supply water, that processed water which 6 we are supplying to the evaporator.
L !7 That' water will be presented to the evaporator on 1
l 8 a batch basis such that we have a tank that will be l.
9 processing,.'a processed water storage tank, about a half-
'10-' million gallon tank.
11- we will sample -- recirculate for adequate
'12 sampling -- sample that tank and then isolate that tank so 13 that there is no input to that tank during the evaporation 14 of its contents.
. 11 5 ' The contents of that tank then go through the 16 concentrate tank to the main evaporator, following from lef t.
17 to right on the top line. From there to the distillate 18 tank.
19 That main evaporator will also supply a stream 20 down to the concentrate tank which is directly underneath on 21 the left-hand side, the middle block on the left-hand side, 22 which is the second phase of evaporation.
23 So that we are starting with about a two per cent 24 303ido content in the supply water of the ereporetor. When 25 we ao to the second or the avriliary evererator, which is Heritage Reporting Corporation (2nzy c7n-400n
24 1 the middle block on your page, we are at about a ten per
? cent solid? having been concentrated by the main 3 evaporator.
4 The concentration effect of the auxiliary 5 evaporator then results in e 20 per cent solids content in 6 the arrow going straight down from the auxiliary evaporator 7 box.
8 That is the concentration which we end up 9 blending, drying and turning into the pellets which are end 10 waste product.
11 The primary constituent, of course, in a waste 12 product is the boron. That in what wil.1 be pelletized and 13 which will be put in 55 gallon drums for disposal.
14 Going again up to the top line and followina 15 across now from left to right from the distillata tank, you i
16 will see the indication C-CT-1 That is a tank in our 17 system which is designed to contain water which in a closed 18 cycle operation would come back from the evaporatet.
19 T. f for some reason we were not able to operate the 20 vaporize 1 and send the effluent up the stock, we can stote
'c 3 in that tanh and bring beck from that tank to re-evaporate 22 or to go straight back through the radiatien monitor that l 23 you see depicted thare, into the vaporitet and discharged.
4
, f. nil] t all' mex e el "t thet redicti..o monit . . . .i n . .
.i 25 later overbaad.
IIerit age Reperting Comoration (2nz) r;n-annn
wgw ,,
J l1 We' expect the total-results or solids from this-f ?: process for'the 2.3 million gallons we intend to evaporate 3/ to be about 150 to 175~or so tons of waste. product.
4 That equates to arotuid eight to twelve truck loads of..'55 gal 1on ' drums, 165 tons being about'600 drums, to give.
~
5-
- 6. you a feel for what we are expecting.
7- The chemical process of evaporation, the water of-0 hydration, determines how much solids we end up with. So 9- from day to day of evaporation, that number can vary and our 10 end number. of total tons of waste product will vary as a 11 result of that.
'12, The rate of production of solids is about a drum 13 per_ day is what we are anticipating.
14 tiext overhead,.please.
' 5' (Pause) 1G Test results to date is depleted on this overhead.
17 The first testing done,.we had some difficulty-with the 10 decontamination factor. Now when I talk " decontamination
- 19 factor", I am-talking the concentration of any constituent 20 in the water in the supply to the. Commission divided by the
~21 concentrat ion of the distillate or the liquid which' is go.ina 22' to be vaporized and sent up the stack.
-23 We have. committed te e DF of 1000 and, as you can 24 see in the first indiceter there, we had some difficulties 25 with boron-peritaga Reporting Correratic" (2"2) czn_annn
_ - _ - . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ - - ___-_- _ _ - _ ___ _ _ - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O
- ,s. ...
26 1 . Boron. turns out to be quite. volatile in the g 12 evaporation process and is therefore quite easily carried 13 over.
'4 ' Having tested r7d found that result, as you can 5 .see in the second tick there,. Test No. 2, modifications were G'- 'made.to the evaporator by the vendor.
7 In the test modes, they were able to show that 0 'some screens'which were added and some spray during the 9' evaporation process were able to bring some of those 10 volatile boron back down into the water and into the end 11 process and the pellet mill as intended in the future.
.12 30 we were able then to attain DFs greater than a. ,
13 1000 for boron and for sodium. These tests were done not 34 with radionuclides, obviously, but with boron and sodium 1 r. supplied in 55 gellen drums em the influent to'the i
16 evaporator.
37 The tuird test indicated in the bottom of this
- 10 overhead was done in Florida in January. They have
-19 completed those tests now. There are three indications 20 there that give us assurance that we will be able to attain 21 the 1000 decontamination facter.
22 First, and these are not necessarily in order that 23 you see them on the page, but when we operate in a very 1
l 24 conscientious manner and watch very closely the concentrate
- 25. tank concentrations for e.11 constituents and 1:eer those t<-
Tieritege n.epartino Correlation I (202) 429-4000 l-
a o. t ', . . , .
n 27 1 levels that'we have achieved the DF of a thousand with, we
.l2 are able, with.the evaporator, to-attain the DF of-a-3 thousand.
4 This is a very closely monitored operation, which.
- 5. of course is how we intend to operate.
6- We have also the. ability, and it is shown in 7- ' testing, to get a further decontamination factor by a-factor 8 of four with the vaporizer itself.
9 That'four then is a multiplier of.the thousand.
10 So if we got a thousand with just the eveperator, we could-11' then attain a four thousand, for example, considering tha
'12 vaporizer decontamination factor also.
13 There is another ace in the hole, if you will. If 14 we should get into trouble and are unable to attain a 15 thousand with eitber the conscientious operation or-the IW q
16 ~ .with the vaporizer, addition chemically up front.of sodium J 7. hydroxide to the processed water before it is evaporated
'10 combines wi.th the boron and turns the boron into the end 19 product, the solids product, and takes it out of the 20 evaporation stream'.
21 The downside of thet is that that would ad<1 22 considerably to the volume of solids in the waste product at
.23 the end.
'?4 % we intend to usa that as e lemt r ~ rt and with
.25 the use of the conscientious operation and the DF of the Heritege Reporting Corporation (202) c?n_agnn
.. . ..o 2n 1 vaporizer, attain our thousand and not have to go to the
- 2 sodium hydroxide addition.
3 Further testing will be done on the evaporator 4 with added components. These test will be more of an 5 electrical / mechanical nature, not chemical, in South 6 Carolina, which is the destination of the evaporator at the 7 current time.
O The vendor has facilities in South Carolina. They 9 intend to put together more of the mechanical and electrical 10 components, the pelletizer and check operations from an 11 electrical / mechanical standpoint there.
12 After that, on site tests will occur when we are 13 allowed to receive the evaporetor and set it up on its pad 14 and put it together and test it prior to operation.
9
. '5 tient overhead, pleare.
1G (Peuse) 17 The monitoring program is, as I have it outlined 18 here, is preceding the process, of course, sampling of each l') source tank, as I alluded to.
'20 We are going to isolate these tanks. We will do a 21 recirculation of the contents so that we have a 22 representative sample in all cases.
23 And then sample thet source and compare that to 24 what we enectad the contents vi thet t a n 1- to 1 e no that we 25 will know that the base casa water which wa bave usari to ri-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) c7n-$nnn l
.* . p, 29-1 all o'f our calculations for effluents is bounded by the
.2 sample results,,or:that the' base case bounds the sample L3 results.
4 Frocessing. We go back to that.. radiation monitor 5 -that.was indicated by a block in the top line of our block 6: diagram.
-7 That radiation monitor is designed to stop the 0- evaporation process and it will be set at some 25 per cent L 9 -of the instantaneous release rate that our tech specs allown 10 us for'an' airborne release.
11 The isolation functions are two-fold. Number one, 12 it secures. power to the heaters and the vaporizer. -If ww do 13 not'have. heaters, we are not vaporizing the' liquid and it is-14 not going up the stack any' longer.
15_ Then in order to not damage the vaporizer, the i
16 pump which supplies the water to the vaporizer shuts down
~17 some_ period of time shortly after the heaters do so it still 18 has some ability t'> take some heat away from the heaters and 39 then the pump shuts down and the liquid flow is stopped.
20 again, that is set at 25 per cent of what we are
-21 allowed to release on an instantaneous release basis.
22 3ampling will occur both upstream of the vaporizer 23 and downstteam in the stack wbers we will take samples
^4 periodically 25 Ne will analyze thone samples for the primary Heritege Reperti.ng Corporation
( 207.) c~.n-4nnn
D ' yj ._ g 30 11 constituents that we:are concerned about,'that being Carbon
3 We know'that tritium goes through the evaporator.
'4- The-offset dose; calculations for the evaporation process for.
Se , all 2.3 million gallons of this water have ended up in a 6 number, as I think you probably read in the environmental
- 7 impact assessment, of 1.3 millirem whole body. -
8 That is to maximum exposed individuel off site.
1 9 the average for people within a 50-mile radius of Ttil during-10 the evaporation process, a 50-year committed dose to these 11 people is about five one-thousandths of a millirem, whole
- 12. body exposure again.
-13 The key point.here'that I think we miss sometimes 14 is,.that thyt exposure to the individual, the average.of five m one-thousandths of a millirem to each individual within 1
16 fifty miles, is e fifty-year committed dose'that is not 17 very dependent on what rate the evaporator releases the 18 vapot.
19 If I am going to evaporate over a period of 20' months, whIch we think we are now -- we are talking fifteen 21 to probably twenty-four months for the evaporation process 22 -- if I had a concentration that was higher one week than 23 the next, t am able by my regulations to average over the 24 quart er 25 Snd again the sum tatal of ell cuarters for all Heritege Reporting Corporation
('2 fq ) 620-4 RAD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ s
.s ,,
31 l~ the months it' takes to evaporate the 2.3 million gallons 2 will result in the 1.3 millirem whole body exposure to tha 3 maximumly exposed individual.
4 It is not much a function of at what rate 1 5 release; it is the curie content of the 2.3 million gallons l
6 for all radioactive constituents that results in that dose 7 to the public.
l 0 The off site monitoring -- the environmental 9 program will of course be in place -- the same program that 10 takes care of TMI-I and its oraration, will be samplina 11 media from around the site and in the environs during the 12 evaporation process.
13 An additional sampling program aspect that has 14 been undertaken is that in the summer of 1988 we began to an 15 tritium an91ysis of environmental aspects that we bad not 16 looked at beforet for example, road-killed animals and 17 milk.
18 These data were collected in order to be able to 19 compare during the evaporation process tritium 20 concentrations with those we found during the summer 21 presamplina program.
22 Those include vegetables, fruits and game, as 1 23 said.
24 The monitoring of tritium in the environment. is 25 going to be suomented by the addition nf f3"a tritium ne ritnoe nererting Correxatian (202) czn-10nn
..e ..
17 l 1 collection sample stations. They will be at locations that j , 2- are going to be teilor picked by the environmental group to l
3 be representative of areas that we think are the best to 4 look at, the most representative.
S' Those sample results will be collected on a l 6 biweekly basis and then analyzed by our environmental 7 control people.
H Of course, we routinely do surface and drinking 9 water analysis. We have about twelve stations currently 10 where we do tritium analysis of those kinds of water sourcen 11 and we will continue to do those.
12 Those are a monthly sample collection and I 13 analysis.
14 That is the last of my overheads. If you have 15 questions, 7 will be glad to ainswer them or get answers I do ;
16 not have them.
17 CHAIRMAll MORRIS: Ken? j 18 Im. MILLER: What exactly will your radiation 19 monitor be capable of measuring? Is it strictly tritium er i
1 20 --
21 1m. KUEHit: It is coing to be a scintillation 22 detector in-line liquid monitor. We have not procured it l 23 yet. The order is out and we expect delivery of it.
9
?4 f. L is looking et Cemium-137 aw;l a window i i
1 25 discriminated down to leek et cesium. l neritege pepey ti ng Corpcotien (2')2 ) 6 7 R -- 4 8 8 R
33 1 71R . MILLER: So it is a gamma detector?
2 f 1R . K U E Hisi: Yes.. -And then we of course have 3 retioed cesium to all of the other radioactive constituents 4 so that we have a ratio and know what to expect of the 5 others.
6 CilAIRMA13 MORRIS: Yes?
7 MR. LEUTZELSCHWAB: The tech specs that you 8 mentioned, is that tiFCs then, your maximum tech specs?
9 tm. KUEUti: Thet i .5' e curie per--second 10 instantaneous release rete that we have in the technica.1 11 specificati.ons.
12 IIR LEUTZELSCHWAB: How does that relate to MPCs 13 then?
14 ER. KUEHil: FerdonY 15 'm. LEUTZELSCHWAD: Is that e pn.rt of au tiPC m i
16 --
17 tm. KUEHil: That is correct. That release rate 18 limit is based on maximum permissible concentrations to the 19 public, yes.
20 tt takes a while to get back to there but that is 21 how it is calculated, yes.
1 22 tm. LEUTZELSCHWAU: Yes. Okay.
23 CHA IPJiA11 12ORP.I S : 7.' that it, Johu?
24 fin. LEUTZELSCHWAE: Yes.
25 CHAIPl%It MOPRIS- Eted?
l Heritece Repod:in? Corporation (202) c7n-40nn !
l
l .-
+. ,.
34 L 1 FIR . RICE: Joe, the waste container, the final g 2'- drums, did you say you are using fifty-five gallon drums?
3 f iR . KUEHi1: That's correct. The DOT approved 4 seventeen drums. They are called fifty-five gallon.
5 IfR . RICE: So you ere going to ship off site 6 after the evaporation process is completed 600 drums, is
-7 that correct?
8 MR. KUEHN: Six-hundred drums is a 165-ton 9 number. Sv give or take a feu drums yes, thet is corract.,
10 Mr. Rice. That is what we expect. .
11 The evaporator operator NuPac will control the 12 process through evaporation and production of the pellets 13 which will go into the drums.
14 We, GPU Muclear, will pick the drum up from the l 'i evaporator location and be resi'onsible for the labelling, i
16 the shipping of the drum from there.
17 tiR . RICE: Is there any external water added to 10- these process as you do it?
19 fir . KUEHM: No. The process water itself, for 20 example when we modify the evaporator to provide the dome 21 sprny which was able to take the boron down out of the 22 vapor, that is just processed water redirected back into 23 that evaporator to accomplish that.
': .1 'in . RICE : Bud d. v'o add solids to tha 1 t <."c e r n 7 25 t ir. . KUElif1: lin , not other than the processed Heritege Reparting Corporation
( 7.n z ) c7n-gnon
r"F,M ,
- s. y.y 7...
k i, .
t c 35 sw
'1: , l water two per cent solids that are fed to the evaporator.
.2^ MR. RICE: Thank you.
.3 MR. KUEH13: Yes. l
'4
~
.CHAIRMAlf MORRIS : Anybody else?
5 (lki response)
'6 CRAIRMAN MORRIS: I would like to, if I could,..
7 take us back to when we talked about this process initially, 8 and I think that may be a couple years ago or maybe at least
'9 a' year ago.
10 t thought.at that point you talked about.-- and if 11 I am missing this, please tell me -- but I thought we talked 12 about going from the storage tank into either the SD3 or tha 13 EPICOR-II system and then from that into the evaporation 14 process.
15 And I'mey be missing it but I do not see that.
1 ,
16' included in this chart.
17' MR. KUEllN : Okay. I have not included that in 18 the overheads but I would be glad to speak to that.
.19 The water which is the processed water, storage
.20 tank water,'our snorce for the evaporation process, has been 2
.1 processed; some of the water by SDS when SDS was
~
22 operational.
23 tt is not longer opa.*ational. SDS is shut-down.
- :?4 All preprocessing of water neu is accomplished with tha 2 5 '- EPICOR system which is a systam similar to 3DS with Heritage Repeding Comera.tian (202) c2n-4nnn
- .. l 4
l l 36 1 demineralization and filtering capability just as good as j 2 SDS was from a processing standpoint.
3 But it does not end up with the SDS vessels which 4 were in fact designed to allow us to bury the very highly 5 radioactive initial waters that we had to process.
6 It would not be smart for us to use those same 7 vessels to try to process the much cleaner water that we 8 contend with these days.
9 So SDS was shut down. EPICOR now replaces that 10 and all water to ba evaporate 1 will be p.to;ess through 11 EPICOR prior to evaporation.
12 CHAIRMAll MORRIS: I:: that another way of saying 13 the level of contamination of the water that gets to the 14 evaporator is within the limitn that you anticipated when
'S you proposed this, whether it wes a year ago or so or not, 16 and iL wa.? then studied by th' environmental impact 17 statement and I think there were judgments made at that 10 particula.t time based on the level of radioactivity in the 19 water goina to the evaporator?
20 f1R . KUEHil: Right. The base case water. We ate 21 ab]e to meet the base case or better with the EPICOR process 22 currently.
"3 CHAIP11A11 fiORRIS- Okey. The bese case watet that 24 you a. ice tething about is whet you set agalo a yeei ot two "5 na,i when wo looked at the environmental impact s t a t ement- ?
