ML20031B129
| ML20031B129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1981 |
| From: | Bernard Grenier Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031B128 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-2366-1 20-81-451, NUDOCS 8109300208 | |
| Download: ML20031B129 (8) | |
Text
.
NRC FORM 173 U S NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMM13SION ORDE R NUMBE R (2-78) 20-81-451 STANDARD ORDER FOR DOE WORK 9/15/81 ISSUE D TO. (DOE Of fice)
ISSUE D BY: (NRC Of fice)
ACCOUNTING CITATION APPROPRI ATION SYMBOL Richland Operations Office Office of Nuclear Reactor 3
Regulation, TMIP0
,,, NUM BE PERFORMING ORGA ZATION AND LOCATION 20-19-12-02 Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories FIN NUMBER Richland, Washington B-2366-1 WORK PERIOD THIS ORDER FIN TITLE FIXED 0 ESTIMATED 7J
' Socioeconomic Impacts of TMI-2 Processed Water FROM:
TO:
Disposal Alternatives 10-1-81 1-31-83 OBLIGATION AVAILABILITY PROVIDED BY:
A THIS ORDER
$]Q,QQQ tt TOTAL OF ORDERS PLACED PRIOR TO THIS DATE WITH THE PERFORMING ORGANIZATION UNDER THE SAME "APPROPRI ATION SYMBOL" AND THE FIRST FOUR DIGITS OF THE S 4,026,000 "R&R NUMBER" CITED ABOVE 4,036,000 C TOTAL ORDERS TO DATE (TOTAL A & 8)
D AMOUNT INCLUDED IN "C" APPLICABLE TO THE " FIN NUMBER" CITED IN THIS ORDER.
S10,000 FINANCI AL FLEXIBILITY.
b FUNDS W;LL NOT BE REPROGRAMMED BETWEEN FINS. LINE D CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS AUTHORIZED.
O FUNDS MAY BE REPROGRAMMED NOT TO EXCEED 110% OF FIN LEVEL UP TO $50K. LINE C CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS AUTHORIZED.
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITICNS PROVIDED DOE ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THIS ORDER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ATTACHMENTS.
THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS ARE HERE8Y SECURITY:
MADE A PART OF THIS ORDER:
D WORK ON THIS ORDER IS NOT CLASSIFIED.
O STATEMt:iJ Oc WOR K O WORK ON THIS ORDER INVOLVES CLASSIFIED C ADDITIONAL TERN S AND CONDITIONS INFORMATION. NRC FORM 187 IS ATTACHED.
This authorization provides initial funding for this project; provides work requirements and requests a proposal based on the attached STATEMENT OF WORK be submitted within 30 days.
The proposal should contain a detailed plan to include subtasks for the first task that delineates what, hcw and wh,en the work will be accomplished.
After signature, please send to the NRC Office of the Controller, ATTN: D. Dandois, andprovideacopy$
to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ATTN: D. Corley.
/
m g/
/ / IsSUtNG/ AUTHORITY r
ACCEPTING ORGANIZATION SIG N A ih M E
\\.g[ " " N
, p[p SIG N A T UR E Berrtar L. Grenier
< 5 /J e Ti'TechnicalAssistanceProgramManadr E
TITL E NRC FORM 173 (b781
~ 8109300200 81091'6' '
^
PDR ADOCK 05000320 P
s
~
STATEMENT OF WORK SEF ! I '951
Title:
Socioeconomic Impacts of TMI-2 Processed Water Disposal Alternatives FIN: B-2366 B&R N0. 20-19-12-01 Technical Monitor:
Bretta Weiss Cognizant NRR Manager: Oliver D. T. Lynch BACKGROUND The TMI accident generated approximately 1.5 million gallons of contaminated water. About 50% of this water has been processed via the EPICOR-II system and is stored on site. The remaining water is being processed by the sub-merged demineralizer system (SDS) and is also stored on site.
