ML20212M741
| ML20212M741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1987 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY PANEL FOR DECONTAMINATION OF TMI UNIT 2 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACTMI, NUDOCS 8703120161 | |
| Download: ML20212M741 (186) | |
Text
,
t l
l OR'GNAL g UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 O .
LOCATION: LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA PAGES: 1 _ 137 DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1987
. .= -
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. . CI Official Rm*m di Auda Lapitol Street bd't m\ i .
Washington, D.C. 20001 {'g\" I
( )t
[}Im/O3100161 i 87 n: ':N.
M >oc K op,000320 (202)3C-3 00 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE L
RW-bao 94 PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 ,
e'?
Stenographic Record of Hearing Held at Council Chambers 208 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA on Thursday February 26, 1987 3:30 p.m.
PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Arthur Morris, Chairperson Michael Masnik Thomas Smithgall Joel Roth
(_
Niel Wald ,
Anne Trunk Gordon Robinson Kenneth Miller Thomas Gerusky John Luetzelschwab Frederick Rice Elizabeth Marshall l
t Moniek Stenographie Servlee, Inc.
1413 Old Mill Road O Wyonaisstag, PA 19610 Phone: 215/375 5951 1
(* ?k
- y N, 1 _P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2- THE MAYOR: Good afternoon. I'd like to, if I 3 may, call this meeting to order. We are expecting some of 4 the members of the panel to arrive. I did receive calls 5 from a couple of them that indicated they-would be a little 6 late getting here.
7 At the last meeting, and because many of the 8 same people probably are at this same meeting, I'm making 9 this announcement. There is a book that was left called to " Nuclear Power Development and Management of a Technology."
11 If scaebody here owns this or knows who owns it and wants 12 to pick it up, fine. If nobody retrieves it, Niel Wald 13 will be given it for his library, for his student library, 0*r_.s) 14 after he's r'ead it.
l 15 Just a public announcement regarding the 16 Prince Street Garage, there are several people asked me 17 how to get out because it says it closes at 7:00 p.m. I'm 18 having our people check on that now. I sort of believe you l
19 can get out. You just can't get in after 7:00. But we 20 will let you know the details of how you might exit it or 21 how you might retrieve your car before 7:00.
22 I do want to indicate that I have received a l
23 letter from Harold Denton dated February 26 indicating f
24 that the extension that was requested for comment on the 25 NRC's PEIS Draft Supplement 2, a 45-day extension has l
2
(hl s 1 .been'grantad until April the 14th. So I'd like to note O ~
that it does give the.public and'the panel additional time 2'
3 to' review and make comment.
4 -Tonight we break or we plan on breaking at 5 approximately 6:15 until 7:30. I hope the public and the 6 'other individuals don't get upset, but I took the liberty 7 to order meals for the panel members and for Mike Masnik 8 tdiat will be delivered here somewhere between 6:15 and 6 :30.
g And we.will be eating in the room right over here adjacent 10 to Council Chambers. The NRC always gets a little bit 11 nervous when the panel meets together out of the public 12 domain because they f" eel that maybe we're going to violate
, 13 the Sunshine Law.. While we can't get a lot of people in 14 there, if there's anybody else-that has that c'oncern and 15 - feels they want to sit and watch us eat and listen to what 4
16 we have to say, you're welcome to do that. That may be 17 enough said on that.
18 While the end of the meeting, if each of you .
19 have a copy of the agenda, indicates 10:00, I had indicated I'
l 20 at the last meeting that we're going to try to conclude the l
21 meeting by nine-ish. I would like very much to conclude 22 it no later than 9:30 because there are people that need to 23 move on to some other things either tonight or tomorrow.
l' 24 So the goal is 9:00. The latest time would be 9:30 for -
l 25 the meeting.
F l 3 l
._.m_e.-
1 A last thing I'd like to comment on before we (1)
(_
2 get into the status of the cleanup by G'PU is that if you 3 have a copy -- Does everybody have a copy of the agenda?
4 Maybe I should ask that. There are copies in the front.
5 here if you want one. I would ask that we attempt to stick 6 with the agenda items, and if there are concerns regarding 7 -the Environmental Impact Statement, for instance, that 8 they not be expressed during the public comment or open 9 discussion period that precedes that, but rather they be 10 brought up at the open discussion period that follows the 11 PEIS; if there are concerns on the Evaporation Plan that 12 you want to exp'ress or ask questions, that you do that in 13 the first open discussion period so that we try to stay '
And I know it can get a little confusing 14 close at hand.
15 as to which item we're discussing because the PEIS also 16 mentions as one of the options the Evaporation Plan. But 17 if we could try to stay close to that, I think it will 18 make the evening a lot easier. _
19 There have been three members of the public, 20 . Eric Epstein, Frances Skolnick and Ms. Robb, that have 21 asked for time on the agenda as indicated on the bottom of 22 the agenda, and I don't know where they would need to have 23 that time. So when we get to the discussion period, those 24 three individuals would get priority in coming up first.
25 They need to tell me at that time where they need to O
4
0 p-31
(;Hs I discuss things - in the first discussion period or the 2 second one - and then we can identify the citizens that 3 come forward as you're recognized by raising your hand,-
4 as we normally do.
5 With that, that really concludes my opening.
6 comments. I would like to, if I could,~just move onto the 7 second item of business, which is the status of the cleanup 8 by GPU.
9 Okay, for those that want to stay in the
{
10 Prince Street Garage until after 7:00, you can get out 11 provided you have - and I'm-told it's in coins - a dollar 12 in coins. If you have been there longer and should have 13 paid more, you're getting a' break. The parking authority
' f. -.% . .
l 14 loses money at that timie. But you must deposit a dollar 15 in coins in order to get out.
16 MR. STANDERFER: I'm Frank Standerfer, the 17 director for the cleanup at TMI-2. I have a brief update 18 on the status of the cleanup. 1[ have three slides I'm 19 going to show. The first one shows the plot of fuel 20 removal from the reactor versus time - that is, the year 21 July, '86, to June, '87. We are at 76,800 pounds removed.
i zt That's about 12,000 pounds more than I reported in January.
23 It's about 26% of the core.
24 The lower line of this graph shows the shipments 25 of fuel to Idaho by the Department of Energy. There are 5
t
- ~ - - - . . .. - . . . .. ~ .-
, -1 eight shipments, actually.eight shipping casks that have
~ '
2- been shipped._ Two of those shipments were double-cask 3 shipments and the rest were single-cask. So there's 56 4 - canisters that have been shipped, and they-contain 57,000 5 ' pounds of fuel, about 20% of the total.~-
6 As you'can see on this curve, we have a flat 7 spot for about two and a half weeks in February. We dis-8 continued fuel' removal two and a half weeks ago for a number g of inspections that we had scheduled in the vessel and in the jo. primary system. And the next two view graphs talk to what 11 those inspections have entailed.
1 12 This is a cross-section of the reactor vessel.
1 13 And I have. circled one of the labels there, debris scene 14 and inspection. That arrow points to a part of th'e core. .
15 structure called the former wall. It is a wall inside of 16 which.the fuel elements are located. And normally during 17 operation water flows up through that space, and it is a 18- labyrinth of. flow separators. _
19 In this inspection we put optical devices and 20 other ' probing devices down through the top of that 21 structure to find out whether there was fuel in this area.
22 - And in several of the positions we have found fuel in that 23 former wall. We also have found at least one spot where 24 the former wall is damaged from the core side, and some I
25 of the core debris then had spilled into this area. We'll O
l 6
I e
-o', ------"-.-,----,w'S-!-,s
- r- - ~
-.s,,,,v,w- ~ r-c .a- --r, w . - m s w r,9
- e,n e a ve nn m9 s-~.r, s ms, e. & a.~E- 6 - - - -r-~ -- - - - . ~ - * - - , , - -
(
~
1 be doing more inspections, but that means that we'll have 2 to defuel that area also, and that hadn't previously
's been' assumed to contain fuel.
4 We alsoldid several other inspections in the 5 ~ reactor vessel, a number of areas which we either haven't 6 seen before or we wanted to go back and look a second time 7 in the lower part of the vessel, more inspection ~up inside 8 the core support structure from the bottom, and over on the 9 right-hand side here we found a -- one of the instrument i
10 tubes to be damaged. Now, the performance of the thermo-11 couples after the accident would indicate that we'll find 12 about 16 of the 52 thermocouple guides damaged similar to 13 this one. So it's not a surprise, but it's a part of that s 14 structure which interacted with the fuel there. 6 15 The next view graph.is a diagram of the primary 16 system, the reactor vessel in the middle there, and piping r l
17 comes from it to the right and to the left into the steam 18 generators. 'There are two steam generators in the plant, . .
19 the A steam generator and the B steam generator. The water
(
20 comes from the reactor vessel up that pipe in the top of 21 the steam generator, back out the bottom of the steam 22 generator in one of two loops on each side. And there are 23 two pumps on each side. So there are four pumps total.
24 We had previously examined during last year 25 a number of places in the primary system, and they are D
7
_ - - . _ . _ . . . - , , _ . . _ - - - . . _ _ . _.- _ _ , _ _ - _ . _ ___.._-.__-._a - = -
J.
I p The tops of the two steam j (,/w ' 1 depicted in green there.
d 2 generators,~the pressurizer which is the component off to r
^
3 the.right-hand side and the bottom piping in the-steam 4 generator'are shown in green also. ,
5 In this last inspection we entered'the' piping 6 that leaves'the' reactor vessel shown in red and inspected 7 of the four outlet pipes and two inlet pipes, we inspected a five of those. There is one inlet pipe that we did not .
9 inspect this time. -We found a thin layer of fuel in the 10 bottom of eace of those pipes. Those pipes are between
(
11 30 inches and 36 inches in diameter. And then the inspectior, 12 device was pushed all the way out into the pump itself,.
1 x 13 and, again, we found some loose material in the pumps. We t
14 expect'that we will be flushing these areas back into the 15 reactor vessel to remove that material from the primary 16 system.
17 There was another pipe called the DK heat 18 drop line which is not shown on this diagram. It's a ,
19 ten-inch line that comes off of one of the hot leg outlet 20 pipes, and that line drops vertically and then turns at a 21 right angle at the bottom. And we found about the bottom 22 two foot of that pipe full of a loose material which we 23 can vacuum from that location. So we continue to find 24 small amounts of fuel in the system outside of the reactor 25 vessel which we will evaluate the need to remove that fuel 10 8
. _ . . . . . . . _ - _.._._ ._ - .. _ _ _.- _ ._..-~ .. _.. . _ . _ _.. _ _ .. . - . - . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ , . . - , . , . . -
I)' 1 before the end of the cleanup.
O 2 That's the end of my presentation on the 3 ' status of the cleanup. If you have any questions, Mayor 4 Morris.
5 THE MAYOR: Does anybody from the panel have a 6 question at this point? Niel?
7 MR. WALD: Is the water filtration system working:
8 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. We continue to have good 9 visibility. As you may remember, the combination of body to feed and coagulants that was developed and tested in 11 December and put into full-scale operation early January 12- has continued to be used. It was able to process about a 13 half a million gallons through the first canister. The
./m
. 1-) . 14 second canister which we used and optimized the treatment, 15 we have got about a million gallons through that canister.
16 And we put the third canister in operation late last week.
17 So it looks like now we can get a whole month's operation 18 out of one of these filters. I have also ordered 37 new l 19 filters. So they will be -- Delivery starts with the 20 first one in March, and then they start coming five a
- 21 month in May. So I don't expect to have any shortage of 22 filters either.
23 MR. WALD: Thank you.
l 24 THE MAYOR: Any other questions from the panel 25 regarding the cleanup progress?
i 9
1
_u _1_1
/N Frank, if I may ask this at this point, unless-( ; 1 2 .there JLs another- point on the agenda that you think 'it's:
's better,-what do you envision at this point given the-4 problems that you have been having with fuel removal and --
5 -Do you.still expect -- I read the newspaper. article where
! 6 I think Mr. Travers is indicating that he thinks maybe t.
7 you're not - I'm not sure if it's even maybe - but he.doesn't a believe you're probably going to meet.your final removal-9 of-fuel deadline.
10 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. We met with the NRC 11 . Commission on the 13th of February. We did talk the 12 schedule at that time. At that time we indicated our i
13 -continued confidence that we will finish the cleanup in the
__s 1
14 end of 1988. That's the date that I look to. We have an 15 intermediate date of fuel removal in December.- We haven't 16 changed that schedule yet. There is speculation as to 17 whether we will get the fuel out on that schedule. I'm l 18 still looking at the end of cleanup, and while that fuel .
, 19 removal date may change some, we're still expecting to 20 finish the cleanup in the end of 1988.
21 For example, this former wall inspection found f
22 fuel in the location which we had not included on our
[ 23 schedule for defueling. So we will have to determine
-24 whether we can defuel that in parallel with other work or 25 whether it has to be attached onto the end of the schedule.
( 1 10
, . - . . - - - . - . - . . ~ - . - - . . .. -. - - - - . . , - _ . . = _ -
THE-MAYOR: .But at this point, any delay that I )-<)
5 v
- 1 2 you're going to experience in fuel removal will not affect i
3 the_ final completion of cleanup as you presently see it?
4 MR. STANDERFER: That is correct. As Bill 5 Travers, I think, continually says, this is a research 6 and development kind of project. These schedules are.
7 ambitious. He is not -- He won't be surprised if we miss a some.of these. And I think he's given you an objective 9 assessment of our schedule. I have put schedules forth .
10 for our people to meet, and I try not to soften them so 11 that the people aren't trying to meet them.
12 THE MAYOR: Thank you. At this point you do not 13 have a date or new projected date for completion of fuel 14 removal. You're still going on a date by the end of this 15 year.
16 MR. STANDERFER: That's right.
17 THE MAYOR: Any other questions? Yes, sir.
18 MR. MANICK: Al Manick, Middletown. You 19 stated, sir, that you will have to flush the material out.
20 How much additional water are we going to use here?
21 MR. STANDERFER: No, we use the same water.
22 MR. MANICK: Same water?
23 MR. STANDERFER: No new water.
24 MR. MANICK: Okay, thank you.
25 MR. STANDERFER: In fact, one of the issues,as
,A QJ 11
. - - _ - - . . . . _ . . . - _ _ - - - . . . ... . . . . _ . _ _ = _ _ _ _ -
e W
v - we will mention later, only about a quarter of the water-2 that will be evaporated can be released prior.to fuel' 1
< 3 removal. So about three quarters.of the water is still-4- required for the reactor system for flushing, for the fuel 5 storage pools and so forth.
6 THE MAYOR: Okay, thank you, Frank. If there 7 are no other -questions, I think what we should do is move a right on to the next item on the agenda, which is item 3, l' 9 update on GPU's --
10 MR.* STANDERFER: I've got a number of slides, and 11 I've got three gentlemen which would like to join me at~the
- 12 table to help answer questions, Dr. Ken Hofstetter from our 3
. 13 Pl ant chemistry Department, Bill Cooper from Environmental c
Controls Department, and Bill is a certified health 14 f.
15 physicist, and Chuck Urland, who is from our Waste Manage-16 ment Department and has been evaluating the proposals 17 for the evaporators. Dr. Hofstetter is on my far left, 18 Chuck Urland in the middle and Bill Cooper is next to me. .
19 THE MAYOR: Could you spell Chuck's --
l 20 MR. STANDERFER: If you look at the cover of 21 my presentation, there are the four names at the bottom.
22 The first slide is a summary of the status of 23 this whole action with our submittal of our proposal to 24 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 31, 1986. We l 25 then briefed your panel in your meeting in August on that 12 l
Ox aji 1 proposal. The NRC issued its draft EIS for water disposal d' 2 for comment.in December. We again discussed the' subject p
3 in our meeting on. January 21. Since that time the Depart-4 ment of Energy has provided us with an approval of the 5 low-level waste allocation which we need to implement this
'6 option because the volume of waste will exceed that alloca-7 tion which we get under the Low-Level Waste Policy Act.
8 We received that in a letter dated February 11. It is
. 9 based on two provisions - one,that the NRC approve'the 10 evaporation option, and that then we can demonstrate that
! 'It we need more volume than our four-year allotment of l 12 41,000 cubic-feet. So it's the kind of approval that we 13 want. . It says if you need it,.we'll allow you to have it.
And you have a copy of that letter attached to your.
14
. 15 package there.
16 Finally, we provided the NRC two letters this 17 month on more detailed radiochemistry of the water. You 4 18 have both of those letters. The letter on the 18th is our .
l, 19 summary of all of the significant isotopes that could be 20 in the water. And I got a slide a little bit later in l_
21 the presentation which uses that same table.
Zt The next slide is a summary overview of the I
23 character of this water. It's an expansion on the chart I
! 24 that I used last August with you. The projected volume of 25 the water is about 2.1 million gallons. I've got a better 13
jh- 'i ~or more. detailed chart on that-in a few minutes in giving; V' 2 'you the range on that number. The principal radio-3 isotope on a curie basis is tritium,.a little over 1,000 4' ' curies of tritium. Cesium, strontium and carbon'14.are the 5 isotopes with the highest concentrations after tritium.
6 They range on total estimates for that water'from the lower 7 number to the upper number used in this chart.. And we have 8
based our environmental calculations on the upper limits e of these ranges. We would expect that the final curie
-to content of'the 2.1 million gallons will be somewhere in it - that range.- Other isotopes which we will discuss - and 12 there's a long list of them - are less than one tenth of a 13 curie. The principal chemical contaminant of the water is -- -
^
14 or content of tihe water is sodium borate,161 tons. '
15 The next chart is a little more detailed chart 16 of the schematic of the process. We now have received 17 bids from six companies who would propose to supply this 18 equipment and provide us evaporation service. We're .
19 evaluating those proposals at the present time. What they 20 would supply is the part of the system that is inside of ;
21 the blue circle. Maybe, Connie, you can't get it all on 22 there. Start from the -- Shown here is a feed tank which 23 water from one of the various water sources would be sent 24 to. The feed then will be analyzed to determine whether or 25 not it needs to be further processed, purified, through the 14
's 1 SDS and epicor systems. That's the next box shown in the U If it went through the 2 chart. Probably shown wrong here.
3 SDS-epicor systems, it would then go to another tank prior 4 to going into the evaporator. So it doesn't go directly 5 into the evaporator. Or if the chemical content.is such 6 t' hat it can be evaporated directly, it can be sent to the 7 evaporator.
8 The evaporator then is shown as that conical 9 unit in the middle. We believe we will have a system which 10 can operate anywhere from three to twenty gallons a minute.
11 The water is evaporated. The vapor then goes overhead up 12 through a new stack which is about 100 foot tall. And since
,. 13 this is steam, we have to heat that line in that stack so 14 .it doesn't condense on the system. .
15 The concentrated particulate materials in the l 16 sodium borate then go out the bottom of the evaporator, 17 and that is concentrated and mixed with concrete or some l
18 substance like that to solidify it. And that is the waste l ~
19 that gets sent to the low-level waste burial ground. There l
20 is also low-level waste to the burial ground that comes 21 from the resins in the SDS and epicor system. And at 22 each stage the samples are taken to assure that the -- that j 23 we understand the content of the water and there will be a l <
- 24 couple of monitors on the stack. One is the carryover 25 monitor. That checks to make sure that the solids are not O
15
.3
(.;j 1 going up the stack with the steam, there is'no foaming
(' in the evaporator, for example, that-is. causing carryover, 2'
3 and then radiation monitor and a sample.
4 The exact details of this will vary, depending 5 upon which of the companies' equipment that we select.
6 The next chart deals with this point about 7 carryover. Again, that is how well the evaporator parti-8 tions the water from the particulate material. Of course,
'9 this chart shows that the tritium carries over at 100%.
10 That means it's with the water that goes out the top of the 11 evaporator. The particulates, which are the sodium borate 12 and all the rest of the radioisotopes, we have assumed a
. 13 1% carryover. In other words, 1% of that material would 14- be with the steam and go t$p the stack. All our calculations 15 of environmental impact and so forth are based on a 1%
18 carryover. This type of equipment,and the vendors who 17 replied confirm this, operates somewhere between a tenth 18 of a percent carryover and a hundredth of a percent carry- .
L l 19 over. So our assumption of a 1% carryover is between a 20 factor of ten and a factor of 100, conservative. And we 21 would expect the evaporator to operate at somewhat less 22 than a tenth of a percent carryover.
23 The next chart is from a chart that was in our l
l 24 submission last July which adds up the water that is in a l 25 number of systems in the plant. The water currently is in i
D 16
w A
\;5 1 about-25' locations in the plant. These volumes were the
Q' 2 vol'umes that were correct as of July 1 -- or, excuse me, 3 January 1, 1986, the volumes we used last summer. Chuck 4 Urland with~me has current volumes if people are interested 5 in what any one of these tanks has in it.t'oday. 'It's a 6 dynamic system, and-we're pumping water back and forth all' 7 the-time.-
. 8 The. waters which have already been purified and 9 we don't believe would require further purification prior 10 to evaporation are shown in the upper.part of this chart, 11 about 1.2 million gallons of that kind of water. About
' 12_ 600,000 of that could be. released for evaporation now.
13 The rest is needed in the plant as we defuel the reactor.
14 And the bottom part of the chart here shows systems such 15 as the reactor coolant system, spent fuel, storage pools 16 and so forth, where those waters, about 700,000 gallons, 17 will require processing in the epicor and SDS systems.
18 That total as of last summer was 1.9 million gallons.. We ,
19 projected additional water of 150,000 gallons which would 20 total up to about 2.1 million gallons. Today we're project-21 ing that the water addition is somewhere between 150,000 N and 400,000 gallons. And our projection of the total water 23 to be evaporated is between 2 and 2.3 million gallons. Of 24 course, the total content of radioactive material stays 25 the same whether it's in 2 million gallons or 2.3 million 17
- ____:=_-
(h}$ 1 gallons. The radioactivity doesn't change.
(_/. .The next chart is kind of a schematic of what 2
_3 the SDS and epicor systems do. They are both Eineshane 4 (phonetic) systems, the SDS for high levels, high con-5 centrations of cesium, strontium,.an inorganic resin system.
-6 The organic system in the epicor part of the purification 7 system removes all of the radioisotopes which are ionized 8 in the water that we're interested in. Impure water is 9- put thror3h one or both of these systems. And we have to listed on the bottom here some of the typical cleanup 11 capabilities. For strontium, for example, the feeds may 12 range anywhere from .403 microcuries per ml. to 2 micro-13 curies per ml.-and typically can reduce that to a strontium D 14 content of .0001 microcuries per ml. Similar kinds of 15 cleanups for cesium. The actonides can be cleaned up to 16 a little lower levels, and, of course,'the tritium passes 17 through this system.
18 The next chart is the list of isotopes that .
19 we provided the NRC in our letter on the 18th of February.
20 I have redone this chart to include the names of each of 21 the radionuclides rather than just their symbols. And I 22 have used regular notations for the concentrations rather 23 than the scientific notation in there. Again, the highest 24 concentration is tritium at .13 microcuries per ml. There 25 are actual measured values for carbon 14, for cobalt 60, D
18
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _m_____ _
h1 1 for strontium 90 and its daughter product, yttrium 90, 2 technetium 99, antimony, cesium 134 and 137. The rest.of 3 the isotopes are isotopes that could be in the water but are 4 less'than detectable levels. We looked at all of the 5 isotopes that could be significant at this point in time 6 eight years .after the accident, made a list of those. We 7 have then done radiochemical analysis for the bulk of those, 8 although there are several here which have been calculated.
9 For example, the iron 55 number is calculated based on the to cobalt level because they go hand in hand. The five 11 rarer, promethium, samarium, and the three europium isotopes 12 were calculated from the curium -- the cerium isotope, 13 and the measurements for plutonium 239 and 240 were done D 14 in the laboratory and then the 241 isotope was based on the 15 calculation from them. Again, there is a standard relation-16 ship between them.
17 We can talk more if you have some questions 18 about those concentrations. But that is a little different .
19 portrayal. What we have done with that then is taken and 20 made a comparison of each of the isotopes to strontium 90 21 with regard to their relative environmental impact. And 22 this then takes into account their concentrations, takes 23 into account their environmental limits. And in this chart 24 then strontium 90 is shown as one. And the relative 25 impact of the other isotopes then are calculated to the 19
(13 1 strontium 90. Most of them are less than 1% of strontium U 90 as shown by the-double stars. And there are four -- or 2
~3 three other isotopes that would calculate above the 1%
4 level. The carbon 14 could be as high as .5, 50%. It 5 may be less than 1%, depending upon its chemical content.
6 If it's as a carbonate, for example, it could be up to .5.
7 If it's as carbon dioxide, it would go up as a gas and a would not be a particulate and would not go through that 9 same pathway to people.
to The technetium 99 is calculated as significant it to about 20% of the strontium. And the iodine 129, which 12 is below level of detection, would be somewhere less than 13 20% of the strontium 90.
14 Again, this' chart shows that strontium 90 is 15 the isotope of principal concern from an environmental 16 regulation standpoint. These aren't necessarily additive 17 either. The strontium, for example, affects the critical 18 organ of the bone in the body or as iodine, if present, .
19 would affect the thyroid. Those two can't be added to each 20 other. But again, the point of this chart is that 21 strontium 90 is the principal isotope of concern for the 22 evaporation.
23 The last chart again shows our calculation of 24 environmental exposure to the public from this evaporation 25 option. Of course, the NRC Environmental Impact Statement O
20
i is the definitive calculation of this. I don't claim to have
([(/'
2 made as thorough an analysis as they are in their Environ-3 mental Impact Statement.
4 The calculations that we have made again show the 5 50-year dose commitment. And that is strontium with a long a half-life can, if incorporated into the skeleton structure, 7 impact for a long period of time. So you calculate its 8 impact for 50 years. From the evaporation of this water 9 as shown to the maximum hypothetical individual, this is to a -- not a real person, but a person who lives at our 11 defense line 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, seven days a week, he grows 12 all his food on his farm at that location, drinks only 13 water from the sources around the plant and that sort of 14 thing. And the exposure -- The total body exposure, 15 50-year commitment to him would be somewhere between is one and two millirems, to bone dose, .4 to 4 millirem. The 17 average member of the public, and this is the average 18 person who lives within 50 miles of the plant, calculates .
19 to be triple 2 to .02 millirem to the bone, .01 millirem 20 total body. Over that same 50-year period, the total dose 21 from natural background would be 5,000 millirem.
22 Each of the gentlemen with me can answer questions 23 on these charts and participated in the preparation of them.
24 So we could answer questions now.
25 MR. RICE: Yes, Frank, in the evaporation 21
e ,
s
} L1 process, am'I correct.in assuming that all the isotopes-2 are removed during that process and. fall into this solid?.
3 MR. STANDERFER: You have a chart. It's three 4 charts back, the one with all of the radioisotopes on it .
i -
5 and the concentrations. That's our expected average' con-6 centration for the feed to the evaporator. And the tritium -
7 shown there.would pass through the evaporator,up the' stack 8 with the steam. The rest of these isotopes we would expect
. 9 to-be reduced'by that carryover ratio, which would be at to -least a factor of 100 and more likely a factor of better 11 than 1,'000. And so those isotopes reduced by a factor of
' between 100 and 1,000 could be in the steam that goes up 12 13 the evaporator.- And that's the source term which we have
,( ) 14 used in our calculations on public impact, and I believe 15 the NRC will say that's how they calculated the impact 16 also.
17 MR. RICE: Thank you.
18 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: On the list of isotopes 19 there, do they, any of them, exceed MPC7
! M MR. STANDERFER: I'll let Bill Cooper answer 21 that.
I 22 MR. COOPER: You mean as water?
23 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: Water concentration.
24 MR. COOPER: Several of them would exceed MPC.
25 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: Which ones?
-i 22
. .. . . - - .. .. =. .. . .
r-
-( U.
- and the strontium 90'certainly.
2:
3- MR. STANDERFER: That's 4.f this water that we 4 would feed into the evaporator was drunk as'your principal 5 source of water all year long. That's what you mean by
. .6 MPC?
7- THE-MAYOR: Maximum.
. 8 MR. STANDERFER: That's what you could~have in
~
9 your water.that you're using for your principal water i 10- source. And, of course, this gets fed to the evaporator I
11 'and is reduced by 100 to 1,000 from those levels.
12 THE MAYOR: I'm just trying to be helpful to
., 13 the public as well as myself. -
- 1
- 14 MR. GERUSKY: I think we're talk'ng i release 15 standards rather than drinking water standards.
16 MR. STANDERFER: Yes.
17 MR. GERUSKY: The release standards are higher.
i 18 MR. STANDERFER: The release standards assume that .
19 that material is mixed with other material in the environment 20 and is not used in its original concentration.
L 21 THE MAYOR: So the answer is that it does not l
l 22 meet the drinking water standards but it does meet the 23- other standards.
. 24 MR. STANDERFER: You could not drink this water.
- 25 MR. MAYOR: But that was the answer.
23
- .. _. _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . - _ . . . _ . . - . - _ _ _ _ . _.._m_. m- - . ,=. ~ . -
. = . . . .. .-. .. .
l l
L ifw. 1 MR..STANDERFER: But you can release this water 2 under environmental standards.