II9EitaUe P.9 P o d i " !7 C"T.T'"?.* ti?"
( ~[O 7 ) (; : fi - 4 f,10 0
i, , ',,
s ,
37 L1 tm. KUEHM: That's correct. Those are the g :- 2 , ' concentrations of radionuclides-used to attain the.1.3.
1 L3 ; millirem dose commitment to the public.
C
- .c ~
4 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Thank you.
5 Any other questions?
6 MR. RICE: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Okay.
0- MR. RICE: Joe, tha material'that~is being 9 shipped out, shipped in your containers, what'is that -
10 composed o f?
11- Is it dirt that has been contaminated or, you 12 know, I-am not.a physicist or anything'like that.
I just
- 13 ' don't' understand what that is.
.14 . IR. KUEHN: The primary solids content, if you.
15 will, is tha boron. That is almost a hundred per cent of l
16- -what.those pellets will be composed of, the boron from the-17 process with a very small amount of radioactive particulate
.10 because we have very low levels of those particulate to 19 start with.
20- The tritium, of course,.goes through the 21 evaporation process so there 10 nothina but trace tritium.
22 But the mejority of that pellet, if you were to hold one in 23 your hand, would be boron.
24 UR. ROCUts: If I c.".ild add, Fred, beric acid i.+
25 tha material that you woulci vea to rinna veur; eya or Twanty itaritao? Rat extin? Cemaration (202) C'*ft- 4fillft
i 3H 1 liule Team Borax. That is what this material is.
2 f iR . RICE: I see. Go one-sixth of all the water 3 gets shipped out in the form of pellets, if my mathematics 4 is correcti 5 MR. KUEHN: By solids content, is that what you 6 are --
7 tiR . RICE: Yes.
8 fin. KUEHN: I haven't seen your calculations, Mr.
9 Rice, but t assume that's right.
.10 tm. RICE: Well, 33,000 gallons and there is two 11 million, so it is about one-sixth.
J2 CHAIRMA11 110RRIS : You are missing by a factor of .
13 ten at least.
14 'E. RICE: Am 17 15 t m'. KUEHil: A factw. of ten. M;e you referring
?
16 to the 600 tons?
17 'iR . RICE: Well, there are 600 55 gallon drums 10 going off and I multiply that out.
19 km. KUEHti: Okay. Bint you are turning solids 20 into gallous and it does not - you cannot do that very 21 readily.
22 An important aspect of the boron -- and there is 23 sodittm in Lbe wates. alce 'ihicl> is the nonradioactive 24 component.
25 Nben we do the testing it is interesting. As 1 Tieritege Reporting Corporation l (202) 67.n-onnn l
l 39 I 1 said, boron is a very volatile constituent but the sodium 2 acts more like the particulate that we have to contend with 3 do: the strontium, the cesium, the carbon. )
i 4 Those in fact are retained in the evaporation 5 process and will be present in the pellets along with the l 6 boron.
7 But they are so small in volume in solids compared 1
8 to the boron that they are insignificant'from a volume and a i 9 weight standpoint.
J0 MR. RICE: Thank you very much.
11 CHAIRMAN MOPRIS: Ken?
12 MR. MILLER: I am still not certain I clearly 13 understand what you are saying regarding EPICOR. I am not 14 sure whetb?r you are saying yes, this is EPICOR-treated
'5 water or you are verifying thet yes, once again it will be L
16 treated by the EPICOR process prior to evaporation.
17 MR. KUEHN: Okay. Currently the processed water 10 storage tanks, the half million gallon tanks -- and there 19 are two of those -- have water in them which has been 20 processed through EPICOR.
21 Any additional waters that we intend to evaporate 22 -- and for example let's talk about the fuel pool. We have 23 water currently. We will have to eventually process that !
24 water pri"r to evaporation. l l
i
.25 ' fR . 14 ILLER : I will stick with just strictly Heritage Reporting Corporation (292) c2n-annn
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2
.,..- ;,,~
(- :.
40 i~.
1- with_what you have in the tanks.
4;l21 MR. KUEHN: Okay.
3- liR. MILLER: And we were definitely told a year
'4 and'a half or'so ago that yes, by God, this will again be 5 treated before'it goes through the evaporation process.
.6 MR. KUEHN: I wasn't present --
'7 MR. MILLER: And here you are telling me that is 8 not the case. ,
9 MR. KUEIU1: That ie not the case. I am saying I'0 that the processed water storage tank water today meets the'
'll base case water criteria or better.
- 12 The. sample results that I have seen are bettel 13 than the base case. So there is less radioactivity in that 14 water than what we.said and used for calculations of dosing.
, ' 1. 5 CIIAIRMAN MORRIS: 1 misunderstood your answer 1
11 0 because I took your answer to mean that the water in the 17 tank would go back through the EPICOR-II system.
10 MR. KUEllt1 : 11 o .
19 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: That's the way I heard you 20 initially and I may have misunderstood you.
21- MR. KUEllN: Okay. .I am sorry if I misspoke or if 22 you misunderstood. But no, water that is in the p2:ocessed 23- water storage tanks today has been processed and will not. be-24 reprocessed. Theio is ne need te I t. is Ivv eneogb n il 25 is.
neritece nere.rting Cervaration
( 7,0 7. ) 6?.0-4000
41 1" Additional waters we intend to add when we drain
[q 2. ' systems and drain the basement for the last time in'the 3 reactor building will be processed through EPICOR prior to l
4 evaporation, prior to going to these processed water storage 5 tanks for. source for evaporation.
6 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: I think we understood that. I 7- am just recalling initially when this process was proposed I 8 thought the record showed' clearly that even though it had 9 gone through either the SDS or EPICOR-II system prior to 10 going into the holding tenks, that when it left tha holdino 11 tanks before it evaporated it would go back through one of 12 those systems.
13 And you are saying either you do not recall that 14 ever was proposed -- my recollection is that it was.
- 1. 5 MR. KUEHN: I do not recall having read that. I 4
-16 would not have been part of the process then but I'will
'17 certainly go back and look and see if that is what we said.
10 .MR. MASUIK: Chairman Morris, I vaguely remember 19 that we had considered a 40 per cent retreatment of the 20 water base 1 on what was explained here that a good hit of it 21 is already in storage and would meet the criteria but we 22 assumed that a certain amount of it would be required to be 23 retreated by the EPICOR -- at that time it was called the 24 <- EPICOR/SDS system.
25 CHAIPHAM MORRIS: It would be interesting to fimi Heritage Repo? ing Corporation (292) c n-49ng
- _ _ = _ _ _-_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
l .. ..
I-42 l' out what specifically as proposed initially. Also, it would i 2' be interesting to find out why you now look back at the
_4 -
3- water in the tank and say that it is cleaner than what.it 4 was when you tested it'after it'went through the SDS'and 5 EPICOR-II systems before -- again, if I am stating this
-6 wrong-please correct me.
7 MR. KUEHN: These are dynamic volumes. You know, 8 we have the ability to add.to those tanks and to move water.
9 And as we clean water up, we are going to change 10 concentrations overall in the tanks. So that may be the 11 case and we certainly will find out what we said before.
12 CHAIR 11All liOPRIS : Dut the indication you are .t 13 giving me is that the water that is in the tanks now appears-14 to be at a lower level of radioactivity than the water that
- 1. 5 originally went in the tanks from the SDS and EPICOR-II 16 system.
17 That again is what I thought I heard you say.
16 lin. EU EHn : What I was saying is that some of the 19 water which today resides in the processed water storage 20 tanks was processed through SD3.
21 Some of it was not and was only processed through 22 EPICOR so thei.e is a mixture in there and te determine which 23 was which concentration would be difficult to do at this 24 point.
25 The overall concentration todav is lass than the neritepe Reporting Comnratian
(" f VR ) (~.'2 0. 5 0 0 D
43 1 base case criteria.
j -2 CHAIRMAM MORRIS: Could we at least hear from the l
3 operator some feedback as to what the original proposal did 4 entail?
5 MR. KUEHN: Certainly.
6 CHAIRMAli MORRIS : Again, the water that was in 7 the tanks prior to go into the evaporator, was anything 0 expected to be done with that water in the way of treatment.
9 Miel, did you have something?
10 MR. WALD: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAI3 MORRIS: And then John.
12 MR. WALD: Did I understand correctly that the 13 storage tanks are in a dynamic state? In other words, water 14 is being de; awn from them and water is being discharged into 15 them?
2 16 MR. KUEHN: That's correct. They are able to be 17 added to and taken from.
18 I IR . WALD: So they are not just sitting there once 19 they have been processed?
20 iM. KUEHU: Ho. The just sitting there or valves 21 closed and procedurally contrelled situation will e::is t- when 22 we are ready to start evaporation of that tank. We will 23 isolate that tank 24 ft is not isolated day 25 tm. WALD: So et that point you "ill make ynor Heritage Repad.;ing Cerperation (292) c?.n-400n
I 44 1
1 final definitive measurements? l l
l 2 MR. KUEHN: That's correct. That is when we will I 3 recert, get the representative sample, and determine what we 4 have for a batch mode, if you will, at that point of that 5 tank; then move to the next tank and so on.
6 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: .Tehn?
7 MR. LEUT7sELSCHWAB: If you process the water 0 through EPICOR again, what would happen? Would it become 9 that much cleaner or it would not change much?
10 t1R . KUEHN: It would not become that much I
11 cleaner. We would gain some, I would think, but I would i
12 have to have my engineering group look at exactly what 13 concentrate.ou we fed in and what would happen with it.
14 It would depend on the resin loeding of that 15 process, too. It is a series process of three 16 purifications, if you will, demineralization. And it 17 depends on resin-loading, on how old the resin is, how much 10 water has been processed through it prior to that batch.
19 And so it would depend on that particular 20 situation.
21 f fR . LEUT 7sELSCHWAB : Okay.
22 CHA1 phall MOPJRIS : Anybody else have a question on 23 this particular aspect?
24 (110 response) i
?S Okay Hearing nnue, again if you woulci follow ut-Heritnoe Pernrtino Corporation (202) 67 9 -4 0 0 fl
45 1 with an answer as to that one question in the near future we 2 would appreciate it.
3 tiR . KUEHH: Yes. Thank you.
4 FIR . LEUTZELSCHWAB: Thank you.
5 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS : We are now ready for I think 6 the liRC Staff who will give us their review of the processed 7 water disposal system.
O tiR . MAS 111K : Mr. Chairman, I am Mike Masnik and I 9 have Lee Thouvs f r om the 11RC .
10 t just wanted to go over briefly the steps that 11 are involved in the approval process of the evaporator. As 12 you are aware, there is a prohibition in effect in the TMI-13 II license that does not allow a Licensee to dispose of the 14 processed accident water.
15 Garly in 1981 the Commission reserved the ultimate 16 approval io granting relief f. tom this prohibition. The 17 Commission, as I mentioned earlier, has before them the 10 entire recoxd in the processed accident watet proposal and 19 sometime in March we expect a decision on their part.
20 If the Commission does not decide in favor of the 21 Licensee, then of course the prohibition will not be lifted.
22 If, however, the Commission does direct the Staff 23 to issue the license amendment, then the Staff will go
4 f o i wax d wi'- b the ptocess of iesving that license amendment
?9 'In "f'e r , $* fore the Staff can issue that 11eritage TMrerti9g Cemoratian (2n?) can-annn
46 l
1 - amendment,- the -Staff has to perform a safety analysis on the ,
q .'2 processed accident water disposal system.
3- The safety analysis will essentially determine if i 4' the Licensee's proposal, . as we have heard tonight, will be
-5' within.the envelope of conditions-that were evaluated in the
'6 .PEIS and'the subsequent hearing record.
7 If the Staff finds that the evaporator can operate 8 within this envelope, then this safety evaluation will f
9 become part of the' license amendment package and the
- 10. ' amendment will be issued.
11 Once.the amendment is issued, it is effective
~12- immediately. So essentially the license will'be changed and
-13 the prohibition will'be lifted.
L14 tiowever, that safety' analysis could contain some
- 15. conditions that may' condition the operation of the 16 evaporator 17 tiow once the amendment is issued, then there is 10 one more step before the Licensee could begin operation of 19 the evaporator. And that is, they have to submit their 20 detailed ptocedures for the operation of the system to tha 21 11RC for 11RC review.
22 And that will take probably two to three, maybe a 23 month -- two to three weeks, maybe a month of time.
24 Once those precedu. ten ere approved, then the
- 25. Licensee has final approval to begin the ceporation 11eritage Reporting Corporation (2n2) r,;n-4non
47 1 process.
2 L.ee Thonus will be the lead engineer in evaluating 3 the safety analysis report or preparing the Staff's safety 4 analysis report and he will speak to you about the process 5 by which we go about reviewing the Licensee's proposal.
6 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Mike, just before he does that 7 --
8 MR. MASNIK: Yes.
9 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: -- could you give us an 10 estimate of time based on if the NRC would approve without 11 conditions on March the 20th the system and you would then 12 begin the safety analysis?
13 MR. MAS 11IK : Part of that depends on of course 14 the ITRC and the Licensee. We have just recently submitte<1 15 some questions to the Licensee and depending on how quickly 4
16 they.can respond to those questions and if the responses are 17 satisfactory, I would suspect that we will hear from the 30 Conunission before the Steff hes completed its safety 19 analysis review.
20 A.nd I would estimate that, based on past history, 21 the license amendment, assuming we get approval by the 22 Commission and we find that the review is satisfactory, 23 would not be issued until sometime late Spring.
24 And then we would bere the procedu.te review a m.1
?S that perheim enuld go en concurrently or at least overlap in neriteue nerneing Corporation
( 7,02 ) (. 'ft- 4 D Oft
l w. ..
40 l
l-
- 1. the safety review,- but again that sort of depends on how the l
2 Licensee -- how quickly they can get us to procedures.
3 CHAIRMA11 MOPRIS: Dut I am hearing maybe if 4 things woul.d go well for the Operator, again the earliest l 5 that evaporation would probably -- again I am not stating 6 exactly -- would probably happen in the June / July time l
l 7 frame.
l 8 MR. MASNIK: That's a very real possibility i
9 depending on how quickly things are turned around.
10 CIIAIPliM1 MOPRIS: Okay. Mr. Thonus?
11 f iR . THO11U3 : For the Reporter, my name is Lee 12 Thonus and I am happy to be here with you this evening, M1. .
13 Chairman and Members of the Advisory Panel.
14 riike, if you would throw up the first slide. I 15 have given copies of the transparencies to all the Membero.
16 This is the stages that we go through and will be 17 going through in the review of the Licensee's technical 10 evaluation report 19 The first step we have already gone through and 20 that is we have received a preijosal from the Licensee. I 21 imagine it is something around fifty pages. In fact, wa 22 received their first revision.
23 The next step i? the Project Manager, in this cese 24 myself, deas a reci.ew and loof 3 at what 1:.in d s of Lechnica.1 25 staff I nomd, what experts in what field T naed to r av.i aw
-e a p e 4 - es v (202) 62 fl ~ 4 fi ft fl
t ee .e 49 1 this particular document.
2 Then I forward copies to the appropriate technical 3 branches or, in this case, our consultants at Batelle 4 Pacific Northwest Laboratory 5 And the technical reviewers and myself generate 6 questions. In fact, we have generated those questions and 7 today we p'tt them in the mail to GPU.
O tt is possible although it is rare that we get an 9 SER that is greater than fifty pages that we do not have 10 some questi.on on.
-11 The next step will be after GPU receives what we 12 call Round 1 questions, they may or may not want some 13 clarification of the questions. We may have a meeting to 14 discuss the questions and what degree of detail we want 15 answers fr<>m them or how much - you know, some of them are 16 not phrased always as guestiens -- describe how something 17 will work and they may want tn know how much detail we want 30 them to describe that.
19 We may or may not have a meeting. Then the last 70 step on this one is that the Licensee will give us a written 21 response and they might, as a result of this, issue an 22 amendment or new revision to their technical evaluation 21 report.
24 Ne will .t e t that r e.mi o n s e -- if you want to flili P5 to the nerF slide.
Her;i.tage Repeding Ce?.re':a t inn (202) 67.n-annn
.4 ...
so 1 The first slide may go through two iterations.
2 And after the technical groups have gotten everything 3 clarified that they need clarified or discussed with the 4 Licensee in their given fields of expertise, they provide 5 inputs to me.
6 And I will then assemble the safety evaluation and 7 it will go through review, concurrence and then it will be 0 issued.
9 'iometime s like I say there is two rounds of 10 questions, but it is e relatively, at least in my mind, 11 straightforward process because I go through it all the 12 time.
13 /Lre there any guestions?
14 (11 0 response) 1 r; Cit h IP15Att tiORP.IS - Any questions from the Panel t
16 Members at this point?
17 (110 response) t8 CIIAIP.HAIJ MOPRIS- Hearing none, thank you, si.t.
