ML19322D889
| ML19322D889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1980 |
| From: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Herman A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003100012 | |
| Download: ML19322D889 (2) | |
Text
-
s DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File FEB 2 71983 NRR Reading AADEP Reading NRC PDR Docket No. 50-320 NSIC DMuller Ms. Alice A. Heman RVollmer R. D. #5 WRegan York, Pennsylvania 17402 DSells PLeech
Dear Ms. Heman:
0 Lynch Thank you for your letter of January 24, 1980, concerning the program for decontamination of TMI-2. Through letters such as yours, and through my attendance at several public meetings in the TMI area regarding the decon-tamination program, I can assure you that I have become very aware and sensitive to the concerns of the local populace.
The NRC staff is in the initial stages of preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) covering all aspects of decontamination of the THI-2 facility and disposal of the resulting wastes.
During preparation of the EIS, the staff will carefully consider all reasonable alternatives for each step of the decontamination and disposal process, including treatment and/or disposition of the radioactive krypton in the reactor containment building and the water that has undergone decontamination treatmeat on site. These alternatives will be fully discussed in the EIS, along with an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Accordingly, the EIS will serve both to infom the public of the overall impacts of the entire cleanup operation, and to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Comission with a thorough evaluation of the options available for each step of the process, so that they can make informed decisions regarding approval of plans proposed by the licensee. The primary consideration in any decision will be protection.of the health and safety of the public.
There is no intent to release liquid wastes from the TMI-2 facility to the environment prior to issuance of the EIS. With respect to the radioactive krypton in the containment building, Met-Ed has requested permission to purge the gases in containment into the atmosphere under carefully controlled conditions. Ilowever, as stated by the NRC in their May 25 statement on the EPICOR-II environmental assessment, and reaffimed in their policy statement on the programatic EIS of November 21, any action of this kind will not be taken until it has undergone a thorough environmental review, with opportunity for public coment provided. Such a review may take the fom of a special assessment such as was done for the EPICOR-II system operation, in addition to being included as a part of the overall evaluation in the EIS.
In any case, alternatives will be fully discussed and considered and protection of the health and safety of the public will be a prime concern.
A orncE) suRNwE >............
......... #100fG44 u7-
...1 c.:......
J o^tE)
........a.,.
3 0]ERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:197_ h89-369 ( M ~ ; 'l' ' M k e 9
Mo..RM 318 [9 -76)[N j QQ US 240
Ms. Alice A. Ilerman FEB 2 71980 You will be furnished a copy of the draft EIS when it is issued, with the hope that you will provide us with any connents you may have en the steps involved in removal of radioactivity from the facility and ultimate disposition of this radioactivity.
Sincerely, Original signcd by 3V. E. Kreger.
D niel R. Muller, Deputy Director
./ >
Division of Site Safety and j
Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
HRC Policy Statements dtd 5/25/79 and 11/21/79 i
_ \\
OrriCE >..DsE:AAD Tf p po.rt,'
, DSh(D,$,h,,
.R. 1.ier........ m u er....
SeRN 4..W. E.
Oare >.. 2.g2,g.ol,,,,,2d. /80 L2/p]/80 t,,,,,,,,;,
j 4
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEi1979 289-369 ;
' * > ;3 MLV -
- l Nhc FORM 318,(9y6)'NRCM 0240],
i SiliUni D
~
~% staff is dire:ted to prepare an Enviror Er.tal I.uetrent regarding
- g
- : ls to decontarirate and di: pose of raFc yctively centeein:ted wa:te
- c :)
watcr from the Three foile Isla a facility.
The Assessment will be divided into several portions.
The first. portion of the /.ssessNnt will deal with the prcposed decontamination of intermediate-level waste water using the EPICOR-Il system at TMI.
The Assesstent should include discussion of potential risks to ths public health and safety, including occupational exposu. es and the risk of accidental releases, and a discussion of alternatives to the EPICOR-II system.
Pending corpletion of this portion of the Assessment and opportunity for public com ent, the staff should direct the licensee not to operate the EPICOR-II syste..
Testing of the EPICOR-II system without using contaminated waste ray probeed.
Except for discharge of waste water decontaminated by the existing EPICOR-I decontamination systeN and discharge of indust' rial waste water 2/ as consistent with the facility operatino licenses, no discharge of waste water shall be perni'tted until completion of a second portion of the Assessment dealing with any such proposed discharges.
This portion shall in-clude a discussion of alternatives to discharge into the Susquehanna River.
The decontamination and disposal of high-level waste water will be the subject of a subsequent Assesscent.
However, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may authorize measures deemed necessary to cope with an f ('
,e2
}
-1/
Primarily pre-accident waste water from Unit 1 which has been partially contaminated by water from Unit 2, with an activity level of less than 1 nicrocurie per cc. prior to treatment and with an activity level approxi-cately 10-7 microcuries per cc. in the discharge canal after treatment.
-2/
Paste water siightly contaminated (aporoximately 10-7 nicrocuries per cc.)
due to leakage from secondary plant service support systems.