3- THE MAYOR:. Any other questions? John, did i
4 that answer-your question?
5 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: Yes.
l 6 MR. GERUSKY: On your. table on relative impact 7 compared to strontium 90, what did you comoare it to? Are 1
8 you comparing maximum permissible concentration to that ratici?
9 MR. COOPER: No. In most cases the concentra-10 tion.was multiplied by either a pathway dose conversion 11 factor or on a total committed dose per microcurie per 12 second released, to get a relative comparison between the 13 isotopes. No direct dose calculations were performed. In 7,&
i 14 other words, the dispersio'n in the environment wasn't
- 15 -accounted for. The small differences in pathways weren't I
l 16 accounted for. But the pathway dose conversion factors l
17 which are published in various Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 publications, also in some electric power research insti- .
19 tute publications.
20 THE MAYOR: Could you bring the mike a little 21 bit closer maybe?
22 MR. COOPER: These factors times the concentra-23 tion will give a relative comparison between the different 24 isotopes, even though it doesn't actually perform a complete 25 dose calculation. But we already know from our original 24
. . .-. -. . - - . . . - , . , . . . - _ . - . - . , . . . . _ - , - - . . . - . . . . . . . . . ~ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 , t,
.::/ . .
r p
V3 1./
1 calculations that the, strontium:90 is. dominant for the dose 2 commitment. If they show by this mathod that other
'3 isotopes'are not as significant-as strontium 90, then we
.4 know thatI there is no contribution to~those -- from those s 5
to the dode commitment compared to strontAum. .,
6 MR. ' GERUSKY : .The question is, M e we comparing 7 .the doses to in,dividual organs versus bone dose? I'm 8 trying to figu e out --
9 'MR.. COOPER: As well the different isotopes ,
-to will have different critical opgans. And there-was no lt - 11 adjustment for waitini factor or anything of..that sort
~
i 12 done.- For example, as Frank s51d earli'er, the iodine -
13 doses the-thyroid and strontiu'm doses the bone. ~
MR. GERUSKY: hnd the ratio does not take into.
i -14
'15 account that thyroid versus.the bone?
t l 16 MR. COOPER: .That's correct. ,i 17 MR. STANDERFER: I think what we're trying to-shcw l-18 here, one, the strontium environmental levels are below ~,
19 standards, meet existing standhrds. And we were again 20 trying to show that the o der isotopes are less significant, 21 again trying to give a relative feel for the fact that we 22 are looking at the right isotopes.
23 MR. GERUSKY: On your carryover, can you go into 24 more detail on what the carryover monitor does $nd how it 25 does it?
CO -
25
_ .., -.. . . - - _ ,. _ . . . _ . _ . _ , _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ . _ . . - . _ , _ _
.y
/
. ,,- s 8 1. O MR. STANDERFER: 'I' expect that will be a con-2 iductivity cell on cendensed water. But let's ask Chuck.
r.
^
13 MR. URLAND: Yes, most normal-evaporators that j s
- m -
4 operatet in cloeed cycle have continuous conductivity 9 ,
+
5 monitors on both the feed and the condensed distillate.
( '
6 'Since we're proposing to evaporate in a open. cycle and 3 7 release the vapor, what we will have to.do is pull a 8 stream',3 sample stream of the vapor, condense it with
- s. ,
9 continuous conductivity probe and use that as our scaling
- . s g to or guide for' operatYon of the evaporator. - 1
! 11- MR..GERUSKY: Then this really isn't a monitor )
12 as much as -- It's not a radiological monitor in the sense-
\ :
13 ue'think of it in nuclear power plants. You're monitoring
[~ 14 just the total solids, I guess,'-in the water, in the water '
f" "
I 15 vapor.
16 ,,MR. /JRLAND: Yes.
17 MR. GERUSKY: The next step is you're doing 1
1.
H 18 -radiological monitoring behind that, it looks like. What .
l-s 19 are you going to be looking for?
'20 MR. URLAND: I have to turn it over to the 21- environmental people.
22 MR. STANDERFER: The monitor, in-line monitor ,
23 there is for gross upsets in the plant, and it will be a
(.
L 24 gamma monitor. The actual reference control will be the
, , 25 water samples that are taken and sent to the laboratory.
r I
t r
~
26 L , c. '. ; ;
[._.4,. .
,.g ,_, ', __ _ . _ _ ,
i ,
I 1 -The concentrations here are so low that direct in-line
.) monitors cannot measure it at the levels that will normally 2
3 be going up the stack. So both the carryover monitor and-4 the in-line-radioactive monitor is to control gross upset 5 of the evaporator itself.
6 WR. GERUSKY: ~They have -- Is there any automatic 77 control'that will shut the facility down if a preset point Q
8 is-reached?. l 9 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, and that -- What we pri-10 marily will be looking at is a carryover monitor, make sure 11 that there is no parth late go. tug up with the steam. And
'4 W41Liyh !O.d. can 20asure down to levels of k 12 thal 15 s6ri
^
13 a h m 0#4fdt 46 4 pficMuq sad ;n are the assumptions that
(')
14 .you make when you make these calculations.
15 MR. GERUSKY: Where are you going to do the 16 liquid -- the radioactivity analysis of the release? Are 17 you. going to take the samples from the two monitors or are 3 18 you going to just take them in the evaporator itself? .
19 MR. STANDERFER: No, that's one line that con-20 denses water from the stack, goes through -- some of that 21 water will go through the carryover monitor and some of 22 it will go through the in-line radioactive monitor for 23 high radiation levels. And the rest of it will go into 24 sample, which will be sent to the laboratory. And some 25 of those measurements will be made on site, and then the to 27
, ,. 1
al - . . .
( 1 .1 more sensitive ones will be made off site in another 2 laboratory.
3 First of all, the critical thing is to have good.
4 chemistry on the feed water before you put-it in the 5 evaporator so that you make sure that you are not intro--
6 ducing high concentrations of any of these radioisotopes.
7 MR. GERUSKY: On your strontium 90 decontamina-(
8 tion factor through the exchange- system, you didn't really --.
9 The strontium 90 concentrations vary considerably, and you to came out with one number. -It really didn't show what the
- 11 decontamination factor was. Do you have that number?
12 MR. STANDERFER: Let Ken --
13 MR. HOFSTETTER: Decontamination number, of d -
14 course, does tend to vary with the concentration of input -
15 water. That is the effluent quality of the effluent 16 remains about the same. So, for instance, when we were 17 processing water out of the reactor building basement which 18 had high levels of radioactivity, the DFs, if you want to .
19 call them that, were quite high. When we look at water 20 which has been recycled, that is, has been reused for de-21 contamination, picked up small amounts of water, the DF 22 will appropriately be lower because the influent concen-23 trations are lower as a result. For the reactor building M basement where we had cesium concentrations of 120 micro-25 curies per milliliter, DF to the total system was on the CO 28
. =__- - c__-___ __c_____- _ _____ =.
(",%- 1 order of eight orders of magnitude. For processing the-
- v reactor coolant-system presently, for. instance,-the DF 2
3 is more on the order of four orders of magnitude because 4 -the concentrations of the influent are reduced accordingly.
5 MR. GERUSKY: Is that because of solubility,'or-6 shouldn't the decontamination factor remain constant no 7 matter what you start out with, or is it -- I mean, par-8 ticulate,I can see it being removable. What about the g soluble fraction?
10 MR. HOFSTETTER: You know, there is a level
! 11 of, for instance, through the zeolites in the SDS system, 12 there is a level of what we call recalcitrant species 13 which sort of mix the effluent almost independent of the Q.'f}-
14 influent until you reach a point where you'.re beginning .
. 15 to break through on the liner itself. So that you can 16 Process a variety of waters, as long as the bulk chemical 17 characteristics are the same. The effluent is the same 18 concentration as long as you haven't reached exhaustion on .
19 the liners.
20 In the case of epicor, which uses organic ion i
21 exchange resins, basically the same general observations 1
i 22 are there. That is, the effluent reaches a level which is l
23 below which we can't attain with the chemistry that we have I
24 set up in the water right now. That basically sodium 25 borate tends to minimize the infinite DF of that, that you D
29
(.hf s- 1 might get if you were processing out of demineralized water.
.\ ..
2 MR. GERUSKY: I don't have any more.
3 .THE MAYOR: Anybody else on the panel?-
4 MR. RICE: Frank, what is the time process of 5 this mechanical process? Once it starts, is it continuous?
6 MR. STANDERFER: You can stop.and start the 7 evaporator. And we would expect to try to schedule the 8 evaporator operation so it can be run continuously. And 9 our assumption is that it will run 75% of the time. The to other 25% is either for -- down for maintenance or down for 11 Preparing a new batch of feed. And so the two-and-a-half-12 year period to get rid of the-2 million gallons of water
~
13 was based on evaporator, running 75% of the time.
CO 14 MR. RICE: Thank you.
15 MR. STANDERFER: But that's really an operational 16 choice.
17 THE MAYOR: Joel next, and then John.
18 MR. ROTH: I'd like to backtrack to the auto- .
19 matic shutdown that Tom talked about and you talked about, 20 Frank. Would you go into that in a little more detail?
21 In other words, the scenario if something happens.
22 MR. STANDERFER: We want to assure that the solid 23 fraction which contains the radioisotopes that are con-24 cerned is not going up the stack. And that could be due 25 to foaming; it could be due to overheating, that sort of O
30
m 1- thing..
..Lk-l (M) MR. ROTH:- What are the chances of that happen-2 3 ing?
4- MR. STANDERFER: Low. These evaporators are 5 built to evaporate this kind of water, and you then put a 6 monitor on-the condensed water from the stack and determine 7 by conductivity whether or not material is going up with that water. And if it is, you stop the evaporation. So 8
9 that can be done rather quickly.
10 MR. ROTH: How quickly?
11 MR. STANDERFER: It's done in minutes.
12 MR. ROTH: Now, how do you know then what has i
13 gone up or out at that point?
14 MR. STANDERFER: You have taken samples. You l
i 15 can analyze those samples.
l MR. ROTH: But I'd like to backtrack again f 16 for more specificity to say what happens. Two minutes, 17 18 something has gotten out that shouldn't have gotten out.
19 MR. STANDERFER: No, the concentrations are so 20 low that that operating for days at those levels would still 21 be probably satisfactory. But we're trying to evaporate 22 this water in a manner that retains that material, because 23 you remember, I think the NRC analysis indicates that this 24 water from an environmental standpoint could be directly 25 discharged to the service water. So what we're trying to do 31
t'
- s .
' : 1,
. _1 here is get rid of this water in a manner which the m) radioisotopes are not released to the environment.. The 2
3 concentrations are such that brief upsets would not result 4 in concentration of serious concern in the environment.
5 MR. ROTH: Just one followup on that. If'it 6 does occur, is there a certain procedure that would be 7 followed? In other words, I guess I'n trying to find 8 out --
9 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, the evaporatoi would be to shut down, and you would then determine what caused the 11 upset, either the chemistry caused foaming or too much 12 energy was put into the evaporator, it was boiling too 13 rapidly, or .i uther process upset.
(h 14 - MR. ROTH:. Would that be made known to the 15 public then?
16 MR. STANDERFER: We are in the habit of putting 17 out press releases when even the most minor things happen 18 at the plant. .
19 MR. ROTH: Venting today, every day, right?
20 MR. STANDERFER: Yes.
21 MR. ROTH: So you'd have to look for it.
22 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. Any time we have an 23 upset, we have been putting press releases out on that.
24 MR. ROTH: Is that the new term, upsets?
25 MR. STANDERFER: Process upsets or conditions which C
32
I2 3 1 are different than expected.
(_/
2 THE MAYOR: John?
3 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: The output of the stack, 4 the 100 feet, what is going to happen to that in the 5 various conditions of weather? Is it going to touch ground?
6 Is.that going to stay above?
7 MR. STANDERFER: No. That 100-foot stack is 8 considered in environmental parlances to oe a surface 9 release. That is not -- There is no credit taken for the 10 height of that stack. That's just a mechanism to get it up 11 enough into the air such that it's not on the ground.
12 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: So you assume this stuff
, 13 released under your dose calculations?
"# 14 MR. STANDERFER: I believe so.
15 MR. COOPER: Depending on the actual final 16 stack, it could also be treated as a split release where, 17 depending on meteorological conditions and stack flow 18 rates, the stack can be treated as partially elevated or 19 completely at ground, depending on the flow and the stack 20 height and the meteorological conditions.
21 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: What minimum height would 22 you need? I look at the coal plant down the river, and I 23 see that nice coal, and it stays nice and high and just 24 leaves the area. That's the whole purpose of it. What 25 minimum height would you need to get it so that people in d.fm 33
. - , , . - . - . - . . . . - . - ~ . . , , _ . - . . -- -
3 aq this area won't have to breathe any effluent from-that SQr 1
-C 2 and send it' someplace else?
3 'MR.~ COOPER: Well, it's almost no matter what 4: height you'put a stack to. It will eventually reach the-5 ground.
6 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB:- But-it doesn't' touch ground 7 within 20 miles or anything like that.
8 MR. COOPER: I couldn't even tell you that.
9 Again, that depends entirely on meteorology. You could have to a 300-foot-high stack that under the right weather condi-11 tions it could come right down right on the same plant.
12 MR. STANDERFER: I think it's fair to say that 13 we're not taking any credit for the stack height. We're CO 14 making our calculations based on ground release of this 15 material. So that any benefit from the stack results from to the environmental impact release being less.
17 MR. GERUSKY: Just a followup on that. Are you 18 considering the possibility of putting it out the plant ,-
19 stack?
l 20 MR. STANDERFER: We prefer to keep this system 21 totally independent, supplied as a package by a vendor, i
- 22 and not mix it with other plant effluents. So we'd like 23 it to be separate. And it's located in a separate part 24 of the property, away from the plant itself.
25 MR. GERUSKY: Since you brought up the vendor 1 -
l j 34
_ _-_.___, _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ , _ . . . , _ . . - ~ - - - - . . _ , - . . - _ - . ._ - _ - --
N.pls 1 issue,:are your specifications:for the evaporator, do V 2 they vary with, in effect, decontamination factor or 3 removal concentration, removal factors or the particulates?
4' MR. STANDERFER: .I'm sure we have carryover 5 specs. ~But,. Chuck --
6 MR.-URLAND: The technical bid apecifications 7 specified that the evaporator would achieve the highest a
decontamination factor that it could possibly be designed 9 for.. As the slide that we had up earlier shows the .1 to 10 .01% carryover, that is representative of the Laformation 11 we have obtained from various vendors to date.
12 . MR. GERUSKY: That's the question I had. We're
_ 13 getting at it. Are you going to purchase the one that has
('f~i . 14 the best reduction or what is -- ow are you going to pick 15 the vendor?
16 MR. URLAND: The selection process is sort of a 17 two-part process. First, we do complete technical evalua-18 tions. And the .arryover fraction is only a portion of .
19 it. There are other operational concerns that we have to 20 look at. And then the ultimate would be the performance.
21 MR. GERUSKY: Like what other --
22 MR. URLAND: Maximum solids concentration at the 23 bottoms, processing flow rate, equipment space requirements, 24 feed capacity.
25 MR. GERUSKY: Are they all the same ball park O
35
- ~ _ _ _ _ __=__-_______=-_____- - -
. .- ... . ..- . . . . ~ ..
m 7a>
- f. ' ' ' i 'l for cost?
4 2 MR. URLAND: That information is not released
~3 yet until after the technical evaluation is complete.
1 4 MR.-STANDERFER: The critical item -- I'll 5 help Chuck a little bit. The critical item really is the.
T l 6 volume.of this solids that come off that we have to ship 7 across country to a low-level burial site. We want to s minimize the volume of that material.. And I think the vendor
~9 that has the best-system to minimize the volume of that ,
10 material is way ahead on a cost basis. For example, we '
11 asked the Department of Energy for an allocation of 46,000-12 cubic feet. We believe this can be done at'about 15,000
, l'3 cubic-feet or'less.
And the vendor that does the best on
'~-
14 that part of the process ends up getting'many points'in . .
i
~ 15 the evaluation, I'think, Chuck.
I 16 MR. URLAND: That's correct. The range of
, 17 bottoms, solid waste generated, has been from ten to 18 44,000 cubic feet.- And within that range the carryover 19 fractions have been between the .1 and .01.
20 MR. STANDERFER: I might make one other point.
21 The operation will be done under our license, and we are 22 responsible for all effluent releases. So this contractor 23 that supplies this equipment and provides the evaporatior' 24 services is not responsible for the release that goes up 25 the stack. That is on us.
36
, - . - , - . . ~ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ , , , , _ , , , _ , , , , , , , , , _ . .. , , . _
-1 MR. MILLER: I guess I don't understand. Now I t)-) . 2 you're talking about-tremendous differences in volumes 3 of-solid collected. And I would assume if you're not
-4 col.ecting them, .they are ending - up going out ' $ n the i
5 environment in steam. What makes a big difference of about 6 a factor of four or so there?
7 MR. STANDERFER: The 46,000 was based on the 8- assumption that 90% of the water evaporated and there was i e 10% of the original water that ends up in a bottom to stream-that has to be solidified. The vendors are -- It 11 looks like they can evaporate about 98% of the water, 97, 12 98% of the water. So the size on a gallon basis of the 13 bottom stream is less. All of the solids, of course, are
'k )
14 there. So there is just a h'eavier slurry of material.
15 MR. URLAND: Yes, the 161 tons of sodium borate i 16 is always going to be there. It's just that final con-17 centration which would determine the volume. And we are 18 proposing or we have to solidify this waste for disposal. ,
19 And each vendor has its own proprietary process which f
20 allows him to get various end products. When you solidify, 21 you increase the volume. Some vendors only increase it a
\
l 22 little bit. Some, of course, increase it a tremendous 23 amount. And that's what results in the ultimate difference.
24 (Off the record) 25 THE MAYOR: On the record. Items 3 and 4, your l
37
,..e-- - - . . .~ , . ..,..n.- ,r,,, ,,,,,-,,,v,,,,,,v,. -,w.- ,~ ...es- e u o e .,s - ,, --: -,%
) i formal part'of the presentation, is complete?
U) MR. STANDERFER: Yes.
2 3 THE MAYOR: For public information, what I want 4 to do at this point is allow the panel members to continue 5 asking questions, and then we'll open-it up for comment 6 from the publi~c. And I would like at that point first to 7 find out whether the individuals named on the bottom of the 8 agenda want their time right now or whether they prefer to 9 wait until the slot later on in the program.
10 MR. RICE: Frank, have you had to develop a 11 special monitoring system to adapt to this evaporation 12 process?
13 MR. STANDERFER: The carryover kind of monitor C'- 14 is typical on this kind of system.
~
The actual type of ,
15 radiation monitor which we will use there we haven't 16 selected yet. It's not developmental, but we'll have to 17 pick one of those that are normally used for this kind of 18 application.
19 THE MAYOR: Joel, then Ken.
20 MR. ROTH: Just a followup question on what John 21 had asked about weather conditions. Are there any weather 22 conditions that would prevent the evaporation process from 23 continuing?
MR. STANDERFER: I don't believe so. But, Bill, 24 25 have you looked at that at all?
C 38 l .
1 MR. COOPER: There is really no chance of any.
(d)b 2- weather condition that we'd have to stop. The calculation, 3 our original calculation, was based on hourly meteorclogical
- 4 data for the entire year. So any abnormal weather condi-5 tions that could occur should have occurred during that 6- time. And that parameter is included into those calcula-7 tions.
8 MR. ROTH: So, in other words, you're saying t
9 there are no weather conditions that would stop it, is what 10 you're saying?
11 MR. COOPER: Other than those that meet our 12 emergency plan anyway, like tornadoes.
13 MR. ROTH: Like what?
4 O 14 MR. COOPER: Like perhaps there's an emergency 15 plan conditions on operation for tornadoes and things like 16 that that might require it to be stopped.
17 MR. STANDERFER: I think what Bill is saying is
[
18 if we nad the severe weather conditions like a tornado or ,
- 19 a hurricane or something like that which would result in 20 us implementing emergency plans on the Island, a lot of 21 processes are shut down just because the people are 22 required elsewhere.
23 MR. ROTH: It just wouldn't be the evaporation 24 process?
25 MR. STANDERFER: For flooding or whatever.
O 39
O THE MAYOR: Ken?
T .7S 1
(i 2 MR. MILLER: I have a two-part question. First 3 of all, I assume that the NRC has done their own independent 4 evaluation. I'm curious as to what sort of results they 5 got and how they compare with yours for the environmental 6 impact. Secondly, I'm wondering what sort of errors are 7 associated with the assumptions that have to be made to get 8 this type of number.
9 MR. STANDERFER: I've always looked to the NRC's to environmental analysis to be the definitive analysis. I 11 think you'll find that our calculations are slightly higher 12 than theirs because we have made some simplifying assump-
- 13 tions which end up with the numbers being on the high side.
T 14 And, clearly, they have done a much more thorough, careful 15 analysis in the vein of an Environmental Impact Statement.
16 We have done enough analyses to assure ourselves that 17 we can make a proposal which can be approved.
18 MR. MILLER: Are there any glaring discrepancies ,
19 between their results and yours?
l 20 MR. STANDERFER: Not that I saw. But maybe l
21 that's a good question to ask them.
l 22 THE MAYOR: You decide how you want to do it.
23 Since it's come up now, maybe you can address it. But I f
l 24 think any other questions that can wait until --
25 MR. TRAVERS: We do plan to address that. I'll O _
40
N s
T;>") 1 briefly address'it now and say that we have taken our own
..Q 2 independent look at the. preliminary one, and basically we
-3 found that the dose significance of-the:addi.tional 4 information that'we received since'we first prepared our 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that it would not 6 change our conclusion. And I would like to address that;in-7 some specifics. I plan to, unless you want me to get into 8 it now.
9 MR. GERUSKY: There is a difference between to changing conclusions and changing outside dose. Is that 11 what you meant to say, that the outside dose --
12 MR. TRAVERS: The dose is basically the primary 13 conclusion.
14 . MR. GERUSKY: Your conclusions are that any of 15 the systems --
16 MR. TRAVERS: But the basis of our conclusions 17 are primarily based on dose. And in that sense, the dose 18 results do get somewhat larger because there are some .
19 additional radionuclides that are accounted for in the 20 most recent information that we have received. We plugged 21 those in preliminarily. We have taken a look at the 22 results that are models we generate based on that source 23 term as -- and on increase and -- They are rather small.
24 They are relatively small. And we're going to address that 25 in detail in our final Environmental Impact Statement and 41
~
1 . basically characterize what we have'done later today or y .
right now. 'I'll try not to'be too bureaucratic.
2 z
-3 MR. MILLER: Later.will be fine.
4 THE MAYOR: Anybody else'that comes forward 5 here, if they could, in order to allow us to transcribe 6 this properly, identify themselves, except for the panel 7 members because we have thesahandy little name plates up 8 here.
g MR. ROBINSON: Is there anything unique about jo this evaporator, or is it one that has been used in other 11 applications?
12 MR.-STANDERFER: You should ask Chuck. Chuck 13 is on the panel evaluating the bids. I can't look at them 14 because I'm not a member of the evaluation panel.
15 MR. URLANL: All six systems that we are ---have
.16 been proposed to GPU for use in this project have been used
- 17. before for previous other nuclear-related projects. And 18 they all have a demonstrated history. -
19 MR. ROBINSON: So basically my concern was each 20 vendor has had previous experience?
21 MR. URLAND: Very much so.
22 THE MAYOR: I don't see any other questions.
23 I'm sorry. Anne?
24 MS. TRUNK: I'd like to know how often you are 25 going to do the monitoring and who is going to do it. Is O
42
hb 1 it GPU or the vendor?
2 MR. STANDERFER: Of course, the carryover inonitor 3 and the radiation monitor in line is running all the time 4 as we operate the system.
5 MS. TRUNK: Is there going to be somebody checkinc 6 it all the time, or do you just every hour or so check it?
7 MR. STANDERFER: That's run continuously. Then 8 the samples are removed and analyzed in the laboratory.
9 And I believe some of those will be analyzed on site, and 10 the reference samples will be analyzed off site. But have 11 you looked at that yet as to where the samples will be 12 analyzed?
13 MR. COOPER: No.
14 MR. STANDERFER: A numbe'r of the radioisotopes 15 we look for, we don't have the capability to measure on site. So we send those samples off site. For example, 16 17 the letter you have in your packe.ge there was done by West-18 inghouse and Walz Mill (phonetic) on samples we sent them .
19 last summer. And they pick up a lot of the isotopes that 20 we don't pick up on site. Of course, our monitoring program 21 has to satisfy the NRC.
22 THE MAYOR: Tom?
23 MR. GERUSKY: Are you planning on changing your 24 environmental monitoring program at all?
25 MR. COOPER: The environmental monitoring 43
p program is considered to be adequate-as it is. We are
.,bO 3
2 currently looking at-the possibility of installing some 3 tritium air monitors in the environment. The EPA has them 4 now. And we are evaluating whether we need to put those out 5 or not.
6 THE MAYOR: Are there any other questions from 7 the panel?
8 (No response.)
9 THE MAYOR: Hearing none, I don't see Eric here, 10 but I'do see Frances. Do you want to speak now, Frances, 11 or did you prefer to wait until the open discussion later 12 in the program here?
13 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes,'I would prefer to wait. But
, b' s-34 I'd also like to ask some questions right at this moment, 15 P l ease.
16' THE MAYOR: I'll say this, that Frances is up 17 here now, and she will proceed. I'll only give Frances l
18 and Eric and Ms. Robb priority as to the formal statement. .
l ig So anybody else that wants to ask a question, just please l
20 raise your hand when Frances is done, and I'll certainly 21 call you up.
22 MS. SKOLNICK: My name is Frances Skolnick.
23 Mr. Standerfer, I would like to know why the SVA didn't l,
l 24 receive a letter which you sent to the NRC on February 3 25 and 18, because we do have a legal agreement that we receive O
44
1 all written correspondence between the NRC and'GPU concerning -
2 .the water disposal.
3 MR.'STANDERFER: I believe that was distributed
'4 like all other letters that are put on the docket. It was e 5 not hand-delivered.
6 MS. SKOLNICK: I did not receive one. I would 7 like a copy,.p.aase.
-8 MR. STANDERFER: Fine. We have extra copies here.
9 Connie, would you be sure s'he has a copy. But that should-10 have been in your regular distribution as docketed corre- -
11 spondence. Bill, am I wrong on that?
12 MR. TRAVERS: There is a legal agreement.that 4 13 when NRC generates a letter on the subject, we send it to 14 SVA. And you have a similar agreement with SVA to do the 4
15 same.
16 MR. STANDERFER: I'm not aware that that wasn't 17 done.
I 18 MS. SKOLNICK: I would like you to be aware, _
- 19 please, in the future, because it is imperative that we 20 receive correspondence immediately.
21 MR. STANDERFER: Jim Burn, could you come up a
- 22 minute, please? Jim is from our licensing group and makes 23 sure those distributions are made. Can you speak to that 24 at all, Jim?
\;
( 25 MR. BURN: We have an address for you, Frances.
O 45
I '
1 We send these letters to that address. Just make sure the
'l 2 address that we have is the right one.
3 MS. SKOLNICK: It is, because I looked into this 4 matter before some months ago, before the issue was brought 5 to the front again.
6 MR. STANDERFER: Frances, I'm sorry if we missed 7 you. We will give you one tonight.
8 MS. SKOLNICK: I'd just like to make some 9 clarification here. The water that is already purified, 10 is that going to be used again in the cleanup or is that 11 sitting on site waiting to be disposed of,in tanks?
12 MR. STANDERFER: Some of that water might be 13 used. Some of it, for example', has to be set aside for h 14 emergency purposes and that sort of thing. So about a 15 little over a million gallons there that has been purified, 16 only about 600,000 of that could be released. The rest of 17 it has to be held for possible use.
18 MS. SKOLNICK: On the page where it says .
19 estimated average concentration of radionuclides, at some 20 point are you going to monitor for each of these radio-21 nuclides or will you be continuing to be doing mathematical 22 estimations?
23 MR. STANDERFER: No, the samples will be analyzed ,
24 and the final annual environmental reports that we must 25 issue according to our license would then include the actual C
46
ms results of those samples for our release ~during the year.
1yy -i V' . As I'm sure you know, annually we have to report all of 2
3 .the environmental releases from the Island in accordance 4' with the licensing regulations.
MS. SKOLNICK: Will you be using alpha radiation
~5 8
monitors for the samples before they go into the evaporator?
7 MR. STANDERFER: You do a radiochemical analysis for the isotopes. And some isotopes are alpha 8
g isotopes and some are beta gamma. .
10 MS. SKOLNICK: But will- the radiochemical 11 analysis find all alpha-emitting particles?
12 MR. STANDERFER: Find those that are above the limit of detection, yes.
13 Q-* MS. SKOLNICK: Do you have like a number or some-
- 14 15 thing that we could receive which states the detectable 16 limits?
