ML19224B704
| ML19224B704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1979 |
| From: | Eilperin S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906200399 | |
| Download: ML19224B704 (5) | |
Text
.
', A.
y)3[r f &CD
.f
.,+jy "c g,
umrtb s:4Tes
[ A,gy'[p.,,-
, g.
wAcamGTON, D. C. 20555 f4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COf.'J.HSStoN D
(
d/~'
Y's.s 37 May 23, 1979 b
-jffd
.+
MEMORAI."DUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie s
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy CoLaissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne
/
FROM:
Stephen F. Ellperin, S11 hor SUEJECT:
_ CITY OF LANCASTER V. @
As I told you yesterday, the City of Lancaster has sued the Coc-mission in District Court here in Washington seeking an injunc-tion against the construct $ un of a new water. decontamination facility at TMI and against
~
water into the Susquehanna River.the dumping of any more decontaminated to sketch briefly the relevant facts,The purpose of this paper is to recommend a course of 2ction whic'2 describe your options and I believe will at least significantly improve our position and perhaps make. settlement of-the lawsuit easier.
for Thursday, May 24, 1979,A briefing on the suit has been scheduled be present and Dick Vollmer or Brian Grimes will help evaluate alternatives.to provide a fuller description of the facts and to Eackground As we understand the gallons of significantly radioactive contaminated water at the
- facility, the spillover to the auv.111ary building, including water in the TM Leakage from the primary coolant now in various holding tanks.
system continues to add to the containment water at a rate of about 1500 gallons a day.
Also at came from normal operations at Unitthe site is normal industrial waste wa 1 that has been slightly contaminated by leakage from Unit 2.
The TMI facility.has an Epicor I water decontamination systam that has.been and is being used to treat the slightly contaminated uater which is then dis-charged in the river.
All dumping to date has been less ' ath in mits for normal operation andvolume and in level of activity than the operat the discharge levels have been well under those permitted by 10 CFR Part 20.
CCNTACTS:
E.
Leo Slaggie Stephen S. Ostrach X-43224
?
J i Y7 I
m s
-7906200397
(
(%Lsmn ??M
The nr;nission 2
May 23, 1979 The rm 'e highly contaminated water can be divided into three activi y categories.
There are approximately 50 to 100 thousand gallons of water with an activity level of 1-2 microcuries per stored in tanks in the auxiliary building (" intermediate cc.
level waste water").
There are several hundred thousand gallons of water with an, activity level of approximately 30-50 microcuries per ec. sloshing around in the containment.
Finally, there is perhaps 100 thousand_ gallons of primary coolant water still in the core which is at a level of perhaps 200 microcuries per cc.
For convenience we shall refer to these latter two categories of highly contaminated water as "high level waste water."
No definite plan for treating the high level waste water has yet been made.
At the present time staff and the licensee are dis-cussing how the 30 and 200 microcurie water should be decon-taminated.
Apparently there is no insurmountable technical difficulty in decontaminating that water, but it is an unpre-cedented task that will require considerable planning and no decontamination of that waste is expected for some six months.
Ben Rusche is in charge of the licensee's decontamination pro-Staff and the licensee have had several meetings with the gram.
public, including representatives of Lancaster, and have already agreed to several actions to allay public concern.
With regard to the intermediate level waste water now stored in the auxiliary building, Metropolitan Edison, with staff's approval, is currently constructing an Epicor II water decontamination system.
After treatment 'in Epicor II the water will be at the same activity level as w during normal operation.cger routinely discht rged in the river There will be tanks attached to the Epicor II facility ? hat can hold the water treated fron one weak of its operation.
No formal environmental impact appraisal for this intermediate level water treatment has been prepared.
The City of Lancaster is seeking an injunction against any fur-ther dumping of water and also against any further construction of the Epicor II facility.
Its two main contentions are that IEPA reouires an EIS before the Cotnission aan approve, in whole or in part, a progran for decontamination of the water at TMI and also that the Commission's regulations prohibit constructing the Epicor II facility until af ter a new construction permit has been obtained after an adjudicatory hearing.
20C
<70 IJ lJC V
2 This level of activity is apparently somewhat lower than the activity in the river water, but the isotopic distribution is different.
s W
The 'Ccm a.is s ion 0
3 1979['0.['i May 23 J)
' d/
Op_tions and Recommendation
/q0 Your two main options now aref'-
_ g,'
A, J
k'- v' 1
Take no action, leaving staff and applicant to deal with the question as now planned
' free to continue
(,
y.
,, /
y.
2.
Make some effort to reach a comoromise.
preparation of an Environmental' Impact AppraisalYou could order a simpler document than a full EIS)
(which is and discharge of the high and intermediate waste waterand order that proc authorized until the EIA hes been completed and reviewed b not be the Commission.2,/ 1 y
Our recommendation is the second option and our impression is We have that they would not spoken with NRR ment to perform an EIA on water. decontamination and disposalbe opposed that they believe to take action upon it would not presentthat the time necessary and menti and such a docu-complications to their current
.any significant efforts at TMI.
We believe that NRR would prefer however that once construction of Epicor II isthe licensee be permitted to beg d econ t.ami na t i o n,
The difficulty with this completed.
the Epicor II unit, course is.that once it the contamination of.
' irreversible environmental impactcommences operation,.may involve an and generation of additional waste) which should first be a(such ~as occ in an EIA.
ssessed
?.l 295 139 There are variations within the scope of example, you could also decide whether to allow construction this option.
For to continue on Epicor II -- it is virtually completed
- hether to allow Epicor II to decontaminate and store som
- or of the 1 microcurie water.
commitment Furthermore, e
jou could make a dumping.
to notify the public before any resu.ption of
issit 4
May 23, 1979 attach ' a draft statement which would implement the ption c.d could be used in making a representation to t as to the Commission's plans, nt:
Statement Y (2)
(2)
/
T*
295 140
STATEMENT The connission has directed it: staff to prepare an Environmantal Impact Appraisal (EIA) regarding proposals to decontaminate and discharge radicactive waste water fron the TMI facility.
The EIA may be divided into two portions, dealing re-spectively with intermediate level waste water and with high level waste waterp Pending completion of that portion of the EIA dealing with intermediate level waste water and briefing of the Comaission by the staff, decontamination or discharge of such water shall not be authorized.
Pending completion of the entire EIA and briefing of the Com:aission by the staff, no treatment or dis-charge of high level waste water shall be penaitted.
However, nothing herein shall preclude the staff from authorizing measures deened necessary to cope with an emergency.
The staff shall infonn the Commission promptly regarding its estimated schedule for completing the intermediate level portion of the EIA and for completing the critire appraisal.
Discharge of waste water decontaminated by the existing EPICOR-I decontamination system and discharge of incustrial waste water nay continue, as consistent with the facility operating licenses.
295 141
.