ML20245A838
| ML20245A838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1989 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904250408 | |
| Download: ML20245A838 (120) | |
Text
.
i O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
a._________________________________________________ma_____,
l In the Matter of:
)
)
ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE
)
DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE
)
i ISLAND UUlT 2
)
)
l
)
l O
i Pages:
1 through 79 Place:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Date:
April 13, 1989 i
_ _ es sa ns as sa mm an. au ss es _ sm. m an ma an an as _ ssg es am ass am me as se am m as em as am m am ap as sa mm an me aunus am _ sum es. _ _ _ _
O HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OfiedelReporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suke 640 Washington, D.C. 20005 fDR904250408 890413 (202) 628 4888
\\
ADOCK 05000320 07 T
-[
(
1 O:
1 UNITED-STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
In the Matter of:
)
)
ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE
)
DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE
)
ISLAND' UNIT 2
)
)
)
- Thursday, April 13, 1989 Holiday Inn 23 South Second Street Ballroom C Harrisburg, PA-O The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 7:13 p.m.
APPEARANCES:
JOEL ROTH ARTHUR MORRIS THOMAS GERUSKY GORDON ROBINSON NIEL WALD FREDRICK RIr'E KENNETH MILLER ANN TRUNK O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.2
' APPEARANCES : (Continued)
JOHN LUETZELSCHWAB ELIZABETH MARSHALL MICHAEL MASNIK MIKE ROACHE DEBORAH BAKER' O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
1 E'E Q C E E E I E G E.
,2 MR. MORRIS:
Good evening, I would.like to welcome 3
everybody to this panel meeting.
Tom Smithgall had-4 contacted my office and said that he could not be here this 5
evening.
The only other remarks that I have'is to mention 6
that I received two letters in the mail.
One -- well 7
actually both were from GPU.
The one was in regard to-the 8-questions related to the funding'that were raised at the 9
last meeting.
10 The second letter-I received was in regard to 11 several questions that were raised at the last meeting, and 12 I would just mention the nature of those questions.
One was 13 regarding the use of the SDS to treat water that would go to
()
14 the evaporated.
A question was' asked whether that was-15 originally proposed, that the water would go through SDS 16 before it be evaporated.
~
17 The answer from GPU was that -- and I am 18 summarizing here, was that that commitment was never made.
19 There were two other questions concerning water evaporation.
20 It requested a' range of concentrations of isotopes in 21 implications of detergent in the process water storage tank.
l 22 They have responded to those questions, and if 23 anybody from the public wants to see the responses, you can 24 see this. letter on the break that we have.
I would be happy 25 to share it with you.
There was a concern raised to the O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
L l
4 l
rm l
(_)
1 advisory panel also as to whether GPU Nuclear could make I
2 money from royalties on the evaporator.
i k
l 3
The simple answer is, and I'm going to summarize j
4 here, was no, they could not do that.
Depending upon how it 5
was used, however, by a third party, it is possib2e that 6
they could reduce the c*ost, but they would never be able to j
7 reduce the cost since it didn't cost them anything.
8 So they said that an individual also raised the 9
concern as to increased number of skin contaminations 10 reported in August 1988.
They go on to explain that.
They 11 answer a question regarding a concern that was raised 12 concerning free inattentive duty cases that were noted in 13 NRC inspection report 88-12, dated September 6th, 1988.
()
14 Again, they go on to explain that, and with regard 15 to a question concerning krypton gas, krypton 85 has been 16 released from the reactor vessel.
Whenever plasma or cuts 17 are made with core debris in the proximity of the torch, 18 they go on to explain in,more detail on that as well.
19 They respond also to a question raised -- or a 20 concern raised by an individual concerning the cavity 21 beneath the reactor vessel, and the conditions within this 22 cavity.
What I'm going to do is give a copy of this to the 23 person that is transcribing the meeting so that they can be 24 added to the minutes, and again, just to repeat, if anybody 25 from the public would like to see these responses at the e
kn)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888
l i
l I
l 5
(a s) 1 break, please come forward and I will be happy to share the 2
letter with you.
3 With that as background, I would like to first and 4
very quickly go to Mick Masnik, who has asked for a few
]
i 5
minutes to make a comment at this point, and then we go to 6
the NRC update on the PDMS.
Mike?
7 MR. MASNIK:
I am Mike Masnik.
Mr. Chairman, 8
members of the panel, I would like to give you a quick 9
update on the disposal activities associated with the 10 process accident water.
As you are aware on February 2nd, 11 the licencing board issued an initial decision authorizing 12 an operating licence amendment, deleting the prohibition for 13 the disposal of the accident generated water.
()
14 The joint interveners filed on February 20th, 15 1989, an application for a stay before the Atomic Safety and 16 Licencing Appeals Board..The stay, if granted by the 17 Appeals Board would have prohibited disposal of the water 18 during the appeals procedure.
19 The Atomic Safety and Licencing Appeals Board 20 ruled on April 4th that a stay was not warranted, and that 21 the interveners had not demonstrated irreparable injury for 22 a virtual certainty, that the licencing board's initial 23 decision would be reversed.
24 The joint interveners filed on April 6, their 25 appeal.
The staff has until the end of May to respond to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6 o-( ).
1 this motion for appeal, and then the appeals board will 2
determine if an appeal is appropriate.
3 As a number of you have probably already heard, 4
today the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled in an 5
affirmation vote that the Licencing Board's decision should 6
become immediately effe'ctive.
Essentially they have agreed 7
with the Licencing Board, and now the staff can issue an 8
amendment authorizing disposal of the water.
9 The Commission's vote today has no bearing on the 10 appeals procedure, which will progress on its own merits.
11 As we discussed at the last meeting, there is still a number 12 of remaining actions on the part of the NRC before the 13 licensee can go forward and evaporate the water.
,m(,)
14 The most important is a safety evaluation 15 associated with the licencing amendment to determine whether 16 or not the evaporator can operate within the limits 17 specified by the environmental impact statement, and as 18 further defined by the licencing board.
19 If that is accomplished, then the licencing 20 amendment -- or the amendment to the license will be issued, 21 and the last remaining hurdle would be the approval and 22 review of the procedures associated with the operation of 23 the evaporator.
These are the detailed procedures.
24 We are required by the technical specifications to review 25 these procedures.
Are there any questions?
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7
.,y A/
1 MR. ROTH:
Mike, what was the vote -- numerically, 2
do you know?
3 MR. MASNIK:
My understanding is that it was four 4
to nothing.
5 MR. ROTH:
Who wasn't there?'
6 MR. MASNIK:
I do not know.
7 MS. MARSHALL:
Mike, what is the time frame for 8
all of this that has to be done before it is evaporated?
l 9
MR. MASNIK:
Right now we are awaiting responses 10 to some questions that we have'put forth to the utility on 11 the specifics of the evaporator.
Once the staff receives 12 those responses, it can continue its review.
13 It may result in an issuance of the amendment
()
14 within a matter of weeks, or if we have some additional 15 questions or find that the responses are inadequate in 16 certain areas, it may generate some additional questions 17 which may result in another round of questions and answers.
18 We expect that if the answers are satisfactory, we 19 could conceivably issue the amendment within about a month, 20 and then we would have to wait the detailed procedures of-21 operation before we could review those.
22 It would essentially be up the licensee to move at 23 that point.
I suspect that in all likelihood, would not be 24 until the summer time before it actually begins operations.
25 Any other questions?
O-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
8
)
1 MR. MORRIS:
No, thank you.
Mike, if you would l
2-now, I think you have an update on the PDMS, environmental 3
evaluation.
4 MR. MASNIK:
Yes.
I would like to present a short-5 update or status on supplement three to the PEIS, dealing 4
6 with post defueling monitored storage.
Last week I was out 7
at Richland, Washington, and I met fer three days with our 8
contractor, Ms. Becky Hardy.
She appeared before the panel 9
at least two occasions.
10 She had sent me two weeks earlier a draft of the 11 final supplement.
The draft was reasonably complete.
12 However, the comparison of the alternatives had not been 13 completed.
The numerical analysis for the worker and
()
14 offsite exposure had not been done.
15 The descriptive portions, however, of the 16 statement, were fairly complete.
The reason for that was 17 basically more a scheduler that anything else.
There was a 18 problem lining up the necessary computer time and experts to 19 do the calculations.
20 I did get to review the responses to the comments, 21 and section three, which was a description of the 22 alternatives considered.
As you remember, there was 23 considerable discussion on the staff's choices of 24 alternatives in draft supplement three.
f 25 I thought it might be helpful tonight to go over l
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
9
('3 q,j 1
this suite of alternatives that we are considering for the 2
final impact statement.
3 As you remember in draft supplement three, we only 4
considered the licensee proposal, which was called " delayed 5
cleanup", and the staff identified alternative called, 6
"immediate cleanup".
7 You can see on this overhead that I have indicated 8
two of them that was quantitatively evaluated.
We also 9
evaluated five other alternatives to the immediate cleanup 10 and delayed cleanup.
11 These were, immediate cleanup with a reduced level 12 of effort; additional cleanup prior to PDMS; and, delayed 13 cleanup with storage less that 20 years; delayed storage
[)D 14 longer than 20 years; and, no further clean up following 15 defueling, or the no action alternatives.
16 These five additional alternatives were really not 17 evaluated quantitatively, but were determined to either fall 18 within the bounds of delayed or immediate cleanup options, 19 or to be not applicable -- or, I'm sorry, not acceptable.
20 Now after reviewing the comments from the 21 licensee, from the advisory panel, and other federal and 22 state agencies as well as members of the public, we 23 concluded that our list of alternatives should be expanded 24 and be more realistic.
25 As a result, we have identified six alternatives t~%
1
(_)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
10 1
to the licensee's proposal, which is now termed delayed 2
decommissioning instead of delayed cleanup.
Can I have the 3
next slide?
4 Number one would be the licensee's proposal which 5
was delayed decommissioning, and we had six alternatives 6
that we have identified'.
Basically they follow fairly 7
closely to the original' additional -- the six alternatives 8
that we had considered in the draft, however, there are some 9
changes.
10 Delayed cleanup is essentially the same as what 11 was considered delayed cleanup in the draft.
Immediate 12 cleanup was also the same.
Immediate cleanup with reduced 13 effort is basically the same.
Immediate decommissioning --
()
14 this is a new alternative, and that has basically is placing 15 the unit in a decommissioned status on completion of 16 defueling, or within roughly one year of that time frame.
17 Incomplete defueling was one that we had looked 18 at.
We assume that approximately 15 percent of the fuel 19 would remain in the reactor building.
This was more or less 20 a bounding analysis and we thought a reasonable alternative.
21 The last one is not further cleanup following 22 defueling, and this is the no action alternative.
Basically 23 this is where they complete defueling and do nothing more.
24 The only one that is not considered now and that was 25 considered before was additional cleanup prior to PDMS.
Are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
11
( )
1 there any questions up to this point?
2 MR. GERUSKY:
Yes, why didn't you consider it?
I 3
am confused as to why you made the changes?
i 4
MR. MASNIK:
Starting from the top, I think the 5
first one, the delayed decommissioning was clearly more like 6
the licensee's proposal' as they envision it.
We felt that 7
it was necessary to consider that as the licensee's 8
proposal.
9 As far as the additional cleanup prior to PDMS, we 10 felt that the analysis would be bounding for that particular 11 alternative.
Therefore, we didn't censider it any further.
12 MR. MORRIS:
Can you define what you mean by that?
13 What do you mean that the analysis would be bounding?
()
14 MR. MASNIK:
Essentially we looked at all of the 15 alternatives, and we looked at a number of subsets to all of 16 these, and we determine whether or not any of the particular 17 alternatives fell outside of a natural grouping of those 18 alternatives.
If they did, then they became one of the 19 alternatives that was included in the analysis.
20 For example, we looked at a number of periods of 21 time for the delayed decommissioning.
We looked at less 22 than 17 years, up to a total of 33 years.
So within number 23 one there is a subset of four or five other alternatives.
24 MR. MORRIS:
You may have by doing that have left 25 out the most practical solution.
I mean if it is practical (O
Heritage Reporting Corporation f
/
(202) 628-4888
L L
12 1
to further remove some of the radioactivity from the 2
reactor, and then go into.PDMS.
3 MR. MASNIK:
Well, you are correct, except that 4
the immediate cleanup with reduced effort would essentially 5
bound that particular analysis.
In other words, it would 6
include that particular' alternative.
7 MR. MORRIS:
Well as long as you haven't put 8
enough cleanup in there as to render it a useless opcion, 9
because it would almost impossible to do that, then you are 10 right.
11 MR. MASNIK:
That is correct.
12 MR. MORRIS:
Okay.
As long as it is a practical 13 option is what I'm saying, then I would agree with you.
()
14 MR. MORRIS:
Mike, if you could explain -- I am 15 looking for the option which was -- okay -- the 15 16 percent -- leaving 15 percent of the fuel.
Which one is 17 that, number six?
Oh, incomplete defueling.
18 MR. MASNIK:
Incomplete defueling.
Essentially we 19 assume that for technical reasons, they were unable to 20 remove some portion of the fuel.
At the present time they 21 are estimating removal of greater than 99 percent of the 22 fuel, but it is quite likely, although, at the present time 23 we don't think this is the case, that something greater than 24 one percent of the fuel might be left.
25 We looked at the environmental impact associated Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l
13 m
()
1 with leaving more than one percent of the fuel.
If, for 2
example, they can only remove 97 percent of the fuel, then 3
there may be an incremental impact associated with that, and 4
we want to make sure we evaluate that at this time.
5 MR. MORRIS:
But you are really not looking at 6
three percent, you are looking at 15 percent?
7 MR. MASNIX:
That's right.
That was an upper 8
limit.
That's correct.
That is basically, I believe, there 9
are about 75 percent at the present time, so that would be 10 an additional ten percent removing.
11 MR. MORRIS:
If you recall our whole discussion at 12 the last meeting on funding, and whether they might get to a 13 point where they don't have enough money to remove the
()
14 remaining "X",
whether it's 15 percent, or whatever, what 15 might happen.
So I hope this is not a foreshadowing.
16 MR. MASNIK:
No, cercainly not.
I don't think 17 this allows them to feel comfortable with leaving more than 18 one percent of the fuel.
I think as part of the need for 19 review, we are required to look at all reasonable 20 alternatives, and this is an alternative.
Whether we find 21 it a good alternative or a bad alternative, is not so much 22 as important as whether or not it's a viable alternative, 23 and it clearly is.
24 MR. GERUSKY:
Mike, could you explain what you 25 mean by immediate decommissioning.
I am confused as to how (n_)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
14
()
1 you can decommission in a year.
2 MR. MASNIK:
Well under our present -- well the 3
immediate decommissioning is just that.
They come in and 4
request -- they notify us that they have permanently ceased 5
operations, and they go forward with compliance with the 4
6 decommissioning rule.
7 They would then select one of the decommissioning 8
options, and either begin to dismantle the plant, or put the 9
plant in long term storage -- the safe store concept of 10 decommissioning.
11 MR. MORRIS:
I still have problems with the 15 12 percent.
I just for the record think that all you will do 13 with that, is if you find it to be an appropriate thing to
()
14 do is give the' licensee cause to consider that as an option.
15 At this point they have made a commitment that they are 16 going to go way beyond that.
17 NRC's position has been all along that you get all 18 the fuel off the island.
So I don't know why you are 19 looking at an option that nobody else' is even considering, 20 and I think the general public would not be supportive of.
21 I think we are kind of asking for a problem here.
It is 22 just an observation.
23 MR. MASNIK:
I understand.
As I have mentioned, 24 it is not that we subscribe to that option, or that we are 25 looking in that direction.
It is what I would consider a l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
15 l
()
1 viable option, and that is what is required underneath them.
2 MR. MORRIS:
I don't see why it's a viable option, 3
given the position of the operator and the adversee.
4 MR. MASNIK:
Well for example, if there is no 5
physical way that they can remove the last two or three 6
percent of the fuel, bebause it is actually fused to the l
7 bottom of the reactor vessel, and you would require removal 8
of a portion of the reactor vessel.
The worker exposure 9
associated with that may not be in the best interest of the l
10 public.
11 MR. MORRIS:
I just --
12 MR. MASNIK:
That is certainly the possibility.
13 Again, no one is stating that is a fact, but I think
()
14 underneath, we are required to look at alternatives.
15 MR. MORRIS:
It is an interesting alternative.
I i
16 guess we wait and see what kind of assumptions you make 17 regarding the leaving it in, why it is going to be that 18 difficult to remove.