17 MR. STANDERFER: On the chart that we showed 18 earlier, and it's in the letter on the 18th, all of those .
19 that are indicated as less than, that is the lower level of 20 detection.
MS. SKOLNICK: I think I have just one other 21 22 question. It concerns the chemicals. I'm aware that 23 probably the sodium borate is the largest quantity of 24 chemical in the water. But do you have a list of the other 25 chemicals of lesser quantities?
O 47
"'y . There is essential.ly nothing 1 MR. : STANDERFER:
2 else.in there. But I'11-let Ken answer that.
3 ~MR. HOFSTETTER: In general, almost all of the 4 water has been previously processed. And during those 5 processing. operations, any trapped chemical species, ions s and what have you would be removed. We also have quite a 7 stringent chemical controls procedure governing the use of a
chemicals on the Island relative to decontamination work, 9 for instance, and some of the questions that are addressed to are,of* course, the impact on water processing and those 11 types of questions, which must be answered satisfactorily 12 before they are used.. Typically, the water contains the 13 sodium borate as the bulk of the chemicals in the water.
O 14 Other chemical analyses are performed'on the samples.- And ,
15 small amounts of chlorides, sulphates and what have you ,
16 occasionally are picked up during, for instance, decon-17 tamination. E.it they are effectively removed by the 18 epicor system in particular. .
19 MS. SKOLNICK: Do you have a list of those chemi-20 cals that you look for and that have, in fact, been used in 21 the reactor prior to the accident and since the accident 22 and cleanup?
23 MR. HOFSTETTER: These were all -- I believe 24 most of the chemicals were listed in the original submittal 25 that was back in July which contained the species that we D
48
can identify, routinely monitored for, on all of the
()~
f1 2 samples. 'In the original submittal we had a table that 3 covered phosphate concentrations, total organic carbon, 4_ all the various chemical species that we routinely look 5 for in our water samples.
6 MS. SKOLNICK: Would the oils and greases be 7 included in that? Would they be removed?
8 MR. HOFSTETTER: Most of the oils and greases a will appear as what we call total organic carbon. We 10 also have tests'for insoluble oils and greases, so yes, 11 they would appear.
12 MR. STANDERFER: You might mention total organic 13 carbons currently running around 70 parts per million.
14 MR. HOFST'ETTER: That i s correct, in the reactor 15 coolant system. In many of the process water tanks, the to total organic carbon is very substantially lower than that, 17 on the order of a few parts per million at the most.
18 MS. SKOLNICK: I have just one other question.
19 When water comes out of the SDS system and the epicor 20 system,and has an equal amount of radionuclides been 21 removed from each? In other words, when that water enters 22 the tank from each of the other tanks, the epicor system 23 and the SDS, are they exactly the same? Are we mixing 24 lower level radioactive water with slightly higher level?
25 MR. HOFSTETTER: Routinely, water that is highly O
49
hV 1 contaminated will go through both. systems,and will go through both systems in series. So there is tankage 2'
i 3 between the SDS and epicor which receives the tankage,--
4 which receives the water. SDS only removes cesium and 5
strontium, and so their concentrations are substuntially 6 reduced. Other radionuclides like silver, cobalt 60, are 7 not affected by the SDS, and so those concentrations will a
be the same as they are in the influent.
g on the other hand, as epicor processes the SDS to effluent, all remaining radionuclides except tritium are 11 reduced by the epicor system. So no, they are not com-12 parable concentrations. Epicor really is our water 13 Polishing system.
(f 14 MS. SKOLNICK: Okay.
Thank you very much.
15 MR. ROTH: Any other questions besides Al? You had a chance, if nobody else -- The gentleman here.
16 17 VOICE: I want to give a statement. I'll wait 18 until after. .
19 Mn. ROTH: Anybody else have any questions 20 besides Al? Here's Al.
21 MR. MANICK: Al Manick. On a given day like today 22 with the system in operation and you are dispersing the 23 water, how far will it travel?
24 MR. STANDERFER: I would expect it would look 25 very similar to the cooling towers where the steam would 50
l U 1
~
slowly disappear and the water then would und up as water L.)( And it would look very much similar to.
2 vapor in the air.
3 what the cooling towers look like.
4 MR. MANICK: Do you have a feel for how far it 5 will travel? I want to see whose doorsteps it's going to 6 land on.
7 MR. STANDERFER: Obviously, after this steam s is incorporated into the air, it travels with the air.
9 MR. MANICK: Half a mile, a mile, ten miles, 10 fifty miles?
11 MR. STANDERFER: Yes.
12 MR. MANICK: 100 miles?
13 MR. STANDERFER: Yes. As --
~
, 14 MR. MANICK: You're telling me the system was 15 used before. So apparently this shouldn't be no big to Problem then. On a day like today, give me a number.
17 Don't give me a yes; give me a number.
18 MR. STANDERFER: There isn't a single number. .
19 It travels with the air.
20 MR. MANICK: That's saying a lot.
21 MR. STANDERFER: And mixes with the air.
22 MR. ROTH: Anybody else? Why don't you make 23 your statement at this time if the :e are no other questions.
24 Please introduce yourself.
25 MR. BROWN: Yes, I'm Dick Brown, vice president 51
( 3f 1 of Lancaster Environmental Action' Federation. ,I'm here
'ul - This is LEAF's statement on the 2 representing LEAF.
3- evaporation problem.
4 The Lancaster Environmental Action Federation, 5 better known as LEAF, has taken the following position on
~
a the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposal for the 7 disposal of Three Mile Island waste water:
a 1. We believe the evaporation of the radioactive 9 tritium waste water over Lancaster County is totally 10 unacceptable.
11 2.- A Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision on 12 this problem is premature since the final quantity of 13 contaminated water and the exact nature of the contamirants
- C 14 are not known.
15 3. This problem does not demand an immediate Is solution. Therefore, we recommend a more thorough study 17 of this complex issue.
18 4. Costs must not dictate the final solution .
19 for disposal of these materials.
20 5. All decisions relative to the disposal of
! 21 the various components of the TMI waste water must respect 22 the integrity of the existing ecosystem and do nothing to 23 endanger it.
4 24 Thank you.
) 25 MR. ROTH: Will you be putting a copy of that in 1
4 52
. - . . - - . . , - - . - . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . - . , . . . - , - . . ----.:-.:._u-.....=.. . . . = -
v~ , n.
e ,
i ~
I the record? .I'd just like to ask a> couple questic s, gj' 2 Mr. Brown, if I may. Could you just give a very brief 3 description of your organization 'to get a better. unG:akstand-4 ing of who you'ra repre.sentir.g} you know, the numbers and.
~
-5 area? -
C 4 6 MR. BROWN: LEAF is an organization that'hIs ~
7 existed since 1972. We have a membership of something 4
8 over 100. We have been involved in'a variety of irsues, 9 including TMI, nuclear power back before TMI., farmland to preservation and solid waste. Our main claim to fama 11 probably is that we run recycling centers, and we have 12 been involved in assisting the county with recycling over 13 the past four or five years in a rather large= way. ,
N.
14 MR. ROTH: Thank you. That's all. (
~
15 MR. GERUSKY: I have a question'. Do you have.an i
16 alternative proposal then other than what has been looked
~4 17 at?
18 MR. BROWN: To an.ver your question, we.are in ,
19 a non-profit group of citizens, no staff. Basically, like 20 many non-profit groups, environmental groups, trying to 21 sort out the environmental dilemma, which'is what we're in 22 here. We met last night and we discussed this very issue.
23 And we had a problem coming up with a solution, as everybody 1
24 else is. The problem here is the same problem we have 25 pretty much universally when it comes to pollution, and 53
n q;. m iy _.3 Agp -
- s. c;y 3
c /p i that is bh tf Itan has taken material, scattered it!through -
't ) , .
^( V 2 the envircOmenb in many places, and[through *.his process
[ ' [_c d 3 has)concentra$ed them to make its products, whether it's
, s
\
b ,
4 glass' bottles or plastic bottles or' neckties or~ clothing o 5 ,or whatever it is that we have. ,
Almost all these_ things K . ',2-f 's, g' were at.one time pcattered. The uranium on Three Mile t
z 7 :tsland is an example of it. The environment is probably M
ir , ,y i,- 8 =
safe, in quotes. - It's scattered so far that its effects b g aren'.t as great, but when you put it all in one place, you
- have a problem.
in t
So we discussed this very issue. What do you a
ij;
, 12 do with something when you get a concentrate? The probably
, 13 ultimate answer for this-'particular problem is to dilute it.
' 'C O .
14 You can't destroy it because it's water. My own opinion 15 and, I think, that of the board that met last night is that
, 16 the water should be evaporated in a position where it would 17 go'over the ocean, not over a populated area it it's going
Is to be evaporated. It shouldn't be evaporated over any land l 19 area. It should be evaporated so that it goes over the
! 20 ocean, probably in a colder climate where the water, when l
21 the tritium water did hit the ocean in a colder climate, l 22 say up northeast or perhaps in some other area closer to 23 the ocean, would have less impact on the living creatures 24 in the ocean because of the cold. At least that's what our ,
i 25 biologists tell us. So I don't know whether that answers 1
! 54 e /
, < . - , ,.,,.,--.--,,--...,-..,,%,.-,%,y...,,~,,.4,m.... .,w.,ry,....,-,,..,-,%,,,.w.,-7ar ,,,..,..,_,-,,..,,,e+,_w,mg,,,,.~,..,y-p p + 4.e.,.,_y ,w. ,w.,
u i
your question, but that was our dilemma. We discussed it,
(()' 1 2
and dilution unfortunately is the way we do a lot of solving l 3 problems of pollution. And we believe it will be better 4 to dilute it in-the ocean or over'the ocean.than to do 5 it over Lancaster County. That we= feel strongly about.
6 MR. ROTH: Okay, thank you. Well, if there are 7 no further. questions -- Oh, there is.
8 MR. DAVIS: I'm Frank Davis, Mechanicsburg. I E 9 guess.in-answer to the question that Mr. Gerusky asked io about alternatives, I think we need to go back to the 4
11- assumptions on which this whole discussion is taking place, 12 the need, the feeling of the people in the area that the 13 waste should be removed so that it would be safer for the 14 people here and safer for the workers. Now, I think that 15 many of us have come to the position after studying the 16 Environmental Impact Statr. ment drawn up on this that the I i 17 safest thing var the foreseeable future for both the t
- i. 18 people who live in this area and for the workers is to ,-
19 leave the contaminated water in the tanks where it is 20 ao, and let it decay, rather than to subject the public 21 and many workers to a great deal more contamination by 22 evaporating it, by moving it around, by burying it and so 23 on. And with proper care, I think that both the public 24 and workers would receive less contamination, less exposure, 25 if the L.m we ,.vus ellcaed to decay in its present condition.
I
! 55
i l
l
- h. ' - 1 .Thank you.
2 MR. ROTH:-- 'I'll ask again, any further questions?
3 (No response.)
{ 4 MR. ROTH: I thank you, gentlemen, because the :
5 next part, No. 6, will be the NRC PEIS status. Is that you, 1
a William?
7 MR. TRAVERS: As you know and as you have heard r
- e frcm Art already, the Commission has -- the Commission ,
3 e staff has granted the 45-day extension to accommodate. i.
i to additional comments from the panel and from anyone who is 11 interested in providing comments. I should note by way of
,' 12 status items that the NRC staff, along with primarily the 1- 13 meeting was between the Commission and GPU Nuclear, a ,
1 14 meeting was heid in Washington on the 13th of this month i
I 15 to discuss the status of cleanup. We have provided you I 16 with both the transcript as well as the Commission paper 17 that we wrote .and which was released on the day the 18 Consission met with GPU Nuclear on the status of the .
19 cleanup.
20 We have also taken some on the issue directed 21 towards water disposition. We have also taken steps to 22 acquire a sample ourselves of the water from one of the 23 tanks as representative of water that GPU plans to feed 24 the evaporator, and are going to do an independent analysis i 25 of the water sample to confirm the information that we l
I
[
56
i o
r as I received both in the initial submittal that GPU made and (sd the additional information that we have gotten subsequent
- t. 2 3 to that.
4 I expect it will be a few weeks.before we t
5 get the initial results of'that sample analysis back from 6 our contractor at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
7 We have also, as of yesterday, on the issue of l
r 8 water disposal received a formal request for license 1, e amendment to eliminate the current prohibition against water 10 disposal that exists in the license for the facility.
11 Subject to approval from managament, what I expect will 12 happen with that is that the staff will notice the fact r 13 that we have received a request to amend the license. We
. CO 14 - will preliminarily make a conclusion on the issue of 15 significant hazards associated with the proposal. We will 18 list in the Federal Register an opportunity for comment.
! 17 Typically, that is done for 30 days. We will invite i
18 requests for public hearings on the license amendment. ,- .
19 We will consider any of the comments that are received on i
! m the subject.
> 21 I should note that prior to any final action on l
22 the license amendment relating to water disposal, the 23 staff will await formal action by the Commission. As you f 24 know, the Commission has stated its intent to take review
! 25 on this issue,and any action to amend the license in final l
l 57 ;
I i form will have to await the Commission's approval.of the
([p
2 specific proposal, specific disposal option.
3 We have received some additional information.
4 You received it as well, I believe. And I think you have 5 just heard a presentation on GPU's approach.
6 THE MAYOR: Could I just ask - and if this is 7 the wrong place, I will wait. This will help in our a
deliberations, I think, at some point as to when the g panel will want to consider taking action on a. specific in option on the recommended options.
11 MR. TRAVERS: Maybe I can run through the.
administrative steps again. .
12 13 THE MAYOR: Maybe you could give us some thoughts I un'derstand that the PEIS is 14 on when that may be best.
15 one document that the NRC, the Commission, probably would like this panel to offer some comments on. And the other 18 17 item, I assume, they would want us to do is the option of is evaporation that's being proposed by GPU. And at some ,
to later point we're going to be talking about when we consider 20 them, we're going to have to look at the PEIS, obviously 21 before the deadline of the 14th of April, if that is April.
22 MR. TRAVERS: 14th of April.
23 THE MAYOR: We know that. But it's the second 24 one that I kind of have been wrestling with in my head 25 as to at what point will we need to comment. Should we C
58
- . _ _ - _ _ __ = _ _ = _ _____-__-__ ___ _ _:______ -____-_________:__;-_-_.
1 wait.until the change in the license period or should we 2 try to make comment before then? And I guess I'd'be looking.
3 for some guidance.
4 MR. TRAVERS: As a general matter, I think the 5 Commission is interested obviously in hearing from the 6 panel on both of those fundamental' issues.- And to the
.7 extent you are ready to discuss the issue with them, I 8- think the sooner, the better. But let me give you some 9 Perspective on the process, and that may help you decide 10 -how quickly you need to come to a position on the issue.
11 Currently, as you noted, Art, the comment 12 Period has been extended 45 days and is now scheduled to-13 close on April 14th. Following that, the staff is going to i 3 14 conside'r all of the comments we have received on the draft.
15 We're going to address those comments in a final Environmental
! 16 Impact Statement which I expect will be published within a 17 month, sometime in May.
l 18 In parallel with publishing the final version ,
19 of that Environmental Impact Statement, the staff is 20 going to send down to the Commission a recommendation on 21 GPU Nuclear's specific proposal to evaporate the water.
22 So I think the panel could meet with the Commission and 23 provide them their view in advance of that occurring. I 24 think that would be the best scenario.
25 THE MAYOR: When do you see your NRC staff 59 l-
. . . . _._.m ,- ,~,,# -.-_
f A.
>\l,F]. 1' making a recommendation or making a comment as to the U
2 evaporation?.
3 MR. TRAVERS: In May, in the month of May. I 4 can't be.more specific than that.
5 THE MAYOR: I- heard you say May, but I . didn't 6 realize it was into that.
7 MR. TRAVERS: I.have checked just recently with t 8 the secretary's office to see it based on the fact that we I
l 9 had to postpone the last scheduled meeting between the ',
10 panel and the Commission, what kind of availability the 11 Commission had. And their schedule in the next few months 12 is-pretty busy. But they identified one day that you may 13 consider later in the meeting. I'll just tell you what it
!(,,
- And that's the 16th of April as an open date they 1
14 is now.
, 15 have set aside at least for the time being for a meeting 16 with you, if you are prepared to go before them at that l
17 time.
18 THE MAYOR: I'm going to -- I'm sorry for ..
19 cutting into your presentation.
l 20 MR. TRAVERS: We, as I noted in brief earlier, 21 have received additional information. You have gotten a
! 22 briefing on the information that GPU sent to us. It details 23 additional radionuclides that have been identified in 24 their analysis of water that will ultimately need to be 25 disposed of. And we have taken a preliminary look at the 60
-- . . . . - - . . . . - - . - . . . . . . - .. . ., -- - . _ - . . . -.: ._-_,..-.r=-
T G 1- dose impact of ' input in that additional source term 2 information into the dose models that were used in our ,
. initial' Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Again, this 4 is preliminary information, and we intend to update our 5 final Environmental Impact Statement with the details of 6 what'we have come up with. But, basically, we have looked 7 at those' radionuclides that we expect would have the most a significant impact on the numbers already assessed, and 8 those radionuclides, at least two of them, are carbon 14 10 and iodine 129. Technetium is a number that we do not yet 11 have dose results for, but we expect that-they would not 12 skew the r'esults of what we have already done.
13 originally, in our Draft Environmental Impact ,
14 Statement for the evaporation alternative, we came up with 15 a maximum individual dose of 3 millirem to the bone and 16 0.5 millirem total body. The additional dose resulting 17 from input carbon 14 as analyzed by GPU in their own i
i 18 accounting for part 61 purposes added an additional .02 ,-
18 millirem bone and .006 millirem total body. In terms of 20 person rem, the additional carbon 14 upped our estimated 21 impact of two person rem to bone by an additional .02 pcrson 22 rem and .004 total body person rems.
23 In terms of iodine 129, the additional dose that we have calculated preliminarily based on the informatic i 24 >n 25 we received is that the dose resulting from that additional O
61 L.. . - - - - , = , . , ._..:.- . z.: u t . a z ; ,- = ; . -- z._:.,_..,_.-----,,,,,-,..
a I,[s1 i source term isithree millirem thyroid and an additional (h3 .005 millirem total body. .In terms of person rem, it's 2
3 .three person rem to the thyroid and an additional .012 4 person rem to the total body.
5 I've given you a lot of numbers, but the 6 summary statement I made earlier applies. These are not 7 very significant increases over what we had analyzed,-based-8 onconsiderationprimarilyofstrontium'andcediuminthe g Draft' Environmental Impact Statement.
10 In our view, and, again, I will couch it in terms
of this being preliminary, but in our view, this does not ij i
12 change the conclusions we reached, and these additional
. . _i3 -
incremental' increases in impact are not very significant.
A- '14 We think since we have this- information, we ought to account
- 15 for that information in the Environmental Impact Statement, 18 and We intend to do that.
17 THE MAYOR: Does that conclude your --
18 MR. TRAVERS: Yes. I'll be glad to answer any _
19 questions. We have focused on the evaporation for today's 20 meeting because that is the specific proposal that is on
- i. 21 the table from GPU. We also intend to update the alterna-l 22 tives, the other nine alternatives that were assessed in 23 the Environmental Impact Statement based on this latest 24 source term information. So we intend to update those 25 additional doses that would occur as a result of this
'k 62
. . - . - . - . - . - . . . . . . - _ - . . - . . . . .....-_,-,..-.:.- .. ,- -.;.-_ .-;~,
a
'( bp 1 additional ~ source, for those alternatives in our final .
V earlier impact' statement as well. But I feel safe in 2'
3 saying that we don't expect for any of those alternatives 4 that this small incremental increase in the source term 5 is likely to affect the significance of the impact as.
6 assessed for those alternatives in our draft.
7 THE MAYOR: Okay. I just have a-suggestion here.
8 .I realize it might be premature, but I'm thinking that-9 maybe we want to take a five- or ten-minute break. We to have'been going for almost two hours. We're getting ready 11 for some more public comment on the NRC's presentation, some 12 more panel questions. Why don't we take a couple-minute 13 break.. We still have about an hour to go before -- We 14 have a long evening yet to go. So when we say five to 15 ten minutes, let's reconvene here at about 26 after, if 16 we could.
17 (Whereupon, at this time a recess was held.)
18 THE MAYOR:' I would like to call the meeting .
19 back to order and to ask the panel members if they have any 20 followup questions they'd like to ask at this time of the 21 NRC before we allow the public to make comment and ask 22 questions.
23 Not seeing anybody from the panel, I would ask 24 again whether any of the three individuals again tilat had 25 asked for time on the agenda would like to take that time O
63
E (h; q 1 !now or a little later after the meal break. Is Eric here
$g . ~
2 yet?
, .3 VOICE: No. Our presentation will be after the 4 ' dinner break.
5 THE MAYOR: Frances Skolnick?
6 MS. SKOLNICK: After the dinner break.
l 7 THE MAYOR: Ms.-Robb?
8 MS. ROBB: Same.
g THE MAYOR: Same thing. Are there any questions I 10 that anybody else might have regarding the presentation 11 _
to this point? If not. we're going to have a very long 12 break until after the dinner break.
.. 13 ,
Go ahead.
14 MR. TRAVERS: I was just going to ask you if you had any interest in me sunmarizing what we told you last i
!. 15 16 time about the alternatives or what we have evaluated or 17 the conclusions we have reached, how we reached them.
18 THE MAYOR: I think it would be verv heloful to 19 do that if we don't have additional public questions or m comments to be made at this particular time. I do want to 21 remind the public that we do expect to adhere to the 8:30
- 22 time when the panel will begin discussing other matters 23 that we'll need to discuss on this issue and others. We l 24 hope to conclude the meeting by 9
- 00 and no later than 9:15.
f 25 There will be opportunities to come after the dinner break i
64
v
.p;jax i as I have indicated. But we're going to be pretty well U 2 regimented at that time for concluding public comment at
- 3 8:30. So if there is a statement that you want to make, 4 and I'm not talking about the three individuals I mentioned 5 earlier, but if there is a statement you want to make, 6 you might not want to miss an opportunity now to make it.
7 If you're going to wait until after dinner break, I can't 8 guarantee that everybody will have that chance. Just some g food for thought. Did that generate any interest in any-10 body at this particular time? If not, I think what I will I
ij do is ask Bill Travers if he would be willing at this time 12 to kind of give a summary of some of the things that were
~
, 13 mentioned at the last meeting on the different options.
14 MR. TRAVERS: What the NRC staff first did, of 15 course, in looking into the issue of accident-generated 16 water disposal was to address the issue in terms of 17 alternatives and their environmental impacts in the 1981 18 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, both in the ,
19 draft version of that document and in the final version of 20 it. What we have done most recently is an update really of 21 what was completed in the Programmatic Environmental Impact 22 Statement of 1981.
23 In response to a question that was raised at 24 the last meeting about incremental increases and whether or 25 not the NRC looks programmatically at the environmental m
65
- _ . _ _:_ _====_
s 1 impact over the course of.the cleanup, I think.I should (Ubl . 2 respond that although we have focused on water disposal <
3- in this most recent supplement to our Programmatic Environ-4 mental Impact Statement, it's part of the major effort that 5 was done in 1981 to scope out the environmental impacts 6 that could be estimated to result from all of the major
, 7 activities associated with the cleanup. So I did.want to 8 get that-point in, g Let me introduce Linda Munson, who is from to Pacific Northwest Laboratories. You met her last time, .
-11 and she will be glad to summarize the alternatives that 12 she has contracted for NRC, evaluated,and present some 13 information, perhaps a little bit-less than we had last
- 14 time on the environmental impacts that were assessed to 15 result from our review.
16 MS. MUNSON: Thank you, Bill. I didn't realize 17 you were volunteering me when you made that generous offer, 18 but that's fine. _
19 What we did initially was to look at the things 20 we could imagine that might be done with the water. We 21 looked at all of the alternatives that were evaluated in 22 the initial Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
23 We looked at some other alternatives that had been kicked 24 aro und . We went back to some transcripts from this group 25 to see if there were some suggestions here that ought to be CS 66
. . . - - _ . _ _ _ = _ _
hV I considered and so on. And in the course of that, we came.
2 up with a list of-alternatives.
3 As we went through, we sorted those into two 4 categories - alternatives that were evaluated and rejected 5
either because they were technically unfeasible _or they were 6 clearly inferior to some other alternatives. And we 7- narrowed the list somewhat. Actually, we didn't narrow it 8
as far as we would have liked to, I think. I don't ever g want_to do a supplement with this many alternatives again.
10 But we looked essentially at I believe it's 11
. ten alternatives that we finally ended up with. We looked at two alternatives involving on-site evaporation, the 12
- 13 first one paralleling the licensee's submittal rather
.14 closely. The second one is sort of a contingency plan if 15 they did not get their low-level waste allocation. We to looked at the question of could the evaporator bottoms be 17 solidified and remain on site. So these are the first 18 two alternatives we looked at. We looked at a number of .
19 alternatives, three it fact involving bulk liquid ship-20 ment. Ordinarily we don't think of shipping radioactive 21 waste as a liquid. It usually requires twice the volume 22 of absorbent material or enough absorbent material to pick 23 up twice the volume of water. But the levels in the accident-24 generated water are low enough that it could be shipped as 25 a bulk liquid. It would not fall into that category. We C
l 67
- .y
' (gas. i looked at possioly shipping it to the Nevada test-site
-Q 2 where it might be evaporated in ponds. Incidentally, we 3 .did initially look at pond evaporation at the site, but 4 the ponds fill up with rainfall about the same rate they 5 evaporate. So that wasn't very satisfactory. You still a ended up with a large quantity of waste to get rid of.
7 We looked at deep-well injection at the Neva'da test site.
8 They have-disposed of some liquids into some caverns that g were used to test weapons, and those have been shown.to 10 retain that water very well. So we looked at that.
11 We looked at disposal in what is called a 12 crib at the Hanford Reservation. A-lot of very low-level
. w~ 13 liquid wastes are disposed. of there into the soil, where 14 they percolate through a column into the environment. -
We also looked at direct solidification, either 15 ,
16 Permanently on site as GPU had addressed in their submis-I 17 sion to us, and we also looked at the possibility of solidi-18 fying all of the water and shipping it to a low-level waste -
19 burial ground. That ends up being a bit unique amongst 20 the alternatives we looked at in that it involves con-21 siderably more cost and considerably more potential for L 22 vehicle accidents in the transportation than any other l 23 alternative.
l 24 We looked at two alternatives for river 25 discharge, either discharging it very slowly out over 1
68 I
l A
(f, i about a two-year period or possibly discharging it as 2 rapidly as possible with the idea that it would be flushed 3 down and so on. It turns out.that the dose from those two 4 ends up being just the same if you assume that people do 5 not stop using water, stop fishing in the river and so on 6 during that duration of discharge, which was the con-7 servative assumption that we made.
8 We also looked at what is required by the l
9 National Environmental Policy Act, the no-action alterna-jo tive. That would be continued on-site storage of the water 11 in tanks.
12 I won't go through the alternatives that we
, 13 considered but rejected. But we did evaluate the alterna-
' (^~~T(J 14 tives relative to occupational radiation exposure, radiation 15 exposure to the public, and those numbers will change a 18 little bit as Bill mentioned, between the draft and the 17 final. But we don't expect more -- Some of them may as ,
18 much as double because of the changes in the accident- .
19 generated water concentrations that GPU has given us.
20 But I don't expect major changes, orders of magnitude kinds 21 of changes.
22 We looked at the commitment of resources, any l 23 land area that might be committed, and we looked at waste 24 burial ground. We looked at cost. We looked at the 25 potential for accident. And for on-site accidents, about l
69 l
< ~s ,
(A 1 the only accidents we found to evaluate were potential
- b 2 for liquid spills that might occur subsequent to some of 3 these water transfers and.so on that would be required.
4 off site the major accidents are transportation accidents.
5
.And we did look at the radiological consequences of those 6 accidents that could occur with the shipping of the liquid 7 water. We didn't look at -- We didn't foresee any a radiological consequences from the shipping of solidified 9 material. And we looked at the regulatory and administra-10 tive, so that's a consideration with each of those. Those 11 are pretty well summarized in Section 5 of the Draft 12 Supplement.
13 Basically, we gave you last time a general 14 range of impacts. The' total population dose of.these 15 alternatives were between zero and three person rens to 16 the total body and zero and 11 person rems to the bone.
17 The maximum individual will get somewhere between zero and 18 one half millirem to the total body and zero and three ;
19- millirem to the bone.
20 We went through some calculations to look at the 21 risk of cancer fatalities based on the same sort of risk 22 estimators that the NRC uses that were used in the previous 23 supplement and so on. And those numbers equate to between 24 zero and .001 cancer fatalities in the off-site population, 25 and zero and .002 genetic disorders in the off-site D
70
I-population and~the progeny of the workers, based on-the o(OAx ' 1_
- b. occupational exposure as well.
2 3 The impact on the worker population will be 4~ somewhere between a half and 25 person rem, which is very:
5 small relative to the occupational exposure involved in 6 the majority of cleanup.