19 I do appreciate your presentation.
20 At thi.m time we will turn to the public on item 21 6. There 3re two individuals that asked for time nn the 22 agenda. I did not know whether they preferred to go now 23 before the break or at the end. of the meeting.
24 & vould f.eally bs ' heir choice Eul T. would an1 25 either Frances Skelnick -- T. 1.n ew I have seen that Francis Tieritece Reporting Corporation
( 7 0 '2 ) 67H-4000
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -___-___________________a
51 1 is here. Do you prefer at this point to come forward to 2 speak?
3 And is Eric Epstein here, too?
4 (Pause) 5 Do you want to come on right after Frances? Okay.
6 Just a reminder to everybody that speaks here, if you would 7 remember just to jot your name down.
O Thank you, Frances.
9 '53 SKOLf1ICI : Good evening.
10 ':IIAIRMMI MOPRIS: Good evening.
11 t1S . SKOL111CK : I don' t have e prepared statement 12 but there is just a few points I would like to raise.
13 And one of the reasons I came here this evening 14 was to inform the Panel that the membership of the l 'i Susquehann, Valley Alliance dues intend to appeal the 16 decision by the Istomic Safety and Licensing Board Fanel.
17 riot only of course do we disagree with the
.10 decision but we also disegree with the procedures that were 19 used in order to reach that decision.
20 We still feel really strongly that a lot of tha 21 issues weto not resolved in the hearing. We feel just as 22 strongly that evaporation is en unnecessary exposure of low 23 level radiation to the public ir. the Three Ilile Island area.
l
'l And out wit _ n e s s e s p'.esented evidence t- show that l
l l 25 tritium in not the innocuous element that the utility anr1 neriteoe Reportino Comoration
( 20 7. ) c7n-annn
,.-o ..-
52
,1 'the.NEC.has said and Karl Morgan did present evidence-that;
~
- 2 the international' community is encouraging. bodies'throughout-
[3 the world to keep doses of ionizing radiation as. low as 4 possible.
'5' And for that reason, we maintain a position, a'-
6' very strong position that evaporation is wrong and it should 7 not be.done in this' area.
8 One of our. main issues that we raised earlier in 9 .the hearings concerned the composition of'the, water when.it
.10 - would go into the evaporator. .
11' We hired a consultant in radioactive waste in 12 Texas. And I had hoped to present everybody with a copy of 13' his affidatritfbut I didn't get to a photocopier.
14 .9ut the point that he' raised.was that the water at 15' Three. Mile Island contains certain detergents. It is not a Li
'16- borated water 11 7 It contains a detergent called TRITON-X. And the 18- presence et that detergent in the water leads to the fact 19 that the decontamination factor of the evaporator may not be 20 1000.
21 Therefore, I would like the Panel to pursue this 22 notion, the whole idea, and to ask the utility to provide 23 -them with a list of the contents of the water, of the sample 24 they used " ben they tested the evaporator, to make sure thet 25 there was everything in that water to see if the h
Heritage Reperting Corporation l (202) 67.n_annn
.( . c. .
53
~
1 ' decontamination factor.is indeed what it could be expected t2 to be.
~
.3' The'other thing, when Mr. Kuehn was up here 4 talking about-the water going into the evaporator, it is my
.5 understands.ng -- and unfortunately I don't.have the l' 6 transcripts here with me this evening -- but the Licensee's 7 witness Mr. Buchanan specifically.said that they evaporator 8 could be used in batch cycle mode.
- l. 9 Setch cycle mode means that the evaporator is cut 10- off from the vaporizer and the evaporator is used to
.11 decontaminate the water.
12, n.ud it could be used instead of the EPICOR system.
13 And indeed I can remember exactly what he said. He said 34 that batch cycle would be an ot'erational decision.
15 Jo in other words pathaps the base case water is i
16 not going i.nto the evaporator. He said that it would be a 17 procedural decision following the amendment.
10- -t am a little concerned, too, that the SDS was 19 taken out of operation. I was under the impression that GPU 20 was supposed to get permission to be doing something like 21 that.
22 and it seems that it was an investment that was 23 made some years ago and why can't its use. continue so that 24- 'the water Jan be decontaminet W to its manimum extent
?S That's all. Thank you.
it. erit ece Repertioc Cert'm;a tion (202) C ?. n.-4 n n n j l
l 3
I
.1 7.
54 i
1: CHAIPliAll MOPRIS: Thank you..
.. '2 Let me, if I.could - go' ahead, liiel. Surely.
'. 3 MR. WALD: Could you tell us the name of the 4' Texan?
5- MS. SKOL11ICK : Yes. Sure. Louis.Koserak K-0-S-
.6 A-R-E-K~ .
7 Could I submit this affidavit by mail, Mayor 8 Morris?. This is my only copy. It is my office copy.
9 C11AIRMA11. MORRIS : Sure. .If you would -- I would
'10 suggest yo'.i send it to Mike Masnik and I would assume that 11' . Mike.could make copies for the Panel.
12 UR. MAS 11IK: Yes. If you would give me'a copy, I 13 will.make certain that the Panel gets a copy.
14 MS. SKOLMICK: Okey. Thanks.
15 CHAIRtiAIT MOPRIS: Mike, could I ask.you a 4
- 16. question that Ms. Skolnick raised and that was regarding the 17 SDG system' .
10 Vid the Licensee remove it on its own decision?
19 And., if they did, did it not require NRC's approval to do 20- thet?.
21 I fP. . MAS 11IK : I am not aware of any requirement
,2. 2 - that it be maintained operational. It certainly is not in 23 the licens?.
24' 'setierally we license things to operate, not to 25 shut down.
Heritege P.eperti.ng Corporation (202) 6EA-1QUA
9 P.
1 CIIAIRMA11 MOPRIS : Lee, do you know of any
, 2 restriction?
?
3 MR. TIiOI US : Lee Thonus. There is no requirement 4 for them to get our permission to take that system out of 5 service.
6 MS. SKOLNICK: I have been under the impression 7 from the original EIS Volume 1 that those kinds of major 8 decisions had to seek prior NRC approval.
9 I cannot remember the quote. It is like tower <1n 10- the beginnLng. And that was my impression.
11 MR. MASNIK: I think the thrust of the original 12 impact statement, of course, is to evaluate impacts to the 13 workers and to the public. I 14 And if you have a system that is no longer serving
'I 5 any function, clearly they are not outside the bounds of the s
16 impact statement to take something like that out of 17 operation.
18 If anything, it would probably result in lowet 19 exposure ti the workers beceuse it was e system that was,
- 20 you know, Cairly radioactive when it was installed, although l
L 21 shielded. But still taking it out of service probably 22 lowered the amount of impact.
23 US. SKOLMICK: But does non-use of this system 24 a f f.c c t the quality of the weter that is cotteu from Cr? .T <f oR7 25 In tower words, if it was still to be used, could it I.I???iteg9 ROpo?Jti?$p Co?T"'_mt5m*
(2n2) r,7n-anno 1
{
{
- p. . , . .
=,-
L L 56
.1 decontamin?.te the water more'before it would go into the i , , 2. evaporatox?
f 3 fin. MAS 111K: Why. don't we.let Lee answer that?
4- fir. - THO11US : I am at the plant a little bit more 5 than' Mike is. I guess perhaps GPU should be answering these
' 6 -. questions for why they did what they did. But I think I can 7 answer for them reasonably accurately.
.8 The SDS system performed its function. It was 9 designed to demineralize the water that.came out of the
-10 reactor bui.lding basement after the accident.
11 tt was designed to be able to decontaminate water 12 that conteined in excess of 100 microcuries per milliliter.
13 Once that job.was finished, they continued to use it for 14 .some other purposes.
And at some point in time they mede a decision t, 15 16 that they did not need it anymore. At the time that they
.17 removed it,. they changed the kind of -- and I had to use the 10 term " resin loadings", but it is something that is easier 19 for everyone to understand. The more correct term would be
-20 ion exchange medie.
21 They were using zeolites, if everyone is familiar 22 with the record, in the submerged demineralized system rather than organic resins. And when they took the 303 out 24 of service, they started mixinu in zeolites into the Erint 25 system.
Heritege Reperting Corporation (202) c;n-40nn
.o ..
57 1 .9o it really doesn't matter whether you have 2 zeolites in a can in the spent fuel pool underwater or 3 whether you have those same zeolites in either four-by-four 4 or six-by-sin liners in the EFICOR buildin'g. They will 5 perform the same function, although the loadings of the 6 four-by-fours and the six-by-sixes vary with the intended 7 use of them.
8 They analyze what water they want to 9 decontaminate, what the properties of that water are. And 10 they custom load with a mixtu.te of organic resins and j 11 zeolites, whatever will achieve the job. l 1
12 L hope that explains it to everybody. ,
13 CIIAIRMA11 MOPRIS: Xou have done a good job of
)
14 confusing us, I think. 1 15 (Laughter) 16 (13 . SI;OLITICI;: And, tir . Thonus, has the 3D3 been 17 removed from the site?
10 tin. T1101103 : Well, some of the equipment is still 19 there. I think somebody from GPU could probably answer 20 that. Parts of it have been .temoved, as far as I know.
I 21 There is probably still some piping left thera but 22 I couldn't say if it has been a hundred per cent removed.
23 M3. SI;OLt11CI; : D o e .' it go to e low level waste 24 site?
25 CII AIP11A11 MOPRIS: I apologize. 11iel said it was l l
l Heritage Reperting Corporation (2nz) <:2n-annn
1 , - .
.... . ,c -
50-P
>,1 ' perfectly l clear to_'him.
2, (Laughter)-
s
)
3' CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: So I do not'want'to be one--
-4~ sided here.
5- 'Thank you.
-6 MR. GERUSKY: Mr. Mayor?
7 . CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Yes.
8 MR. GERUSKY: The question of the detergent in the 9' water sample-I think is important and I would lik'e~to see
.10 the utility respond to us on that issue.
.11 ~ CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Could.the utility please 'come 12' forward and -- the point that was made, if I recall, is that
- 13 the water does'contain detergent which could prevent the
- l14 decontamination factor from reaching a thousand.
j i5 And we were also asked.to request from you the-Y
.J G 'make-up of the water in the tanks, the most recent teste et
'17 . batch tests or whatever was run.
l 10 So maybe you can speak to both of those points.
19 MR. ROCHE: I am Mike Roche, Director of TMI-II.
20 Relative to the TRITON-X and the' affidavit, I 21 .believe tbt.t was considered by the Licensing Board. I think 22 it'was in evidence and I believe it was part of their 123 decision.
24 ':e that is what I understanci about it, etal I was 25- not et the hearina for that p'xticular time so I em not Heritepe Reporting Coworation (2n2) c;n-$nnn l
=-_
- -_ _ ___-__ - _ =_- -_- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ______-
5o 1- saying of my own information.
i 2 But the Board from what I have been told did l 3 consider that affidavit. Relative to the second one, Mayor 4 Morris, she asked if you could have the data for the l l
l 5 processed water storage tank --
6 CImIRMAN MORRIS : Content tests.
7 MR. ROCHE: We can provide you data. As Joe 0 Kuehn said before, the contents of the tanks, it is e 9 dynamic process and I had mentioned I think in an answer to 10 MJ. . Rice that we do recycle water.
31 We try to reuse water. And that is one of the
-12 reasons that those tank volumes are dynamic. Therefore the 13 contents oC the water is dynamic.
J. 4 rt changes as we move water in and out. We will 15 provide some information on the -- I am not sure exactly i
J6 ubether ye't would want it -- .t think we probably have dail.y 17 information.
.t u Out we could provide you some representative 19 sample.
20 CIIAIRMAll MORRIS : Could you give us the ranges 21 that maybe the major contaminants would -- you would see 22 within the different tests.
23 'm. ROC 115: Sure "4 CimIRi mil IDPRIS: T'ecause I am kind of curious if 29 i t- is that dynamic as yne are saving, thou bnw an ynn knne nes;itage Tierorting Corrarntian (202) (. ? II -- 4 51(1 f1
is4 fct -
6n IE .that' you ' don' t need an EPICOR-II system to go through from
-2' the tanks into the evaporator?
+.
'3' So.even though it might change, it doesn't sound
-4' like itLcould change that much if you don't think-additional 5 treatment is needed.
6 MR. ROCHE: Joe Kuehn will try to tackle ~that.
7 MR. KUEHN: Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman
- 8- We need to average the base case water across the 9 2.3 million gallons of water in order to come up with the 10 projected dose thet we said wa are going to have from this 11 evaporation process.
- 12. So although one batch ray have part of a day's
- 13. ~ processing slightly higher than the base case, the next four 14 hours might be lower than that and the average will be base 15 case or less.
4.
'JG. When we did the testing initially in Florida, we 17 had sodium and boron in the 55 gallon drums of supplied 18 . water. There wasn't any detergents or any other components
- 19. in that water.
20 Out I ask you to think about our analysis during 21 -the process which will determine the DE, the decontamination
- 22. factor, on a real-time sampling au) analysis basis.
~23- 30 whether or not there is a detergent effect, wa 24 will know by our influent /effinent sample comparison and 25 dividing tha two, what our rir is.
Ueritece Rei.*erting Cerror=titm I (202) c?.n_an00
__i_______________.__________m._
l 61
'1 And if'it isn't there, we will get it there
..2- through the processes that I talked about.
3 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Okay. I think I understand -
4 that from the detergent standpoint. 'There are things you
~
SL can do and you want to avoid doing but you can do in order 6 .to get it to a thousand.
7 Could you still - you obviously have taken tests 8 and you have made calculations to determine the level'of
.9 . contaminate.on in the water in the tanks.
10 f1R . KUEHII: Yes.
11 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: And I guess what I am saying is 12 can you provide us with that information?
13 MR. KUEHN: Certainly.
14 CHAIRMAli MORRIS: Thank'you.
15 Vou have answered my question. I don't know if 1
i 7
16 you answered Tom's completely or maybe he wants to pursue 17 that a little more.
I 10 11S . SKOLDICK: Mr. Chairman, may I please 19 . responds to the statements about the TRITOM-X?
20 CIIAIRMAD MORRIS: Yes. You can come on up if you
~21 would like to respond to that.
22 MS. SKOLITICK: In response to Mr. Roche's 23 statement that he felt he was not familiar with the hearings 24 but he f el' that the TRITOM-X had been e part of the 25 decision.
Heritage Reporting Correlation (292) 62n-400n 1
L
's?- ..-
n 62 1 ( ilon't believe it was. It'was decided at'the l 2 summary disposition stage in the. proceedings that it didn't
'3 matter whether the TRITON-X affected the water because the 4- water could then be put through the evaporator on more than
' 5' one occasion.
6 tiow the relevance of that is' that 'the more 'the 7- water has to.go through the evaporator, the more costly it 0 becomes, the more time it takes.
9- And if you are comparing it_with other 10 alternatives, obviously it is going to make a difference.
'll And as'you are put' ting through the water, obviously you are Ie12 going to impact the workers more, too, over time. .
13 Jo I would be glad to -- well, actually probably 14 you have already gotten the stuff, the summary disposition
, 15 . order from'the Judges, because it is in there.
~1 16 CllAIRtiAIT 110PRIS : We have received it tonight.
17 '13 . SKOLMICK: Yes. If you could look in there 18_ where the Judge. deals with that.
19 011AIRt4A11 110RRIS : I think the key point on that, 20 though, is that they have rendered a decision at this point.
- 21. It can be appealed by bodies such as yours but I think that 22 is the process.
23 We are happy to hea.t that point but I think the 24 legal aspo ts of the peint he' a to be decided et some otbet 25 location.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (2n2) c7n-4000
.* e 63 1 We can't.
2 MS. SKOLNICK: No. I realize that. I know what 3 procedures I have to go through but I think as citizens it' 4 is very worthwhile that you know.
5 CHAIRMA11 MOPRIS: Okay. I appreciate you coming 6 forward and bringing that to our attention. I just realize 7 the nature of the situation is now somewhat out of our hands 8 in regard to what happens decision-wise on that.
9 MS. SKOLt1ICK : Mayer Morris, it is never out of 10 your hands.
11 CHAIRMAN MOPRIS: Yes. Thank you.
12 (Applause) 13 And it is good to know that.
14 ts there anybody elna that would like to -- come I5 on up, plewse.
4 16 There e 2. <=: teo othei people. We will hoJd it to 37 those two 1.ndividuals for this part of the session and then 10 we will allow public comment at the end as well.
19 M3. STUCHINSKY: Good evening. Vera Stuchinsky 20 from Tnree Mile Island Alert with our official comments.
21 I have some comments that deal with old business 22 in essence, some things that we have discussed and we would 23 like to fe tJ ow up from pr.ior meetings.