How are you going to assume what kind 19 of radiation exposure to workers would take place should 20 they remove it versus leaving it in.
You will be looking at 21 both of those?
The option of removing versus leaving it 22 there?
l 23 MR. MASNIK:
Yes.
Well -- I mean I can't 24 postulate what the prob 1 cms would be in removing at this I
25 point.
I don't know really what the percentage is.
I am
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 J
16
)
1:
_just assuming that 15 percent is left there.
Again, that 2
kind of a question.would be addressed at that time, if there 3
is ever a time, that the licensee would request more than 4l one percent left.
Any other questions?
5-(No response.)
6 MR. MASNIK:
As I mentioned earlinr, we hava not 7
completed our evaluation of these alternatives.
We expect 8
to have a final draft by the middle of May, and publish the 9
final version some time in June of this year.
That is all I 1
10 have.
11 MR. ROTH:
Mike?
-12 MR. MASNIK:
Yes?
13 MR. ROTH:- Just for the record so to speak, is
()
14 define final version of the draft, what briefly would that 15 include?
16 MR. MASNIK:
I don't -- well I have a final draft.
17 I said a final draft and the final version.
18 MR. ROTH:
Right.
19 MR. MASNIK:
The final draft is a draft of the 20 final statement given to me to review.
The final version is 21 the final environmental impact statement dealing with post 22-defueling monitored storage.
23 MR. ROTH:
When the --
24 MR. MASNIK:
It would be the equivalent to the 25 final statement issued on the water.
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17 m
(_)
1 MR. ROTH:
Okay, would that be the NRC staff's 2
evaluation plus any determination on your part which method 3
you are recommending?
4 MR. MASNIK:
It would embody the commissions --
5 well the staff's environmental evaluation of the proposal.
6 We may or may not make h recommendation.
7 MR. ROTH:
All right, in the case that you don't 8
make a recommendation, what would the next step be?
9 MR. MASNIK:
Well I think we will either find that 10 the various alternatives or some of the alternatives were 11 environmentally acceptable, or were not.
12 MR. ROTH:
Yes.
13 MR. MASNIK:
That is basically what we will find.
()
14 MR. ROTH:
I guess I am just trying --
15 MR. MASNIK:
And then as in the water, there is 16 also a safety evaluation that is associated with this.
So 17 the environmental evaluation, again, kind of defines the 18 envelope, and then there is a safety evaluation which has 1
19 begun that will look at the plant system by system, very 20 similar to the way that we are looking at the evaporator I
i 21 system by system.
22 MR. ROTH:
Okay.
That is what I am trying to do 23 is just get an overall picture of this, bouncing it off the 24 fact that the panel had an eight to two vote on no 25 compelling reason, you know, at this time, than adding
/"_T Heritage Reporting Corporation
(/
(202) 628-4888
[ s 18
)
1 John's vote, which would have been nine to two as he had 2
said.
l-3 I am just trying to get a picture then of where 4
the utility comes forth and proves what it wants to do.
I 5
am just trying to bring it back to what the panel itself has 6
done, to see if the panbl's voice has ever really been heard 7
down there.
Do you follow where I am at?
8 MR. MASNIK:
Well I guess I do,'Joel, and I would 9
say that certainly in the statement we do take the panel's 10 comments very seriously, and we have addressed the comment 11 of compelling reason.
I think in great detail in this final 12 version.
We talked very much about the worker exposure 13 issue which was not covered in any great depth in the draft.
()
14 MR. ROTH:
Okay.
Thank you.
15 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you Mr. Masnik.
The next item 16 is the status of the cleanup activities by GPU staff.
I 17 would like to thank your, Mr. Roache, for providing the 18 information on the costs of cleanup -- funding for cleanup.
19 MR. ROACHE:
Good evening.
I am Mike Roache, 20 Director of TMI-2 First, I will give you a status of 21 where we are on the defueling and the cleanup.
We will have 22 transparencies.
Each person on the panel will nave a copy, 23 I think, of the transparencies.
24 At the outset, I would like to say that we have 25 achieved another milestone in the cleanup.
It went by Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19
,7
\\_/
1 fairly quietly, but you have heard us in a number of 2
meetings and the company has described the plasma arc torch.
3 Sometimes you have heard to as the Swiss watch that we try 4
to use in the reactor vessel to cut up the internals.
5 Two days ago we have finished the work with the 6
plasma arc torch.
I think we are going to bronze the torch 7
and dedicate it to the Smithsonian Museum.
The torch was 8
initially -- the initial plan was to use the torch for a 9
short period of time to cut a small hole in the center of 10 the lower core support assembly.
11 We ended up cutting a seven foot hole through the 12 five horizontal plates.
So we finished that work, and then 13 we were also going to cut the baffle plates.
They are the
()
14 plates -- the vertical plates that surrounded the original 15 core.
16 Just yesterday we finished that cut -- those cuts, 17 eight vertical cuts.
Let me quickly go through the 18 defueling status.
As we said today, we have about 229 19 thousand pounds of fuel material to remove from the vessel 20 and outside the vessel.
That translates to approximately 77 21 percent of the original number of 297,000 pounds.
22 We have shipped 211,000 pounds, that is 23 approximately 71 percent.
As I have mentioned, we have cut 24 the five lower core support assembly plates.
The fifth 25 plate, which is the elliptical plate is in pieces at the t'(-
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 20
()
1 bottom of the vessel.
2 By so cutting these plates, we have achieved the 3
necessary accere to the bottom of the vessel.
The last one 4
we have finished -- we haven't finished it yet, but we are 5
today, we have finished the baffle plate cuts in the core 6
region.
7 The next diagram in your package shows a three 8
D -- three dimensional depiction of those plates.
Starting 9
at the top, the lower grid plate.
Then we had the flow 10 distributor plate, the large thick forging.
Below the 11 forging we had a small plate, the incore guide support 12 plate, and then finally the elliptical plate, which you can 13 see that plate has the incore guide tubes which comes
()
14 through it.
v 15 What we have done in that plate, unlike the other 16 plates -- the other four plates above, we cut this plate 17 into 26 sections, and we have some of those sections 18 actually have those incore guide tubes still attached to 19 them.
20 The next diagram is a view of -- a three 21 dimensional view.
If you look at the overhead, you get a 22 little bit better sense of it from the color.
That is 23 looking down on the -- as if you were on the defueling 24 platform.
The green area in the center is the bottom head 25 with -- that we would except to achieve the final removal of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l J
l 21 r~
\\
(f 1
all the material in there.
1 2
There are penetration, 33 penetrations.
You can 3
see them in a kind of a spiral pattern coming from the 4
center.
Those are the incore instrument penetrations.
You 5
can see the step like pattern around the perimeter.
Those 6
are the baffle plates I' was talking about.
7 Each of the five plates -- the highest plate of 8
the five is-cut back the furthest As we went down, we had 9
to have like a -- the next plate each got closer to the 10 center, so that we could do the cutting.
The yellow plate, 11 I believe, is the elliptical flow distributor plate.
12 The next diagram in your package shows an acute 13 angle view, and you can again see the step like structure of
( )
14 the baffle plates.
The cutting that we've done on those 15 baffle plates, we made eight vertical cuts from top to 16 bottom.
17 We did that in four rounds of 40 inches a piece, 18 making those cuts -- we are currently cleaning those cuts.
19 Some of the cuts in the bottom of the baffle plate, we were 20 cutting with fuel material behind the plates.
21 When we cut that material, we were heating up the 22 material that was behind the plates, and some of that 23 material flowed back into the cut.
We are mechanically now 24 driving a chisel like tool down through those cuts to make 25 sure they are all free.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
22
.()
U 1
The next series 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 O
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
23
()
1 MR. ROACHE (Continuing) :
The next series is the 2
defueling characteristics.
3 We do have a layer of hard materials.
We talked 4
about it, I talked about it in the last meeting.
We 5
estimate it to be approximately 15,000 pounds.
It is the 6
material that flowed'dokn on the Eastern side of the vessel 7-behind the baffle plates, flowed across the bottom of the 8
reactor head.
That material flowed as a liquid, then 9
solidified, cooled and solidified on the bottom.
10 Later this evening we are going to show you a 11 couple of tapes, videotapes of that material.
12 Earlier last week de removed one of the plate 13 sections from the center of the core.
That plate section
()
14 had three incore guide tubes that were immersed, if you 15 will, in that molten material when it flowed down from the l
16 Eastern side.
17 You will see a videotape which will show that two 18 of the three incore guide tubes, and these tubes are 19 approximately four inches in diameter, a portion of the tube 20 is a 3/16-inch thick stainless steel wall.
Here you can see 21 on the overhead, the lower portion of that tube is a very 22 thin wall tube.
That is approximately six inches.
Then 23 there is another six-inch section where there is a tapered 24 wall and then there is a fairly solid, with I think it is a 25 3/8-inch diameter hole in the center, 4-inch, roughly 4-inch
\\
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
l 24 L
)
diameter stainless steel tube.
1 2
Two of the tubes have broken off of that center 3
plate which had three tubes on it.
The location grid is 4
pointing out the location of where that break occurred.
S' The solid, kind of solid line that is below that 6
break line, that is the' elevation of the hard material, the 7
resolidified material which flowed down around those in-8 cores.
9 We still have 51,000 pounds of material to remove 10 from the lower head.
And there is several thousand pounds 11 of debris remaining between the lower core assembly plates.
12 This is the material, if you look at the next 13 diagram in your package, or the overhead, there is
()
14 approximately 6,000 pounds of material which we believe is 15 located between the plates in the periphery, goes all the 16 way around the vessel.
17 That material is a mixtu.e of very hard material 18 and some soft material.
A portion of that material is the 19 material that flowed down from the core frcm above.
20 The next diagram in your package shows essentially 21 the configuration of the vessel as we have it today.
You 22 can see that five plates are removed from the vessel.
23 There are the 26 plate segments which are still in 24 place.
Some of them have fallen down to the debris bed 25 below.
Others are actually still in place.
A Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'.2 5 1
5
- L The incore guide tubes of course are still,.those 2
that'are Lasociated with those plates are still there.
3 This gives you,~this diagram gives you kind of a-4.
rundown of the amount of material in'the various' places.
5 You can see approximately 9,000. pounds that~are behind'those 6
baffle plates.
They arb sitting.along those horizontal 7
members that go all the way around the baffle plates, 8
approximately 6,000 pounds in the periphery between the 9
plates.
1 10 And then there is in the neighborhood of 27,000 11 pounds in a donut-like pattern that goes below the. vestiges
'1:2 of the plates that we have cut all the way around the
'13 vessel.
In the neighborhood of 9,00.0 pounds of soft
)
14
' material that is sitting on top of the hard material.
And 15 then the 15,000 pounds of hard material.
This is what'we 16 have to,take out.
17 The next diagram is the one we referred to 18 earlier, the incore guide tube.
19 That brings me to where we stand relative to fuel 20 shipping.
We did make a 3-cask shipment to Idaho of 21 February 19.
We intend that we would have another shipment 22 ready to go sometime in June.
And 211,000 pounds or 71 23 percent of the material has been shipped.
24 Decontamination.
In the last meeting I described 25 the change that we did to try to focus our attention to Feritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26
[)
1 defueling.
That essentially has removed the decontamination 2
work from being done in parallel.with the refueling.
So 3
. what we have been doing in decontamination mainly is to 4
support the defueling work.
5 We have very recently completed a major cleanup of 6
the defueling platform.hrea.
We have completed draining the 7
secondary side of the steam generators.
The primary side 8
will be drained with the reactor vessel after defueling.
9 We have started draining systems in the auxiliary 10 building which are no longer needed.
And we have completed 11 draining three systems in the reactor building which are no 12 longer needed.
13 That is my thumbnail sketch of the status of the
'( )
14 cleanup.
15 I would like to now show you two videotapes.
The 16 first one will be some very short shots or short vignettes 17 of the work that we have done between October and March.
18 And Greg will run the tape, and when I raise my hand he will 19 stop it and I will try to describe these various activities 20 that we have done.
21 There is a monitor behind the panel for the public 22 and there are two monitors on either side.
23 The forging was that large, 13-inch thick 24 stainless plate.
We cut it into four sections.
Here we can 25 see one section, one of the four pieces coming out of the
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i:
1 27
()
1 slot'in the work platform.
?
2
-We have a spray.
There is a spray that we are 3
training on the plate to rinse off the plate.
Each of these 4
sections weigh approximately 2,000 to 3,000 pounds.
5 That is the surface, the upper surface that we are 6
looking at right there.' We lift the plate up out of the 7
vessel.
Some of the plates we brought over to an area in 8
the building and then we counted them for radiological 9
conditions.
10 Before we removed each plate, we brushed the 11 surface.
You see a brush attached to a hydraulic motor.
To 12 remove the plates we have to rig the plate out.
And of 13 course we have no way to have a person go down and thread I
()
14 rigging through the forging piece.
15-So one of the most creative ideas that we have had 16 in the recent past has been an industrial balloon was 17 attached to an airline.
We are looking at a balloon being 18 fed down through the forging hole.
Once it is through the 19 hole them we inflate it and there you can see it coming up I
20 through another hold.
21 That brings us a light line which we then feed a 22 heavy line down through the hole so that we can pull the 23 plate out.
24 There you can see the bottom of the plate.
The 25 bottom of the plate was unbrushed.
You can just take a look
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 J
28
()
'1 at that to see.
For us the question was, has there been any 2
attack of'the bottom of'these plates or of the plates by the 3
' molten material which flowed down in some cases through 4
them.
And by.looking,' examining the bottom, we found no 5
evidence of attack.of the metal of the plate sections.
6 This is that bne plate segment being placed in a 7
canister, a rack, in the core flood tank.
We have a rack in 8
there that all of the plate segments have been stored in 9
that rack in the core flood tank.
10 The next plate down is the incore guide tube 11 support plate. That is that strange acronym there.
The 12 first thing we did before we cut this-plate was that we put 13 in a large saw and we sawed, if you look over at the
()
14 overhead Greg, we sawed off the top of the incore tubes 15 above that plate, sawed through a weld.
16 The plate had a nut on the top of the tube with 17 two welded tabs on the tube itself.
We sawed through the 18 two welds and sawed the tube off.
That was so that we would 19 not have to cut around on the plate, around the tubes.
20 And this sequence is showing one of our saws.
It 21 is a hydraulic saw, cutting through one of those tubes.
And 22 this of course is under 35 or 40 feet of water.
23 You will see the blade stop in a minute when we 24 have gone all the way through.
25 This was one of our other creative ideas.
- This, Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
29
()
1 by doing this sawing, we saved in the neighborhood of'100' 2
cuts which the rate that we use typically for these kinds of-3 cuts is three cuts per day.
So we saved a tremendous. amount 4
of cutting of these plates by' a ese of a hydraulic saw.
5l This is the torch working.
We are 1c og through-6 a welder's shield.
The' torch is now, we are now us og the 7
torch to cut that.next plate.
This plate was a two-inch 8
. thick stainless steel plate.
'9 Here you can see,;in the center of the screen 10 towards.the bottom, you can see what looks like a tube, and 11 around the tube are four small holes.
Those are flow holes 12 around the incore guide support, incore guide tube, and had 13-we not been able to saw off the tab elds and take the nuts
(
14 off we would have had to cut around those four holes.
l 15 You can see~another balloon coming up through for 16 the rigging of this plate.
l L
17 Again, we brush the surface, the top surface of 18 the plate.
You can see the edge, see how ragged the edges 19 are.
That is, the torch is essentially blowing away the' 20 metal.
21 Here you can see that plate coming out of the T-1 l
22 slot on the work platform.
You can just make it out towards 23 the left portion of the screen.
24-That is a view of it in air.
There you can see 25 the ragged edges of the cut there to the right, on the right
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
u
i 30
,cx()
1 hand side of the screen.
]
2 Here we are bringing the plate up.
As I mentioned 3
before, we bring the plate up, we move it to a line.
You 4
can see what appears to be a rope there.
That line is an 5
orientation line.
It orients ths plate and then we have a 6
counter that we use to bount the plates for if there are any 7
fuel remnants on the plate.
8 During this period, we performed a number of 9
activities outside the reactor vessel.
I mentioned in the 10 last meeting that we had a line, the KE drop line, which had 11 a fair amount of fuel in it.
We used an nuclear grade roto-12 rooter to go down through that line.