7 Incidentally, most of that dose' ends up not 7
coming from the water at all, but from other radiation *:
a 9
- sources that these neople would be exposed to on the Island.
jo- That works out to using the same t isk estimators, 0.003 11 cancer: fatalities in the worker population.
The' commitment of other resources, land area,-
12
, 13 ends up being less than an acre in all. cases; waste-burial GTs 14 ground space less then 460,000 cubic f'eet.
15 The cost is somewhere between $2.3 million and 16 $41 million. The $41 million is for the one case where all 17 of the material would be solidified and shipped to a low-18 level waste burial ground. I believe the remaining .
19 options, somewhere less than $8 million for any of those 20 options.
21 The time, somewhere between two and 36 months 22 to accomplish the alternative once all of the regulatory 23 obstacles and so on, preparations were made.
24 The greatest impact turns out to be transporta-25 tion accidents. And these impacts are also very, very low.
@ P 71
i
~
hm . 1 -In each alternative it turns out we -- None of the alterna-
' ~U .-tives we looked at were completely devoid of transportation,.
2 I
3 even if you look at some like river discharge. . We presumed L that the water would all be reprocessed through the-SDS and 4
5 epicor system, and that would result in same waste that.
's would'be transported to the low-level waste burial site.
7 In all cases, we assumed that that would be the.
8 U.S. Ecology operated site in Richland, Washington, or near 9 Richland, Washington.
10 The traffic accidents have'somewhere between 11 less than a half and twelve traffic accidents. Now, some of those, of course, will be no-injury accidents. You 12 13 have.somewhere between .4.and ten injuries and 0.3 and .8 1
14 traffic fatalities involved with that sort of,transporta-i 15 tion.
Is Incidentally, there was a question raised last i
17 time by the public on whether or not we -- or why we had 18 not considered rail shipments. Transportation by truck .
19 was considered. It is -- We always tend to sort of maximize impacts when we look at these things. We did go e 20 back and take a look at the transporation by rail. The 21 n accident impact is somewhat slightly less. The cost is 23 very slightly greater, probably within the area of the 24 estimates we made.
25 So, basically, we had four major conclusions 72 L
-, --,--.___,,-___.,-,__.......-,,,%_-. m.... _ .....-_,,...-~.-,.__-,.,e, -
+o .~~,_,...,..-,-:
F (lE that the water could be i disposed of without what is x) 1
.2 normally termed as significant impact,-that we could see.
3 no alternative that was clearly preferable to the others.
4 The-most significant impact would be the risk 5 of physical injury associated with the transportation and
.6 that extended liquid storage'in tanks would -- in tanks on 7 site would also have a small impact, but would not dispose a of the accident-generated water. And ultimately something a would have to be done with it.
10 MR. TRAVERS: I think-I ought to comment on that last option, the storage in tanks. It is certainly an 11 12 option.that does not in our view result in significant
- 13 environmental impact, but it's somethina I think I mentioned 14 last time that we view as inappropriate with the positions, 15 the position currently held by the Commission that even 16 low-level radioactive waste ought to be dealt with as 17 quickly as it can be, rather than indefinitely stored on 18 reactor sites. Certainly,.this particular one in the middle .
- 19 of the Susquehanna River on an island is one that we have 20 continued to urge throughout the cleanup that_the waste be 21 removed as quickly as it can be during its generation.
22 That's the reason why we have more or less administratively 23 pointed out this one option which does not in our view 24 entail a significant environmental impact potential but 25 which, in our view, is not very appropriate when you LO 73
. . _ _ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ , _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . - . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . . . . . _ _ __ ._ _ _ ._ _ _ =
O.
' 1 consider options that are available for a final. disposition 2
of it.
3 THE MAYOR:_ Bill,.just looking -- Land I was
- out of the room when this statement was read from LEAF, 5 Lancaster Environmental Action' Federation. Their second 6 point, I think, says that a Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 decision on this problem is premature since the final 8 quantity of contaminated water and the exact nature of the 8
contaminants' are not known. How would you react to that to comment, if you would?
11 MR. TRAVERS: I think the contaminants have been 12 well characterized, contrary to that view. I think.we have 13 a good handle on it. We have certainly had a lot of b_
14 experience in the processing capabilities that have existed 15 throughout the cleanup - for example, those decontamination i
j -16 factors that you were briefed on earlier. So there is a 17 lot of experience. There's a lot of information from
'8 samples that have been acquired. We have recently taken ,
I8 a step, as I mentioned earlier, to independently confirm the information that we have received most recently. We 21 expect to have that within a few weeks. We don't expect 22 I am familiar frankly that it will be very different.
23 with the laboratory where GPU's results are obtained. It's 24 a credible laboratory. But, nevertheless, we're going to 25 independently attempt to confirm the information that we D
74 I --- -.. -... - . .___.. __.,___ _ _ ._ ___ ,
Al' - ( 1 have received as well.
2 So to speculate on.or to say that the action on .
the part of the Commission.is premature, I.think I would 4 disagree.with that from the perspective that the issue 5 has been around a long time. The issue first came up 6 shortly after the accident in connection with the potential-7 at least for river discharges, river discharges that would a
have to have been made in full compliance with the Commis-g sion regulations. That decision or that action was 10 deferred indefinitely. We have'always said that we would 11 review any proposal for disposal of that water very 12 carefully. I think we have done that. The Commission
~
,, -13 has stated its intent to do the same. I think they are
.. 14 about to do it. So I think.we have really been very. con-15 servative in our handling. We have provided a great number 16 of opportunities for input into the process. There are 17 several more to come. So I think it's, if anything, an 18 issue that is somewhat overdue for action. ,
19 THE MAYOR: How about on the -- You have 20 answered two of those parts. The one is on the quantity 21 of contaminated water. We've been given a presentation on 22 that today that total volume of water is expected to be some-23 where between 2 and 2.3 million, and the variants of the 24 300,000 gallons has to do, we're told by GPU, depends upon 25 the additional water needed between now and October, 1988.
/
75
i 1 Your reaction to how good of numbers you. feel they are.
D'- 2 MR.-TRAVERS: The quantity of water is inde- 2
- 3. pendent from the amount of materialin the water. You can 4 add, in. fact, over the course of cleanup, water has been s added to this category that is defined accident-generated 6 water pool, if.you will. But the dilution of the material 7 itself and just the fact that the volume increases doesn't 8 affect potential source term associated with the radio-1- 9 active material that results, of course, from the accident.
10 THE MAYOR: Okay,-thank you. And GPU did mention 11 that when they were up here, and I thank you for reminding
. 12 me, Joel, m 13 MR. ROTH: Bill, I'm just going to try to put 14 something in -- I'm trying to understand the logic here.
i 15 The initial premise for the disposal of the water now and 16 always has been that the Island should not be a low waste 17 storage site. Then to jump in my mind to the monitored 18 storage aspect of the end point, you know, of cleanup, .
- j. 19 where they are going to be monitoring allegedly some low-20 level waste that is going to be allowed to remain on 21 the Island, is that correct?
22 MR. TRAVERS: That's the proposal.
23 MR. ROTH: That's their proposal. Are you saying l
24 then that it might not be, in fact, true that there will 25 not be allowed to be any low-level waste remaining on the D
uJ 76
.- - - -. _,~_ ~ . - . . _ . _ . _ . . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . , . . .
- _ . ._ .. - . . _ _s-
7 1 ' Island?
~O 101. TRAVERS: I"think you have to review the 2
~
3 issue in its entirety. In the case of the proposal, as I 4 understand it, for storing on the plant, there are a number 5
of costs and benefits from the view that that is a good 6 idea. One of them is dose savings to workers.today versus 7 something in the future.
8 So, when we look at the issue of whether or not 9 storing in the plant contaminated to a certain degree, lo -particularly in the basement, and whether that's a good 11 idea, we're going to look at impact cost benefits and 12 the-full range of scope, as full a range of scope as we
.- '- 13 can. To-the extent that you can remove, deal with low- -
J 14 level radioactive ~ waste at any nuclear power plant site, 15 .the Commission urges that that be done. And certainly 16 that is the position taken at the Island, where that material 17 which can be removed, which can be shipped, which can be 18 dealt with. And that's tne reason we have taken the liberty, ,
19 if you will, aside from the environmental insignificance of 20 storing or continuing to store that water, of saying that 21- in connection with the policy that we have been maintaining 22 for some time, that in light of that and other available 23 alternatives that pose no or very small environmental 24 impacts, that that doesn't appear very appropriate as a ,
25 way to deal with the issue.
77
'(TG s :1 10R.~ ROTH: I guess.the. reason I'm questioning.
2 this is because it's always seemed to be the anchor..of 3 the NRC's stand that the water had to go and other things
~
- 4 had to.go. And yet I'm getting a sense'from the public in 5 a very strong way, probably the strongestLin a number of 6 . years, and what I'm hearing here is the' fact that the public 7 is saying, well, they'd really rather have-it stay, you know, in.the tanks for the time being. And I'm wondering if you 8
- h. 9 .had to rate on, say, one to five the damage or the health-10 effects or something of that nature of allowing that water-11 to stay versus. allowing whatever low-level waste is allowed 12 to stay, which, in your opinion, would be the lesser of 13 the damage,. potential damage, if you follow. I'm trying to compare with using your basic premise which we have 14
!~ .
15 heard for seven years, that low-level waste has to go, 16 MR. TRAVERS: I think you have agreed with it.
f l 17 As a matter of fact, the panel has urged that we continue 18 to keep that, the company primarily, in -- _
19 MR. ROTH: What I'm trying at this point in
- 20. my mind to understand, since we're probably going to have to 21 ' vote on this and try to come up with some type-of an idea 22 on what to do and, in my mind, try to convey to the public 23 or to myself what I'm hearing, and it's just the logic of 24 it, I think, at this point is escaping me in that the 25 interim monitored storage or the monitored storage routine 78
. _ , , , _ -,._,._...,.___.,._,._.._.____,__.._.,..___m _..-__m..-._ . _ _
I,
, ,9, ,
& .1- :seems-to be almost a given, that something is going to be
-2 there. That may;be all right. You know, I realize I'm 3 jumping a little bit into that. But I'm just-trying to get 4 a; sense of why can it not stay for-the time being.
5 MR.-TRAVERS: It can stay,.and we don't recommend 6 that'in our Environmental Impact Statement, at least in a 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. That is not to say 8 that the' Commission, whoever finally decides the issue, won't dec'ide-that that's the best way to go. In~ fact, 9
10 in our Environmental Impact Statement, we have assessed ~
11 the potential environmental significance of doing just that 12 is quite small.. But on balance, with finding an ultimate 13 method of dealing with this water that you'll have to deal D 14 with eventually anyhow, even with some decay, time doesn't 15 buy you all that much all that soon. And the relative 16 environmental insignificance that we have assessed of 17 dealing with the water in a number of other ways that you 18 could estimate just doesn't appear to us that deferring .
19 action by continuing to store that water on the site is a 20 good idea. And even though environmentally we found that 21 it's probably not a very significant thing to do, we 22 felt it is something that we should point out. And to the
-23 extent the panel has a view on that, I think the Commision 24 would be glad to hear it.
25 MR. ROTH: Yes. Just one further point, if I may .
79
~. . . - . - .
W 1
I looked at the clock, and we still have time.
2 THE MAYOR: We have plenty of time.
'3 MR. ROTH: .Is the fact - and I'm trying to 4 phrase it-so that we can understand - is with the public ---
5 I'm not saying that some of them are not even saying that
- 6 yes, maybe environmentally, I think again it goes to the 7 emotion and the psychology of it, of.just not wishing to 8 be, quote, as I've read in some of these statements, be 9 dumped upon or evaporated upon. And I think_over the 10 years that the psychological or the emotional impact has it and should be evaluated. So in that context, I wonder if 12 you have --
13 MR. TRAVERS: Yes, it's something that we can't 14 as a result'of the Supreme Court. decision - I think it wds 15 related to TMI-2, as a matter of fact - we can't take into 18 account in an Environmental Impact Statement.
17 Speaking for myself, I think there is a down 18 side to the perception that people may get that this is a .
19 more significant issue than it is. In terms of the 20 environmental impacts that we were able to assess, it's 21 not. And I think I have an obligation to tell people just l
22 that. If I don't, if I mislead them in any way, I think 23 I may be adding somewhat to psychological stress that isn't 24 justified in this case. So there is a down side as well, 25 I think. So deferring the decision, continuing to think 80
- . . . _ - . _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _ _ _z .__ _ _ _ .
l
- s
_.h
- 1 about it, I:really think~it's an issue that we have a' good u 2 handle on and I think we-have been addressing it very La extensively.
4 THE MAYOR: That's'part of the problem we're
-5 facing now, is it's that. water, and I think I understand 6 what you're saying, that it's always going to be categorized 7 as that water from the accident, whether it's a day or ten i
8 years from now or twenty years from now. And I'd like to --
9 If you would choose.the option, if the. option would be 1 10 chosen to store the water on the Island, my assumption is 11 that it would not be done in the fashion or the exact i 12 specific tankages that it's stored in today, that.it would !
f 13
~
have'to be -- Maybe some of the processed water stored
! .- But some of'the other l
14 in tanks'l and 2 would remain.
15 facilities that are there that contain the water, I'm
- 16 assuming, maybe wrongly, that you would empty the water 17 out of those locations, and you would have to build addi-18 tional tankage. Or has that been looked at at all or is it .
19' ~.your assumption that it would stay exactly where it is 20 now?
21 MR. TRAVERS: We assume that it would stay in the 22 tanks they are stored in, unless Linda has a different 23 view.
24 MS. MUNSON: I believe that it would stay in I 25 tankage on site. Some of the water now is in a fuel pool 81
V k
And we presume that that water would :
- (.J') 1 and; primary system.
b .be treated and put into tanks. And I have'.to plead guilty 2
- 3. 'to not having looked exactly at-the capacity of the tanks .
s 4 that are available for that. water. But we were under the 5 impression- .and maybe-GPU can straighten this out for-6 us - that there is probably tank capacityJavailable on 7 Mite without. building additional tanks. But I believe that 8 most of the tanks that are there would be used.
9 THE MAYOR: I had thought that one of the concerns to they had some time ago was in the capacity of the tankage 11 and that there may be a time when they may run into a 12 c apacity problem and need to build additional tanks.
MR. TRAVERS: They did that. You're right.
13
.f;f.h M 14 There was an early c'oncern about'the capacity of water 15 having been processed being stored on site. What-was done 16 as a result of that was additional tankage was built.
-l And conceivably, if you need more, you could build more 17 )
l 18 tanks again.
1 19 THE MAYOR: I'd like, Frank, to have somebody
! 20 speak to it. I really automatically assumed that they I
i 21 would not want to leave it in some of the locations that 22 it is presently in, and they wouldn't want to put it in a 23 totally contained --
t 24 MR. STANDERFER: There is not sufficient tankage 25 on site to store the total quantity of water that would be di s-82 e-r < + =r e c h-* ***e wes M e T S 5 9 -6 1 , W %% - * -- , - - - - - - - - -
--,---,,e- ,- -v------m--------,------*--b- t
x charged. I believe we have about a million and a half (5,_) 1 2 gallons storage capacity. So if along-term storage 3 Option was selected, that would require more tankage.
4 It is not the company's recommendation to defer.
5 THE MAYG': I clearly understand that. I'm 6 not, as I ask jug;;. inns (1Jposing that. I'm trying to 1 undeYstand tnet Optich, c~ hat should it be taken, would a require additional tankage.
9 MR. STANDERFER: Yes.
10 THE MAYOR: You're saying you have how much
'1 capacity? 1.6 million? l 12 MR. STANDERFER: k believe it's about 1.5, but 7
k 13 I don't have that good number.
s
. f-Q'- 14 THE MAYOR: I realize and I would indicate '
15 your numbers for the record were just estimates and just 16 getting a sense of it. Is that 1.5 or 1.6 capacity usable 17 for the future storage or is it something that if you would 18 go five years down the line, you would think we would . .
19 start having a problem with seals or some other things, 20 that we better build?
21 MR. STANDERFER: No. It would be usable for 22 some indefinite period of time. The tanks are good 23 quality tanks.
24 THE MAYOR: So then you would need about 700,000 25 gallons maybe of additional tankage. The tankage at that C
83
- - . . - . - ,= . . . .
/CN N:s*N 1 point that would be on the Island lifetime, I mean, you're V looking at not a problem for. ten, twenty, thirty years or ,,
2 3 something like that.
4 MR, STANDERFER: Normally, tanks like this are 5 ten- to twenty-year tanks. I don't have a good lifetime 6 measurement on these tanks. But you measure the thickness 7 of the walls and determine what the corrosion rates are 8 and that sort of thing.
9 THE MAYOR: We have water storage tanks. I to don't even know if that's comparable, but obviously they 11 last for considerably ten to twenty years if properly 12 maintained.
13 MR. STANDERFER: The design life is based on the D- 14 minimum time. Tanks normally last much longer than that.
15 But you go by the --
16 THE MAYOR: Just again, I just want to -- I'm 17 trying to get a feeling for how much more tankage. How 18 long would that last before it would need to be replaced .
19 and then try to correlate that with the half-life of --
20 How much have you really gained by waiting that long in 21 half-life?
22 MR. STANDERFER: The isotopes that control are 23 not tritium, but are the other isotopes which have long 24 half-lives. So you don't gain much. For example, if 25 you are worried about iodine 129, that's a billion -- No, 84
(3 1 I guess it's ten to the seventh years, so that's ten V million years _for half-life. Strontium.is thirty years.
2 3 So after thirty years it's just reduced by a factor of two.
4 So you don't gain much by waiting. And the numbers are 5 small now..
6 THE MAYOR: You're saying that if you wait that 7 long a period of time, the potential is that you start 8 running into tankage problems and ycu'll need some replace-9 ments? Is that what I hear?
10 MR. STANDERFER: Certainly the maintenance 11 activity, which we would prefer not to have custody of.
12 THE MAYOR: Thank you, Frank. Elizabeth?
13 MS. MARSHALL: Yes. I was wondering'if there kl">
)
~
14 was any possibility of the tank's themselves, and I mean 15 over a long period of time, absorbing radioactivity and 16 becoming radioactive.
17 MR. TRAVERS: No. They are stainless steel
! 18 tanks. They wouldn't absorb the radioactive material ,
19 contained in the water.
20 MS. MARSHALL: They would not?
21 MR. TRAVERS: There is an additional administra-22 tive concern or at least issue associated with indefinice f
23 storage of water on site. That has to do with ultimately 24 decommissioning of the facility and eliminating the need 25 for a facility license from NRC. Before that could occur, 85 t- _ _
- n. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 the site has to be rendered useful for general purposes, b<
~
no longer controlled for the radioactive material content 2
3 on the site. So prior to being able to decommission, 4 removing the license, GPU will have to dispose of the 5 accident-generated water.
6 THE MAYOR: Is that the same as would have to 7 happen'with the remaining section of the plant, that the 8 radioactivity would have to then be totally removed?
MR. STANDERFER: Absolutely. In fact, that is 9
to a much more significant issue than the water.
THE MAYOR: I see some hands, certainly hands 11 12 of interest. I'm going to go back here, if I could, first and then come to the front. For the record again, give 13
.k -) 14 your name so that it's easier to transcribe. ,
15 MS PICKERINE: Kay Pickerine (phonetic). I 16 have several questions directed maybe to the NRC and EPA.
17 I have not heard from either organization comments on how 18 this process would be monitored. I heard GPU talking .
19 about the option of probably or possibly considering the 20 installation of tritium air monitors. That just raises 21 in my mind all the questions about the license, what options 22 does GPU have when they are asking for this change in their 23 license. What are the regulations with regard to the 24 involvement of the NRC and EPA? The community hasn't 25 really had a chance to discuss that kind of interaction LO 86
t
() with regard to the on-site actual' monitoring. Tonight I
~
1-L really understand.for the first time the' process that a 2
3 vendor would come-in, building the system and then be
. 4 responsible for- the actual working. of the system. That 5 was all fuzzy in-my_ min'd until I got here tonight and 6 heard that discussion. That just raised all those fears 7 and all that psychological problem of again another entity 8 coming in,-GPU overseeing another contractor on site, doing 9 work. -Does the NRC then oversee GPU, and what are the to regulations with regard .to on-site and of f-site monitoring 11 of -- and-DER,-too. I mean, we have three entities who 12 in some.way monitor on site and eff site the radiation 13 factors monitoring.
14 MR. TRAVERS: There's a whole host of things 15 NRC is doing and would do in terms of environmental i
16 monitoring. We probably wouldn't do anything differently 17 than what we're doing today. We would in advance of 18 evaporation be looking at detailed procedures for the 19 operation of the equipment. We probably heard all the 20 administrative steps we would have to go through. I can 21 do it again, but there are a whole host of regulatory 22 hurdles that have to be met, including Commission approval
-23 before evaporation could begin. But in terms of environ-B 24 mental monitoring, aside from the program we now have in 25 place involving the TLD monitoring in the environment, we i
1CO 7
.- - . .-- . - . - . . . . . _ . . . . - . . . . . - . - , . - . . . - , . ~ . . ~ - . - , -. . -
( .
I' . would not likely do,anything differently. -The' process is _
2 extensive.in getting tofa point where evaporation or 3 any'other plan for disposal of the water could be done.
4 'It.'s discussed in some length in the Draft Environmental--
,5 - Impact: Statement...And if there are any specific questions,
'7 I'd be-glad to try to answer them as opposed to going over.
7 the'whole thing again.
The monitoring-that will-be done on J
!8 THE MAYOR:
the ~ evaporation itself is part of the equipment to be .
~
9 10 provided by the contractor?
11 MR._ TRAVERS: Yes. We regulate the licensee.
12 We would continue to inspect activities associated with
- 13 evaporation. We.would continue to inspect the~ records 14 associated with their monitoring of those activities. So there would be a direct oversight of the activities. But 15' to I suspect unless someone does something different than 17 the ordinary,ue would not be in the position of doing 18 our own monitoring either at the stack or any additional ..
19 environmental monitoring off site.
20 THE MAYOR: Any action that is taken as a result 21 of the monitoring system in terms of a problem I assume 22 would be the action -- the action would be taken by the 23 contractor who is under some kind of overview by the --
24 by GPU. Is that what you would envision? Or should we 25 be asking Frank? I'm just trying to bring out a little C
1 88
.- _ . _ . _ . _ _ ~ ~ . _ _ _ . . . _ . - . _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . , - . . . - . , _ _ _ _ . , .- -
bit more.of the question that was raised on what is the
'(f-).
1
%/
2 sequence of events that would normally take place.
3 MR. TRAVERS: .You can ask Frank, but-I suspect 4 that since the contractor has direct operational responsi-5 bility, that the first actions are going to be taken by 6 them._ Certainly, they have a responsibility to report to.
And our oversight would be 7 theyeoplewhohirethem. ,
a directed at the actual. conduct of the operation-by the a contractor. Administratively, legally, our enforcement to and inspection activities are geared to the organization 11 that holds the license. In this case it's GPU.
12 .THE MAYOR: Okay, thank you. There was, I
. 13 think, another question in the front.
14 -
MR. . TRAVERS: You might come to the mike and 15 give your name again.
16 MR. BROWN: Dick Brown from LEAF. I have a 17 question and a concern relative to what we were just 18 talking about. One factor that hasn't even been mentioned ,-
19 is that TMI-l at some point in this scenario will have to 20 be decommissioned. And there will also be waste water from 21 that facility which will have to be disposed of in a 22 similar manner because there's going to be within -- This 23 is a process that's going to have to take place in the 24 future. And if I'm following the scenario correctly, 25 they aren't going to do anything with the water until after
(
89 i
.t (h1 1 ,they are done with the cleanup, which is at least-the:end u ~
2 of next. year, perhaps even 1989, Lor end'of'this year. Then 3 it's going to take two and a half years to evaporate the 4- ' water.- We're-already'into 1990. When did TMI begin, unit-l 5 one? What was.the-year it started, was licensed?
i- 6 MR. STANDERFER: 1974.
7 MR. BROWN: They operated for five years. Now it's operated almost another one. So its life span may be 8
' g .only twenty years, 25 years. So by the year 2000, we may be -talking about additional-problems which may- be - I'm t
-to 11 just suggesting - maybe the water problem has-to be
~12 addressed in the light of -- at that point, what's going
- ., 13 to happen to the water at TMI-l as it goes through decom- .
14 missioning process at some foreseeable point in the future.
15 MR. TRAVERS: TMI-2 is really a very unique 16 case in the sense that we have defined a certain volume l 17 of water as accident-generated water. Water which contains
! 18 the very slight levels of radioactivity that it does in .
19 the normal sense would likely be discharged today, yesterday, 20 the day before, as opposed to being stored and used for 21 other purposes. So the Commission's regulations set limits for the effluent and the levels of contamination that are 22 23 associated with effluent to the environment, both in liquid 24 and gaseous form, and it turns out that the water that we're 25 talking about today, the water we've been talking about is O
l 90
p 1- water that at most every other operating nuclear. power 2 Pl ant lin the country would be being discharged on a con-3 tinual basis as opposed to accumulating and then disposed 4 of in a' discrete step at the end of life.
.5 THE MAYOR: So the TMI-l' water,:whatever.would 6 happen in the end, would probably be, unless it's something 7 very unusual, would be probably discharged. Is that what 8 you're' going to end up saying?
9 MR. TRAVERS: It is being discharged. -
10 THE MAYOR: It is now, and any water that would it end up at that site would probably --
12 MR. TRAVERS: Unless some rnusual circumstance 13 arose.
14 MR. MILLER: I guess I'm addressing this comment 15 or question to Mrs. Munson. Back I guess in 1981 when the 16 first Draft Environmental Impact Statement came out, I took 17 a look at the tri-4.um numbers and did some quick calcula-18 tions of averan Susquehanna River flow. And I don't .
19 recall the exact numbers, but it seemed that the amount of 20 radioactivity we're talking about in this water flows by 21 TMI every 150 days or so. I would guess if we look at 22 Lancaster County and if we look at Dauphin County, we 23 would find the rainfalls bringing this amount of radio-24 activity down in these counties with every so many inches 25 of rainfall and so on. And I think that type of information O
WJ 91
kl i i may be very useful in explaining what we're - talking .about
.O 2 here in terms of radioactivity concentrations and what that 3 means when it's put out into the environment. What we're 4 talking about here, I think,'is comparable to what is there 5 already.
6 MS. MUNSON: Yes. We didn't put in numbers on-7 the amount of tritium and the amount of radionuclides flow-8 ing by. But we do have some information on the background The earlier concentrations of tritium are 9 concentration.
10 addressed in Section 2.2.1.3 on page 2.6. But that does 11 talk about the sources of tritium in the environment and the concentrations, in fact, in surface waters and in 12 13 the river.
<e 14 THE MAYOR: Do you have a way of summarizing that fairly quickly? It does talk about it, but is there 15 16 anything special you want to indicate that it says?
17 MS. MUNSON: -Well, I might just comment that 18 there are some numbers there on some carbon concentrations. .
19 About 4 million curies of tritium are distributed in 20 digital watches and about 300,000 in other consumer 21 products such as exit signs, those kinds of things. The 22 main concentration in surface waters in the United States 23 has been up to 4,000 pecocuries per liter during the 24 height of what was tested. But it's basically down to the 25 order of, I believe, 178 pecocuries per liter was the 10 92
f
' (hb 1 number in 1981. We also had some questions regarding more 2 recent data on that that was requested at the last meeting.
3 And we have contacted the EPA on that and will be getting 4 that data. Unfortunately, their detection levels are above 5 the concentration. So we'll only be able to put in it has 6 been less than six. I believe we also will hcve some 7 state samples.
8 MR. MILLER: So we're really talking here about 9 total levels of tritium that if we could condense it down 10 into a small volume, we could put it in about 2,000 watches 11 and give it to people walking out of the plant to wear 12 forever. When they are through wearing them or they stop
.- 13 working, they could chuck them out in any landfill?
D*]' 14 MR. MJNSON:
That's correct. I looked around .
15 for tritium in exit signs here. I didn't see any, but our 16 church recently put on a new addition, and I noticed that 17 it had exit signs that I read the fine print and found that i
i 18 they contain 15 curies of tritium apiece in those. So _
[ 19 it's fairly ubiquitous and fairly innocuous.
l 20 THE MAYOR: Thank you. It's time to take a break.
L 21 I would ask that before we do this, and really this is to 22 the public because the remaining part of the program until l
23 8:30 is for public comment; when we reconvene, we will have 24 one hour remaining for public comment. I'm just indicating f
25 that again because I don't want to have the public feel 93
stressed wnen the 8:30 time starts approaching, that that (O
1 is the time we really are shooting for. And I'll be taking, 2
3 as _ said earlier, Eric Epstein, Frances Skolnick and 4 Ms. Robb as the first three people. That's going to take 5 25 minutes. There would remain another 35-minute secticn 6 for people to make comments. If there is something you 7 might want to say, you might want to give some thought as (
8 to how you want to make that presentation.