74 rrt) bed m=sle ,s e x e .I tequests et tlie lest two 25 meetings bot we he re yat te roceiva soma of the informe ion Ueritega Raportiog Corecrat3on
('202 ) 6 7 ft - 4 0 0 0
64 1 but we have yet to receive some of the information that we 2 requested.
3 The utility did agree to provide us with relevant 4 material so we are taking time tonight to xerequest some 5 outstanding data regarding the clean-up. 1 6 We originally requested the source and amount of 7 GPU advertising campaign to promote post-defueling 8 monitoring storage on July 14th, 1988.
9 That request was resubmitted on September seventh, 10 1988, and the transcripts document that Mr Bedell agreed tn 11 provide this information.
12 30 we are asking the Panel to ask GFU to comply 13 with their earlier commitment to make that information 14 available.
tm. ROTH: Could I make a suggestion?
k, 15 16 W1. STUCHIllSEY Sm e .
17 tiR . ROTil: Why don't you just turn around and ask 18 him? Woul1 that be possible?
19 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Let me just ask this, Vera, if 20 I could.
21 tis . STUCIIIUSKY: Yes.
22 CilAIRMAN MORRIS: I received e letter from Doug 23 Bedell on January the 27th and let me read it into the
,M 1.euvid tu see whethey. this is what you are talking abool, el 25 .least in thic first point tieritno= TMr7eyA. i. wig Cervm atieri (202) 0 1 f1 - 4 0 0 0
. :/* s
- I h j
< 65- j i
1 'It says, "In advance of the February 16th meeting
. '2' 'of'.TMI-II Advisory Fanel, GFU Nuclear is providing the-3' following information in answer to questions that were asked 1 4 by Eric Epstein of'Three tiile Island Alert at the Fanel's 5 last meeting."
6' Une, the cost of the advertisements that were run 7- in area newspapers in June and July to advise residents that.
0- post-defueling monitor enorage was approximately $115,000 in 9 non-rate-payor corporate funds.
l 'O ' 'ie con d , GPU Nuclear would of course comply with
.11 .the legally effective requirements of any order from the 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- 13. When I receive that, it didn't say -- didn't show 14 a copy to anybody, I assume that Eric or somebody would have 15 received it.
i 16 Apparently they didn't.
17 M3. STUCHINSKY: No, we haven't received one at
'10 the office.
19 CHAIPJ1AN MOPRIS: So maybe I should have followed 20 up. I didn't know the answer would come just to me but
.21 apparently --
'22 MS. STUCHINSKY: There may be another one for me,
-23 then.
24 * :llAIPlmli 110PRIS :
Do This is the sum total, I 25 believe, of the letters that J have gotten.
1 II9Eiteg9 P.9Po? ling CoWOEAtiO" (292) czn-4ppn
- af '..
66
- 1. MS. STUCHINSKY: Okey. .Thet was $115,000, no 2- rate payor' funds. That was corporate funds?
- 3' ' CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Okay. Let me read it again for 4 the record.
5' It says, "Approximately $115,000 in non-rate payor 6 corporate funds."
7- MS. STUCHINSKY.: Okay. Well, there is one 0- question. Thank you.
9 CHAIPEAN MOPRIS: Okay.
- 10 f tS . STUCHIUSKY: Let's see, on September seventh,
~
11 1980, also we asked for some information -- we asked the NRC 12- and GPU.to list interim post-defueling monitored storage 13 -criteria to identify seven areas that may be placed into 14 isolation during FDMS and to define the terms " interim" and 15 " isolation" 1
16 So I would just like to make that request again.
17 CHAIRMAlf MOPRIS: Just if we can stick on the 10 questions just for a minute so we can try to get answers to 19 these.
20- f!S . STUCHIllSKY : Ohay.
21 Cf1AIRt1A11 MOPRIS: I r= anybody here from GPU that 22 can respond to the fact that it was asked at the last 23 meeting -- I think indicated that these answers would ba 24 provided and apparently have not yet been provided.
"5 19 thet an m ersicht or is there e feeling that l
neritage n.eperting Correlation (202) c2n-anun
_-______=_- -____- __ ___
4 ,e I 67 1 you don't want to answer the guestions?
2- MR. ROCHE: I was not asked the guestion.
3 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: liike , do you mind coming up?
4 t1R . ROCHE: I am liike Roche. I don't remember 5 ever being asked the question. I did remember the other two 6 that Doug Dedell wrote to you the answers on.
7 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: Okay.
8 MR. ROCHE: And at this point I don't understand 9 the question so maybe if we ceold have an explanation.
10 tis . STUCHI11 SKY: Okay. I would have to refer 31 back to the September seventh transcript. There was some 12 suggestion that there would be interim --
13 CHAIR 11A11 MORRIS : Can we do this? And --
14 tis . STUCHIll3KY.: Sure.
15 C11AIPJiAll 110RRIS - -
I am not trying to cut in 16 but just for time. We are going to have public comment at 17 the end.
18 713 . STUCHIllSKY : Okay.
19 CHAIRMAll MORRIS: I think there is a transcript 20 here that somebody could get at the break or you can get 21 now.
22 t!S . STUCHIt1 SKY: Okay.
23 CUAIR11All MORRIS: Review that question. I wou]d 24 like to c. lear it up tonight one way or t.bo o l b e ?. So t..f m t 25 if there is a question to be asked, that everybody ITeritage Feporting Corporation (202) M. 81 - 4 0 0 0 l
y 1:- y ,
,60 1- understands what.1it means.
y 2 MS. STUCHINSKY: Okay.
3: CHAIPJiA11 MOPJtIS: And'we can get you an answer.
[4 So if we could maybe return to that question later 5 on.
- 6' MS. STUCHINSKY: Okay.
7 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: 'Put if there is other things
-0 you want to speak to tonight, please'do'so now.
- 9 MS. STUCHIllSKY : Okey.
10 Well, I have three new requests that we'would like 11 GPU and the !!RC to address. And this is concerning problems.
12 at the plant that have been in reports, NRC reports.
13- The first one is inattentiveness to duty More 14 specifically, an operator at the reactor building polar
'15 crane was Cound sleeping at his station on July nineteenth, 1
16 1900.
17 4 worker was found sleeping in the contamination
- 10 ' control cubicle on July nineteenth, 1988. And a worker was 19 found sleeping in the au::iliary building on August third, 20 1988, 21 The 11RC noted in their report that these events do 22 reflect a continuing problem J.egarding management of idle 23 time of workers. .
24 W1 we would like a comment D.em GPU e s to what 25- thav are doing to help the .?itiiation along -- or not to help Heritege Itererting Corporation (202) c.;n-10pn k
E L.
.i ,.
69 1 the situation along, I should say. Excuse me.
2 CIIAIRIIA11 MORRIS : To discourage the situation.
3 (IS . STUCHIllSKY : That's a good one. Okay. To 4 discourage the situation.
5 Okay. The second one I would like a comment on is 6 the negative trend in contamination control measures.and the 7 rising number of skin contaminations.
8 This again is.from an NRC inspection report. I 9 have the n.imbers here. And the following one, there are 10 also noted in 11RC inspection reports that there are ongoing 11 problems with the plasma arc-cutting operations and releases 12 of Krypton -fl5.
13 And that is from a TliI status report from August 14 and September of 1908. So I have the reports. I would like 15 comment on that.
16 Those are my i s. e s h <.pr e s t i o n s . I just have a few 17 more comments to make.
10 ';nh1RMA11 lORRIS: Let me ask yon this, ask GPU 19 this.
20 Nould you prefer to try to respond now to those 23 points thet have been asked, liike , or would you prefer to 22 recpond at a later date?
23 t1S . .STUCHI115KY . That could be mede in writing, 24 with refes.ences.
25 tis . STUCUI11 SKY It is your choice. I mean if l
I l
fieritmoe
~
Rei'o di.n o Co meration l ( 2 0, ) (, n $- G n n n
70 1 you want to speak verbally, it becomes a written response q 2 for the record; whichever way you prefer.
i.
3 MR. ROCHE: I would prefer that we would prepare 4 a letter of response to the Panel.
5 CHAIRMA11 MOPRIS: Fine.
6 MS. STUCHIllSKY : Okay. Well, we will give you a 7 written request then with the inspection reports noted.
8 t1R . ROCHE: Okay.
9 113 . STUCIII11 SKY : Okay.
10 O t1A I Rt1All MORRIS: Okay. Again, so I understand '
i 11 the procedure, you would send the response to me, is that 12 what you are saying?
13 f.iR . ROCHE: Yes.
]4 CIIAIR11A11 MORRIS: And then I will get it to you?
15 That's fine. If you will just refer to whoever it was by i
I6 the transcript that asks a quastion so thet I know who to 37 get the response back to. I would be happy to do that.
18 813 . STUC11INSKY : Okay.
19 CRAIRMAt1 MORRIS: Thank you, Mike.
20 f 13 . GTUCilIll3KY . This is kind of just a rap about 21 the comments. In the last ten years I guess it has been 22 almost, thI.s Fanel has confronted and been exposed to an 23 amazing variety of issues including clean-up funding, leak-24 rate falsification, krypton venting dose estimates, 25 radiation monitoring, health affects, psychological s t r:e s s ,
Heritace Reporting Corrm ntien (2nz) c n--a g e n
]
.._.*b < j I
- 71. -
i 1- whistle-blower allegations, the' reactor head lift, polar 4
f2: . crarie failure, waste shipments, water disposal, evaporation 3 and FDMS.
i 4- And it is just amazing. .I know at. times we have-
-5 felt that.the views of'the pub 3ic have not been adequately 6 represented to the IIRC but I would like to commend you. The 7 transcripts of the Panel's meeting with the Commissioners on 8- October 25th of 1988 show that you very clearly' voiced the 9- public's -a tarm at the lack of . adequate criteria and funding 10- for PDMS.
11 And we would like to say that although at times 12 perhaps we h we not always agi.eed on issues, the Panel has 13 certainly provided a very important outlet for area 14 residents to air their grievances and to provide
, . 15 . constructive criticisms regarding the clean-up.
A
' 3 6- We understand there is some talk of your impending 17 demise. I know after this length of time you probably are
- 1. 0 hoping so.
19 Out we_ urge you to continue to meet with us until 120 the evaporation issue is resolved, until funding for PDMS is 21 clearly outlined, a program for FDMS is presented and 22 explained and decommissioning funding prerequisites from tha 23 IIRC are elucidated.
24 That sounds like a pretty tall order but I would
-25 .like to thank you for the yae?9 of representation.
l neritage Depad.ing Cerparntien (202) 62n-480n
, ,; . y-72x 1J CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Thank'you.for your kind 2: comments. 11 think one of the Panel members brought a. sign
}
3 that said "PDMS the Panel quickly".
4 (Laughter)'
5 But we shall see. Thank you very much.
6_ There were two other people'that indicated they 7 would like to make a comment at this point. -
D Where are those cameras? That.is what I want to
-9 know.
10' (Laughter) 11 Go ahead.
12 tiR . BAILEY: My name is Tom Bailey. I live in 13 Harrisburg. .I just wanted to state that I had talked with 14 Mayor Morti.s over correspondence and I think Mr. Masnik even 15 got a copy 16 Ne had talked about possibly having the whole 17 proceeding televised tonight but the woman that was' going to 10 do it'is unfortunately covering the lower Dauphin Council of 19 Governments so I don't feel upstaged.
20 If we can get the next one done, we will do that.
21 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: I.'on't feel opstaged.
22 (Laughs) 23 IIR DAILEY: Ona th.ing potentially for the 24 future. IC the Fenol would e-er allua poss Wly --- a f t e t: th" 25 NRC, I und?rstand this is IIRC proceeding, but if possibly iteritege Reperting Cerreration (202) Cin-4R00
71 1 citizen comment could precede utility comment, maybe they 2 could talk toward the end and let citizen comment in there 3 right a f te r the 14RC . Change of pace.
4 One item I had asked at the last Citizens Advisory 5 Panel meeting was that monitoring or a time segment be set 6 aside to review tha monitors that are currently around the 7 plant.
8 I had thought that tir. Morris said we could have 9 an agenda i. tem on that but it eppears that that is not an 10 item, so I just want to touch briefly on that.
11 Monitors around the plant, the sixteen real-time 12 monitors, if you remember there was a question of whether or 13 not they are going to remain during the time of the 14 potential evaporation.
15 And that policy decision, I don't knox whathet JG that has been mado. Mr. Toom was at the Dauphin County 37 Commissioners meeting last night and said that that policy 10 decision has net been made.
19 r just wanted to raise that it is the Dauphin 20 County Commissioners in 1982 or 1983 -- I think Mr. Rice 21 will be able to follow me on that -- voted to get and 22 purchase equipment that would read the monitors that are 23 owned by GPU.
24 &nd thet. those mouiters and the access by the
S public has really helped bacause over j v ." the last coup ] <s fieritean Repr*rtinT Cerperntien (292) 670-40nn
.e'* 'f.
7a 1; months -
- t think Debbie Davenport is going.to speak -- she 2 has been.able.to~ find elevatiens in radiation readings.just 3 by reading those monitors.
4 So I hope the Panel is aware of that. And if'you 5; folks feel that it is a good idea, maybe we should keep the 6 real-time monitors there.
~
7 You create the forum to let the NRC know that. I 8 am just seying as the citizens feel or myself, I feel it is 9 valuable. Hopefully thay will not pull them back, 10 especially now if we are talking about releasing more 111 radiation. That is my second topic. Evaporation.
12 Evaporation: there is.no other way around it.
13 You can go through as many slides as you want. It is 14 increased radiatien.
15 Okay. I am a young man.28 years old. My wife and b
- 16. 'I are here. She is not here 9t the meeting. She doesn't 17 come because she doesn't think-she can have any impact. I 18 don' t know if any of your neighbors or your family' feel that 19' way, but I will not have any children in this area. I will l 20 not have them here while we era dealing with a plant that .i s l
l 21 constantly increasing the: amount of radiation.
22 Has anyone asked is there even an issna as to l 23' whether or not the radiation in the area is going to go up?
24 Read the m,Lerials that the ni Hity puts out. I t. is a 25 percentaga of existing background.
Deritapa Pepor. ting Corporation (202) 6Z0-4R00
ti L
79 1 Does that really make a difference to you? Does 2 it really matter what percentage it is if it is increased
-3 radiation?
4 I mean just use your old common sense: greater 5 chance of injury. And it is all because of money. That is 6 my third topic.
7 Everything comes down to money, doesn't it? Did 0 you hear it now? The SDS is out. Can you picture them j
9 getting a plumber to come and take it out and say take this j 10 stuff out the back.
11 What.is it based on? . Money. Why not have the 1? water constantly going through there? Yes, you may 13 evaporate it on me but why not keep it getting as clean as 14 possible?
15 That doesn't go through their heads evidently.
16 But we aro here and the company wants to @' it. It comes 17 down to money because it costs too much.
10 Vid you know it costs too much? Why are we even 19 hele tonight? Approximately ten years ago we had an 20 accident. All this money that has been spent just to try t n 21 perpetuate the nuclear industry just so citizens have a 22 place to come and complain about it.
23 All of it money. That isn't even the healtb 24 ef f ects tb,t people heve hed L" pay because of the plant 1 i
?S may be a 3lttle strong, but if you want to talk about tha
!*eritege Reporting Corporation (202) 67n-aOnp
t . . .
,A tt r ,
7 r.
- ll plant, it ' costs too.much.
2 Especially if we could be using the atoney we are
. c, L3 spending _here to create a.'new . type of energy, maybe we
-4 wouldn't have'to be here and worry-about all this radiation SL being'. released. Yes, investing'in new types of energy would 6; 'be'a new idea.
7 tiewsletter . Mr. Toom passed out'a newsletter. I 8: don't know'if you are going to get'a copy. I am going to
.9 ask him if he.will give me a hundred copies of this. It is 10 great. ,
.11- -February 1989. What is the first thing you see?
J2 I will pas 3 it.around.
13 F1oney. THI's econortic contributions . We are
- 14. going to pass this out. They passed it out last night at 15 the Dauphin County Commissioner's meeting.
16 00 you know what the Dauphin County Commissioneta 1,7 want to hear? Jobs. Money. This keeps them -- our economy 18 strong.
'19' Hey, we will keep your economy strong. We will l
~ 20' pollute you at the same time. But we will give you money. ]
21 Then we got, the third page -- go ahead and ask Mr. Toom for 22 copies of 3.t .
23 n.ead it and reed it closely. The last page: l 1
24 "U.S. publi.c opinien on nuclee._ eue.tgy." B a.t graphs, right!
?5 You can read bar graphs pretty eesy Lnok at the bottom.
Heritege Reperting Cerraration (202) C.'. f t - 4 fi ft fl
,. i Tu 1 It.says the source is a 1988 poll by Cambridge Reports, 2 Incorporated with 1,500 nationally representative adults.