13 We first cut a hole in the top of one of our large
( )
14 pipes leading to the steam generator, fed our device, our 15 roto-rooter-type device down through a funnel, leading into 16 this 10-inch diameter line.
Then we sent this flailing 17 device down that line and broke up what was a hard layer of 18 material in that line.
19 We then pulled that hard material up into the hot l
20 leg of the steam generator.
i 21 This, I mentioned in the last meeting that we had l
l 22 worked in the steam generator.
We have sent electronic 23 devices or radiation measurement devices down 61 of these 24 tubes.
25 Nhat we are looking at is what we call the tuve l
q(_/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
l 1
31 (3
7_)
1 sheet.
It is the steam generator's upper surface and we are 2
looking at a device that is lining up on a particular hole 3
and then we send a string of electronic and other types of 4
measurement devices down the tube.
5 This work is all done outside the generator by a 6
person behind a shielde'd area.
7 One of the uncertainties that I told you about in 8
the last meeting was whether or not we could cut the baffle 9
plates.
This is a test cut we did earlier to determine 10 whether we could cut with the torch through the baffle 11 plates.
That is the torch.
You can see nitrogen gases 12 coming from the torch.
This is the actual cut of the torch.
13 We started at the bottom of the baffle plate which is the
()
14 worst place, and we cut up two 20-inch sections.
15 You will see molten material falling out of the 16 cut to the left there.
That is a mixture of molten 17 stainless steel and fuel.
18 MR. MORRIS:
Excuse me.
While this is very 19 interesting, I think, I am a little concerned about time.
20 And I am just wondering, how much longer is the presentation 21 at this point?
22 MR. ROACHE:
Eny don't we go to the next tape.
I 23 just want to show you this one --
24 MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
I just want to make sure there 25 is a chance for public question at some point and soue of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
32
(_n) 1 the other items.
e 2
MR. ROACHE:
Four minutes on the next tape, which 3
is cf interest in the sense that it shows the two incore 4
guide tubes that were in the molten material are now broken.
5 MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
Okay.
6 MR. ROACHE:
What we are going to see is we have 7
taken a plate and we have lifted it and we have turned it on 8
its side.
And the bottom of the plate has these three 9
tubes, three incore guide tubes.
10 Greg, could you put that overhead on, the guide 11 tubes?
12 This is the plate sections from the center of the 13 vessel.
Now, as we are looking at the bottom of this plate rT
(_j 14 section, to the left is a long tube.
In the center is a 15 shorter tube.
In the top is a shorter tube.
16 The hole in the center is one of the flow holes in 17 that flow distributor plate.
18 That is a light that we have off to the right.
19 You can see, we are looking at the tube that is 20 the full length tube now, and you can see what appear to be 21 some type of heat marks or even a high water type mark on 22 that tube.
23 Those two pieces of metal to the right and the 24 left on the tube, they are supports that attach the tube to 25 the plate.
O
\\/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - --- --- a
33
{[
1 Here is the bottom of one of the tubes that-either-
.2 was' broken off or burnt off.
You can see vaguely the 3/8-3 inch center: portion, the circular portion in the center.
.4 You can see what appears to be a conchoidal-like_ fracture of-5 that stainless steel tube that looks as if it were some type 6
of a fracture.
That is'one of the two shortened tubes.
~
7-This next tube is the other of the two shortened 8'
tubes and it has a slightly different appearance,.almost 9
looks like it was broken off.
10 Again, the 3/8-inch diameter hole in the center, 11 with the broken material around the side.
12 This is the full-length tube.
And if you look in 13 the center of the tube on the bottom, you will see two
{ }
14 pinholes in a minute.
See the pinholes?
Apparently there 15 was some material which burned through those pinholes.
16 Otherwise, the tube has some damage on the left-hand bottom 17 portion of the tube.
18 Here we have a light that is going inside the 19 tube.
You can see some material, some remnants of material 20 on the bottom of the tube.
As the light goes further up in 21 the tube you can see the taper.
The taper from the thin 22 material up to that 3/8-inch diameter hole.
23 This is a look at the bottom.
This is the hard 24 material on the bottom with a series, a number of fuel rods 25 that are laying on that hard material.
We have a light
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 34
(
1.
'there.
What we are looking for is the poles from where the 2
tubes came from.
3 If you look just to the right of the light wire, 4
there is a coil, almost looks like a phone, a telephone wire 5
that is coming out of the hard mass.
That is the instrument
)
6 line that was in the gobd tube.
7 We have extended it when we lifted the tube.
That 8
conjunction from that incore was up in the original core 9
region.
That was a good incore tube.
10 This is another side view of that plate.
There is 11 the tops of those incore guide tubes and then the bottom.
12 That is the end of the tape.
I had another 13 section there showing the baffle plate cuts.
But it is
()
14 essentially the same is that test cut.
We were very 15 successful in cutting the baffles.
16 Any questions on where we stand on the cleanup?
17 MR. MORRIS:
Neil, then Tom.
18 MR. WALD:
Could you give us some idea how thick 19 that hard layer, that 15,000 pound layer is at the bottom?
20 MR. ROACHE:
We did topography measurements.
In 21 the center of the vessel it is approximately 18 inches 22 thick.
23 If you look in your package, there is the one 24 diagram that shows that hard material.
Take a look at that, 25 right in the center of that, and that material is O-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
35 7-),
1 approximately 18 inches thick.
(
2 Off to the right side you see it tails off to only 3
a few inches thick.
Sorry, to the left side it tails off to 4
a few inches.
To the right side it is, at the edge it 5
appears very thick.
It almost appeared like a wall.
6 One activity that we did do recently was we did a 7
test to see whether we could break that material up.
We put 8
a tool, after we did this topography, and the topography 9
essentially has, that herd material has a fairly flat 10 surface, and the thickness then varies because the bottom 11 head has that type of circular attitude.
12 We took a tool, 900 pound tool, put a 350 pound 13 slide hammer on it.
(}
14 Tho tool had a chisel on the end.
We put 15 initially the tool in the center of the pile, right in the 16 center of the diagram, and with repeated blows, dropping our 17 350-pound slide from 20 feet, we were able to penetrate that 18 material only about four inches.
19 We stopped the work.
We did not try to get all 20 the way to the bottom.
21 We then went out on the edge and we started in 22 about approximately ten inches of material, shown on the 23 right-hand side of your, where there is that more like a 24 wall, and we were able, by raising our slide to about seven 25 feet and dropping it four or five times, we were able to
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
36
()
1 penetrate the 12 inches of material and get to the head.
2 We did'the first, on the Northwest side we did the 3
first hole.
4 We moved to the very next hole, which would be 5
only six or eight inches away.
And when we started there 6
was material there, but' when we got there to do the second 7
hole, we think what we did was lock off a section of that 8
hard mass.
9 We went to the third hole and there was ten inches 10 there.
We went with again repeated blows.
At seven feet we 11 were able to get to the head.
12 We then went to the Southeast and we repeated the 13 work and were able in two holes to get from about six inches
()
14.
to the head.
15 That gave us encouragement that we will by simple 16 means be able to break up the hard material.
17 The fact that we were not able to penetrate the 18 material in the center, you could conclude either it is 19 different material than it is on the periphery or, 20 alternatively, it is as if you were breaking up a sidewalk, 21-a concrete sidewalk, it is much easier to start at the edge i
22 and break off the material and work your way into the 23 center.
24 There is still concern about, as I mentioned in 25 the last meeting, the potential for metallic material to be O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
37 1
embedded.in or below that hard layer, and only.our work 2
after we go on, and I will give you a sense of our next 3
steps in the future, in not this segment, but the next one, 4
but our future work will tell us exactly what is in that 5
material.
6 MR. GERUSKY: 'What kind of airborne radioactivity 7
' levels if any did you have when you lifted the plates out of 8
the vessel?
9 MR. ROACHE:
We did not have any substantial 10 airborne problems at all.
We had brushed the top of the 11 plate.
We had then use that wash, that high pressure wash 12 when bringing the plate up.
And we made measurements of the 13 plate as they were being held on that counting line.
We had
( }
14 values in the neighborhood of 250 millirem per hour.
And I 15 think the highest, we did have a hot spot of 1-r per hour on 16 contact.
But we didn't have any airborne problems.
17 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB:
How much of the' fuel in there 18 do you expect to take out eventually?
Do you expect to get 19' all of that out of there?
20 MR. ROACHE:
Our intent is to -- as Mike Masnik 21 was talking about before, our goal is to remove greater than 22 99 percent of the material.
23 At this point, with the exception of the 24 uncertainty of the hard material on the bottom, and we know 25 we have some of the hard material behind the baffles, we are i
p
(_)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 38 13
(_)
1 confident that we will be able to get the material out.
2 Among the most challenging will be the material 3
between the plates.
That is the 6,000 pounds of material.
4 Some of it is soft and some'is hard.
We have a number of 5
different mechanisms that we have tested that show promise 6
to be able to clean that material out.
But our intent is to 7
get greater than 99 percent of the fuel.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Any other questions?
9
(:No response) 10 MR. MORRIS:
Okay.
Thank you.
11 MR. ROACHE:
Okay.
The next item was the present 12 and future offsite radioactive monitoring programs.
13 I think you should all have a list of the
()
14 transparencies that I will use on this.
15 MR. MORRIS:
I would just ask that you be aware of 16 the time on the presentation, if you could, please.
17 We are actually about 45 minutes behind schedule.
18 That is why you feel me prodding a little bit.
19 MR. ROACHE:
Quickly, there's four main points 20 that I wanted to cover.
l 21 The first is that there is, in the radiological 22 environmental monitoring program, we have plant monitors.
23 The plant monitors measure in plant radiation levels, 24 measuring both liquid and gaseous effluent that comes from 25 the plant.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
)
1 l
()
1 These monitors are used to provide notification to 2
plant operators of any changing radiological conditions.
l i
3 Outside the plant we have a number of different 4
means to collect information on environmental data, from 5
environmental data.
6 The first is bsing dosimeters.
These are thermal 7
luminescent dosimeters, TLDs.
We have 104 of these TLDs 8
that are located around the plant, up to 21 miles around 9
the plant.
10 These TLDs are read quarterly or more frequently 11 if we have to.
There is a map in your package, three maps 12 in your package that show varying distances away from the 13 plant and the locations of those monitors.
14 We have in addition to the TLDs, we have various 15 sample collection programs that have aquatic, atmospheric 16 and terrestrial samples being taken at various frequencies.
17 In 1987 we collected 1400 samples.
We had 18 performed 3600 analyses on the 1900 samples we collected in 19 1988.
20 Thirdly, we have real time monitors.
These are 21 gamma measuring devices that, you have heard the name Reuter 22 Stokes, which is the brand name for the monitors that we 23 have.
There are 16 of these in an area that is 24 approximately three miles from the plant.
The readings are 25 recorded electronically at GPU Nuclear, and brought to the
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
40 I
1-Lancaster County Courthouse.
This diagram shows the 2
location of the 16 monitors.
3 The real time monitors, there has been discussion 4
about the monitors.
In the last, I believe it was in 5
September, I mentioned that the company had committed to 6
maintain the monitors through the defueling and fuel 7
shipping.
8 The company has, and I mentioned in the last 9
meeting that the company has been involved in an evaluation 10 of those monitors.
We are taking into consideration the 11 concerns registered by the panel and members of the public.
12 Our intent is to modify the system and that the 13 modifications to the system will involve the addition of
( )
14 some monitors that will have better capabilities in terms of 15 transmission of information.
And in the next meeting, the 16 next panel meeting, I will provide more details about the 17 upgrade to the system.
18 It is our intent, as I mentioned, to maintain the 19 updated system at least through to the, I mentioned before, 20 the defueling and the fuel shipping.
And it is currently 21 our intent to maintain the upgraded system through water 22 evaporation and the initial stages of monitored storage.
23 MR. MORRIS:
Any questions from the panel on that 24 so far?
25 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB:
Yes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
41
().
1 MR. MORRIS:
John?
2 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB:
The 16 Reuter Stokes monitors, 3
why is there only one on the West side of the river?
1 Everything else is either on the islands or on the North or 5
East side.
6 MR. ROACHE:
The distribution of the monitors was l
7 done in an attempt to cover a number of different factors.
8 Those that are on islands were intended, I 9
believe, to cover the Western sectors.
10 The more proximate to the plant, the earlier the 11 information would be to the system.
12 There were factors that were included in the 13 evaluation that included the wind pattern.
Typically there
()
14 is for much of the year a general Westerly flow of air.
15 Also in consideration were population centers.
16 Also the availability of placement in areas that we would 17 not experience vandalism.
It is very difficult to keep 18 these devices.
They are fairly large devices.
It is 19 difficult to keep them in operation all the time.
So it is 20 accessibility and to avoid vandalism..
21 MR. MORRIS:
Any other panel member at this point?
22 (No response) l l
23 MR. MORRIS:
Okay.
What I would like to do if 1
l l
24 possible is, I know that Deborah Davenport ha asked for time l
25 on the agenda and I think she has specific interest in the
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J 42
()
1 radiation monitoring question.
And if we could at this 2
' point, maybe, Mike, we could ask you maybe to stay close, 3
because she may have some questions of you I would' assume.
4 You can either stay there if you want, maybe that 5
might'be helpful, and maybe Deborah could come forward.
Is 6
there another chair next to you or could we get one?
7 MS. Davenport.
Yes.
8 4
l 9
l 10 11 j
12 1
13
()
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
21 22 23 24 25 i
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l 43
).
1 MS. DAVENPORT:
I am Deborah Davenport, Concerned 2
Mothers and Women.
And I am glad that GPU is going to 3
maintain and I hope upgrade the Reuter Stokes system, but I 4
wish that the system would be maintained through post 5-defueling. monitoring and storage, but I guess that subject 6
is going to be covered in another meeting as to how much 7
monitoring will be maintained at whatever stage, post 8
defueling monitoring and storage or decommissioning delay 9
takes place.
10-I am glad that this has happened, but I hope GPU 11 will also be continuing to give access to Dauphin County 12 Emergency Management and Lancaster County as they have done 13 in the past.
Will you be doing that?
()
14 MR. ROACHE:
Yes, that is our intent.
15 MS. DAVENPORT:
Also, regarding the windows on the 16 west bank of the river.
That is difficult.
And I feel like 17 just prevailing wind directions are not going not going to 18 pick up what's going to the west bank of the river which has 19 been a problem area.
This is an area where there are farms, 20 where there are people who have complained of health 21 symptoms and they have had actual deaths and cancers because 22 of the accident, as far as I am concerned.
However, this is 23 a step in the right direction to remedy some of that 24 situation.
25 I know that in one monitoring study that has been Heritage e orting Co ora @
e ~,,;
44
'( )
1 done, it was recommended that monitoring not just be placed 2
according to prevailing wind directions, but also simply in 3
concentric patterns around the plant so that angles or 4
windows would not be left open should radiation pass through 5
that particular area.
And it doesn't matter what the 6
prevailing wind directi'n would be, it depends on where the o
7 wind is blowing at the time that something might take place.
8 So, I was wondering if there would be any possibility of 9
augmenting the placement of the machines to the west.
And 10 then the second problem, the Reuter Stokes keeps going down 11 on Shelly Island on the north and south.
And I was 12 wondering were you going to upgrade them because there are 13 only three monitors to the west of the plant anyways, and
' ( )
14 they are usually down.
15 MR. MORRIS:
Can yo's pick that up at this point?
16 Are you able to hear?
17 THE REPORTER:
Yes.
18 MS. DAVENPORT:
I'm sorry.
19 MR. MORRIS:
It's okay, Deborah.
Maybe you could 20 bring that mike a little closer.
As I said, the upgrade, 21 we'll talk about that at the next meeting.
I am not 22 prepared at this point to talk about any new locations.
23 Relative to the Shelly Island, Shelly is an island that is 24 to the west.
We telemeter the data from Shelly to a 25 telephone and then from the telephone, the data goes to our
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
45 (3
()
1 computer.
The telemetering system is not as reliable as the 2
phones.
And that is one of the problems that we have.
3 Traditionally, Shelly has had some power outages.
4 There has been in the past another order cable, cable that 5
runs to Shelly to supply electric power.
And that cable has 6
had more outages than wbuld the typical cable. I believe, 7
and I am not sure of the timing on it, but I bel.ieve there 8
will be an overhead cable that will supply not just the 9
Reuter Stokes and it is not intended, I don't think, for the 10 Reuter Stokes, but will supply power Shelly in the future, 11 which hopefully will help remedy the problem that we're 12 having with -- some of the problems that we're have with 13 Reuter Stokes there.