9 Thank you very much. We will reconvene at 10 7:30.
11 (Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., a dinner recess was ]
12 held.)
... 13 '
j4 15 16 (Hearing continued on the following page.)
17 18 .
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CG 94 <
e .,
"B' m A_ C _
y 95
.6
>0 g" THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to at this time call the (T
2 meeting to order. As I do that, I would appreciate hearing 3 from Eric Epstein or Frances or Ms. Robb as to who would like 4 to go first.
5 MR. E PSTEIN: Frances or Doris aren't here. Do
-6 you want'to wait'a moment? It doesn't matter to me.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: What I am doing is giving those s' people an opportunity to be first up. If they miss that, 9 then we are going to randomly give other people a chance to 10 - make statements, and then they will have to be squeezed in 11 whenever we have to do it.
12 Eric, yes or no at this point whether you want to 13 come forward and begin your ten minutes?
14 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, sure. I'm on?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: You're on. Thank you.
16 MR. MAZNIK: Name?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: We had said earlier the first thing 18 we would like you to do is give your name for the record.
19 Mike is the person who is supposed to remind you.
N MR. EPSTEIN: For the record, Eric Epstein, 21 spokesperson for TMI Alert.
22 I know for Gordon, the first thing I wanted to 23 clarify with you, I said I would have some names from some 24 folks better known as scientists or technical experts. After 25 discussing it with some other environmentalists and other O
96' A
1 members of'my group, I have decided not to do that for a V 2- number of reasons that I would like to_ explain. First of all, ,
3 'I didn't think the NRC would. fund their research. Secondly, 4 I sm very wary about handing over names of organizations to 5 anybody, Gordon. So what we have done, and Frances will' s speak to it later, we have submitted the EIS and talked with 7 various experts throughout the country, and hopefully we will 8 be able to produce either testimony or an expert at the next 8 meeting, and I know that was one point that you had pursued to with me. I wanted to give you my reasoning for not prepar:.ng 11 a blanket list of individuals or organizations. I didn't 12 feel comfortable with it when I talked it over with other 13 folks. If that's okay with you, I will continue.
O- i' MR. Ro INSoN= res, .that's your choice.
15 MR. EPSTEIN: It has just been after thinking,'my 16 experience with the NRC over the last seven years had a great 17 impact on that decision.
18 What I am going to do now, Mayor Morrisy.::is:. turn th e 19 speaker over to Vera Stuchinski, who is going to make comment 8 for us this evening. After everybody else speaks, I'd like 21 to get on the agenda, if I could, to address some of the 22 She is going to make the questions I had for the NRC.
23 official comments for TMI here thic evening. So at this time 24 I would like to turn the mike over to her.
THE CHAIRMAN: Fine. Why don't you do that? It O
m 97 3_
1 really depends on the timing, Eric, as to whether we can get r~N
' ks/ 2 you back on. I' indicated in the previous, earlier part of th's 3 program, we do expect to complete the public portion of this 4 at 8:30, and with that, I will finish up and not waste any 5 more of the public's time.
6 MS. STUCHINSKI: My name is Vera Stuchinski. I am 7 sorry Eric and I were not able to be here earlier.in the day.
8 I decided to give him a break, as chairperson, and make the 8 presentation tonight.
10 I have TMIA's comments to the panel on the NRC's 11 revised EIS on the disposal of the water, and I'd like to 12 present this as a matter of public record.
13 I appreciate the Panel's concern about the 14 insufficient information provided to the public in the NRC's c
(G_)
is revised Environmental Impact Statement, and your determination 18 to gather additional information before meeting with the
{ 17 Commissioners. As a representative of the citizens' safe 1
18 energy group, Three Mile Island Alert, I would like to bring 18 to the Panel's attention, the need for further assessment of 20 the health effects of tritium.
21 First, let me preface my remarks with the fact that
- cn Friday, February 20, General Public Utilities issued a
- statement saying that the Department of Energy has granted th e 24 utility an additional 46,000 cubic feet of disposal space at 25 a commercial low-level nuclear waste site. The allocation is needed to dispose of radioactive residue from a proposed t
O l
1 evaporation process. The Harrisburg Patriot News noted~that'
[j V- 2 the approval'is a "significant step" for the utility'in 8~ their proposal.to evaporate the',2.1 million gallons of-4 contaminated water.
3 It appears that evaporation is leading as the a method of choice of both the utility and the DOE. .We'have 7 been assured,that dispersal of'1020 curies of1 tritium over a a two or three year period will be inconsequential since 8 tritium is to be found in the environment from reactor fuel, le weapons testing, manufacturing and natural occurrence. It is 11 noted in the revised EIS, that the tritium
- concentration of 12 the Susquehanna River was measured during 1977 and found to la be fairly constant'at 178 pCi/L. The NRC's data on tritium O
14 concentration in :he Suseu hanna River,though, is based on is information that was collected ten years ago. We feel this is is but another superficial and inadequate investigation by
-17 the NRC. We would like to know the current concentration of 18 tritium in the Susquehanna. The EIS should be revised to 18 include data in order to be accurate and accountable.
20 At the Adivosry Panel meeting on January 21, 1987, 21 TMI Alert and other individuals stressed to the Panel that we 22 want ne additional environmental releases of radiation from 23 the cleanup. I cannot stress this point enough. We are 24 concerned with the cumulative effects of years of radiation 88 exposure.
O I
fJ 99 1 On Page 2.6 of the.EIS, under the section entitled,
'L/ 2 " Interactions of Tritium with Biological Systems," the 3 report states that when humans are exposed to tritium as' 4 tritiated water by inhalation, ingestion or skin adsorption,
.5 the majority of the isotope is eliminated from the body with 6 about a 10-day biological half-life. A small fraction of the 7 intake, usually less than a few percent, is eliminated with 8 a biological half-life of about 30 days, and dven a smaller 9 fraction with a biological half-life of about 450 days.
10 According to this report, it sounds as thougit the 11 tritium is almost immediately eliminated from the body. But 12 in order to calculate t'he hazardous life of the substance, 13 one must multiply by ten. Therefore, the majority of the O i4 isotoge is etimineteo, from the body with eboue e 100 day 15 hazardous life. A small fraction of the intake is eliminated 16 with a hazardous life of about 300 days, and a smaller 17 fraction with a hazardous life of about 4,500 days, which l
18 is about 12-13 years. .
19 We do not know the long-term health effects of 20 tritium, nor does GPU or the NRC. More empty assurances of 21 safe levels are not what we need. I would like to call your 22 attention to the report released in October, 1986, by Congres;5-l 23 man Edward J. Markey, who is Chairman of the House Subcommitt ee 24 on Energy Conservation and Power. It is entitled,"American 25 Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U. S.
Guinea Pigs:
O l
1
~
, 100
- 9 1 Citizens." -It describes in detail, experiments conducted by 73 l 2 the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission, from 3 the mid-40's.to the early 70's as supplied by DOE documents, 4 and it"was to measure the effects of radiation on humans.
3 Markey urged the DOE to make every practicable effort.to a identify the subjects and to examine their long-term health 7 histories to determine long-term health effects.
8 According to the report, from 1950 to 1952, human 9 subjects were exposed to tritium in several different 10 experiments: exposure to tritiated water and water vapor, 11 inhalation of tritium-saturated oxygen, and the ingestion 12 of- tritiated water. The objective of the experiments was to 13 obtain information on the absorption and retention of tritium .
() 14 But, following the experiments, the DOE reported no medical.
15 folls up of the subjects.
l l 16 Obviously, here is a population if studied, that 17 could yield invaluable information on health effects of 18 exposure to tritium. As usual, GPU and the NRC are willing 18 to proceed before the necessary facts.have all been collected .
20 Another major consideration that has been ignored, 21 as usual, is the impact of stress on citizens living in the 22 surrounding, communities. The contaminated water has not yet 23 been tested for transuranics. As of the last meeting, the 24 information was very sketchy. We feel this is essential. We 3 have heard no statements from the NRC, EPA or DER concerning
)
l additional monitoring of the actual procedure, as well as any
{? 101 1 emissions that would be released. With GPU's long track recocd C)
\- 2 of misconduct and disregard for health and safety, we regard 3 the~ additional monitoring by government agencies to be 4 necessary for public accountability.
5 I must emphasize that we'do not trust the utility.
8 GPU must not be given the go-ahead to evaporate the 2.1 milli on 7 gallons of' contaminated water before the facts are in. I 8 must also re-emphasize to you our position that the decision 9 on what to do with the water must not be made in haste. GPU 10 would like to dispose of the water quickly, so that they can <
11 finish the cleanup. Isn't it rather ironically. amusing that 12 in order to clean up the waste, the utility would propose I? contaminating the environment?
()
14 That's our official stathment from TMI Alert.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: K'en?
16 DR. MILLER: I want to say I don't agree with every -
17 thing you have said, but I don't really want to go through it 18 point by point. What I would like to ask you is: What i,s 19 your alternative? What method of handling this material 20 are you proposing?
21 MS. STUCHINSKI: I don't feel we can endorse any 22 of the methods. Again, I feel we are being asked to make a 23 decision when the study is not complete. I would go back in 24 time several years ago when we talked about at the last 25 meeting krypton venting. We found about two or three years O
'J 102 1
'after.the krypton venting an expert, Micho Kaku, from Columbi n
/~i
-()
2 University or New-York University?
3 MR. EPSTEIN: CCNY.
4 MS. STUCHINSKI: Talked to us about that there are s alternative methods for dealing with the krypton gas. For s example, perhaps, there are alternative methods for dealing 7 with the water. I feel that we are being pushed to rush into 8 a let's finish it up, and I do not feel that everything has s been covered, everything has been studied enough.
10 MR. EPSTEIN: I know, Dr. Miller, that you do not 11 agree with many of the points made. I mean that is nothing .
12 new to me. I would like to say a few things. I don't think .
13 anybody would really have a problem with the materials being
() 14 shipped'to Haneford (phonetic], the reservation in Washington ,
15 or to the Nevada test site. To be quite honest with you, I 16 think that is probably a resolution that would be acceptable 17 to a lot of folks.
18 I'd like to say also I just met with the NRC for 19 four hours or. Tuesday discussing activities at Unit 1 and 20 also met with the NRC previously for three hours at Unit 2.
21 It is quite apparent that Unit 2 with its fuel pools is an n ideal place for the waste of high level and low level from 23 Unit 1 and also Oyster Creek. It is apparent to me that we 24 are rushing through this process to make room, and there is M nothing in the license currently at Three Mile Island to n
O
103 1 prevent Unit.2 from storing high level or low level waste on 2 site with the waste pools, and that is the feeling I have.
3 I'm quite su.re that will be born out in the near future.
k 4 I see, Tom, you are shaking your head.
5 MR. GERUSKY: Not true.
6 MR. EPSTEIN: This is true talking with both the 7 NRC, Region 1.
8 MR. GERUSKY: I'm sorry. Their license has to 9 authorize them to receive material from outside that plant.
10 They are not authorized to do tnat.
11 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, there seems to be some dis-12 agreement with the NRC whether waste from Oyster Creek could 13 be shipped on, but there seems to be consensus that from ll 14 TMI Unit 1 there would be no problem using Unit 2 as'a storag e 15 facility.
16 MR. GERUSKY: Oh, sure there is. Right now they 17 are separated completely. They can't be used, and it is 18 their license amendment. Again you can' t do that, I'm sorry.
~
19 MR. EPSTEIN: I think there is a big difference of 20 opinion on that issue. I don't know if I want to pursue it 21 at the advisory panel, but I don't think folks at Region 1 H agree with you at all. I would hope you are right.
23 MR. GERUSKY: Well, if Region 1 doesn't agree with 24 me, they are not going to operate the plant. I mean let's 25 face it, they can't do that.
O
P- 104
. - 1 MR. EPSTEIN: I hope you are right.
A kJ 2 I don't know if that speaks to your question, but 3 I wanted to preface my comments with that statement.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me just -- unless there is
- 5. really specific, because we are getting somewhat off the 6 subject and there are other people that would want to make 7 comments. Unless there is some clarification of the question ,
8 I would like to really give other members of the public the 9 chance to come forward. Keep in mind that if we have extra 10 tine, we will have you come up, because you indicated you 11 have several questions you wanted to raise.
12 MR. EPSTEIN: We have 11 copies of the statement 13 for the panel which I will leave here.
.,m)
(, 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Fine, thank you. ,
15 Frances, would you like to come forward?
16 MS. SKOLNICK: Good evening, members of the panel.
17 First of all, I want to start off in a lighter note.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Frances Skolnick, I'm sorry.
19 MS. SKOLNICK: When I was eating dinner tonight, N I did have a fortune cookie, and the note on the fortune cook .e 21 was: "Your hard work will pay off soon."
H I speak this evening for the membership of the 23 Susquehanna Valley Alliance, a safe energy organization whose 24 The reason membership is mostly based in Lancaster County.
" we are so concerned about this, radioactive water is because V'O
(}i ' 105 1j we stand to be impacted upon if GPU Nuclear either dumps it'
'2 ~ into the Susquehanna, our drinking water source, or evaporates a it.into the air.
'4 Since we live downstream from the plant and we will
's therefore get the full impact-of' fallout, I am speaking at 4 this public meeting this evening'in order to convey our 7 message loud'and clear. Our message is this: As a community ,
a we intend.to stand up_for our rights to clean air and clean 9 water, and we feel that GPU Nuclear.and the NRC are violating le these: rights..
11 -We are really pleased that this panel is carefully ut considering the options presented to them. . We are entirely is sickened by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and GPU Nuclear
() 14 making statements about the safety of this water.
15 They have yet to learn that we are thinking, rational to individuals, aware of our rights and able to. discern 17 deception from truth. Who do they think they are, telling 18 us that they have three million gallons of r,adioactive water, 19 which we are going to have to either breathe in or drink?
se Sorry, gentlemen, we will not allow you to do this to us.
21 If I may refer to the statement made by the lady 22 from the NRC about tritium in exit signs and watches, I have 23 to say we are not drinking or breathing the exit signs or the 24 watches.
U The documents which come from the NRC or GPU are O
. m .. . en _ - t .r. . . . . . et .
106 jx 1
shrouded in double talk, misinformation and a general lack of n
U 2 regard for the public. Their attitude is'the show must go on 3 at all costs.
4 Since the accident at TMI and particularly since s the restart decision of Unit 1, it has become more and more s apparent that we no longer have a regulatory body or even 7 -the pretense of one, but rather we have a promoter of nuclear 3 power in the form of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
g This past year or so, we have all become increasing ly to aware of the fact that nothing has been done to store in a' 11 safe manner the abundant radioactive waste that the ' nuclear 12 industry is creating. All of us are victims of this travesty ,
13 and I am afraid it is exacting this lack of waste policy and
({} 14 the fact that GPU Nuclear wants to incur as little cost 'as 15 possible that is making these gentlemen sweet talk us into 16 breathing or drinking this radioactive water.
17 This radioactive water is really not our problem.
13 GPU created it. Therefore, why are we being~ asked to carry is it around in our bodies? It is as if we are being asked to a be waste storage sites.
21 Tritiated water can be ingested in liquid form. It 22 can also be inhaled or absorbed through the skin in the form n of water vapor or steam, and pregnant females, tritium ingest ed 24 by the mother can cross the placenta and be incorporated 25 directly into the fetus. Like all radioactive substances,
107 U
1 tritium can cause cancer,: genetic mutations or developmental I) 2 effects. No' threshold or safe dose of tritium has been 3 scientifically established for any of these effects.
4 By either dumping the water into the river or 5 evaporation into the atmosphere, all the tritium will be 6 released into the environment. We'are extremely concerned 7 of the exact nature of this water, and feel that the list of 8 contents by GPU Nuclear and the NRC is inadequate for both 9 radio-nuclides and chemicals. Even if the water contains to only those items listed, the water still remains radioactive.
11 To say it is almost pure is nonsense, and further threatens 12 the credibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and'GPU 13 Nuclear.
() 14 The tridum alone is a major. source of concern.*The
- 15 radiological significance of tritium is not related to its 16 inherent toxicity, it is a very low energy form of radiation, 17 but to its easy incorporation into all parts of the body that 18 contain water.
l 19 Dumping or evaporation are therefore not true methods' 20 of disposal, which implies that we are getting rid of it all.
21 But, rather they are methods of dispersal, which means 22 GPU Nuclear would be spreading the radioactivity in different 23 directions.
24 On Page 3.3 of the updates in the environmental l
M impact statement, the NRC stater and I quote: "Although most O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . ~ . . , _ , _ -- _ - ~ - - - . _ = - - -
- IN 108 1 vendor supplied transportabie evaporator systems are designed
'- 2 to operate in a closed cycle mode, modifications:would be 3 made to die evaporator to allow it to operate in an open ' cycl e 4 mode that would permit a vapor to be discharged into the 5 atmosphere."
6 I have to ask: Why modify the evaporator at all?'
7 Let it operate as it was built to operate and contain the a radioactivity.-
9 I also must comment on the NRC comments that to discharge would be monitored to verify radioactive releases.
11 I am concerned about who would read the monitors. Furthermora, 12 I am convinced that some members of the NRC and GPU Nuclear 13 equate monitoring with prevention of radioactive releases.
() 14 It is important to clarify that what is being measured has 15 already been released into our environment and the damage 16 has been done. .
17 We firmly believe that it is imperative to contain la all radioactivity which is manmade. The question of how 19 dangerous is radioactivity to our health is very much a 20 debatable question, and as long as it is, let us all, whether 21 we are pro or anti nuclear, act responsibly and with caution 22 when determining releases into our environment.
23 We believe also that it is imperative that technology J.
t 24 is made available to contain the radioactivity of this water.
M We believe it is available, but cost considerations cause the
(
{
qf 109
.. 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and GPU Nuclear to disregard it ,
<~
k-) 2 I believe the NRC and GPU Nuclear are pushing us into making - --
a to taking a position and making a choice between evaporation-4 or dumping, when really we do have more choices open to us.
5 I firmly urge the members of this panel, the NRC 6 and GPU Nuclear to reject evaporation and dumping and to 7 consider only those options favorable to the health ~and s environment of this community. I am hopeful this panel will 9 give the public permission to bring in additional experts to 10 speak to the panel and that tonight we can arrange a date for 11 the meeting.
12 THE CHAIRMAN:. Thank you, Frances.
13 Does anybody have.any questions of the testimony I
() 14 at all? .
15 We are going to get into regarding the very last is point you made, I believe we are going- to get into a discussion 17 on what next when we conclude the public part, so I am sure 18 in some way we will respond to that last point.
19 MS. SKOLNICK: Could you also clarify for us exactl:(
20 how the panel will make their decision and what kind of 21 decision -- I mean the procedure for you making your decision s H about the --
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I am expecting at 8:30 we are going 24 to be discussing that very thing, just what procedure we are j
25 going to be following and what we expect, whether we need an
m
,1 - 110 1
additional meeting, which I assume we will, but we are going
.m k-) 2 to be discussing that at 8:30.
3 MS. SKOLNICK: Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
5 Ms. Robb?
6 MS. ROBB: No.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: No need to testify?
8 MS. ROBB: No.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Who would like some additional time to at this point or some comment time? I know Eric has indicate.i.
11 We will give some other people an opportunity.
12 MR. SMITHGALL: There were two people that did call ,
13 Bev Davis and Joyce Corradi, who are here tonight. They called today e] 14 actually.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I am looking at this point for hands 16 - from people who would like to -- the people who called today, 17 really we could not schedule you ahead. If you want to get 18 on the schedule, we need to know when we are making it up, is at least a week beforehand. So if your name isn't on, it is N simply because you called a little bit too late.
21 MS. ROBB: May I give my time to Ms. Corradi then?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure.
M MS. ROBB: Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: If you would like to come forward.
2 Who else would like to have time besides Eric, so O
111-1 I know?
n w/ 2 MS. CORRADI: My name is Joyce Corradi, C-o-r-r-a-d -i.
3 I am with Concerned Mothers and Women.
4 Because of scheduling, I could not get to the 5 meeting until the last half hour, so I do not know what-6 happened previously nor will I waste my time or yours. I wil.L 7 find out after this meeting.
8 The one thing that Concerned Mothers and Women are e very concerned about and would like to reiterate is what to other groups and other individuals have said, that it is ,
11 very important that you look at all alternatives,'that you 12 are not pushed into doing something because it is a quick fix ,
13 We have lived with quick fixes too long and the repercussions
() 14 of them will be on us for many years to come.
15 I do have another question that concerns me very is much about TMI 2 and information that was in the paper today 17 concerning radioactive material that lef t the island via truck, 18 and in the paper, Mr. Toom (phonetic] was contacted, and I 19 would like some information on that, as to what happened and N why it left the island.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Is Frank present or is somebody H present that could speak to this?
23 MR. STANDERFER: In a small pick-up truck that I
24 transported waste from one part of the island to another part 2 of the island, it had several bags of waste in it and some O
112 i f(
1 contaminated bricks and so forth. After that was transported ,
n
- 2 apparently a very small package, a small bottle, was left in 3 the corner of the truck overnight, wh'ich had been missed, and 4 that truck was used for several errands the next day, until 3 that package was discovered in the back of the truck and was 6 removed. So the issue that we are evaluating right now is 7 what procedures allowed that package to become -- the loss of 8 control of that package, and there was no hazard associated 9 with the way it was handled, but we did lose control of that 10 package that was supposed to be under control.
11 MS. CORRADI: What I would like to know is what the:(
12 violated in doing this and what are the NRC's procedures for 13 the handling of this material?.
() 14 MR. STANDERFER: We have procedures which should is have made sure that that package was not lef t in the back cf to the truck. We are now looking at whether there is any 17 disciplinary actions to be taken or whether the procedures 18 have to be taken, and the NRC, of course, will review this 19 incident, how we handled it and will determine whether they 20 think we did a good job or not.
- 21 MS. CORRADI
- I'd like to know what the NRC thinks 22 about the incident.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to allow that last question 24 to be answered, but I mentioned earlier, Joyce, and you were 8 not here, I do want to try to stick with the item before us t
f
g i 113 1
tonight, and that is the PEIS and'the evaporation method.
<v U 2 MS._CORRADI: I can understand that, but I think it 3 is very pertinent, an attitude and presumption, the way 4
' radioactive waste is being handled.
5 THb CHAIRMAN: That's fine. We have until 8:30 to a answer any and all questions. I do want to give those people 7 the opportunity to talk about the water disposition the 8
adequate time. That's the' point I am trying to make.
9 MR. TRAVERS: We are simply reviewing the facts, go what happened. Clearly it looks like they lost control of th e 11 Package that they shouldn't have lost control of. Certainly 12 there are procedures that are required to be in place for the 13 safe handling of radioactive material. It appears like those
() 14 procedures in place are not complied with, but we haven't mad a 15 any determination and we are looking at what the facts are an'i 16 we will report on what we find in cur inspection reports as g7 we do normally.
18 MS. CORRADI: Could you give me a time frame for 19 *t hat, please?
20 MR. TRAVERS: I am not sure when our next monthly 21 report is due out.
22 MR. COWGILL: The report that this will be involved 23 in ends in the middle of March.
24 MR. TRAVERS: Towards the end of March.
25 O
114 Oi 1
MS. CORRADI: Thank you.
2 lHR..GUILL: My name is Ernest Guill. I don't know a if this relates to what you are doing, but has there been any 4 study concerning the number of cancer cases and cancer s deaths around TMI? Does anyone know, since the accident and a following?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, that truly is not germane to 8 the discussion tonight. We have had a great deal of discussion 9 regarding the effects of the accident and what studies have to been done. There have been some studies done, and the question 11 is have they been complete enough and satisfactory to the 12 public. We have been a body that will allow that kind of 13 testimony to take place so the public can understand the
()
~
14 issue. We have not taken a position on it, and we will be is talking about that again, I'm sure, in the future, but tonigh t Is that is not the purpose of this meeting, and so I have to, d
17 with that answer, I have to say we are really taking question s l 18 concerning the subject before us. .
4 19 MR. GUILL: Is there any governmental, local 20 governmental monitoring unit or any local government, could 21 they monitor the radiation from this evaporation or from the i
j 22 dumping?
I There is a whole host of monitors 23 THE CHAIRMAN:
i 24 that are in place now around the site.
! M MR. GUILL: Who are they run by, excuse me?
i I
115
. <j-1 I THE CHAIRMAN: Different groups, DER, EPA, but on
- 2. this particular_ item of equipment, the evaporation, there is 8 monitors within that' evaporation equipment unto itself. If-4 that is your question, if it is on that equipment itself, s we can certainly try to answer that. -
8 MR. GUILL: I want to know who is monitoring the 7
equipment.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you here at the earlier part?
8 MR. GUILL: Yes, I was.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Because, it was explained that the 11 monitoring equipment on the evaporation equipment is provided 12 by the' contractor, and if I am wrong on this, Frank, I hope I8 you come forward, is provided by the contractor _who is under O
i4 contract w ah G,U. se u is G,u s u1ei-ee responsmuey I8 for that monitoring equipment, and they are going to have a 18 contractor who will be oversceing --
17 The monitoring equipment is our MR. STANDERFER:
I8 responsibility. The evaporating equipment comes from the-19 contractor.
" THE CHAIRMAN: That was not explained that way 21 earlier on, I don't think, but thank you.
22 Does that answer your question?
" MR. GUILL: I had it answered earlier, but what I
" was wondering was: Is there any way an independent monitoring group could check the radiation that is being released, or as O
116 p .(
1 I said, the local governmental body from the city of Harris-t^)
(_s s burg --
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I assume they could if they would 4 want to. This panel has reviewed in the past monitoring on s the site, and I guess a point can be made by somebody that 6 the monitoring equipment that is being provided is inadequate ,
7 and if this panel wants to take a position on that, so be it, s but at this point, that point hasn't been made, and so I 3
think the answer is that it is outside of our jurisdiction.
to If somebody else wants to take a shot at that, fine .
11 MR. RICE: Do you not have a monitoring place where 12 the public can go and watch the reading? ,
13 THE CHAIRMAN: We are talking again specifically I
() 14 believe. on the evaporation, and that monitoring is going to b e 15 on site. Do you want to try and take a shot at answering 16 this, Tom?
17 MR. GERUSKY: You have two types of monitoring; The 3
- 18 monitoring at the source where the radioactive material is .
13 being released, and then into the environment and you're N monitoring the environment. At the present, the EPA is the I
i 21 only agency that is doing airborne tritium sampling, and that l
22 is a subject we have to revisit again, because the budget, 1
n the President's budget, is doing into our EPA lab again, but
! 24 there has to be an environmental monitoring program. That is I
i N one reason I asked the question earlier as to whether GPU is O
i
_--,_ ,-w.,-.y- ~ ,.-3yy,-e- -
,.m.- - - _ - . - * ,
y m_ ,-y-..7.- .-._---__~_.-%-___y_, 7 ,
E 117 rp 1 going to begin doing tritium monitoring,. airborne tritium s' monitoring. It will have to be monitored off site.
s There-is the EPA offices in Middletown are open.
4 Our office in Harrisburg is open. All the data that we have s collec.ted and they have collected is available. All the data e that the utility has collected is also available. After a 7 period of time, they make it publicly available. We get a copies-and the NRC gets copies, and I believe the EPA gets a e copy, and the NRC monitoring, which is independent again, is le not related specifically to tritium. There is a lot of publi<:
11 information.
la The EPA office puts out a weekly report on levels is of radioactivity in the environment, including tritium, and O .
- i4 if you watch it, you w111 see some interestine chanees.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know if we are responding ,
to to the question.
17 MR. GUILL: I think I was trying to address the is level of stress that people talked about that people around' ,
it the plant had, but if some group like GPU is doing it or the i
l 2e EPA, a lot of times the people wouldn't know who the people 21 are involved doing the monitoring. If it is some local
- 22 government agency, they will at least know who the person is 88 that is doing the monitoring, perhaps feel safer. That's my I
24 opinion.
l 28 THE CHAIRMAN: If you mean the local government l
O
n' >
-t .The main thing I.think needs to be realized is this
't is not disposal. There is no such thing as disposal. All we
, s 'do,'we live in a closed system. We move it from one form to 4 another or from one place to.another. To move it from the s place ~where it is where it is contained to people's bodies ,
a who have already been through the accident, who have already 7 been contaminated by whatever we have been getting for the a past eight years, does not make any sense, and I would hope ,
e that the people who are making the political decision would to make it on keeping those things-in mind and not feel that the 11 scientific part of it is the main part. The main part of thi5 j ,
, 12 is a political decision. It requires a political answer, j is and that is what is best for the people in this area. l O- i4 ~ oh, one more thine- rottowin, og on what 3oel ;
j ,
18 said, to say this is being based on the fact that the NRC ,
I i to has made the decision not to put low level waste on this
- 17 island is a very -- is facetious. They have already made the ,
3 le decision that they are not going to dismantle that plant and
]
l 19 move it out of here. Whether they say they have or not, it ;
i I
- se is not going to be practical for them to do that, and I don't ,
21 think that decision is going to be made down the line. .
i.
]-
88 So worrying about what you are saying six milligrama ,
i 88 of radioactivity for some water, and you are worrying about !