3 Since when is the U.S. population made up just of 4 adults?. You know why? Because kids don't want nuclear 5 energy because they are scared of it. They may have some 6 common sense.
7 1 am sure he will pass out cop 3es if you would 8 like. I would like to offer to write an article to be 9 printed in t.he same -- I personally would write it if they 10 would let me know. Then n,3ybe you would ha:re two sides to i 11 it. ]
12 1 don't think I will get the invite.
33 The last item is I would like to publicly invite 14 everyone here on the Panel to the events that are geing to 15 be unfortunately planned for Ihrch 27th. There is <foing tn 8
.t 6 be a Fress Conference at the State Capitol at 1:00 17 5:15 I believe on the island there will be a 10 vigil merking ten years since the accident. Those of you l 19 that lived around here will remember those days.
20 (f you didn't live around here, then maybe you 21 don't cara. It took me four end a half minute.* L<. driva
.22 here tonight from my house. I would like to ask how long it 23 took all oC you te drive he.te. Maybe members of the Panel 24 et members of the GEU communitv 25 I.f VoU 1179 h91e, ii moans 9 lot h t? yOH. At 6 1h IIerit?Ue IMPortiUp CorPorntiOH (202) 67.0-4009 l
l
- l. _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- , *x a.- >
'70 Ito 7:00_there is going to be a dinner at the Feeser Middle
~
E l' .
- 2. School'in.Middletown.
- 3. You are all invited. And'if you all come, I will 4 Hbe glad to welcome you to the' supper..
5; .Thank you.
6 CIIAIRMA11 MORRIS: Thank you.
- 7 I am pleased that we do have some members of the 8 ' Panel that come a long way because they are very interested 9 in the issue.
10- t4R . BAILEY: I am pleased, also.
11 CIIAIRMAt1 MORRIS : Okay. Thank you.
12 Yes, please.
13 t13 . DAVEtiPORT : I em Debbie Davenport for 14 Concerned riothers and Women.
.15 Sud I.am up hes_e for several reasons, one of which L .t 6 is I would-like the Panel to urge that the real-time 17 monitoring station, the Reuter-Stokes system,.be kept in.
10 It certainly isn't a-total answer. There can be
.19 ' readings that it would miss. But I am heping that if.it was
'20 in close to the plant in some stations, that maybe some 21 cituations that might result in a nuclear fire or a 22 criticality of some kind there would be picked up both in
%3 Units 1 or Unit 2 if there were a problem.
24 Fi?;es are what concern me in EDI.13 in Unit 110 2 25 the most This is my fear.
neritege neporting Corporati<m (2n2) 92n-annn i
go 1 3econdly, I did want to say something about the 2 evaporator and cost. I looked over some of your past Fanel 3 minutes and in that they first started saying that this l
~
4 method was picked, the evaporator, because it was the 5 safest.
6 And they had picked something that had the highest 7 cost, $6 million to $12 million including the cost of 0 renting the evaporator.
9 As time went on ovei two years, and particularly 10 this year, sudoenly it comes out that this will probably 11 cost $80,090 to GPU and my feeling is perhaps nothing at all 12 because at one meeting it was said that they would be 13 getting design royalties.
14 However, when the notes were printed up on that 15 meeting, that changed to the.ta was a buy-back agreement 16 between GFU and the person producing or building the vending 17 machine --
10 (Laughs) 19 The vending machine! That ' s about right. The 20 evaporator!
21 (Laughter) 22 The thing is, when we started this was not how 23 this was pt;esented. And in the EIS it was said that the 24 evaporatot would r"st $6 to Ol~ million.
?5 'l o w e v e r , the minutes indicate leter on that at vieritage Reparting Corporation (2ny) r,7 n - 4 p n n
l,l;; ; ,,
80 L l. that time GPU had five bids in and'they knew that-this was
, 2 the highest bid.
~3 -And 1 find it a little' bit hard to believe that 4 they didn't know that they were going to have a very' cheap 5 deal in this or even make.some money, 6' So I just wish they-had not misrepresented this to 7 any of us as being something that would benefit the citizens 0 here. I think they are making money.
9 People have made money on technology clean-up, D&W 10 being one company, and the development of new machines. And 11 my feeling is here that this might be the case with GPU.
'12 L.ast of.all, I do have a question to ask Mr. ,
( 13 Roche. I am asking about the area that is directly below
.14 the reactor vessel again.
- 1. 5 - ts there coing to b= more testing on that when
. f ..
16 they do do a survey of the lower vessel head. And secondly, ;
i l
17' will those waters be circulated through the evaporator or do 18 they plan to leave them there?
19 How many gallons of water are there now, by the I
20 way? l 1
21 CIIAIPliAU MOPRIS : Mike, can you respond to those?
22 I think there were three questions.
_ .2 3 How many gallons of water, will the water that is .
'24 at that locetion go thiovgb the evaporater, and three was 1 25 believe a testing question.
Peritage Reporting Corperntion (202) c.zn_4non i
.* t n1 1 MR. ROCHE: I didn't understand the questions
, 2 again. Could you try to go through them for me?
3 MS. DAVENPORT: Yes.
4 Will you be testing the waters in the sump 5 directly below the reactor vessel to assess what happened to 6 the lower vessel head in addition to testing the reactor 7 vessel heed itself.
O fir . ROCHE: The work that we are going to be doing 9 with the defueling will result in us removing the fuel from 10 the vessel Our intention is to drain the vessel 11 Below the vessel is the reactor building basement.
12 The basement water, the water has been basically removed.
13 There is a sump in the besement. We can test that.
14 we have no intention to evet send anybody in the 15 near future into the basement. I am not sure whether that k
16 answers tb? question.
17 But what sump are you talking about?
10 M3. DAVENPORT: The sump to the reactor vessel 19 Directly below there is a basement and below that basement 20 there is a slightly lower sump directly below the reactor 21 vessel.
22 MR. ROCHE: All right. That is the reactor 23 basement sump.
24 US. DAVENFORT: Yes. There in watet in there.
?S There was 't one point -- l l
1 Herite.ge Reperting Corporation
( 7.n- ) c;n_snnn
7,*: _ f.
, n2
.'l. MR. ROCHE: Yes.
l , . 2 tis ~. DAVEtIPORT : -- because it had been borated t
b '3- and I am wondering if studying that will have any bearing on 4 what.happens to the. lower head of the reactor vessel-and the 5 ' studies they plan to do.
6- Arnd secondly, do they plan to remove the water in 7 there and the materials ever? And,-if so, will you be
- 8- putting that water through the evaporator?
9
. !1R . ROCHE: The second question is the water in 10 the1 vessel? ,
11 MS. DAVENPORT: No.
12 CIIAIPl!All MORRIS : 1 think she said the wates; in 13 the sump if I am hearing her correctly.
14 F1R. . ROCHE : We have removed most of the water 15 from the basement. There is the small amount of water left 9
l 16, in the basement. We don't intend to remove any more of 17 that.
16 I;think what you are thinking is that there is a 19 connection that material is going to leave the vessel and go 20 into the sump in the reactor building basement?
[- 21 113 . DAVE 11 FORT : llo , that there is water already 22 there.
23 f 1R . ROCHC: Yes, there is water there.
24 113 . DAVE 11 FORT - Y a.= .
25 tin, noCHg: Ayid ua Hiow --
M9Eitag9 rep 9rting CorPPKPti""
(202) Mn-a000
i 83 1: tis . DAVENPORT: .How many gallons.
- [
u
, -2 f iP, . ROCHE: Yes. I'am not sure of the exact 3, number of gallons. I.have seen -- we have had a robot in 4 .the basement and I'have seen the robot working. There looks 5 to be maybe'an-inch or so of water left on the floorfin'the
.6 basement.
7- MS. DAVENPORT: Do you think that that material-8 will be'lett there or will it be'taken out, processed with 9 water or something or --
.10 f 1R . ROC 11E : Joe Kuehn'i 11 MR. KUEHN: Yes, Joe Kuehn. If I may,-on the
-12 water in the basement.
13' we know there is water in the basement, various-
- 14. levels in different areas. An inch in some places up to
'S half a, foot in others.
16 About 30,000-to 40,000 gallons of water apparently 17 in the basement. The ultimate disposition of that water
- 10. will be to drain through'that reactor building sump and 19 dispose of.that water through the same process as the rest -
20 of it.
-21 Filtering it first through the EPICOR system and 22 then processing through the evaporator.
23 f 13 . DAVEt1 PORT: Will they study that when they 24 study the lower vessel to see if anything did go through 25 from the rae<7 tor to thet a7:e e ;
Iteritepe Reporting Co7.rorntico -
(292) G"n-480n
e l';; L. C
- t. na l' MR. ROC 11E: We will know the chemical 2 constituents. We will know tha radioactivity. At this 3 point there is no intent to punch a. hole or in any-way make i i
4'. a-hole through the vessel that will allow water to go into I 5 the' basement.
6' MS. DAVENPORT: I am thinking of partial melt.
7 through.
O MR. ROCHE: I mentioned before about-the NRC 9 sampling. The sampling will help-us understand whether 10 there was any metallurgical demage to the vessel and that
' 11 .will help us understand what kinds-of conditions existed 12 there.
13 MS. DAVE 11 PORT: Okay.
14 MS. STUCIIINSKY: Okay. Thank you'.
'5 Thank you, Deboreh.
16 We will take a break at this point and reconvene
- 17. in about ten minutes, please.
~ 18 (whereupon, a brief recess was taken at 19 this time) 20 (13 . STUCIIINSKY : The next item on the agenda is a 21 presentation by Gr0 Staff regarding THI-II clean-up schadula 22 and funding.
23 And as they come forward, if I could mention for 24 the record that what Tom Bailov indicated in the first half 25 regarding the request for us to discuss the monitors around Heritece Reporting Corporation (202) 628-400n
- - _ _ -_ - _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,.c ): f:
A5
- 1 the plant, I do' recall that he made that request before and i c2: -we did indicate that it would be on a' future Panel meeting 3 and probabLy;should have been on this evening and it is an 4 oversight.
- 5. -30 we will try to include that.in the next Panel 6" meeting that is scheduled.
7 Mike Roche, .you are on, sir.
D. MR. ROCHE: I am Mike Roche. I wanted to just 9 review with the Fanel the milestones that we have set for 10' ourselves and-give you kind of an update where we are-11 relative to those milestones.
12- The earlier session I had talked to you about the 13 areas of the systems outside the reactor vessel. During the 14 . break,'I talked to the person that is responsible for the
, 15 ' measurements in the steam generators.
! A
.L 6_ Mayor Morris had asked me about the 60 kilograms 17 in that'"B" steam generator. And I was told that the reason 18 that that value was as high as it was is that there is on 19 the upper tube sheet.of that generator a crust of material 20 that is hard -- that we were unable to remove it.
21 That is the reason for the 60 kilograms.
22 So the first line talks about outside the reactor
- 23. vessel, that being complete. The second line shows the 24 reactor vessel defueling being completed in June of 1909.
25 Ne currently are running about two to three months neritaae Reportino Corporation (292) 920-40np
. y n r, 1 behind the' schedule. The reason for that is that, for 2- example, the third plate, the third horizontal. plate down in-- g 3- the bottom of.the vessel, we have expected to be able to cut ,
t
'4. .and remove that plate in approximately.six weeks.
"5- We ended up taking three'and a half months to do 6- the work. The reason that it took us so much longer was the 7 technology that'we were using, the Pas-Mark (ph) technology,
'O we were usi.ng that technology right at its upper limit.
9- We were cutting through'a portion of that-forging
.10 that was two and e half inches thich and that is the maximum 11 that that torch technology can cut.
12 Although we only had to make a-small number of
~
.13 cuts, relatively speaking we ended up having to make three 14 to four' times the number of cuts because we were cutting
, 15 essentially blind.
16 Mur torch would go down a hole in the forging.
17 The forging is thirteen inches thick.
- The torch would be 18 going,either up or down depending on how we had the torch
.19 traveling and we could not tell while we were cutting
'20 whether we were making a complete cut.
21 -90 in a number of holes we had to go back, put the
- 22. torch in and recut. That process was excruciating for us 2 3 .- and so thet is one of the problems that has caused us 24 delays.
25 Ne are currently, an I mentioned, we have remoimi r
tieritnoe Reportino Corporation (2n2) <,7n-annn
.. ee*
n-1.
n7-
<1- in the neighborhood o'f about_20,000 pounds of material which 2 had-fallen down'to that lower head.
3; That material has been removed:in the last --
~4' since' January thirteen. We expect to be going-and cutting 5- that fifth plate.
6 We do also have the material to remove from both
.7 behind the baffle plates and.in the lower periphery. And et 0 'this point we expect in.a realistic-way_that it is going to
~
9 :take us probably another two to three months beyond what we 10- :are showina liere.
11 I am in the process now of revising, making an 12 official tevision to the schedule and we will.be-finishing 13 that work towards the end of March.
14 The lower head sampling, that is the reactor head 15 sampling I mentioned, that is a thirty-day period that will 16 be done at the end of our detveling.
17 The fuel shipping, we expect --that currently on 18 the-schedu1.e is shown as ending in 11ovember. I would expect
- 19 some small delay in that program because of the 20 unavailability of material to .vhip.
21 1 don't expect, if defueling slips two months,--I 22 don't expect a day slip in the shipping itself, the 23 finishing of the shipping.
l I
j 24 8 mentioned ea.tlier that we had taken this, made a 25 change in our apptoech to the unrk separating tha dafueling neritnaa nepe.v. ting Corporn.tian (2n2) c.7n-4pnn l
l - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _
I an
(
l
[ 1 from the decontamination.
l t,
i 2 And you see the date for decontamination being 1
3 August of 1990. That is the entra time that we have added 4 to the schedule to do the decontamination work.
5 In terms of the goals I mentioned I think in i 6 response to Mr. Roth, that we have'three goals in the 7 defueling work.
O Additionally, we have in the decontamination work 9 a' series oC end points, if you will, that we have submitted 10 to the URC for systems and areas in the plant.
11 Our intent is to meet the goals for defueling and 12 the end poi.nts. We currently expect to not achieve maybe 13 one or two end points; that we believe that the work we have 14 done in those areas is all thet needs to be done to insure 15 the safety of our workers and the public.
16 10 the project intends to achieve the goals that 11 7 we have laid out for both the defueling and the 10 decontamination effort.
39 f.n terms of the funding, the company has the fund.m 20 to complete the work. We intend to complete the work 21 according to achieve our goals.
22 And the funding is the same that I think Frank 23 S t aneler f e). went ove.t with you in the September meeting, the 24 cource of the funds.
25 30 that is kind of mc thumbneil sketeb of where we peritace Reeny 3 mv Ceworation (202) M.0 4000 l l
l I
... j. !
i 04 .
1 are. I am open to questions.
2 CHAIRMAll 110PRIS : Tom?
J 3 MR. SMITHGALL: That doesn't sound like good news ,
4 to me.
S Well, I will just go back to July of last year 6 when you told us that you had defueled 195,000 pounds and 7 shipped of f about 181,000 pounds.
8 And it looks like the progress on this thing has 9 really flattened out pretty much.
10 t iR . ROCllE : We essentially shipped no material or 11 very little material because while we were cutting these 12 plates we cannot be doing any removal or material from the 13 reactor vessel.
14 MR. SMITHGALL: I understand.
15 t had two questions. One I have asked I think
/
.t t, every time about this and it has to do with shipping 17 canisters. Ken Miller is going to laugh at me. You guys 18 kilJed me on this one time but I am going to continue to ask 19 it.
20 t want to make sure you have enough to ship off or 21 enough canisters to ship everything off.
22 30 how is the availability of that? Ilow do you 23 projact that out?
24 15R . ROCHE: We beve three types of canisters:
- ' 5 the fuel c ,.n i s t a r s , tlia f i .i t e '. canisters au.I the knock wut.
.freritage Repod;ing Corporation (202) C'; n-4 0 p p
18 j 90 1- canisters.
E We currently believe that'we have sufficient 3 number of canisters. What we are able to do is to use the.
4 . filter canisters or the-knock-out canisters for very fine 5 material.
6- I think we have, if we have any. shortage-it is in 7 the fuel-canisters themselves. We believe that we*can 8 husband our resource of canisters and be able to ship all 9 the materi9.1 off.
10 MR. SMITHGALL: Does that mean you would have to 11 wait for one to return before you could ship off again? Is 12 that the process?
'13 MR.'ROCHE: We don't recycle the canisters.
14 MR. SMITHGALL: My second part of that is if it in l .1 5 ' taking you longer to actually'defuel, how do you project 16 your funds beAng available for continued delays?
17 MR. ROCHE: We do have a contingency in terms of
'10 funding that I have available to me and I intend to use that 19 contingency as needed.