That is one of the stations that we
()
14 have the most trouble with.
And it is mainly because of the 15 telemeter.
16 MS. DAVENPORT:
Would it be all right to ask a 17 question on the PDMS plan now also?
18 MR. MORRIS:
Sure.
19 MS. DAVENPORT:
On that, I am wondering if monies 20 will be set aside since this plan has been changed.
It's 21 not called PDMS anymore.
'It's called decommissioning or 22 delayed decommissioning.
Will funds still be required now 23 to be set aside?
I think they used to be required to be set 24 aside right away if a plant was going to go into this 25 status, so that they will be there to maintain.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f 46 I
1 MR. MASNIK:
I think I can answer that.
First of 2
all, we are terming it delayed decommissioning.
I don't 3
believe that that is what the licensee is terming it.
4 Furthermore, under the new decommissioning rule, 5
all utilities, including GPU and including -- well, for TMI 6
II as well, are required to submit a decommissioning funding 7
. plan by July of next year.
And that funding plan will 8
address the issue of money being set aside to decommission 9
the facility.
10 MS. DAVENPORT:
Also, I am wondering with that, 11 once, if you start to approve those plans when the plans 12 come in, will monies be set aside then or would they only be 13 required as the plant shuts down?
()
14 MR. MASNIK:
No.
The purpose of the plan is --
15 the purpose of the requirement for the utility to submit the 16 plan is.to provide assurance that monies would be available 17 at the time of decommissioning.
Basically, what it is, it's 18 an escrow, it's a method by which the utility will escrow 19 funds so that at the time that the plant is decommissioned, 20 the money will be available.
21 MS. DAVENPORT:
But they wouldn't apply to 22 post defueling monitored storage, delayed commissioning, 23 only at the final end when the decommissioning actions are l
24 taken?
I 25 MR. MASNIK:
No.
It is all utilities at the I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
47 e
l
(_m) 1 present time.
In other words, the rule says that starting
)
4 1
2 now you have to set money aside.
3 MS. DAVENPORT:
Could those funds, would any of I
4 those apply toward post defueling monitored storage or 5
whatever?
)
l 6
MR. MASNIK:
No.
That money would be earmarked 7
solely for decommissioning.
They can't use it for any other 8
source -- I mean they can't use it for any other means.
9 MS. DAVENPORT:
I just have one more question.
I 10 know it is mainly tritium that is released.
If the 11 evaporator does go into use, are there going to be special 12 plans for monitoring around the evaporator?
13 I know that when I was at the county n,()
14 commissioners' meeting, they did say something -- GPU did --
15 about putting in some monitoring.
And I am wondering if 16 that could be brought up here and if the monitoring is going
- l 17 to be adequate?
I'm still hoping that that doesn't get 18 approved.
But it doesn't look like the U.S. Government or 19 at least the NRC remembers that we have citizens here right 20 now.
It seems they are going ahead without waiting for a 21 hearing to take place, first.
22 MR. MORRIS:
The question is whether there is 23 going to be additional monitors installed when the 24 evaporation begins in order to track the krypton -- tritium.
25 I'm sorry.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
48
()
1 MS. DAVENPORT:
Because it is a beta emitter and I 2
don't think Reuter Stokes could pick it up and it might not 3
pick up all gases.
4 MR. MORRIS:
I haven't heard, other than the 5
upgrading --
6 MR. ROACHE:
There will be five monitors.
The 7
location I am not exactly sure of.
There will be five of 8
our air particulate monitors that would all have the stream 9
that will be sampled for tritium.
Those will be set up.
I 10 think there will be four that will be around the plant and 11 one control.
That may be what you had heard at one of the 12 county commissioners' meetings.
That is our intent:
to 13 specifically for the evaporation, during the evaporation (v')
14 process to have those five monitors.
15 MS. DAVENPORT:
And then there was something where 16 you were going to measure particles in some way?
17 MR. MORRIS:
It is called a particulate monitor.
18 And its typical configuration, we take a filter out.
We are 19 pumping air through a filter and we take the filter and 20 count whatever the constituents on the filter.
In this 21 particular case, we're going to take a stream of the air 22 that would be passing through and we will run it through a 23 device which will collect the tritium and then we will count 24 that.
We will collect water and we will count it for 25 tritium.
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
49
()
1 MS. DAVENPORT:
If you have particulate wastes 2
coming through on the filter other than beta particles --
3 MR. MORRIS:
Deborah, we are having a real hard 4
time hearing what you are saying on the record.
5 MS. DAVENPORT:
Okay.
If you have other wastes 6
coming through on the filter other than tritium which will 7
pass through the filter mostly, I guess, it picks up beta 8.
particles?
9 MR. ROACHE:
It picks up tritium.
10 MS. DAVENPORT:
Yes.
l 11 MR. ROACHE:
But the filters themselves will take 12 up any particulate material.
13 MS. DAVENPORT:
Could, the next time, would it be I
()
14 possible for GPU to tell us, maybe, what plans -- could GPU 15 maybe in the next meeting tell us what plans they are going 16 to submit or show a little bit more in a diagram what the 1
17 filtering for the monitoring of the evaporator?
18 MR. MORRIS:
I would hope -- could you do that, l
19 Mike?
l 20 MR. ROACHE:
Are you talking about the five 21 filters --
22 MR. MORRIS:
Yes.
23 MR. ROACHE:
Okay.
Maybe we could provide it to 24 the panel in advance, j
\\
25 MR. MORRIS:
That would be helpful if you could do Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
I l
l
50 e r
'( j 1
that. And also you did indicate that at the next meeting you 2
would talk about the other additional monitoring that you 3
are going to be installing.
4 MR. ROACHE:
Yes.
5 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you.
6 MS. DAVENPORT':
Also, Debbie Baker has asked -- I 7
have asked if she could have Tom Bailey's time, because he 8
asked for five minutes and she would like to say something 9
the panel.
Would it be okay?
10 MR. MORRIS:
Excuse me.
There's no place on here 11 for Mr. Bailey, but I will certainly be happy as part of the 12 public comment to recognize her and have her come forward.
13 Okay?
( )
14 MS. DAVENPORT:
Thank you.
l 15 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you.
Who else from the public 16 would like time at this period to make comment?
17 MS. BAKER:
I thank the panel for allowing me to l
18 come forward.
My name is Deborah Baker and I wish to 19 address my concerns to this panel to be conveyed to the NRC
}
20 Commissioners.
21 What GPU is creating with this evaporation is a 22 situation where the people of the Three Mile Island area are 23 starting to question the sincerity and the integrity of our 24 nuclear industry.
25 After years of study, pro-nuclear and
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
i 51 j
I
()
1 anti-nuclear, one thing is certain:
There are too many gray 2
areas where it concerns how much radiation is harmful to 3
children and infants.
The gray areas are involving the low 4
levels, long term effects on children and infants. Based on-5 the insufficient data, how can we even justify, based on 6
what we have received since the accident, the intentional 7
release of yet another dose of radiation to our area.
8 We are society divided between pro and 9
anti-nuclear debates, each trying to discredit the other as 10 opposed to forming a common goals:
Finding the answers.
11 God knows we have had many opporttmities to study 12 the effects of radiation and we still do not have'all the 13 answers.
My main concern is for my son born with a
( }
14 congenital abnormality.
According to Dr. Hirsh of the 15 oncology department of the Hirsh Medical Center, the 16 Leukemia Society of America and the National Cancer 17 Institute, children born with altered or unrepaired 18 chromosomal damages are extremely susceptible to developing 19 leukemia.
20 One thing that is a fact:
radiation plays an 21 important role in children developing leukemia.
Our 22 children are at double risks.
I am not alone in my 23 concerns.
Parents with children who are born with 24 congenital abnormalities live with this risk every day of 25 their lives.
To add the venting of radiation into our
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-49L8
52
.I 1
atmosphere is to increase our' children's susceptibility.
If 2
our children leukemia, will it be God's Will?
Think about 3
it.
4 I ask that you, the panel, support the appeal 5
actions from our area groups.
We are the concerned parents 6
living in this area.
Thank you for allowing me to address 7
my concerns.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you.
With that, we will take a 9
10-minute break and then reconvene.
10 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
11 12 13 O
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 53
()
1 MR. MORRIS:
I would like to call the meeting back 2
to order and ask GPU if they would come forward to present 3
the TMI-2 cleanup schedule and funding.
i 4
MR. ROACHE:
I am Mike Roache, 5
Before I begin, I was asked a question during the-6 break that makes me thihk that what I said about the real 7
time gamma monitoring system was not clear.
8 I wanted to be sure that everyone understood that 9
the company is maintaining the current system through, until 10 shipment, which would probably be into early 1990.
11 The company is aware of the concerns about the 12 system beyond that point and are taking those concerns into 13 consideration.
And our review includes possible
(~}
14 modification to the system.
We expect to provide you a plan 15 for that this Summer.
The modifications that we talked 16 about, Ms. Davenport was asking about the transmission, for 17 example, from the island.
That is the type of modification 18 that we were looking at.
In addition to that we are looking 19 at adding some more stations for some period of time that 20 would go into or through evaporation and into post-issuing 21 monitored storage.
I just wanted to make sure that that is 22 clear.
23 Relative to the cleanup schedule and funding for 24 that, T will just spend a minute or so reviewing the work 25 that we have ahead of us, just kind of go down quickly.
We l
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
54
.()
1 are currently, as I mentioned, cleaning up the baffle plate 2
cut holes.. We will begin shortly cutting support posts that 3
will be in the periphery.
These are existing support posts.
4 So we will have our hydraulic saw, we will go around the 5
perimeter and cut those support posts.
We will cut the 6
plate segments,.or remove the cut plate segments from the 7
bottom of the head.
We will clean the guide tubes of any 8
fuel or any material. Essentially we will have what looks to 9
me like a battery terminal cleaner type of device that will 10 actually clean those tubes.
We will count the segments for 11 fuel as we remove them.
And then after that we will remove 12 the material at the bottom.
This includes that 27,000 l
13 pounds of evacuable material in the periphery, and about
'(g) 14 8,000 or 9,000 pounds of evacuable, and those rods that you 15 saw in that video on the surface of the hard material.
16 Additionally, the 15,000 pounds of hard material.
17 We will then go up to work on the baffle plates.
18 The first thing we will do on the baffle plates is to remove 19 between 700 and 800 bolts that are on the faces of those 20 plates.
21 Once we have removed the bolts, we will then 22 remove the plates one by one.
We will turn the plate 23 around, look at the back of it, inspect the back of it.
24 Then we will defuel the material that is resting on those 25 horizontal formers.
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-iS 88 1
I l
1 55 l
l 1
We will then come down and defuel the material in 2
the periphery.
That is the 6,000 pounds.
3 We will then do a final cleanup of the vessel.
i 4
In the last meeting I described the sampling that
]
5 will be done of the lower head of the metal on the lower 6
head.
Between 8 and 20' samples will be taken of the metal 7
in the lower head.
8 And then finally we will drain down the vessel.
9 We are currently running approximately three 10 months late in the defueling schedule.
We have decided to 11 put off revising the schedule until we have more information 12 about the material in the lower head.'
i 13 I told you about the experimental work we did in
( )
14 trying-to break up that hard material.
We are going to be 15 into that work in May and we will not revise the schedule 16 until we have understood the difficulty that we will have 17 and the rate of removal that we will have of that hard j
18 material.
19 Our current plan will have us re-evaluate the 20 schedule in the May-June time frame.
21 Relative to manning, I would like to just show you 22 a graph that we have, that starts in October of 1988.
It 23 shows our manning.
We have in the neighborhood of 220 24 company people.
That line is fairly constant through the 25 time period of the graph.
The graph goes to December of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1 i
L_m_______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
56 rs
(_)
1 1989.
2 The contractor line, which starts in October, in 3
the neighborhood of 420 or so, that has been declining.
4 Some of the initial portion of that decline was our effort 5
to focus the work on the defueling so that the remaining 6
people that we had were' actively involved in the defueling.
7 We had people leave who had done the engineering work for a 8
lot of the things that we had completed.
9 We are currently, in the early April time frame, 10 we have approximately 500 total people in the TMI-2 11 Division.
And we have another approximately 200 people who 12 are people supporting the work.
That would include health 12 physics technicians, industrial safety people, quality
()
14 assurance people, security officers, et cetera.
15 The graph that you see there is based upon a 16 current budget, current schedule that shows a decline at the 17 end of June.
That decline was the anticipated time until 18 the end of defueling.
19 We are in the process now of notifying all of our 20 people that the defueling schedule has slipped at least 21 three months, and making plans to have them stay through the 22 completion of the defueling.
23 Going to the budget, we have, in the letter I sent 24 to Mayor Morris, we have in the 1989 budget approximately 25
$52 million.
That budget has in it approximately $4 million t)
Heritage Report'ng Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
57 I')\\
(
1 of a reserve'or contingency.
2 The graph that I am showing is, the line that goes L
3 from'the.beginning of the year, January, through the end of 4
the year, plus the reserve, is the budget line.
That budget 5
~1ine. ends.at approximately $52 million.
6 The three.doth connected for the first three 7
raonths show our actual, where we were approximately $1/2 8
million under budget currently.
We have' currently spent i
9
$14.6 million.
The budget was $15.1 million through the 10 first three months of the year.
11 The calculation that we have done shows that the 12 defueling, approximately one month of defueling time, would' 13 cost'us in the neighborhood of about $1.5 million.
With the
()
14 re-evaluation, off in May, we are projecting that we will be 15 fairly close with the three-month delay to the contingency 16 that we currently have within the $52 million.
17 Just in summary, I wanted to point out, and I 18 quoted the Chairman of GPU in the letter to Mayor Morris as 19 providing the full support of the company to the cleanup.
20 And I have the full support of both the Chairman of GPU as 21 well as my superiors in GPU Nuclear.
I would expect that we 22 will be able to finish the project and not have any 23 financial problems doing so.
24 Any questions?
25 MR. MORRIS:
Does anybody on the panel have any
.O.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
58
(
1 questions at this point?
Joel?
2.
MR. ROTH:
I guess first I should thank you 3
publicly for sending the information to us.
4 Second of all, I would just like to get back'to 5
your numbers to make sure that I am understanding them.
6 Using your letter, $917 million has been spent.
7
$52 million for 1989 gives you approximately a projected 8
$969 million at the end of this year, which would leave 9
approximately the $31 million for the $1 billion figure 10 which you say you would stay --
11 MR. ROACHE: $1 billion.
12' MR. MORRIS:
Right.
$1 billion.
13 And so to get back to the figuring a total of $83 j )
14
.million in the next say time span to get to that $1 billion, 15 those numbers then, can they be equated to your trying to 16 get within that 1 percent, to clean it up to that 1 percent?
17 Do you follow where I'm at?
18 MR. ROACHE:
The defueling -- I believe at this 19 point that we will be spending that $1.5 million per month 20 extra for defueling.
And currently we are seeing a delay of 21 three, possibly four months.
So you multiply that and you 22 have in the neighborhood of $6 million that would be, some 23 of which would come from our contingency.
l 24 So I see us still well below the $1 billion.
25 MR. ROTH:
to get to that 1 percent?
l
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
59 j
,)
1 MR. ROACHE:
Right.
That would be, our goal in
(
2 the defueling is to get tc less than 1 percent.
3 MR. ROTH:
Okay.
4 MR. MORRIS:
Do any other panel members have 5
questions?
6 MR. MASNIK:
how much money do you have budgeted j
7 for next year?
8 MR. ROACHE:
We have currently budgeted $5 million 9
for next year.
That will be part of the evaluation that we 10 will n doing in May and June.
11 MR. MORRIS:
Will we be getting in May or June did 12 you say an updated schedule at that point?
13 MR. ROACHE:
Yes.
[")
14 MR. MORRIS:
So you will be providing or at least 15 reviewing both the schedule and the finances for the future, 16 including 19907 17 MR. ROACHE:
Yes.
18 MR. MORRIS:
Okay.
Is it possible that at some 19 point, May, June, or whenever you have that, possible for 20 you to provide that information to the panel?
You can check 21 on it?
22 MR. ROACHE:
I don't have to check.
I will 23 provide it to the panel, yes.
24 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you.
25 I would be remiss if I didn't ask for Mr.
p)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(_
(202) 620-4888 l
i
60
)'
1 Smithgall, who always asks his questions on this part of it, 2
when we talk'about fuel removal, and that is, will you have 3
a sufficient number of canisters?
