ML19322D942

Summarizes Comments Made at 800215 Meeting in Baltimore,Md Re TMI EIS Outline.Outline Does Not Provide Sufficient Examination of Several Important Factors,Including Limits of Responsibility & Authority in Regular & Emergency Efforts

ML19322D942
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/18/1980
From:	Kriemelmeyer H KRIEMLMEYER, H.
To:	Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
810218, NUDOCS 8003110550
Download: ML19322D942 (3)

Text

.

~

RRY KRIEMELMEYER, JR.

Registered Professional Engineer 6

ROUTE 2, BOX 44 WALDORF, MARYLAND 20601 Day: (301) 454-4906 Home: (301) 372 8766 February 18, 1980 Daniel R. Muller Acting Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Dr. Muller:

This will set forth in writing the short comments I made at the Baltimore meeting on the TMI Environmental Impact Statement outline on February 15, 1980.

I expressed my opinion that such a Statement presents the framework for and the justification of important decisions for the necessary clean-up at TMI Unit 2, with a considered minimum effect on the environment. Since a work plan will be the final output of this effort, it is important for the State-ment to examine the various parameters of that effort. )

i Upon examination of the outline dated January 10, 1980 enclosed with the i I

February 1,1980 letter, I am concerned that there ues not appear to be suf-ficient examination of the following important factors:

Responsibility and Authority - of NRC, of the utility Limits of Responsibility and Authority - Under conforming (regular) efforts.

Under emergency (unpredicted) ef forts.

Methods of Measurement and monitoring of those measurements (of all site effluents moving off-site)

Joo control, Supervision, back-up Specification of training and skills of key people, of other technical people Identification of key people and incumbents (for both NRC & Utility)

I would be most happy to discuss this further with your. I am after a Statement which has some predictable enablement, not simply one which chooses among alternatives for specific reasons.

Very truly yours, \h L

HK:sg d cGi4Lliv]" w/

lbrry Kriemelmeyer h(

g cc: Dr. S. Iong

- 800s13g ggo g

~. a i G80 TENTATIVE OUTLINE FOR TMI-2 PROGRAMMATIC EIS l .

l

SUMMARY

g, i

i TABLE OF CONTENTS hTNd p a - ..

.J '

l. INTRODUCTION hM 1 N 1.1 A q.,f Lt" 1.2 THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT AND ITS HISTORY, THE MARCH 1979 INCIDENT, EVENTS SINCE THEN AND THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE PLANT 1.3

SUMMARY

OF THE LICENSEE'S OBJECTIVES, PROPOSED ACTIONS,- AND SCHEDULE 1.4 ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

2. OESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE MAJOR ALTERNATIVES 2.1 N0 ACTION.

2.2 PARTIAL DECONTAMINATION TO THE LEVELS AT WHICH SOME TYPES OF D MISSIONING CAN BE UNDERTAKEN (M0THBALLING, ETC.)

2.3 DECONTAMINATION TO A LEVEL WHICH WOULD PERMIT EITHER RECONSTRUC OR DECOMMISSIONING 2.4 SHORT-TERM STORAGE OF SOLID WASTES ON SITE AND LATER SHIPMENT T REPOSITORIES 2.5 LONG-TERM STORAGE OF SOLID WASTES ON SITE .

3.

THE POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED 3.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE (WITH ILLUSTRATIONS) ,

3.2 DEMOGRAPHY, LAND USE, AND OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ' '

3.3 WATER USE AND HYDROLOGY 3.4 GEOLOGY (IF NECESSARY) 3.5 METEOROLOGY 3.6 ECOLOGY

+

>hN ptw gwe ,

phy '

cgo

,' .T

s. .

JAIJ 10 D90

4. POST-ACCIDENT ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS 4.1 MAINTENANCE OF THE REACTOR IN SAFE CONDITION 4.1.1 OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS 4.1.2 MONITORING OF REACTOR AND CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY 4.1.3 DECAY HEAT REMOVAL 4.1.4 EFFLUENTS AND RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT 4.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 4.1.5.1 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND EFFECTS 4.1.5.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS 4.1.5.3 0FF-SITE EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS 4.1.5.4 NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 4.2 DECONTAMINATION OF THE AUXILIARY AND FUEL HANDLING BUILDINGS 4 .~ 2 .1 DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS TO DATE AND STATUS OF THOSE TO BE COMPLETED ~

4.2.2 . METHODS USED AND REASONS FOR THEIR SELECTION IF ALTERNATIVES WERE CONSIDERED.

4.2.3 ASSOCIATED PROCESSING / HANDLING FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED (IF ANY) 4.2.4 EFFLUENTS AND RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT 4.2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 4.2.5.1 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND EFFECTS 4.2.5.2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS 4.2.5.3 0FF-SITE EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS 4.2.5.4 NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 4.3 CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WATER IN THE AUXILIARY BUILDING 4.

3.1 DESCRIPTION

OF EFFORTS TO DATE AND STATUS OF THOSE TO BE COMPLETED 4.3.2 METHODS USED AND REASONS FOR THEIR SELECTION IF ALTERNATIVES WERE CONSIDERED

~

\

l