84 whether or not to change your decision to put radioactive 88 waste on that island doesn't make any sense when in the larger j >
i
\o ,
s
,I 1 agencies, there is none that I know of that are doing that or fm
-(_) : plan to do it, and you would have to take it to the individua l 3 government agencies that are adjacent to it.
4 MR. GUILL: Lancaster doesn't do it?
s THE CHAIRMAN: We are not doing it, that I know of, a for tritium and the type of particles we are talking about 7 coming out of TMI, no.
s We will go to you second.
s MS. DAVIS: Beverly Davis.
to I think it is obvious from everything that people 11 are saying tonight and other times that the only reason this 12 meeting is held and the only reason this study is done is la because there is a feeling among people in this area that
, (), 14 they want to be protected and they do not want to have the is water treated as any -- would be treated from any ordinary Is plant. This means that frankly this is a political decision.
17 It has very little to do with science or anything else.
Is The unusual thing about this is this is a decision,
- to a political decision being based on the fact that the people se are objecting to having this water given to them, yet the i 21 decision is being made, the answer to the problem is to disperse j u it to them so they breathe it, take it in their bodies and i
28 have to live with it. I don't understand why you would solve
! 84 that kind of political problem with that kind of political 88 decision.
I
! ($)
l l
7_ - 120 1 sense you have already made the decision to have fuel rods on r~s
(_) 2 the island. For many, many years you have made the decision a to have concrete which is contaminated, the steel which is 4 contaminated. You have elements that are going to be s radioactive for billions of years, as you are saying tonight.
4 So it doesn't inake sense to say that that is the only reason 7 that that decision is being made, because the NRC has decided a that that should not become a radioactive waste dump. We e certainly concur, it shouldn't be, but that is not really the 14 issue. We aren't even talking about that anymore, because 11 that decision was already made.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
la MS. DAVENPORT: Debra Davenport for the Concerned
()
14 Mothers and Women. ,
18 I also want to speak on the potentially hazardous to waste dump that we might get on Three Mile Island. For the 17 last several months, there have been in the weekly status is reports for Unit 2 the on-going evaluation or an indication 19 that there is an evaluation going on in a solid waste facility.
28 There is already an interim waste facility. If we are not
- 21 going to have one, then somebody had better apprise us other-22 wise.
as I feel -- although I know I was informed when I
! 24 called or asked about this, that there indeed was such a
- as facility in progress, that it would be for waste for Unit 1 I
()
i 1
121 jf t
g and froun Unit 2.. What I would like to ask at this point is
. !( ) . 2 that:I be given a' copy of the evaluation, then we can decide 3 whether or not there is going to-be a waste facility on that 4 island.
s THE CHAIRMAN: Please, Bill, if you would.
g MR. TRAVERS: I think what you are referring to is 7 an evaluation we have on going relative to what is called a the waste handling and packaging facility, which is a staging
, facility for the handling and packaging prior to shipment of to radioactive waste associated with the cleanup, so it is not 11 in any way, shape or form the storage or disposal of waste la on the site that we are looking at and evaluating. Any is evaluations that we have completed or will complete are
() 14 publicly available and would be glad, more than happy to get is you a copy.
gg MS. DAVENPORT: I would appreciate it. Are there 17 any other evaluations for waste sites at this point?
13 MR. TRAVERS: Waste sites?
to MS. DAVENPORT: Well, waste storage facilities.
se MR. TRAVERS: Not that I'm aware of. If there are, at we will get you those, too.'
22 MS. DAVENPORT: Because, I would like to say this, as should this come up: I am totally opposed to putting anything 24 like that on an island in the river. This makes no sense, 38 floods. We were fearful in the beginning in this area. I O
122 ,
- i E
1 think many people were fearful that the island would become
( 2 a waste site, which it has, but to add to that problem is-a very, very careless. I feel all it does is save money and 4 it wastes the lives of citizens in the area.
5 The only other thing I wanted to say was that I am s still opposed to river dumping, and I am still opposed to 7 putting this into the air. It seems to me to make sense to a take this out to Nevada.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: How do you feel about leaving it on le the island?
11 MS. DAVENPORT: I don't think that would be safe.
12 I can't be sure what they would do with the water, and also 18 in other words, an emergency might come up. It might have
() 14 to be disposed.of, or it might have to be used in another way ,
18 and there is no way you can store it indefinitely or possibly is not even for 20 years.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
18 Is there anybody else besides Eric that wanted to 19 come forward? Yes?
20 MR. ADAMS: John Adams, Susquehanna Valley Alliance .
21 I was told at the last meeting, there was some 22 discussion about a distillation process that would remove the
- tritium from the water. Is there anyone that could comment 24 about that?
25 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not aware of that type of ,
O
% 123 e
1 technique, because I think we were told that really wasn't p
possible, but if there is somebody else that can comment, a please do so.
4 The whole premise of evaporation and the problem s with disposing of the water is taking the tritium out of the 4 water. But, there is no process really to do that.
7 MR. ADAMS: So distillation is not a viable process ?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: The answer to that is: -It is not s a viable process, that's right.
10 MR. ADAMS: Another comment, I would like --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Just to complete, I think we would 12 love for it to be a viable operation, but it is not.
13 . BUR. ADAMS: Fine. I wasn't clear about that infor-( ). 14 mation.
15 Another comment that I would like to mak& is that le throughout the history of the nuclear policies and developmen t 17 of technology, these acceptable levels of radioactive exposur e is to the environment into human beings has been changing and to has been dropping, and I think it is evident in the fact that i 20 x-rays are no longer routine for pregnant mothers, as they 21 once were. We no longer have the type of devices in shoe 22 stores where you can look down and see the bones in your feet ,
I I 23 These have all been determined unsafe, and I think we might 24 want to project our thoughts perhaps to some time into the 25 future when we could look back at what is considered acceptable O
i
&fd c?
w 1
n w, which will not be or may-very well not be acceptable (J , then and to. say that the amounts of tritium are insignificant 3
or acceptable is not a wise choice or decision to make. I 4 think that those in the panel should take that into considera -
s tion, that these acceptable levels do change, and generally, a they change for a. lower acceptable level and not a safe level y at all. Those are my comments.
g THE CHAIRMAN: Thank.you very much.
Anybody else?
10 MR. DAVIS: My name is Ronald, Davis. I live in 11 Millersville.
12 Recently, I had an educational experience which I g3 wish~I hadnt had, but I watched my father die of cancer, and g4 prior to that, this issue of cancer and exposure to radioactive
)
is waste had been kind of an intellectual issue to me. But, I 16 saw a man with' tumors in his brain, in his lungs, in his 17 spine, undergoing epileptic seizures, spending the last weeks gg of his life in intense pain, and finally at the end, being
~
g, forced to choose between nourishment or morphine and being so given morphine.
21 I was here, my family was here, for the accident in 22 '79. W were here for the krypton venting, and really, you as know, I have had enough. I get my water from the Susquehanna 24 River. I don't want to drink the waste from Three Mile Island .
2s I don't want to inhale the waste from Three Mile Island, and O
125
- /[ '-
1 I .think the attitude that you nave to protect us against is
("\ . one that well, they took the accident, they took the krypton
\_I 2 3 venting, they have taken everything for eight years, they'll 4 take a little more.
s I think really you are bound to stop us taking any 6 more, and I really don't wan'. to turn on my tap and be 7 drinking tritiated water from Three Mile Island, so I think a the bottom line has to be that the plant has to be cleaned up .
s We know that, but the releases to the environment do not have to to go on. That is undoubtedly the cheapest way to do it, but 11 it is also the cheapest way to do it in a morale sense, too.
12 So, you know, I really hadn't intended on speaking 13 when I came here, but I just listened to the comments and
() 14 evaluated my recent experience. I think it is incontro- -
15 vertible that exposure to radioactivity does cause cancer in is human beings, and I have been through these EIS's before, 17 and there will be three thousandth's of a cancer death, and is it will be buried in the population, so we will never know 19 who did it. But, I have seen a cancer death, and it is a N horrible thing. I think that even one, one more, whether it' s 21 a worker or someone living in Middletown, or someone living 22 in Lancaster drinking the water is one too many. I guess my M final comment is I have had enough. I have had enough 24 exposure to radiation already, and I don't want any more.
25 Thank you.
fh 126 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
'- 2 Is there anybody else? I know that Eric has to be 3 sitting back there saying save me some time, so unless I see 4 another hand, I am going to give Eric the opportunity to s finish up the public portion, if he is still with us and 6
awake.
7 MR. EPSTEIN: Eric Epstein, TMI Alert.
8 Well, perhaps Bill should come up here, because I
' have compiled 22 questions and never received a formal to response, not that I hold that against Bill, but I gleened 11 through the questions and picked out five, which I think he 12 can probably handle, if that is okay with Bill, because I 13 will probably have him parading back and forth anyway.
O i' Wou1d it be easier for you eo grab THE CHAIRMAN:
'Is the other mike so you don't have to pass it back and forth?
16 However you want to do it.
17 Go ahead, Eric.
18 MR. EPSTEIN: Question 21 which I listed and I'm I'
worried about is: Is there an end point to this process?
20 Does this process end precisely at 2.1 million gallons of 21 I am unclea e water? If so, what happens to additional water?
22 Is there exactly 2.1
- as to the end point of all this.
- 23 million gallons of clean water segmented off somewhere?
- What happens to any other water generated as a result of this 8"
- process?
l O
127 9 .
1 MR. TRAVERS: Maybe I should start by mentioning
-q O 2 that what I had intended to do, Eric. I will be glad to 3 address, because we have thought about your questions, tonight, 4 but what I had intended to do with your questions and a comments is to formally address them in the final environmental 8 impact statement, and here.to whatever you and the panel think 7 appropriat'e, and perhaps if you would like, we can get a together at some other point in time and finish, as well.
9 MR. EPSTEIN: That would be fine.
10 MR. TRAVERS: I think this is related to a question 11 that Art asked earlier and deals with the significance or not 12 of additional water accumulating during cleanup, and the is response I gave last time was basically that the water volume O -
>< has been erewin ..as a matter of face, durine the c1eanug.
Is It really had no effect, because what you are really doing is is diluting the amount of radioactive material that was originally 17 available. So that is not increasing. So the technical to significance of adding some additional quantity of water to 18 that water which is now currently defined as accident-generated 20 water is minimal.
21 MR. EPSTEIN: That water will be treated as any of 22 the previous water, either evaporated or dumped, if that is 23 the process deemed acceptable?
24 There is a definition, as you MR. TRAVERS: Right.
2s know, for what accident-generated water is and what it is not ,
O
y, 128 f
g and any: water that meets the criterion'of accident-generated
( water would be an additive'to thatLwater that is already a existing.
4 .
MR. EPSTEIN: Two questions to follow up on this:
s It would seem to me, what I am concerned with, it would be s rather inviting for any other water on the island to be 7 disposed of, either evaporated or dumped, once this precedent a is established. What I am concerned about is what mechanism o is in place to prevent any additional water or any of the to highly radioactive water from being evaporated or dumped at 11 the-time? Who is going to make sure that doesn't happen?
12 MR. TRAVERS: It hasn't happened to date, and it is has been seven or eight years since the accident. So there is.
() 14 a mechanism, and the pri. mary control on that mech'nism, the 18 starting point is the licensee. We certainly have an over-to sight role in that regard, and we think we have been exercisirg 17 it.
18 MR. EPSTEIN: So if I understand you, Bill, then it ,
is is possible that what you are saying is the utility would be se regulating itself, not to add any more water either highly 21 radioactive or no radioactive water during the evaporation 22 or dumping process. They will be their own police force?
23 MR. TRAVERS: No, I. don' t think I said that. I said a
24 they have a responsibility to do what they say they intend to 25 do. To the extent, in that regard, the NRC has a responsibility O
4' 129 as well to assure that that is exactly what is done. We I
p)
(_ _ intend to ' carry out that responsibility.
2 3
MR. EPSTEIN: By physical' presence?
4 MR. TRAVERS: Correct.
5 MR. EPSTEIN: Just three more questions. I don't 6
know how I am doing, Mayor Morris, timewise.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: You are doing fine.
g MR. EPSTEIN: I guess it is Page 3.12 and Page 3.10 ,
, the second paragraph. I was a little shocked to learn ---
10 MR. TRAVERS: Which question?
11 MR. EPSTEIN: Question 8. Would the NRC allow GPU 12 to place concreted waste in a trench on site?
I 13 MR. TRAVERS: I am not exactly sure what paragraph
() 14 in the report you are talking about, but let me see if I can is respond generically.
g, We did address the possibility that waste under one alternative might in fact be disposed of.on the site. That 17 18 is a possibility. It would have to be evaluated in the conte:<t j g, of the Commission's regulations which provide for a de minimu.s*
a classification for waste and accordingly the disposition of 21 that waste on site. It is a possibility. We evaluated it in tt the context of its environmental implications. To actually 1
i n implement it, however, a whole other set of evaluations to 24 see whether or not such a proposal might meet the regulations u would be needed.
(2) l .
' ~~
n, -
13f 1- MR. EPSTEIN: So if I interpret what you are saying
.t/
2 correctly, there is a possibility that concreted waste could 3 be buried'on site?
4' MR. TRAVERS: That's right.
5 MR. EPSTEIN: I don't understand what delineates 6 that from being a low level waste site.
7 MR. TRAVERS: That is a good question. What would
. 8 have to happen is an evaluation and NRC finding that the 9 material is no longer low level radioactive waste, but is 10 waste below regulatory concern. That is a quote unquote 11 terminology that is.used in these evaluations. So at that 12 point in time if such a finding could be made, an approval 18 might be given for disposition of the waste on the site.
() 14 MR. EPSTEIN: ,
Moving to Question 7, do any of,your 15 cost breakdowns take into account inflation, regulatory legal 16 delays, logistical delays, et cetera? And, I was wondering 17 how much of a factor economics has come into play in the 18 disposal of the waste?
19 MR. TRAVERS: Our evaluation does not generally 20 take into account these things, for example, inflation, in our >
21 estimate of the amount of money it would cost to carry out l
22 various alternatives, and economics played a rather minor 23 role in our judgment of the siginificance of the alternatives.
24 Basically what we looked at in the context of evaluating cost 88 was whether or not there were very gross differences between O
, 131 1 the cost that would be required to implement different
-n
(_) 2 alternatives. We didn't find that that was the case, and 3 accordingly, we didn't find on that basis that any of the 4 alternatives was extremely better or worse than any of the 5 others.
6 MR. EPSTEIN: Is it safe to say then it wouldn't 7 be economically prohibitive to ship the waste to Nevada or a Washington for those methods of disposal?
9 MR. TRAVERS: We found that to be the case in what to we did.
11 MR. EPSTEIN: I will spare the panel and the crowd 12 just one more question. Question 6, I was wondering, do the 13 maximum dose rates assume that all plant, aquatic and human
(])- 14 life are chemically and radioactively pure before they're is exposed to radioactive emission from the water?
16 MR. TRAVERS: I'm not sure what you mean.
17 MR. EPSTEIN: I mean when you say that a person 18 exposed to X amount of radiation, are you assuming that that ,
19 person has never been exposed to radiation before, eating 20 food or --
1 21 MR. TRAVERS: No. What we have looked at is the 22 incremental risk that could be estimated to be associated with 23 any of the alternatives.
24 MR. EPSTEIN: What do you mean by " incremental risk" ?
M MR. TRAVERS: There is a certain risk that we all face in daily life, whether it is other causes of cancer or
132
'l
.g. whatever. So the estimates are incremental increases to what
() 2 we already face in terms of the risk, for example, from cance c 3 or genetic effects estimated in the report.
4 MR. EPSTEIN: Those are the five questions I had, 5 'and rather than proceed with the other 16, I will wait for a the formal response.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
g Just as a follow up to one of Eric's questions:
9 The on site storage question on low level waste versus not le low level waste, that would be contained if it would be 11 followed through with in concrete?
12 MR. TRAVERS: That is one way it could be contained ,
13 but basically there has to be a finding, and again it is not storage. It is actually disposal.
(]) 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: The reason I am asking about concreto, 16 I believe part of this said even in that method, you end up 17 losing 50 percent of the tritiated water in any event.
Is MR. TRAVERS: Early on. You lose it all eventually.
, 19 THE CHAIRMAN: But very early on, you end up losing 1 20 50 percent by evaporation in any event, so you really end up l 21 holding 50 percent of it in the concrete or whatever it is you 22 hold it in.
23 MR. TRAVERS: What you would bind up is the other 24 material.
25 MR. WALD: I am not necessarily addressing this to the two people at the bar of justice here, but a number of
- . 133 people alluded to the economic factor and the choice of waste n
() ,
disposal being dictated by the economics. I was wondering if I am missing or misinterpreting the table which compares --
Table 5.1 which says that storage in tanks on the site is 4
5 by far the cheapest method of any of the ten that were looked at by the NRC. Am I correct in interpreting it that way?
6 MR. TRAVERS: I think that's right. I think the 7
question I attempted to answer, I may not have done it very well, was whether or not looking at the different costs associated with these ten or so alternatives, whether or not to we could make in the environmental impact statement arena 11 12 a finding that any of the alternatives ought to be considered 13 Preferred on the basis of cost, for example, and what we foun i
-14 in our judgment was that we could not point to one alternativ- a O) 15 because of the cost associated with it and say it was either clearly preferred or clearly not preferred.
16 HE CHAI N : Mat is storage in tanks on she da b 17 18 you are looking at?
- l. g, MR. WALD: Yes. Zero to 1.2 million, which is the -
20 upper figure is still lower than any of the lower figures for 21 any of the other methods by anything from a factor of two to 22 six times lower.
MR. TRAVERS:
23 There are definite differences in 24 cost. For example, river discharge, I think is actually the 25 cheapest way to go.
1 i
L
.g -134- 4 1
-1 MR.'MAZNIK: ' That's not'true.
=V '2 MR.'WALD:' Page 5.2 --
3 MR. TRAVERS: I may be wrong.. In any case, there
^
4 are definite differences in the cost in the alternatives, s and we tried to recognize that in attempting to quantify 4 those costs, but when we looked at them in the context of are 7 there extraordinarily significant differences among them that
)
s would either point that one is having an advantage or 9 disadvantage,.we couldn't make that. .
4 to MR. WALD: What's a few million among friends?
11 MR. TRAVERS: Right.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: River discharge, I think, takes 13 additional treatment and what have you before it can be discharged.
(])
14
, 15 MR. TRAVERS: Right, and that costs money.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think at this point we want to i , 17 thank you, Bill and Eric. I'd like now, if I could, to take 18 time with the panel to determine just how we proceed from here.
19 MR. SMITHGALL: I'd like to ask one other question.
N I guess this is for both Bill and for Frank. I'm curious as i
j 21 to whether or not any preliminary bids have been set out or 22 preliminary contracts let or any materials ordered or procured l
i # by GPU in anticipation of the evaporation process being 24 approved by the NRC?
j 25 MR. STANDERFER: No actions have been taken of that i
l i
. . . 135 4,1
.1 1haracter. ~The only thing we have done is asked for bids to 2 supply this equipment so we can understand the cost and the 3 type of equipment better. No contracts would be pursued unti:L 4 we understand we have an agreement on the option. It wouldn' 5 be valuable -- if we signed the contract without the approval s to dispose of material this way, then we would be subject to 7 costs to break that contract. So we are_just getting the
- a background information we need-so that we understand the s process better.
to MR. SMITHGALL: That's all I have.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: I would really like, if possible, to '
12 hear comment. from the different panel members on how you 13 might like to proceed. We have really two issues since I 14 mentioned-earlier. We have the supplement to the PEIS'. That
(}
! 15 comment is due by the 14th of April, and then we have a i
16 proposal.from GPU regarding evaporation.. It is my under-17 standing from hearing Bill earlier that the NRC will be l 18 giving comment ---the staff will be giving comment to
[ 19 the commissioners sometime in May, recommendation regarding i
20 that particular option sometime in May. It seems to me as a i
21 panel that the commissioners would 'be looking to us to make 22 some comment- in both of those areas, whatever that comment L 23 may be that we would choose to make. I think we need either 1
l 24 to tell them we have no comment or we have some comment or l
25 if we have some comment, what it may be, and we know what the
).
g S. 136 I time framework is on both of them. It sr. ems to me we do need (f another meeting to discuss this, and I would.just like to s spend the rest of the time here determining'just how you 4 might want to go about doing that and what your thoughts are.
5 about it.
6 Does anybody want to start?
7 MR. SMITHGALL: I think it is important that we a convey -- I'm sure the commissioners read these transcripts, s but I think it is important that we convey to them that there to are people in this area that don't want to have another relea se l 11 to their environment locally and that the alternatives that 12 are noted_in Table 5-1, the PEIS'need to be investigated in
.. 13 light of that. Despite the fact that there is at least a J
majority view that the environmental impact might be negligib Le,
{ 14 I-think there is something to*be said for the psychological 15 16 stress aspect of it, the emotional aspect of this water, and l
17 I think we have got to take that into consideration, if we 18 are going to take a position on one of the alternatives over 19 the other, although I don't think we are ultimately going to 20 get to that point, be unanimous on that. I think we have got 21 to convey that to the Commission and to the staff, those H alternatives, move the dispersal of this waste to another 23 site need to be investigated.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Tom, your comments are directed i
2 specifically now at the PEIS?
O
.t,....
137 1- THE CHAIRMAN: They are the kind of comments we V 2 would direct on this document itself and do I -- are you 8 suggesting that we should be asking for a closer look at 4 disposal at an off-site location? Is that what you are saying?
5 MR. SMITHGALL: I am saying we need.to convey the 6
feelings of the people that came forward here today that I
don't want another release to their environment locally.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: So we should convey that thought.
- 8 MR. SMITHGALL: Yes.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: That would really just be a pass 11 through of,what we see as the concern --
. 12 MR. SMITHGALL: I don't know where we.are going 18 with this, other.than the fact that we are just going to
- .O voice our concerns or oginions that we have on this. we are 15 not going to be making a recommendation that we accept one 16 Are we going to just endorse recommendation over-the other?
17 what the staff has done, saying there are ten alternatives 18 arid they are all valuable and let the Commission make their .
19 decision?
20' THE CHAIRMAN: I think we can do just about anything 21 we want. If this panel feels there is one superior way to go, 22 then somebody on the panel should try to put that forward.
88 If the feeling generally would be that we should'not endorse an option as part of the PEIS, but rather just make -- pass 25 along comments we feel we want to make either on behalf of the public or ourselves, I think that is what we should do, too.
[ 138
- P
-g I.think after we are done with the PEIS, we are still faced
~ ,.
( 2 with, I feel, addressing in some form the option the GPU
-3 has offered.-
4 We should make a comment on that specifically, 5 whatever it is we want to make comment on. So I think we 6 need to be commenting on both of those items personally.
. 7 I think we have to.
8 Again, the make-up of the comment is what we need g to discuss. I think we need to be discussing both of those 10 items. That's why we are here.
11 MR. WALD: It seems to me as a minimum that we 12 should be reflecting what we heard at these public meetings.
13 Otherwise, why are we spending Ea e time, and in reflecting
/'T 14 '
t hat, I think Tom let out a. consideration that a number of b ,
15 people have raised proposing being satisfied by the idea of Ig storing the water on the island. I don't think we can leave i
17 that out as a reficction of what we have been hearing, although
, 18 it is not unanimous.
.~
19 MR. SMITHGALL: I stand corrected.
N THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, so one of the things we want 21 to do that is being mentioned here that makes sense is try to 22 in some way, shape or form project what we are hearing from 23 the public. That is one item. Maybe at the conclusion of l
24 this discussion, I may suggest or ask if somebody would like N to try to summarize a couple of main threads. We have had a 1
l l0 l
l l
, m_ . . . .,--m _ , . - . _ . . _ . - _
139
~
v -
-n 2
~
. I couple mentioned. Maybe by the next meeting somebody could i b/ 2 do a draft to hand out what they feel the public's comment-3 has been.
4' Beyond that, what is the pleasure of the panel on-5 our. position? This is the public position is the first item 6 we want to talk about. What do you want to express as our.
7 -position? Do you have any thoughts on'that tonight? Does 8 somebody want to try to bring a comment or a suggestion to the 9 next meeting? I think we need to have some direction to get to ready for the next meeting.
11 MS. MARSHALL: Mayor Morris, two of the-people who 12 spoke in the latter part of the meeting talked about a next
- i. 13 meeting at which they wanted to bring other people who would
() 14 perhaps have some more technical remarks to make'about this.
15 So-I definitely think we should have another meeting and 18 perhaps what we need to bring to the Commission is how different-17 members of the advisory panel feel about this as far as the 18 different alternatives are concerned. I mean we can say that 19 i
two wanted this and three wanted that. I mean it seems to me 20 that would be an honest reflection of how we feel, rather thar.
21
, to just have it pro or con the evaporation.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Elizabeth, what I am trying to do, 23 and I appreciate your comments, I am trying at this point, if 24 it is okay, to first look at what we want to say on the PEIS, 25 which does not really recommend evaporation. It just mentions
140 g
~
1 all of these' options. It basically at this point says that 2 their impact is-such that they would all be acceptable option s, 3 the main.ones.they look at. We want to speak.to those option s 4 first, if in any fashion we-want-to.
1 3 When we are finished with that aspect of the PEIS,
- 6 then I am suggesting that subsequent to-that, we would 7 probably want to comment on the option, - the evaporation optio 1.
. 8 I think we need to do that, and they are really two different ,
8 issues. The last issue is.the option that the licensee has ;
10 chosen to recommend to NRC, and I am sure we need to'
- 11 specifically speak to that.
12 MS. MARSHALL: I definitely feel we should have ,
i 13 another meeting to which people can bring the people they I4 have in mind to speak to the options. ,
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I agree. I think most panel members is would, unless somebody wants to put forward a position 17 tonight. I don't hear anybody doing that. We will need 18 another meeting for sure, and one of the items you are ,
is suggesting is we provide some time for some testimony to be 20 made on behalf of the interest groups that are seeking that 21 '
kind of help.
22 MR. GERUSKY: We have another problem, Mr. Chairman ,
23 That is the dates that we have to comment and the date that 24 l
the Commission has suggested we meet with them. It is two
' 25 days after the comment period is over, and if we are going to l O eu +* ~ w e e-w o e *ew Asae a a w- e me-aa- srwa----
.141
. C' comment to the Commission, we have to do it by mail, not in I
() 2 Person, to get it to meet the deadline, the extended deadline 3 date. So we must put something in writing to the.t group 4 prior. to our meeting with them, and so we have to -- either .
5 do it -- if we are going to comment, we do it tonight, if we 6 have another meeting, but we sure can't wait until just befor e 7 the meeting with the commissioners to make that decision.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I agree. I think we need another 9 meeting. We need it probably by the middle of next month.
to I'm hoping and I think we are going to have to comment in j 11 writing to the NRC, and personally I have a problem with the 12 April 16th date. I have to tell you that now. I know that i s 13 not convenient for me. I am going to be out of town on that
~
{ 14 date. -It is already after the. comment period in any event.
- 15 ER. SMITHGALL
- They're not going to take our 16 comment two days after the deadline?
g7 MR. GERUSKY: There is a difference between the gg formal proceeding and getting the comments in to the EIS, gg the PEIS and our saying something to the commissioners. So
- 20 they are going to make the final decision, but the staff has 21 still got to respond to any comments that the public makes, n including us.
t 23 THE CHAIRMAN: We are going to have a good i
24 opportunity to lobby for our position directly with the 25 commissioners hopefully, but it appears some of that lobby i
C)
._ . _ . - - . . . ~ . - . . - . - . - . _ . . ..
142 g
1 will be after'we have submitted written comment.- We'need to
' v/ 2 not miss the written comment period, which would mean, I-thin:c, 3 a meeting to'take place in March, so that the comments can 7 4 be finalized and sent in within the comment period.
i-5 How about again for the meeting? I am going to be s asking somebody, and I might split this up and ask the 7- different people to do it. I am going to ask somebody to 8 try to draft up a reflection, what they see is the public's 8 ' concern for us to discuss that item as part of that comment, l
10 and then the second item that I'd like to get back to again f
11 is the PEIS position that we want to take. I-am still lookini 12 .for some guidance on that, just what we might want to do'with 13 it. I have heard Elizabeth say she sort of thinks we~should I4- hone'stly try to indicate those options in here that we feel is are best suited for disposal and maybe list several of them.
Is There may be other positions on that. I'm not trying to make 17 a decision tonight. I'm just looking for some kind of 18 direction so we can have an orderly next meeting and not 19 wrestle with it as we are tonight.