4 And at the last meeting you gave the impression, 5.
or somebody gave.the impression that maybe it was going taa 6
.be' tight, close.
It.giVes credibility to his' questions from 7
the.beginning.
Because-if I recall, these canisters take a 8
long time to fabricate, up to a year or something like that, 9
or maybe that --.is it about a year?
'10 MR. ROACHE:
It takes a long time.
At least six' 11 months, from the time of order.
12
'We have just recently completed an analysis of the 13 number of canisters that we would need and recognize that we.
.O.-
14 have defueling canisters and two different kinds of filter 15 canisters.
16 We have on hand 369 canisters.
We believe we will 17 use 360 of these.
There are nine other filter-type i
18 canisters that we will have remaining.
19 We mentioned I believe in the last meeting that 20 the densities that we are finding are increasing as we go 21 down in the material so we are getting much higher packing 22 in the canisters.
Our weights of canisters are 23 substantially-up from what they have been earlier on.
And
- 24 that gives us great encouragement that we will be able to 25 compete with the existing canisters.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L______________.____________
1 61
()
1 MR. MORRIS:
Good.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
2 MR. GERUSKY:
Yes.
3 MR. MORRIS:
Tom.
4 MR. GERUSKY:
What was your' previous, I don't 5
remember your previously projected end date for defueling?
6 MR. ROACHE:
the current schedule for the end of 7
defueling is the end of June.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Anybody else have a question?
9 (No response) 10 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you very much.
11 At this point, prior to public comment, there is 12 an opportunity for the panel to discuss the schedule of 13 funding.
Anything they would like to offer?
()
14 (No response) 15 MR. MORRIS:
Anybody?
16 (No response) 17 MR. MORRIS:
It is really a repeat of what we just 18 went through.
If there is any special discussion that we 19 need to have at this point?
20 (No response) 21 MR. MORRIS:
If there is not, and I am not seeing 22 anybody jump at it, I would assume that we should move on to 23 the next item on the agenda.
24 And at this point we will go to public comment.
I 25 do think there was a question that I saw somebody's hand Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
62
()
1 back there that somebody did want to ask regarding I believe 2
the schedule and funding.
3 So if you would like to ask that, Ms. Davenport, 4
and I think it was probably to GPU.
So if they could be 5
available.
6 Could you comb and maybe for the record just ask 7
it?
And following the question, I have been told that Eric 8
Epstein would like to come forward and offer some comments.
9 So if that is the case, maybe you would like to be next up 10 there, sir.
11 MR. EPSTEIN:
Yes.
12 MR. MORRIS:
Fine.
13 MS. DAVENPORT:
Just a question to clarify what is
(,,)
14 going to happen on the Reuter Stokes and in what timetable.
15 Because apparently in 1990 defueling is projected to be done 16 and after that the plant will go into some stage of post-17 defueling monitored storage.
18 At that point, does GPU intend to perhaps still 19 keep the system in?
20 I was trying to clarify what Mr. Roach had first 21 said in his correction.
22 In other words, are they going to keep Reuter 23 Stokes?
24 MR. MORRIS:
During PDMS?
25 MS. DAVENPORT:
Certainly in the early stages of O
\\-)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 63 in
(_)
1 PDMS, or are they going to still be re-evaluating through 2
and then present their plan this Summer?
3 MR. MORRIS:
I heard him say that they would have, 4
and if I'm wrong on this, Mike, please correct me, but you 5
would have that in place up to and during the early part of 6
PDMS, but you would be he-evaluating the future of it 7
thereafter.
That is what I heard you say.
8 MS. DAVENPORT:
Maybe the good way to ask this is 9
what would be considered the early stages of PDMS and when 10 would they be projected to end.
Is there any end point in 11 sight on them now?
12 MR. MORRIS:
I did not totally -- what would they 13 consider as the early point of PDMS?
()
14 MS. DAVENPORT:
Yes, when they would re-evaluate 15 the system.
16 In other words, what might be the timetable at 17 which this would finally be addressed, they might consider 18 either taking the system out or going with it, you know, 19 going the distance with it.
j 20 MR. MORRIS:
I heard earlier on that you were 21 going to be providing some more specifics on this entire l
22 subject at a future meeting, and as I understood your 23 comment, would be sometime this Summer.
24 MR. ROACHE:
That's right.
25 MR. MORRIS:
So I think I hear what you say, but O
N/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
64 i
()
1 they didn't give anything more specific than that.
They did 2
indicate that there would be more specifics available at the 3
next time we visit this question.
And all I could ask you 4
is to be present at that time and raise these-questions.
j 5'
Because they have made a commitment to come forward publicly 6
to provide that information.
7 MS. DAVENPORT:
Yes. 'Thank you.
8 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
9 MR. EPSTEIN:
Do you want a copy of the statement 10 or would just prefer to have me elucidate it for you?
11 MR. MORRIS:
1 think if you have copies, we would 12 like to have them.
13 MR. EPSTEIN:
Okay.
Frances also asked me to read
(}
14 a statement in, i
15 MR. MORRIS:
You don't always stay with your copy, 16 but it makes it easier to follow.
17 MR. EPSTEIN:
Yes, I know.
18 MR. MORRIS:
Thanks, Eric.
19 MR. EPSTEIN:
I am sorry for missing the last 20 meeting.
I was in Tampa Bay.
21 MR. MORRIS:
It is going to hurt,your attendance 22 record.
12 3 MR. EPSTEIN:
Don't fly Piedmont.
Especially when 24 there is an ice storm in Carolina.
25 MR. EPSTEIN:
For the record, I am Eric Epstein.
l
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
65 (o) 1 And I am from Perry County, for now.
I just moved to 2
Susquehanna Township.
So I have become a yuppie.
3 Mayor Morris, I would like to just clarify some 4
things before I begin.
I would if possible like to get a 5
copy of the reports GPU sent to you, the one on economic 6
cost. You said you have' a document outlining the economic, 7
some of the economic parameters involved with the cleanup.
8 Also, since we were the people who had introduced 9
the questions concerning the inattentiveness to duty, the 10 negative trend in skin contamination, et cetera, I would 11 like to get a copy of that also.
12 Boy, that's quick.
13 Could you help me with my mortgage?
( )
14 In addition, just to GPU is possible, I know 15 members of the public were interested in some of the reports 16 they gave to the panel, so if they could make them available 17 to the general public, I think they would appreciate that.
18 MR. MORRIS:
I didn't catch that last thing.
I'm 19 sorry.
20 MR. EPSTEIN:
Some of the materials they made 21 available to you while the screening was going on, I think 22 some people in the general public would have liked to have 23 copies of those documents also.
Just a request to GPU if 24 possible to make those available.
25 MR. MORRIS:
Okay.
Let me just say too, for the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
]
66 1( f 1
record,' that.as I handed you that information, I believe I 2
did provide ~at least-a copy of the, answer to those questions 3
that would be part of the transcript as well.
So that would 4
be part of the record..
5
'MR.:EPSTEIN:
Okay.
But'that takes so long until 4
6
~it gets to my: rural dwelling.
7 I would like.the literature that I gave to become 8
part of the official record,'too.
Thank you.
.9 Frances Skolnik cannot'be here.
And without 10 further ado I'would like to read a statement for her, 11 concerning the NRC's decision.today, if that is okay with 12 you, and then get.into my statement.
13 STATEMENT 0F~ FRANCES SKOLNIK, READ BY ERIC EPSTEIN
'( )
14 "The. decision of the Commissioners to. grant the 15 amendment to amendment to GPU and to dispose of-the water at 16 TMI Unit-2 by boiling it and releasing the radioactive 17 carryover into the air comes as no surprise to us.
Their 18 decision is in. keeping with.their uncaring attitude and 19 disdain for the people of central Pennsylvania.
They have 20 steadfastly maintained this attitude since the 1979 accident l21 and during the subsequent cleanup.
It is highly unlikely
-22 that the NRC would have voted in favor of abandoning a 23 project, which releases radioactive and non-radioactive 24 contaminants unnecessarily into the air, when to do so, 25 would cause inconvenience to a nuclear power company.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
67
()
1 "SVA/TMIA ha're clearly shown that evaporation and 2
release to the radioactive carryover into the air is not a 3
viable alternative for dealing with this liquid radioactive 4
waste.
We have shown that this will undoubtedly cause 5
adverse health effects
- i 6
"The unnecessary release of carcinogenic 7
substances into our air and water is nothing but immoral.
8 Tne use of evaporation and release of the radioactive carry-9 over into the air as a means to reduce the volume of 10 radioactive waste is a dangerous precedent for the state of 11 Pennsylvania to permit at its nuclear power plants.
It is a 12 precedent which we strongly oppose. As the victims of this 13 exposure to hazardous waste we will take this issue tot he
(')
14 courts.
The decision today opens that avenue to the 15 citizens groups."
16 At this time, I would like to read into the record 17 my comments.
And they mostly deal with the economics 18 surrounding PDMS.
19 I would like to at this time acknowledge receipt 20 of the information from the NRC pertaining to PDMS criteria.
21 At this time, we would like to request a copy of the PDMS 22 safety evaluation report which is apparently completed and 23 available for public inspection.
24 Is that possible?
25 MR. MASNIK:
Yes.
O
\\s/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
68
()
1 MR. EPSTEIN:
Okay.
Thanks.
2 STATEMENT OF ERIC EPSTEIN 3
MR. EPSTEIN:
After receiving NRC's response to 4
our concerns on PDMS, we remain unclear as to who developed 5
.the general guidelines which apparently are not " absolute 15 criteria."
We are a lihtle confused as to what exactly is 7
the " clean enough" criteria.
Is it analogous to the ALARA 8
standards?
Is there a precedent for developing radiological 9
standards which are elastic and continually being revised in 10 conjunction with common sense and good radiological 11 practices?
12 I think many people in the community feel that the 13 utility and the NRC do not have a monopoly on the virtue of
( )
14 common sense.
So I would like a clarification of what 15 exactly common sense is.
It was a little vague.
16 I will skip the next paragraph since I think it 17 has already been dealt with.
18 I would at this time like to draw the Panel's 19 attention to some recent developments regarding GPU's i
20 financial health that we believe correspond to their plan to 21 mothball Unit 2.
22 As you may already be aware, Stand and Poor's 23_
Corporation has upgraded the financial ratings of GPU to 24
" single A" status for their subsidiaries, due in part to the l
25 progress being made with the cleanup.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
69
()
1 However, upon inspection of GPU's Annual Report, 2
it is clear that we can expect little or not progress in the 3
cleanup for the foreseeable future.
4 GPU's game plan includes maintaining, and I quote, 5
" existing generating facilities in service as long as 6
technically and economically practicable."
End quote.
This 7
include spending $500 million on construction improvements 8
this year, and implementation of their 1986 initiative known 9
as the Expenditure Analysis Program, or EAP, to control 10 costs and increase savings.
11 This plan wi ll enable GPU to extend the life of 12 their generating stations for at least another 20 years, 13
"'which is well beyond their previously scheduled retirement rQ 14 dates."
kJ 15 In other words, it is an acceptable practice to 16 indefinitely mothball a damaged nuclear station that needs 17 to be cleaned up and provides no revenues.
This allows GPU 18 to meet customer needs while controlling costs.
19 At the same time, GPU will artificially extend the 20 life of a nuclear power plant or plants thereby decreasing 21 the marg.in of safety at these sites in order to sustain 22 market viability.
This promotes economic expansion while 23 minimizing new construction costs.
24 This seems like a fair tradeoff if you live in New 25 Jersey.
O
(,/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_____________________a
l 70 1
rx
()
1 Let me continue.
This is probably not necessary, 2
but an observation.
3 GPU's austerity program also calls for a 4
substantial reduction of employees by 1990, I quote, "in 5
order to reduce costs while continuing to safely operate and 6
meet customer needs reliably."
l 7
I think the cut is 13,400 down to 13,000, roughly 8
400 employees is the employee reduction plan by 1990.
A 9
visible part of this employee reduction comes from PDMS.
10 At the same time EAP is being activated, the GPU 11 Board has announced plans to compensate Bill Kuhns, former 12 Chairman and CEO, I quote, "at a rate of not less than 13
$500,000 pea year" plus benefits.
The new CEO and Chairman,
( )
14 Stanley Hoch, will receive a base salary of not less than 15
$450,000 plus benefits.
I just thought that was an 16 interesting contrast.
17 More importantly, in their Annual Statement, GPU 18 made it clear that they will decommission Unit 1 and Unit 2 19 at the same time, iz 22, "sometime in the next century."
20 They admit that minimum funding for decommissioning one of l
21 the reactors is between $100 million to $125 million.
22 However, and this is very interesting, an independent 23 consultant hired by GPU estimated the cost to be about:
24
"$200 million to $300 million per plant in 1987 25 dollars for removing radioactive and non-radioactive I
O k_/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 71 l
()
1 materials (other than fuel) and the structures of [ Unit 1]
2 and Oyster Creek.
The actual cost vf decommissioning" --
3 and this is all from their Annual Report -- "The actual cost 4
of decommissioning may be materially different from these 5
estimates depending upon regulatory requirements and 8
6 technology available whbn the work is done.
No study has 7
been conducted for TMI-0, but decommissioning of the plant is expected to be su'stantially more expensive than Oyster 6
a 9
Creek [and) TMI-1."
10 The above-mentioned cost do not include the 11 removal and disposal of spent nuclear fuel or the additional 12 costs of decontaminating Unit 2.
GPU has also acknowledged, 13 and I quote, that "significant experience in decommissioning
(')
14 such facilities is lacking and tie technology available at
\\_/
15 the time of decommissioning may differ significantly from 16 that assumed in these studies."
17 Also, according to GPU, at the end of 1988 $26 18 million had been collected for the decommissioning of Oyster 19 Creek and TMI-1.
This I found extremely interesting.
20 Jersey Central Power & Light is collecting fundo 21 assuming that in plant entombment will be the method or 22 decommissioning of Unit 1.
At the same time, Met Ed and 23 Penn Elec are collecting monies assuming that dismantlement 24 will be implemented when TMI-1 is retired.
25 What are we going to do?
Dismantle half of it and
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
72
<s()
1 entomb the other half?
I am unclear on that scenario.
2 Presently, there are no being collected for the 3
decontamination or decommissioning of TMI-2.
No money.
4 However, GPU believes, and I quote:
"that costs associated 5
with the eventual decommissioning of TMI-2 (which includes 6
the annual cost of decommissioning) should be recoverable 7
through the ratemaking process."
8 It is clear that GPU believes that the ratepayers 9
and taxpaye.'ru and not the shareholders should shoulder the 10 burden of cleaning up a nuclear power plant that only 11 generated electricity for four months.
12 Finally, I think these revelations do support our 13 earlier findings that GPU does ont have the economic
()
14 resources to safely decontaminate or decommission TMI-2.
It 15 is now apparent that they are without adequate funding to 16 decommission TMI-l and Oyster Creek.
17 We believe the Panel needs to forcefully convey to 18 the Commission that Unit 2 should be decontaminated 19 immediately, and that cost must be borne by the utility.
20 In addition, the panel should elucidate the acute 21 shortfall of funding associated with the eventual 22 decommissioning of Unit 2.
23 All this information is documented, and I have 24 footnoted it, from the Annual Report.
And the shareholders 25 meeting I believe is May 4 in New York City, and I plan to G
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
73 q
1~
be.in' attendance to get more-information.
2 I don't know if you all have any' questions.
But I J
3 thought it was releva'at to PDMS and I hope it' clarified some.
l 4-of the outstanding issues for you all.
5-6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14
.15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Y ___ _ __ _ _ _ ___-.
74
()
1 MR. MORRIS:
I do not have any questions.
I think 2
that the observations, and there will be several of them, 3
regarding the uncertainty of funding and the ultimate 4
decommissioning of the plant, and I am talking about 5
Unit 2 particularly, that is one of the concerns that I 6
expressed during our di'scussions on PDMS, how does one 7
project what monies will be needed and how does one require 8
that those monies be in place when and if that takes place.
9 And I think that many of the points that you are 10 raising here, and I am assuming that they are accurate 11 because you certainly offered quotes and you footnoted it, 12 and if anybody from EPA wants to disagree I guess that we 13 are available to do that, but assuming that they are e( )
14 accurate I think that there is cause of concern based on 15 what GPU is telling us, because they apparently do not know 16 a lot of the answers yet.
They readily admit that one 17 cannot project today what will be needed twenty, thirty, 18 fifty, or eighty years from now.