The discharge of this industrial waste water is necessary to maintain Till Unit 2 in a safe condition.
OIO41*
R$4 d
M J%ip$$ E' A
y /.
g 4g gg
I i
(~ erg nty.
If tFe Dire: tor of tM Of fi:e of 1,'.:.. :r Reactor Regula tion be-lieves the public health and safety requires t$.e t e cf *he EFICOR-II system, prior to cor.pletion of the first portion of tt.e Ir rt r=cr.t, he d,all so rcport to the Cc mission and the Conc.ission may then pcr.it use of the system.
The staff should inform the Cc=.ission promptly regarding its estimated schedule for corpleti:
each portion of the Assessment and for corpleting the entire As s es sr.en t.
For the Cornission 1
2J.t3' h
SAffJEL J. (,HILK Secretary of thd Cor:nission Dated at 1.'ashirgton, DC, p
this 25 day of DV:] 1979.
^
D li l'1 (b o
)
h y-G773Il Federal Rep,ister / Vol. 44. No. 229 / Tuesday. November 27,1979 / h d '. Ni S!atement of Poticy and Notice of The development of a programmatic intent To Prepare a Programmatic l
impact statement will not preclude Environmenta!!mp:ct Statement pr mpt Comrmssion action when needed. *Ihe Commission does Actkcy: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
recognize, however, that as with its Epicar ll approval action, any action AcTic N: Statement cf Policy.
taken in the absence of an overall suwAny:The Nuc! car Regulatory impact statement willlead to arguments Commission has decided to preparc a that there has been an inadequate pro;rammatic environmental impact ens ronmental analysis, even where the statement on the decontamination and Commission's action' itselfis supported disposal of radioactive wastes resulting by an environmental assessment. As in frem the h! arch 23.1979 accident at settling upon the scope of the I
programmatic impact statement. CEQ Three hhte Island Unit 2. f or some t:.me the Commission s staff has been moving can lend assistance here. For example should the Commission before l
jn this direction. In the Commission's
)
judgment an overal! study of the comp!cting its programmatic statement
. decontamination and d:,sposal process decide that it is in the bcst intercSt of wdl assist the Commission in carrying the public health and safety to decontaminate the high !cvel waste cut its regulatory responsibditics under !
watcr now in the containment building.
the Atomic Enerry Act to protect the or to purge that building ofits k
pub!ic health and safety as decontamination progresses. It will als j radioactive gases, the Commission will i
be in keeping with the purposes of the consider CEQ's advice as to the dational Enviro...acntal Policy Act t Commission's NEPA responsibilities.
I enga;e the pubhc m the Commission s hforeover, as sta!cd in the Commission's decision makin: process, and to focus hlay 25 statement, any action of this on cavironmentalissues and kind will not be taken untilit has
~ '
alternatives before commitments t undergone an environmental review, specific claan,up choices are made.
and furthermore with opportunity for public comment provided.
Acationi!!y. in light of th?
Ilowever, consistent with our May 25 eeraordinary nature cf this action and the expressed interest of the president s }
Statement. we reccanize that there may Councd en Environmental Quality in the be emergency situations. not now foreseen, which should they occur TMI-2 c!can up, the Comnussion mtends would require rapid action. To the to co-crc:nate its action with CEQ. In l
particu!ar. before determining the scope cxtent practicable the Commission will of the programmatic environmental consult with CEQ in these situations as well*
l he Commission wm with the help of the puMic's, tend to l c s t t.
em The Commission recognizes that there nts n urpr p s is we m ssurg, pursuant to MA and the are still areas of uncertainty regarding i
At micynergy Act
[
TM!-2 is donc cons @istently with theat th c!can-up of the c!can-up operation. For example, the r precise condition of the reacter core is not known at this time and cannot be public health and safety, and with
]
known untd the containment has been awareness of the choices ahead. We are
' entered and the reactor sessel has been directing our staff to mclude in the crened. For this reason. it is unrealistic i
pr gramm tic environmentalimpact to expect that the pro;rammatic impact statement on the decontammation and statement will serve as a blueprint.
i disposal of TMI-2 wastes an overall detailing each and every step to be d scription of the planned activitics and taken over the coming months and years a schedule for their completion along with their hkely impacts. That the with a discussion of alternatives p'anned programmatic statement c nsidered and the rationale for choices inevitably will have gaps and w !! not be-made. % c are also directing our staff to a complete guide for a!! fature actions keep us ads tsed of their progress in does not invalidate its usefulness as a I
m maucts.
plar.ning tool. As more infortnation Dated at Washington. D.C. this 2:st day of becomes available it wdl be Nosember m9.
incorporated into the decision-making process. and where appropriate for !!.c Commission.
SLpplements to the programmatic environmental impact statement will be Samuel J. CLHk, Issued. As the decontamination of TMI-SecretaryofMc Commission.
2 pregresses the Commission will make I""" * " "" " "I any new information availab!c to the public and to the extent necessary will I
&lso prepare separate environmental statements or assessments for indigidual portions of the overall c!can-up effort.
?
~ * '
- 'A~"
~J-ddhl m