20 If I exceed the contingency, then we will have to
- 21 go back th'.ough the processes in the company to try to get' L 22 more funds associated to perform the clean-up.
l 23 Out currently I believe the funding we have in the 1
24 contingency will see us threuub the work as we currently see l'
l 25 it.
H9Citege Repo? ing Corpore. tion (202) 4.an-400n
.' t 91 1 tm. SMITHGALL: If the cost share funding runs 2 out, is corporate ready to foot the bill beyond that point
'3 or are you going to have to go back to all the entities and 4 say we need another million dollars from everybody again?
5 Is that part of you?. contingency plan?
6 tm. ROCHE: There is no contingency plan to go I
7 back to the entities. We intend to achieve the goals and we 9 intend to pay for it.
9 IE. SMITHGALL: I don't have any more on it.
30 CHAIPJ4A11 MORRIS- '"ould I maybe ask e coupla of 11 questions here?
12 fou indicated that the source of funds, Mike, is 13 basically the same as was outlined some time ago. Weren'L 14 there recently some additional millions of dellers adde <1 t<>
15 the total 1:itty'of monies that were some additional monien 16 provided by GPU to this effort?
17 MR. ROCHE: Yes. The company in their '80 i
10 financial report did indicate the addition of -- the number i 1
19 is in the neighborhood of $12 niillion. In the broad scheme 20 of things i. n terms of the $'973 million, that doesn't 21 appreciably change the ratio of all the various parties.
22 Out the company did provide another $12 million on 23 top of what -- and 1 believe the company's share was in 24 er. cess of 3100 millien et the time.
25 CHAIntin11 MORRIG- I em concerned somewhat with Tieritage Reporting Corporation (292) C.U-400R l'
e-______________________________ _ _- _
.' t 92 1 the fact that we never seem te get to the gold, the endpoint 2 for the fuel removal. It seems like we were always three or 3 four or five months behind.
4 I am concerned that we are not going to meet the 5 June 30th date. We are going to be two or three months 6 behind that and come August we are going to be three months 7 again behind.
8 And I wonder whether the utility may at some point-9 decide that you don't need to remove all of the fuel from 10 the reactor vessel as originally proposed and that you would 11 try to make some argument that that ought not to be done; 12 not necessarily because you don't have the money but that I 13 think would be the driving force behind it.
14 Snd I am just concerned that at some point you are 15 going to do that. And I am net hearing you saying that is 16 tha case. I am hearing you saving that you intend to rammta 17 all the fuel.
18 But one thing concerned me and that is you 19 mentioned that you may not achieve two AREEA end points.
20 Can you tell us what those two end points are and speak to 21 the guestion of fuel removal from the reactor itself, 22 particularly from the bottom 7 23 MR. ROCHE: The end points, for example there is 24 a cubicle that is called tlie wel injection cubicJe. TL is 25 a cubicle tbnt was er.tremely 'mntaminated e fter the Tieritage Seporting Corporetico
( 2 n;,) c 7 n-- s p n n l
u' t l n1 1 accident.
2 We have worked in th=t cubicle and tried to remotra 3 the contamination. We have made substantial progress on l 4 that. But that, at this point, the effort to finish, to get 5 the end points that we had ascribed for that cubicle would f
6 involve us essentially taking apart the cubicle. j
'7 We would tear down the cable trays over head. We 8 would tear down all of the exposed piping. And doing that, 9 it in our judgment that because that cubicle will not have 10 to be monitored, will not heve to be entered in a monitore<1 11 condition, that it does not represent a threat to either the 12 worker in the monitored storage condition or is a threat to 13 either release of contaminants to the environment.
14 That is the type of P.ioblem that this one 15 particular cubicle that we face. We have another area which 4
J. 6 there are two tanks, make-up and purification tanks. You 17 may have heard about these tanko in prior sessions.
JH Cach of these tanks had resin material in tha 19 tanks. We had worked on one of the tanks and worked 20 diligently to remove the resin material.
21 We succeeded. We still have a little bit of tesin 22 material in the tank that exits from that tank. The B tank 23 had the same type of resin material. I beve e personal coni 24 to take that material out of that B tank that is currentJv 25 t h e.t e .
Heri' ace Repnycting Ce w o.tnti.an (202) c7.n-4nnn
.- : 1 I
1 94 1 ( intend to do that after the defueling is 2 completed. But whan we analyze again the implications of 3 leaving that material behind from an exposure to the worker 4 or a potential relaase, we believe that we could safely 5 argue that that could be left.
6 That is the type of situation. Those are the two 7 that are currently in my mind. And that is the issue that 1 0 was talking about, the practicality of attacking the 9 contaminat ion is what it comes down to.
10 Should we expend the exposure to the worker to 11 tackle that right now or should be wait to allow the natural 12 decay to take place and tackle it at a later time?
13 Coming back to your first point or first question, 14 my current personal goal and the company goal is to achieva 35 the goals as I have laid them out.
?
l .i 6 I know at this point I have no intention of 17 trying to come back and change it. I must tell you that in la my tenure et TMI-II this is as true research and development 19 project.
I 20 Every time we have taken a plate out or we have 21 done something that we think we know whet is goina to be 22 behind there, often we are right but sometimes we are wrong.
23 And I mentioned about the material on tha lowar 24 head. That material is hard. We believe that it is cerami,;
i wa baliava that it will fractnta end that wa l 25 in natura.
i l
IIeritage P.? pod.iOg Co.T o?JAtion (202) s;n-annn
't 95 ;
I will be able to remove it. )
2 Out I would be kidding you if I told you that I 3 have complete 100 per cent knowledge of what is going on, 4 what we are going to have to do.
5 We think we have a firm understanding of the 6 engineering, of the tooling, of the processes we are going ]
7 to follow.
O But currently, to answer your question 9 straightforward, I intend to achieve the goals that we laid 10 out.
11 CIIAIRMA11 MOPE,IS: Okay. Just a follow-up 12 question then, liike .
l 13 The level of funding effort -- and I think they go 14 hand in hand -- at the Island now on TMI-II, can you give me 15 a comparison for the first ei; months of this year versua 1G last year, what kind of effort is going on both as funding 17 and maybe man-hourn?
lu Or, number of workers that you have? I am just 19 trying to get a feel for whether you are cutting back on the j 20 clean-up and, if so, to what degree is that happening.
l l 21 necause i still f e e.1 even though I know you can't 22 predict and I have appreciated the work that has been done 23 from a technological standpoint by the operator. I think 1
24 you have d me some very fine things in technology and that 25 it in hard to predict.
Heritsge nere?. ting Correr= tion
( 2 fl 7, ) C2 f t - S H R D 1
l
.*- t o r, 1 Put that aside, I am concerned about the effort 2 that is bei.ng made. I think there may be some cut back in 3 effort causing the delays. I am not hearing you say that 4 but I am concerned that that may be happening.
5 tiR . ROCHE: The manning for the people that are 6 doing the clean-up, that would be the people specifically 7 doing the work, currently is ebout 525 people.
8 That would include engineers, supervisors, 9 managers s'id people that would be manning the defueling 10 platform.
- 17. That number, we have had that number decline from 12 1988. I wouldn't be able to give you 6.ind of an average but 13 my guess iJ the 525 is down 150 or so on the average from 14 the 1988 I?vels.
15 A.ud that, if you think of the components that 1 16 described of the work, that is the defueling work, the 17 decontamination work, what you will find is the biggest 18 change is i.n the decontamination work.
19 What we intended to do, as I mentioned was to have 20 tlie decont'mination work be done after the defueling is 21 done.
22 30 the relative chance of the defueling people 23 f rom the people who physically were either engineering ---
- 4 is not substantial decline M the.te has beon a declina.
25 t don't currently attribute any of the delays to n e ritage Reporting Correlation (202) g2n-apnn
I
. g 97 I
i 1 the lower work force. In fact, the delay that I described 2 when we were taking the forging out, we had the larger work l 3 force that I was describing.
4 So at this point there is no evidence to me that 5 delays that we have experienced in the past are correlated 6 with a smaller work force.
7 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: And how about funding levels 8 for maybe a six-month period or whatever?
9 MR. ROCHE: There is a direct proportion between 10 the manning and the funding, assuming that we are not 11 purchasing large pieces of hardware.
12 lio roughly 80 per cent of our cost, our man power 13 cost, in terms of the dollars, if you think of the dollars 14 globally from year to year, 'A8 to '09, our '09 dollars a.te 35 roughly half currently.
(
.t. 6 And that is because that budget is p.tedicated on 17 the defueling being completed halfway through the year. So 18 our budgets are directly in proportion to the manning and 1 19 mentioned that we have the contingency which I will be using 20 to make up the shortfall from having to increase or extend 21 the defueling people's time through the year.
22 CilA1RMA11 110PRIS : Yes. tiaybe it took me a long 23 time to get there but that really is the very concern that I 24 have. Thet if it i.s a d.. rect proportion to the number of
?S peop3e - vou have 525 people working there now. You have Heritage Reporting corporation (202) 6 'f. H - 4 0 f151
! ** t i o !
98 1 reduced the decontamination effort but you say you have not 2 cut back on the fuel removal effort.
3 But you are spending I guess a fair amount of 4 money in at least the first six months of the year with the 5 hope that you will complete the fueling by June, fully 6 knowing that you can't do what your budget wants you to do.
7 And I am concerned that --
I don't know the level 0 of contingency that you have available -- but I am concerned 9 if the defueling -- I think Tem Smithgall touched on this 0-10 - if the defueling continues to be delayed and you start 11 getting into six, eight, nine months of delay and you still 12 need to have 400 or 500 people working on that effort, 1 13 think you are going to run out of money.
14 C mean it seems to ine : let me ask you how much 15 contingency do you have for this project?
i J. 6 I !P. . ROCilG : Expressed in a percentage, in excess 17 of ten per cent.
18 CilAIPHAII MOPRIS: iManing $90 million then, or 19 plus or minus?
20 I IR . ROCHE: I em a little bit uncomfortable 21 talking about our annual budget.
22 CIIAIRMA11 MOPRIS : Okay.
1 23 fin. ROCHE: I was erpressing it as a percentage of 24 thin yeat ,
budget 25 CIT AIPliA11 MORRIS : Okey
(
i.reritage nermting coweratien
( '2 (Vf ) 6"n-4000 t_.___--_-___-_-_
.# t j 1
. 1 99-1 MR. ROCHE: Let me just respond. I think when 3 2 joined this project, which was in September, I think in that-3 Panel meeting I described to you that we were going through 4 a review of the budget at that time. j 5 We were to have completed the defueling in October 6 of 1988.
7 CIIAIPliAU MORRIS : I understand.
0 81R . ROCHE: The change that I described in ter.ms 9 o f the company's contribution was as a result of that 10 review.
11 [ would offer that my intention is to achieve the 12 goals of the defueling and the decontamination and I will be 13 in that same type of a budget review process that we went 14 through in 1980 dealing with my contingency and how I can 15 fund it.
i
.i 6 90 I am trying to gire you some level of assutance 17 that this i.s not a new -- the phenomena, this approach, is 10 not new. We have done it before and we may have -- I hope 19 not -- but we may have to do it again.
20 CItAIRMAD MORRIS: Well, again, I am not 21 questioning what your goals are. I do think that if monay 22 becomes a problem that your goals may be changed, not 23 necessarily by you but by others.
24 And I centinue to pursue it because I am c on ce .t. n w.1 25 again that the monay is not going to be there a nel I don ' t' U=ritage Reperting Correlation (202) ';; n-a n o n
- A' s 100
- 1. still feel comfortable that it is and maybe there is sor'eway
-2 that we can get some information on what your annual budget l
3 is for this coming year and maybe how you will deal with the 4 three-month overrun.
- 5. I sit here and I hear what you are saying about
, 6 decontamination and that you decide to phase it rather than 1
7 have two go on at the same time. You are having one go 8 forward and then decontamination later, and that is because 9 there was concern that you were cleaning up an area and then 10 contaminate.ng it again and it was hurting worker morale. l 11 1 personally wonder whether there was any factors 12 regarding Cunding in that decision to stretch out the money, 13 not spend so much this year and put some into the next year. l 14 As we are getting closer to the end I am getting 15 more concerned about what happens in a year or two when the i
16 money runs out. I guess that is the bottom line.
17 MR. ROCHE: The point I made before was that my 10 decision to phase the work is actually increasing the cost. ;
19 CHAIRMA11 MOPRIS: If that is the case, I 20 appreciate it because it is not what I mentioned a minute 21 ago. I sai.d the opposite.
22 t am concerned about the money basically being 23 there to complete the job. And I probably said enough at 24 this point, although 1 would be very interested in getting
?S frem you joformati?n that you may beve regerding the tote.1 1
Heritace Repertino Corporation
( 7,n 2 ) czn-4nnn
' .. e s g 101 1 budget that you had for the project, how much you spent to j 2 date and what you expect to need to spend for this year and 3 next year.
4 If you have any projections like that that you 5 could make available to us at some point, I think it would 6 be helpful.
7 fir . ROCHE: I will take that question back and 8 evaluate it. I am a little bit uncomfortable at this point 9 going through the financial aspects of the work.
10 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Yes. I am not asking you to do 11 that now. I understood. You mentioned that earlier. I 12 would like you to go back and see if you un provide that 13 information to us.
14 MR. SMITHGALL: Just as a side-bar to that,-this 15 is the issue -- and you weren't here when we went through r
16 all this -- is to get this thing funded or attempt to 17 facilitate or to bring to bear the parties that had to cost--
18 share this.
19 30 this is very important to the paople that sit 20 on this Penel that this thing gets funded.
l 21 And you also have to understand thet the Chair's 22 concern and my concern is that if money runs out, and it j 23 could be that you are defueled but you are not 24 decontamin ated, and that also impacts en tha othat issua 25 that is going to come in front of this Fauel, EDUS Heritage Reportino Corporation (202) 62n-48An 1
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ i
k l
- I j i
102 I 1 So I was right along with Art in his pursuing of 2 those questions and I hope you don't think we are dogging )
0 3 you on that. I 4 It is very important to this Fanel. This is not 5 an issue where an administrative law judge can pass on real 6 quickly and we can just get on with business.
7 We really want to know about this. At least I do.
8 So just as a side-bar to that.
9 CHAIRMAIT MORRIS: Thank you, Tom.
10 Joel, I think you wented to --
11 tiR . ROTH: Yes. Just try to help me sift through 12 some of th is, please.
13 You mentioned in the September meeting where the 34 letter from Ed Kintner got to the point of funding and --
15 liR . ROCHE: That is a different kind of funding J6 though.
17 MR. ROTH: Okay. That is just what I want to 10 clarify on this point. Just saying that there would be 19 adequate funding and it would include all work from PDMS 20 condition through the end of the commissioning.
21 That is basically what his letter, if I am 22 understand ing, is that correct?
23 tiR . ROCHE: His letter I think dealt with 24 decommission ~ing. I was not talking at all about that.
25 tiR . ROTH: Right. In other. words, we are talking Heritage Reporting Corpora. tion (202) 62n-4nnn
'.
- t i
l 107
'l basically about your project schedule which has nothing --
2 in other words, the guarantee that he is putting on paper 3 here is not the type of guarantee we are talking about this 4 evening, is that correct?
5 MR. ROCHE: That is correct.
6 FIR . ROTH: Okay. So I guess a couple of the 7 questions then that I have is as Art has done and Tom has 8 done in probably a very diplomatic way, and you being new 9 into the s ituation and I can sense your uncomfortableness in 10 discussing dollars.
11 But we have been. discussing dollars since 1980.
12 You know, we have heard all sorts of generalities. And I 13 think at this point now there is sort of a feeling among 34 some of us, maybe among all of us -- I don't know the 15 numbers, we haven't discussed it -- just what Art and Tom
>d were sayin'J.
17 The fact is that the dellars are going to run out )
18 and there i.s going to be an appeal to the 11RC or something 19 of that nature.
20 So I would just like to know, (a) who makes the 21 decision on making public those numbers? In other words, 22 you said you have to go back to discuss this with somebody.
23 who is that "somebody"?
24 UR. ROCHE: I would talk to my boss Ed Kintne.t.
I 25 f iR . ROTH: Okay. And when would thet take place'.
Heritege Reperting Comorntien (202) c;n-4nnn
U !.4, :t 104
'1 MR, ROCHE: Not tonight.
- 2 (Laughter)-
3 MR.lROTH: Okay.
4 MR. ROCHE; It will be shortly.
5- MR. ROTH: Now I guass I am not finished. lt would' 6~ like'to throw this to Mike at the'NRC, Mike, is:there 7- anything in NRC procedures thatfsays anything about a
- 8. utility disclosing dollars?
9 is there any problem with that? Or ishthat'just a 10 utility decision?
11 MR. MASNIK: I can only look at the historical
~
12 record and that is thtt we have had that information before. .
13: I don't know if this is a change in company policy or an 14- unfamiliarity with the procedure on the part of Mr. Roche.