19 MR. EPSTEIN:
I would suggest if it is available, 20 they only sent me one shareholder report for owning one 21 share of stock and I think that it somewhat unjust, but I 22 think that you all should request a copy, because it 23 outlines their economic priorities and it outlines what they 24 are going to get into as far as energy demands in the 25 future.
And there are some good ideas in there, and I would l
Heritage Reporting Corporation I
s-(202) 628-4888 i
75
.rm
( ).
1 give them credit for some things.
2' But it is clear that economically that they have 3
no idea how they are going fund decommissioning.
4 Technically, they have no' idea how they are going to do it.
5 And clearly, they feel that the rate payer should shoulder 6
the burden.
I am not gbing to belabor the point, because I 7
know that it is late.
But I think that it would really be 8
helpful to get a copy of the shareholders report.
9 MR. MORRIS:
Well, I wonder, as it relates to 10 TMI-2, whether it would be possible to get that information.
11 MR. RUACHE:
I could provide the panel with a copy 12 of it.
13 MR. MORRIS:
If you could, I think that it may be
( )
14 helpful.
While there are comments here directed at the 15 decommissioning of Unit 1 and what have you, we particularly 16 have interest in Unit 2.
So if we can get that information, 17 we would appreciate it.
18 MR. EPSTEIN:
I probably will not get a proxy 19 statement, but I can make those available to you if you want 20 to vote.
21 MR. MORRIS:
Thank you, sir.
22 (Applause.)
23 MR. MORRIS:
Are there any other questions or 24 comments from the public at this time?
25
(' o response.)
N
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
76
)
1 MR. MORRIS:
From the panel at this time?.
2 (No response.)
L
.3 MR. MORRIS:
Panel, when would you like to meet 4
again; Neil, Gordon, Tom?
5 MR. WALD:
Did you say when?
6 MR. MORRIS:
Ne have finished our agenda and we 7
are really ready to talk about another meeting.
And I am 8
wondering if anyone wants to make a suggestion.
Maybe to 9
help us through this, we have heard from GPU that'sometime 10 summerish that they would be ready, at least I am hearing that, that they would be_ ready to discuss more information 12 regarding monitoring, and it seems to me that that may be 13 helpful.
( )
14 We have been told that they are going to be 15-updating their schedule on both funding for next year and'in-16 regard to the actual clean-up itself sometime in June or 17 later.
So I guess what I am looking at is that it may be 18 helpful to look at a meeting in June or July, maybe July.
19 MR. WALD:
That would be from the standpoint of 20 the NRC PDMS evaluation.
21 MR. MORRIS:
You are looking at that by the end of 22 June?
23 MR. MASNIK:
By the end of June, we should have 24 the impact statement published.
25 MR. MORRIS:
What are your thoughts about looking O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
77 7(_j 1
on July then?
2 MR. WALD:
If it would that give us enough time to 3
evaluate it other than the night before.
4 MR. MORRIS:
How about the third week in July?
5 MR. MASNIK:
The week of 9 July then?
6 MR. MORRIS:
No, the following week, the 16th.
7 MR. MASNIK:
Okay, the 16th.
8 MR. MORRIS:
The week of the 16th.
We are hearing 9
one person say no.
I know that is going to be summertime 10 and maybe people will be off~, so we may lose some people.
11 Is there anybody else who cannot make it that week 12 that they know of?
-13 (No response.)
( )
14 MR.-MORRIS:
How about the week after that?
15 MR. MASNIK:
I cannot make it.
16 MR. MORRIS:
You'cannot make it.
So Ken, we are 17 trying to get you in there, but we should have Mike at that 18 meeting if we can.
19 Does anyone else have problems making the third 20 week?
21 MR. ROBINSON:
Yes, I have problems.
22 MR. MORRIS:
That is the week of the 17th which 23 would be the Wednesday or probably Thursday.
It would be 24 Thursday of that week.
There are two people.
25 Is there anybody else who cannot make it?
O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
78
-(
fl MS. MARSHALL:
That is too far ahead to know.
2 MR. MORRIS:
Well, I understand that, but we are 3
trying to get a sense here.
We can do that or we can decide 4
and let you know, but I think that it is easier to.do it 5
this way.
L l
6 Who else besiBes Mike Masnik cannot make it the 7
fourth week?
8 MR. GEREVSKY:
I cannot tell you.
9 MR. MASNIK:
The Courth week would be the week of 10 the 23rd of July.
11 MR. MORRIS:
It would be that Thursday, what is 12 that day?
13 MR. MASNIK:
It would be the 27th.
( )
14 MR. MORRIS:
The 27th of July.
15 MR. GEREVSKY:
I cannot make it that week.
16 MR. MORRIS:
If you cannot make it and Mike 17 because of the PDMS review, I think that it is important to 18 have you here for that.
19 MR. MASNIK:
I guess that I could make it.
It 20 would be difficult, but I could make it.
21 MR. MORF1'S:
You would make a commitment to be 22 here?
23 MR. MASNIK:
I will make a commitment to be here.
24 MR. MORRIS:
So far in the fourth week, we only 25 know that we ara going to lose one person and that is Tom.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
79-i ),
1 If we go with the third week, we lose two people.-
My 2
inclination in to go with the fourth week, Thursday of thr.t 3
week.
Again~the-date is, Mike?
4 MR. MASNIK:
The 27th of July.
5
-MR.
MORRIS:
Any preference on location?
We can 6
debate that for another' hour if you would like.
7-
.(No response.)
8 MR. MORRIS:
If.you are happy to come here, sold.
9 The meeting stands adjourned.
10 (Whereupon, at 9:30 p.m.,
the meeting was 11 adjourned.)
12 13
.I) 14 V
15 16
'17 18 19 20 21 22 l
i 23 24 i
25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Agenda for the April 13, 1989 Meeting in Harrisburg, PA Minutes 1.
Chainnan's Opening Remarks - A. Morris 5
2.
NRC Update on PDMS Environmental Evaluation-NRC Staff 10 3.
Status of Clean Activities GPUN Staff 15 4.
Present & Future Offsite Radiation Monitoring Program-GPUN Staff 20 5.
Public Coment*'
15
'O 6.
Break 10 7.
TMI-2 Cleanup Schedule & Finding-GPUN Staff 20 8.
Panel Discussion on Schedule and Finding - Panel Members 20 i
9.
Public Coment 20 Includes D. Davenport for 5 minutes.
r
l G
GPU Nuclear Corporation
.13 -. Nuclear
":sf=s%48 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 717 944 7621 TELEX 84-2386 Writer"s Direct Dbl Numbei:
(717) 948-8000 April 10,1989 4000-89-R-068 Mayor Author E. Morris Chairperson, TMI Advisory Panel P.O. Box 1559 120 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17603
Dear Mayor Morris:
fnis letter is in response to several questions that were asked at tne February i6,1989 NRC Advisory Panel meeting. Most of these questions O
were asked of the Panel by citizens who addressed the Panel.
GPU Nuclear V
'is providing you with information on those questions.
o A question arose as to the use of SDS to treat water that would go to the evaporator.
A review of the Panel's transcripts has indicated several references to SDS/IPICOR as part of the general explanation of how we process water.
No commitments were made to the Panel that we would use SOS in conjunction with the evaporator.
We have committed that the water evaporated will, on the average, meet " base case" conditions.
All water in storage tan's located outside the Reactor, Fuel Handling, and K
Auxiliary Buildings has been processed through the SDS and/or EPICOR systems and all future water that may be transferred to these tanks sill be processed through EPICOR.
Two other questions concerning water evaporation requested a range of concentrations of isotopes and implications of detergent in the Process Water Storage Tank (PWST).
The expected range of isotopic concentrations for the influent water to the evaporator has not been established; however, the current range of concentrations of tne major isotopes in the external water storage tanks are presented in Taole 1 (attached).
The issue of detergents was addressed in the " memorandum and order" issued by the ASLB on August 25, 1988.
Tne ruling concerning Triton-X states,
"...does not raise a genuine issue of material fact to be heard."
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Pubhc Utihties Corporaton
Mayor Author E. Morris April 10,1989 4000-89-R-068 Page 2 A concern was raised at the Advisory Panel Meeting as to whether GPU Nuclear could make money from royalties on the evaporator.
There a number of ways that the total estimated cost could be reduced, but in no way would GPU Nuclear make a profit from evaporating the accident generated water.
The total estimated cost could be reduced as a result of the over-estimation of total gallons of water to be processed, over-estimation of the total waste to be generated by this process, and/or utilization of the evaporation equipment by a third party at another site within 2 years following the completion of its TMI-2 ut e.
If i e evaporator were to be used by a third party daily for 2 years, that would reduce GPU Nuclear's outlay by $365,000.
An individual raised concern on an increased number of skin contaminations reported in August 1988.
Thirty-two contaminations were reported for tne reactor building work in August 1988.
Nine of those were associated with the plasma arc cutting of the forging and six were associated with maintenance on the robot in the basement.
The remainder were associated with many different jobs.
GPU Nuclear took steps in
- -s September 1988 to address the problems in contamination control arising from the pirima cutting work and completed use of the basement robot work about the same period.
Many of the recommendations were implemented and resulted in better contamination control and fewer skin contaminations
'2 arising from the cutting work.
Our staff reviews skin contaminations on a monthly basis to detennine if there are additional ways to lower the total number.
A concern was raised concerning three inattentive-to-duty cases that were noted in NRC Inspection Report 88-12, dated September 6,1988.
The events were discovered and reported to the NRC by GPU Nuclear ; rsonnel.
GPU Nuclear immediately investigated the incidences and the individuals involved in those incidences (none were licensed operators) were discharged from the site.
In an effort to ensure against inattentiveness, GPU Nuclear has:
- 1) realigned the management tour program so that tours now occur on backshifts and weekene, only and not during normal working hours; 2) continued to emphasize inspection of low
)
traffic areas for signs of inattentiveness; and 3) designed a program to
)
enhance the effectiveness of inspections on the 11-7 shif t.
j i
With regard to a question concerning krypton gas, krypton 85 has been l
released from the reactor vessel whenever plasma arc cuts are made with core debris in the proximity of the torch.
Apparently, the extremely high temperatures of the plasma are causing the ceramic structure of core debris to melt, thereby releasing Krypton 85 from the ceramic matrix.
Tne total released gas is very small and well within allowable release
(])
cri teria.
During the period from August tnrough October 1988, less than
.5 curies of Krypton 85 were released within the reactor vessel.
1
Mayor Author E. Mor"is
(]
April 10,1989 v
4000-89-R-068 Page 3 An individual expresseo concern concerning the cavity beneath the reactor vessel and the conditions within this cavity.
Water samples from the cavity have oeen taken from the cavity and have been similar to other i
water samples from the reactor building Dasement.
GPU Nuclear intends to perform a visual inspection of this area along with measurements there af ter the completion of defueling and the draining of the reactor building basement water.
As we have said, there is no indication or evidence that the reactor vessel was breached at the bottom head or any other location.
Very truly yours, Michael B. Roche Director, TMI-2 GRE/dib
/~s U
cc:
T. A. Moslak - Acting Senior NRC Resident a
l
- (~T.
14ayor Author E. I4 orris ~
s/
April 10,1989
.4000-89-R-068 Page 4 TABLE 1 IS0 TOPIC CONCENTRATIONS Current Storage Tank Isotope Concentration Ranges Cesium - 137 3.9 E 1.4 E-4 uCi/ml
's Cesium - 134 1.43 E 2.7 E-6 uCi /ml (V
g Strontium - 90 2.1 F 7.1 E-5 uCi/ml a
Carbon - 14 1.5 E 1.8 E-7 uCi/ml i
O
X I
S E
H T
DN SE A
V
~
I L T AA S N OR P E OT R L P A S D
)la E s EI o E F po I
r STP tr g
N N o
n s
f l
f i
E E 'e E
e CD e u
f s
d n
e I
I L
e D
e c
Fi u
c g
E F (L eg n
d i
n HA Ri w
g n
o T T n h o lo )e l
Sin is t i F
o Ws F
ig v
i i
s OCs ppmn ptu a i
u u mle n n Ri mpn n r
NNmu ou a aa e
cf et n e l
e el l
e O
o l
c aCCD DCA S
e el r n DC eee e I
t e o R
t t t eh i
aaait t
ddiii A
pr c eed d d nuA
. P y yeee a a n m m e. F r
o M
l r
l c oN eemmmnN(
DD I
I I
I O
C 234567 1
S E
V IT A
N R
ET3 sr L
r a s
A T a e t
eY r
N o
Y f
0 D E fE 02 E
I M
2 g
f n n F E oS nali ah e L
Dl M I
h T u T
P E eO T e
f v
N D
T eP eD r
P E
A L
s E
T U
os ag t
D U A
pL t e e d
n S
U p uA L ri e r L unV I
c G w A i oE of ui of o r
r F T V ae l
d leC Ye P oll E
L e
o F F O
AA Y C E R F
p g e L
eV u ag T R E d I
h r
p taTt n a
o r u
V eiAiat S D I
T weS o n yd T a eI l
t a Al T e nT pC S le D N I
D N
h r
u t
C NI N
imA l
i T
h n a wir t
U an we A
A Qe op D
U l
i h
Ciu pt t
Q T
r L E O
d n u u ed a nF AR Nt SE ia le a A Cleo d
OD e
CN P
I n
ded r
S m
y e ON I
lea ay R O D le P C D
S E
E S
N E
C I
L O
l
+
b 1,
1 O
+.x.,
,-,. 4.:: b,;.
/,,
s,.:..f :..6' $;,.,
.Xf,y a', *.
(,,:3 :3:.mg. f. y-o;.:.
~
X, C.
y
.c e$ v, f,1 9
...-s
- . r 3.:.
.f.ig.,v,<c,.....
- .:m x
. :e
..t.:'N.,.
,'j#,<r,
/
-.l)h,!:%
.x
(.
2' v f'"10; -
[:( n:
.,[
j;)'.)['....!.!.'h'(.I.s.s g
... h. - [#,?., s <. /.: :q
.,s' w
,9 s s
~.
! ' %.'l *
' /'-
s
'S'f' 9' NNh,...,h;.v>,g :
..:.,',,.s n., :..; gy._ 4 ( Si. >f.
$ 'fii
,e e s s,
>.s 3
..p.
,- p : :.
p
$ lk$$$ y
?
. r.sv.:.!'
)
y
- N.;.[
- ;
- /
.o.
.,. < ;;:; 9.::.
.y y.
-,.ex.;
.,.y
- - - gg :0 ;;"
-y
- .;*., 3
- .s~
f.
+
e s
4*STATOS 'd b
- M.w& ;;;.
- i.
/
y s.
NN?>
< N:hI
,,.. j 4 s'spe:M:
f s..,...
o s:4.1::
< ;m '^
' x
ti.#
v on; :,.-
x.
- 4.:p :
- d [ p$![h..
!I!. Ej, :[Y' r
?).j.'@
. <.::[,
,u.
.t..4f.:
.? ! y:e,
- p::'(j e!'.
/,.
s-,
s.,
sq.
.s:
.:e
.;: si.
e s
4,g 'i.. :7'
,.c: :;:. -::..:.:.:< -'
Y f(:'; WW:!: <
w<
3
'(.'$j
- X+4.K 6:i'::5 s
s.
+
- g h.:
e Y
^
y
/
o PTMI 2.4~ m
.% y 4
^
}
4 A \\
N(
b./ k '
s A
)
/ s r
~, Q, r[ t
/
4 l
tv ', ' -
O 4,
s,,,
M, ys g,, <'s J
- <'>v,,
/
a g
^
Y
>, +
e y
s s
C s.
p'
<t i.',
g: 3:-A R::;
f <,
,:.:e:c.
- 5 E d g;. AN~u p :
s
,.-.h,-
,'0,,I,.'
}
j,Y-&,
s
- xy s 4s
++,
x b
\\>
i s
r/ ^
ss 4,
,s s
,. - 43 pjf,,g y
<. +:
e.
v
,i s
..,,x :
.s
- ^-
i y y
s
>t<
a<
/
8 si
+4
,,j ' ' :j,.;
ii Y
N
/
5 p>
s hi s ' +
5' ~
.u.:.:.:...
v y >
I' b,'.. ;
i i,
p I
t.
- 7 O
J O
O g
%e n'
4 2
i rr[
Si J
4
'Ag
O g
x;
W 1 YA 6,
9 b
r
'/
Y.
.g 4
1 e
e p
(Et
- - (
h$
4*
h
.?
5P _
.V i'
..e t
I-h.l r.