Processing is expected te reduce all radionuclide concentrations to trace levels except tri ti um. Tritium cannot be removed with such methods. The total tritium inventory on site is approximately 3000 C1 In February 1980, the NRC, with others, entered into a settlement with the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in which it was agreed that "... no accident-generated waste water will be discharged into the Susquahanna River from the date of this Settlement Agreement thrcugh December 31,1981, or until the NRC completes its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement...
or until the NRC completes such other environmental review referred to in its November 21, 1979, Statement.... regarding the discharge of accident-generated waste water into the Susquehanna River, whichever is earlier."
However, nothing contained in the Settlement Agreement precludes either the NRC or the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from author-izing whatever measures deemed necessary to cope with any emergency situation.
In March 1981, the NRC staff issued the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) regarding the cleanup of Three Mile Island Unit 2.
In the PEIS several alternatives were presented for the disposition of the processed water. Among such alternatives considered by the staff were:
1.
Long term onsite storage as bulk liquid.*
2.
Long term onsite storage as cement slabs.*
Onsite disposal of cement slabb by placement in shallow' land burial trenches.
3.
4.
Onsite injection of the liquid water deep underground.
- Some local atmospheric releases are unavoidable.
~
2 5.
Shipment offsite for disposal in a shallow land burial facility.
6.
Shipment offsite for disposal by injection in a deep underground well.
7.
Shipment offsite for disposal by dispersal in the ocean.
8.
Controlled release as a vapor to the atmosphere.
9.
Controlled release as a liquid to the Susquehanna River, and subsequently the Chesapeake Bay.
- 10. Simultaneous releases to the River and the atmosphere.
Considerable public concern has been manifested in the perception of risk resulting from many of these disposal alternatives, especially onsite dis-posal and release to the river.
OBJECTIVE The object ve of this project is to evaluate in more detail than considered i
in the PEIS the potential for such processed water to adversely effect socio-economic conditions in the area of the site, the surrounding environs, trans-portation routes or in the areas near the potential offsite disposal sites.
This information is necessary to supplement and complement other studies on socioeconomic effects contemplated by the State of Maryland, and others, and will also provide an input for a decision by the Commission regarding the ultimate disposition of this processed water.
WORK REQUIREMENTS Estimated Level of Effort:
2.0 person-years Projected Completion Date:
January 1983 For each of the processed water disposition alternatives indicated in BACKGROUND above, with the exception of the impacts on the Chesapeake Bay resulting from discharga to the Susqueh.nna River (which is being investigated by the State of Maryland) but including the Susquehanna River above the Chesapeake Bay.
Task 1.
Provide a study which:
(a) Defines the socioeconomic system which may be at risk; and (b) The process by which implementation of a disposal alternative would lead to adverse' socioeconomic impacts.
~
3 This study should consider socioeconomic characteristics of the geographical locations involved in implementing each alternative and should incorporate relevant information from the literature dealing with avoidance of risk from man-made and natural hazards.
Task 2.
Use the findings of the study of Task 1 above to make an initial assessment of the nature and relative severity of socioeconomic impacts which may be expected with each alternative.
Task 3.
For potentially severe impacts identified in Task 2, describe the nature and severity of the possible impacts more extensively and make quantitative estimates to the extent feasible.
Task 4.
On the basis of Tasks 1-3, analyse the key determinants of socio-economic impacts and identify mitigative actions which would reduce the impacts.
Task 5.
Incorporate, to the extent practicable, the State of Maryland study on socioeconomic impacts on the Chesapeake Bay fisheries and recreational industries from the discharge to the Susquehanna alternative into the com-parison of the other alternatives.
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE l
The level of effort is estimated at 2.0 person years over a 16 month period.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS I
1.
Technical reports (including interim and final) are to be submitted to the Cognizant NRR Manager in accordance with the schedule indicated below:
f TECHNICAL REPORT SCHEDULE Original Milestone Due Date Report Plus Copies
- a. Completion of February 26, 1982 Interim Technical 10 Task 1.
Letter Report, pro-viding information on the substantive aspects of the findings,
- b. Completion of May 31, 1982 I'nterim Technical 10 Task 2.
Letter Report, pro-viding initial assess-ment of impacts, c.
Interim July 1, 1982 Interim Technical 10 Letter Report indicating d.