.15 Out to my knowledge there is no problem as far.an
?
16' the NRC is concerned in disclosing this information.
17 MR. ROTH: Okay. So basically we could feel 10' comfortable then in saying that in the very near future we 19 would start seeing numbers rather than percentages of 20 unexplained numbers which become absolutely generic and we 21 could sit hate and discuss, like Art said, ten per cent of 22 - what.
23 L feel very uncomfortable and I think othdi people 24 are feelinu uncomfortable with that. Again, you are the 25 persen leeding this task.
Uoritage
- Reporting Corporation (202) czn-annn
h 4 's
'105 -
- .1 - t guess the statement that I probably would like-
-2 .to make'at this. point to you is to say that we really need 13" those numbers and anything less than those numbers would p 4 really be going backwards as far.as the utility was-5- concerned with public information.
6 I think it is right -- that we do have the.right 7 to know that and I would hope that you would convey that to 8 Mr. Kintner, wherever he may be.
9 And to actually see these numbers, ' dollars to 10 date. I mean how many dollars have you allocated to do the 11 reactor vessel'defueling. I mean that is important to know.
.12- How much have you spent so far.
13 Then we can ste.rt looking at what that three or
'14 four-montb delay really means in numbers. Because I am 15 getting a tremendous sense of frustration just going over 16 and'over again with the feelings that some of us are having 17 on these.ei;e the possibilities.a that can happen and all we 18 get back really is well we have a commitment.
'19 And-I think you have to understand that we have 20 heard this for eight years or nine years, " commitments", and 21 sometimes those commitments really don't hold up when they 22 are looked at very carefully.
23 And .1 think in this case it is the crunch time now 24 where we are nearing the end of. this hopefully and we really 25 want to be sure that the utility really b 1ds to its promise Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 629-4809
.* i 1
)
106 1 and cleans'it up and doesn't leave X-number of thousands of 2 pounds in the reactor because we ran out of money and we 3 don't have the staff because we have laid them off.
4 We want to see that now so that we can do whatever 5 is necessary to make sure that does not happen. I hope that 6 is what you convey to -- I can't say "my friend" Ed Kintner ,
i 7 -- but to Mr. Kintner that that is definitely something that 8 we strongly want: numbers. You know, ten per cent of what?
9 Ilow many dollars have you spent to date? What is budgeted 10 to date?
11 Otherwise, we are talking and we are just wasting 12 our time and your time probably.
13 CHAIRMA11 MORRIS: Mike, just on that, and I don't 14 want to belabor the point. You should understand what it is
- 1. 5 we want, I.ghti i
- e. 6 (Laughter) i 17 You don't have any question on it?
10 tiR . ROCHE: I don't have a question. I 19 CIIAIRMA11 MORRIS: Fine.
20 (Laughter) 2' tiR . MILLER: I am not sure I am as much concerned l
22 about the exact dollars in his budget as what Joe is but I I 23 think what bothers me, if I heard correctly, funds have been 24 appropriated for six more menthe plus a ten per cent 25 contingency.
IIeritege neperting Corporation (202) 6;n-anen
.*- t 107 1 That means you can oo eighteen days beyond that:
- 22. siemonth period. That is cutting it up pretty' thin.
3 MR. ROCHE: I am sorry. I gave you the wrong 4 impression. We typically budciet for two years and that 5 process of budgeting is revisited typically three times a l 6 year.
7- And so I misled you if you thought I only have 0 money for six months. I have money budgeted for two years.
9 And the contingency that I was trying to describe in a 10 somewhat artful waygis ten per cent of my total year's 11 budget.
12 And I -recognize the comments of the Panel. I am 13 sorry that, as Mike says, if we have provided this kind of 14 information in the past. I don' t have any instructions not.
15 to provide this information. I am just uncomfortable at i
.t 6 .this point knowing what I can or what I shouldn't.
17 CHAIRMM1 MORRIS: I think we understand that.
18 And.I think that would be put to rest very quickly if we 19 could g'et the information fairly quickly.
20 ff you would evet check the first couple years of 21 these Panel meetings, maybe the first three, you would see 22 we spent a considerable amount of time on this issue.
23 And I think, as the point was made, we are gett.ing 24 to crunch time now and that is why it is necessary to 25 refocus.
Ileritag9 P.eporting Corporation (202) 620-109H
v.
I: n o. $
100
- 1. Are'there any other guestions or comments that 2 Panel members have'on that issue at'this point?
i 3 MR. WALD: Just one comment that strikes me and I 4 think maybe it has been mentioned already, that this issue l 5 has a direct bearing on the planning for PUMS, the extent of 1
6 PDMS and where the end point is. t 7 And many of the things that we have not been 8 comfortable about, since everybody is trying to be 9 comfortable tonight.--
10- (Laughtet) 11 That particular issue, I think this is very 12 closely related. I don't see how anyone can address the 13 matter of CDMS including its' funding without knowing how far-14 the decontamination goes.
15 That is a comment, not a question.
26 MR. ROCHE: Not to beat a dead horse, but I 17 intend-to achieve the goals of defueling and the end points 18 and the decontamination. I have obviously not convinced you 19 but my goat, the company's goal, Ed Kintner's goal, is to 20 achieve those points.
21 CHAIRMM1 MORRIS: Give us the monetary numberr: to 22 support what it is you are saying. That is what we are 23 saying.
24 increase our comfort level with those numbers.
25 (Leughter)
Heritace Repertino Corporation (2nz) c?n-annn i
____.____.___.___.m_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.' s 1 f10 1 Any other comment before we go into the next item, 2 which is for us to discuss this particular aspect unto l
s 3 ourselves.
4 (10? response) 5 t don't see anybody else at this point ready to ao 6 in so, Michael, thank you.
7 The next item on the agenda is really for the 8 Penel to dtscuss the schedule and funding. We have kind of 9 discussed that pretty extensively here. But this is an 10 opportunity for any member that would went to make any 11 particular comments at this time to do so.
12 (103 response) 13 I don't see any special comments. So we can go
.4 1 right into the public comment if we are ready to do that.
15 is there anybody frem the public at this time that 16 would like to make any comment" 17 (No response) 18 I don't see anybody. Going once --
19 MS. STUCHINSKY: I have a clarification.
20 CHAIRMAD MORRIS: Clarification on?
21 euld you come to the mike, please, because we 22 would like to get it on the record.
23 t 13 . STUCitI113KY : A clarification on the 24 transcript 25 CithII' lim 1 !! OPT.I 3 - Xes, thet.e is a peint le le Tierit age Repo?. ting Con'o?:ntion (292) 620-40nn
.. . 1 1
11.0 1 clarified. There was a auestion that was asked and we said 2 that we would wait until the very end to resolve it, give 3 Vera a chance to go through the transcript.
4 She has done that and she is going to, I think, 5 read the question.
6 MS. STUCHIllSKY : This is from the NRC Flant Status 7 Report of July ninth through August sixth, 1988.
O "The NRC Staff noted that one plant area has been 9 isolated and placed in interim post defueling monitored 10 storage status.
31 "Seven other plant areas are in procese of being 12 verified to meet the interim PDMS isolation criteria."
13 So we were questioning what is this initial phase i4 of PDl13 planning.
15 rir Roche or tit . 11a suik, if anyone could respond (6 to it?
17 CHAIRMAll MORRIS: Did you hear the question and 10 understand the question?
19 Just for the record, I think that was taken right 20 out of the transcript from the meeting.
21 IIR ROCHE: I did remember that from the meeting.
22 I didn't remember it being a question posed to us.
D t think what it was reflecting was something 1 24 talked about earlier and that is that we have been trying to
'S decontemin3te systems and exee to the end points descrited neriteue v ois m ing Cmm e ra timi (2nZ) c/n-4non
3 5-
.O
- 111
.1 in the envi_ronmentel impect statement.
2- I believe these seven areas are areas that we were 3 able to get those to the1end' points that we described in the.
4 PEIS, 5 MR. MASHIK: I would just like to clarify'that. I
'6 think wh,at you meant to say was your safety analysis report 7 which lists the areas and the criteria.
'8 And then those were reported to' us, we just 9 included that information in our plant status report.
10- IfR . ROCHE: And I believe later on in the year,-
11 as I mentioned before, roughly 80 per cent of the systems 12 and cubicles we got into that condition and that number 13 dropped back.
l'4 CHAIPJiA11 MORRIS: Thank you.
j l5 M3. GTUCHIt13E7 Thank you.
(6 CRAIRMAlf MORRIS: Okay. Panel, yes?
17 IIR . MILLER: I am just wondering, Art'. It seems 18 that,we have asked the question a number of times at a 19 number ~of meetings just how do you determine that any area 20 qualified to PDMS and we have never gotten an answer.
21 ond now it seems like one or possibly eight areas 22 are either going into that or being considered for it.
23- I still don't recall ever getting an answer to how 24 do you determine an area that qualifies for that.
25 (Peuse) l' ne ritage Reporting Comoration (202) 6;n-annn f
i i
~
[i ..
- .* s..
112 1- ';11AIRt1A11 t10PRIS : . lfike, I think'that is directed 2 at you. We would like you.to respond, if you could.
3 f fR . ROCHE: The areas or systems, we have some l
'4 survey plan that we use that our health physics technician 5 survey according to that plan.
l 6 -When the surveys indicate that those levels, that 7- the Phase 3 end points which is.the term that is used in the 0- safety anal.ysis report, when those end points are achieved 9 either for general eree or hot spots or any of the various
.10 types of surveys, the.t is when we declare that that area of, ,
11 system has achieved.that end point.
12 Se each of them have a survey plan.
13 MR. MILLER: 11y question was were those end 14 points ever provided to us and I don't recall ever getting 15 tnem.
. .t G MR. 11AStiIK : Those end points are, again, listed
'17 in the safety analysis report. It was a two-volume set. In 18 fact, I brought it one night to the meeting and I said if 19 anybody wanted to --
20 tiR . MILLER: Mike, you.can't expect us to review 21 a two-volume set in an evening here.
22 tiR . MAS 11XK : Well, I understand that.
23 f iR . MILLER: We have been asking for these end 24 points now for the last three meetings.
- 25 fin. MAS 111K : I will make a copy of the document Iteritaco -Reporting Comoratien (202) C.n-40nn
r.
113 1 available to you, Ken.
-2 MR. MILLER: I don't want the whole document. I 3- just want to know what the end points are.
6 MR. MASNIK: I will send you the section that has 5- that.
6 MR. MILLER: That I would appreciate.
7 CHAIRMAN MORRIS: Mike, if you could do that for 8 all the Fenel members unless it is a section that is 100 9 pages long.
10 Ant if it is something that is ten, fifteen, 11- twenty pages, I think that may be helpful.
12 MR. MASDIK: I will do that.
13 CHAIRMAH MOPRIS: Thank you, Ken.
J4 Sny other _ iteras en this particular aspect befo3 e 4
15 we talk about the next meeting?
iG (flo response) 17 CHAIRMAH MOPRIS: Run while you have a chance, 18 Mike.
19 (Laughter) 20 okey. If I could, it is close to 10:00 and I 21 would like to talk about when we might meet again.
22 I had been asked some time ago by Eric Epstein to 23 schedule et. esk the Fanel to schedule a meeting on the 2 7 t- h .
24 Dut we reetly never got too fe). in doing that. There was a 25 feeling tb,t he wanted te bevo a meeting not necessarily i v 3.
Heritege Reperting Cerroration (292) c2n-4non
., 1 9' 11 4 1 big. discussions but for an opportunity for the public to 2 make comments regarding the clean-up in general.
3 But we never really got into that and I noticed 4 some hand-outs tonight that shows certain things are 5 scheduled for that evening, such as a supper at 6:30 or 6 7:00.
7 But there are issues particularly on the' funding 0 and the schedule of the clean-up that I think are important 9 for us to get into in the not too distant future.
10 t r.lon't know whethe.v vou want to try to meet the 11 week before the 27th. It is a milestone in the clean-up and 12 we have baen as a Fanel obviously following this all along, 13 or whether you would really rather wait until the following
.1. 4 month.
1 ') Et is really your p.laasure.
.6 (Fausa) 17 Wait until the following month? There are some 10 people nodding their heads. Which would be an April 19 meeting.
20 Anybody have -- Mike, do you have any suggested 21 datas? Ilo t_ m a.l l y w a meat tha 9~,ond.
22 f iR . MAS!JIK : Right. The week of April ninth.
23 UAIPMAli 110RRIS : Okay. We ara back to tha 24 Wednesday / Thursday night thing.
?5 i tE . 11A3111E . There in e p<.m r ila l a ce ti (110 '; ll'a l Uer:itaga Reper+ in g Corpr"m t ion
( 2()2 ) 4.'? fi-4 0 ft f1
~' % l 11's 1 week. The Licensee is trying to schedule a Commission )
l 2 meeting during that week. j 3 / CIIAIPEAIJ MOPRIS : Why don't we do both? Have the 4 Comn'issioners here, we will have a Commission meeting, and 5 then we will go out there.
6 MR. MAS 11IK: That's a wonderful idea.
7 (Laughter) 0 Actually, it probably -- unless the Licensee wants 9 to respond -- the only person from the 1TRC thet it realJy 10 would have a direct impact on would be probably me and my 11 boss.
12 Out if we did have e meeting that week with the 13 Commission, it would probably be in the morning. And if 14 there is no problem on the part of the utility, I don't have 15 any problem driving up here.
i a6 CHAIRtiAll t10PRIS : Okey. What is your pleasure, 17 Wednesday or Thursday night?
10 lin . 11AS131K : Either.
19 C11AIRMAIT MOPRIS: liiel? Thursday? I hear it f o i.
20 Thursday.
21 ( see nobody opposina that, se Thursday Apr.i1 22 thirteenth.
23 <>l: a y . At thi.e point, the meeting it set t e>
> 24 Thursday, April thirteenth.
25 HR. tTA311TI becatie"?
tierit age' Reporting Ce y:r"";n t ion (202) 6?n-4nnn l
l l
.. ' t i
1 11 G 1 CilAIRMAD MOPRIS: Here, I assume.
2 Anything else to come before the Panel tonight? 3 1
3 MR. ROTH: Just one other thing, Mike. I hope we 4 don't wait until that date to get the information on the i
5 numbers. If we could have that much earlier, I think we 6 could have a better discussion.
7 MR. MASNIK: Mr. Chairman, there was a request 8 for some discussion on the Reuter-Stokes monitor. Would 9 that be a topic?
30 CIlhIRMAU MOPRIS: I think there was a point made 11 on monitoring that we really should have for a topic, yes.
12 fin. MA3NIK: Okay.
13 CHAIPliAli MOPRIS : Are there any other suggestions 14 other than the funding, the schedule, the monitoring, any 15 other item that you would like to have scheduled as'an 16 auenda item?
17 (No response) 30 And the discussion on the different end points 19 that were ';aised here. We here to get that in advance of he 20 meeting, h.pefully no closer than two weeks from the 21 meeting, the information on the end points.
22 F IR . MASNIK: I will have that off in the next 23 week 24 CHAIPJ1AU MOPRIS: Wonderful. Just to complete the requar o on the funding ini crme tieti, could we gat thet
'5 IIeritaUa Repngti5sc Covporntion
( 2 f) 2 ) C20-4nnn i
- q 117 1 within the next couple of weehn or at least try to?
2 (Pause) 3 a.ud we can entend that and say no later than maybe i
4 March 15th, which is a month from today?
5 tIR . ROCHE: I will try to do it. The thing I 6 mentioned before about the process of reviewing our budget, s.
7 I have just begun that.
O r. expect that to be completed. There is a Board 9 of I.'irectn':s meeting the end of March. That is when I 10 intend to have that review finished.
11 tiy preference would be to give you that
- 12 informatico after the Eoard meeting because that would be 13 the most c'trrent .
14 The other option of course would be to give ynn 15 less current information before that and --
. 6 CIIAIRMAti MORRIC : You meke the judgment on what 17 you feel is the most accurate information.
lit i TP. . 11A313IE Okay 19 CilAIRMA11 MORRIS: As I was saying, what I heard 20 you indicate is that you will give us the less current. I 21 just would like te have accurate information so that we have 22 a chance to review it before the meeting and can come 23 prepared to really speak to it if we have concerns.
24 f fR . ROCUC: T would prefer te giva you the roost 25 current be:n.use yon could get mide-trached into --
neriteca Reperting Cernaration
( ",0 7, ) 6 7 f.1 - 4 fl A f1
ll s - 3 11 n I' f1R . ROTil: Why not-both? Why not-as early as 1
'2 possible.what you are working with, and the end? I am sorry -
3~ if that. gentleman in the bac): is upset ~about it, but tough.
4 I-mean'why do we have to wait that long? I mean 5 if it is current information, say this is what we are
- 6. working with now. And after the review, this is the second' 7 figure.
8 Give us the information'that you are working with.
l 9- You must have something that you are working with right now, .