'e
- p 5 4' ',..
-}, y K.,J '
s i,
s U n.
1
.9,
.. t,;
jep+,
L'y 4.
. ~
v ;,.
,9
. c WW y' ri; y
1
,e.,'
./
/\\
v 4;?..
)/ g e
'c c
(
=
so s -
,9 y
i
, =
s s
L
./
O 9.
y
~\\
q r3 th M/
7
[.
~~s rt
'. y 't j
4
,4 g'
'?
i 1 4 y
1 s
1 p
g i
gn A
L _.
34
. Yf.
E
[
f
, ;af - } 'h K '*y' c,+
~
)
[
sA 1
f r
u e.
'9 us
)
Q s
r
, N. ~
m p
f g
4 l
/
n a
,5 7
w a
?
p, ryf_
t.
+_
k$kI j,,
q[f.fk' ;A
., a
? '
('
+
....)
\\
s o.,{%is
.*f,
a
.\\_ _
e,
.O DEFUELING CHARACTERISTICS
. Hard layer of material on the bottom of the reactor vessel.
. Damage to two incore guide tubes confirmed.
51,000 lbs of material in lower head region.
)
. Several thousand pounds of debris remain between the lower core support assembly plates.
O
=
st l
O-
==
= = _= _
l ter
_ sto m
sw i
l tw see muu sw -_ m7 en l
- ~
sos w-
~
mum m
y
~#
w-SOa __ so3
_m 9,300 lb in Core Former
- ~
6, 3
w-200 bin
, soo R
N
- ~
i ane-.mminmn;;
-- mounminunt
- numannusamnumanimum I E l
E E E 1,L M E E I E
' ' 'g. _
K4 K
a r
s lWl I
jR ^
l lj
. ic:0
,# i'-
~
" f%_..,
..,, _, _,, +
27,300 b 8,700 lb Peripheral Loose s
Loose Debris Debris (Estimated)
A A
15,000 b Hard Layer DISTRIBUTION OF REMAINING CORE MATERIAL A meal of 67,300 b of core debris remains, bduding -400 b outside the reser vessel A
--.n-
.._w..-
-__--_-______l
(
l w(i 5
(J" e
i l
6 lp M
$3 mu m
D
$[h, if Bn
=
l2
@p
=i Je..w.,
g!$.:.$.
i
$ns C.
39
'==
=
r'
't is a.
=am
,:.mp i:$kd s.w k%%
W%l' m
@W.
M E
==
=
i K
M jjij Baffle Plates Baffle Plates k
Ess h!
=
~;g -
g AP::
9,300 lb in g*
E:: t-s:
g
$P QCore Former 2
a*
p &
200lbin 1
/.
- 5. Core Region
.) 3 O
M:m (R-6) h.;
ti r-
$g..f
\\'
. L.i..ha4 g.3[_pw.L..
,e.
ia U..:.
M 1 =
=== F 4
n t
g 0
.i
- 6,400 lb in Lower CSA W fyg
't 9,N.
V' :
f Id J-I1 a
,s 4
w Remains of Flow Distributor y
.n
..f-l.
27,300 lb 8,700 lb
+l Peripheral Loose Debris Loose Debris (Estimated) x 6 -
y>
$(M 15,000 lb Hard Layer AV TMI-2 MATERIAL AT THE BOTTOM "Mif*
OF THE REACTOR VESSEL 1
l L__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
/2
. a O
i l
l l
l
~.
p s
a 0
- 1.89" thick I
f is 4lr 6.3*
I ti
._minummmy W
g 7
l!E-Tj!;
p g3 o
l
,Ip 4.125"ID 4
{:p4.5
- OD 5.9-I i
wir thkk ni.;
v O
BROKEN INCORE GUIDE TUBE
O FUEL SHIPPING
. Made a 3-cask shipment to Idaho February 19.
O
. Next fuel shipment scheduled for June.
211,000 lb shipped to date.
O
O DECONTAMINATION
. Performing general decontamination to support defueling.
. Completed a major cleanup of the defueling platform area.
. Completed draining secondary side of the steam generators, the primary side wili be drained with reactor vessel after defueling.
. Started draining systems in the auxiliary building which are no longer needed.
- Completed draining 3 systems in the reactor building which are no longer needed.
O l
i 0
i 1
[
t
\\
'vY wm n.:@
Q ::si
.., ~
<yn
/ <
>se b
h
%gt,2,iS NM'q$$$n -nnn,+
a wa w n
M ' jlkNQ,@@Q QC n { EDh$#g && M&ff[$m@Ql%i%g' Vi R
j b
%W8%M N
fjid * /Qgggj:fy%::4 % g g [u ? Tgj@
w we a w M
y* -jM fiMi fgQ ' M"$@
,9 w,.p%-
gim:1:x;ygge.g::g;n,i 7e :ct, g::
> eew, <
< - o.gm x.x,.
-f y,w:,p szt y,.
4
, ;*dffes
~ w gy;5fg m
i v
hs h
.w wwwwwe%rmeusducs2 w y y[gy? "%y m I
w,'*. w,kE&y(.;m.%?s~m%?@
w Y
h.. '
W Pen jyQfiQg
?*
p?Q'Q 4%^q%Q.Ng D ' W is g j!y @ fpff!] Q W W W 9 ;
?
x 2_s.4 3p.AW_&_,'
EQ Q_2.is;m.-!:issa Etss, sis:s;i.p$g
_m 4
m 5,39M.y :.ne,;:sEms.fip3x i 4
C' gg.q.zrqa,h M 3M
,,,gg
.~
y"g m
.y g ~;
,.g rp g; x
~
J((.I'Nihikj. < 7,$$%2p, y j@;p$MM{f[i!k.il'hs sik:$jiiS%ikQ{fy(5:$?[h,IS.s$ NIjG{$$.Ts[jy$iN[g
&h 3
.$ii.!jiij 4 jh;!h.li!{![ph' iii pg
^
j,...jf n m 3+
..g...;.<
g 3
%DkfNON$N,S k:j U
i I
'#h@$!$$ gjf[$EMM$i#g}%%k$p$p4fR$$$f*$@jigpf5M@$%lg$sd$fj!b
_i si _
f[f[g! jfh#g% y#h]8il,3,3jj! fiji *fyh*N_i@pgj@)Vje:<;:
'. s,.,q_,f9 e %( fij'g s "sjs _i:
ye.. fs, g: Qiify@j;';!;.$.:.x.y..M.j).$
M:
s?
' %@p,$xlj p.a,jg.k.j i$,.s!sI.%qlg;q x..iety,>.:,h.i 3!,
h qi.p?;4. 9,.m;$
3 9.j p A,rn.:. _>4:#448s..@iff.,R:
- .e.0!.6 m.x.y, p?i~u;8sn,?.
\\
X a
S.o.
Tnm.
is M;g hfi))kp?.:?'^g,.
..o..~ vg{fi:r hItij W q:$;g x.? p'r.y$i:g.
K p
p<f ::
5x8jsii^ r?d
.. $g s
4v y
p.y
.5 3
e
- o
.,e, g
pw py'$$3? ?
"jihjigf3fgij9g8!?jl3's'o xage.oypisse?a.
ij.:f gS:. #!
h%3i.
Ef:$id yyjijijd (R$g ifA84 cns v4gWp&~;Miiin., ?
3;f ;
yi. A. ji?O5 di's?Iff vt 5
+
idhi-
+ yy!
y m p 'hs.gohnip, & ypif,.
A:e mgi.rp
@gs8L s
+ > v,..qg,.+:.:<pj;gg.. 8 3d8fpe.y.4:.>,$g.g:g
..s,;jA3 g:>g..g:
p:3:gg;; 3;sggggw.;piggp;;s: igg s
fjessogg.
- 3..g i?-
i Mq..jtyiq,.. g.y i.ar s
l 7
h: Mg.4midy $dtp.'-
, h,h.
e...
d.w.
gge.
..E s24wy e rf f mg.e
...s.,.
s4.g.,gy t
- a
.x..x..a
.vNbh 4
hga,3rg:.(ki $5b d ihjM'5 :fI:NN.$.hhfDNhb 51 7
r M.n+ W,... Mep.pE$fQ N. g%" %i?@i.m.ys yp!;::
U&
- g m&ty
.e.&n<., : 1. :
g.
.a
.s ky&'
I! Nihg> h+ik!!
n y
- y v.
2 f 2@[S bh@bhk:h-y:.,yg.
c:e xeu
. Nh5!*k:bli!h:44 age n y
E ns&g$:8!'A fiIkfk $ '
z.2 5dNh
%;,if N:(
N:S 5
g! :@.g!*gr[?m@po;i;p Fypt isy
$M #%
ityywnMgmsitQ:e@imQ{f F Re aphth a gn%d%m n
s&g4 j
-. ;p hernp m
ush m#E s M?s.4%ms, gg f$@2Tj?h;i:.4 6.&;pW:ygji}:;ppWw!Q@v't@@d :ggyfl;.g 3 i*ia SWh 1s M
2c
- e. [:g g^%gi gp:.jjg.si. gf&y;g
" P.jf,pgi.2iw Mf6.x.cp!6 j^ gtngagj!?.<y?ggi. $: >gg.mgen.jf/yi;c;y.4,R i
463i g8jg i p tgp& d si>1SEM.h#snex$ cu<i:te,% -
- 48. ca d
4 ogrJ
- pur
.:.:.x.
sg#gy.ac
- pg ww-44
- og c
. ww m- @ w $ $ s$ %,s# @,r.~ w-gh g,;c. p _j p
- m. n -s menm w
a N@h,am.mee;.sypg.ipy~ ; as.m.e ~.
is@e@4 ggy g
9 s
uw4
- w
< r m
7ew,3w! gue,., c&wmm...,.m,m@ne!'m"sszt:.
- 4 g.q.
ew ;;;
t mx w ey e
w y
a nwme+d. m$ amw$..,M..y..i. sunesi!PQfgy i.es.2.e.gg %a$.!.:,. g 3 rg
.g.,
.g e
nnsan NMWM.,M.. g <
P ::W :Jref!M.i m: gG....
~
' m,..gisit W.i. W,.4.t.l,fis.
W
~- - se M!: $
f,
+
n)
(\\.J o_
l O
TIV -2 RAJ O_OGICAL EWIRON V E\\' A_
VON TORI \\G P70GRAV Plant Monitors e
Dosimeter (TLD) Station O
Sample Collection e
Real-time Monitors O
n--
O PLANT V O NITO RS Measure in-plant radiation levels Oe Measure liquid and gaseous releases from the plant Early notification to plant operators of changing radiological conditions O
l
- O-DOSlVIETER (TLD)
STATIONS 1
Measure environmental radiation at 104 locations up to 21 miles from TMI O
Read TLD's quarterly, or more frequently, e
if necessary O
FIGURE 2 y,;,4;t?,1.nyQf s
[._
N x
.o
~
,y%>
h 9
?$f,Yk';fV;.
f s,75
~.
f, f26 2,5",J
%k'.
hh' ',-l?f' 5'b ~ N, g\\ $
{
9 : f.,, L pt w,t
~"
y
,,L'[,,, Wf lg&]Al:b.
. e<
. so
-g
' - %%k '
K'xg%
na.c i
.is,,,
,~,
' %,y,<
, 76.25$ ',
,g ': g r 5%"'
' 'f4
,Q f'is' N[ xN
?'$
- h
+,_
W
'?
'* C
-,...,, - k
- ca.
5 "p..
s s
3 s
..[.
t...
gISTQ4
- REA
. ;R/,
cg~AQ Q
ys..%y
- ,.s,y.p' j
s 7
g'
<(" < ' '
. &!:j'f! ;A gx W NTF v %
x h#'
'I C. :r'-
sn,,
3
//
y.,
g
'st 5,'
'/
9 4
s
' '. _f 2 01. 2 5 -
['['
'J ' -i.?:
gff
{
g m ig2 h,: '"'
E, SHELLEY E
p 11 7
- 18 WP su o
is.
4;.4%
$m%
s.s.
t r
s, 101.2 5
,,' ' j s,
y
'0012
, 12 0 Y^
1 258.7 t'
i D' f
.f m'l h
b EE dlb'^\\
'f N C
"M g
s L AN %'
"' ' ~!
.,i.f l#
3 l-c2
' ' *k>?
l El CH ;
k G
123.75 1
, io. A
-wa 33,
J
's' s%:
H &
p..
w i
J x
5 s
k-14 13;7 5 s
..v.
- ./
x ge x y
188. 75 'm
'b k%
- h D
.z:
O TFREE LALE ISLAtO NUCLEAR STATION Locations of Radiologicd Environmenid Monitoring Prog on (REMP)
Stations Approximately 1 Mik from the Site.
FIGURE 3 O
N A
/,'
,,,,,,,.;;. n;//p mmuigf -
,~
=-
f, r,
/
r JVMs(g'jW@';/'//,
1'
'i, /4.'g-
., p
/
.;f**,','hf.f/$f..,* '.
,.',, 5g,,_
/ '4 If$ f74.</,
.g/ -
., -,p
.dx LONDON RRY' -
\\
N D
y,? WJ',
'sq y sas
^
T.EF,.,.,
(
- ,Q cp;/,
' E' -l, b /,
.![
^ #. ]V:: b'.
n..
101E
,l.,,
' ~ ';;
a
/; g
,-W
'N
~ t,$,fU.?h.
..y.}
./,,,,,
g,y
,,,y N
3g g3 2
- f ; ; %yQ s
g
'ff',ih ;.'5 5.?4 ^'?' '
- h I b Y,,.
/,}
Q'/,;.,'f/s i
Y'.j',,f,..f'f' ;?
h
, g: 3 8
l
- 13E
,,,,'fe -
^
$. a 3
j
/. sas..
~
Q*j's5,y ;,,
fj'p,
\\x
I h
?,';;,
i5h'.. 'b$
- /
'7l 14 1, "%
$1-
'y.. /' ',
?,
M N
(j' -
"l.
. C ';.',9:,,l, //.,r,
/,
_/*
e..
TWP
.,,.g'.f f :l:!%:. ^
141 NEEDERRY
../
,?gd;;y,fpf.,
L
'f gu
- a,j'
?.Ma. t hh'..
' N'$
.../,; y,
.h;, ~ ' '.'h': :)..',' U{'}'& l',Nj.:,
?f
':;g C4 '/.
K ses.se
,../.,,,
'E'kJ;fMass.7s
/>..
me.
O TmEE MILE ISLA!O NUCLEAR STATION Locations of Radiologicd Environmenid Monitoring Program OREbP)
Stations Within 5 Wiles of the Site
FIGURE 4 O
4 a
N R
w ow/; <a
.,; /f, '
/ //
/ h,j. see.se ?.b.. ll I /-
- /
m;*. /, y. VQh,S},1 gg], .;, s, ^ 'ut** i pg 5 yALhmtA, p.,/ -. :' g;l 6 v/f. - g, fgf. ,(/ ,/, 4 MA tsSURS y, "' 17 ,;; ny . ///, 'l$/ ~s ,s. - a', (s" op). yt, 9 ;-/ A,' -
- r. ' ;;;
gg p ff, y.7 ?4 ~ 'p., k'.,'b, ElS' ';kk.I,'",9,c',', lC Y , ll9, .,, A '< ,, ' ss '.,, - i.; ' uncnAm stumo s e fjj')!,0Y ',',, '" S seLas t-Te V 2 ' 'qj, tupeLatssu 33.- e 7 ,,,03' 'A 1E f;,. V 7
- ?I*. @e.5
.. u,h.,m,,, ,, e 4 -94 v- .. /% .. e,- -- ,,x,,'. g n N .. i,
- a. ;t,,
+, <;',,,,,; ese r, igg,gyg. gyg 'f*f; 10 f C./,.y Yll e?;.;cf./,,,. ' ' ^ VALMOV .,b, 4,;g,,y. gi '. .,,y ;,(f f
- A:,
Q,- tag,- .v YS,,%:.,y;;Mwo] ;,;,.-.. =" s, e e, yokiu ^ k', ,1 ,j '
- j.