Interim September 1, 1982 progress on Tasks 3, 4 and 5.
e.
Interim November 1, 1982
~
4 Technical Report Schedule - continued Original Milestone Due Date Report Plus Copies
- f. Completion of December 1, 1982 Draft Formal Tech-10 Tasks 1 thru 5.
nical Report on study for NRC review and comment.
If there are NRC comments, the contractor will be re-quested to nake changes.
- g. Completion of January 31, 1983 Final Formal Technical 5
Final Report Report, (original in camera-ready form) on study. This report should be prepared for issuance as an NUREG/CR report in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 1102 and provided to the Cognizant NRR Manager.
2.
A monthly business letter report will be submitted by the 15th of the month to the Cognizant NRR Manager with a copy to B. L. Grenier. These reports will contair the following:
- A listing of work completed during the period, including milestones reached, or if missed, an explanation provided; The amount of funds expended during the period and cumulative to date; Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated; If problems are encountered or anticipated, a description of the plans for their resolution, the schedule of their implementation and their impact on the overall program; and A brief summary of progress to date.
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL The contractor will attend a maximum of 8 meetings with the staff over the period of performance in Bethesda, Maryland. These meetings will usually be of one or two days duration and include two members of the contractors staff.
l l
~
5 NRC FURNISHED MATERIALS The following documents will be furnished by the NRC:
A copy of> the State of Maryland's RFP on their Chesapeake Bay Study.
Two sats of transcripts from all TMIPO public meetings on draft PEIS and TMI-2 Advisory Panel meetings (provide all subsequent transcripts also).
Two copies of Final PEIS (both volumes).
Copy of Congressional Record, wherein Congressman Walker (PA) apparently has prohibited EPA from " facilitating" the disposition of TMI-2 accident water via the river. Since this is attached to EPA's FY 82 Appropriation Bill, that prohibition is only in effect for the next FY.
Draft or final technical reports identifying additional disposal alternatives and/or supplemental information on alternatives identified in BACKGROUND, above.
e i
3
PROPOSAL CONTENT The minimum items required in all proposals ar' :
e 1.
Performing organization's name and location.
2.
FIN Title. FIN Number, and B&R Number (NRC's) (as on statement of work).
3.
Perfoming organization's key personnel, prcgram manager, or principal investigator, their resumes and FTS phone nunber.
4.
Background (definition of the' problem including the objective (s) to be attained).
5.
Work to be perfomed (Provide a concise description of tasks to be perfomed and expected results for the period of performance.
Note technical data requirements, potential problems, and other techni. cal infomation needed to fully explain 1.he effort.
Highlight changes from prior authorized 50W's, if any, identify changes in rarfomance, schedule, or co',ts).
6.
Identify major subcontracts, including consultants.
7.
Costs estimated to be incurred by DOE contractors, subcontractors, and consultants.
List by fiscal year to completion:
a.
Manyears of Technical Support (MTS) b.
Costs:
(1)
Direct Sala,les (Labor) for MTS (2) Ma+.erial and Services (excluding ADP)
(3) Total ADP Support (4) Subcontracts (5) Capital Equipment (6) Direct Travel Expense (Foreign travel must be shown separately)
(7)
General and Administrative Expense (Include indirect labor cost) c.
Total Estimated Cost:
8.
Forecasts:
a.
Milestone Chart for accomplishing the. work.
2 b.
Planned monthly rate of costs by fiscal year.
This may be provided with the first report of an authorized program if not known at time of proposal submittal.
At t' e beginning of each subsequent year, reports should include the planned monthly rate of costs for the ensuing year.
9.
Conflict of Interest:
In order to assist the Comission in its evaluation, the DOE Contrar. ting Officer shall describe any significant contractual and organizational relationships of the DOE, its contractor, their employees, or expected subcontractors or consultants on this proposal, with industries regulated by the NRC (e.g. utilities, etc.) and suppliers thereof (e.g. architect engineers and reactor manufacturers, etc.) that might give rise to an apparent or actual conflict of interest.
10.
Rt. porting Requirements (as on statemerit of work).
I f
s
-