30 correct? ,
11 MR. ROCHE: It is true. I do have something right 12 now.
13 MR. ROTH: Great.
14 9 MR. ROCHE: I will <.1acide which I"will give y<iu.
15 MR. ROTli -
That is the type that we would realJy
- a. 5 appreciate. And we will see where we go then.
17 MS. MARSHAL: Mr. Chairman?
18 CHAIRMAU MORRIS: Yes?
19 MS. MARSHAL: I think perhaps we might also put on 20 the ogende being urdated on what the current thinking is 21 about the post defueling monitored storaga situation.
22 I don't think we've talked about that since 23 . November.
24 CILAIP11AU 110PR13 : 1 don't know if thes.e is s.eal.ty 25 much to discuss with that beceiwe it is still under 3.eview Uerita.g9 R9PO.d.iJtg COrperPtin" (202) 62 ft - 4 0 f1 Il
<* s.
110-1 .by.the NRC.
2 I mean they can tell us in their update where it 3 is, I thini.
t 4 ris . MARSluG: Yes.
5 CHAIPliAN MOPRIS: Yes, they could do that We 6 could ask them to do that.
7 Okay. Again, as I understand it, there has been a O request for both pieces of information, whatever is the most 9 ,
recent you have available now and then information following 10 the Board meeting that would be final information.
11 At least one Panel member has requested that both 12 pieces be tarovided, if possible.
13 obviously it is your decision, but if you can 14 accommodat? us we would appreciate it.
15 Thank you. Anything else?
4
- 6 (110 respon
- )e) 3' CliAIPliAN MOPRIS : We stand adjourned., then, 18 Ladies and Gentlemen.
19 (Whereupon, at 10:03 p.m., the hearing in this 20 matter was adjourned)
. ierit epe t neparting Cerrat,ti,an (2f)2) 8;'l fl-4 Ilif ft i
j .+- .
h I
1 CERTIFICATE
-! 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Ragulatory Commission in the matter.
5 of:
l 6 Name: Public Meeting of the Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island, Unit 2-7 8 Docket Number:
9 Place: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 10 Date: February 16, 1989 11 were held as herein appsars, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings. , q/ ,
18 /s/ Q 5'- h4 1 19 (Signature typed) : Mark D. Handy
/ '
20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 i
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Agenda for the February 16, 1989 Meeting in Harrisburg, PA Minutos,
- 1. Chairman': Opening Remarks - A. Morris 5
- 2. Status of NRC Actions - NRC Staff 15
- 3. Status of Cleanup Activities - GPUh Staff 15 4 Description of the Processed Water Disposal System - GPUN Staff 20
- 5. NRC Review of the Processed Water Disposal System - NRC Staff 15
- 6. Public Coment* 20
- 7. Break 10
- 8. TMI-2 Cleanup Schedule and Funding - GPUN Staff 20
- 9. Panel Discussion on Schedule and Funding -
Panel Members 15
- 10. Public Comment 15
- Includes E. Epstein and F. Skolnick for a total of 15 minutes.
9 9
_ . _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . J
PROJECT STATUS - FEBRU ARY 1989 l
- 1. Defueling (Reactor Vessel)
Progress (223,300lbs.,75%)
- Lower reactor internal plate cutting status (over 80%
complete)
Com aleted core region plate test cuts
- Perip1eral material inspection (1800 lbs. above thick plate)
- Uncertainties (unknown layer on bottom head)
- 2. Defueling/ Characterization (outside reactor vessel)
- Defueling progress (completed decay heat drop line)
- Characterization progress (steam generators, J-legs, decay heat drop line)
- Completed defueling outside reactor vessel
- Characterization work (cold legs and pumps)
- 3. Fuel Shipping (197,300 lbs.,66.3%)
- Next fuel shipment February 1989
- 4. Decontamination Status
- Aux / Fuel Hand!!ng buildings progress (83 cubicles and 4 systems)
- Reactor building progress (basement scarification, blockwall leaching and basement desludging)
- 5. Low Level Waste Shipping (1988 - 32,400 cu. ft.)
- 6. Internmional Interest / Support for the NRC Inspection / Sampling of the Lower Head of the Reactor Vessel
~ mu eF R
d e
t ajp X X X mR X iE t
s E
d e
r 1 uf X X X X X s u X X S aE U e T
A M
_ T
_ S . . .
n n n n
- G9 /o lo lo
/o ec e ec N8 g e e e e e c te c t e e e te e ee t t ee I
9 ns t t t e e L 1 i u
t e
t e
t e e e e lD lD lD l lD E l et l l p
l p
l p
l p
l p p p p p p p
Uy r ua t m m m m m m mla mla on on mla m o
mla on f
eS o o o o o o oni i i C CF i
'D n C C LJ E .
S
- S E
V-
_ X ) .
E t c
e i
s n
a
_ r D
s p
, l a
e m
u s
g e
s g
e i
L n
C n
a P l.
l
- s g J J e k r /
g g r n d e s / / e r e a l B
n d T f
M z p i u l s .
E i
r o 'A 'B L S B n g d l
o u o ' ' ( a d e o T r S
Y s
s L
G G S
y a c r
o T l
B l B
e P e S S c s t c
S . l e e r C T T i a
l e x C P R O O D M e u u C u
_ R F A R F R
E .. .,
i TMI-2 ACCIDENT GENERATED WATER EVAPORATOR
~ '
Design anc Cons-ruc-ion
- NuPac Services,Inc.
O oera~ ion
- NuPac Services,Inc.
3rocec ures
- NuPac Services- - GPU Nuclear-NRC I
)
t
Q G
D t
,a B ,o m -
T o N
E M mt
,u
,s N
I A
m T
N V O C
v 2 v
w W E
T
' A/ x _
v m
v E
GK A N R
O T
A T
j .
S E
- /
LEh-CNI Y L R
O -
C T E N "A TG /
DR R SN EU ^O AI ST OE "P WGA LR A DCK C V I L A
, OP /
- }
2 .
7 j!p '
q E E -
. T A
~ L K L N I A T TT S
b/D N I E NR W V O IO M TT A dI E
I N R T O E M Z
/S I
R O
P A
~
V ll\ll
P A
V R
E M &v EN TI E NR SA AT T OO I
TT WNO S AIN C Y
I DO AM E U S 1 R &v L P k L T y M
A E
T A C
- 3 S A L K S N C L A
O E T
IT S
T T EL P A L K I
D LL N
I T S
T m" D
D I D E T E R AT S NAL K E v I ML N A
DY I
L T ATI T R
O S -
A
(
T S NI D O
YO R T
- /
- R C IAA L R R
ER O O DE D N A T IX P UA f N E R Y
E A R I
O 2
AV E
1 L D S M P A
B S V X Y U m" E E L A R FR C - EP R S O
P O A V
R E I
P E T A
R E
T R S 2 A R T K N
- T K NN E A E
D NN E A CT N I
CT P N O M C N 1 O O C
- T C Y
D E
E F
TMI-2 ACCIDENT GENERATED WATER EVAPORATOR TEST RESULTS l
. Test #1 - Decontamination factor (DF) greater (oct 88) than 1000 for sodium which is representative of strontium and cesium
. Test #2 - Modifications to main evaporator (Dec 88)
- Short duration
- DF greater than 1000 for boron and sodium
. Test #3 - Determine operating characteristics l
(Jon 89)
- Increase sodium results in more j
effective boron removal
(
- Proper operation will yield DF >1000
- Vaporizer yields DF >4 1
{
TMI-2 ACCIDENT GENERATED WATER '
EVAPORATOR MONITORING PROGRAM
- Pre-processing Sampling each source of water and isolating tank
- Processing >
r On-line radiation monitor On-line sampling
. Off-site
' - Normal environmental program
- Addition of 5 tritium samplers l
l
- % 4.;
.. .- - 3 I g
.l _ i
.1; ,1 i : .
l .
_ hc Q ,
'l 9 J B f E 4 04 e i.w ,
- w i imgith 3 t-
-g :: I: Gl _:. lj c, - 9 .-
I j li L,
E l h es .. C pTj I P !,d e L s g= i 11 r__
upf li !
11 .
l [
& * - C.1 - i g M.u i u
p . .,._, .
x 17i '
,' C; e w
'W9e B -
m-1 ett u e- , .; g(BI sun 3
6,,. 7; d D I TbLx ,
j!! F i
?_. ,
-tv(,!J'T.
L, .. ..d.. ._ l VI l 3
F_ , 7 .
$8 e.a I F--TIf 8 IT. f, s\
rh I j
e
.g%- O, n)_ M,,
e m, y, u
@@qw i
.{ , .
( lo W(gpr
- 1
.h " e-4*
e
g, I rTh h %
9, y.4 x d' m..u
' b; l
..3 3=' '-p Ilt J L._ C. d 4,g evo l
og, p
.F.
i ! --+s W ;;L-4 i
9 V [/
N g- [
., ,a-eet,i L p ee_ h sn,n mt l C . vgi -*C 0 F I l1' 7 .. _ jg 4 ,iq l 4 rww-i l i kW E is-j l t
,_.5 wN Kr Mjh iv 3
0 A*I l J 'E j ;
I i: ATgW m,t e
h i
l ._
.. ., i
~
.. l 1 1 I!
- 4
.L 9I
i s H
15 i il a E
l I i :
r* 1 f . . __ ..._ .. \
,1 #,% T '+
j * ,
]
- (
ij A cc .
x
.6 f,
m eE, l
, h I &-, :!] d' Ef I <
g e
, m, + c,, ..
>+ + r G
,h l .
+:
i' + t,- ,:y" -
1l
[_ $ '_.._._.___._ - - _ - . . -
n <
, .T R . - s, d .!
i ~
a, 7p d9 -<l '
!i.
- g, 3 I _ __ - = , ::l
-- '- i i < j i ,pp Jh
+3 z. ., __ _ i! '; .
h ...n , gj '" [ . . . UN r -
. a J2 Id, $ 41j _ _._.._J L2.7 s%,
i 1 i/-
l i.e. .. y g v r .! - -
s .e . -, .
rl!l l
i pi +- l( ,l -
i [# R1 l,j , ;
' . h l6,8 4, fl [ d he rr f l e i
1 7 h+ = ' ' =1ef i i
l T. ,9 .. . .
k, l-( ,,$ l' jn *1~
l l t f m __. . . t _ _. _ ..__I I
I I
w e w )d )
e ed i
vi e a e vi r e l
s s R e ui r n o R q u o p r e q p o ef f r e s r g r e
P at a s sR n S (a a e a ( e e e sM a sn g l
c s
n n et c i nii on e c eh t
s t
i L jc eic o e e eL r
T uM P Q
!Ii y v
~
)
r e
g _
a _
n a
s M e c
p c na t
u oe r j u G os r s l
Pi a( ,
c e i
n n c h on ct i
e r
e a r T u u ac l
n r v n -
o E o r C -
f y t ,
s fe w t
u aie pS v n e I
l eR b
n r
e s
s A
' 'l l ll lli ll
l PROJECT SCHEDULE SCHEDULE MILESTONES Defueling outside Reactor Complete Vessel Reactor Vessel Defueling June 1989 NRC Sampling July 1989 (Reactor Lower Head)
Fuel Shipping November 1989 l
I Decontamination August 1990 l
I
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR MATERIAL-TO THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATE 0ft 0F THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Chairman Zech 16 H 3 Commissioner Roberts
~
16 H 3 Commissioner Rogers 16 H 3 Commissioner Carr- 16 H 3 Commissioner Curtiss- 16 H 3 H. R. Denton, 17 f 2 PANE T. E. Murley 12 G 18 P.O. Box 268 M. Nasnik 13 D 16 Middletown, PA 17057 F. Congel 10 E 4
.1. Zerbe 2100 Mr. Frank D. Davis M. Libarlin, ACRS H -1016 2C0 Gettyburg Pike T. Major H-1016 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 J. Fouchard 2 G.5 R. Browing, MNSS 4H3 Mr. Edward Charles CDockstWie'50s3207, f 7C5016G 90 Nittany Drive PDR 016 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 LPDR 016 DCS 016 Mr. John H. Murdoch F. Miraglia 12 G 18 44 Kensington Drive S. Varga 14 E 4 Camp Hill, PA 17011 B. Boger 14 A 2 J. Stolz 13 ti 3 TMI Alert c/o Kay Pickering L. Thonus TMI Site Mail Pouch 315 Peffer Street R. Conte TMI Site Mail Pouch Harrisburg, PA 17102 L. H. Bettenhausen RGN-1 Director Dr. Frank Parker Power Plant Research Program School of Engineering Department of Natural Recources Nashville, TN 37203 Tawes Building E-3 Annaplois, MD 21401 Mr. Dave Janes Analysis and Support Division Ms. Ruth Gentle U.S. Environmental Protection Agent) 1 Virginia Circle Washington, D.C. 20640 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Mr. E. E. Kintner Susquehanna Valley Alliance Executive Vice President P.O. Box 1012 General Public Utilities Lancaster, PA 17604 Nuclear Corp.
100 Interpace Parkway Dr. Sid Langer Parsippany, NJ 07054 P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Mr. Kenneth L. Miller, Director !
Division of Health Physics and Professor of Radiology Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Pennsylvania State University Hershey, PA 17033 E
m . , ,
I l
Mr. Bob Leyse- Dr. John luetzelschwab !
EPRI-NSAC- Professor of Physics 3412 Hillview Avenue Dickinson College Palo Alto, CA 94303 Carlisle, PA 17013-2896 Mr. David J. McGoff Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director U.S. Department of Energy Bureau of Radiation Protection :
'A-439GTN .
Dept. of Environmental Resources Washington, D.C. 20585 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120
- F.R. Standerfer, Director Three Mile Island Unit i Ms. Elizabeth N. Marshall GPU Ntclear Corporation. 736 Florida Avenue P.O. Box 480 York, PA 17404 Middletown, PA -17057 . ;
Niel Wald, M.D.
The Honorable Arthur E. Morris Professor and Chairman ;
Mayor of Lancaster Department of Radiation Health P.O. Box 1559 University of Pittsburg 120 N. Duke Street A512 Crabtree Hall Lancaster, PA 17605 Pittsburgh, PA 15561 Dr. Gordon Robinson Mr. Ford Knight Associate Professor of Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Nuclear Engineering P.O. Box 286 231 Sackett Building Madison, PA 15663 Unversity Park, PA 16802 Jirr Detjen Dr. Henry Wagner .
Philad1phia Inquirer Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene 400 N. Broad Street 615 N. Wolfe Street Philiadelphi, PA 19101
. Room 2001 Baltimore, MD 21205 tis. Becky Harty Pacific Northwest Laboratory Frederick S. Rice P.O. Box 999 Personnel Financial Management Inc. Richland, WA 99352 2 Crums Lane Harrisburg, PA 17112 Mr. Joseph DiNunno 44 Carriage Lane Mr. Joel Roth Annapolis, Md 21401 RD 1, Box 411
-Halifax, PA 17032 Ms. Leslie Klein Intelligence Journal Pro-Women 8 Fest King Street c/o Judy Branett Lancaster, PA 17603 320 Elm Court tiiddletown, PA 17057 Sally S. Klein, Chairperson Dauphin County Board of Commission Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17101
- 8 4 &
Joyce Corradi Marjorie and Norman Aamodt Concerned Mothers and Women on TMI -180 Bear Cub Road 2 South Nissley Drive P.O. Box 652 Middletown, PA 17057 lake Placid, NY 12946 Francine Taylor Jane Lee. ,
L151 Hamilton Rd. 183 Valley Rd.
Lancaster, PA-17603 Etters, PA 17319 Mr. Ad Crable Pepper, Hamilton and Sheets Lancaster New Era P.O. Box 118]
8 W. King Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Lancaster, PA- 17603 c/o Debbie June Dr. Frederick J. Shon John Kabler, Director Afninistrathe JrJge Chesapeake Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pane Clean Water Action Project U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2500 N. Charles Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Baltimore, MD 21218 '
US Environmental Prot. Agency Debra Davenport Region III Office 1802 Market Street ATTIN: EIS Coordinator Camp Hill, PA 17C11 Curtis Building (Sixth Floor) 6th and Walnut Streets Robert L. Vree
. Philadelphia, PA 19106 Box 72 Middletown, PA 17057 Rep. Alan Kukovich ;
House of_ Representatives Mrs. Ann Trunk Harrisburg, PA 17101 143 Race Street Middletown, PA 17057 Ms. Mary Osborn 4951 Highland Mr. Thomas D. Smithgall
'Swatara, PA 17111 1030 Woods Avenue Lancaster, PA 17603-3127 ,
1 Dr. D. J. Snyder fir. John W. Crawford, Jr.
EMCr 11405 Farmland DP.
11005 Hunt Club Dr. Rockville, MD 20852 Potomec, MD 20854 l
l l
j .
l l
l