J-N ARETTA,,;
- f
'/ y An89 ~,/f'y,
- y. ' ', ' '
- 70 A
,,;</' ' , si,yj, W 2 =t:s* 1 g0,, .v. 't,. "- j, .. 3 4 a- ,is.'s,' g ' f 'j,,, ' p: y. f,,,,.!. - /y 'l,1.%,,' ,.sy' ' p w 'p:<;,p,. u se .,,;tqs f , ee e1
- O:
~ L RT= ** ne , ' j,y,g;;' ' p ',gt. Y fLL , 'r,f j,?.f; ';h}y' ~ .?. , n' ~, jg 'g.6 '" M,
== M H mes me.n g O TIREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STAT 10N """ YtatioN NNter"$$Ns"7rYthYsiff" ]
i L0 SAV 3 _E COLLEC"lOis Three types of samples: Aquatic - water, fish, river sediment Atmospheric - air particules, precipitation Terrestrial - milk, soll, meat, vegetables in 1987,1400 samples were taken e 3,600 analyses performed on the 1900 samples O ~' j
. O R EAL-T V E IV O N FO 7S . Measure environmental radiation at 16 locations up to 3 miles from TMl O . Readings recorded electronically at GPU Nuclear, and Dauphin and Lancaster county courthouses l l \\ O
\\ . 3.. t n.".- O ~, ~. ~,c ) ,,1 N o,' ,'15 s., ;,% s o s, 1 1,,' ,o s o , e / ,. s ... ~. u,.4. d. s, s e \\ \\ l vt l s s \\ 3 's s s .2 e l f i s k \\3, i is i 1 i s s 54**** >5 i l l I pf y* s g . 'i t2 ~ l l l 1 s \\ /' y,.!* i s s .s 7 n ,8 8 g g i I \\ s s 's rt 'h 1 \\ ,1 a s' 4g 'g %= s' g s 's ,8 ,1 / s e 8 "a...,
- s
, s' s s, gevberry eg, U g 's s, Wr ,G %p, s L 's \\ r o' K o ..*= g J I 1. Mill Street, Middletown 9. South End t:I 2. North Gate, Rt. 441
- 10. South end Shelley Island 3.
Middleton Junction, Ceyers Church Rd.
- 11. :'achanical Draf t Towers, t:I 4.
Alwine Tam, Gingrich Rd.
- 12. Goldsboro Air Station, Goldsboro 5.
Observation Center, Rt. 441 13. Between Intake Structures. TM: 6. 500 KV Su'ostation, Rt. 441
- 14. North End Shelley Island 7.
Becker Tarm, Becker Rd.
- 15. liarrisburg Int'l Airport Collins Substation Falmouth
- 16. Crawford Station, Middletown
yrevoce R a ta D fo e ga tne O c re P / 's l ro t i n oM em iT-lae R i O ~ %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 s 5 4 3 2 1
O REUTER - STOKES ANOMALIES 90 - ,, > ~ 80 - ll r' : i ,, v ~, ', W, ', W, $, ', 70 - , ' < f ,'4 ', ' /, ~,, ',,, ' <, l ,,I" '.'s S a ', .,'/,,',, m, i, t, 'l > ',<'l S, ,+.s 60 7 I' $(* k f 1l 's,. h'N'/p pi t',,, , d. , g y,yx> $'s v{,
- s'. 's ',j
f,</ 1 e,:b p t,%,.y{ jy ;+ {,< ,;; ~ ; ~ e ';,, - 7 i;+/, i, .,5>' /'! l' ,>i',i, 50, / u ,;,, y' ' ',~,, ' > e ,,t U ,8 ;^,s s ~,s f U c /',,
- r. s
,, ', >l M
- , ',I ',',
'[ ^2 ? N,,,', 40 - x,,~>> - ~, n k, ',[",' q, / j, tme .'Y,^, ,g [ A ~,y-g pp, " gam m,, M i 30 - > s,, i s x,; s,' e, > <s, <+3';
- e '.
n, .' ~ \\~' s ,: 'v 7f' h M'(' ".y ', I, h <'l#Y e / 9, ;c.:, yf s:, s, sss e, ss s, g ey, s
- e. v,,,
- n y,<;.
, *'.~,, >'n 9 i,,,, e, / ' ,.\\ s 3, /4 > s 3:g ,Me x i ,s 20 - c,' y y w,, yf.: 3 .w / V l 1;sik db }'t&:3 m% 4,1~ g%>:<x, p r.4 g y;' 4 + - i 's 1, e, .g<., t, y' ,.f^:' > ' ' 10 - y4-~ jges . )g,V sc e >,
- ak
,a ,.~? ; -
- bl', ~,
e ', ;% ':: n 5 ', ' h' , 55 O-1985 1986 1987 1988 Tel. Prob. Sys. Prob. = O l
O R EU"ER STO <ES EVALUAT O\\ . GPU Nuclear is committed to maintaining the current system through the completion of TMI-2 defueling and fus: shipping. . GPU Nuclear is aware of the concerns about the l O future of the system and taking those concerns fully into consideration as the system is evaluated.
- The evaluation includes possible modification of the system.
. The evaluation of the entire environmental monitoring program is expected to be completed and presented to the panel this summer. O
Tt Ne(& ~~ nV ) Susquehanna%L Alliance 3 p a a e t m ut,;a n h2-cSd3 April 13, 1989 STATEMENT OF SVA The decision of the Commissioners to grant the amendment to GPUN'to dispose of the water at TMI Unit-2 by boiling it and releasing the radioactive carryover into the air, comes as no surprise to us. Their decision is in keeping with their uncaring attituce and disdain for the people of central Pennsylvania. They have' steadfastly maintained this attitude since the 1979 accident and during the subsequent cleanup. It is highly unlikely that the NRC would have voted in favor of abandoning a project, which releases radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants unnecessarily into the air, when to do so, would cause inconvenience'to a nuclear power company. SVA/TMIA have clearly shown that evaporation and release of the radioactive carry-over intd the air is not a viable alternative for dealing with this liquid radioactive waste. We have shown that will undoubtedly cause adverse health effects. The unnecessary release of carcinogenic substances into our air and water is nothing but immoral. The use of evaporation and release of the radioactive carry-over into tha air as means to reduce the volume of radioactive waste is a dangerous precedent O for the state of Pennsylvania to permit at its nuclear power %) plants. It is a precedent which se strongly oppose. As the victims of this exposure to hazardous waste we will take this issue to the courts. The decision today opens that avenue to the _____I N I
e /s,e w I a Tunts MILE ISLAN3 ALERT, MC. 315 Peffor St Herrisburg. Penna.17182 (717)233 7897 nV April 13, 1989 TMIA 's COMMENTS FOR THE TMI-ADVISORY PANEL First, we want to acknowledge receipt of information from the NRC pertaining to Post Defueling Monitored Storage criteria. At this time we would like to request a copy of the the PDMS Safety Evaluation Report which apparently is completed and available for public inspection. Af ter reviewing the NRC 's response to our concerns on PDMS, we remain unclear who developed the general guidelines which apparently are not " absolute criteria". What exactly is the " clean enough" criteria? Is it analogous to the ALARA standards? Is there a precedent for developing radiological standards which are elastic and continually being revised " in conjunction with common sense and good radiological practices" (Post Defueling Monitored Storage, Safety Evaluation Report, 5.1-1)? Also, could the NRC or GPU please define " common sense"? I would like to point out that we never received any correspondence concerning three issues we raised at the last (, ) meeting: inattentiveness to duty, the negative trend in skin contamination and the ongoing problems with the plasma arc cutting operations and the releases of krypton-85. We would appreciate a response from the NRC and GPU. At this time I would like to draw the Panel's attention to some recent -- developments regarding GPU 's financial health that we believe correspond to their plan to' mothball Unit-
- 2. As you may already be aware, Standard and Poor's Corp. has upgraded the financial ratings of GPU to " single A" status for their subsidiaries due in part to the " progress" being made with the cleanup. However, upon inspection of GPU's Annual Report, it is clear that we can expect little or no progress in the cleanup for the foreseeable future.
GPU's game plan includes maintaining " existing generating facilities in service as lono as technically and economically practicable" (General Public 'tilities, Annual Report, p.13. ) This includes spending $500 n._11 ion on construction improvements this year, and implementation of their 1986 initiative known as the Expenditure Analysis Program (EAP) to control costs and increase savings. This plan will enable GPU to extend the life of their generating stations for at least another 20 years, "which is well beyond their previously scheduled retirement dates..." (Annual Report, p.25.) In other words, it's an acceptable practice to indefinitely mothball a damaged nuclear station that (~} needs to be cleaned up and provides no revenues. This allows GPU N-to meet customer needs while controlling costs. At the same time, GPU will artificially extend the life of nuclear power plants, thereby decreasing the margin of safety at these sites, in order l to sustain market viability. This promotes economic expansion while minimizing new construction costs. Seems like a fair trade off if you live in New Jersey.
1 4 GPU's austerity program also calls for a substantial reduction of employees by 1990 "in order to reduce costs while g continuing to safely operate and meet customer needs reliably" (Annual Report, p.25) A visible part of the employee reduction will come from Post-Defueling Monitored Stcrage. Yet at the same time EAP is being activated the GPU Board has announced plans to compensate William Kuhns, former Chairman and CEO, "at a rate of not less then $500,000 per year" plus benefits. The new CEO and
- Chairman, Standley Hoch, will recoive a base salary of not less than $450,000 plus benefits (Notice of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement, General Public Utilities, p.10.)
In their Annual Statement, GPU made it clear that they will decommission Uni t-1 and Unit-2 at the same time, i.e. "sometime in the next century." They admit that minimum funding for decommissioning one of their reactors is between $100 to $125 million However, an independent consultant hired by GPU estimated the cost to be about, "$200 to $300 million per plant in 1987 dollars for removing radioactive and non-radioactive materials (other than the fuel) and the structures at TMI-1 and Oyster Creek. The actual cost of decommissioning may be materially different from these estimates, depending upon regulatory requirements and technology available when the work is done. No study has been conducted for TMI-2, but decommissioning of the plant is expected to be substantially more expensive than Oyster Creek or TMI-1" (Annual Report, p.9) The above mentioned costs do not include the reinaval and i disposal of shent nuclear fuel or the additional cos,ts of decontaminating Unit-2. GPU also acknowledged that "significant experience in decommissioning such facilities is lacking, and the technology available at the time of decommissioning may differ significantly from that assumed in these studies." (Annual Report, p.35.) According to GPU, at the end of 1938 $26 million had been collected for the decommissioning of Oyster Creek and TMI-1. Jersey Central Power & Light is collecting funds assuming that in-place entombment will be the method of decommissioning Unit-1. At the same time, Met Ed and Penn Elec are collecting monies assuming that dismantlement will be implemented when TMI-1 is retired. Presently, there are no funds being collected for the decontamination or decommissioning of TMI-2. However, GPU believes "that costs associated with the eventual decommissioning of TMI-2 (which includes the annual cost of decommissioning) should be recoverable through the ratemaking process" (Annual Report, p.34). It is clear that GPU believes that the ratepayers and taxpayers, and not the shareholders, should shoulder the burden of cleaning up a nut'?ar power plant that only generated lll electricity for four months.
GPU's austerity program also calls for a substantial reduction of employees by 1990 "in order to reduce costs while continuing to safely operate and meet customer needs reliably" (Annual Report, p.25) A visible part of the employee reduction will come from Post-Defueling Monitored Storage. Yet at the same time EAP is being activated the GPU Board has announced plans to compensate William Kuhns, former Chairman and CEO, "at a rate of not less then S500,000 per year" plus benefits. The new CEO and
- Chairman, Standley Hoch, will receive a base salary of not less tnan $450,000 plus benefits (Notice of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement, General Public Utilities, p.10.)
In their Annual Statement, GPU made it clear that they will decommission Unit-1 and Unit-2'at the same time, i.e. "sometime in the next century." They admit that minimum funding for decommissioning one of their reactors is between $100 to $125 million However, an independent consultant hired by GPU estimated the cost to be about, l "S200 to S300 million per plant in 1987 dollars for removing radioactive and non-radioactive materials (other than the fuel) and the structures at TMI-1 and Oyster Creek. The actual cost of decommissioning may be materially different from these estimates, depending upon regulatory requirements and technology available when the work is done. No study has been conducted for TMI-2, but
== decommissioning of the plant is expected to be substantially more expensive than Oyster Creek or TMI-1" (Annual Report, p.9) i The above mentioned costs do not include the removal and disposal of spent nuclear fuel or the additional costs of decontaminating Unit-2. GPU also acknowledged that "significant experience in decommissioning such facilities is lacking, and the technology available at the time of decommissioning may differ significantly from that assumed in these studies." (Annual Report, p.35.) According to GPU, at the end of 1988 $26 million had been collected for the decommissioning of Oyster Creek and TMI-1. Jersey Central Power & Light is collecting funds assuming tnat in-place entombment will be the method of decommissioning Unit-1. At the same time, Met Ed and Penn Elec are collecting ranies assuming that dismantlement will be implemented when TMI-1 is retired. Presently, there are no funds being collected for the decontamination or decommissioning of TMI-2. However, GPU believes "that costs associated with the eventual decommissioning of TMI-2 (which includes the annual cost of decommissioning) should be recoverable through the ratemaking process" (Annual Report, p.34). It is clear that GPU believes that the ratepayers and taxpayers, and not the shareholders, should shoulder the burden of cleaning up a nuclear power plant that only generated electricity for four months. i l
1 .T. think these revelations support our earlier findings j ) that GPU does not have the economic resources to safely ' ' decontaminate or decommission TMI-2. It is now apparent that they are without adequate funding to decommission TMI-1 and Oyster Creek. The l'anel needs to forcef ully convey to the 3 Commission that Unit-2 should be decontaminated immediately, and j the cost must be borne by the utility. In addition, the Panel should elucidate the acute shortfall of. funding associated with the eventual decommission of Unit-2. OV ? f1Q A-._
1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 5 of: ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 6 Name: 7 8 Docket Number: 9 Place: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 10 Date: April 13, 1989 11 were held as herein appears, 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. 18 /s/ O PATRICK N. MORRISON 19 (Signature typed) : 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 l 23 24 25 (~h \\s' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e ___ - ___________- _
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR MATERIAL TO THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 Chairman Zech 16 H 3 Commissioner Roberts 16H3 Commissioner Rogers 16.H 3 Commissioner Carr 16 H 3 Cc:amissioner Curtiss 16 H 3 H. R. Denton, 17 f 2 PANE T. E. Murley 12 G 18 P.O. Box 268 M. Masnik 13 D 16 Middletown, PA 17057 F. Congel 10 E 4 J. Zerbe 2100 Mr. Frank D. Davis M. Libarkin, ACRS H-1016 200 Gettyburg Pike T. Major H-1016 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 J. Fouchard 2G5 R. Browing, MNSS 4H3 Mr. Edward Charles Docket File 50-320 016 90 Nittany Drive PDR 016 Hechanicsburg, 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 H 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 B-3 Annaplois, MD 21401 Mr. Dave Janes Analysis and Support Division Ms. Ruth Gentle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 [
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 fir. 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 1 Ms. Elizabeth N. Marshall GPU Nuclear 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 Jim Detjen Dr. Henry Wagner Philadiphia Inquirer Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene 400 N. Broad Street 615 N. Wolfe Street Philiadelphi, PA 19101 Room 2001 Baltimore, MD 21205 Ms. Becky Harty Pacific Northwest Laboratory Frederick S. Rice P.O. Box 999 Personnel Financial Management Inc. Richland, WA 99352 2213 Forest Hills Drive Harrisburg, PA 17112 Mr. Joseph DiNunno 44 Carriage Lane Mr. Joel Roth Annapolis, tid 21401 2E4 Boas Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Ms. Leslie Klein Intelligence Journal Pro-Women 8 West King Street c/o Judy Branett Lancaster, PA 17603 320 Elm Court Middletown, PA 17057 Sally S. Klein, Chairperson Dauphin County Board of Commission Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17101
I t Joyce Corradi Marjorie and Norman Aamodt Concerned Mothers'and Women on'THI 180 Bear Cub Road '2 South Nissley Drive P.O. Box 652 Middletown, PA 17057 lake Placid, NY 12946 Francine-Taylor Jane Lee 151 Hamilton Rd. 183 Valley Rd. Lancaster, PA 17603 Etters, PA 17319 Mr. Ad Crable Pepper, Hamilton and Sheets Lancaster New Era P.O. Box 1181 8 W. King Street Harrisburg, PA. 17108 'Lancaster, PA 17603 c/o Debbie June-Dr. Frederick J. Shon John Kabler, Director Administrative Judge 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 17011 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 -Dr. B.-J. Snyder Mr. John W. Crawford, Jr. EMCr 11405 Farmland DR. 11005 Hunt Club Dr. Rockville, MD 20852 Potomac, MD 20854 l- _ - _ - _}}