20 MR. GERUSKY: The comment that was made concerning 21 the possible witnesses by the various groups to come in and 22 comment, I think if they are going to provide witnesses, we 231 should provide the forum, listen to them and not make our >
24 comment or decision until after we hear those witnesses. So 25 I think it is important to determine one, if it is true that O
l
,+n , w.m,- .,_ . w. :=-- -
: ::: :.. =_ ;a_ - - . :.- .: :. =-_-.: aw.=
143 they do want to present witnesses, who they are, their 3
p)
( 2 credentials and so forth, and maybe even get their quote, testimony or summary of their testimony up front so that we 3
can ask them questions. We ought to'know quickly, because it 4
5 is important as to how we schedule that next. meeting. Three 6
hours from seven to ten on this issue may not be long enough, 7
and it is also getting tired by ten o' clock.
g THE CHAIRMAN: Ken, why don't you go ahead and comment and then I will follow up on what Tom is suggesting gg here and see what the individuals who made this suggestion 11 earlier on about having individuals come and make testimony, 12 when that might happen and whether we can get that testimony 13 early on.
DR. MILLER: Take that first. -
(]) 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: You want me to take that first?
Frances, was it your who made that comment?
16 17 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
l 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you mind coming up here and 19 grabbing the mike for a moment and helping us with that? -
l 20 Frances Skolnick, a household name.
l 21 MS. SKOLNICK: First of all, I want to be sure that 22 I definitely am going to have a forum before I would present
, 23 any names, because I want to be given the forum for our 24 speakers, regardless of who they might be and regardless of 25 what position they perhaps have taken in the past.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think this panel has welcomed any O
I l
t _ _ _ _ .
7 f I and all-speakers and expressions, and we have welcomed them
.. . .2 in all different points of view before,-so I would hope that i- 3 that not be a consideration. I think a' consideration is one, 4 how many you would have, and how much time would be needed I
8 so that we can properly respond to you. We have our constraints l
6 too timewise.' We need to meet the April 14th date. I think
)- 7 you want to meet that day. We do too.
8 MS. SKOLNICK: I would like to think that I could 9 have perhaps say four or five speakers at the maximum, and I 10 could submit a list of speakers to you within two or three 11 days, because what I would need to do tonight is be given the r
12 date and then to call the people whom I would like to come 4
13 ~ and speak here and to see if they can make it on that date. ,
() 14 -THE CHAIRMAN: When you say four or five speakers, is are these individuals that you indicated earlier you would to have given the EIS to, that would study it and then come as '
17 some kind of technical people that would be able to speak to i
18 it? .
19 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes. Some of the people are 20 scientists. I would also like to have some local people come 21 in to speak, some local professors, but some of the people 22 will have to come some distance.
( 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is important for us to 24 have -- we are not necessarily looking for repeat of some of ,
25 the teatimony we have already received. If it is new people O
--#4 & $.pUJ +,.p.... 9 , ya AA ,a._,, h.,,m_., , ,)..__ 4 $~ -,.ep . -._ _.,._,__,.A,,.',.,.-
. , , . !,,.._,, ,#, _ ,-c.y ^ _. g p .-.-w-
Gh]
-- g I coming forward with a different viewpoint or whatever, that's
/~'T
(-) 2 the kind of thing we want as much as information as possible 3 before we get into the discussion.
4 MS. SKOLNICK: Well, I think I would like to bring 5 the people forward who do have a scientific background or 6 do at least have more technical knowledge and perhaps can 7 explain the EIS supplement and the GPU proposal to us in 8 more technical or more laymen's terms and explain some of the 9 technical procedures that we are confronted with.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you looking at a panel kind of 11 presentation or individual p'resentation with that? Would the:r 12 all come up here and speak? Again, I am trying to figure out 13 how much time we are going to need to hear this. What would 14 be the format?
O) u 15 MS. SKOLNICK: I think pretty much the kind of 16 format that you always have, one person comes up and makes a 17 presentation, and it seems to me maybe 20 minutes, 30 minutes 18 for each speaker seems ample, but at the same time I would 19 like to speak to the speakers first to see how long dhey l
- 20 might need.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: If we talk 30 minutes a speaker and 2 say four speakers, we are talking about a two-hour period of 23 time we would need, I guess to do it properly.
24 MS. SKOLNICK: That's fine.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me find out from the panel how l
(2)
L. . _-
146 i
g they want to proceed with that. I think you have given us a i,,)
s, 2 good feeling and we will let you know in a minute whether we 3 can accommodate that. .
4 MR. GERUSKY: Are there others?
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Frances, would you be coordinating a this effort? It would be helpful, I guess I am suggesting, 7 if there are other speakers from other organizations, TMI 8
Alert, for instance, whether they have somebody, whether you g could work with them and come.up with four total for a half to hour each, again we are talking generally now for about a 11 two-hour total period of time, because I don't think we could 12 have four from SVA and four from TMI Alert. We could never is get through.
MS. SKOLNICK: We do work together, that's fine.
(])- 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question? -
16 MR. GERUSKY: Yes.
17-THE CHAIRMAN: What is your pleasure on that? Does
( 18 the panel generally feel we should make sure we accommodate 19 that?
20 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: That's two hours plus question 21 time?
Et THE CHAIRMAN: Personally, truly, I think I am l
23 talking about a half hour total period of time for each 24 person which might be 15, 20 minute presentation, allow us 25 ten minutes or so of ten or 15 minute chance to ask questions ,
i O
- l l
, ,m . -_ ,, , ., . 4 _ - _ . . , . - - - , . - . _ . -.., ,
13 t' We have to have a feeling for when we might begin and then 2 and that process.- I'm talking 30 minutes total for every-
-a thing, for each of'the speakers, two hours total from
'4 beginning to end. Is that okay or is that a problem?.
5 MR. GERUSKY: If we can limit the. meeting to that 2
l- 6 issue, I think it is not a problem, but if we have to get 7 updates from everybody in the process and start two hours or
, 8 an hour and a half late on that issue, we are not going to :
, 9 make it. -
10 THE CHAIRMAN: We will not do that. We may also 11 want to consider maybe for the second and last time having a ,
12 little longer time for the meeting again, because I think a 18 two-hour period for that,a one-hour period for us to come to LO.
~
14 ertes with thines isn't eoine to be enoueh. I gersonativ l j - 18 think we are talking about maybe a four-hour meeting to do it 16 properly. I think an hour is going to go by awfully quickly.
1 17 I would be suggesting maybe we start at six o' clock and go to 18 ten o' clock and maybe have a 15-minute break in between. I
) 19 think we need to conclude it,.and I think everybody seems;to 20 agree with that. Unless you disagree with it, why don't you 21
- plan on proceeding in that fashion? Somebody want to try to i
22 4
suggest a date for the next meeting? We are not done with the 23 general discussion. Let's try to come up with a date.
24
. P.R . ROBINSON: Where is this meeting going to be 25 held?
tO a.+,<~.-.--ww g .. r . ww w .--- -- .,.e.--.,,,,.,m e -_o,ww..,,,w.-- r,%,w-,- _,-,r,,s.,,,,,.,.-, wr, .w_p,-,ww%,--.r--,-ww,.r~,.,m,+-m,--m.-.-, , - - , -
148 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Where would you like it to be held?
2 MR. SMITHGALL: Penn State?
3 MR. ROBIISON: Right.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Pittsburgh is out. Penn Sta:*e is 5 out. Unless you are going to fly us in at your expense. No, O no, no.
7 Lancaster or Harrisburg.
8 Harrisburg would be more convenient MR. ROBINSON,:
9 for me, but I am speaking only for myself.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: How about the rest of the panel 11 members? How do people feel about having the next meeting in 12 Harrisburg? Is that a problem?
13 MS. MARSHALL: That's fine.
I4 THE CHAIRMAN:
From the public standpoint, is there 18 any reaction to that? It looks like we are going to go to 16 Harrisburg for the next meeting. Hearing no comment, 17 Harrisburg it'is going to be. Gordon, make sure you are thero .
18 How about the date?
19 MR. RICE: 24th of March, Tuesday, or 26th, Thursday?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: 24th, which is a Tuesday, of March, 21 or the 26th, which is a Thursday?
22
- . MR. WALD
- I teach on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
j MR. ROBINSON: I can't make either of those.
M f THE CHAIRMAN: How about Wednesday the 25th?
- 25 MR. SMITHGALL
- The week before?
1 O
i
.. r
,- 149
- s; 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I can't make the week before.
G
~/ 2 MR. MAZNIK: We can't either, the week before is I
3 out.
4 THE. CHAIRMAN: How about the Wednesday night, the 5 25th?
6 MR. ROTH: I can't make it.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Who else can't make that? One, two.
8 Can you make it, Gordon?
9 MR. ROBINSON: Let me look. I am quite likely able 10 to make it.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: You.are likely able to make it.
12 Now, we are down to Tom for sure?
13 MR. SMITHGALL: Yes.
14 Are you away or something?
- THE CHAIRMAN:
15 MR. SMITHGALL: Do you want to look at my schedule?
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You can't make it, Tom. Who else 17 said --
! 18 DR. MILLER: The 25th?
i .
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Wednesday, whatever that date is.
20 DR. MILLER: No.
! 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Cannot make it.
22 How about the rest of us?
23 MR. WALD: The technical people?
24 i THE CHAIRMAN: We are missing one technical. Nine 25 out of eleven. If somebody can offer another date that is O
150-W.-
s 1
more acceptable, we can go with it, but I doubt we are going
( J' 2 to do much better than that Wednesday night.
3 MS. MARSHALL: Do we ever do it on a Monday night, 4 Monday the 23rd?
5 MR. ROTH: No.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Two'nos.
y MR. ROTH: Tie.
8
.THE CHAIRMAN:- Wednesday is going to win it, becausa
, that was the first one that came up really. If Monday would go , be better, we'd switch it. It looks like the next meeting 11 will be Wednesday, November -- March 25th.
12 We still have several things to discuss. We are is. just cleaning up some of the items as.far as timewise and date. The time of the next panel meeting will be. six p.m.
(]). 14 Is' We will expect it will probably run close to ten p.m., with a gg short. break on March 25th. It will be in Harrisburg, gy providing we can get the room. If we cannot get the room at 18 the Holiday, we will have it here in Lancaster, but I assume g, we can get the room. They like the business.
j 20 The commissioner meeting, Mike, I have to tell you 21 at this point, I don't have my schedule with me. I have 22 absolutely no idea when it would personally suit me. April I
i 23 16th, I know I can't make it on that day. If the rest of the
, 24 panel would say that is 'a good date for them, I would just l
l 25 end up missing it and say let's accommodate the majority, but
151
~
1 if that is a problem with them, I'd have to say I'd have to h 2 double check my schedule. You may have to call around.
3 MR. MAZNIK: Can we take a vote-on the 16th?
4 THE~ CHAIRMAN: How do you react to April 16th?
5 MR. MAZNIK: It would be approximately 11:30 in'the
. 6 morning, the same as we have in the past.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I can't make it, I know that.
. g DR. MILLER: Are you asking who can't make it?
g THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are asking who can and who 10 can't make it.
11 DR. MILLER: Who are you asking?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Who can make it on the 16th of April?
i 13 That's nine. .I would say go ahead with the meeting ,
1 14 I would ask Joel to chair it on behalf of the panel. .
15 MR. MAZNIK: What is your avail -- I guess you don' :
l 16 know.
i 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I know for sure -- what day of the 18 week is that?
19 MR. WALD: Thursday.
20 MR. SMITHGALL: Are you out of town or something?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am. I am really out of town 22 that day.
i l 23 MR. WALD: Washington?
i
! 24 THE CHAIRMAN: No, not in Washington.
25 So April 16th, approximately 11 a.m. is what you l
a 152 T
1 are talking about. You will communicate --
/:
k 2 MR. MAZNIK: Eleven a.m.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: You will communicate the details.
4 MR. LEUTZELSCHWAB: I have a question about that.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Now the panel is starting to crumble .
6 We are now down to eight people who say they can make it. I 7 still feel that it is fine if that is a strong eight. If any -
8 body else is questionable, we are going to have to question 9 that date. Everybody else is solid on that?
10 MR. ROBINSON: Well, --
11 MR. GERUSKY: It is two months away.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: It is the day before the Easter week -
13 end. Now we are starting to get problems. I am trying to
() 14 get a reaction. If you have a problem with it, let's say it 15 and we can talk on the phone and try to set up another date.
16 MR. SMITHGALL: Why don't you do that?
17 MR. GERUSKY: The calendar is open. It's tough to I
i 18 say that I'm going to be there if the governor says not to. .
i 19 THE CHAIRMAN: For the record, it is tentatively 20 set for the 16th. I think we need to confirm it with the 21 panel members in the next couple weeks.
22 I am not looking to whether governor tells us we 23 I am looking for how likely it is that you can can't go.
24 I understand those things.
make it.
" Would somebody be willing to volunteer to take a O
l
153
'b.
1 shot at what they feel would be the reaction from .the public I
. that we received at this point? I still feel that we can 3
at least generate some of that information for the meeting, 4
even though we are going to get further input from technical.
5 people. I still feel it would be helpful for somebody to take a shot at putting down their reflections and to get it 7
to us, even if it is just at the meeting for us to use as a talking --
9 MR. ROTH: Yes.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Will you do that?
11 MR. ROTH: Yes.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Joel.
13 The suggestion on the second part of the PEIS 14 4
f}
's -
really, I think, was Tom Gerusky was not to further discuss 15 that at this meeting, but wait until we get the testimony and - i.
16 then decide what position we want to take; is that right?
17 MR. GERUSKY: Yes. If we are going to hear expert witnesses, I think we are wasting our time, because if we have .
l 19 to take into consideration what they say.
20 j THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask you just before i 21 I
we adjourn here, because I think everybody is getting a little
?
n itchy, ready to go, the evaporation process, we will need to 23 comment on that. When do you expect us to deliberate on that 24
[
- item unto itself? Are you going to try to do that as part of l 25 the next meeting, the two-hour session?
l l
+
o-
-154
- )
1 MR. SMITHGALL: Never have time.
_.s 2 THE CHAIRMAN: No way.
3 MR. GERUSKY: It is true they can't be separated, 4 but you can't do it in that time frame. I don't want to 5- suggest another longer meeting.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: That's finc, but then we are going 7 to call us back into a meeting in April sometime or early 8 May in order to comment. This is the time. These are two s big issues we have been waiting for for years now, and we have 10 got to spend the time in order to address them. It is just 11 a matter of when are we going to do it? Do we want to elongate
> 12 that meeting --
13 MR. GERUSKY: This is on the license application
(~
14 request, right, amendment request?
~
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
16 MR. GERUSKY: What is the time? Has that been 17 published? Is there a time, comment period of that yet?
18 MR. TRAVERS: As I mentioned earliar, we intend to
! 19 publish at the final environmental -- I know I am not N addressing licensing. Let me start with this. Publish a 21 final environmental impact statement in May, and at the same 22 time send down a Commission recommendation on GPU's proposal.
23 When the Commission approves or disapproves, assume they 24 approve GPU's proposal, then and only then would we complete 3 action on the licensing. The preliminary notice that we are l
O l
l l
_ _ n. .- -
~
- 155 1 considering a change to the license will go out in a matter
-([ 2 of weeks. So your Eime is quite short to get your views on 3 evaporation, in my view, to the Commission.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: So it still comes back that we need
-s to comment on the PEIS before the 14th.of' April, and on th'e a evaporation before the first week in May, and we can try to 7 do that all in one meeting at the next meeting or we can set a up another meeting to do the evaporation end of it in April, 9 and I am just looking again for direction on that.
10 MR. GERUSKY: Do it all at one meeting.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Do it all in one meeting?
12 MR.-'WALD: It seems to me the experts, I don't want 18 to prejudge, but I assume they would be talking about evapora -
14 tion largely. Am I wrong?
(])
15 MS. SKOLNICK: I'd like to think they'd discuss all is the options and maybe even other options that haven't been 17 discussed at the meetings.
18 -THE CHAIRMAN: Well, okay. We will set on the agenda 19 both items. They will show up in some way, shape or form on 20 the agenda. We may have to be prepared to run a little later 21 that night. It could happen. I don't want to run to midnigh t 22 as we have done on a couple of occasions, but it will be 23 expected to be a long meeting. Once we have dealt with it, 24 we would have dealt with two of the major issues that we
" expect to come before us, and we have been expecting it for a 0
156 74 m
- 1 couple years.
p V' 2 I think that really concludes what we need to a discuss'here tonight, unless, Mike, you got another item?
4 MR. MAZNIK: One final comment: 'I think you may.
5 have mentioned it that we might try to get. prepared statement s 8 from the peoplo that are going to provide testimony here 7 next time. If that is possible, I would ask that'those come a to me and I would make the distribution to the panel.
9 MS. SKOLNICK: You mean prior to them speaking?
10 MR. MAZNIK: Yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: If at all possible, we would find it 12 very helpful as panel members to receive that information 13 prior to the meeting, because it gives us a chance to review
()
14 it and really.be much better in listening closely to what 38 they have to say, based on items we have read earlier. If 18 you can't do it, you can't do it. I think it is more effective.
17 If it can be done, if you can get them to Mike, he can get them 18 to the rest of us. ,
18 MR. MAZNIK: I will talk to you.
20 MS. SKOLNICK: Okay.
21
- THE CHAIRMAN
- It is really for the panel's use and 22 nobody else's use, unless the speakers want other people to 4
23 4
have it, and it would go to Mike and then to us and strictly 8' for our preparation.
l 25 I don't want and I have heard Tom say this, we are l
O
~
157
'h
-1 not looking at a panel for any of the presentation,tany up-Il date. We are going to'go right into this issue, and this is
(/ 2 3
all we are -going to be discussing.
4 Is there anything else that anybody wanted to bring
. up at this time?
6 Hearing none. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
7 MR. LUETZELSCHWAB: So moved.
g .THE CHAIRMAN: We stand adjourned. Thank you very
, much for coming. We look forward to seeing you on the 25th to of March.
11 (Whereupon the proceedings were concluded at 9:05 p .m.)
12 13
~
14 -
i.
I I
16
! 17 18 l .
20 l 21 22 i
23 24 2s l
'~
ft ,
.-):
-("X. CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
- - (f 2 This is-to certify that the attache'd proceedings
'8 b'efore the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY, PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINA-TION OF THREE MILE-IS W D, UNIT 2 6
7 DOCKET NO.: NONE 8
PLACE: LANCASTER, PA.
DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1987 g
5 ,,
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 13 Regulatory Commission.
)
- l. m bbAin Roxanne Weaver
)fhlA 18 [611yG."Rh6dds g, Official Reporters y Reporters' Affiliation 21 Monick Stenographic Service, Inc.
1413 Old Mill Road 22 Wyomissing, PA 19610 23 TELEPHONE: (215) 375-3931 24 25 O
l Departm:nt of En:rgy l
Washington, DC 20585 February ll,1987 Mr. E. E. Kintner Executive Vice President GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interspace Parkway '
i Parsippany, NJ 07054 ~
L 4
Dear Mr. Kintner:
This is in regard to your request of November 20, 1986, for an allocation of low-level waste disposal volume, for the TMI-2 reactor plant, under Section 5(c) 5 of Public Law 99-240, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy >
j AmendmentsActof1985(theAct).
Your letter to Mr. William R. Voigt. Jr., specifically requested our
- " ... agreement in principle that, on the basis of NRC approval and (your) minimizing the total extra requirement, a special allotment under
- Section5(c)5oftheActisappropriateinthiscase." We agree that processing of the radioactive water is an " unusual" activity under the Act.
The Department is currently in the process of developing critaria and procedures for implementing its responsibilities under Section 5(c) '5) of
- the Act. This process includes solicitation of comments concerning
- " Unusual Volumes" from interested parties pursuant to Federal Register j Notice of Inquiry. A copy of the Federal Register notice, dated January 26, 1987, is enclosed. Until this process is complete, the i Department is considering requests on a case-by-case basis.
It should be noted that the Act provides a basic reactor allocation for a 4-year transition period of January 1,1986, through December 31, 1992.
- These basic allocations are available on the first day of the respective period or 16 months after receipt of a full power operating license, whichever occurs later. GPU Nuclear is allocated 41,808 cubic feet for its TMI Unit 2 reactor during this 4-year transition period. This allocation is available for disposal of waste from processing of the accident water,
, and GPU Nuclear should calculate based on past generation rates and any other pertinent factors, how the basic reactor allocation would be used and j how much of this allocation is available for disposing of the subject I
i l
lO 1
1 l
-gwmv- ewy _w qmmmy -mmc'wm-
2 waste If this analysis over the 4-year transition period still results in O an "un. usual" volume of low-level waste in excess of the basic allocation that must be disposed at a commercially operated low-level waste site, then your petition is approved. However, we are restricting the amount of waste eligible for this allocation at no greater than 46,000 cubic feet and request that you continue to maintain efforts to keep the volume required to a minimum.
The Department does not influence actual disposal operations at any of the three commercially operated disposal sites. Therefore, once the " unusual volume" of waste has been generated, GPU Nuclear is free to seek the disposal capacity required from one of the disposal site operators, as applicable, and we request that you advise us of the amounts and locations of the waste disposed.
Questions concerning this action may be directed to Mr. Jeff Smiley of my staff,~(301)353-4216, or Mr. S. T. Hinschberger of the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office at (208) 526-1288.
Sincerely, W W "-
ames W. Vaughan. Jr.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary O- for Nuclear Energy Enclosure cc:
Mr. P. R. Clark President GPU Nuclear Corporation J
l O
- J.nu.ry at,1M7 -
O .
J
. 9- -
g
- g . . .
Part 11 .
O -
Department of Energy .-
. H QNE Ch. N .
.. - - w.4 magery n.e.rens p.none ser anoe. son W DI.Posal C.peelty Ser tow 4mel .
we.te Runn utmy unusualer e o ,.r.nne m .i 2amaa ***
- iae*r.
.. . . f- ,
1 7 t * . * -
. . . s .- .
.. . t,.~...*. . .
, . . ..a.....,......
...g. . .
..-..,4..~. .
. .'...4'. . - ..
- d . h*, 's.
e . .. . . ..
. t*
O... . .
~ .
. . .. . _ ~ . . . . . . . . .
4 t !
. . t I
% .. 39W
$ Register / Vol sa, No.1N/ uanalay, January at 19e7 / Proposed Rules -- needy -
lHSY development af newEW disposal $ne aEsostlene arebased a whether Nby -
a seacteris a PWR er EWR and es
- ' *s .8besitties .
' by ' acostas
- States and essepad . . - whetheritleloestedla a state er B of the Act setlines the -
esmpact regles with a commerciaEy '
) volume auseatione available to -
. Eteddisposalsite. Higher ;nebh senastwo as 7.yearinteita tiene are useded serswn a W 8er access perled. the F.yearlateria hensees l
eachbeste genereHy produce 'stion. A H3EMFIJnusul aseees period, the ettee maylimit asere sermaloperations then reseters Ing and the vehene of EW tedfor ,ywn.EWuma.The heels aEscrties alma takes le b depenalW e totalof alDios sable late sessunt volume reasellen ever the for the
- air-We'3"m"e"an'et"et:!':1"feR,Seet
' **= 3,F,, , ,a,d , , vt,L Carollas:
sy-84 mIDies whic Ase
'F- ,,,,g g,y.,,,g,g,g , ,,,,,,,,g , , ,
eag a set g
'. the red Id E F". crg:ddisposalespeestyatthe' te,, aste
':' .a :'2'issi.C:!*'"a."tp 1%me eBesadens wiu generaRy requise =
- d
" :' M* " Ler lay Amendmente tee en averegnolane reduados of am),tgs, estes,op to alimit et12J minios shie feet Ier aI seesters ever the F. gear appredmetely foreD reester toseat peudens. IFPee ever the F.yearlateria m .
des W apse , laterta sooses period.1he 7.7 r milues subleled of disposalse le some peded, .These ear Section 8(cM1)provides thatsoeb
[spo F,1.18es og ge,, for the other genersters of EW WI the11.9 miules abiclostsammmetal analserpowerreactorlicensed to p(EWHa to aposte atIsE powershaR resolve the ierster .
y t stility eBosetles, eneh reacter unit la esity as ag.g loset [ge.d oth ausented ender sentim 3(c)a speelSe , leHowtag monthly alloestion, divided geeney of disposalespeelt late 4 year and 8 yearlaennents over Wm "- ille year latute assess period. y .'ever enF the f-yedlateria assoas perled eter attery p'revletene '
e history E i aue ==== sees seewesen esas p' g=t
.e an.
seek -llrll',N. -
. '""'*' . a - re: ~ ar.= .o: - am: %""' ,,
,. . , n .
= -
=:: m:: . :: ::: .
ga .
. eW"' -
. mand .
Ipereensam . .. .
m momentela %e 4. year tenettle periodis set aallwitise, kt tble raged, seellea 8(c)(5), eopgens DIelbeFI- perted I 1. tsee, and. "UnsosalVehmen, psevideo: es.
,;l:r=,re,=lllc ',*";e -
'"va'm*.n'd e
mgy,Washmgan. ll2ll's .redse a =hanieg,"'l2 sseedopted.TheMeerIIeenslagperiodis m s anelser senseer.ausaste to ensk ensue! ' -
- tat perted beslaming faamery 1.1950, seasser secesstr b emesse of the it the !
visa sessvasvr and endtas Deeember 31.1s88, la whieb emant ind ender poeepesh t11if abs isgoet men hIn .- ' to liesseing process for new EW Soesteeg gode and aesten h witueshis Oydem I, asement depenalteamtles wtB he tattleted, sensees er se endies that mekles addniemel re that it of Diersy. Fwpareees of alcale to . . ansessty evedeels der east rosesor theesh a s(301/sabette), espeelty 8" 8"'8'I*
- 8"I"'"4 *'P"*" """*' . embedt a
]OGips of . euroeste ameest of avenable to a commanialamolear ! ", ,,,,g","'8""""d
ute ashlagtes DC[ aanbar me e&uses puoment h naviam
"" with t5eteth month bted mesi,'iJoe an,owenpare.g - me,e would resulttto = smaus s e inste i isesi elof e.enseleses,TerTs,(Al How es. ever. t at keenes. .. r . seesessee weste er weeld sesus la to total nativities. (
af the Esentsen made poenaet to ele ,etitles Its sety alleestiene esere based og
,es twtavat andesel everage for opersdag abnemen enesediastussen enhas het Ito plan ,
it ^ ^te ete,s.1t anesson met 8 ** **** **'ue seer ** sets es**" -
men i (he Aet seGeet weste that may be assereted
- 8""8 . notbe of havunnimeed , .Ileen earta,ta.ethe,r "imeenal",,or,,,,,,, g,,,,
,,,,,e ,g Th A,et oe d.g,s met deans
,,g,ggg,,,gg
,,,,,,,g,,_ _
, __o whot . ,
,,deg g,,ree,
,,g .
Osap - ,aF. year i anosa- or weste ,re sed apara. .s. eties, n. neemaintomassa, committee es, orts repelt er safety a, d -
- gle,i,ge, g .ees M" manual" provided er "meapeshd" Ier additiemal tames!e .tbet roasters regelstas etessa 14 provide L Washington ,.- . 2 needete Demabw 08"0"'
tiheeen tnedtoeneandamenstgame" -
- ' "' ** I ** .s.meesse Cassens hoop.Itseed er ' 8.
'r Optles ithe tatorem
- *"o** sh" la =h As hierten g,, .
'"e'a*us"a'f l'Imm es seemmel egenal ensnam'h et ,. a 8 g W'7 ese s"o'm one"seen ase
P hT' MTruCf85, No.15Tweasey January a, usrT
. the005 would emerstee jedyneetin . u,W ==W plan and velsom evalesting petitions seald depend ta esmbialns the other above options. %e reductie end(d) projected seem extent on the demand for DOEbinterestedla cornment sa thsee volume tionrequirements duetag aBocation opass.For eaample,if and other feasible options for areepting the 7 yearinterim access od. -
aBoostion requirements appear eniform petitions under section s(cXs). . De thee at whink peti would be. ever the F.yearlaurts assess petod.
e embaltted for semeldersties by DOE . then the planned schedule option for e would depend sa which optione for - partion of the avaGable volume to be DOE believes that eartain auesstles are altimatelyavadable.. ausested each yearwould appear tio ormed E A ssis/en O d enle .".',, appropr$4W E"me.n. .% and toi. d =f ,.% .e = ,. m uenei -
us.e .
of tofeastsct:(b)sa onenum errneofreacter meet be assured theee le a ased for .
utility Isias for aHocation:(c) an suocation.He DOE is laterested la . De M autorhed to de description weste [ . volume weste receivlag comuments as the decisions ce a coseb.cate basis,but form. activt'y)(d) need the DOE may elect to publish rules, aHoostion: dects!"* criteria that'should be . lacludirig tfti needla evalus' cedures and (a) activity esocrating the waste; and (f) tica. . .
preliminary cri ing consideredby eriteria. be appli din making certiscelloa that the waste does not oorstitme a health or safety hasard and the DOE far evaluating applications ase: decialens.De DOE ests comments the number of oppJ eations; the type of - as lawhether a rulems should be that th3 utiDty has not petitioned the NRC for Emergency Access for the activity whkA genetsted tiu wasta: the' sen @ ed. .
wasts.To allow for Bezibility in eensequenses of denialof the . Insand te weehlasten.nz en Denianhar managing the allocation process, tise appucatism, e g. salsty, regalatory. . 35,18E8. .
DOEla oonalderlag forincluelon thw economis, other management aptions WilEmm E.Valgt,St. -
foHowina dise.retionary fatorrnasan: ) avsflebte M the tftiense(long term Airesear.C$erWAsmode/Acuesand Other tttflity manaaement options: . storage, dis under the basic stuity trasas Techasher.Cffhw #hEwrip hopects of dental of an or portions o the aHoc.none ets.): and wuste volume PE Dee.e-tems Fileds-as.or:eds esj voquest(c)descriptionof theutility's f seduction pertprmed. The enteria for , sums sees meneos,
= . *- i l-
=
.I .. . .
., . ;. .a ....
....s.:
. , . . . c . .. . . . . ..: s . , , - ~... '.t.>.<~...- t
. . . . . .. t e t. . . r' ::. , .+.. * -
.: ... ........,.....-e -
...,,,,g.~ ,- .
.u .s -
. . . . . . .. s. , . .,nn. . ..
s -
..... s.. -
F*:.
- M * *:
- a. ,
3.. . .j. . .
~ -
1 s .
. ;.. *l. . . . .
O. -
s l
LANCASTER ENVIR'ONMENkAL
~4 i KCTION- FEDERATION P.O. BOX.11452 LANCASTER, PA 17603
- PHONE - (717) 569-6900 O
LEAF STATEMENT ON T.M.I. WASTE WATER The Lancaster Environmental Action Federation (LEAF) has taken the following position on the Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion's proposal for the disposal of Three Mile Island waste water:
- 1. The evaporation of the radioactive tritium waste water over Lancaster County is totally unacceptable.
- 2. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision on this problem
_O - is gremeeure, etace ene 11aet suemeier oc coatemiaetea weter eaa the exact nature of the contaminants are NOT known.
- 3. This problem does not demand an immediate solution; therefore, we recommend a more thorough study of this complex issue.
- 4. Costs must not dictate the final solution for disposal of these materials. ,
- 5. All decisions relative to the disposal of the various components of the the TMI waste water must respect the integrity of the existing ecosystem and do nothing to endanger it.
O
.j * .
GPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear =co = ~
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057-0191 717 944 7621 .
TELEX 84 2306 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
(717) M 8-8461 4410-87-L-0018 Docunent ID 0068P February 3, 1987 Document Control Desk US Nuclear Regulatory Comission W:shington, DC 20555
Dear Sirs:
Three Mile Island Nuclear. Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2)
O '
' Operating License No. OPR-73 Docket No. 50-320 Disposal of Processed Water Attached for your information are results of analyses performed for GPU Nuclear by These l the Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division Analytical Laboratories.
analyses were performed as part of the waste stream classification requirements of i
10 CFR Part 61. They provide additional information regarding the radionuclide content of selected processed water streams at THI-2. This data was not available prior to publication of Draft Supplement 2 to the Programatic Environmental Impact Statement - Three Mile Island Unit 2 (PEIS).
The data provided in the attachment is representative of the radionuclide inventory of TMI-2 water which has undergone processing. In acccrdance scith our &ly 1986 proposal for the disposal of TMI-2 water by the evaporation process, this water would not be reprocessed prior to evaporation. Therefore, these data are representative of the influent stream to the evaporation system and are provided fcr your consideration in that context. Similar data is not reported by Westinghouse for tritiun (H-3) since an analysis for tritium was not performed.
The data reported in our 11y 1986 proposal for the " Disposal of TMI-2 Water" remains valid. .
Sincerely, , ,
" ' " S'" ' "
O F. R. Standerfer Director, TMI-2 GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Pubile Utilities Corporation
February 3 L >/
i DEumentCuitrelDesk 4410-87-L-0018
/32/eml ttachment ces Regional Aeninistrator - Region 1, Dr. T. E. Murley Director - THI-2 Cleanup Project Directorate, Dr. W. D. Travers O .
I l
G O .
l n---- ,n-_,,,-,y,._-,v,,,w-g.,, , , . . _ , , _n,-,- . - , , - ,
ATTAOSIDIT 4410-87-L-0018 hr.silNGHOUSE ADVAKFD ENERGY SYSTEMS DIVISION ANALYSES O CCT-1 CCT-2 PitST-1 PNST-2
~
85-15995 85-16198 85-10962 85-11240 12/23/85 09/26/85 12/20/83 09/18/85 86-2009 86-2010 86-2007 86-2008 25 uC1/mi 25 25 uC1/e1 25 uC1/ml uC1/mi
< 1.0E-7 1.8E-7 5.2E-8
-Co-60 1.2E-7 8.4E-8 < 4.5E-8 < 1.1E-7
< 1.2E-7 < 2.3E-7 Ag-110m < 3.6E-7 < 2.7E-7 3.4E-7 1.1E-7 Sb-125 < 3.3E-7 < 1.1E-7 < 5.2E-7
< 5.3E-7 < 9.8E-7 Ru-106 < 1.1E-6 2.4E-7 8.1E-8 2.1 E-7 4.4t-8 3.2E-7 1.2E-7 1.2E-7 4.5E-8 9.9E-8 Cs-134 7.6E-8 6.4E-6 2.2E-7 4.8E-6 6.5E-6 2.5E-7 2.8E-6 < 2.8E-7 Cs-137 < 5.7E-7
< 7.8E-7 < 3.0E-7 2.1E-5 2.9E-7 Co-144 1.8E-7 3.6E-8 7.9E-6 1.8E-7 Sr-90 9.0E-6 1.8E-7 < 5.9E-7
< 5.3E-7 < 6.2E-7 I-129 < 4.8E-7 8.4E-7 6.5E-7 < 5.6E-7 N1-63 < 5.4E-7 < 5.2E-7 < 2.5E-7 l < 2.7E-7 9.9E-7 3.2E-7 Tc-99 < 2.6E-7 5.1E-5 6.2E-6 3.0E-4 1.1E-5 i
1.4E-4 9.8E-6 1.1E-4 1.1E-5 C-14 < 1.6E-8 < 1.5E-8 U-234 < 1.1E-8 < 1.4E-8 < 8.7E-9
< 6.9E-9 < 1.2E-8
< 1.2E-8 < 1.2E-8 238 < 1.1E-7 < 1.4E-8 < 1.2E-8 239/240 < 3.7E-8 < 1.3E-8 <'1.1E-8
< 1.2E-8 < 1.2E-8 241 < 4.6E-8 < 6.3E-8 < 6.1E-8 On-242 < 1.1E-7 < 8.6E-8 < 8.6E-9
< 1.0E-8 < 1.1E-8 On-243/244 < 2.0E-8 O
GPU Nuclear Corpor6 tion y Post Office Box 480 n anI Mw 5 Route 441 South Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 0191 717 944 7821 O- TELEX 84 2306 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
(717) 948-8400 4000-87-5-059 Document ID 0023P February 20, 1987 Mr. Arthur E. Morris Chairman, The Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island Unit 2 P.O. Box 1559 Lancaster, PA 17603
Dear Chairman Morris:
Subject:
Disposal of Processed Water l
Attached for your information is a copy of a letter we have sent to the PRC Oprovidiaoaeditioastiaformatioaithresaecttoeneradiochemistryofthe TMI-2 Processed Water. We will be prepared to discuss this information with you in datail at the upcoming Advisory Panel Meeting on February 26, 1987.
. Sine rel ,
F. R. Standerfer Dirnetor, TMI-2 .
FRS/eml Attachment cc: Advisory Panel Ment)ers O
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Pubtle Utilities Corporation
r- -..,
poet omeo esaano NUCIS8F -
Route 441 Soutti esemeio.m penneyevenianos74tet messaart .
- ?
. ...- m so ases wreser's perset Deel Number:
(717) 948-844 e
4410-87-L-0023
! Document ID 006F
- February 18, 1987 l
l .
l US RJclear Regulatory Commission
- Attn
- Dociment control Desk t Washin0 ton, DC 20555
Dear Sirs:
1hree Mile Island Maclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2)
I d '
CDerating License No. OPR-73
!U Docket No. 5 4320
( Disposal of Processed Water l
l I
1he purpose of this letter is to provide you the results of M m l st THI-2.
which As discussed in CPU RJclear letter 4410 46-L-0114 dated 3J1y 31,1986,in i
requested fetc approval for disposal of processed water at TNI-2 certaSpecIfically,tha .
i
' radionuclides will be present in the evaporator effluent. submittal strontium-90, and cesi M 7.
l
' IPU MJclear letter 441487-L-0018 dated February 3,1987, forsorded the Advanced results of analyses performed for R Maclear by theThat Wes ttal provided j Energy Systems Division Analytical Laboratories.
addit;ional information regarding the radionuclide content of selectedBeca -
processed unter streses at TMI-2. W Maclear undertook a comprehensive that was review ofnotthepreviously radionuclides av="potent
=hle,ially present in the processed unter and, submittal, may
' 8msed on um disposal scenario described in the .3J1y 31,1986 De a constituent of the evaporator influent.
l
!O, seu messeer carpereuen as a subsknary et the seneret pubile unsiues carperesson
j Duissent centrol Osak ~ Appg 4ggg.g e- ' .
As part of this review, W'U Melant developed a list of particulate 14% (see attachment) based on the follouing criteria.
y ~.:: ,- '
- 1. , Radionuclides specifica11y identifliid in 10 IFR PartA.
1 i 2. Greater than 0.15 of the core isotopic content, on a curie basis, eight (8) years following the TMI-2 Accident as determined by the
! (RIEN computer code.
- 3. Greater then 0.15 of the core transuranic inventory, on a curie basis.
l
- 4. Reactor Coolant System activation products of practical interest as identified by the Babcock and WilcoK Water Chemistry annuel.
l Additionally, the attactment provides an asemed average concentration of each total curie radionuclide potentially present in the evaporator influent (i.e.,by the total i content of the radionuclides in the various unter sources (*ividedIn developin volune of processed unter).
limits of detection (LLD) or the actual measured activities for the radionuclides listed. The activity of radior=rties for which no data were -
available were estimated by various nears. For avampia, the europium, senarium, and promethius values more based on a ratio betmeen the core isotopic ratios given by (RIEN and the known LLD of On-144. This provides a nav4== activity which could be present in the presence of no greater than LLD '
activity of De-144. This is a reasonable approach since these alaments are
-all rare earths and are chemically similar. It should be noted that the Actual Cconcentrationslistedonthetableareavera0sconcentrations. concen W'u 14Aclear conducted a Using the radionuclide concentratione listed,ite offei:ts of these camparative evaluation of the @b.'Ja1 off-sradionuclides, relative to Sr-from the ingestion pathway or summation of all pathways as avail references.
cnalysis since its contribution to an individual's total dose is severalAs noted in Sect orders of magnitude less then the ingestion pathway.suhaittal, Sr-90 uns used a of our .3J1y 31,1986 assessment since it la the most radia1aaia=11y signif'. cant radier=rti*.
l' Besed on the above assessment, the @b.tial impact of each radionuclide was derived by multiplying the known or calculated activity or the LLD listed on the attactunent by pathway dose conversion factors f.'on the TMI-2 Off-site Dose ,
Calculation Manuel or the Total Does Omenitment welt es from EPRI DP obtain en indication of the relative lapact of the twtope (see Attactunent). '
Based on this review, three (3) additional isotopes ears identified for uhich I the off-site does contribution exceedsHowever, 15 of the off-alte values listeddose fme can only beSr-90.
These isotopes are C-14, Tc-PP, and I-129. l considered an indication of the order of magnitude of the relative tapect.
The difference in critical orgen for the various radionuclides makes direct addition of the ratios incorrect. For example, although I-129 is estimated to O .
(
e
,,,-m,-,,-,-,,----,--,,--,-,n,-,----,---,_.-_w
have an approximate impact W 195 when compared to Sr-90, it does not in that the dose to the individual sould increase by 195; the critical argen dose calculated for Sr-90 is applied to the - bone whereas the does from 2129 um to the thyroid. .
With the exception of the w i=1 case of I-12P, as note herein are sufficiently low to ensurw that the environmental impact at those concentrations would be insignificant (i.e., less than 35 of the relative contribution from St-90). '
Considering the potential contribution of these three additional rediterths to off-site dose resulting from disposal of the M -2 processed water by evaporation, (PU MJclear ~
A has concluded that the off-site and the potential ispect to the P mtion and the environment remain insignificant.
of finalization of the PEIS, will ansport this conclusion.
Sincerely,
/s/ F. R. Standerfer F. R. Standerfor Director,THI-2
- FRS/331/eml m cc: Regional Administrator - Region 1, Dr. T. E. MurleyDirector - T U
e
!O
~~ - - ~.- _ ___,,_, ._ " " " " - - ' - - - - --.-.y ,, __
l AVERAGE' CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIOES 4 f- NTENTIALLY PRESENT IN TMI-2 NATER FOR EVAPORATION Relative Off-site Dose
~ Impact c = ared to tr-90 O
Radionuclides concentration (utils1) ~
1.3 E-1 d.01 2 5-3 0.50 3 C-14
- 1.0 E-4 d.01 lin-54 <4.0 E-4 d.01 Fe-55 4.8 E-7 1 d.01 C&58 <4.0 E-8 d.01 C>50 4.8 E-7 d.01 N1-53 <6.0 E-7 <0.01 2n-65 <f.8 E-8 1.00 Sr-90/Y-90 1.1 E-4 0.20 Tc-99 1.0 E-6 <0.01 Ru-106/Rh-106 <3.3 E-7 .
d.01 Ag-110M <5.5 E-8 <0.01 1
Sb-125/To-125m 3.3 E-6 0.194 i
I-129 <6.0 E-7 d.01 i
Cs-134 8.8 E-7 d.01 Cs-137/Sa-137m 3.5 E-5 d.01 l <2.1 E-7 l Co-144/Pr-144
<4.8 E-6 1 d.01
! Pa-147
<1.1 E-7 1 d.01 5>151
<3.8 E-10 1 d.01 Eu-152
<4.4 E-8 1 d.01
- Eu-154 <0.01 Eu-155 <1.1 E-7 1 <0.01 O U-234 U-235
<1.0 E-3
<1.2 E-8
<0.01
<0.01 U-238 <1.2 E <0.01 Pu-238 <1.2 E-8 <0.01 Pu-239 <1.4 E-8 <0.01 Pu-240 <1.4 E-8 <0.01 Pu-241 <6.5 E-7 1 d.01 An-241 <1.2 E-8 <0.01 On-242 <1.0 E-7 1 Calculated concentration N-3 ratto 1s based on food pathway.
Since tritium is present in a 2 As total H-3 aseous form,it also has a inhalation pathway constituent. submittal, it was n fspectwasevaluatedintheJuly31,1986 evaluated here.
If 3
Ratto listed is for C-14 ff present in a carbonate or organic form.
C-14 is present as a. dissolved gas (e.g.. Cog), the ratio would be '-
d.01.
4 The relative off-site dose impact compared to Sr-90 listed for I-129 assumes maximum value.
it is present at LLD (f.e. 6.0 E-7); therefore. 0.191s a O be less than this value.
5 < asans less then. .
e
-,ww -.e----.w,
O TMI-2 PROCESSED WATER DISPOSAL GPUN PRESENTATION TO NRC ADVISORY PANEL FEBRUARY 26, 1987 LANCASTER, PA O -
i F. R. STANDERFER, DIRECTOR K. J. HOFSTETTER, PLANT CHEMISTRY i W. J. COOPER, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS C. S. URLAND, WASTE MANAGEMENT O
b STATUS THI-2 PROCESSED WATER DISPOSAL GPUN RECOMMENDATI0fl Ofl WATER DISPOSAL JULY 31, 1986 SENT TO THE NRC GPUN BRIEFED THE ADVISORY PANEL 0?l AUGUST 13, 1986 WATER DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATI0fl NRC ISSUED DRAFT EIS ON WATER DECEMBER 1986 DISPOSAL OPTIONS .
JANUARY 21, 1987 C ADVISORY PANEL MEETING ON WATER DISPOSAL DOE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL LLW VOLUME FEBRUARY 11, 1987 ALLOCATION 1
GPUN PROVIDED flRC MORE DETAILED FEBRUARY 3 & 18, 1987 RADI0 CHEMICAL INFORMATION F. R. STANDERFER 2/26/87
ACCIDENT WATER (PROJECTION)
(])
VOLUME 2.100.000 GALLONS TRITIUM 1020 CI Cs-137 0.03 TO 0.3 CI SR-90 0.08 TO 0.9 CI C-14 0.03 TO 0.8 CI O -
- OTHER ISOTOPES LESS THAN 0.1 CI i
SODIUM BORATE 161 TONS f
.~
t l.
O F. R. STANDERFER 2/26/87
bRATION O e-z os O WATER VAP F
li HEAT APPLIED 2 100' BADIATION CARRYOVER MONITOR MONITOR SAMPLE 4 C C
= ,
Jt SANLE VAPOR /
11W TO a BURIAL m srE FEEEL h 3-20 gpa '_ E V
SAWLE A SDS e > R EPICOR II -
A 4 HEAT APPLIED e -
f
. SAMPLE a
SOLIDIFIED co m m e a WASTE TO LLW BURIAL
! ACCIDENT WATER PURIFICATION EVAPORATION BOTTOMS l WATER SYSTEM SOLIDIFICATION
O x
EVAPORATOR CARRYOVER TRITIUM 100%
F f
a
- PARTICULATES 1% (ASSUMED FOR AllALYSES) l 0.01 TO 0.1% (EXPECTED PERFORMAllCE) 2 .
i O.
l, l
i-l
\
l
!O F. R. STANDERFER 2/26/87
PROCESSED WATER VOLUMES JANUARY 1, 1986-
- 1) WATER ALREADY PURIFIED
- PROCESSED WATER STORAGE TANK #1 109.000 PROCESSED WATER STORAGE TANK #2 480.000 CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK 102,000 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK 459.000 9 MISCELLANE0US SMALL TANKS 50,000 L SUBTOTAL 1,200,000 GALLONS l
l 2) WATER REQUIRING PURIFICATION
- i i
REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM 67,000 43,000
- lQ REACTOR BUILDING BASEMENT WATER SPENT FUEL POOL B (SDS) 242,000 i FUEL TRANSFER CANAL 59.000 i SPENT FUEL POOL A 205,000 7 MISCELLANEOUS SMALL TANKS 92.000 l
! SUB TOTAL 708.000 GALLONS ,
1/1/86 SUB TOTAL 1,908.000 GALL 0flS
- 3) ADDITIONAL WATER TO OCTOBER 1988 150,000 TO 400,000 GALLONS i
! TOTAL VOLUME OF WATER FOR DISPOSAL 2 TO 2.3 MILLION GALLONS i
i
- O F. R. STANDERFER 2/26/87
WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM
.- . . . . . . . . . S. DS IMPURE WATER :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PURIFIED WATER L L w :
- w
- ..:. i: :. :::ij. :. . .: ,i;i;;;:::.::.
i::- .::iii.:!:.::::!::::::.::i:::i i :i!!:i.!::iDidOR'IIi!!!::ii
- j:::*::-l.:...a..:.:.:..:.:j;..:j::- ; :.-
- iii:::i:::i:::::!!:!:,ii::i:::::i-!
- .:.:. . ::.. ::.i. : .: :: .
i 1 .
l 0.00003 to 2 pCi/ml '
0.00001 pCi/ml' 90 r Sr v i
i .
i 0.000004 to 5 pCi/ml 0.000004 pCi/ml&
& 137 v Cs -
1, 0.000001 pCi/ml Typical Less than 0.00000001 pCi/ml
& i i &
i 4
- Actinides -
i 4
l 0.13 pCi/ml 0.13 pCi/mlm Tritium ,
. . _ - - - - _.- . _ , _ _ _ . - - . . . _ , - . _ _ . , . , ~ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
m ESTIMATED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN TMI-2 WATER FOR EVAPORATION RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATION yCi/ml TRITIUM 0.13 CAR 8ON 14 0.0001 MANGANESE 54 LESS THAN 0.00000004 IRON 55 0.00000048 COBALT 58 LESS THAN 0.00000004 COBALT 60 0.00000048 NICKEL 63 LESS THAN 0.0000006 ZINC 65 LESS THAN 0.000000098
^ '
STRONTIUM 90/ YTTRIUM 90 0.00011 TECHNETIUM 99 0.000001' RUTHENIUM 106/ RHODIUM 106 LESS THAN 0.00000033 SILVER 110m LESS THAN 0.000000056 ANTIMONY 125/ TELLURIUM 125m 0.0000023 IODINE 129 LESS THAN 0.0000006 CESIUM 134 - 0.00000088 CESIUM 137/ BARIUM 137m ' O.000036 CERIUM 144/PRASE0DYMIUM 144 LESS THAN 0.00000021 PROMETHIUM 147 LESS THAN 0.0000048
{
SAMARIUM 151' LESS THAN 0.00000011 i EUROPIUM 152 LESS THAN 0.00000000038 EUROPIUM 154 LESS THAN 0.000000044 ,-
EUROPIUM 155 LESS THAN 0.00000011 URANIUM 234 LESS THAN 0.00000001 ,
URANIUM 235 LESS THAN 0.000000012 URANIUM 238 LESS THAN 0.000000012 PLUT0NIUM 238 LESS THAN 0.000000012 PLUT0NIUM 239 LESS THAN 0.000000014 PLUT0NIUM 240 LESS THAN 0.000000014 PLUT0NIUM 241 LESS THAN 0.00000065 AMERICIUM 241 LESS THAN 0.000000012 CURIUM 242 LESS THAN 0.0000001
-O F. R. STANDERFER 02/26/87
RELATIVE IMPACT OF RADIONUCLIDES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN TMI-2 WATER FOR EVAPORATION U- RADIONUCLIDE IMPACT RELATIVE TO STRONTIUM 90 TRITIUM CARBON 14 ** TO 0.5 MANGANESE 54 IRON 55 COBALT 58 COBALT 60 NICKEL' 63 ZINC 65 STRONTIUM 90/ YTTRIUM 90 1.0 TECHNETIUM 99 0.2 I **
RUTHENIUM 106/ RHODIUM 106 SILVER 110m ANTIMONY 125/ TELLURIUM 125m IODINE 129 ** TO 0.2 j CESIUM 134
.b CESIUM 137/ BARIUM 137m CERIUM 144/PRASE00YMIUM 144 PROMETHIUM 147 SAMARIUM 151 EUROPIUM 152 EUROPIUM 154
. EUROPIUM 155 URANIUM 234 URANIUM 235 URANIUM 238 PLUT0NIUM 238 1
PLUTONIUM 239 PLUTONIUM 240 **
j PLUTONIUM 241 AMERICIUM 241
, CURIUM 242 O' ** LESS THAN 0.01 F. R. STANDERFER 2/26/87
g EVAPORATION OF THE PROCESSED WATER RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE TO THE PUBLIC TOTAL 50 YEAR DOSE COMMITMENT MAXIMUM BONE 0.4 TO 4 MREM HYPOTHETICAL INDIVIDUAL TOTAL BODY 1.0 TO 2.0 MREM AVERAGE MEMBER B0NE 0.002 TO 0.02 MREM 0F THE PUBLIC TOTAL BODY 0.01 MREM ,
EXPOSURE FROM -
NATURAL BACKGROUND TOTAL BODY 5000 MREM l
l I
i i
O F. R. STANDERFER 2/26/87
. . - _ _ . - _ _ - _ - _ - _ . - . - . - . . . - - - - - .- . ~ . . . . - . . - . -
p , . - q
^
g,s f
u-
- . - . _ _.n. -
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR MATERIAL TO THE ADVISORY PANEL-FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 I Chairman Zech H-1149 Commissioner Roberts H-1149 Commissioner Asselstine H-1149 Commissioner Bernthal H-1149 Comissioner Carr H-1149 H. R. Denton, NRR- P-428 PANE L
W.-D. Travers (5 copies) TMI Site Mail Pouch P.O. Box 268 M. Masnik' P-320 Middletown, PA 17057 J. R. Hall P-320 F. Congel 244 Mr. Frank D. Davis
'J. Zerbe .
~H-1013 200 Gettysburg Pike M. Libarkin, ACRS H-1016 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 -
T. Major H-1016 J. Fouchard MNB-3709 Ms. Beverly Hess , TMI-PIRC R. Browning, NMS$ SS-623 1037 Maclay Street Docket File 50-320 016 Harrisburg, PA 17103 PDR 016 LPDR 016 Mr. Edward Charles DCS 016 90 Nittany Drive F. Miraglia P-202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Director Mr. John H. Murdoch Power Plant Siting Program 44 Kensington Drive Department of Natural Recources Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tawes Building B-3 Annapolis, MD 21401 TMI Alert - c/o Kay Pickering 315 Peffer Street Ms. Ruth Gentle Harrisburg, PA 17102 1 Virginia Circle Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dr. Frank Parker School of Engineering
\
Susquehanna Valley Alliance Nashville, TN 37203 M \g$
P. O. Box 1012 y Lancaster, PA 17604 ' Ms. Michelle Voso Society of Nuclear Medicine Dr. Sid Langer P.O. Box 1625 475 Park Avenue, South New York, NY 10016 j-@p**
Idaho Falls, ID 83415 F Mr. Dave Janes Mr. E.E. Kintner Analysis and Support Division Executive Vice President U.S. Environmental Protection Agency General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. 401M. Street,SW(ANR-461) 100 Interpace Parkway Washington, DC 20640 Parsippany, NJ 07054 ?
Mr. Kenneth L Miller, Director Division of Health Physics and '
Associate Professor of Radiology Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Pennsylvania State University Hershev, PA 17033
- 1
[
2 .
. 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. Willis Bixby Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director U.S. Department of Energy Bureau of RadiatiDn Protection P.O. Box 88 Dept. of Environmental Resources Middletown, PA 17057 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. F.R. Standerfer Director Three Mile Island Unit 2 Elizabeth Marshall.
GPU Nuclear Corporetion 736 Florida Avenue P.O. Box 480 York, PA 17404 Middletown, PA 17057 Mr. Thomas Smithgall Mr. J.J. Byrne 212? Marietta Avenue Three Mile Island Unit 2 Lancester, PA 17603 GPU Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 480 Niel Wald, M.D.
Middletown, PA 17057 Professor and Chairman .
Department of Radiation Health The Honorable Arthur E. Morris University of Pittsburg Mayor of Lancaster A512 Crabtree Hall P.O. Box 1559 Pittsburgh, PA 15261 120 N. Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17605 Dr. Gordon Robinson Associate Professor of Mr. John Minnich Nuclear Engineering Dauphin County Connissioners 231 Sackett Building P.O. Box 1295 University Park, PA 16802 120 N. Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Jim Detjen Philadelphia Inquirer Dr. Henry Waper 400 N. Broad Street Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene Philadelphia, PA 19101 615 N Wolfe Street Room 2001 Dr. William Kirk Baltimore, MD 21205 Environmental Protection Agency TMI-2 Field Station '
Mr. Ford Knight 100 Brown Street Westinghouse Electric Corp. Middletown, PA 17057 P.O. Box 286 Madison, PA 15663 Mrs. Ann Trunk 143 Race Street .
Frederick S. Rice Middletown, PA 17057 Cheiman, Dauphin County Comm.
P.O. Box 1295 Mr. Joel Roth Harrisburg, PA 17108 RD 1 Box 411 Halifax, PA 17032 Mr. Glenn Hoenes Pacific Northwest Laboratory P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352
L,..
Ms. Leslie Klein Pro-Women c/o Judy Branett Intelligencer Journal 320 Elm Court 8 West King Street Middletown, PA 17057 Lancaster, PA 17603 Joyce Corradi Marjorie and Norman Aamodt f
Concerned Mothers and Women on TMI 180 Bear Cub Road 2 South Missley Drive P.O. Box 652 ~
Middletown, PA'17057 Lake Placid, NY 12946 Mr. Joseph DiNunno Francine Taylor 44 Carriage Lane 151 Hamilton Rd.
Annapolis, MD 21401 Lancaster, PA 17603 Mr. Ad Crable Jane Lee Lancaster New Era 183 Valley Rd.
8 W. King Street Etters, PA 17319 Lancaster, PA 17603 Pepper. Hamilton and Sheets Dr. Frederick J. Shon l
P.O. Box 1181 Administrative Judge l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pane PA 17108 Harrisburg, June U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Debbie Washington, D.C. 20555 Rep. Alan Kukovich US Environmental Prot. Agency House of Representatives Region !!! Office Harrisburg, PA 17101 ATTN: Els Coordinator Debra Davenprot CurtisBuilding(SixthFloor) l 1802 Market Street 6th and Walnut Streets Camp Hill, PA 17011 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dr. Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief- Mr. John W. Crawford Jr.
Radiological Protection Branch 11405 Famland Dr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consiission Rockyfile, MD 20852 i Region !
631 Park Avenue l King of Prussia, PA 19406 1
Ms. Mary Osborn 4951 Highland Street l Swatara, PA 17111 Robert L. Vree Box 72 Middletown, PA 17057 l
John Kahler, Director Chesapeake Division Clean Water Action Project
- j. 2500 N. Charles Street i
Baltimore, MD 21218 i
L